What are the best arguments against lolbertarians?

...

I doubt there's anything similar out there.

It's a compilation of anything that deals with libertarianism from a critical point of view. Most of the writing comes from other sources, and I don't know which one in particular that dude is responding to.

Either way, there's some really good stuff there.

We don't defend the property rights of giant corporations and you would know that if you actually gave a shit about what we had to say instead of screaming "kill the porkies!"

Except you literally do, retard.

[citation needed]

Haven't been to a libertarian gathering in the last half decade, have you?

I suggest "liberty on the rocks" if you have one near you.

Any SFL regional conference is a good second choice, but those are mostly in the fall.

Exposure to lolbertarian "philosophy" is part of the reason many of us even drifted to the far left.

I would retroactively end my own existence in a heartbeat if I could kill my 15 year old Randroid self.

At the risk of sounding like a shit-tier Molyneux-fag…

"Not an argument."

Technically "not a citation."

Why aren't you on pol?

We're not having an argument to begin with.

How do you differentiate between what constitutes private property held by big business and private property held by small business? When will you start shooting at me if I collectivize it?

Because Holla Forums is retarded, and imkampfy is an irredeemable sack of flaming shit with a swastika stain on it.

Original BO was the only good BO over there.

So then why are you here if this is specifically meant for leftists?

Typically by the clear paper trail leading directly to a mayor, governor, or senator's office, or the fact that their entire business would collapse in a matter of months after the state is abolished, allowing others to swoop in and fulfill the needs that they had previously met worker-owned or hierarchical structure. This can be seen quite clearly with airplanes during periods of deregulation.

When you throw a brick through the small business' window, or hold someone at gunpoint when they don't want to join your collective.

What, do you want a torture chamber or something?

Faggot, calm your autism. You don't have to be a leftist to post here. Rightards are welcome so long as they behave themselves and refrain from shitposting too hard.

you had to fuck it up

Any private property falls apart without some kind of force behind it.
Should the state fall, Boeing can just hire PMCs: plenty of people would still need planes and guns.

This ignores the vast history of capitalism where capitalism grew huge in spite of the fact that it had to loosely cooperate with and even compete with the feudalist state as in the case of East Indian Trade Company.

I don't think this is a very technical definition of "small" and "big" business, I don't see what it has to do with anarchism, or why hierarchy is liberty when it only dominates a few.

I don't bother with trying to figure out which variation of the word torture chamber is able to bypass the Holla Forums filter on the word hug box.

I asked why a capitalist-supporter liked to be here? That's pretty much it.

There's an assumption here that the only means through which corporations become "too big" is by association with politicians, which is true, but only in the sense the state is a nostrum against capitalist accumulation. Government is not the cause of giant corporations and monopoly, it's just not strong enough to stop them, because it can be usurped. It's like blaming a flawed medicine for the disease.

Capitalism had a state alongside it since its inception. Private property exists only due to the state. The state is there to protect class interests. It can play cute and give the people it rules nice things like welfare etc. but this is simply to calm the masses. Ultimately, the state is the extension and sword of the private sector's will. It's always been like that.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with anarchism. It runs completely contrary to anarchism's history, writers and revolutions.

Monopolies have often arisen out of purposeful overproduction to run down sales prices, decrease profits, and make sure that smaller companies die.
It's a risky maneuvre, but it's happened a few times.
Bill Gates even got convicted for doing something along these lines as far as I remember.

Show them this link and then tell them that all of their candidates and all of the candidates they'll ever field are in the same mold as this: nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/gary-johnson-swindle/

These.

The Law, property, (You), all spooks.

Yeah, I mean, I can appreciate egoists and their individualist absolutism. Perfectly fine.

AnCap is just anti-state not actually against hierarchy.

I think they kind of think they are their own greatest adversary right now.

holy shit Johnson's weird

...

okay what the fuck lolberts why are you even more cringy than maoists?

That they claim to be against the state even though most of them openly advocate for it's perpetual existence. Even the "An"Caps fail to see the contradiction between being anti-socialist and anti-state. They're also anti-individualists that base their entire philosophy off of the collective worship of wealth. They're just pathetic, money is pathetic and people who live for it are the lowest kind of human.

1. Postulating property as the most fundamental right is intellectually bankrupt. It treats property as something that a priori exists and ignores the reality of its creation, which inherently entails the use of force.
Something which is now property must either have come into being as property or at some point have been made property. Making non-property, which is freely available for use by all, into property, wherein you assert the right to deny its use to others, is inherently coercive and requires the use of violence. This applies priarily to raw materials and land. (Modern landowners essentially only acquire their land by buying it from others; this right to sell it comes from and presupposes ownership and thus a previous owner - you need only trace it back to the first owner in the chain, who of necessity acquired it through force.) If something comes into being as property (i.e. manufactured goods) you consider the ownership of the raw materials and the land they were on. You also have the question of the means of production, which are themselves manufactured products coming from certain owned raw materials and other means of production.
In practice this ownership is at every level built on violence and serves to deny the right of people to the product of their labor through inherently coercive contracts and agreements.

2. Capitalism is itself inherently and unavoidably a death march towards cronyism and statism.
The reality of self-justification within capitalism pushes an enterprise (thus, the capitalists underlying it) towards ever greater accumulation of market power and ever greater self-serving subversion of competition and the free market. Governments in the pre-capitalist era were uncontroversially instruments of class rule, and "democratic" revolutions did not destroy but usurp this manner of class rule towards their own ends. The most stark example is the modern drug cartel. Violence is used methodically to destroy competition, subvert free drug markets and break free labor markets for their growers, chemists and even the "security forces" themselves. It's much like a frog in a slowly heating pot of water - their workers making locally optimal decisions do not reach global optima en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greedy_algorithm The result is a local monopoly on force to rival the bourgeois state all but superficially.
The drug trade, alcohol sales during prohibition, etc. are violent not because of some inherent "criminality" of drugs but because they are declared illegitimate businesses by the bourgeois government at large, and cannot participate in the existing state apparatus to violently assert their will over competitors and others. It is for this reason, rather than the "government is assaulting their property rights and they need to defend themselves" line, that they form, at great cost and great risk, their own states. Just as the coercion and notions of control that underlied the world's first states.
Adam Smith himself decried this sort of concentration of market power. "Anarcho"-capitalists would likely reject him as a socialist were he around today.
I do accept that freer markets are almost always better, though corrected as necessary for externalities. The nature of "freer" markets is however quite backwards within this clique.

here you go, OP
critiques.us/index.php?title=Critiques_Of_Libertarianism
the link that rekt every single lolbert ive ever met

- Nick Land

Discuss.
inb4

The fact that they pride themselves with understanding capitalist economics, while having a ridiculously childish view of it.
The fact that it's clear they've never read smith.
Economists are to the left of them (in the more regulation = left sense).

Feels good man

Reality.

fixed

I think it's simplistic to assert rights are neither created nor destroyed as per rights contingent on an object are not well-defined when that object does not exist, and objects themselves (in the sense of utility) certainly are created and destroyed.
It would be better to assert nature abhors a vacuum, that we are practically speaking forced into Pareto optimal configurations and operate within that framework (with violence.)

They'll just do mental gymnastics to make it fit with their ideology. See /r/ancap reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/12wn85/how_does_ancap_feel_about_max_stirner/

Made me vomit a little.

Ron Paul already dislikes/hates Clinton and Trump.

The ones that are actual arguments as opposed to the ones that are not arguments.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem

In a libertarian society you can practice socialism and communism all you want, as long as you don't violate the non-aggression principle. Why don't you grant us that same right? Why will you not leave us alone?

nobody would want to work for you in a predominantly ancom society

...

Present reality in most of the world.

Why won't you grant me that same right though?

Because it's based on violence.

Private property violates the non-aggression principle.

This is the most fundamental contradiction in anarcho-captialsim.

The same reason we won't let you hold slaves.

I'm sure you are familiar with the libertarian view that, since you own your own body, you own what your body produces. Mixing your labour with resources produces private property. If you go into the woods to an unowned piece of land, clear it and build a house, the house is now yours. Do you agree with me so far?

Slavery is not voluntary though, while choosing to work for someone else is.

I like these quotes:

"Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. The affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions. It is only under the shelter of the civil magistrate that the owner of that valuable property, which is acquired by the labour of many years, or perhaps of many successive generations, can sleep a single night in security. He is at all times surrounded by unknown enemies, whom, though he never provoked, he can never appease, and from whose injustice he can be protected only by the powerful arm of the civil magistrate continually held up to chastise it. The acquisition of valuable and extensive property, therefore, necessarily requires the establishment of civil government. Where there is no property, or at least none that exceeds the value of two or three days' labour, civil government is not so necessary."
-Adam Smith, the Wealth of Nations

"Under the new conditions Individualism will be far freer, far finer, and far more intensified than it is now. I am not talking of the great imaginatively-realised Individualism of such poets as I have mentioned, but of the great actual Individualism latent and potential in mankind generally. For the recognition of private property has really harmed Individualism, and obscured it, by confusing a man with what he possesses. It has led Individualism entirely astray. It has made gain not growth its aim. So that man thought that the important thing was to have, and did not know that the important thing is to be. The true perfection of man lies, not in what man has, but in what man is."
-Oscar Wilde

This is some >>>/fringe/ tier bullshit.

No, you are your body. Your body isn't the property of some metaphysical essence that constitutes the ego, your body is literally you.
Not under capitalism, fam. Under capitalism, you own only your individual abstract labor power, and what your body produces is immediately the property of whoever claims the land or tools your body used to produce that commodity.

spooky

This is not produced solely by your body. The mixing with natural resources negates any sort of claim of exclusivity, since all the things you "produce" contain at least some elements you cannot claim exclusive entitlement to. Example: If I piss into the ocean, do I own the ocean?

Also, the capitalist's place all the emphasis on the *first* labor, not the *amount* of labor, which is strange if the amount of labor added is suppose to be the amount of "yourself" in something.

And unless you live on a deserted island, chances are anything you "produce" has some level of joint-production involved, at the very least from the society that raised you and fed you, and gave you technological knowledge.

how deep in the ideological trashcan do you need to be to consider human beings property (even if they supposedly "own" themselves)jfc

Private property is a relation between exploiter and exploited. In capitalism you produce commodities.

I enjoy having exclusive control over my body, but that doesn't mean that I *ought* to have exclusive control it as some sort of normative mandate.

One could easily imagine scenarios where the best course of action would be to disregard a person's bodily "sovereignty".

A house is not private property.

Unemployment is not a choice. It is a threat.

Much like religion, medical quackery, or conspiracy theories, all of the typical lolbert appeals to the ignorant or duped, having changed little in the intervening years, have been debunked and hashed out in great detail decades ago on the predecessors to modern imageboards and pastebins. Here's the best two, depending on the type of victim:

For the general public:
world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html

For a socialist audience:
infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionF

Poor guy

Such Anarchism.

...

...

Ownership of a house can very much be private property. Appealing to ancaps with the "personal property" distinction is a mistake. They are looking for a loophole/contradiction, and socialists using the word "property" is going to give them that, at least in their minds.

After they bury the notion of exclusive access as a natural right, then we can talk about resource allocation.

Ancapism is self-contradictory at a kindergarten level. It does not require any complex argument to refute.

Your brain would certainly be the essence that constitutes you, the rest is merely supporting infrastructure. Yet I'm sure you would agree that limbs and organs, such as the kidneys, are yours and yours only? Otherwise I'd like to see you make a case for the right of some people to ownership of others, which also withstands the test of universality.

The land or the tools don't appear out of thin air. Land has to be processed in some way before it is of use, whether that means physically clearing the land or building the required infrastructure, such as roads, to access it. Tools don't appear out of thin air either, but have to be made by someone. Under capitalism you own your body, and therefore have the option to rent it out in exchange for money, also called work. If you don't like working for someone else you can save up enough money to get your own tools and land.

That's a good point that I'll admit has no straight answer. I argue that you can only claim as much land as you yourself are able to work yourself or in collaboration with others, and that you have to actively use it. If it sits vacant for a given period, it would be up for someone else to start using as theirs. This is similar to how the common law used to work with regards to property. Ultimately, of course, it comes down to what your neighbors are willing to recognize.

The wealth we inherit, directly and indirectly, in the form of knowledge, has largely been created by people who are now dead. I'm not sure how that can be owed to people in the present? Food and upbringing comes for free from your parents, who chose to have you, along with the implicit agreement that you will take care of them when they get older. You don't owe them anything though.

I own my body, and I can assure you I didn't exploit myself in the acquisition of it. All my possessions were traded for voluntarily, without any exploitation.

That's interesting, but how do you make such a claim on someone else's body universal?

Can you give an example of such a scenario?

Why not?

Then make yourself more valuable to employers or employ yourself.

It is not something that is usually used to extract surplus labour from others.

In other, more simplistic (and not completely accurate) terms, it's something you own and use for you.
It is not something you own and have others use for you.
thus it is not private property

The unemployed don't choose not to work. They actively want to work, because most people don't want to starve.

But as inequality rises and the bar of entry does the same, it is simply becoming less and less feasible to start a business of your own.

That doesn't change the fact that getting to choose between different hierarchs is not libery.

The same argument can litterally be applied to feudalism though. Not all feudalism had serfdom.
I doubt you'd support the rule of a king, though.
I certainly hope you would not.

Then it's not private property. If you really want to call your body property, ignoring that you are your body and calling it "ownership" is totally meaningless and completely unlike any other ownership you are capable of, it would be personal property.

This. Private vs. personal property is pretty basic stuff.

What if you rent out your body indefinetely? WHat if that happened because you had no choice? Wouldn't that be *gasp* SLAVERY?

Kek, when the ancap revolution comes I'm going to piss everywhere and call it my property.

From this piece: slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

As a thought experiment, let’s consider aquaculture (fish farming) in a lake. Imagine a lake with a thousand identical fish farms owned by a thousand competing companies. Each fish farm earns a profit of $1000/month. For a while, all is well.
But each fish farm produces waste, which fouls the water in the lake. Let’s say each fish farm produces enough pollution to lower productivity in the lake by $1/month.

A thousand fish farms produce enough waste to lower productivity by $1000/month, meaning none of the fish farms are making any money. Capitalism to the rescue: someone invents a complex filtering system that removes waste products. It costs $300/month to operate. All fish farms voluntarily install it, the pollution ends, and the fish farms are now making a profit of $700/month – still a respectable sum.

But one farmer (let’s call him Steve) gets tired of spending the money to operate his filter. Now one fish farm worth of waste is polluting the lake, lowering productivity by $1. Steve earns $999 profit, and everyone else earns $699 profit.

Everyone else sees Steve is much more profitable than they are, because he’s not spending the maintenance costs on his filter. They disconnect their filters too.

Once four hundred people disconnect their filters, Steve is earning $600/month – less than he would be if he and everyone else had kept their filters on! And the poor virtuous filter users are only making $300. Steve goes around to everyone, saying “Wait! We all need to make a voluntary pact to use filters! Otherwise, everyone’s productivity goes down.”

Everyone agrees with him, and they all sign the Filter Pact, except one person who is sort of a jerk. Let’s call him Mike. Now everyone is back using filters again, except Mike. Mike earns $999/month, and everyone else earns $699/month. Slowly, people start thinking they too should be getting big bucks like Mike, and disconnect their filter for $300 extra profit…

A self-interested person never has any incentive to use a filter. A self-interested person has some incentive to sign a pact to make everyone use a filter, but in many cases has a stronger incentive to wait for everyone else to sign such a pact but opt out himself. This can lead to an undesirable equilibrium in which no one will sign such a pact.

No a mutualist, but that's not fair.

I'm OK with leaving libertarians alone if they don't produce harmful externalities (i.e. CO2 and other water/air pollution) and don't start a war with the rest of the world.

But I think that radical libertarianism will either quickly destroy itself (because of externalities/tragedy of commons/inapplicability of 1-2 welfare theorems to real world humans and markets) or degenerate into crony state-run capitalism we have now.

Think of the justification today for the yanks invading the Confederacy instead of abandoning them to their fate. Would you really want to be living next to Somalia or whatever, even if they kept their depredations to themselves?

Don't we have Arrow impossibility theorem that have debunked them already?

They do apply in the "real" world. Abstraction does not preclude that. Practical scientific progress has grown to rely more and more on pure mathematics - many of the key equations of fluid dynamics are immediate consequences of the generalized Stokes' Theorem, and rational drug design is helped immensely by quantum theories, which functional analysis emerged to support. We should as marxists/anarchists seek quantitative understanding where possible.
When applying the logically rigorous "If A then B" statements of math, the problems come with underestimation of what the hypothesis A and overestimation of what the conclusions B state. In particular, Pareto optimality is a very weak condition of efficiency that doesn't account for individual welfare or experience.
The tragedy of the commons is an important

If you can demonstrate how Arrow's theorem contradicts the first two theorems of welfare economics you have a Nobel waiting for you. It's often considered the third.

They have a neoclassical assumption that firms are passive price-takers, which doesn't hold in the real world.

Yeah.Then we deal with questions of what circumstances if any can make it true, and of what hypotheses we can reasonably entertain in making additional models.

That the conclusions logically follow from the assumptions is still true, regardless of the fitness of the assumptions to workers' reality

I'm glad you are skeptical of absentee ownership. I was formerly an ancap myself, and the problems with justifying absentee owners (and the problem of never being able to fully incorporate external objects into the same level as "bodily self") were some of the earliest steps towards me abandoning the philosophy.

It's less a question of whether you "owe" your community anything, but whether you have justification to exclude them from something based on that thing being made "entirely by yourself". Because *you* are not made entirely by yourself, nothing you make can be said to be the result of exclusively your own labor. I'm not saying you have a "debt to society" or something ridiculous like that. I'm saying that any claim of something being made exclusively by one person is, in a basic biological sense, false. A person is the literal product of their community.

There's no need to make any sort of claim universal. The question is "what is best for humanity?" and the answer is constantly changing based on the context. For the most part, doing bodily harm to others is bad. But if a person was, random hypothetical here, blocking access to the only source of water for a tribe of people wandering around a desert dying of thirst, then even if he had build the source of water with his own two hands, his "bodily sovereignty" is not worth the lives of so many people. I would kill him in a heartbeat for the tribe of people to have access.

The question we should always keep in mind is: "does this rule help us achieve our desired goals?" Instead of "what are the morally correct rules we can filter every question through to determine the correct course of action?"

I've never met a libertarian that actually supports Johnson apart from the retards at Reason.

Maybe he's better than Trump/Clinton, but he's no libertarian. This is the same guy who thinks that jewish bakers should be forced to bake cakes for nazis

I was prepared to read through this with a pretty open mind, but shit like this doesn't give me a lot of faith fam
The very first link on the page, meant to define libertarianism, doesn't even mention the NAP, the one thing that defines a libertarian. That by itself removes the abusers, scammers and frauds from being libertarians.
Am I reading a leftist critique of libertarianism or a Jezebel article

Sounds like a shitty critique, sorry that was posted. Try this one instead, and please pardon the author's snarky opening:

web.archive.org/web/20160316182027/http://mattbruenig.com/2013/10/03/non-aggression-never-does-any-argumentative-work-at-any-time/

Trolley problem thread? Trolley problem thread.

Funny, because that's the best argument against leftism. Capitalism prevails every time.

That's enough for me

...

...

...

...

Libertads are usually coming from an individualist perspective, so you need to prove that capitalism is anti-individualist.

Just use Stirner and Wilde to illustrate your point that capitalism exploits labour.

...

For ayncraps, point out that private property is every bit as much a an invention of governments as the welfare state they oppose. It's incoherent to support the right of landlords to make rules and charge rents, and oppose the right of sovereigns to do likewise.

For those who accept the legitimacy of governments, ask who benefits from their proposed policies.

"Communism is good in theory but breaks down in practice"

Here's the thing, they can exist at the same time.
There are two sides to both leftism and rightism, if they are both libertine they can exist together. If one of them is of the authoritarian school, then the authoritarian one of the two would seek to control all areas around it.
You could have one town be a libretarian capitalist town. Another town could be a libertarian socialist. They both are libretine in nature. They would leave each other alone.
But like I said, if the capitalist one was authoritarian capitalist, or the socialist one was authoritarian socialist, then they could not co-exist.

No. Don't be naive.

Just saying "no" is not an argument. People can just, you know, leave each other alone.

Like I said in you have to consider the fact that AnCaps would inevitably degenerate into either a single state-like corporation, or feuding warlords. Even if they kept to themself, like Franco's Spain, would you be able to restrain yourself from intervening once they turned into a humanitarian catastrophe?

Anarcho-capitalism is a fucking impossible contradiction in terms. It won't get the chance to degenerate into anything, because it literally cannot ever exist.

It's almost literally the system corporate colonies like Congo, India, and Hudson's Bay used. It's pretty much practically what most of the industrialized world in the Gilded Age amounted to for most people.