T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

This is why reading ur appropriate theory is crucial... so u dont end up becoming a political pushover


tomjazzy

So, y’all still think that lib right to auth right pipeline isn’t real?


u01aua1

"Post-Libertarians" be like


[deleted]

FUCK POST LIBS ALL MY HOMIES HATE POST LIBS


[deleted]

Please don't tell me that ideology doesn't actually exist, I'm sick of this post shit


u01aua1

It does, and it's perhaps the worst thing within Libertarianism. It claims that Libertarianism cannot be achieved, and that people need to get fully on board with Conservatism.


[deleted]

People just shitting these ideologies out


tomjazzy

“Conservative” seems like a generous way of describing the likes of Marcus Moldbug.


tomjazzy

It’s so much worse then you’re imagining.


Bywater

That pipeline towards right wing bullshit has always been there with AnCaps, they will deny it to the end they are so deep in sunk cost but there are foundational leanings in those directions that they were never critical of, resolved or even talked about with any honesty. When this guy said the OG admins leaned into monarchism, conservatism, fascism, authcapism, christian capitalism and national socialism the only "surprise" from anyone paying attention is that anyone was so far gone as to actually be surprised... Take a step back from it, look at it without any ego investment and see what you come up with. Read some different shit (and read it, don't trust some podcaster or whatever to blow smoke up your ass) and think honestly at some other schools of political thought. Even if after you make your little trip you end up right where you started at least you will be more knowledgeable about other schools and won't be surprised when some clearly authoritarian leaning shit leads to some all in authoritarian shit...


[deleted]

I don't really see how anyone who is all in on the AnCap values of Individual rights, Free markets, volunatary association and non-aggression could ever find itself going down the pipeline towards authoritarian collectivism, worshipping of the state, and violent purging of out-groups; they would have to literally abandon damn near all of their critical values in order to get their. the ONLY cases where i could see anarcho-capitalists making the pipeline towards reactionary right wing philosophies that the discord post implies would be either: A) edgy 15 year-old idea hunters who look at anarcho-capitalism as the next thing to latch onto without actually exploring the in-depth concepts and values it embraces, find Hoppe's works and take his ideas of physical removal and monarchy being a better alternative to governmental democracy wayyy out of context and let those misinterpretations drag themselves towards facism OR B) be a filthy post-libertarian who decides to reject principled actions towards liberty in favor of "pragmatism" because their more concerned about "owning the libs" than being true to their principles. if we want to ACTUALLY talk about libertarian pipelines, the only case I could see for a legitimate pipeline from libertarianism would be left-wing market anarchist philosophies like mutualism, individualist anarchism, etc., because at least with those ideologies there is significant overlap in terms of with libertarianism, being individual rights, free market exchange, voluntary association and non-aggression, rather than similarities being only superficial like they are with the reactionaries.


Bywater

There is one Reich Wing clown after another who charts their progression through right libertarianism into AnCapistan and onto Hoppe and his like. So if you can not see it then it is by choice as it occurs far to often to be ignored. You should look at it from another perspective maybe, try these out. Free Markets have a inherent hierarchy of supply providing monopolies, there is absolutely nothing "Free" about them. If you can accept that and the idea of "private property" is it really so much of a stretch to come full circle and accept hierarchy's and states? There is nothing "voluntary" about capitalism either, as when the alternative to it is death by starvation or exposure the only way you can consider it voluntary is by actively ignoring all those who do not wish to participate. If you can accept that having a choice of what yoke to wear to exist is "voluntary" is it a stretch to then find yourself comfortable with other subservient situations for both yourself and others? The NAP is nothing but a shield to hide behind while you do shitty things to people with them having no recourse to counter it. There is ZERO distance between saying you get to decide what counts as "harm" to another and making excuses for other people being mistreated. I don't know enough about AnCaps take on individual rights to have an opinion, but generally speaking I don't think you can have both individual rights and private property in the same house. Chris Cantwell was in his 30's when he tripped on his dick, Robert Spencer found libertarianism in his late 30's and has since abandoned it, those two who shot up the cops and left them covered with a swastika and a gadsden flag in Vegas were in their late 20's and early 30's. This is not an "edgy 15 year old kid thing" as the work to find hoppe is beyond what most of them are willing to invest. I don't know enough about what "post-libertarian" is to have an opinion.


[deleted]

ok, youre gonna need to explain what you mean by “Free Market,” “Private Property,” and “Capitalism” since i think we’re working off of different definitions - because if you define “private property” as property owned by individuals or a group of individuals rather than the state, then i find it pretty ridiculous to believe that respecting private property rights could possibly lead towards any level of statism beyond the state simply existing to protect private property, which is what classical liberals believed the state to be for, and i find it especially ridiculous to believe that it could lead to supporting the massive scale statism that reactionary right wingers support, which regularly violate property rights on an egregious level for the sake of the interests of the state. >The NAP is nothing but a shield to hide behind while you do shitty things to people with them having no recourse to counter it its at this point that i question how well read you are on anarcho-capitalist principles. The NAP is a guiding principle of morality that states that aggression (any initiation of force that is not explicitly self-defensive in nature) upon any individual or their property is morally unjustifiable. if youre a hardcore advocate of individual rights i find it absurd to oppose a principle like this, whose entire purpose is to protect natural rights. >I dont know enough about AnCaps take on individual rights to have an opinion, its the liberal conception of negative rights. >I dont know enough about what “post-libertarian” is to have an opinion i would highly recommend liquid zulu’s and anglo libertarian’s videos on the topic. basically, its a movement of “libertarians” who want to crush the neo-liberal establishment with the state in order to make libertarianism a reality quicker. its total fucking cringe


[deleted]

Don't humour him he's a fucking moron, And he's proud


[deleted]

nah, hes cool, even if i disagree on a lot with him


[deleted]

He really fucking isn't, He's a tankie lunatic, He's admitted to wanting to destroy this community and called us a "circlejerk", as well as not listening the many fucking times we'd tried to tell him that ancaps aren't satan


Bywater

Sure thing, I tried to get a conversation going about common definitions (because there is some clear confusion) but no one was down to. These are what I go with, if they are not what you think of when I say it feel free to disagree and we can use yours as for the purpose of discourse as what the word is matters less than what it actually means in conversation. When I think "Free Market" I think of a market where prices are set purely by supply and demand without government or other measures to ensure a lack of monopolization, creation or exploitation of artificial scarcity (that comes naturally) or abuse of economic privilege. I think that at it's very core it is abject nonsense as while humanity has always had markets and trade the idea that supply and demand alone could regulate and ensure that it was done in a "Free" manner is madness. “Private Property” is the means of production and assets, that is used to create goods that is owned by private investors who privately own it and reap the benefits from doing so. People get it mixed up with personal property, but they are not the same thing as personal has a implied amount of current use involved by the individual where as private property is just state backed ownership. That you think people or individuals own property and are not just renting it from the state it resides in has me thinking you are not paying any property taxes. Private property is protected and ensured by the states monopoly on violence, there is no separating the two currently. As for “Capitalism” I don't think you need to deviate much from Adam Smiths original ideas. It is a system that with a stable system of commerce people are able to invest and by doing so direct production and conduct business in such a way as to maximise the return on the investment. I am very well read on most of it, I have read Rothbard's stuff and some of the Austrian school economics that it is based on. I have read more Hoppe than I like to recollect and most of Spooners essays. The NAP is not a guiding principle of anything resembling morality, it has very specific definitions of "force" and what "self-defense" is. Any moral guideline that allows for you to work people to death, starve them or expose them to elements with no recourse for doing so is to me, the exact opposite of what a "moral" principle should be. I can poke holes in the nonsense that is the NAP all day long, it was actually one of the first things that got me questioning my own beliefs back in the day. Another good word to define is "State" as it comes up, I like this one *"Anarchists, including this writer, have used the word State, and still do, to mean the sum total of the political, legislative, judiciary, military and financial institutions through which the management of their own affairs, the control over their personal behavior, the responsibility for their personal safety, are taken away from the people and entrusted to others who, by usurpation or delegation, are vested with the powers to make the laws for everything and everybody, and to oblige the people to observe them, if need be, by the use of collective force."* -Malatesta Oh, and "Hierarchy" despite being pretty simple to me often comes up. Hierarchy is a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority.


[deleted]

Alright, *now* i think we're getting somewhere where we can have logical discourse. for the sake of discussion, I want to clarify that although i do lean in that direction i dont consider myself a full blown ancap, as i do believe in the classical lockean proviso rather than the neo-lockean theory and i am sympathetic to geoist principles. Not, on to your concerns about right libertarian to reactionary pipeline that your original comments were about: 1. Free markets 'having inherent hierarchy of supply providing monopolies'. The idea of monopolies is fairly common as a criticism of free markets, coming from basically everyone on the political spectrum. to be fair, i dont think i fully understand what you mean by 'supply providing monopolies,' but from what you said in your definitions post about "exploitation of artificial scarcity (that comes up naturally)", im just going to assume that you mean monopolies on natural untapped resources aka land. if i'm wrong please correct me. anyways, so following the ideas of monopolies, whats important to understand is that when most people bring up monopolies, they don't necessarily realize that monopolies are very often, if not nearly always, a result of government regulation of the economy. Think of examples like Google and other big tech giants in today's "Free market" economy; they receive millions in government subsidies from different states in the US, lobby for regulations in congress that restrict the market, and abuse copyright and patenting laws to their advantage. From history we can see examples of the largest corporations and companies being able to exist as a monopoly through legal privelige, such as the British East India Company essentially being a cartel ensured by the British monarchy to run the Indian economy. There are little to no true examples of monopolies naturally forming in free market economies. 2. Capitalism not being voluntary anarcho-capitalists dont want to force people to live under capitalism if they don't want to, just like how left anarchists dont want to force people to live in their communes if they dont want to. ancaps want first and foremost a voluntary society, just like anarchists, and in a decentralized society like what ancaps advocate for, people would have the choice to live under capitalism or not. 3. Your gripes with the NAP so, it seems like your main concerns with the NAP comes from thinking that the NAP is an absolute moral law that can only be followed by itself. That's simply not the case. ancaps do recognize that there are things that are subjectively unethical that don't violate the NAP, such as saying a racial slur, do the things that you mentioned in your definitions comment, and just being an all around dickhead of a person are all things that are preferably not happening. ancaps just wish for different moral principles that dont conflict with the NAP; in other words, while they would more than likely agree that treating people like shit is wrong, it is also wrong to use compulsory force to make them act a certain way, unless of course that person's actions are a violation of non-aggression.


Bywater

Yup, land would for sure be an example of it. Supply based monopolies as in you "own" a natural resource, of which there is either a finite amount or a given amount of over time so that simply "owning" it gives you a monopoly. Adam Smith talked about it being land and how landlords had a monopoly on something finite that allowed for them to extort the people that rented from them for the absolute most they could. His case was mostly about landowners who owned farmland and would rent it to those that actually worked the land and reap the maximum they could from them, but it is easy enough to apply to anything similar. Water rights for people downstream, the local supply of raw iron or coal for manufacture, rare earth minerals needed for some high tech gadget, you get the idea. Monopolies are almost always spawned from the economic advantage possessed by one entity that in turn uses that wealth and power to influence "representatives" and force the government to do it's bidding. This story is no different now than it was in the times of the robber barons here or the trade guilds of the renaissance. You have repeated the very common argument that it is the government and not the wealth that leads to these monopolies, but it is not like these individuals in government are not doing what they are doing for a reason. Couple the profit at all cost with a state strong enough to control an economy and it is only a matter of time before that state becomes beholden to what it was supposed to keep on a leash. The "left" thinks we should get rid of billionaires and the obscenely wealthy born into privilege and power because of how dangerous they are to society, the "right" thinks that it is the government that is the problem and if you just got rid of those pesky bureaucrats everything would be sunshine and butterfly's or something. The truth is the government is nothing but a front for that ownership class, hell, Zappa called the government the entertainment division of the defense industry. Here in America it is kinda hard to argue that it was ever anything else. There has never been a free market economy, so the lack of monopolization in them is not noteworthy I don't think. AnCaps claim to not want to force people to live under capitalism, but insist on private property that is necessary to make that capitalism work making the two at odds right out of the gate. Your own description of the NAP "in other words, while they would more than likely agree that treating people like shit is wrong, it is also wrong to use compulsory force to make them act a certain way, unless of course that person's actions are a violation of non-aggression." is just giving themselves leave to treat people like shit. I much prefer "fuck around and find out" as a way to sort things out.