(05-15-2023, 08:55 AM)BillyONare Wrote: [ -> ]Point taken but anyone who does not have libertarian-like ideals is your enemy and the enemy of The White Man. There is no sense in discussing Realpolitik if everyone’s brains are so muddled and traumatized that they can’t understand how the world works on a basic level or even distinguish between friend and foe. With friends like FTM Keith who needs enemies?
What are libertarian ideals? I keep seeing this and it bothers me that I have little to no knowledge on the liberartain world view. Explain it like your trying to proselytize me.
Liberitarian values are racism, low taxes, and 14 year old wives for everyone. Any questions?
The reply I just wrote is my own, I am guest two, not the guy two posts above me.
(05-15-2023, 08:55 AM)BillyONare Wrote: [ -> ]...There is no sense in discussing Realpolitik if everyone...can’t understand how the world works on a basic level ...
Yes, that is why I generally avoid all discussions with normies and only discuss meaningful ideas on the internet. Not that it never happens with my offline friends, or family - if the divide in fundamental values is large, it's hard to avoid talking about it, and I also don't exactly enjoy hiding my thoughts. But in my experience, nobody changes their mind because of these talks.
You get to "deposit" your ideas, if the guy is receptive to them, and if he also happens to undergo some philosophical shift, he will at a later point remember that you were right (in the sense that you are in accordance with his new, redpilled convictions). In most cases, people will simply recall that you are "weird" and try to avoid mentioning topics that trigger those discussions.
(05-21-2023, 03:24 AM)Hamamelis Wrote: [ -> ] (05-15-2023, 08:55 AM)BillyONare Wrote: [ -> ]...There is no sense in discussing Realpolitik if everyone...can’t understand how the world works on a basic level ...
Yes, that is why I generally avoid all discussions with normies and only discuss meaningful ideas on the internet. Not that it never happens with my offline friends, or family - if the divide in fundamental values is large, it's hard to avoid talking about it, and I also don't exactly enjoy hiding my thoughts. But in my experience, nobody changes their mind because of these talks.
You get to "deposit" your ideas, if the guy is receptive to them, and if he also happens to undergo some philosophical shift, he will at a later point remember that you were right (in the sense that you are in accordance with his new, redpilled convictions). In most cases, people will simply recall that you are "weird" and try to avoid mentioning topics that trigger those discussions.
Normies should not be spoken to about meaningful ideas because they are literal NPCs. This meme has been abused so that it's lost its meaning, but you really do need to think about it that way. If you deploy the Mannerbund unit and gain control of the enemy's Media Apparatus building then you can WOLOLO all of the enemy's Normalfag units to change to your team color and start sieg heiling. It really is that simple.
The Nanny State = fat gay loser neckbeard multiplayer game moderator who likes to abuse his power and ruin everybody's fun because he's a LOSER in real life (the astral plane). All religions can be understood as different factions within a video game. Aristocratic libertarianism can thus be understood as the complete liberation of Players (Psychics & Pneumatics) from the whims of power-abusing mods & powerusers and their controlled NPCs (Hylics).
I believe this unironically. However, irl (on the material plane), normies come in many different flavours. In the end, their shared characteristic is that you may not ask them to associate themselves with ideas that impose status loss on them. Many normies of the more intellectually curious variety are quite capable of entertaining a discussion about many a fringe-y topic, and some are even open about their sympathies. But, to publicly state their support, they need the stamp of approval from the hivemind.
(01-03-2023, 08:59 PM)obscurefish Wrote: [ -> ]Anarcho-capitalism seems to be one of the few political strains today that can manifest any 'naive' utopian idealism. I think AnCap is held back by its association with the Austrian school and might have much more potential if it could be somehow wedded to a left-heterodox school like Social Credit, Post-Keynesianism, or Marxian economics instead.
There is an relevant moral aspect of post-keynesianism: the argument that the currency belongs to the government like a tool. This is an interesting argument to play with and may add useful nuance to ancap positions if it can go beyond the obvious petrodollar takes. "Render unto Caesar" can be justified under private bank implementation if inflation (or deflation reduction) is actually an efficient billing system for currency-wide services like anti-theft or mediation.
also the author's strategy argument should be addressed, it is rare to have the "chaos without government" elucidated so mechanically that it can be understood as a strategy itself. Mercenary deregulation is syllogistic with eliminating the "monopoly on violence".
Ancaps are right insofar as it will solve many of the issues of our society right now - excessive censorship, tracking, control, government-funded work being shitty, taxes going to useless and directly harmful projects (like my country integrating one municipality in 28 languages), etc. The rulers that be are incompetent, don't know what they are doing and naturally everything the state does becomes bad.
So implementation of ancap means a real "hard reset" where new hierachies can be formed. It's "The Great Reset" from the right wing. But, and this is my criticism of ancaps, is that it can't last. It opens a window of opportunity and nothing more. And the right wing in its current state can't seize power and form new society to its ideal point. Thankfully the things that are holding us back can be solved, and the internet has been a great weapon for us - this is exactly why the left is trying so hard to shut it down and monitor it.
Also, the libertarians are honestly some of the best right wingers. I will prefer the average prepper gadsden-flag family to any neocon
The ideal of liberty is naive dogma.
Liberty is only considered to exist between distinct individual entities. The state (entity 1) deprives you (entity 2) of liberty by enforcing taxation. Immigrants ruining your city does not violate your liberty because immigrants aren't a distinct entity. There is no such thing as "freedom to enjoy a city that is not infested with foreigners" or "freedom to not have your children groomed by the internet".
Things like racial homogeneity, social trust, the institutions of family/marriage, or low crime, are hard to quantify but are fundamentally resources that are held in common by a society.
It is argued that libertarianism taken to its extreme endpoint would somehow end up safeguarding these things, but this is idealistic cope akin to the communist's refrain of "not real communism". We should not accept on faith that the core principle of liberty will protect communal values that it is fundamentally indifferent or even opposed to.
If we were to broaden the definition of liberty to include any number of "negative freedoms" from obvious social ills, the concept becomes so vague as to be useless. We're back at the square one that any pragmatic political ideology must reckon with, and all we have is an aesthetic afterimage. "Maybe we should prioritize safeguarding the freedoms that people like, or something". Libertarianism's myopic focus on individual liberty was the only thing that allowed it to prescribe with dogmatic confidence in the first place. The non-aggression principle has the same problem for obvious reasons that have been memed to death.
Additionally, libertarian ideology has little practical rhetorical use, because it easily compromises with progressivism to reinforce leftist causes which themselves don't violate individual liberty: multiculturalism, homosexuality, egalitarianism, feminism, etc. This framework is worse than useless and "right-libertarianism" in a modern context is an oxymoron.
Modern leftist states are indeed corrupt parasites, but opposing the entire concept of the state for this reason is no better than opposing guns because niggers can wield them. A large portion of the state will need to be destroyed or restructured, but it will always serve a necessary role in safeguarding communal values.
Good point that any actual watering-down of the principles undermines the will of the stubborn.
The best form they could take would probably be "I should prioritize the freedoms that I have been deprived of, and actually care about". There is no obligation to spend any amount of resources defending anyone else from tyranny. If they aren't going to reciprocate, there is no practical reason to defend them. Leftism has long characterized libertarians as "fuck you, got mine" "I am only trying to protect my own liberty" while libertarian redditors have been like "I'm going to upvote the tranny mushroom farm! I love ALL freedom! I'm not so different from you normies and leftists, really!"
The actual issue with this form is that it exposes libertarians to their ideological equivalent of the jungian shadow. Libertarians don't seem to realize the main thing they haven't consciously agreed upon is how you are or are not allowed to use the state. Most would say that you can vote or run for office to remove laws. Many would say you can have a government job, maybe even as a cop or soldier- hey as long as it is around anyway right? Can you lobby the government, not to remove laws (maybe that is just too hard, the narrative about having regulation in your sector is too strong...) but to make them more palatable for your company and less for your competitors? Do you have an obligation not to sell weapons to the government? heck, Heinlein reminds us that the government can be viewed as merely a set of individuals who are acting in weird way for cultural reasons. If I don't have a responsibility to confirm the non-aggressive intentions when selling weapons to individuals normally, I don't need to interrogate and confirm that these "federal agents" have quit doing that "federal agency" larp and are planning to use my malware for pure purposes of proportional deterrent.
Okay, what about taking down the government? Is there an obligation to slice up the resources in a particular way, to honor some tranches of debtors and "shareholders", to default on the national debt? Is there any reason not to demand clawback from officially private endeavors that serve as unofficial appendages of the government? Why should the government's definition of government have primacy- it is quite possible that facebook or google are government agencies, while some obscure bureaucracies could be considered captured entities if their funding from other sources is enough to sustain them. (see: black budgets) Some ancaps have claimed that you could kill all the big corporations by killing the dollar- no dollar, no corporations. Seems like you would also kill whoever in the middle class is currently being victimized by the central banking system's inflation. What about contracts made during the reign of the government- are those not valid? If they are valid, where does the definition of a contract stop? Are home owner associations not contracts? Are municipalities or towns not contracts? Either way, if you didn't want to be subject to some rules that people have come to expect to apply you could have just not bought the house. Either way, the government has been involved in making such terms come to exist.
The American government is so large that it has probably influenced every contract and deed on earth. The ancap/libertarian probably doesn't want to debug and dispense justice based the historical flow of assets and an objectively applied moral code, because that would be complicated and near impossible. So I think they would settle for "I don't care if your ancestors made a lot of money a long while ago using the government, or you did yesterday using the government. We aren't doing clawback, your money is yours now and you aren't at fault for making money under the circumstances." A bit more complicated when the proper owners of unique assets could be claimed to still exist, as in the few cases of land taken from surviving native american tribes (who have a traditional obligation/contract to keep their holy lands in the possession of their "tribe" entity, which they continue to honor by not accepting the compensation offerred) without an applicable treaty. Are the people living on those lands now true owners, or merely renters of government properties? In any case you don't have to return the FDIC money you got that one time. But if you aren't careful, someone will argue that generational welfare is an asset just like a trust fund and it being secured by the government using slightly different legal verbiage changes nothing about the obligation that the estate of the government has to continue payments.
On the other hand, libertarianism has perennial appeal among the midwit-to-smart male highschool kids who want the world to be set right. There is something there, a longing to live in world where you can truly own things. Every single smart white guy "centrist" has a mote of oft-self-admitted libertarianism in him because this civilization is a cage. If you give a white man an acre of sovereign territory there is nothing that can stop him. But for all that, it isn't that popular on the actual issues with the american public. They don't want a libertarian compromise, they want a populist compromise.
Quote:There is no such thing as "freedom to enjoy a city that is not infested with foreigners" or "freedom to not have your children groomed by the internet".
Extremely delusional and demented statement. It is quite obvious if you think about it that low IQ people and nonwhites would pay higher rent and insurance premiums as necessary to fund things like private police proportional to how much is necessary to solve, for example, their criminality. If you were a landlord you would simply charge blacks some amount more in rent to compensate for risk of property damage and evict them if they bothered the neighbors. As would any landlords. The State prevents this freedom. Fat people would face similar fees, especially with regards to health insurance, and nubile teenage girls would be offered incentives and discounts since gentleman of resource want to be near them.
Quote: The American government is so large that it has probably influenced every contract and deed on earth. The ancap/libertarian probably doesn't want to debug and dispense justice based the historical flow of assets and an objectively applied moral code, because that would be complicated and near impossible. So I think they would settle for "I don't care if your ancestors made a lot of money a long while ago using the government, or you did yesterday using the government. We aren't doing clawback, your money is yours now and you aren't at fault for making money under the circumstances." A bit more complicated when the proper owners of unique assets could be claimed to still exist, as in the few cases of land taken from surviving native american tribes (who have a traditional obligation/contract to keep their holy lands in the possession of their "tribe" entity, which they continue to honor by not accepting the compensation offerred) without an applicable treaty. Are the people living on those lands now true owners, or merely renters of government properties? In any case you don't have to return the FDIC money you got that one time. But if you aren't careful, someone will argue that generational welfare is an asset just like a trust fund and it being secured by the government using slightly different legal verbiage changes nothing about the obligation that the estate of the government has to continue payments.
Property rights are simply an equilibrium of violence, not a transcendental moral law. Whether they are respected is a matter of jurisdiction, but generally in a free society blacks and Indians would not have a recognized claim to your wealth.
Yes, the best ancaps are those not shackled to principles. They do not need anyone's help to be based.
(10-16-2023, 05:38 PM)BillyONare Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:There is no such thing as "freedom to enjoy a city that is not infested with foreigners" or "freedom to not have your children groomed by the internet".
Extremely delusional and demented statement. It is quite obvious if you think about it that low IQ people and nonwhites would pay higher rent and insurance premiums as necessary to fund things like private police proportional to how much is necessary to solve, for example, their criminality. If you were a landlord you would simply charge blacks some amount more in rent to compensate for risk of property damage and evict them if they bothered the neighbors. As would any landlords. The State prevents this freedom. Fat people would face similar fees, especially with regards to health insurance, and nubile teenage girls would be offered incentives and discounts since gentleman of resource want to be near them.
The principle of liberty is indifferent to these outcomes, which have nothing to do with personal freedoms. The point of the sentence you quoted was to illustrate this. Personal liberty might indirectly cause outcomes such as crime-free cities (arguable), but this isn't what libertarianism is trying to maximize, so it would be an incidental outcome.
To give landlords more freedoms may have the advantages you describe, but what happens when someone on this street starts dealing drugs or opens a brothel? The individual who does so benefits personally (and if renting they could pay the landlord extra who also benefits), but they harm the community and damage its collective resource of "not being degenerated by drugs and prostitution". The price mechanism cannot on its own solve tragedies of the commons. Some of the worst problems we face today belong to this category such as companies importing foreign workers, female labor force participation destroying the family, and general erosion of social trust. We need some sort of coordination to protect these collective resources that quickly dissolve in conditions of anarchy, i.e., we need a state.
Landlords already do have the ability to silently discriminate when choosing tenants and some (admittedly limited) ability to evict problem tenants, yet most cities are still wastelands. But of course, "that's not real capitalism".
There is no such thing as a collective resource. A "collective resource" is just communists letting niggers ruin something so as not to feel envy at a white gentleman owning it. See: how they treat Elon Musk. In a free society there would be no streets infested by thugs and drug dealers and no forests, lakes, & rivers being polluted by corporations dumping toxic chemicals or Indians using them as toilets.
"So you're saying landlords paying 50% taxes and being forced to lease to people who will destroy their property is not real capitalism? Woooow what a stretch man. Don't you know the corporations rule everything?"
If we were really living under the rule of the rich, or corporations, or under "capitalism" (of any sort, socialists and wignats are very shifty about the definitions of these things), then Bezos & Epstein would be allowed to get some young pussy and Elon Musk would own the Rocky Mountains, and cities would resemble cyberpunk, which in my opinion would be quite a nice and inspiring world to live in.
"Rich people rule the world dude which is why they're always getting divorce raped, getting sent to prison, having affairs with ugly women, being publicly smeared and humiliated by the media, and getting fined 500 million dollars every time one of their black employees gets called the N-word."
there is something inherent to fiction that demands conflict. It is nearly impossible to write a good book set solely in a utopia. It is interesting that this tends to be the case regardless of ideology- you don't write "the turner diaries, except we already won the race war" or "digital anarchist space communism, and there aren't any aliens coming to rape us" The cyberpunk genre is not truly dystopian because it is wish fulfillment. I am a 'wigger'. I want to fight and win and to become rich and powerful because I am cunning and ruthless. Is there any other type of ideologue that can lovingly engage with a setting that is often supposed to be satirical dramatized critique of their worldview, supposed to be pointing out their flaws? Utopia is dystopia and vice versa when what you crave is human agency.
(10-17-2023, 05:26 PM)BillyONare Wrote: [ -> ]There is no such thing as a collective resource. A "collective resource" is just communists letting niggers ruin something so as not to feel envy at a white gentleman owning it. See: how they treat Elon Musk. In a free society there would be no streets infested by thugs and drug dealers and no forests, lakes, & rivers being polluted by corporations dumping toxic chemicals or Indians using them as toilets.
In ancap fantasies maybe a street, lake, or river might be able to be owned by a single individual (or group of individuals in an increasingly state-like regulatory body) who can protect it, but some intangible assets fundamentally can't be owned by a single person. You can't "own" social norms like the nuclear family, community participation, or ethnic homogeneity. These norms are a resource owned collectively by us all, and when we stop safeguarding them with state policy they suffer the tragedy of the commons and are eroded.
(10-17-2023, 05:29 PM)BillyONare Wrote: [ -> ]"So you're saying landlords paying 50% taxes and being forced to lease to people who will destroy their property is not real capitalism? Woooow what a stretch man. Don't you know the corporations rule everything?"
(10-17-2023, 05:37 PM)BillyONare Wrote: [ -> ]"Rich people rule the world dude which is why they're always getting divorce raped, getting sent to prison, having affairs with ugly women, being publicly smeared and humiliated by the media, and getting fined 500 million dollars every time one of their black employees gets called the N-word."
"Who are you quoting?"
I was just remarking that landlords can currently choose who they lease to and this doesn't seem to be having observable positive side effects. Landlords choose to take on Section 8 tenants, they are not forced to do so.
someone else debunk all this failure of imagination. i can tell im not getting anywhere