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.
>>526119159oh, i don't think there's an easy answer to that even a little bit. in a closed environment, the ideal situation is that you have a government that is fractured so that it can't orchestrate things efficiently, and then you provide the citizens a means of retaliating against the government. this gets infinitely more complicated when you have rival states, because you need your government fractured just enough it can be retaliated against by its constituents, but is still together enough to defend itself (or try not to modify its own rules to slip its leash), and it needs to be able to adapt and evolve. the US is the obvious poster child for this, but the US didn't get the proper balance and now the government by and large can do whatever it wants on a whim.this is if you want to keep a government whose people are relatively free and stable. me personally, have a very cynical view of all of this and i don't think it's very possible to not have a hellish world or government for any appreciable amount of time. the dream, i guess, is trying to create a bubble where one is as self-sufficient as possible without any threat of any outside agent. this would require access to weapons that impact things at a government scale, though, which is generally something governments don't like
>>526119402In a certain sense of the word identity I guess that's not entirely wrong though your choice of memeflag makes me wary of your using that word.Natural rights are a part of your identity as a human being.
>>526119123>I don't think however that a state need necessarily grow.It's not simply about the state. No one wants a world of Company Towns.
>>526108856>Libertarianism is the only political ideology which maximizes ethics.lmaogood one, OP
>>526119638Depending on what exactly you mean by that it might be more humane.
>>526115425> Everywhere smells like weed nowThis is where strengthening comes in. There is a difference between a public space and a private space. It should be illegal to smoke weed in public around children. Even if there are no children around people do not have the right to stink up public spaces.> middle schoolers are addicted to pornographyThis is where gained privileges come in. It is perfectly reasonable to prevent middle schoolers from driving a car because they have not developed the ability to do so safely. Similarly most middle schoolers have not hit puberty yet and we know that early sexualization increases sexual dysfuction and mood disorders later in life.Most of the arguments in this thread seem to be about the current state of libertarianism. But I admitted it has weaknesses we can strengthen without abandoning natural rights, earned property, and gained privileges.
>>526119123A state needs to grow if it experiences any form of civilizational success and thus expands. At a certain point it becomes naturally self-serving and perpetuates itself and gradually separates from the original layer. States that don't grow just die and eventually become subject to states that did.
>>526119771>it might be more humane.Why yes, a benevolent dictatorship IS the best form of government....IF you can get it.Is it legal to import small arms into the Amazon Arcology?
>>526119580this sounds insaneand it sounds like it was kind of right earlier when i assumed you thought the government was the enemy of "freedom"
>>526119816If people hating the smell of weed is justification enough to ban it from public spaces then it scares me that people might extend the logic to some other senses besides smell, like maybe saying curse words should be banned from public spaces and displaying hair beyond a certain length should be banned because these things annoy people.
>>526114017> you just want to do drugsWhat is the alternative? A nanny state with a massive surveillance apparatus like the UK? Mommy keeping an eye on you making sure you ate your broccoli and did not use drugs? No thanks.
>>526119965Well it ought to be. If not then who made and enforces the law, Amazon? On the other hand if it's just a contractual thing then I'm presumably free to live in a different arcology.
>>526108856It’s going to be one way or the other. Your fence sitting faggotry is over. Everyone hates you because you stand for nothing but your own butthole.
>>526119965>benevolent dictatorshipLikely the best, and kind of the ultimate realization of the volk/state congruence the bong anon talked about. Also dramatically less likely than even libertarianism happening at scale. Is there even a meaningfully long example in history of a genuine benevolent dictatorship? If not, what's the closest you think a society has been to it?
Maybe like past tense. The Fed just gave hundreds of billions directly to anti nationalist NGO. Not nationalizing these resources means they will be used to marginalize and kill Americans.
>>526120023oh buddy you don't know the half of it. nobody gets it and the picture it paints is utterly horrifying, and it's almost TRIVIALLY true, like this necessarily has to be the case.governments (organizations in general, actually, not just governments) are an enemy of "freedom", because they operate at scales that prevent you from reliably impacting them; at the same time, they have access to choices and behaviors that directly impact you, and can (and do) manipulate your behavior. at the same time, there are other rival governments (or organizations) that necessarily want to subjugate you. the logic goes:>1. all group of people will eventually form states; we can call this an axiom, but it's very obviously true considering, well, that human history exists at all>2. a state will want to preserve itself, which means manipulating its external AND internal environment to these ends. you are part of the internal environment, to be clear.at the same time, a state is not a human, but the behavior of many humans, over a long period of time, usually following the goal of keeping the state alive (because the more aligned you are to the state's goals, the more freedom you can exercise over others). make sense? earlier, you were saying that governments define freedom, but i'm talking about freedom in a much more basic sense, the capacity to imagine any arbitrary goal and maximize the likelihood of achieving them. all organizations are inherently antagonistic to that.
>>526120345I'm sure there's all sorts of good kings throughout history. Couldn't say how many manage to run it for more than a generation.Roman republic was pretty good at emergency temporary dictatorial powers (until they weren't)
>>526120206>Mommy keeping an eye on you making sure you ate your broccoli and did not use drugs?Yes please, help me quit drugs and feed me your nutritious milk, governmommy. I'm gonna get the best social credit score on my federal report card possible just so governmommy is proud of me. Hopefully she even lets me make cummies.
>>526120637no offense but this is mega autismo"the state" in the most fundamental sense is inextricable from higher human existencelike i said earlier the solitary in the forest has nothing - language, morality, art, arguably even rationalityall of these things proceed from volk, not individuals
>>526120823*solitary man
>>526120267>If not then who made and enforces the law, Amazon?This is your theory, you tell me.Does Amazon, owner of the Amazon Arcology get to make the laws there? What extent can you exercise use of private property? CAN amazon legislate its own laws on its own property?
>>526109278>pass legislation limiting companiesSo not libertarian then
>>526121088Well if they're acting as a government then their property isn't really private, is it?If they aren't then they can't make laws, they can demand that I leave but they can't punish me for committing a crime.
>>526120124If it was based on what people hate then that absolutely would be a slippery slope. So it should be based on protecting personal space. Weed users do not have the right to exhale secondhand smoke in the public space where other people breathe anymore than tobacco smokers do. I would go so far as to say people should not be permitted to cough or sneeze in public without covering their face. Being libertarian does not have to mean being a cuck who lets other people fuck them over.
>maximizes ethics>maximizes a non-quantityyea olrite
>>526120823i hope you never know the pain of empathizing with the sad clown pagliacci. humanity is trapped in a cycle of constantly giving rise to states that manipulate their behavior, prey on each other, and decay, and this cycle will be endless until the environment cannot support it (the world either runs out of humans or states run out of things to extract). this is the state of things, and it will likely be the state of things unless humanity can either modify itself out of this or we get replaced by something a little bit more noble
>>526121348How would you argue against this?>A person has no right to subject others to his potty mouth. Curse words must be banned in the public space where other people hear.
>>526121306>Well if they're acting as a government then their property isn't really private, is it?So one cannot run a business on their property? Where are we drawing a line between owner-derived rules-of-use and law?Are you really riding on a variety of purely transactional contractual obligations to serve for keeping public peace?
>>526108856op is SECKSIshalom alakum mein OP
>>526121575I talked about this earlier in the thread; a government has a monopoly on the use of legitimate violence. A non-government entity be it a company or a person jailing me or fining me for breaking a rule even if it's on his property is a criminal act. Again, they can demand that I leave for any reason, and if I refuse to then they can forcibly evict me, but that's a very different thing to crime and punishment.
>>526121257> pass legislation limiting companies> so not libertarian thenMilton Friedman does not get to define libertarianism. I am completely opposed to his anarcho capitalism. One of the main points of this thread is that we can strengthen libertarianism without abandoning its core principles. Hell even Locke said there are limits to how much someone can earn. He used the argument that tilling the land means you have mixed your labor with that soil as an example of earned property. But he talks about limits and you cannot just go till an entire country and claim the whole thing is yours forever.
>>526108856The collective will always triumph over the individual, and individuals will always be willing to give up their individual rights to form a collective if it gives them power over others. You also cannot convince most with reason to not take what you have if they desire to and can do so.The atomized individualism and its accompanying powerlessness means libertarianism is and always will be a useless luxury ideology.
>>526121460well not really anon. most of the worst times in human history have been anarchies. think europe after the collapse of the roman empire. normal people were completely at the mercy of arbitrary aggression and predation. past political orders have of course not lasted forever but they have been stable and objectively good. the cycle you seem to be describing is the modern one of techno-capitalism which was only allowed to entrench itself due to the entropic nature of liberalism. part of the project of fascism is reclaiming control of our destiny and reinserting human agency into history, hence escaping the cycle. so there is hope anon.
>>526108856libertarianism is literally the worst political ideology in terms of maintaining ethics, because it allows the psychopathic and manipulative to exploit the weak and blames the weak for it under the guise of the "free market"
>>526121348I personally think farting in public should be punishable by large fines or mandatory public shame diapers to let everyone know you're a stinky fart criminal.
>>526109278And how do you suppose you break up these collectives without a more powerful one arbotarily enforcing it upon them?
>>526121930Milton Friedman was explicitly not an anarchist.Here's a video where he says that and talks about the limits government should have:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYb-dzFN3n8
>>526108856Lolbertarianism would only work if your entire society was composed solely of autistic introverted White men whose only ambition is to smoke weed, goon to degenerate porn, and/or shoot machine guns all day. Which is not remotely close to being realistic.And the MOMENT you add a nigger or chink or jeet or woman or faggot or ambitious sociopathic Chad to the mix, it will immediately go to shit because they don't understand and do not care about ethics or natural rights or any of that shit. They will immediately start to take advantage of the system you have created to try to increase their own personal wealth and power.
>>526122023humanity's best time, of which the garden of eden symbolizes, was the period between our last cognitive leap, about 50,000 years ago and about 12,000 years ago (for europe/middle east, at least). in that middle period, we had both the things that make us happy as creatures (family, belonging, sustenance, purpose, drive) and these higher things, language, morality and religion, art. once agriculture was invented, and with that writing and expansive sedentaryism, is when this present and frankly demonic cycle started. it's gotten worse over time as the scale of choices has grown (in the 1500s, it'd take you an entire military campaign's worth of time to kill millions; now, you could immediately kill billions and have that done in hours). i'm not arguing for anarchism, which is indeed very destructive, nor am i arguing for primitivism as primitivism leads us to here given enough time. stable political orders are good, at the cost of giving up your freedom. there's a balance that can be sought there, but all roads lead to decay. fascism is absolutely NOT immune to this whatsoever, all fascism does is increase the temperature for whatever rivals there are since fascism tends to act aggressively towards perceived entitlements. it is just another tool to subvert your individuality. if i'm being honest with you, anon, i think i'm rooting for humanity being replaced by some other, better thing. AI is the obvious candidate, although what tech corpos are making is hardly intelligent nor is it noble.
>>526122518>They will immediately start to take advantage of the system you have createdIn what way? By convincing people to give him money? What's wrong with that?
>>526122770How about forming a collective and oppressing the atomized individuals being free?
>>526121825>a government has a monopoly on the use of legitimate violence.Not inherently. Or really, you have it backward.If the Amazon Arcology can muster greater force than the government, then the Amazon Arcology is the de-facto government. If the Amazon Arcology can competently declare "No cops allowed, our security can handle it" what can the government do? Can they mobilize enough force to quash rebellion? Are we relying on Amazon's competitors to fund a "Fuck You" posse?
>>526121573>A person has no right to subject others to his potty mouth. Curse words must be banned in the public space where other people hear.I would argue against this because it is subjective. Libertarianism is based on consistent principles with logical arguments. When arguing against secondhand smoke and cough saliva I could argue that on the consistent basis of personal space. It is not possible to make such an argument about offensive words since people are offended by different things. But there are of course other aspects of speech which can be regulated consistently. Lying about the price of something then ringing up a higher price is fraud regardless of subjective opinions about speech.
>>526122926You can't have your cake and eat it too; they're either a private company operating within the same legal framework as me or they're a new government with their own. Choose only 1 because both can't be true.
>>526122071That's not funny anon. Fart rape is real.
>>526123002People are offended by different smells as well so how is it different? Maybe I don't mind the smell of weed but despise the word "cunt". So why can't saying that word be banned on the same basis that I can't toke up?
