Why does Veeky Forums hate political and economic freedoms?

Why does Veeky Forums hate political and economic freedoms?

...

non-alpha males prefer social wellfare network

>economic freedom
>Posts flag of "Non-aggression"

Non-aggression laws are the precursor to all the laws we have today.

If I steal from you, that's a 100% gain; that's akin to stealing milk from a cow, honey from bees, eggs from chickens, etc. Theoretically, I've already violated someone's territory or stolen food from a bush that was claimed by another animal; everything in this Earth is claimed by another living being.

If I trade something to get something, I'm losing something to benefit.
Why ought I lose something to benefit, when I could take? Humans aren't equal, therefore I should steal just like I steal from every other living animal.

What makes you think Veeky Forums hates political and economic freedom? This is probably the most liberal board on all of Veeky Forums. I mean, I'm not a libertarian, but that's not because I'm not attracted to the libertarian idea, it's because I don't think libertarianism would work in practice. It's too extreme - thinking that the market will take care of everything if we just let it is wishful thinking just like thinking that everything will be great if we just redistribute the means of production to the workers is wishful thinking.

Political and economic freedoms are both good, but not for the reasons that libertarians and ancaps think.

How to fix ancap's road problem?

libertarianism is leftie degenerate garbage and 'freedoms' don't mean anything. On top of that, I don't want there to be a shortage of land and people getting shot over that shortage of land because some boomer fuck bought up most of it and the state can't punish him for not developing it so people can actually live in a non third-world country. These days they're saying that we should have open borders and no gun laws except to prevent gun shooting. So it's really just a professional protest party more then one with convictions.

Well anarcho-capitalism is just retarded, there is a legitimate place for government while also avoiding absolute government control over the economy or politics.

I don't hate political and economic freedoms, I just don't believe that Laissez-Faire economics represents a state of maximum economic freedom and I believe there's a healthy role for the government to play in the enforcement of positive rights.

>mfw unironically have a Gadsden Flag hung up in my room

I'm not white but I have to admit, I started reading the writings of the Founding Fathers, John Locke and Thomas Paine as well as American poets like Ralph Waldo Emerson and Walt Whitman and I fell in love with it all.

Nobody give a shit about your life, blogcuck.

settle down there bud

>calls libertarianism leftie
>proposes leftist-style land use regulation
wut

baseless accusations. 'leftie' doesn't mean anything beyond impious or 'anti'. And the current standard for land use is used by the US. Which I said.

>muh freedums

...

once a syndacalist douchebag that came to our school to talk said something which is not false:
"socialism will never work in America because everybody considers himself a potential millionaire"

We don't! Veeky Forums is an Ancap monarchist board.

>A lot of people don't really understand Ancap, all because of that poor name. Ancap doesn't mean no government. It means that no government has the natural right to rule people. All men have natural rights and are governed by natural laws. They can, however, join a collective for the purpose or organization and defense. A state, if you will. The constitution, which outlines the rights, responsibilities, duties, et cetera, or both the state and the citizen is, in a way, a contract. A citizen can join this state, can enter his land into the state, can become a citizen, and is beholden to certain laws. If he breaks these laws, he can be punished. If other people break these laws, so will they. And if the state exercises more power than it has the right to exercise, the citizens who entered land into it have the right to secede, and even those who entered no land always have the right to leave, to vote with their feet. And if a landed man is unhappy with the state, but they have done no wrong, he can still leave at any time, but might not be allowed to really secede.
Do you understand? This is just my quick example.
>Read Hoppe.

You are an idiot. The American Libertarian Party isn't really libertarian.

I assume toll roads

Which just makes things like military defense a nightmare to administer. Imagine if not paying your taxes meant that your house didn't have to be defended from invaders, but the house next to you that does pay its taxes still must be defended by the voluntary "government" should someone invade it. Defending the country while defending property that didn't pay for defense (which would allow for massive amounts of freeloaders leeching off the system) would be almost impossible.

Maybe just how we currently do it, except people can possibly secede.
Or, for a minarchist state, which is not the same as Ancap but could exist as an Ancap state, a free market system where road owners band together to create licenses which people pay for, and those licenses to drive cost money, which funds road repair and road security officers, who will arrest you if you're driving on their roads without a license.

If you refuse to pay taxes that you had agreed to pay for when joining a state, they could arrest you. Why would they just not defend your property? You are an idiot.
If anyone who often talks about how terrible Ancap is because they don't understand it spent half as much time reading Ancap literature or simply thinking of possible solutions as they do reading memeballs, maybe they'd be able to answer their on questions regarding Ancap.

>Hoppe

Yes, I'm certain that was your exact reaction when reading the name of a true intellectual.

Brainlets who can't handle freedom.

Zombies who would rather be ruled by authoritarianism.

”Freedom” is a meme word. You have a choice, but even in a capitalist, free market nation your choice is extremely limited

>In his memoirs, Lee Kuan Yew recounted that as early as 1983, when he was still serving as Prime Minister, a proposal for the ban was brought up to him by the then Minister for National Development.
>Chewing gum was causing serious maintenance problems in high-rise public housing flats, with vandals disposing of spent gum in mailboxes, inside keyholes and even on lift buttons. Chewing gum left on the ground, stairways and pavements in public areas increased the cost of cleaning and damaged cleaning equipment. Gum stuck on the seats of public buses was also considered a problem.
>It was then reported that vandals had begun sticking chewing gum on the door sensors of MRT trains, preventing doors from functioning properly and causing disruption to train services. Such incidents were rare but costly and culprits were difficult to apprehend.

Some people, many people in fact, NEED to be governed.

Freedom is the biggest spook around

You are living in a weakening state. The correct way to remedy this is actually to make government stronger and more centralized, but with less public servants.

t. Someone who actually read The Social Contract

So basically every connection to the soil is broken when AnCap arrives?
Sounds shit.

Did it violate the NAP?

Empire's arent born out of freedom.

Taxing people and using the tax money to pay road companies.

Burger powerhours are way worse than the rest of the day

If you sign a contract with a state saying that you join your land with them, will pay taxes, and follow their laws, and in exchange, they will protect you and do other things, if you break your side of the contract, they can decide your punishment. Likely, in their side of the contract, they would guarantee due process and fair punishment, but that wouldn't necessarily mean kicking you and your land out. It might just mean kicking you out. Or imprisoning you. Or fining you.
But if you think they would let anyone attack land under their rule, just because the technical owner of that land is breaking his side of the contract, you're nuts. And stupid.
Get a brain.

because it's full of underage losers who almost always swing left

Same

Which means if they don't sign the contract there's this big patch of land that any foreign invader can conquer without the defense contractors getting involved. Which means that there are now enemy military bases all over the fucking place.

Because right wing 'libertarianism' isn't freedom.

I don't. Picture is unrelated, I suppose?

So anarcho-capitalism is a description of the social contract.

Wrong. Left wing libertarianism isnt freedom since the state is needed to enforce equality. Bake the fucking cake, faggot.

*voluntarily associates*

antebellum USA was the one chance left-libertarianism ever really had but it still fell flat

But thats not left libertarianism. Thats right libertarianism. Left libertarianism/ anarchism doesnt exist.

The first coast-to-coast American highway was built in the 1910s by private individuals

He gave a bad example. The USA dealt with this issue in the early days; states like Vermont and New York were much more threatened by the British in Canada than were Georgians and Carolinians. As a result, the latter wasn't super-psyched to join the Militia. The solution? Pay them more. It's not that difficult.

this picture is great until you start looking at the road layouts. was this what it was really like? it's hideous visually

By making a monopoly of affordable hovercars/helicopters/off-road vehicles/etc.

>they don't sign the contract
Do you know how many of these there would be? Little states? Very few people would be "independent."
And besides that, a state or individuals would always have the right to intervene if their little neighbor was getting conquered by anyone else, just as a bystander witnessing a mugging has the right to kill the mugger, and many would likely exercise that right, especially if it's in their advantage to do so, for example, to stop a military base from being put on their borders. So the only military bases set up on your borders would likely be in the lands of an owner who wanted that base there. And, in an Ancap society, warmongering groups or states would likely accrue many enemies. Think about it, Ancap is a philosophy that holds that people have natural rights and that getting unwillingly conquered is immoral. If, say, a state anywhere in the world is just conquered by another group, do you think all the other states would stand for it? Like if fifty people are in a room, completely unarmed. And one of them starts making a shank. What would happen? Would they stand idly by? Would they be morally obliged to stand idly by? No. But let's say they do. And then the shank-holder stabs someone. Would they all stand in line, waiting for him to take them on, one-by-one? No. Many would gang up on him, beat him half to death, and take his shank. Why do you think it'd be any different in a Ancap society?

>social contract.
No, it'd be a real contract. In a stateless void, and by that I mean land that was privately owned and associated with no "governing body," there would be no contract, but would still be certain natural laws all would be held to.
But if you join a "state," you would be held by their very-real contract.

>Would they all stand in line, waiting for him to take them on, one-by-one?
Pretty much any totalitarian state shouws that the answer is usually yes

Roads are effeminate and bad for your joints.

>he hasn't taken the neoliberal pill yet

The Federalist Papers and Democracy In America are a must read for anyone becoming familiar with American politics. America as an idea is worth fighting for.

Hoppe isnt even an-cap

What is he, then?

Where ancap is going, we won't need roads.

>left-libertarianism
Literally never infected in a regime outside Europe. Jefferson was outside the political grid going downwards and rightwards and Adams is barely visible in the same direction.

What even is the difference between left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism?

jetpacks

>roads
>he doesn't own a 4x4 amphibian vehicles with rocket launcher just in case

that's not how it works

>On top of that, I don't want there to be a shortage of land and people getting shot over that shortage of land because some boomer fuck bought up most of it and the state can't punish him for not developing it so people can actually live in a non third-world country

this actually sounds quite progressive my man.

What the elite has done in america, is convince the people that the left is enslaving, while capitalism liberates, when nothing, ever, in the history of the world could be farther from the truth.

>calling a syndicalist a douchebag

keep working for that 4 dollars an hour user, I'm sure some suited guys who take boat trips to the Carribean appreciate your "work ethic"!

no, user, we do understand it, it's just that it's baseless mental diarrhea that should not be considered at all

Most likely you will have been rocket launchered at some point, not the one with the rocket launcher

You:
>that's okay I would die just for the knowledge that someone is actually rolling around in a Warthog type vehicle with a fucking rocket launcher, enacting Master Chief-tier realities

I swear, Ancaps are the biggest manchildren

(the joke) -->
-
-
-
(your head)

Libertarians are an american meme.
Dont bring that jewish degeneracy to europe

I'm just amazed that you "libertarians" think you can be douchebags to anyone. Us real libertarians never talked about economic freedom until some started merging with the socialists. And it meant the opposite as to what you think it means.

You're a retard.

>ancap debating skills

Because they are a meme.

How ancaps/libertarians imagine "freedom":
>No unemployment because no welfare
>Abolishing minimal wage results in an economic boom
>Abolishing public shools leads to an increase of educationvalue
>Capitalists paying low or no taxes will make them earn more and increase the wages of workers to boost their morale.

How it really would had been:
>Unemployment and poverty everywhere because no welfare, and therefore no money for low-class unemployed people, leading them eventually to lose their homes, and nobody would hire a homeless person anyway.
>Abolishing minimal wage will result in giving the low wages for the proletariat, which doesn't matter and doesn't have a choice anyway.
>Abolishing public schools will lead to massive analphabetism, because of low wages of proletariat
>Capitalist paying low or no taxes would let them have even more money, and become de facto a high caste or a nobility ruling the proles. The naiveness that they will increase wages to boost morale is in the case of ancaps/libertarians a result of their ignorance. Increasing the wage doesn't even boost morale of the workers anyway, so why should they do that when not enforced by the "evil" state to do so?

>debate
What debate? I was replying to this.
>no, user, we do understand it, it's just that it's baseless mental diarrhea that should not be considered at all

> Congratulations, citizen. We've eliminated all progressive taxes and burdensome business regulations. You're free now!

Freedom as defined by right wing libertarians is a stupid meme, like freedom defined by liberals in general.
Don't get me wrong, marxists get freedom wrong too, they're just more coherent about it.

Once again, you mistake minarchism for Ancap.
An Ancap government could very well have regulations, welfare, and a million other things, just as well as it could not have those things.
Ancap isn't a type of government, it's simply a philosophy towards to formation of a government.

How? What do you think right-wing libertarian freedom is, and what do you think real freedom is?

I didn't. I wrote "ancaps/libertarians". The reduction or elimination of taxes and generally sucking the dicks of capitalists while overusing the word "freedom" applies to the both of them.

>buying ideology from the super-market shelf

we are already heading towards ancap, only history dictates it's a move dictated by the upper eschelons of society, not the "free volition of the masses".

see:
>Abolishing public schools will lead to massive analphabetism, because of low wages of proletariat

Betsy DeVos? Massive reforms that deteriorate public education in Europe?


>Abolishing minimal wage results in an economic boom

GEE, I HAVEN'T HEARD THAT BEFORE!! REALLY MISTER?

An Ancap state could very well have all of those things, it would just have to be consensual and contractual between the state that enacts these laws and the citizens living under them.

What the fuck do you even mean by this? Betsy DeVos is completely irrelevant in this conversation, and not Ancap at all.
You continue to show you complete lack of understanding about what Ancap even is.

Not only are you an ideologist, you're an idealist ideologist.

What about the current social contract user? Aren't democracies the will of the people? Don't we all want to be in danger of losing our homes to banks because of a robbery scam and don't we all hate our terrible public infrastucture?

>Massive reforms that deteriorate public education in Europe?
Why do you even think that a lot of people in your "freedom" world would even have enough money to spend on private (and the only one) education?

Yea, first lower the minimal wage, then get rid of the welfare, and the working class would obviously have enough cash to pay for the education of their children... right?

>Abolishing minimal wage results in an economic boom
The point is that even if the companies will have more money... the vast majority of people would not. What libretardians fail to realize that a growth of GDP =/= growth of the living standard for everyone.

I agree

I knew I wasn't clear enough when I posted it, but the "ancap" seemed to have understood it was directed towards them

but if the companies arent taxed anymore, surely they will be more generious and give more of their profit to the worker. Ancaps 1 statists - 0

>social contract
A contract one doesn't sign isn't a contract at all.
Democracies are the will of a majority, and that is not good enough. What about the minority? They don't want to do whatever it is the majority are forcing them to do, but they can't really leave, because they'd be forced to leave behind their property, that is, their land.
The difference is, in an Ancap society, the minority could leave. But they'd have to weigh it. What are the advantages of staying? Of leaving? In such a society where people recognize the immorality of keeping a person in a state against his will( And don't stary with the "Just move!" crap. It's keeping him against his will because you won't let him take his land with him, just as a person could be keeping me against my will because he's kidnapped my daughter), states would need to form with contractual constitutions. Continued in next post.

...

>A contract one doesn't sign isn't a contract at all.
>playing with words

did you vote? pay taxes?

>They don't want to do whatever it is the majority are forcing them to do, but they can't really leave, because they'd be forced to leave behind their property, that is, their land.

who the fuck owns land?
Wait a minute: by "minority" do you mean the capitalists?

>in an Ancap society, the minority could leave
Not really, if he can't afford to buy property somewhere else. Infact most people don't even own any starting property to begin with.

Freedom in the modern sense is understood to be a lack of certain external restrictions, such as some rules or laws or regulations.
What freedom used to mean, is the internal state where reason drives the passion and not viceversa.

>but if the companies arent taxed anymore, surely they will be more generious and give more of their profit to the worker.
Why would they if an increase of the wages DOESN'T even boost staff morale?

Now, what do I mean by a "contractual constitution?" Well, it's in the name.
Let's give an example.
I am an independent man, with no state and no land. I want to join a state, with all the benefits that brings. I look at all the ones near me, and see what they offer. One is a monarchy, one is a republic, one is a commune, and one is minarchist. I decide to go with the republic. I read their contract. It states that I will be beholden to their laws, will pay their taxes, and will be a loyal citizens. And they, in turn, will offer, say, welfare for the poor, enforcement of laws, a vote for me, will not change this law and that law, and are restricted in what they can change, et cetera.
I move in, and become wealthy. I purchase land. And now I no longer want to stay in this state. What do I do? I have the guaranteed right to leave, but not with my land, so long as they continue to keep up their end of the contract. So I wait for them to break it. Like, say, killing a mob boss without due process. I sue them for doing this. They had guaranteed due process in the constitution! What scoundrels! So I sue to secede. Now, I want to quickly join another state, because I'm an easy target for thieves as long as there's no real police force protecting me.
This is all an example of something that could happen in an Ancap society.

Forget about muh roads. I wanna know who secures peoples property in an ancap society. Do all major companies have standing armies? Like, if you own 15 factories in China, does half of your work force have to include Chinese mercenaries?

Wouldn't it make more sense in a capitalist POV to have every member of society finance the capitalists security forces?

>did you vote? pay taxes?
I did not have a choice in that. I never said that I was giving up this right or that right in exchange for this benefit or that benefit, and neither did the state, you nut.
>who the fuck owns land?
People who own land.
>Wait a minute: by "minority" do you mean the capitalists?
I mean any minority that feels like its right are being stomped upon. Capitalists, Communists, Christians, blacks, model-train-enthusiasts, et cetera.
Then he's losing nothing by simply moving with his feet to a state that seems to offer something else.>where reason drives the passion and not viceversa.
Ancap is perfectly logical.

So basically the ideal ancap society looks pretty much like our current society except anybody can secede at any time?

>Then he's losing nothing by simply moving with his feet to a state that seems to offer something else
So you still have to live on other peoples conditions? The freedom you have is simply "the freedom to choose your masters"?
Sounds very not-freedom to me

Private companies. At that point, those private companies would likely offer other services, like, say, welfare, and could more properly be called states.
What's the difference between these states and our current states? You sign a contract to join those, while ours aren't necessarily consensual.

>Ancap is perfectly logical
I've never seen anyone misunderstand this much a statement and at the same time making a reply that says something as meaningless as that.
Something being logical as nothing to do with it being reasonable or true. Even then, it has nothing to do with the misunderstanding of what freedom actually is.