Hey Holla Forums, convince be why libertarianism doesnt work...

hey Holla Forums, convince be why libertarianism doesnt work. i know the age long argument of "capitalism depends on the state", but this is no longer the case, since a lot of banks and corporations are now holding a higher position than governments. of course this is unjust, thus im having skepticism towards capitalism, but why dont you think anarcho capitalism among small businesses would work? why not have a revolution to overthrow the government and large corporations/banks, and instead of establishing another state, just leave it there for the new small businesses to compete?

Other urls found in this thread:

uk.coop/resources/what-do-we-really-know-about-worker-co-operatives
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Since I don't feel like starting a new thread, one of your lefty comrades over on /liberty/ stated that rights don't exist and only the majority opinion matters.

So just to confirm, since private property doesn't exist meaning bodily autonomy does not exist, and things are determined by the majority, as in a factory situation, then I'm allowed to join in on a gang rape without feeling bad about it, right?

Why?

jesus fucking christ tbqh

Does not compute

You didn't know the argument in the first place if you came to that conclusion.

Capitalism depends on the state for the enforcement of private property rights, not because there's nothing in higher position. And getting rid of the large corporations won't change much, capital will accumulate again and we are back where we started.

ayylmao

are you one of those people that think monarchy will magically fix problems

Why libertarianism won't work is not simply because capitalism requires a state. Libertarianism won't work for whole hosts of reasons. We should be clear that what we mean by "work" is "creates the outcome desired" and so if we have different views on how society should look in broad terms, we cannot agree on what "works"

Because you need a collection of might to protect your idea of private property from people who dont reconize sutch idea at all. I will post a qoute of Stirner when he speaks about capitalism and its relationship with Stirner, its fully your choice to read it or disregard it.

''' The behavior of the commonalty is liberal through and through. Every personal invasion of another’s sphere revolts the civic sense; if the citizen sees that one is dependent on the humor, the pleasure, the will of a man as individual (i.e. as not as authorized by a “higher power”), at once he brings his liberalism to the front and shrieks about “arbitrariness.” In fine, the citizen asserts his freedom from what is called orders (ordonnance): “No one has any business to give me — orders!” Orders carries the idea that what I am to do is another man’s will, while law does not express a personal authority of another. The liberty of the commonalty is liberty or independence from the will of another person, so-called personal or individual liberty; for being personally free means being only so free that no other person can dispose of mine, or that what I may or may not do does not depend on the personal decree of another. The liberty of the press, e.g., is such a liberty of liberalism, liberalism fighting only against the coercion of the censorship as that of personal wilfulness, but otherwise showing itself extremely inclined and willing to tyrannize over the press by “press laws”; i.e. the civic liberals want liberty of writing for themselves; for, as they are law-abiding, their writings will not bring them under the law. Only liberal matter, i.e. only lawful matter, is to be allowed to be printed; otherwise the “press laws” threaten “press-penalties.” If one sees personal liberty assured, one does not notice at all how, if a new issue happens to arise, the most glaring unfreedom becomes dominant. For one is rid of orders indeed, and “no one has any business to give us orders,” but one has become so much the more submissive to the — law. One is enthralled now in due legal form.

In the citizen-State there are only “free people,” who are compelled to thousands of things (e.g. to deference, to a confession of faith, etc.). But what does that amount to? Why, it is only the — State, the law, not any man, that compels them!

What does the commonalty mean by inveighing against every personal order, i.e. every order not founded on the “cause,” on “reason”? It is simply fighting in the interest of the “cause”[Sache, which commonly means thing]. against the dominion of “persons”! But the mind’s cause is the rational, good, lawful, etc.; that is the “good cause.” The commonalty wants an impersonal ruler.

Furthermore, if the principle is this, that only the cause is to rule man — to wit, the cause of morality, the cause of legality, etc., then no personal balking of one by the other may be authorized either (as formerly, e.g. the commoner was balked of the aristocratic offices, the aristocrat of common mechanical trades, etc.); free competition must exist. Only through the thing[Sache] can one balk another (e.g. the rich man balking the impecunious man by money, a thing), not as a person. Henceforth only one lordship, the lordship of the State, is admitted; personally no one is any longer lord of another. Even at birth the children belong to the State, and to the parents only in the name of the State, which e.g. does not allow infanticide, demands their baptism etc.

But all the State’s children, furthermore, are of quite equal account in its eyes (“civic or political equality”), and they may see to it themselves how they get along with each other; they may compete.

Free competition means nothing else than that every one can present himself, assert himself, fight, against another. Of course the feudal party set itself against this, as its existence depended on an absence of competition. The contests in the time of the Restoration in France had no other substance than this — that the bourgeoisie was struggling for free competition, and the feudalists were seeking to bring back the guild system.

Now, free competition has won, and against the guild system it had to win. (See below for the further discussion.)

Because i am to lazy to bother.

*relationship with the state

If the Revolution ended in a reaction, this only showed what the Revolution really was. For every effort arrives at reaction when it comes to discreet reflection, and storms forward in the original action only so long as it is an intoxication, an “indiscretion.” “Discretion” will always be the cue of the reaction, because discretion sets limits, and liberates what was really wanted, i. e., the principle, from the initial “unbridledness” and “unrestrainedness.” Wild young fellows, bumptious students, who set aside all considerations, are really Philistines, since with them, as with the latter, considerations form the substance of their conduct; only that as swaggerers they are mutinous against considerations and in negative relations to them, but as Philistines, later, they give themselves up to considerations and have positive relations to them. In both cases all their doing and thinking turns upon “considerations,” but the Philistine is reactionary in relation to the student; he is the wild fellow come to discreet reflection, as the latter is the unreflecting Philistine. Daily experience confirms the truth of this transformation, and shows how the swaggerers turn to Philistines in turning gray.

So, too, the so-called reaction in Germany gives proof that it was only the discreet continuation of the warlike jubilation of liberty.

The Revolution was not directed against the established, but against the establishment in question, against a particular establishment. It did away with this ruler, not with the ruler — on the contrary, the French were ruled most inexorably; it killed the old vicious rulers, but wanted to confer on the virtuous ones a securely established position, i. e., it simply set virtue in the place of vice. (Vice and virtue, again, are on their part distinguished from each other only as a wild young fellow from a Philistine.) Etc.

To this day the revolutionary principle has gone no farther than to assail only one or another particular establishment, i.e. be reformatory. Much as may be improved, strongly as “discreet progress” may be adhered to, always there is only a new master set in the old one’s place, and the overturning is a — building up. We are still at the distinction of the young Philistine from the old one. The Revolution began in bourgeois fashion with the uprising of the third estate, the middle class; in bourgeois fashion it dries away. It was not the individual man — and he alone is Man — that became free, but the citizen, the citoyen, the political man, who for that very reason is not Man but a specimen of the human species, and more particularly a specimen of the species Citizen, a free citizen.

In the Revolution it was not the individual who acted so as to affect the world’s history, but a people; the nation, the sovereign nation, wanted to effect everything. A fancied I, an idea, e.g. the nation is, appears acting; the individuals contribute themselves as tools of this idea, and act as “citizens.”

The commonalty has its power, and at the same time its limits, in the fundamental law of the State, in a charter, in a legitimate [or “righteous.” German rechtlich] or “just” [gerecht] prince who himself is guided, and rules, according to “rational laws,” in short, in legality. The period of the bourgeoisie is ruled by the British spirit of legality. An assembly of provincial estates, e.g. is ever recalling that its authorization goes only so and so far, and that it is called at all only through favor and can be thrown out again through disfavor. It is always reminding itself of its — vocation. It is certainly not to be denied that my father begot me; but, now that I am once begotten, surely his purposes in begetting do not concern me a bit and, whatever he may have called me to, I do what I myself will. Therefore even a called assembly of estates, the French assembly in the beginning of the Revolution, recognized quite rightly that it was independent of the caller. It existed, and would have been stupid if it did not avail itself of the right of existence, but fancied itself dependent as on a father. The called one no longer has to ask “what did the caller want when he created me?” but “what do I want after I have once followed the call?” Not the caller, not the constituents, not the charter according to which their meeting was called out, nothing will be to him a sacred, inviolable power. He is authorized for everything that is in his power; he will know no restrictive “authorization,” will not want to be loyal. This, if any such thing could be expected from chambers at all, would give a completely egoistic chamber, severed from all navel-string and without consideration. But chambers are always devout, and therefore one cannot be surprised if so much half-way or undecided, i. e., hypocritical, “egoism” parades in them.

The members of the estates are to remain within the limits that are traced for them by the charter, by the king’s will, etc. If they will not or can not do that, then they are to “step out.” What dutiful man could act otherwise, could put himself, his conviction, and his will as the first thing? Who could be so immoral as to want to assert himself, even if the body corporate and everything should go to ruin over it? People keep carefully within the limits of their authorization; of course one must remain within the limits of his power anyhow, because no one can do more than he can. “My power, or, if it be so, powerlessness, be my sole limit, but authorizations only restraining — precepts? Should I profess this all-subversive view? No, I am a — law-abiding citizen!”

The commonalty professes a morality which is most closely connected with its essence. The first demand of this morality is to the effect that one should carry on a solid business, an honourable trade, lead a moral life. Immoral, to it, is the sharper, the, demirep, the thief, robber, and murderer, the gamester, the penniless man without a situation, the frivolous man. The doughty commoner designates the feeling against these “immoral” people as his “deepest indignation.”

ll these lack settlement, the solid quality of business, a solid, seemly life, a fixed income, etc.; in short, they belong, because their existence does not rest on a secure basis to the dangerous “individuals or isolated persons,” to the dangerous proletariat; they are “individual bawlers” who offer no “guarantee” and have “nothing to lose,” and so nothing to risk. The forming of family ties, e.g., binds a man: he who is bound furnishes security, can be taken hold of; not so the street-walker. The gamester stakes everything on the game, ruins himself and others — no guarantee. All who appear to the commoner suspicious, hostile, and dangerous might be comprised under the name “vagabonds”; every vagabondish way of living displeases him. For there are intellectual vagabonds too, to whom the hereditary dwelling-place of their fathers seems too cramped and oppressive for them to be willing to satisfy themselves with the limited space any more: instead of keeping within the limits of a temperate style of thinking, and taking as inviolable truth what furnishes comfort and tranquillity to thousands, they overlap all bounds of the traditional and run wild with their impudent criticism and untamed mania for doubt, these extravagating vagabonds. They form the class of the unstable, restless, changeable, i.e. of the prolétariat, and, if they give voice to their unsettled nature, are called “unruly fellows.”

Such a broad sense has the so-called proletariat, or pauperism. How much one would err if one believed the commonalty to be desirous of doing away with poverty (pauperism) to the best of its ability! On the contrary, the good citizen helps himself with the incomparably comforting conviction that “the fact is that the good things of fortune are unequally divided and will always remain so — according to God’s wise decree.” The poverty which surrounds him in every alley does not disturb the true commoner further than that at most he clears his account with it by throwing an alms, or finds work and food for an “honest and serviceable” fellow. But so much the more does he feel his quiet enjoyment clouded by innovating and discontented poverty, by those poor who no longer behave quietly and endure, but begin to run wild and become restless. Lock up the vagabond, thrust the breeder of unrest into the darkest dungeon! He wants to “arouse dissatisfaction and incite people against existing institutions” in the State — stone him, stone him!

I'm just saying if workers revolution is alright because they're greater in number, then so is gang rape by that logic.

It is a sympathetic idea. And as we all know, the power lies mostly in the big corporations, not the small corporations. However, there are some objections to this.

1. Markets without restriction have the tendency to form monopolies. This means that you will end up with big businesses later on. You need to regulate the market or else monopolies will form. Of course, a lot of monopolies have been government supported, but there are cases of non-government supported monopolies too.

2. As socialists we are against private ownership. Even small businesses engage in exploitation of the workers. If you have worker owned small enterprises in a market system, then you basically have market socialism.

3. Private property has to be enforced by people with power, thus being against anarchist principles.

4. Those are more objections to markets in general, but competition isn't necessarily good. It can still be a race to the bottom because enterprises that have lower wages can produce cheaper products etc. There is also the problem of pollution and the like.

You have to ask yourself why you'd need markets in an anarchist society anyway.

they've made the government an instrument of their needs, but that doesn't mean they don't need it

the fact that they've assumed state power suggests just the opposite

Worker owned enterprises are also more productive than their capitalist counterparts:

uk.coop/resources/what-do-we-really-know-about-worker-co-operatives

You should add how they are forming cause nobody actually explains how monopoly's happen in the free market. (There are diffrint ways like the monopoly over technology or code) but there is one way that always results in a natural monopoly.

The form of monopoly that always appears is when a company has survived a period of overproduction wich resulted into a decline in price of the products sold and so with price cuts (and production costs cuts if needed) hold itself thoghetter while weaker companys died out cause they couldnt handle the amount of production costs that they had to reduce. With the weaker companies dieng out and so declining the supply on the market the market naturally stablises by having les products on the market and so by the scarcity rule increase in price. When there is to mutch of a demand (Wich lack of supply cause of the recent amount of companies going bankrupt) the price goes more up and the surviving companies are now able to make a big profit. Now cause the market has alot of profit and less competition like before cause of all the companies going bankrupt the market becomes more attractive to other companies! But this is in theory! What mostly happens is that the remaining companies who are now making alot of profit take their opportunity to expand their company and buy more property! But what do they buy? Do they expand their own factory's? No what they do instead is buy up the companys that went bankrupt and employ the people who were working in them and invest in the company with the means to cut costs to make that company also be able to survive when the price falls again. With capital the company just bought an other bankrupt company with experienched people and invested in it to fix its problems to make it so productive as the mother company. Now they own that other company and have succefully expanded their operation and gained a bigger market share. Keep repeating this and expand at other markets and then you have mega corporations! And so on and so on they can invest also more in tech and create even better tech than other companys in the market and own it all for themselfs and totally outcompete the others and so create a monopoly! And then the rising efficiency of capitalism hits its peak and then comes the shittynis!

And when some guy makes the tottaly new thing that can change production rapidly in the market then instead of a new company being created you will have the monopoly company bribing the inventor with a billion or a vew hundred millions. Get some intellectual here and there and monopolise the tech to only use it for your own company!

It's not about moral justification.

You mistake the role of states, it is not needed to control the banks, but to control the people

The accumulation of property precipitates the accumulation of power. In a power vacuum, like the one that ancapism hopes to create, those individuals who accumulate property will quickly dominate your society. All you are doing is attempting a reboot of the old system.

KISS. We are talking about ancapism. This shit ain't that complicated.

...

wew, lad

This corporation may look like a state, have private police like a state, have it's own laws like a state, go to wars with other corporations like a state, but make no mistake.

COPRORATIONS ARE BECOMING STATES!

CYBERPUNK IS NOW!

They'll become corporations. It's inevtable.
Or the system will simply collapse, cause capitalism CANNOT SURVIVE WITHOUT STATE!

What book is this from?

The Ego and His Own by Max Stirner

Capitalism with small businesses is unstable because of natural monopolies.

OH it works, everything works for some definition of "working".

The big ass problem that marks lolberts as kool-aid drooling retards is that they consider themselves a solution to capitalism.

By redefining capitalism.(Everything I like is capitalism, everything I font is crony-capitalism. Also fuck the actual definition of it)
By redefining coercion. (No matter the circumstances , every exchange is voluntary.And so what if it happens in the favor of the "haves")
By redefining aggression (Aggression can only happen from the "have-nots" to the "haves" thus my hierarchy is the only moral position)
By baselessly asserting utopian values into existence.(But in a libertarian society no one would do evil,honest.You can trust in porky(HAHAHAHAHA))

And none of that makes any sense whatsoever, except in the framework of a shill for porky.

So it's no surprise that , when a lolbert expresses their desire to abolish all other powers except capitalism, directing your attention to some self-contradictory utopia while simultaneously demanding action in the now, they get shunned like the stinking intellectual-lepers that they are.
Whether they are aware of that fact or not.

nope

OH it works, everything works for some definition of "working".

The big ass problem that marks lolberts as kool-aid drooling retards is that they consider themselves a solution to capitalism.

By redefining capitalism.(Everything I like is capitalism, everything I don't is crony-capitalism. Also fuck the actual definition)
By redefining coercion. (No matter the circumstances , every exchange is voluntary.And so what if it happens in the favor of the "haves")
By redefining aggression (Aggression can only happen from the "have-nots" to the "haves" thus my hierarchy is the only moral position)
By baselessly asserting utopian values into existence.(But in a libertarian society no one would do evil,honest.You can trust in porky(HAHAHAHAHA))

And none of that makes any sense whatsoever, except in the framework of a shill for porky.

So it's no surprise that , when a lolbert expresses their desire to abolish all other powers except capitalism, directing your attention to some self-contradictory utopia while simultaneously demanding action in the now, they get shunned like the stinking intellectual-lepers that they are.
Whether they are aware of that fact or not.

Fix your site, cripple.

...

Libertarianism does work. You aren't a libertarian. You're a propertarian.