danger/u/
Libertarianism is cool

| The Freedom of association is the true freedom


| Yeah, Libertarianism is dope


| >>653895
Is QUALITATIVE dope, let me notice


| The problem with libertarians is similar to communists: In theory libertarians may be right, but in practice they fail because some people lie and get corrupted by power.
Beside that libertarians don't have an answer to the issue of how expotential growth, which is needed by capitalism, can be provided in a deterministic universe with limited resources. Also they don't have an answer to the prisoner dilemma that independent individuals will step. There are also many contradictions.


| >>654026
What kind of contradictions?


| >>654026
Libertarianism is the still capitalism but much freely, isn't it?
Don't really see a problem of exponential growth.
Prisoner dilemma will be solved by individuals, who judged by their community, which everyone will join depending on their own habits. Freedom of association means freedom to choose what from you depend.
In other words no one will betray, because this one will know what his community remembers all his deeds. Sry for my english. Maybe I totally misunderstood u


| Anyway people just google how NAP actually works, if you didn't google it yet


| >>654101 The problem with an NAP is that you have to violate it to enforce it. Also, to enforce it, you have to form a state-like entity, or give individuals the power to enforce it on their own which leads to more aggression.

The truly based stance is anarchocapitalism.


| >>654245
Violating the violators doesn't count as violence at all in NAP. Violating the NAP naturally will give all individuals which joined it a power to bla-bla. After the some of first blood nobody will ever massively violate the NAP because of fear before the judgement. Only one state-any-like entity which is needed in forming is jury trials (courts), but this is more complex theme to discuss. It was described in manifest by Murray Rothbard.
Did I answer for your issue?


| >>654260
>rape the rapists
okwu!


| >>654026 The exponential growth isn't measured merely with material possessions. Non-physical stuff like technological advances are also a factor.


| >>654274
Can you answer my question pls?
This one:
>>654033


| >>654274
>rape the rapists to defeat all rapes
>>654317
Do you wanna say that without governments economy becomes stagnant? That nobody rich gets no interest in new things which can improve his business or start a new one?
I kinda lost your point.


| >>654329
that's actually somehow not me


| >>654390
"Yeah right"


| >>654393
okay then, believe whatever the fuck you want, i don't really care that much.


| >>654260
What if someone violates the NAP, then claims they did it to someone who violated the NAP?

>Courts
You don't just need a court, you need a way to enforce the court's decision. To enforce the court's decision, it needs a military/militia more powerful than anyone who might violate the NAP. A monopoly on power certainly sounds familiar...

Join ancap gang, hire your own military to protect yourself


| >>654317
Your "Non-physical stuff like technological advances" only exist to increase material possessions ;-)


| >>654099
>Don't really see a problem of exponential growth.
And exactly this is the problem ;-)
>Prisoner dilemma will be solved by individuals, who judged by their community, which everyone will join depending on their own habits. Freedom
Ah, parallel societies. Don't you think they'll collide at some point, since they have to coexist in the same deterministic universe with limited resources?


| >>654033
The fundamental interest conflict between individualism and collectivisim, between competetition and collaboration, between individual freedom and collective freedom, between centralization and federation, between power concentration and distribution. Who in your libertarian utopia makes sure to keep the right balance and how? Is it the good old magical invisible hand?
I'm also interested to hear what libertarians think about law of succession.


| >>654673
This is bullshit. Tell me how preventing crime or curing diseases solely leads to more material possessions.


| >>654674
Pretty sure we already have parallel societies coexisting on the same recourses...


| »654664
>if
Oh, this is the problem for courts!
>militia
When you violate the NAP, everyone who still in NAP becomes your enemy. You will be defeated not only by weapons of all your neighbours but also by an economical sanctions - you will not be able to feed any army to resist. Even if there are a farmers and weapon factories on your side, how long they will want to be with you, you think?


| »654674
>problem
I asked for further explanation of it.
>collide
Collision needs to resolve it peacefully. If you don't do so, prepare for NAP sanctions (and death)
»654675
"Making the right balance" and the laws of succession is the own deal of every community. Every of it will decide it by itself, you know. Only one thing that we need is NAP and the freedom for every human with agency to leave any community, that's all. "Making smth right" is a kinda statism. More questions?


| capitalism is the source of all the troubles you have faced in your life, i hope you think about that


| >>655002
Sorry I can't think about THIS, 'cause don't see the difference between it and:
>violance is the source...
>limited resources is the source...
>birth is the source...
>planned economy is the source...


| Idk where to even start with libertarians and ancaps.

All political systems necessitate aggression, capitalism is inherently coercive and exploitative, and every time they lay out their ideal society, it's always just feudalism with but with corporations.


| >>655605
What you want to say by that?
Libertarianism is all what we have now, but better. Capitalism from the past to now only improved quality of life (sorry I lost my graph with illustrations of the decreasing of poverty by ages),and the only big problem with it is mega corporations which grew up in protection of governments. Removing govs will give better chances to other-non mega corporations, so it will bring diversity and competition- the best friends of economic freedom.


| Economic freedom means mighty to choose where to work, freedom to choose where to work means fear of companies to violate you.
Sounds like a mantra, yes.


| >>655643 it means that businesses are afraid to exploit you *more than others in that market niche*. If workers aren't organized and that field of labor isn't super scarce, it just means it's bad for everyone

Fundamentally the problem is decision making: if decisions are all made in the interest of profit they won't be made for other reasons, and profit frequently goes against what's right. It also gives unearned power, which will be abused, to people with access to capital


| >>655642 Removing govs isn't even a libertarian position. It isn't even an ANCAP position. Libertarians want to reduce the influence the government on the market, and ancaps want to abolish THE STATE. Either way it's stupid since government can mitigates market externalities and historically has been used to protect workers rights, and the state is neccessary to defend the ptivate property rights capitalism is predicated upon.


| Also, I never denied that capitalism led to a better quality of life than what came before, but it still endangers it. These mega corporations you hate so much sacrifice lives for profit all the time. Look at health care and pharmaceutical companies, the slave labor conducted in developing countries, or the way defense companies lobby for hawkish policies.


| And before you say that this is the "only problem" with capitalism, it's not. It's the endgame. The accumulation of capital is the goal of any "rational actor" that knows what they're doing. Furthermore, these power dynamics would persist even AFTER the state is abolished.


| And when you talk about "economic freedom," you're only talking about people who own capital. How much economic freedom do you think an employee at a large corporation has over their working conditions? How much freedom do they have period?


| This is the thing about radical capitalists. They look at one unjustified hierarchy, the state to the citizens, and say they don't like it. Fair enough. Then they look at another, which is the capitalist to the citizens, and they say this ones fine.


| If you're a libertarian or an ancap, you're just economically and politically illiterate.


| >>655702 Not to mention that businesses could collude to diminish working conditions together.


| >property rights
NAP and courts, can't they defend them, eh?
>developing countries
That's the point. They didn't go through their hard historical period, when there's no much competition and alternatives in market. Pretty sad, but it will dissapear for sometime. And yes it will, 'cause our countries already went through the same.


| >sacrifise lives
Yes, and they will do so while they aren't only on free market, while there're no other corporations in the region with the same capital size as their. Mega corps is the spawn of monopolism, yeah?


|
Endgame - it's when there's already developed country, in which existing... you know, I say this words to often.
Accumulation of capital can be harmless, when other people (MANY people) see what the 'actor' doing and judge him by their own capital.


|


>economic freedom
Yes, he has not too much. But in interests of capital-holders will be to give him a possibility to move between companies and decide which is best for him. At least he would be in more safety.


|
The state to the citizens is hierarchy with no alternatives. Capitalists to the citizens this alternatives has. The state is just over-over grown up corp, and because of this it's bad.


| >you're just economically and politically illiterate
You know what? I am. I didn't read any book about it, only watch videos and debates on YT, so you can just leave from this conversation, I'm not able to continue it.


| >>655702
>what's right
Oh, the last word: you, the other id, are faggot. I'm out.


| Bruh this is exactly what I mean by illiterate. Not that you haven't read a book. But that you're fundamentally incapable of understanding what the fuck you're talking about. I already responded to all of these points, but I'm happy to reiterate.


| >NAP and courts
Capitalism violates the NAP for starters. It's inherently coercive and exploitative. As a laborer you don't have much choice where you


| Chose to sell your labor. And even if you did, you'd never be compensated appropriately. You're only ever paid a fraction of what you produce, and that disparity would exist with or without a state. It's essentially theft, which would violate the NAP.


| And even if that weren't the case, why would anyone respect the courts or NAP? All political institutions require violence to validate them, and since you aren't doing away with the top down power structures of capitalism, it would look a lot like STATE violence.


| >Developing countries
The ones I'm referring to went through extremely hard historical periods. Their countries were essentially turned into plantations by the invisible hand of the free market. What you don't understand about capitalism is that often times it's profitable to violate people's autonomy and freedom, and that would exist, again, with or without a state.


| And I don't know what you mean by "our countries." Idk where you're from, but if you mean Europe or America, Europe was never impacted by imperialism or colonialism the same way banana republics were, and America was, but it was backed by so much European capital, economic failure would have been pretty hard.


| Not to mention that these countries perpetuated genocide and slavery under an economic incentive. Idk how you think abolishing the state would fix the internal mechanisms of capitalism.


| >Sacrifice Lives
Monopolism is a PRODUCT of capitalism. It's what you're SUPPOSED to do to maintain power. All of the problems you think are the cause of the state, are just capitalism. It's an authoritarian ideology dude.


| And if I judge everyone individually, we'll never see systemic problems. That'd be like if I told you "the government's fine, you just need to judge politicians individually."


| >Economic freedom
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of capitalism. A capitalist would benefit more from someone who has no choice but to work for him, not someone who can make a choice about it. That's why people are so worried about automation. You don't have to pay machines, and they can't abandon you.


| That's also why so many capitalists used slave labor.


| I know you nope-d the fuck out because you can't handle any criticism, but if you come back, I NEED you to understand how wrong you are. When you're this uninformed on issues, it can lead to more harm than you know. Here's hoping that someday you open up a high school textbook.


| >>dbd575 is right. The reason why there are child labor laws is BECAUSE of the state. Children were coerced to work in extremely unsafe conditions because adults just wouldn't. Not only was this inhumane, but vastly more profitable. There are centuries worth of more examples


| >>655870 it's not just because of the state, it's because working people fought hard enough against it that the state had no choice but to address it.


| >>dbd575
Yeah-yeah, thank you, I will study these problems more


| >>655096
Planned economy is the solution to all the problems mentioned here. Thanks to real time operating informational technology we have these days, it is totally possible without creating an overblown, nontransparent and autocratic bureaucracy.


| >>655642
>the only big problem with it is mega corporations which grew up in protection of governments.
They already grew before they were protected by governments. It's because capitalism is all about exponential growth. Small corporations won't stay small forever because they can't in capitalism.


| >>655642
>the only big problem with it is mega corporations which grew up in protection of governments.
Also governments are necessary to prohibit mega corporations. That's why there theoretically is anti-trust law. It's true that in practice goverments rather protect big corps now instead. But this isn't due to evil socialist conspiracy but to capitalists hegemony we currently have. Estates get pwned by capitalists everywhere - including democracies.

Total number of posts: 62, last modified on: Sat Jan 1 00:00:00 1589942907

This thread is closed.