"This bastardised libertarianism makes 'freedom' an instrument of oppression"

10 posts

Team Zissou
What you and your bourgeois-hating friend are missing is that the State provides criminal gangs like the Zetas with ingress to the country, a tax-free black market, free legal representation, welfare and civil rights laws. Without the State and its massive externalities, low caste Aztecs would be itinerant workers who stayed in company barracks, like they used to when the government actually honored the taxpayers' property rights. No 'immigrants' for lefty journalists to swoon over; just owners, tenants and trespassers.

There is a long list of extruded, administrative 'rights' that the State enforces without which large segments of the population would be extremely marginalized and scarce, instead of abundant and empowered.
Broseph
This is tantamount to saying small countries can't exist because they'll be picked off by their larger neighbors.

Defense pacts/alliances. These things happen between tribes and competing groups which aren't nations. And then yet again, how are borders drawn? What would they be in such an order? Nations can set open/closed borders, as can smaller communities, so I don't see the conflict here. The whole idea of libertarianism is that there is no social contract, and anything taken by force is bad.

I'm not saying that an anarcho-capitalist paradise can exist. Everyone would have to agree to it, and not everyone would.

Economies satisfying multiple planks of the communist manifesto are categorically capitalist? People who cite obvious truths are retards? How far does it have to go before it's no longer "capitalist"? I really don't expect to get an answer, because people have this communist attitude of "it's too capitalist" no matter how many regulations there are, no matter how many socialized services there are, no matter how much fiat money is printed for banker's/gov'ts gain, no matter how high taxes get, and no matter what gets confiscated.

This isn't a great source, but it's not far off the mark: http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/planks.html

Marxism in a nutshell: "Everything is capitalism because we are in the capitalist epoch, and until the international revolt of the proletariat, we are stuck in capitalism." Capitalism is bad, everything is capitalism, therefore, everything is bad until capitalism ends.

I think he'll still believe that the initiation of force is unjustified until he's in the grave, but he'll change his definition of it.

The theory generally makes the assumption that might has decided that property rights are paramount. Which as I said, requires everyone to agree with it. It is a theory of how society could be set up, not how it is set up. It presumes that property rights as paramount is a given, and that the state is bad. The rest of the theory is based in these premises.

Could you explain why there would be a "tyranny of the minutiae"? What do public courts have over private courts? We know how private courts work. (arbitration)

Visit some US cities like Detroit or Buffalo and you won't be LOLing anymore. Australia, like Canada, doesn't have a "black underclass" to put up with.

Actually, communism is wrong even in theory, and libertarianism is right "in theory" but doesn't reflect reality because of the presumptions I mentioned above.
Broseph
You won't get across to most people with this message. Until a person or one of their close family members have directly suffered from communism, everything is "too capitalist". This is why the SWPLs and mangia cakes in Canada outside of Alberta are all turning into socialists. My family came to this country to escape that shit, and now we risk getting mired in it again. :mad:
popfop
I think it's appealing to a lot of programmers and IT people because they are used to working with complex systems which are dependent on minuscule and abstract changes to make something work. If you're used to this environment it's easy to apply it to other subjects like political theory or economics, but the real world doesn't work on such premises.
Broseph
Tell that to the redditors/hacker news types. Of the hundreds of those "IT types" I've met, only 2 of them would even consider a rollback of state programs, and a few others online. The rest are a bunch of gay-worshiping atheists. They love technocracy and the managerial state because it only requires "a few tweaks" here and there to fix everything. ;)
Team Zissou
They have aboriginal underclasses. They just keep them penned up in reservations. Like I say, Australia and Canada haven't discovered the magic formula for dealing with population groups with wildly divergent time-preferences.
Team Zissou
Uh, wait a minute. Weren't you talking about Zetas? The State allows high time-preference Aztecs across the border, and you declare that white businessmen in their McMansions require the State to protect them from the problem the State caused.
Team Zissou

Frankly, the sterner side of libertarianism is really worse than even most libertarians think, particularly the sperg children at mises and MR. Does anybody seriously believe people would devote a minute of thought to which restrooms trannies should be allowed to use without the State and its 'civil rights' laws? Would anybody pay a dime to make sure child molesters are protected from the general prison population? For that matter, would there even be prisons--most criminals would probably just be shot unless they could cough up enough blood money. And what about all the Marxist sinecures in universities and government--who the fuck would pay a single thin dime to hear Jewish dykes lecture about the patriarchy and critical legal theory?

Clancy
http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/149721/ayn_rand_railed_against_government_benefits,_but_grabbed_social_security_and_medicare_when_she_needed_them/

"Ayn Rand was not only a schlock novelist, she was also the progenitor of a sweeping “moral philosophy” that justifies the privilege of the wealthy and demonizes not only the slothful, undeserving poor but the lackluster middle-classes as well. ​
Her books provided wide-ranging parables of "parasites," "looters" and "moochers" using the levers of government to steal the fruits of her heroes' labor. In the real world, however, Rand herself received Social Security payments and Medicare benefits under the name of Ann O'Connor (her husband was Frank O'Connor)." ​
Broseph

Yeah. I don't think you'll find anyone here who likes Ayn Rand other than to troll people.