Have you taken the liberty pill yet? #2

>"free" society
>Jews discriminate based on race in order to amass wealth
>Jews use promises of gibs to herd others into supporting political change
>Jews use private wealth to fund activist militarism, buy militias and thugs
>suddenly, libtards are outnumbered and outgunned
>"free" is over
All systems trend toward authoritarianism because that is the most effective survival strategy. Individuals are powerless against groups.

>The kikes control the most wealth
You sound jealous. Free market chads don't get jealous. Quit hatin' and get paid instead of gettin' mad.

Attached: tenor.gif (220x187, 52.94K)

>All systems trend toward authoritarianism because that is the most effective survival strategy.
Except where the system selects for individualism. This is the cardinal power of the free market. Individuals contribute and reward each other voluntarily and without coercion. This system of contributions and rewards allow the free market to act as a mediator of the morality of all it's participants. You might not personally like what morality is represented by the free market. Your choice in the matter is to simply not trade with immoral trading partners. This system of offenses and embargoes allows the free market to police itself by means of the free will of all its participants.

So, basically, you're just a dumbfuck and don't understand simple economic systems. Have you even read Harari?

Absolutely based ameribro. Moral policing by the state, not even once.

Attached: 1567691683114.jpg (900x856, 856.47K)

No system ever selects for individualism. The power of a group is always greater than the power of an individual. There is no morality in a free market, only power and profit. Those who choose to act on morality in a free market are at a competitive disadvantage against those who have no moral qualms and will therefore take profit at any moral cost. Groups of sociopaths colluding against moral agents in the market drives those moral agents to bankruptcy, either financial or moral.

When the sociopaths who have accrued all the wealth decide that they want to form an authoritarian government, the moral individual is utterly powerless to stop them and must either bow to their wishes or face extermination.

Libertardianism is the second most naive ideology, only surpassed by full anarchism. A free market inherently contains within itself the seeds of its own distortion because even the morality of "maintaining a free market" is a handicap on agents who will always be defeated by those who have no problem colluding to end the free market.

The free market selects for individualism. That's why we dig it.
>When the sociopaths who have accrued all the wealth decide that they want to form an authoritarian government, the moral individual is utterly powerless to stop them and must either bow to their wishes or face extermination.
Our legal system is designed such that moral individuals and corporations have an implicit duty to sue to remove anti-competitive regulations.
>Libertardianism is the second most naive ideology
>Ideology
No dummy, this is a policy thread. We are not discussing ideology. We are implementing and trading within free markets. Today.
The free market is putting you directly in your place. Today.

Anarcho-capitalism is the meme school. Grow up kid. No man or market is an island.

Attached: i69P78T.png (900x600, 49.91K)

Hey faggots, you know what freedom is? Freedom is the ability to coom to cartoon porn all day, every day, that's right. Freedom is me being allowed to pay for my wifes abortions because well, we dont need more monthly expenses. Dont tread on me, commis. You know what makes me free? The legal right to sell you heroin and crack at ANY price that market forces dictate. Oh you were spun out and raped a 3 year old? NOT. MY PROBLEM. You're irresponsible for shooting that speed, i was only using my freedom. Also, did you know my ability to charge you compound interest for a loan is THEE definition of a liberty loving people. You queers just can't fathom true freedom.

cringe, commit sudoku

Ok coomer

Attached: 2384EEFC-CB82-476E-92E0-61E808BEF256.jpg (1242x969, 136.62K)

>Our legal system is designed such that moral individuals and corporations have an implicit duty to sue to remove anti-competitive regulations.
Except that the immoral agents have a greater warchest to use in bribing judges and jurors as well as influencing public opinion. When the sociopaths have used their influence to make the public stop caring about what is an isn't legal, the original design of the legal system has no bearing and moral agents once again get fucked.

Free markets select for collective sociopathy. Groups of sociopaths colluding against normal people restrained by their morals and ideals are more competitive and thus will inevitably come to dominate the market, and through the market, society. Once that dominion has been established, the principles of a free market are eroded by the creation of authoritarian systems and anti-competitive regulation which benefit those who have established their financial hegemony. THIS is what has been implemented over the past few hundred years. The very idea that we exist within a free market environment is nothing more than an illusion created to further the advantage of those in power.

The oligarchy is keeping you in your place, the place you have been since you were born.

Liberty is just an illusion.

Attached: 1573676308858.jpg (817x721, 87.96K)

Kikes use the state to socially engineer, retard. Do you actually think we'd have as many simps and whores if public schooling was abolished? As many leech Shaniquas if we didn't reward them with taxpayer money for being single mother of 5+ kids?

Attached: 1583907735144.png (1268x463, 151.76K)

>Do you actually think we'd have as many simps and whores if public schooling was abolished?
This right here. Public schools are simp factories.

bump

Attached: 800px-Jacob_Hornberger_by_Gage_Skidmore_(cropped)_(2).jpg (800x1039, 207.27K)

>The oligarchy is keeping you in your place
If you fear them you will never name them.
If you never name them you can never usurp them.
Good goy.

I fail to see a better name for that group consisting of Jews, foreign elites, and race traitors. The problem is not "the Jews" because even if every Jew disappeared overnight, the treasonous sort who have colluded with them over the centuries would still remain and the system of control would continue on as if nothing had happened. The Jews may be overrepresented in the oligarchy compared to their total population size, but they are not the sole masters of this world.

Attached: when-your-political-philosophy-makes-so-much-sense-that-its-9668368.png (500x576, 109.19K)

Ok ill bite, whats the age of consent in AnCap fantasy land?

Libertarians ideas are half baked. You guys dont even take your core principle of self-ownership to its logical conclusion.

The right to oneself implies the right to the fruit of one's labor/property, the right to the fruit of one's labor implies the right to labor, and the right to labor implies the right to labor -- somewhere/the commons in general. Hence John Locke's proviso that one has "property" in land only to the extent that there is "enough, and as good left in common for others." When there is not, land begins to have rental value.
The rental value of land reflects the extent to which Locke's proviso has been violated, thereby making community-collection and taxation of ground rent not only a just tax but also a necessary means of upholding the right of private property.

Attached: correct.png (1024x565, 57.82K)

Locke is dead. We've revised most of his work and come to the determination that all fucking rent seekers must fucking hang.

Also consider the inherent constraints that land resources were under when Locke was actively writing. Then consider the depth and breadth of stop-and-visit country.
The myth of land scarcity is 100% a cognitive illusion experienced by city dwellers.

Henry George would be proud

Attached: seeker.png (750x726, 873.64K)

You really going to argue that land is not in fixed supply?

Time to get in early on some volcanic islands i guess

Attached: moneyman.jpg (500x698, 95.07K)

>Ok ill bite, whats the age of consent in AnCap fantasy land?

Attached: TheRightsofChildren.jpg (1280x5000, 2.59M)

>i have no actual answer so here ill post a novel that ive never read nor will anyone else read.

Yikes you really understand your own worldview dont you

>Memeflag
>Wants less freedom
Kikes are psyoping ibertarian threads because small government and sound money are a threat to the system

Can I get a tldr?

>authoritarianism has failed time and time again throughout history
Yeah? Well so has freedom, you turbofaggot.
In "free" society people form gangs and the strongest gang will be in power. You're just reinventing the wheel and think you're clever. It's all been done and tried before. We already have a system built that seems to be better than the rest. Now we just fix a few problems with it and we are done. Don't think you can build a better one by starting from scratch.

Attached: 59401c14574c5.png (900x600, 59.71K)

trips

Libertarians can work together for a common cause you fucking muppet

>Yikes you really understand your own worldview dont you

>Hurr any answer you give will be construed to promote child rape.

If you truly gave a shit, instead of baiting, you would read it.

>The fact that the guardian-ward relationship depends on the diminished capacity has an important implication for children's rights. Diminished capacity is a matter of degree; a 13-year-old's capacity for rational decision-making is not as impaired a a 4-year-old's, which in turn is not as impaired as a newborn's. So it is unrealistic to have an absolute cut-off age, below which a child is completely under his guardian's authority (and unable to engage in any binding financial transactions, from buying a house to buying a pack of gum) and above which he is suddenly a fully responsible agent. The older a child is, the stronger the presumption becomes that a child's expressed will is an accurate reflection of the will he would have if unimpaired. So, for example, a teenager's desire to have an ear pierced has to be given more weight than a toddler's desire to have an ear pierced; and a rational capacity that is not up to giving informed consent in the case of purchasing a house may be quite up to the task of purchasing gum. These sorts of grey areas could probably be handled better by evolving court precedents than by statutory fiat.

KYS, retard.

see

Authoritarianism only works if you always agree 100% with everything the authority does. The moment you dont, you are fucked.

Authoritarianism only work if you are the authority and you have no soul

libertarian

What kind of freedom are you talking about?
The freedom to jerk off to porn?
The freedom to engage immoral business practices?
The freedom to normalize pedophilia?

Attached: 1578203110910.png (1262x2094, 951.74K)

bumpity

Attached: serveimage.jpg (657x282, 93.8K)

>What kind of freedom are you talking about?
>The freedom to jerk off to porn?
>The freedom to engage immoral business practices?
>The freedom to normalize pedophilia?

wew lad

cool loaded questions bro

wether land is fixed in supply or not is not the core issue of locke,
>enough, and as good left in common for others.
Why? such that the common may remain self-sufficient. The issue of land scarcity has two faces.
1. Perspective of land scarcity is greatly exaggerated by the desire for people to crowd in on each other to more conveniently trade. It is this desire that creates the excessive rent-seeking by everyone in densely populated areas. This desire raises rents, and creates ever more creative methods of rent-seeking. The island of Manhattan is a prime example.
2. Perspective of land utility is greatly suppressed by the desire for city people to trade their most immediately useful good for as high a price as they can bear. As a result the longer-term thinking required to operated in a less dense economic zone is atrophied and unavailable to the analytical processes of the city dweller.

Essentially. The free market only exists where rent-seeking is not the default behavior. Which is to say, never at all within the Disneyland economies of roach-motel cities.

What a fag.
Back then you either worked or you starved.
No supermarkets back then.

have a (you) libertybro for trying to keep the thread alive

Attached: 1486340834252.jpg (381x351, 58.21K)

Land is not fixed supply.

Attached: Indoor.jpg (1024x768, 197.32K)

Why do you think that is?
It's cause government prevents reality from punishing bad behaviour.
Capitalism is a self correcting system, that's why it'ìs the harshest.

yes that's the best part of it, it a system of profit and loss, success and failure. When the state comes in and prevents certain companies from collapsing it breaks the balance. It's like taking away your immune system when you are sick.

But they cannot promise gibs to the masses, thus they will always be at a disadvantage against those who are willing to compromise libertarian values. Why would incompetents who could never compete with libertarians in a free market support the maintenance of a free market rather than the implementation of a new system which (promises to, usually as a lie) benefits them? The same factors which such people losers in a free market, such as idiocy or poor emotional control, also make them unable to see through the false promises of those who seek to use them as fodder to change society (or as fodder to maintain the status quo, as is the case today).

Libertarianism is self-defeating because it frames the world in terms of efficiency, yet is itself less efficient than authoritarian collectivism. The core ideal of being unable to force others to work toward a common cause makes the ideology inferior to those wherein coercion is acceptable. What's worse is that the greater the moral character of the populace at the onset of a free market, the greater the advantage for those with no morals in seeking wealth which translates into a greater advantage in manipulating society.

Libertarianism is no better than hippies rambling about "Let's all just get along!" It's the same basic philosophy, but for autists who like numbers instead of emotions.

No invisible hands is going to fix immoral behaviors. This is just a another way of legitimizing usury as a way of making wealth.

>But they cannot promise gibs to the masses, thus they will always be at a disadvantage against those who are willing to compromise libertarian values. Why would incompetents who could never compete with libertarians in a free market support the maintenance of a free market rather than the implementation of a new system which (promises to, usually as a lie) benefits them?

Why not? The market gives away free shit all the time. Likewise, charities do the same. Also, your conception of the market as it is not is not even a remote approximation of what a freed market truly looks like. You can't make that presumption. Freed markets would constantly be driving costs as low as possible to remain competitive. At some point, most everything that wasn't extremely scarce could cost little to nothing.

>Libertarianism is self-defeating because it frames the world in terms of efficiency, yet is itself less efficient than authoritarian collectivism. The core ideal of being unable to force others to work toward a common cause makes the ideology inferior to those wherein coercion is acceptable. What's worse is that the greater the moral character of the populace at the onset of a free market, the greater the advantage for those with no morals in seeking wealth which translates into a greater advantage in manipulating society.

Less efficient than authoritarian collectivism? Hurr, let's kill everyone! That solves all our problems! Fuck your "common cause". That is the ambiguous shit of your faggot fascist overlords.

>Muh morals

Nigger, we live in a highly state-run society where corporations dominate the market landscape. It looks far more like your fascism or communism that it does a freed market. All this "degeneracy" you complain about is a product of this society that you support. Go suck dicks elsewhere.

It's like the whole ideology just exist to legitimize the usury, rent and profit.

You should know capitalism and the current political organization, what you call corporatism and state, are all but one thing.
Without a state, who is going to make people be good peasants and respect the private property of their masters?

My point has never been that fascism or communism are inherently more moral than libertarianism, only that authoritarianism of some kind is inevitable.

In a free market, there will always be losers because of natural differences in capability. When they see you with your luxury goods that they will never obtain, they will stop giving a fuck about what the markets say is fair and start listening to the man who is offering them a gun and hundreds of compatriots who also want to take your wealth by force.

Free market zealots will never give away enough in charity to satisfy the greed of the losers because those zealots themselves are greedy. The effectiveness of a free market in creating wealth for the winners is precisely what makes it a breeding ground for discontent. At that point, it doesn't matter how good your business sense is, because someone with better business sense has turned the plebs into an army demanding market reforms.

The only way to defend a free market from a mob takeover is to create an authority to keep that mob in check. Once that authority exists, the most efficient and effective market practice becomes to be the one who controls it in order to use it to implement anti-competitive regulation. Those who are morally opposed to that method are disadvantaged against those who aren't. Those who are morally opposed to manipulating authority to stir up the mob to justify the expansion of authority are disadvantaged against those who aren't.

In a free market, morals are the natural anti-competitive regulation, meaning that those with the least morals will always rise to the top and convert their wealth into the very power that the moral agents refuse to use.

Authoritarianism and collectivism are inevitable because groups will always be more powerful than individuals. This means that basing one's ideology on free market principles is utterly pointless. It is committing oneself to being defeated.

This sounds like a dream come true, it's too bad Yas Forums users are incapable of getting along.

Attached: 1489540126053.png (1231x441, 25.03K)

>i just copied an image of someone else's shit words
and whoever typed that shit is stupid. you're stupider for saving it. You can't have truth without freedom, nigger. Because the truth is, no matter how much you lay claim to your organizational, hierarchical status, the less truth matters. Fuck these jew kikes and their perversion of everything.

>Without a state, who is going to make people be good peasants and respect the private property of their masters?

That is precisely why we're in agreement. Freed peoples will bury corporate and state interests.

Attached: ride the tiger.jpg (1042x596, 325.2K)

They will also bury every (big) business man, investor, shareholder, landlord, ... interests too.
You cannot expect freed people to respect the principle (private property) that exist to protect their masters power.

He isn't wrong. Until we kill all the Jews, pedos and traitors there can be no freedom.

>people won't naturally cooperate unless the government forces them to at gunpoint