Anti-libertardian books?

The fuck does that even mean?

they are being smug and saying that all you have to do to see that libertarianism is wrong is to just take in reality instead of the fiction of libertarian theory. that type of smug response is the worst

sorry, rothtard

I wasn't defending libertarianism I'm just against smug quips in place of actually saying why its wrong

When a premise is ludicrous enough its the only appropriate response

oh look another smug quip

Who /minarchist/ here?

Nick Land = only honest libertarian. fuck off with your pastoral neo-jeffersonian fantasies, worn and tired already in the early days of the American Republic. Either you are for full technocapital meltdown or you are fro nothing at all.

Me but not quite. More like a mud between it and some kind of local federation stuff.

I'm really more like a classical liberal, but it implies something a bit too soft for someone like me who is extremely skeptical of government power and centralized decision-making.

Dude prove to me right now without doubt, with ontological certainty, that the world is not flat

>haha dude, like the government should just commit itself to being small!
good luck with that.

for how much libertardians obsess over muh echonawmiks you'd think they might actually want to run the game theory

In a democracy, if everyone believed that the government should remain small, it would. It would also help if there were constitutional limitations.

>if everyone
wouldn't it be nice, unity of purpose?

>It would also help if there were constitutional limitations.
such as? 'mixed government' belongs in the dustbin of the eighteenth century.

If everyone had the same beliefs there would be no need for government.

>wouldn't it be nice, unity of purpose?

It's not as silly as it sounds. There are things which virtually everyone believes. In America, everyone exists within a roughly liberal worldview.

>such as? 'mixed government' belongs in the dustbin of the eighteenth century.

What do you suggest in instead?

That's hardly true and not even what I suggested.

shouldn't you know if youre already against it?

> Libertarian
>yellow and black
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

He probably suggests something authoritarian.

Reading this now. So far it's just a lazy, moralizing polemic.

>In America, everyone exists as a consumerist drone
ftfy

>muh consumerism

I remember being 14.

and Thiel also.

Defending capitalism from a liberal perspective is incredibly naive, as the current technical means of control and communication go beyond the subject, decomposing it into its monetisable components. 'Libertarians' are deluded, they think they still live in the 18th century and people can be independent farmers/artisans. The global chains of production are far to automated and desagregated, it ain't gonna happen. Our world is full capitalist, the logical conclusion to the liberal ideals of the enlightenment. There is no going back.

>ITT: the eternal comedy of liberalism; authoritative non-authoritarianism

>defining control so widely (or refusing to define it) that it applies to everything

Thank you Marxism and post-structuralism

>I would like to pay you money for this good/service
>no problem, here you go!

REEEEEEEEEE BUT MUH MARX

I hate Veeky Forums sometimes.

whats this book about

>lazy, moralizing polemic

What did you expect? The subtitle is 'The Moral Limits of Markets'. If it seems lazy it's because he's trying to reach a wide audience.

That's all you really need to say about the subject though. Libertarians are delusional and far removed from reality. They follow a political ideology that would never ever work in practice. And expecting it to work is so insane that smug quips are acceptable.

you're just repeating what said but in a few more words

For some, the thought that people should buy what they want is horrible.

>reality has a liberal bias

Atlas Shrugged obviously

...

It's assigned reading in my political science class, so I hoped it would have at least some substance. We're three chapters in and I've only seen one ethical/moral argument that doesn't rest heavily on the presupposition that inequality is bad (and easy/possible to fix). It goes as follows:
>putting something on the market turns it into a commodity
>people look at things-as-commodities differently from things-as-such
>sometimes, it's better for the individual to view a thing on its own terms (Sandel uses the examples of children and art)
>therefore, putting everything on the market will be detrimental for everyone, because they won't be able to take things on their own terms when that would be beneficial

its pro-libertarian tho

>Libertarian is equivalent to Ancap

>In a democracy, if everyone believed that the government should remain small, it would
Unless of course, you managed to develop a political class (see: all of them)

Ancaps at least take the bullshit to its logical conclusion

this.

tell me about Thiel.

humanity is being exterminated by vampires from the 47th dimension who haunt (i mean unironically like in the traditional ghostly sense) the halls of the stock exchange and the white house and take physical form in pass-the-buck-ism and google ads. we are buying our future right now and death will be delivered by amazon prime helicopters.

>humanity is being exterminated by vampires from the 47th dimension who haunt (i mean unironically like in the traditional ghostly sense) the halls of the stock exchange and the white house and take physical form in pass-the-buck-ism and google ads. we are buying our future right now and death will be delivered by amazon prime helicopters.
drugs are weird

libertarians aren't really that different from managerial liberals and sjws. Everyone gets what they want, and we have an industrial structure of control and communication designed to ensure they want the right things.

Deontological libertarianism (which is for brainlets)

There's still consequentialist libertarianism

This

>When you're so deep in the ideology you imagine yourself free from it

>ideologue
>bitching about ideologues

someone make a "virgin eliot rodger vs the chad ted kaczynski" meme

commies in a nutshell

"No Law for the Lions and Many Laws for the Oxen is Liberty" by Jack Graham basically refutes the entire ideology in about 30 pages. Found in pic related, along with some weirder stuff

Nobody is free from ideology, that's the fucking point you mongs. If you seriously believe you are it's just because you've accepted your ideology as unquestionable truth

The Shock Doctrine - Naomi Klein

got a download/pdf/torrent?

Explain Switzerland.

What should people do to get what they want? Steal it? Make their own? Automatically get it for free because it is their right? Honestly, being horrified about buying things is something that only the most high-class pampered kids would do.Or someone like Marx who had his life funded by friend's dad's factory.

tbhh I'm begining to think libertarians are just spergs who are to mired in their blind acceptance of capitalist reason, they literally can't see the tremendous cultural and social decay that's out there, they regard Google and other such companies, the managers of capitalism, as benevolent meritocratic priesthood that 'gives people what they want'. IMO this is the ultimate cuck mentality, the empty husk that allows the technical state apparatus to think for him because otherwise they wouldn't be le rational!!

Switzerland isn't libertarian you amerifat

>highest economic competitiveness in the world
>2nd highest in the world liberty index
>federation composed of sovereign cantons ("states")
>absolutely neutral state, didn't get involved in world wars
>not libertarian
What is it then?

They should purchase it.

libertarianism is not altright

>federation composed of sovereign cantons ("states")
This is fundamentally non-Libertarian

In other words
>the Right finally finds post-modernism

not really

Ancaps are literal minded neoKantians, Austrian economics was an attempt to apply neoKantian principles to economics, it is to economics what Kelsen's theory of positive right is to the law. America has always served as haven to cranks and sectarians from all over the world, from the Fourierists, to the amish, the latter day saints, the snake handlers, the hippie communes, and those Sillicon Valley narcissists at Burning Man. To non-Americans, the Neokantian bowtie cultists are merely a neat anthropological phenomenon, not to be taken seriously. Though, there is a Mises inspired university in Guatemala, and plenty of shill activity in the Baltics.

>Qwernomic subcultures result from the legacy of the typewriter and its computational simulation, based upon the shift-locked code systems implicitly produced by the Sholes or Universal (‘Qwerty’) Keyboard. Sketching the emergence and diffusion of the ‘secret/secretarial’ qwernomic subculture within global technocapitalism isolates a field of diagonal communication between anthropomorphic signs and the molecular traffic signals of the mutating ‘machinic unconscious,’ outlining an antipolitical semiotic pragmatism and Godless qabbalism consistent with what CCRU calls ‘coincidence engineering’
Is it all this bad?

Fucking epic win!

>rethugliKKKan
>ayncrap
>lolburtardian
>MAGA chud
>gubmit
>corn cob/self own/etc.
Is this the ultimate refutation of 100s of years of economic canon?

gen.lib.rus.ec/

>Neoreaction a Basilisk is a savage journey into the black heart of our present eschaton. We're all going to die, and probably horribly. But at least we can laugh at how completely ridiculous it is to be killed by a bunch of frog-worshiping manchildren.

doesnt look like a serious book

do you even know what libertarianism is?

There is literally nothing wrong with being a Libertarian.

Wait, is the reddit shit and calling for Steve Jobs to be king a sort of Pre-post-irony, or were they being serious?

Don't worry boys I'll take care of this

you like hearing yourself talk, dont you?

>But at least we can laugh at how completely ridiculous it is to be killed by a bunch of frog-worshiping manchildren.
The Holocaust isn't ridiculous, damn antisemites.

>being horrified about buying things is something that only the most high-class pampered kids would do.Or someone like Marx who had his life funded by friend's dad's factory.
So the upper class that pays wages is composed of those who balk at purchasing things. Marx was patronized to work (write) and was also a journalist.

Why user.

>patronized

I dont think youre using that word correctly. he was legit a moocher and hypocrite which is fine, plato and neitzche both led contrary lives to their philosophy but at least they left something of value. marxism is such a useless concept in the postmodern world. he was neither a historian nor a sociologist nor a statistician, but he acted like he was all three. considering the much larger availability of historical knowledge that we have compared to what he had, he was fucking wrong. about everything. his predictions about how communism would enter the world were wrong. the world is far more complicated than the oppressor/oppressed paradigm. countries that industrialized fast in the 20th century never became communist and the more industrialization a country has the less communist it becomes (see china). not to mention that the only countries that can even moderately sustain socialism are typically post-imperialist like western european states, and can offer larger social programs because they are inherently non-communist. no real economist considers marx to be relevant, communism only works if every country is communist. since most countries in the world are not communist and rely on competition over resources and products to keep the global economy running, communist countries have to open way for private or semi-private business so that they can enjoy trade and not be a third world shit hole (see north korea). theres a reason why marx is thought in liberal arts schools and not in business and economics schools. grow up.

Holy fuck this is the DEFINITION of obscurantism.

>libertarian like google
Hey everyone, get a load of this absolute fucking retard

It's definitely silly (as is Nagle's le normie book, and, inevitably, any crusty, sclerotic critic or author's take on or attempt to disseminate the """alt right"""), and, from what I recall, none of the essays have anything particularly prescient to say or "refute" anything tb h. The one on NRx is a flailing, seething polemic, at least two of three of the targeted authors and bloggers having much more interesting things to say (the non-interesting one isn't even NRx, and was included, I suppose, to allow the completely-not-obsessed Sandifer to allow himself to allocate more time to owning the libertarian etc) than Sandifer's smug, self-assured old-guard-leftist ironybro dismissals and talking-downs. It's the long-form, schizoid shit-screed of the bugman class normally fortunately confined to 280 characters; instead, we get an entire book to hear about the manbabies and dudebros and gameragte pissbabies and chuds et al. At least Nagle, in her contrived desperate "analysis", attempts to string together a coherent chronology of events concerning her topic. She demonstrates an earnestly-trying but shallow understanding of the causations and reactions that eventually synthesize and make things a particular way online. Sandifer goes on tangents about Delueze, the orthodox cultural-critique by-the-numbers spiels and condemnations that, perhaps, during the 70s, seemed radical and worthy of patience. His understanding of and interaction with the subjects of his diatribes go only as far as extremely not-mad "curiosity" and the usual goonybeard/sarah nyberg/zeo quinn-sanctioned Owns, that being neckbeard fat manbaby and so on. Similarly, his understanding of the (albeit, admittedly, flawed- not to suggest that the neoclassical canon of economics isn't similarly pro-capitalism, and that out of every heterodox school marxism isn't the most silly or worn) Austrian school, if even present, is utilized less to criticize and analyze significant economic observations and propositions, as, say, Menger or Mises had done with their economics educations, and more to "compare/contrast" with marxism for some reason, haul out the same vapid, tired criticisms bleeding out from the same axiomatic (ironic!) attack points and areas of contention leftists "find" (read: hear from another person, because they haven't read the Austrians, and nor has the person they heard it from) with the Austrians, etc. The goobergate and Trump essays are nigh-contentless, the same pitiful hysteria (now with more WORDS WORDS WORDS, designed to obfuscate the ultimate lack of real poignancy) you'll hear from the online left about Trump and GG until the end of time. The essays, together, are disjointed, unsatisfying, and ostensibly leave you with a frightening image of the incomprehensible contradictory philosophical miscarriage to come, that can only be fought going forward by punching a fucking nazi le epic style. That's the intended effect, anyways.

Don't read it.

...

>complains about "WORDS WORDS WORDS"
>posts a wall of text that could stop Mongol archers

I notice it was trash by seeing the reviews, the retarded way he markets his own book, and downloading it and reading some parts

libertarians don't understand modern capitalism, which is about people management rather than the old fashioned production of commodities at a factory, but about producing a whole social reality. Muh SJW is actually a logical extension of the basic capitalist principle of universal exchangeability. Humans are universally exchangable in relation to capital. If you want to understand Google, read up on wartime think tanks like the RAND corporation, the development of bureaucracy since the 50s , Stewart's Brand whole earth catalog, that served as a meeting point for Hippies and the military industrial complex. Post 60s American culture represents an uneasy compromise between the be yourself aspirations of the counterculture, and the military-industrial-consumer machinery.

monoskop.org/images/0/09/Brand_Stewart_Whole_Earth_Catalog_Fall_1968.pdf

didnt read.
youre far off from the gulag reservation, comrade.

>which is about people management rather than the old fashioned production of commodities at a factory, but about producing a whole social reality.
Libertarians never supposed otherwise. Stopped there.

That's what zizek is though.

>didnt read.
I bet you don't