Why are there so many capitalists pretending to be libertarian?

Why are there so many capitalists pretending to be libertarian?

Left-Libertarianism is a contradiction in terms at anything beyond the most local of levels. Anarcho-communists require a State, or at the very least the introduction of force, to ensure the redistribution of goods.

Left-libertarianism only works in a situation where everyone involved has volunteered to share goods, even a single person voluntarily choosing not to participate breaks the system, making it viable for running a monastery but nothing larger then that.

The typical Leftist response to the above is that by "hoarding" his goods, the productive person has himself initiated violence against the masses. The typical Rightist response to that argument is "Go fuck yourself with a rake" or "Get a job hippy", which I will reiterate here for completeness.

They don't teach the original and actual definition of libertarianism in American schools.

It's just internet neckbeard fantasy, it falls apart when confronted with reality.

wew, this obviously not biased as fuck.

Anarcho-communism is autistic (as anarchism) but anarcho-syndicalism makes a bit of sense, because the unions plays the role of the states. You say it could work for running a monastery, but we can imagine a country as a bunch of interconnected monasteries.
Unironically, it isn't. Orwell was very clever and understood our society like no one else. Ayn Rand, on the other hand, is a retard.

>Ayn Rand was a bad writer
>Ergo libertarianism isn't a real thing unless you are a leftist

>enforcing private property doesn't require violence but not enforcing it does

Ayn Rand is infinitely superior to anything anarchist related.

It's literally newspeak to make the right look good.
>One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . ‘Libertarians’ . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over...

One doesn't have to initiate violence in an Ancap society, you just have to shoot anyone who tries to rob you. Both require force, but only anarcho-commies have to go around smashing the heads of people just trying to be left alone because they won't provide gibs.

Nah, even as a libertarian I have to admit her writing is garbage.

Didn't say her writing was good, only that her philosophy actually functions, which is more then you can say for communists of any variety.

Plus she can be poetic when she wants to be.

>Plus she can be poetic when she wants to be.
>When she wants to be
>She could have made Atlas Shrugged a good book but she wanted it to be awful.

But yeah left libertarianism is an oxymoron, at least right libertarianism and anarchism make sense in theory.

>someone unironically believes that text is good

Right libertarianism makes perfect sense when its minarchist. Anarcho-capitalism is almost as stupid as left-libertarianism, since in order to make it function you need to create a series of institutions that, when their sum power and utility are considered, results in what is basically a State by any other name.

>someone unironically gave birth to you

Anarcho-Capitalism still isn't a complete oxymoron since the institutions are all voluntary unlike a government. Granted all anarchist ideologies are pretty fucking stupid desu.

>left
>libertarian
oh boy, here we go again
pick one

At least I don't defend the joker of philosophy using a quote that may as well be in a motivational facebook photo.

>work for the propertarian of starve
>voluntary
>corporations takes every single role from the state
>libertarian

>capitalist
>society's order relies on voluntary action
Anarcho Capitalism is complete garbage. Anarcho syndicalism could maybe work in theory, but anarchism in general is a bad idea.

ANCAP is a meme and has been for years

This image is fallacious, police require an economic motivator otherwise they would never do their job.

>people should be free to do what they want!
>oh, but not own property, or start a business, or amass wealth, or...
Is there a dumber group of people than left libertarians?

Orwell's mustache is fucking gross.

Redpill me on left libertarianism.

How is it libertarian if you aren't free to engage in private economic activity?

>people should be free to do what they want!
>except if they're victims of private oppression, that's completely fine
Yes, right libertarians.

...

>If you own a house or a car you are oppressing someone
Commitards, everyone.

>your house and car are the means of production

It's private property, but fine I'll humor you. How do private companies "oppress" people?

You're attributing a function of nature to capitalism itself. Starving has invariably been the default state of humanity for millions of years. If you die because you're too stupid to take care of yourself, it doesn't magically become every random stranger's fault.

>protection of private property the foundation of all personal liberty

so i'm not really alone in this suspicion about ancapism

Define what owning property means.

Tell me, what's the difference between a landlord exercising a monopoly on violence over his land and a state?

It's not really a suspicion. As far as I understand it, they consider all rights to be an extension of property rights.

>landlord exercising a monopoly on violence
What? A landlord exercises no violence. Except if you consider having the right to call the police if someone breaks into your house "violence".

Right, the right to life is simply the right for a person to hold private ownership of his body.

So a landlord can't protect his property on his own? Well, we've gotten to an example of something they're not free to do.

What? Are you mentally retarded? Libertarianism does not imply a lawless mad max style society. Stop strawmanning faggot and read a book.

Right to life and ownership of your body are separate things. You cannot be severed from ownership of your body, but you absolutely can be killed.

Libertarianism is a family of ideologies stemming from French social anarchists that were banned from publishing anarchist publications in France. Minarchism is a specific ideology that isn't meaningfully different from liberalism.

Any man dispossessed of property is forced to work for a propertarian under the threat of starvation.

True, to some degree. While nature forces man to work, the (lack of?) reduction in work that results from distribution of property and the distribution of benefits of technological advancement are societal issues. A society of hunters might need 5 hours of work per person to survive, which doesn't mean that if half of them are working 10 hours to sustain the other half they aren't being oppressed.

What if the person is forced to sell himself or starve?

>Right to life and ownership of your body are separate things
"Right to life" is not only about not being killed, it's the right to pursue your life as you will, as in the phrase the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

For instance communists do not recognize the right to life, since they consider humans to be disposable cogs in a great machine.

>Libertarianism is a family of ideologies stemming from French social anarchists that were banned from publishing
No, you're just arguing semantics. Libertarianism means, in the modern sense, the family of ideologies which evolved from classical liberalism. The reason why it's called "libertarianism" and not simply "liberalism" in the USA is because, in turn, the word "liberalism" changed in meaning to mean "marxism" during the 1960s.

>is forced
No. "Starvation" is not a person or a government.

See above.

What the fuck does that even answer.

>>Right, the right to life is simply the right for a person to hold private ownership of his body.

Not an absolute right. More like a first right to your personal ownership of your body before you barter your body over to corporate overlords under indentured servitude or some other effective form of slavery

>"liberalism" changed in meaning to mean "marxism"
This is why discussing with right wing americans is a waste of time.

>anarchy
>capitalism
Pick one and only one

>"Right to life" is not only about not being killed, it's the right to pursue your life as you will, as in the phrase the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

And it still has nothing to do with ownership of your body.

>For instance communists do not recognize the right to life, since they consider humans to be disposable cogs in a great machine.

Hardly. They typically focus on providing people opportunities to actualize themselves as individuals for a greater society, rather than giving them the choice after being born into starvation to choose between death or prostitution.

>Libertarianism means, in the modern sense, the family of ideologies which evolved from classical liberalism.

No it doesn't. Left-libertarians still exist, and have existed for longer than American propertarians.

>"liberalism" changed to mean "marxism"

WE'VE GOT A LIVE ONE BOYS! No, you fucking idiot. Liberals are not Marxists, they don't believe in a dialectical process of history towards an inevitable conclusion of communism. Even the most left wing of them wants "capitalism with some stuff to make it less shit."

As for why American propertarianism is called libertarianism, that actually comes down to Murray Rothbard appropriating the title for the movement he was instrumental in starting as a means to thumb his nose at the left wing. Maybe you should open a book. :^)

>"liberalism" changed in meaning to mean "marxism" during the 1960s.
It just means you're for freedom, equality, and free speech, holy shit.

Use your brain, brainlet

Kill yourself

>And it still has nothing to do with ownership of your body.
Use your brain, brainlet

>Hardly
The historical evidence is against you

>No it doesn't.
Yes it does.

>WE'VE GOT A LIVE ONE BOYS! No, you fucking idiot. Liberals are not Marxists, they don't believe in a dialectical process of history towards an inevitable conclusion of communism. Even the most left wing of them wants "capitalism with some stuff to make it less shit."
Most "liberals" in academia are for a socialist organization of the economy.

Do you live in a grotto or something? Only on lefty/his/ could the fact that "libertarian" means right libertarian today, and not anarchist, could be controversial.

>"""equality"""

>Use your brain, brainlet
Come back when you have an actual argument.

>I don't understand what is the concept of private property
Nobody is coming after your toothbrush

I can't argue with someone who is incapable of understanding basic concepts.

The fact that there is people unironically defending anarcho-capitalism or "right"-libertarianism is proof this place is plagued with redditors.

/pol/tards are one thing, but fucking r/libertarians?

The biggest victims in the nationalization of the soviet economy were small farmers.

>confusing anarchists with soviets
Thanks for playing

You haven't presented neither an argument nor a "basic concept". Try again.

>They typically focus on providing people opportunities to actualize themselves as individuals for a greater society
What happens if my opportunity to actualize myself isn't present in the five year plan? What happens if the organizers for my self-actualization decide to actualize my opportunity at the local gulag?

Reminder Ayn Rand was not anarcho-capitalist or libertarian.

>More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with, and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called “hippies of the right,” who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultanteously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs.

>By “ideological” (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the “libertarian” hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.)

You do realize that soviets and left libertarians are different groups that were historically opposed right?

Private property is just personal property that the collective, soviet, whatever has decided you should no longer own, that's literally it.

What if my idea of self-actualization has elements that oppose the left libertarian world view?

>They typically focus on providing people opportunities to actualize themselves as individuals for a greater society,
Suuuuuure, commies are so very tipically focused on self improvement, they're totally not a bunch of debased lazy hedonists.

Maybe in the 18th century. Nowadays there's this thing called welfare...

No, private property is something that you own and profit from that you do not personally use. Do you actually read up on leftist theory or just want to shitpost?

There isn't a set of rules of how a left libertarian society should work (otherwise it wouldn't be libertarian) but there shouldn't be a problem if you don't exploit others. In revolutionary catalonia if you didn't want to work with the socialized means of production you were given a plot of land for yourself (and weren't allowed to employ others in it) for example.
To be completely honest, I'm a social democrat larping as a libertarian because right libertarians annoy me.

>I have never stepped outside my reddit hugbox the post

>implying I can't rent out my home in which I live when I'm away
You'd confiscate my home because I rented it to a toyrist couple for a week?

>No, private property is something that you own and profit from that you do not personally use
So if I own a bigger than average house commies are totally not going to come and take it from me, right?
So if I own a shop in which I both work and employ people, commies are totally not going to come and take it from me, right?
Because "not using it" is clearly definable, right?

There wouldn't be if it was up to right "libertarians", which those posts are responding to. And there isn't for a lot of the world honestly.

To anarchists and socialists, it stops being 'your' house the moment you stop living in it so people can live there without paying you shit

If you live in it, no.
If your 'empolyees' gets a percentage of the profit and gets to decide what to produce and sell, how long the work hours are, no.

Isn't that kind of fucked? Some guy can start living in my home if I need medical attention? Some guy can live in my home when I'm at work?

No?

>Some guy can start living in my home if I need medical attention? Some guy can live in my home when I'm at work?
>Splitting hairs this hard.
No. Basically you can't own more than one house since you can't live in more than one house at the same time.

>If you live in it, no.
Sure thing user. What's going to happen in reality is more like "Nice house you've got there, only it's a bit big for you isn't it, comrade?"
>If your 'empolyees' gets a percentage of the profit and gets to decide what to produce and sell, how long the work hours are, no.
That wasn't part of the definition of private property you gave early. Given that I'm using it, it's my personal property so fuck off.

>No. Basically you can't own more than one house since you can't live in more than one house at the same time.
What are you talking about? Of course you can. You spend one night at the first one, one night at the second one. Or one week each. Or one month each. Or whatever else.

And the moment you spend one night at the second one, you don't own the first one anymore

>What's going to happen in reality is more like
Not an argument
>Given that I'm using it, it's my personal property so fuck off.
But you have empolyees who work for you so it stops being personal property. The empolyees use your property to generate profit for a flat income hence it is private property. It is personal property if you and only you use said means of production to generate income

>crash at a friend's house for one night
>come back home the day after, it's occupied by squatters
>m8 we own it now, you didn't sleep here last night
wow, truly a great system
>Not an argument
Actually, it's an argument. When you give absurd level of power to an authority, everything that isn't clearly defined is going to be subject to abuse, repeatedly.
>It is personal property if you and only you use said means of production to generate income
And you don't see any problems with that? Create x, rent it to someone, someone else uses it to produce something, what now?

>this is liberty according to left lolbertarians

>it's occupied by squatters
Were they homeless? What gives you a right to a home over them? If they weren't, occupy the house they were using or ask them kindly to move to their previous house. Or take the issue to your community if you have a legit case, anarchists love direct democracy and self management. But your scenario seems to presuppose that you have more of a right to a home than some dirty squatters.

>Makes absurd scenarios
>shocked to find absurd answers
You are equating crashing with permanent moving. I didn't say you can't do all of that but that you simply can't have 2 houses as your personal property since it is not physically impossible to use 2 houses at the same time

>When you give absurd level of power to an authority,
I argee so why should shit on government bureaucrats for such abuse on some vague notion of statism when property owners do the same time on some vague notion of private property?

>Create x, rent it to someone, someone else uses it to produce something, what now?
But you are gaining profit from effectively doing nothing. Sell it to him if you want, but renting based on a vague notion of 'private property'? Nah senpai

>Were they homeless?
Irrelevant.
>What gives you a right to a home over them?
I bought it.
>If they weren't, occupy the house they were using
>forced to live in a shithole instead of my pretty house because I slept at a friend's for one night
truly utopia
>ask them kindly to move to their previous house
>ask them kindly
...wait, you're serious?
>Or take the issue to your community
Yeah, I'm sure it's going to be something very quick. I mean, we could, like, not limit ownership to "having to sleep there each and every night" and grant people the power to use or require the immediate use of force against those who violate that property but I mean, that would be craaaaazy.

Right libertarians are pretty hilarious. Authority, domination, and oppression are just fine as long as somebody's making a profit off it!

>own two toothbrushes
>NO YOU DON'T, YOU CAN'T USE THEM BOTH AT THE SAME TIME
The more I hear about communism the more wonderful it seems.
>when property owners do the same
Nope, they don't have even remotely the same power.
>But you are gaining profit from effectively doing nothing
Aside from, you know, buying the material for building that thing, and building it, and renouncing its use. Ever read a book on economics? Like, ever?

>Irrelevant.
>I bought it.
Your hypothetical scenario seems to be half anarchist half capitalist retard. If you are asking what would happen in an anarchist society don't answer with capitalist shit.

>forced to live in a shithole
>truly utopia
You are assuming that they were already forced to live in a shithole. So the thing that makes it a shithole compared to the previous situation is that you are the one worse off.

If you don't like "I bought it", just change it with "I built it", doesn't matter to me,
>You are assuming that they were already forced to live in a shithole
No, I'm not, I'm saying they were living in a shithole for whatever reason, like being lazy bums who are unable or lack the will to maintain their living spaces in good conditions, you know, like commies today, so if I have to go live where they lived, I'd be forced to live in a shithole, just because they decided to occupy my house.

So you brush your teeth with 2 toothbrushes at the same time? Whatever helps you sleep at night senpai.

>Nope, they don't have even remotely the same power.
Yes I agree, property owners has wayyyyyy too much power right now.

>Aside from, you know, buying the material for building that thing, and building it, and renouncing its use.
Which you would be making a profit from when you sell it to him. Does the company who sold you your phone or computer get a cut of your profits you make when you use your phone or computer?

>Ever read a book on economics? Like, ever?
Have you?

>So you brush your teeth with 2 toothbrushes at the same time? Whatever helps you sleep at night senpai.
No, I never said that, I said that if I owned 2 toothbrushes for whatever reason, they would stop being my personal property apparently because I can't use them both at the same time. We can literally repeat the same scenario with 3 forks/3 knives, whatever.
>Which you would be making a profit from when you sell it to him
I didn't sell it to him, can you even read? I rented it to him.
>Have you?
Yes, which can be guessed by the fact that I'm not the commie here, you know, like 99% of economists.

>If you don't like "I bought it", just change it with "I built it", doesn't matter to me
You made the materials for the house, you made your food while you were building it, you made the tools you used, you provided the electricity, you cured yourself when you got sick, etc? Production is a social action, like it or not, and the result of it is the result of the entire society. But going to the extreme and impossible case in which you did literally everything, it would be the equivalent situation of , I think you should be allowed to live on the fringes of society if you so chose to.

>No, I'm not, I'm saying they were living in a shithole for whatever reason, like being lazy bums who are unable or lack the will to maintain their living spaces in good conditions
Ridiculous, poverty is largely determined by birth. But if some people are abusing the community by taking and not giving you are free to talk to your neighbours are decide what to do about it.

>You made the materials for the house, you made your food while you were building it, you made the tools you used, you provided the electricity, you cured yourself when you got sick, etc?
All this doesn't help you at all, for several reasons:
A) I can make another example where I built it and several others with the help of a group of 20 other individuals who provided for everything while we built it and the squatters who come are not part of the 20 individuals.
B) Let's say one or more of those squatters actually contributed in a roundabout way to build that house, how does the fact that one of the squatters helped make a loaf of bread I once ate entitles him to my house as much or more than me when I built 20% of the house? It doesn't, it's absurd.
>poverty is largely determined by birth.
Let's set aside the truth of the claim, when did I say they were poor? I'm sorry, but can you read? it's the third time you just make up stuff instead of responding to what I actually write. I just said they don't maintain their own house in good conditions.
>you are free to talk to your neighbours are decide what to do about it.
Sound efficient

>All this doesn't help you at all, for several reasons:
It's irrelevant if they contributed to that specifically or to something else. If they contributed to society they have a right to the fruits of social labor, and if they didn't other people will side with you.

>Let's set aside the truth of the claim, when did I say they were poor?
Sorry, it's 4 am and I should really go to sleep. I assumed by "shithole" you meant a poor household, this sounds like a superficial complaint tbqh. Anyway, I'm off.

>If they contributed to society they have a right to the fruits of social labor
Why would they have a right to stuff I built for doing completely unrelated tasks? That's insane, totally unstable. Even more what if what they do is just some minor shitty job and I'm something like an engineer or a m.d.? Why would they be granted the same as me? How don't you see that defending this shit is (one of the reasons) why you all look like lazy fucks who don't want to do shit all day and still be payed for it?
>this sounds like a superficial complaint tbqh
>have to stop living in my house because some lazy idiots decided to squat it and I have to go live in some shithole with cum crusted walls and dirt all over the floor because otherwise it's oppressive or something
>superficial complaint
I wonder why commies aren't more popular.

They both suck and are retarded, but Rand sucks more.
>only that her philosophy actually functions
Sears CEO Eddie Lampert tried applying her philosophy to running his business.
It turned to crap.

>ayn rand represents the entire libertarian right

Ayn Rand is so shit her work is idiotically easy to criticize.
How could you (or the author if you didn't make the pic) demean your argument by essentially putting insults as "offensively pedestrian, sophomoric and remarkably silly" as the work they criticize?
Way to self-destroy.

None work. Commies are certified idiots and ancaps are just basement dwellers trying to have the moral high ground among the liberals.