Libertarians

Discuss

Anarcho Capitalism is as much theoretical wankery as communism is. its one thing to wax poetic about ethical superiority of unfettered personal liberties & freedoms and the beauty of the free market to solve all problems but to bring it into existence as its imagined is about as delusional as Marx's stateless society

...

I know but that place is full of tin foil hats. I want humans to discuss.

Historically do you feel the libertarian ideology has ever been put in place and worked? If so when and where.

I never thought of it that way but i see what you mean. What do you feel is a realistic alternative and can you give historic examples?

Not that guy but interested like you.

Would old European free cities like Gdansk or republics like Genoa or Venice be considered anarcho-capitalist?

I guess you could say 1990s Somalia was one that turned out great

Nice to discuss this in other countries. USA is the only country that can't it be. Its interests precede the state.

Just keep calling speaking about libertarian ideals, or socialist ones, or whatever you want, and if it makes you feel tingly inside keep at it.

Is that english??

What in gods name is your second sentence???

I do not believe that my beliefs are orthodox libertarianism but I did vote for a leppo during the recent US presidential election. Libertarianism as I understand it is not the same as anarcho capitalism. Libertarians still believe that the government's role is the arbiter and enforcer of justice and that it has a monopoly on the legitmate use of violence. Largely, the disagreement becomes largely one of degree.

I voted the way I did because I did not have faith that the options presented would respect the rights and liberties of me and my fellow citizens. Also because running a country well requires sustainability and responsibility both in foreign and domestic policy. In terms of foreign policy, this meant avoiding conflict overseas and instituting regime change that destabilizes the world and works against our interests. Domestically, this means greater pluralism in the US and a reduced role of the Federal government resulting in government more tailored to the people of the states.

Philosophically, I have grappled over the dichotomy of freedom and equality. It is generally impossible to have both at one time, and most western nations have found their own balance acceptable to the people through representative government. I tend to be of the belief that nobody has an a right to "equality" beyond "equal protection". This gets into the whole "positive vs negative" rights debate. That necessarily leads to the question of "what is a right?" I haven't done much reading on philosophy, but am of the opinion that a right is an agreed upon principle on which a system of government can be built. In exchange for our money, support, and obedience, the government must protect us from harm and agree not to remove our ability to exercise these rights.

>Would old European free cities like Gdansk or republics like Genoa or Venice be considered anarcho-capitalist?
Not him, but absolutely not. These were city-states, as in they had a complex government and legal system controlling their markets.

Well said. I'd been struggling with the difference between anarcho capitalism and libertarianism. Are there examples from history that you could point to that would 'support' your unorthodox version of libertarianism as viable?

Libertarian are half assed anarchism, a right wing perversation of a movement tht was originally left

For this reason, I am not as accepting of positive rights. For example, a right to equality or to be housed, to receive medical care, etc. These are not things that naturally exist and the government cannot maintain them merely by refraining from action - it must use its power to bring them into existence. It is practically impossible for them ever to be fully realized, and attempting to do so often requires violating our negative rights.

The point of this is that the societal value of the freedom the government trods on is less than the equality such violations allow it to provide. In the case of the US government, it has not made a good tradeoff in this area.

An ideal and impossible society in my view would be one in which quality of life is guaranteed without forceful coercion or government mandate, in which individuals are able to live how they choose so long as they do not harm others.

The obsession with the free market as the means of achieving this goal is perhaps wrongheaded but understandable. In a properly competitive market individuals are able to choose the goods and services that they believe best meet their needs. If their needs are not met and it is feasible to meet them, then business will find a way to fill the niche. Business is a lot like evolution. There is a constant churn and evolution of companies that do things differently and when they stop filling the needs of their base they are adapt or die. While it is theoretically possible for the government to adapt in this way it rarely does because there isn't pressure from outside forces to compete. People cannot live under more than one government (outside of federalism) at a given time. This lack of competition breeds stagnation, waste, and abuse

This is a history board with humanities, not a politics board. We have a board for that thanks.

from a purely theoretical point of view if a corporation had so much power that it was making its own laws its really a government and should be regarded as such.

his only discusses the most extreme and ideologically pure libertarians, and while the movement is full of crazy people it also has a lot of people who are just socially liberal and economically conservative.

Can you elaborate with historical references?

Holy shit. You just red pilled me.

The difference is that anarcho capitalists do not want a state or government at all. Libertarians (more appropriately, liberals or classical liberals) understand the unfortunate necessity of the state. Western democracy, the dominant form of state power, has its roots in liberalism.

as said, libertarianism or classical liberalism is a conservative philosophy. American libertarianism is a strange beast with stranger (largely autistic) adherents. It posits that American democracy has departed its founding principles and advocates for an extreme shift. Unfortunately, many of its adherents fail to understand that a political philosophy should not be an exclusive club, and make the mistakes of many other radical groups of loudly advocating for the most extreme and unpopular measures, such as removing laws preventing racial discrimination, hate speech, legalization of all drugs, elimination of welfare, and unrestricted worker exploitation.

Hit it pretty much right on the head. Personally, I am socially liberal and economically conservative. With the polarization of American political parties I don't find my views adequately represented by most politicians. In the past, I may have been able to vote for a conservative democrat or a liberal republican, but those are in short supply these days.

I am on phone but basically anarchists and socialists used to be comrades as both despise private property with the former feeling the State is the enforcer of said private property rights which must be removed but socialists believing the state can be subverted or converted.

Google the French Commune and it's aftermath where both parties disagreed with what could have prevented the downfall. To this days the rift sperate both movements, but anarchists are still leftists

Leftists in the traditional sense of the "party of movement", perhaps. Any party not devoted to the status quo would fall under that description. Economically, you can have free-market anarchists (anaracho capitalists) that would generally not be considered "left" (hence the left/right divide in addition to the authoritarian/libertarian divide).

>party of movement
Yea then we have different idea of the left/right divide

>Economically, you can have free-market anarchists (anaracho capitalists)
Sure but to have them carry a label of a movement that is staunchly anti price property is what I already said. It will more honest if they call themselves neo-feudalism

We are discussing libertarianism and its historic roots. Please fuck right off. Thanks.

Looking it up now. Thank you.

Feudalism is hardly anarchism. If you believe that would be the end result of their policies so be it, but that is not the fantasy world ancaps live in. As I said above, Libertarianism is not ancap. Some ancaps may believe the libertarian party closes matches their belief system but do not conflate the two.

Not accepting the existence of property is not a requirement for being an anarchist. Ancoms don't get to claim the term anarchism .

We haven't discussed the historic roots of libertarianism once in the thread so far. Perhaps we should get some discussion going about John Locke, Frederic Bastait, and Adam Smith. Unfortunately, I'm woefully ignorant about them so it likely wouldn't go anywhere.

First of all, even in your own shitty Marxist ideology of history, feudalism and capitalism are separate things. To say they are 'neo-feudalism' suggests that you can turn back the wheels of history and extreme capitalism isn't actually capitalism. It seems more likely that the label is just another Leftist smear.

Ancaps call themselves anarchists because they believe in the State should be abolished. Left anarchists call themselves anarchist because they are anti-hierarchy and changed the meaning of anarchist to reflect that because they believe the government creates this hierarchy.

>discussing political ideologies on /pol/
>a board with "redpilled" traps and pseudo-nazi frog cartoons

If people discuss politics here though it will invite such miscreants. Veeky Forums was avoided for so long out of fear it would become a second /pol/. It doesn't serve the interests of the board to allow political discussions as it could drive out the intended subject matter. Despite my shitposting in this thread, it should probably be delete as it's low quality and off topic. Unfortunately, it's not possible to have a good discussion of politics on the internet and certainly not Veeky Forums. People around here seems more reasonable and willing to engage in polite discussion than my home board. polite sage for shit thread.

I agree. Even if this thread did turn out to be good, the board is Veeky Forums not /goodthreads/

yes I see nothing wrong with retards hanging out in the autist bin.

Anarchists (at least the earliest ones) believe that the abolition of private property must come with the state, whereby their critique of former is their rationale (although not the only one) of taking down the state. Ancaps defy that tradition by wanting the cake and eating it.

>ancom can't call them anarchists
>people who want a stateless classless moneyless utopia can't call themselves anti- state
Okay

I will admit that my neo feudalism was a tongue in cheek smear

This

Its going fine. We are talking history. Calm down.

>I will admit that my neo feudalism was a tongue in cheek smear

Great. I like a man who can admit their faults and it is something I should work on.

>Anarchists (at least the earliest ones) believe that the abolition of private property must come with the state, whereby their critique of former is their rationale (although not the only one) of taking down the state.

I completely agree which is why I don't think they should get so uppity when someone suggests that other forms of anarchism exists. They will always prefer a State without private property than private property without a State. That's why they ALWAYS ally with big-government leftist groups.

I see it the same way as how social democrats call themselves democrats because they believe that democracy will lead them to their goal, not because they have any love for democracy itself.

>They will always prefer a State without private property than private property without a State.
I wouldn't disagree with but I can't bring myself to agree. Maybe if an caps call themselves liberals or something like that would be fine, but right now ancaps are muddying anarchists's ideology to the public by using the label anacho.

>That's why they ALWAYS ally with big-government leftist groups.
Well I guess it more of it being their political interests than ideology purity

>I see it the same way as how social democrats call themselves democrats because they believe that democracy will lead them to their goal, not because they have any love for democracy itself.
Tbh socdem are reformist instead of revoluntaries simply coz they love democracy, or at least have faith in it

Congo Free State and British East India Company were all examples of anarcho-capitalism in practice.