This is what /liberty/ actually believes

They redistribute it from the poor to the rich

Really activated my mangos.

...

WEW

the government is a single person sitting in an office with his button on the trigger

but it shouldn't even be called libertarianism, retarded americans stole the word

Ancoms/ansocs aren't libertarian but libertarian fascists are?

Fuck out of here

Why does nobody respect centrist on the libertarian-authoritarian scale?

Lmao

Fascists really are man children.

So much for the "market place of ideas", funny how Pinochet's deathsquads violate the NAP less than Allende did.

That one gave me a very hardy kek.

So, I know little to nothing about chilean history, so, what did Pinochio do exactly? Where all the people he killed communists? Was he a super conservative, and if so, did he kill people from minorities as well? Why is he called a neoliberal? What's with the helicopters? Surely daddy Reagan gave him more resources for crushing his opposition.

Tell me just how delusional this is.

This HAS to be trolling.

He ruined Chile's economy because America told him to and killed thousands of "communists" (anyone who opposed him). He died under house arrest after it was discovered that he stole millions of dollars from his country. So much for the nationalist right.

How does the overthrow of a democratically elected government and deathsquads for everyone that disagrees even slightly with Pinoshit violate the NAP less?

Imagine being this retarded.

Get fucked with this bullshit /liberty/

Very broad interpretation of Locke's idea of self-defense I presume.

they're a more delusional board than Holla Forums in all honesty

...

The ancap ball screeching makes me think this is satire

I want to think it is.

People can't be this vile and degenerate.

face it, everyone hates the fence sitter.

the funniest thing about this is that pinoshit kicked out the cuckago boys because their economic policies were horrible and he reverted to more keynesian policies near the end of his rule

found it
save it and post it whenever another lolbert comes talking about "basic economics"

Well, I more or less knew all of that, I had a basic understanding. Can't you adress any of the other questions I had? I'd like to know more about all this.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_flights#The_Dirty_War_in_Argentina
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caravan_of_Death

Most of your questions can be answered by reading his Wikipedia page. Here is the neoliberal one for example.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet

Can we address someone actually took the time to make this and throughout the whole thing it never occurred to them how ridiculous it was

Isn't it funny how socialism has become a byword for whenever the state nationalises or pays for private debt?

No wonder the public is so clueless on what socialism actually is, you ought to change this in wikipedia whenever you come across incorrect uses of socialist or Marxist lexicon.

explain that image pls

LVT works on the premise that unlike other forms of taxation, there is no dead-weight loss as the supply of land is fixed. The only way to move the supply line would be to literally disassemble the land. There's a lot more to it, but the image is tounge-in-cheek poking fun at some of the criticisms people seem to levy at LVT.

Not the user you're responding to, but I misinterpreted for something else.

I thought it referred to the scenario in agriculture where crop prices decline so much that land is left unused despite there being rampant starvation.

Just like with the rest of Latin America's dictatorships, almost no one executed was actually a communist-they just killed illiterate peasants and angry poor people who were labeled communist posthumously.

It's literal Fascism, yeah.

Funnily enough land being left unused when others could more efficiently use it is actually something Georgists make a huge fuss about

these literally all just end in "Nazi"

1. Removed an elected president who took control of Chile's industry away from foreign capitalists and told the U.S. to shove off with its imperialism
2. Immediately privatized everything and formulated his economic policy based off the ramblings of neoliberal "intellectual" Milton Friedman
3. Sold the country to gigantic U.S. multinational corporations and killed the Chilean economy (rrojasdatabank.info/econom~1.htm)
4. Forced the country into IMF enslavement to get the country out of dire fiscal straits he and his cronies were responsible for causing
5. Fully integrated the country into American vassalage by going along with Operation Condor
6. Got voted out of office thinking he'd actually win the plebiscite

Pinochet was an incompetent CIA stooge who auctioned off the nation and its people to the highest bidders and made Chile about as sovereign as Puerto Rico. By Holla Forums's standards he was the goodest goy in modern history and the poster cuck for neoliberal globalism, but I guess the cool-looking cape makes his awful leadership superfluous.

???

to be fair, tankies justify having a "transitional" dictator all the time

Do ancaps realize that organized labor, now unbridled by the state, would just convert ancapistan into anarcho-syndicalism?

But user, that would require them to be aggressive and violate the NAP, so it will be up to the likes of "voluntary private enforcement" and "voluntary private courts" to ensure that the unions can't do anything ridiculous and involuntary like seizing what is rightfully the production owners :^)

I think that's the joke. They make fun of MLs for just supporting a dictatorship while blindly using the exact same reasoning to justify bringing in fascism.

The guy who posted this was an idiot. He was chewed out by at least two people for misrepresenting the views of Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Well… no. We do know the difference between evil shit and ineffective shit the government does. Some of us may even acknowledge that the government does good, every once in a while, and that the method of funding is the only thing that's wrong with it.

Saying that one government is bigger than the other makes sense. A government supported by 20% taxes is clearly smaller than one supported by 50% taxes that regulates your sleeping times, what food you eat and whom you can marry. Asking whether the UK or France has the bigger government is like asking whether Tyson or Ali was the better boxer, but just as you can compare Ali with your average antifag, so you can compare the USSR in its heydays with Hong Kong.

Also, screw your mercury example. The Minmata-scandal happened in a country that had a fully functioning government, yet it didn't intervene. Also, a lot of the pressure was put up by the workers of that corrupt corporation. Proletarian solidarity my ass. The free market solution would've been to establish defined property rights on the sea in the first place and allow claims to be settled by competing courts that actually had an incentive not to be corrupted.
And they weren't already? Come on.

No one cares. I don't, at least. Every libertarian will tell you that most of these are wrong on some points and have to be modified. Also, fucking Rousseau? I don't think I remember a single libertarian that praised the guy. Maybe Rothbard or Mises did implicitly, because they liked the French Revolution, for some reason.

It probably is. Believe me, I call these people faggots whenever I see them. Thankfully, many of them officially turn to fascism when things go slightly south.

Inflation under Allende reached 2000% and there were shortages everywhere. Pinochet was excessively violent when he ousted the commies, but the narrative that he just launched a completely unprovoked coup for shits and giggles is false.

Small correction, I don't know if it was quite 2000% or if that was just the prognosis. I do know that the inflation was extreme, and I can look it up easily if someone demands sauce.

What? Where did you read that "narrative"? I thought the narrative was that he was a willing puppet of the IMF and the foreign investors that owned some of the Chilean assets nationalized by Allende, and that the economic situation under him had USA interference.

Wether or not that's accurate, I don't know but that's the prevalent narrative to my knowledge.

I know for a fact he did kill and repress people that weren't "commies". Journalists, some times foreign and priests for instance. Not everybody who disagreed with daddy Friedman's economic experiment or that was willing to denounce the repression was a filthy commie, you know.

So what if the US government was a private corporation and the territory of the US was its private property. If you wanted to live there it would be fair that they could make you pay taxes and follow their rules, if you don't like it you can always leave. You people have such a retarded idea of freedom it's laughable, it's entirely bound up in technicalities like the NAP and private property, and not the abstract concept itself. With the example of the US gov being a corporation, it could do everything it does now but because if you just called it "USA Inc" you idiots consider it somehow different even though nothing has changed. You would rather be technically free than actually free.

My point is that just saying that a government is bigger or smaller says nothing about the quality of its governance, since it doesn't tell us anything about what the government actually does. Again, protecting drinking water is not the same as spying on citizens.

This is retarded. Why would anybody recognize a court that doesn't have force behind it? What happens if two different courts issue two different rulings? What happens if a small company sues a big company and the bigger company just ignores it? How do you possibly expect to protect property rights without a state? What prevents courts from being co-opted by private interests?

If they are private then they can be LITERALLY bought buy a corporation, as in a corporation can buy controlling shares. Within a few years every court would be bought up by some mega corporation so that it could always rule in favour of said corporation, meaning that if two corporations get into a disagreement neither one will want to go into the other's court. No court would be impartial because they would all be beholden to private interests, as such no court would have any legitimacy and nobody would take their rulings seriously. What "JusticeMax industries brought to you by Pepsi(TM)" ruled in favour of Pepsi? Big fucking surprise.

Then you're retarded, the shit spun by the """libertarians""" who came after is a laughable perversion. As I said before, the classical liberals saw things like property as the means of achieving freedom, but you morons see it as the thing in itself. For you the means and ends are equivalent, which is ridiculous. Freedom is the ability to extend your will over the physical world, it goes far beyond property and exclusively negative freedom. By your logic a person living naked and starving on a desert island is more free than a billionaire who has to pay taxes.

nixon actively fucked with their economy by refusing to export capital goods to Chile

The very terminology of "libertarian" was coined by anarchists, it was only later appropriated by edgy conservatives. Rothbard admitted as much.

...

...

But.. that was just you crying over memes you didn't like while people watched and stared. and you're arguments were shit so you resorted to damage control and backpeddling. Pretty embarrassing tbh

...

Suprisingly enough when a board allows free expression people with different opinions tend to clash. Like, I dunno, a free market of ideas. You wouldn't know about that though. Hey, at least me and that guy can maybe find solace in the fact that whatever your politics are they're probably retarded.

The ideology is strong with this one

There were no "commies." There were only Chileans who stood in the way of America interests.

Okay? God your memes are so stupid. Do you find your epic buzzwords funny or insightful?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!

Yes

Oh my God, does the left's ideas ever clash. Oh me, oh my do they.

Something something helicopters something something NAP something something physical removal ad infinitum yadda yadda pot kettle black

What has Trump done to these people?

Your entire ideology is "epic buzzwards" and surface level understanding

Where would we be without you, brave defender of Real Libertarianism™?
Hahaha holy shit that's embarrassing

Yeah, where you can… discuss things… other than that ideology… (or at least BE another ideology and post there). There's literally a "Holla Forums crashing in on /liberty/" flag, or something to that affect. You don't really get how this works do you?

Oh fuck, the anarcho-troskyist-demisexual-anarcha-maost who uses "communist doggo" memes is in an argument with the marxist-bernieist-givemefreeshitlolist-leninist who prefers "bash the fash" reddit comment chains. call the press

Yeah dude, obviously "helicopter" is a buzzword. Everything you listed has, you know, an actual definition, as opposed to "system" or "marginalized". I once heard someone call the FBI a capitalist imperialist institution.

Fuck, got me. wtf i'm communist now

I thought ideas were not property?

That's literally what you can do on here. What are you squealing about?

Not everyone is a sociopath famalam, your ideology is literally mental sickness

Pretty sure lolberts believe in intellectual property

Yeah. you can still have free market of them though?

This place's only real claim to fame in terms of free speech is NOT banning catgirls. Other than that, do you actually think everybody is allowed to express themeselves here? You can shitposting harder on 8/pol/ and not get banned.

I feel no qualms dismissing these dudes for the simple fact they STILL use the fucking idealogy balls constantly, like why? Do they see themselves as little limbless balls looking are sardonically at people?

Weird man

Yes. I've yet to see a single An-Crap get banned from here.

Yep, you're either an ancap or a communist. You've really proved me wrong about ancaps with your nuanced and detailed worldview.

How the fuck do you have a market without property? Do you just call it a market because your whole ideology is about fetishizing markets? It's nothing like a market!

Grrr I hate fun. but my autistic webcomic about different ideologies going to school together is totally okay, haha that flowchart is whack though because lol look at all those wacky ideologies???? (btw I'm an anarcha-queer)

Whats the market price for an idea

Shit, negroid, let me play that game too! Can you actually afford an helicopter? Daddy Reagan's rotten carcass ain't gonna give you another one. If you want based non-kile-lover Trump to give you a free helicopter to protect his interests, now what you have to do is put on a turban and a bomb belt.

You're a fucking retard whose arguments are indistinguishable by PragerU pablum. Yep, the difference between all leftist ideologies are purely aesthetics. Only people on YOUR side of the ideological spectrum have real disputes and real substantive differences in opinion regarding policy or ideology.

Seek help

What the fuck do you think you're doing right now?
This is either parody or delusional. You can support and make a case for a variety of actions and ideologies across the spectrum here. On 8/pol/ they ban you for not supporting their latest neocon-of-the-month (before that neocon betrays them then they pretend they never supported them in the first place)

It's because capitalist idealists must necessarily make the case that capitalism and capitalist markets describe the very act of exchange and nothing more.

But "exchanging ideas" is not exchange in the same sense as "exchanging commodities." They are fundamentally different.

You're obviously really angry, I'd recommend you do the same.

Yup, I remember when I said that. Making fun of your side's petty retardation is the same as serious accusations. God, why are there so many of you faggots? Where did you come from, like /lit/ or something?

Would "free exchange" suit your autism better? They call it that because there's freedom and competition, meaning the best idea will win. Obviously commies exist so maybe not though.

I've seen waves of spam and sage posted on 8/pol/ go unbanned. People getting to like hundreds of posts per IP having long-winded shit-flinging sessions. I'm sure either was super authoritarian at a point but imkampfy seems to have calmed down. If you got out fo your bubble you'd see this board is worse. When's the last time you even went to Holla Forums?

Fuck! you found put my secret agenda! Nice "dialectical" "spectactle" or whatever.

There are no licenses under ancapistan. Anyone can just make their own court and make your their police force too. They can just be judge jury and executioner. That's the only way it can work. The people have to consent to the police by paying fees every month. The police are also part of the courts so there is no contradiction. You would also have to own the land too so there is no contradiction between landowner and court. In order for a ancap society to work, the land owner has to be in charge of the rents, courts, and police. The land owner makes the rules, the police enforce the rules, and the courts settle deputes within the rules made by the land owner. Basically feudalism

Obviously "system" has a definition, buts it's been diluted to the point where it means nothing and progressives/far-left people spout it over and over as if it's some invisible "institutionalized" magic particle. tell me, can you make up a definition for system that makes the sentence "Whiteness is the most violent fuckin' system ever!" (from the evergreen college shit) make sense & not make you look like a total retard?

lol, you have some growing up to do if this is serious. Start by reading Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky.

Done.

And don't double down on ths strawman front, paisano. I ain't what you call a liberal. Lots of people here aren't.

Make a definition, not use it in a sentence, illiterate.

Really? On the scale of a small obscure imageboard whatever you're recommending to me ''really" applies?

Wait, are you serious?

Imageboards are not in isolation.

So it's a buzzword and they (and by extension, most people who use the term, considering they usually use it similarly) are using it as a buzzword.

But we're talking about moderation policies, which is pretty isolated. In general by posting you can make your voice heard, especially on a small board like this one or /liberty/. Stop moving the goalposts to some underlying "cultural" bullshit. I don't care.

What if I don't want to pay the bandit/police fee?

How can you misread something this badly. No dumbass, I'm mocking you for your insinuation that the disagreements amongst those on the left are meaningless.

Which would be an accusation, that isn't a joke, so it'd be serious, right? How fucking stupid are you?

I've been on 8ch since the split and been on Holla Forums frequently in the meantime. I've also, therefore, been banned very frequently for not falling in lockstep on the important issues. The fact that people call each other faggots does not mean that there are serious ideological disagreements on the board, and any even cursory glance at the banlogs would show that you're talking out your ass.

Okay okay, I'll humor, you, jesus.

That's what I'd say, dunno if it's wrong or not. But do you have any idea how absurd your request is? I might as well take your example and confront an ancap about the definition of the world "nomenclature" cause an islamic fundamentalist used it wrong in my presence, cause I deem theocracy a rightist ideology. Doesn't that seem a tad loony to you?

Fuck me, user, I don't care about those people, and I might hate them more than you do. And yes, "system" is incredibly broad a term. Some dumbasses using it wrong doesn't make the term wrong, christ. See the beginning of the definition of metric system I posted earlier? Digestive system. Political system. Dialectic system. Monetarist system. Don't tell me it's not broad.

It's not a secret agenda. You believe that capitalism in the broadest sense describes the very idea of exchange. Therefore your enemies are all authoritarians who want to bar others from rightful free exchange and "impure" systems of capitalism ("crony" capitalism and "corporatism") are necessarily aberrations of an otherwise ideal system (how can the very idea of exchange be bad, after all?).

But this conception of capitalism is inaccurate and steeped in ideology, pushed by people who benefit from the conflation of all exchange and all market activity with the inherently hierarchical nature of specifically capitalist exchange.

Are you having a stroke? Learn to speak properly and then you can call people stupid in lieu of an actual argument all you like.

Wow, I don't think I've ever seen damage control this bad. I'll feel secondhand embarrassment for you.

You're a drooling git. Make your point or fuck off.

I didn't know autists felt embarrassment. You learn something new every day

I think his point was to show how autistic and repugnant lolbertarianism is

Fuck, I never quite got the hang of 3D chess

You seem like a rational fellow who has come here to argue in good faith, so I will write a reply to this. Overall you make a decent and rational arguement but your post also perfectly outlines the incoherence of liberal ideology. Allow me to demonstrate;

What we see here is a clear conflation between heirarchical structures and political organization. This is a conflation that is also common amongst Marxists (and even anarchists proper) and dominates the political debate in modern times. It is however, false. If we're to accept that the "size" of government is measured simply by how much taxes it needs to support itself, then you can have a scenario where an Orwellian nightmare that spends its (relatively-low) tax-revenue strictly on repression and surveillance of the population somehow is "smaller" government than a direct democratic egalitarian city-state with social security and shared resources.
This is because the AnCap "libertarian" branch has completely forgotten any reasonable or rational analysis of hierachy and domination. Domination and illiberal society is very possible within a "small state" society by AnCap standard, even within a society without political organization, as companies themselves are modelled on and constitute state structures.

Thus the "size of government" that right-libertarians use is completely arbitrary and only constitutes a criticism against political organization rather than against tyrrany or domination itself.

How is it possible to be this much of a fucking dumbass? Do you want me to explain it real slow to you for your mental impairment?
said that the left's ideas often clash. I knew this was mostly retarded petty spergfits, so I made fun of that in . miscontrued that into me saying that all leftist ideologies have no differences and then threw a fit about it. In I point out that that's not what I said. More specifically, I said that making fun of petty fights is not the same as a real accusation, that being one of all brands of leftism being the same. is your childish fit, where you claim that you're "mocking me" for insinuation that the disagreements amongst those on the left are meaningless, e.g. that they all pretty much share the same beliefs. And in I point out that you're doing exactly what I said: saying that I'm seriously, as in, not jokingly, accusing (or implying or insinuating or whatever) leftism of all being the same instead of just satirizing the fact that leftists frequently engage in minor slapfights over shit that doesn't matter. Learn to read autist.

This is some advanced autism.

Haha that's sad my dude.

What is the point of this message being so unnecesary detailed?

I think they got you just fine, user.

You're not posting arguments, you're posting barely coherent ramblings. There's simply nothing to "damage control" since no damage could possibly be felt by just watching you be schizophrenic.

Obviously not, considering . Either they know they're wrong and are resorting to name calling on purpose or they're really, really delusional.

...

Jesus, quit while you're ahead. Are you just here for (you)s?

Great, so you agree there are meaningful differences amongst leftist ideologies.

Well, you were incredibly wrong in your original point and continued to argue in bad faith and throwing buzzwords, so it came a point when all that was left of was mocking you back. I would have not done it like that, but that last post of yours came off as an angry rant, God. I know we subhuman retard murderous commies are your enemies forever but since you like jokes so much you could try to chill a bit, this is just words in a screen.

Yeah? But that also most arguments between them or individual different identifications are stupid and petty. Obviously a tankie isn't an anarchist.

Does meaningful disagreement exist on this board? Yes or no? Stop qualifying it and just make a clear statement.

So, the differences between anarchists and Stalinists are "stupid and petty"?

Nothing makes me harder than some low I.Q ancap cretin calling me dumb

There's nothing gayer than context.jpg

But it's the left (and, usually, leftist's) always super-ironic snarky attitude that encourages arguing in bad faith. People just don't have actual debates on this board, from what I've seen, and I came in not taking it seriously and just to laugh at some guy who got super angry over pinochet memes, so of course I'm not attempting to have a serious argument, and I never said I was. Contrast with the other guy, who tells me to make a point and then skips right ahead to mockery instead of evaluating that point, which is worse.

REEEEEEEEEEEEE you people are so dumb! Why can't you listen when someone clearly smarter than you is talking? You guys have to hide here on your safe space board with barely different opinions (see I said they're different you retards) just to keep your ideas from being challenged. What obviously happened here is that you don't understand that my jokes insinuating a thing are different from me saying that thing and then you dummies act like I actually said those things. Not an argument!

Don't pretend snarky attitudes are exclusive to the Left or that the Left is exclusively snarky or disinterested in discussion.

You, yourself, avoid interesting arguments made ITT to shitpost instead, so you are no less guilty of dragging down the level of discourse when you don't engage with high discourse at all.

Come back for the next Syria debate and see for yourself. Also, thanks for admitting that the person you were arguing with was correct all along and that you WERE insinuating that no meaningful difference of opinions are articulated here.

So yeah, lots of insinuations and weird expectatives, wrong in all accounts, ends up having a confuse non-conversation. What a shock. I hope you at least had a giggle, m8.

False flagging is a board crime, user.

It's a pretty obvious satire, and this guy clearly values making points via "satire" over actual good-faith discussion

Not being serious and then defending the point made through jokes is way different from being serious and then jumping to mockery when proven wrong (in , which I imagine you still probably haven't read)

And how did you get that I'm wrong? Nobody actually argued against , at all.

See

wtf is that me??? 😮

DUDE WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM?!

WHY DO YOU KEEP REPLYING TO PEOPLE CALLING YOU AN IDIOT WHEN THERE ARE SERIOUS ARGUMENTS BEING MADE AGAINST THE CENTRAL POINTS OF YOUR ORIGINAL COMMENT?!

see

What points? ?
That's not a rebuttal, though, because the actual argument is whether I was insinuating those things or not, the latter of which I argued for in the post that no one's bothered to argue against yet. He's just stating that he thinks I'm wrong.

Cause there's nothing to argue in that post that hadn't been "argued" before, and that's the decision of the people who conetsted that point (or lack of it) with you and then chose to mock you, which the left is supposed to be the only ones to do but you came here doing it first anyways cause they were having a discussion about something you consider a snarky meme and that might be satire in the first place (????). It's a repeat of what you said through the thread only a bit longer and also it looks rage-y. That mess you initially used to mock the left was so alien and disconnected from what people argue about in this board it was hard to interpret you as anything else anyways, at least you knew what the fuck I was talking about when I brought up helicopters and the NAP.

...

Of course it's a rephrasing of what I already said, because he kept going on about how he didn't understand what I said. Nobody has attempting to actually argue against throughout the entire thread.

Everyone understood you fine. Anything else you want to argue about?

Do you think I'm that guy? b/c I'm not, he's a fucking idiot. If not, what the hella re you talking about then?

I'd be happy to talk to the retard from /liberty/ who really hates any association with Hoppe and helicopters for some reason. But not on this board, this board is gross tbh

But what's the point of arguing against that if you're admitting it was snarky meaningless mockery while also claiming "the left" is the one who usually does it?

Why were you expecting a serious debate at all with your demeanor is my biggest question.

Now look who's resorting to meaningless insults. Sorry your "safe space that doesn't allow differing opinions" theory didn't pan out.

It's a literal shitposting thread, what are you expecting.

The argument is metacontextual, it's about whether it was a meaningless mockery or a serious accusation.

And I expected a debate, I guess to some degree at least, because the guy told me to make my point, which sounds like he's attempting to argue in good faith.

lol get a life

Says the guy from

at least i dont actually unironically browse Holla Forums tbh

Go back to your lucrative job then

Where do you think you are right now?

why would i be an ancap if I didn't make good money?

...

Funny that you thought leftists are the ones who disrupt arguments and you found one by people who couldn't dicern if you weer serious or not cause your buzzwords of choice were so alien to them it was hard to know where to grab them from, but ok. This got plain retarded.

Personally, I'll never understand how someone whose ideology has "an" in its name would ever associate with the most hand-fed, kike controlled, murderous globalist puppet of all time but hey.

I think he meant because then you wouldn't fit into the sterotype of /liberty/ poster who's a class cucked LARPing neet. Or Holla Forums poster for that matter.

I'm not a trump supporter. most people on /liberty/, even the pinochet memers, probably aren't.

We libertarians have the highest average Autism Level dude

I.Q.

I meant Pinochet actually. He was a stellar goy. Also supporting Trump would probably make more sense for an ancap in my eyes. He's got that eternal lawyer-and-businessman anglo politician douchebaggery going for him.

The closest one for me is "Government is a cancer and the only solution to get rid of it" but that's stupid, reductive, hyperbolic, and several other things.

No you see my post didn't imply that libertarians had low I.Q. levels in general, only that the particular poster I responded to had a low I.Q. You cannot know that I made this inference so your argument is invalid

Yeah I know, already covered that

what the fuck? go masturbate to pepe or something Holla Forums

Nah he's a /liberty/ guy. Holla Forums is neocons LARPing as nazis

This is lovely. There's nothing like watching these people when they come to terms with the fact that their whole ideology is completely contradictory.

Why do they think retards like molymeme flipped fascist so easily? In a world with limited resources how can there possibly be equality of opportunity in ancapistan? How can monopolies be countered? Won't private police forces be necessary to defend property rights? Wouldn't money translate directly into power and therefore create a government of the ruling class which has none of the systems of checks and balances that modern day republics at least attempt to implement? How can this be "anarchism" if hierarchy not only exists but is left as the only viable and authorized form of human relationship? Wouldn't basically all power be concentrated into the hands of landowners? How can one effectively prevent the violent seizure of their property if adjacent landowners collude to prevent retaliation? Will this system not require an immense and necessary class of working people intentionally deprived of the means to escalate their circumstances? Isn't forcing people to do whatever labor you ask of them in return for the right to not starve a form of coercion? Why should the natural bounties of the earth, which for almost all of human history have been the de facto common property of all people, be arbitrarily divvied up assigned to an elite few, depriving billions of their opportunity to demonstrate worth? How is money, a simple representation of material wealth, a better way to express individual desires and needs within society than direct democracy? Is complete servitude to your boss and the ruling class really individualism? How can ANY of this possibly be considered a proper form of liberty?

You're fucking neoliberals. All of you. You just want government deregulation to the extent that it protects Warren Buffet's dividendies. None of these elaborate webs of nebulous terminology ("the state", "liberty", "freedom") can morally dignify this.
By any common definition, the world over, what you propose is NOT libertarian, it is NOT free, and it most certainly IS hierarchical. If it was somehow implemented, it would easily be the most authoritarian, autocratic, and hierarchical societal organization in human history.

I thought halfchan Holla Forums was 50-50

I'm aware of that, and it's one more reason why I don't like the Pinochet-posters.

He's libertarian-lite.

Sounds like the status quo to me.

That only works if we run by the extra assumption that it acquired its property legitimately, through voluntary means. And when that is the case, then yes, I wouldn't complain about its taxes or that it sets up rules. It's all about how you acquired your property.

These "technicalities" are literally the rule that you should not be coerced and the principle that the fruits of your labor belong to you. In other words, not technicalities at all.

"Actually free" meaning positive freedom, which is an idiotic concept. It runs into the same problems as utilitarianism, in that it allows you to do whatever you want as long as you pay lip service to the idea of maximizing the freedom of everyone as much as possible. It offers no clear prescription on how to act and how to run society, not even in principle.

Technically correct, but practically, big governments are big for a reason. Usually, they're following some kind of collectivist and totalitarian ideology that allows them to levy everyone into their service. A government that limits itself to protecting the health and property of its citizens has no need to swell to the size of the DPRK and no ideological means to do so.

Why wouldn't it have force behind it?

Depends on the procedural law. Most likely, they would pick a third court to review the case, and after that, no further review would be possible.

Continued:

Then the bigger company won't have customers and trading partners for long, as it will acquire a reputation of ignoring court rulings, and will probably be blacklisted by any reputable court until it pays its debt.

That they won't have customers when that happens, or only one. Who would take his dispute to this openly corrupt court? No one, except corrupt people, and only if they're sure the court likes them more than the other party - in other words, even they would rather pick a court with a good reputation, just to save costs. There might also be ideological reasons at play. I'm willing to bet that many judges take their neutrality very serious nowadays, and that would likely also be the case if they entered the private sector.

This wouldn't change the incentives at work. The court would be outcompeted by ones that are either not owned by stockholders or that would render fair verdicts even if that went against the stockholders interest.

Sure, even if the starving guy doesn't have it better. But yes, he's free, he isn't being aggressed against and he isn't treated unjustly. His life "only" sucks. Freedom is freedom, it isn't power. Would you say that the billionaire isn't free because he has no means to arrange galaxies to his will? Would you say he's being oppressed by the law of gravity? Probably not.

I know, it's always droughts and tariffs when it's a red country. When every single communist country has a shitty economy that miraculously recovers when a new liberalization is pushed through, then it's a fair guess to say that communism is the main problem.

so everybody signing and agreeing to the constitution isn't legitimate?

Well, as I read it, his post implied that guy was low I.Q. because he is an ancap.
But mb if I was mistaken

Another case of declaring everything to be capitalism and then blaming everything bad on capitalism. That's pathetic. I wouldn't do the reverse and I hate communism, but I acknowledge that sometimes, communism isn't the cause of a famine. Civil war, wartime blockades and mercantilism killed their share, too. I don't blame the commies for the blockade of Germany or for the Bengal Famine, either. If you blame capitalists on it, then - again - that's only because your definitions are messed up. Anyway, some specific cases:

So 19th Century China now qualifies as capitalist?

Confiscations and restrictions on trade are capitalism now?

Yeah, that one doesn't look fishy at all.

disasterhistory.org/sichuan-famine-1936-1937
A civil war between the communists and the socialist Guomintang = capitalism?

The Nazis weren't capitalists. PDF's related. They confiscated property, set quotas, prices and wages, and meddled with the administration of private businesses. That's not capitalism. That isn't even mercantilism.

See: Mount Lebanon Famine.

Not exactly capitalist paradises either.

Hahaha, holy shit, that's sad.

Did everybody sign and agree to it?
How? By staying on the property of the US? Only counts if it acquired this property legitimately.

...

Fucking rich coming from a commie.

Why the fuck are you saging a thread on your own board, and why do you think that calling something ideology is an argument?

Well, whoever made that pic was basically saying that everything is capitalism that isn't Maoism or Marxism-Leninism. In which case the label "capitalist" is worthless. If we both agreed that the Nazis were capitalist, do you think this discussion would end, or that we would then lead a new discussion on whether they also had a free market?

You know when you keep on the same flag it's obvious you're samefagging right?

it's satirizing that the same guy has spent half this thread making an argument just as pedantic
But yeah I did just mean that this specific guy is clearly not the brightest

Not an argument. You're trying to prove communists wrong in an argument. Calling commies "commies" won't score you any extra points. Sorry bro

The whole point of the pic is a response to Sargon-tier faggots who base their entire criticism of communism as "famines happened under communism". If, as you say, you wouldn't make the same tired argument then congratulations, the pic isn't targeted at you.

And yes, you are "no true capitalism"-ing super hard here but it's honestly not worth quibbling over since, again, it's not aimed at people like you anyway

Because this thread is shit and deserves to be bumplocked. Government intervention and expropiation happens in any country, that doesn't make it socialist.

I'm not making an argument, retard. I'm pointing out how retarded commies are.

Compare the style of the responses. You will see that we're two different people. Maybe more. There's a thread about this thread on /liberty/, we may be a small board, but not so small that just one ancap would bother to come here.

Fair enough. I don't like Sargon that much.

I didn't say it does. Read my responses. There's capitalism, interventionism, mercantilism and only then do we reach socialism, and there's various shades of that, too.

Anyway, I should get back to work now. If any of you want to visit us on /liberty/ and ask us questions or start a polite discussion, feel free to. Just don't spam us please, we're a small board.

All f them are capitalism though. Capitalism's primary determinant is not the role of the state.

You guys are all way dumber than you think you are. Simmer down

wtf im communism now

ahahahaha

holy shit

no dude you seriously don't understand how stupid you are. it's hilarious.

wtf im communism now

I never thought I would see Libertarian Realist appear in a meme. I used to watch his videos a lot when I was a dumb ancap. If it isn't obvious btw those two guys aren't LR.

I…

The post I replied to was literally the same thing. Are you blind?

people decide with their wallets :^)

Funniest shit is they ape the Ancom flag and then call Libsocs leeches

Really, really embarrassing.

I didn't post that.

Wew lad.

Yeah, but commies are actually retarded.

What property was ever acquired through voluntary means in the existence of history though?
Only if you define 'coerced' in a way that deprives from its original meaning. Freedom is also generally understood positively, not negatively.
This is the problem with being autistic as a lifestyle choice. You think that because the things people actually value are vague that we should ignore what is actually valuable and focus on very specific things that are stand-ins for what is actually valuable. Yes positive freedom is a vague concept, but negative freedom is a meaningless one. Both of us would rather exist in a society that disrespects the institution of property than one where we literally starve to death whether that society was "free" or not by some autistic measurement.
This is the reverse causality from what actually makes sense. Totalitarian ideology is propagated to let totalitarian governments exist. The state does not exist because of totalitarian ideology except in so far that it allows it to exist.
Are you actually an an-cap or are you just a libertarian?
If you are an an-cap that means you don't believe in a monopoly of force and ultimately any legitimate system of courts would by definition have to be a monopoly of force.
There are companies irl today that are complicit in mass murder that still get business just fine, yet you think that people are so ethically unselfish that they wouldn't buy from a store if it engaged in unethical business practices? I don't get this about an-caps, in one moment they say socialism doesn't work because people are selfish and in the next they say that people will be up to date and vigilant on the 500 or so public boycotts going on at any time.
Moreover you seem to not understand how your system of incentives actually works. Punishing a 'company' for its actions fundamentally doesn't make sense. Actions aren't made by a company, they're made by individuals. If some people in a company do an illegal action and then sell it then the chumps who bought it get the bill.
Anyone who could profit off of it, e.i. half of the participants in any potential case.
This is reaching self parody modes. Let's say I steal all of your money. Then let's say I can either pick a corrupt court, which I can bribe with some of your money(and you can't considering I took all your money), or a non corrupt court, which I can't. Do you actually think I'd be scared to pick the corrupt court? What would happen if the person I'm involved in a court case with and I never agree on a specific court? Obviously the case couldn't be thrown out (that'd be an easy to abuse system) so someone or something would have to decide it for us right?

Continued

So if someone has a bigger wallet, like the CEO of a large company….
he rules the private courts and thus the legal system

...

lol, Libertarians really hate history don't they?

It's late and I don't have the time to address your whole post. My advice, copypaste it to >>>/liberty/ and we'll talk there the next days. Here, your post and this entire thread will be lost in a day or two.

Forgot my anarcho-crapitalist flag. Haha. Funny. Crapitalism.

...

Did you know naive doesn't show up in the dictionary?

Yes it does retard, I just checked
dictionary.com/browse/naive

I'd rather talk 1 on 1 on skype or some irc than that (having extended but non-immediate arguments for a period of days rarely is very good way of doing things, especially as you've already seen here, it's one person vs a board is not very pleasant or productive (although this was mitigated by the fact that few take an-caps seriously enough to debate them).)
We already having some of that 'bringing up 5-6 points in an entire uninterrupted post' slog already. I'd be OK doing that for a bit longer, but I don't even want to do this for more than 4 days (if even) already and this thread will easily last that long if we occasionally bump it.

come on, you can strawman better than this