Any good books to learn about Libertarianism? (please none from the American point of view, just neutral ones)

Any good books to learn about Libertarianism? (please none from the American point of view, just neutral ones)

same fucking thread as yesterday.

The declaration of independence
Anything by Ron Paul
Any economics by milton friedman
Fountainhead by ayn rand
Might is right by Ragnar redbeard

Peter Vallentyne: "The origins of left-libertarianism: an anthology of historical writings"

Do you want to read about right-libertarianism or left-? If it's the second, I can give some recommendations, but can't really help with the first, other then Ayn Rand I guess.

jesus was a commie

Just skip reading about it and wait it out. It's just a phase. Libertarianism is complete bullshit of the highest order.

>Left-libertarian
This is literally complete bullshit because libertarianism is inherently anti-left.

So-called "right-libertarianism" is a contradiction in terms. At best, it's a euphemism for feudalism.

Jesus was a welfare NEET.

>25“Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? 26Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? 27And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life?g 28And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, 29yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? 31Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. 33But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

>34“Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.

What do you think 'left' implies?

Why? Libertarianism is just believing that you should be able to do whatever you want as long as it does not affect others.

Thing is, everything you do "affects others" since everyone is drawing from the same finite pool of natural resources.

>Might is Right
>having anything to with Lolbergtarianism

???

what is
>negative liberty

It's almost as if you haven't even looked into the topic and yet you're talking authoritatively about it.

Thank you.

Start with Rothbard as economic literacy is a requirement in order to understand rationality and libertarian ideology.

Go back to /pol/ with that idiocy. The adults are talking.

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

They stole the term from anarchists. Rothbard even admits this.

I will be sure to check that out!

That chart is retarded and so are you. Rothbard is just a rightwinger, and there's no such thing as "rightwing libertarianism". It's an oxymoron.

It is not an oxymoron, in what way is it an oxymoron?

Capitalism is inherently incompatible with libertarianism.

Libertarianism is a synonym for Anarchism. Anarchism is about getting rid of all formalized hierarchy. "Ancaps" love hierarchy.

Anarcho-Pinochet market feudalism surveillance state

Isn't libertarianism just letting people do what they want as long as it does not negatively effect others? As in you still have a police, army and state.

Everything you do "negatively affects others" since everyone is drawing from the same finite pool of natural resources.

I am aware of that, I mean things like stealing and assault.

Libertarianism is a leftist concept you dumb shit

It is actually more right wing.

>left-libertarianism

Right-libertarianism is the only kind of libertarianism.

"Stealing" doesn't negatively affect others anymore than enforcing the so-called "property right" in the first place.

Stupidest thing I read all day.

Whoever wrote that is an utter moron with deep conceptual confusions.

It's true. You can't even define "stealing" without first defining "property rights".

Maybe in Europe, but in 'merrica it's just classical liberalism. Maybe some an-caps, but they're just as dumb.

Like here says

Just anything that you have bought or something that you have received as a gift. Stealing is taking without consent from the property owner.

There is no such thing as a "property owner" without the granting and enforcement of property rights.

The government enforces those.

both left and right libertarianism are idealistic nonsense

So libertarianism is just *tips*: the ideology?

Makes sense.

Why would you want to? The you replied to is the American POV

Everything is, user.

>classical liberalism
There is no "classical liberalism", "classical liberalism" is a bullshit term made up by Hayek to suggest "these men are the REAL intellectuals, not these OTHER men!"

Anyone I've ever met who uses that term is unironically a right winger and also very stupid.

Yes, that's the point: you need a state to enforce property rights. That's why so-called "right-libertarianism" is incoherent. State enforcement of property rights in an infringement of liberty.

Right libertarian concept of 'freedom' is limited to property. the non-aggression principle and negative freedom become meaningless when you can starve people by controling access to resources you arbitrarily claim as your own. Libertarianism is similar to Marxism in its ambitions, though instead of relying in a model of social analysis, it relies on a system of deontological ethics. According to this system, Propietarianism is always moral even when it leads to the most undesirable and absurd conclusions, ie. Totalitarian pseudo-feudal oligarchy. The market is only one of many forms of social organization, and a relatively recent innovation at that. I

actually I'll amend this
right libertarianism is the step before fully embracing various strains of right wing authoritarian thought
left libertarianism is "whoa dude what if the government paid for my weed? have you heard of this dude gnome chompsky? we just need to get along my dudes"

...

okay let's pretend that libertarianism means anarchism (which it doesn't, left or right) but left anarchism still requires rights

Free weed and freedom>getting cucked by authoritarians

It's a real distinction for some. They both believe in market capitalism but the new, or progressive to some, accepts certain amounts of socialism, while the "classical" still hate socialism.

I'm an anarchist, so I don't like either.

(((the point is it's a stupid and barely thought out system endorsed by people who want to do whatever they want with little to no responsibility towards themselves or their community)))

The only libertarian right is the right to self-ownership.

so who's going to protect that right without a state?
>b-but it's different
no it's literally just property rights in its basest form
unless you're suggesting that those with strong bodies should be free to control those with weak bodies (this is the reality of anarchism)

Except, that's all bullshit. You've never actually read von Humboldt or any work of libertarian philosophy.

Read a book, son. You are way too confused to sort out on a message board.

refute the argument in your own words

A little off topic but,

Is pic related worth going for?
and is this a decent translation ???

>negative liberty
>isaiah berlin
>/pol/

is every other opinion from your's /pol/?

Yes,if you don't agree with this then you are more than welcome to go back to /pol/

This, left libertarians are authoritarian fascist collectivists who don't know economics

The Constitution of Liberty
Anarchy, State, and Utopia

There's no distinction, what you just said is entirely bullshit. Adam Smith is hailed as the prime capitalist thinker and he demonizes the entire progression in his book as horrible, dehumanizing and we should resist it. The idea of "classical liberals" being in favor of neoliberal ideal is a fabrication.

I'm not sure what you're saying.

>Adam Smith ... demonizes the entire progression
Of Laissez-faire economics?
>The idea of "classical liberals" being in favor of neoliberal ideal is a fabrication.
So you're telling me you're a libertarian (US) who believes in a "free market", yes?
You can claim neo-libs aren't like you, fine with me. It's all dirty money and the life's blood of states.

You have me confused entirely. I'm somewhat of an anarcho-socialist. I'm saying that Adam Smith is closer to Karl Marx than to von Mises, and that ideological hacks like Hayek invent ideas like "classical liberal" that attempt to say 19th century thinkers would justify preneoliberal values.

I'm more saying libertarianism, a radical offshoot of neoliberalism, has no legitimate basis in history, the narrative they give is mostly fabricated. I think most of the historical people libertarians hail would despise them.

Ah, I see now. Well I have a shallow education on the nuances. But that the 19th century brand has changed with it's acceptance of some kinds of socialism does legitimize the term for me.

>I think most of the historical people libertarians hail would despise them.
No doubt.

left-wingers are the real fascists

Collectivism always leads to mass murder and genocide.

The individual is the only thing that matters.

Just forget about it.
Any form of libertarianism is just fedora tier ideology that ends up contradicting itself.


t. A former activist and an-cap.

>Hitler
>Socialist

Nice spooks, kiddo.

>The religious wars of Europe never happened.

You don't know how spooks work.

I thought you were a lefty?

>Activist
>Ancap
nice contradiction friendo

Just 2 mentally retarded phases I went through (first activist then an-cap).

thought they had to be separate, can't be an ancap and an activist, ancaps only exist on the internet :^)

Ancaps don't exist

I fucking hope so friendo

Any form of libertarianism shouldn't exist tbqfhwf desu

Well, friendo, you got close. But no cigar. See, the infographic sets up a false dichotomy wherein the choices are either "people become Anarcho-Individualist" or "The collective violently removes property". In fact, the third option not listed- The most logical of the three- Is simply to ignore the person claiming property ownership and live and use the land as you would continue to anyway. The only legitimacy one would have at that point is if they try to defend their 'property' at gunpoint, in which the collective has every right towards self-defense.

>So libertarianism is just *tips*: the ideology?
Did you assume it was anything else?

Don't you mean the individual has the right for self defense, not the collective?

If you are interested in authoritarian governing, then I would highly recommend but I don't know much about the copy.

>i subscribe to political labels

Legitimate plebeians.

>steal or appropriate property
>person either goes along out of fear of reprisal or
>defends his property and loses to the collective, who use violence in defense of the collective

How is that different than option 2?

I think that he meant the individual

Translated from English to.... English?

This. Libertarianism rejects traditional institutions and values because they get in the way of corporate greed. Libertarians are just leftist who want low taxes.

Um, lmao.

If you're a right winger or an individualist, you should just kill your dumb, toxic self.

Toodles.

fucking how
its such a simple ideology

>jesus was a libertarian
LOL
Rationality is a spook

>religious wars
There's no such thing

I am personally interested in left-libertarian writings apart from left-anarchism. Where to start?

reddit

This. Individualism =racist. We as hardworking white folk have a duty to subsidize the lazy dindu. Hail Communism!

Leviathan is a masterpiece. Hobbes is possibly the greatest political thinker of the modern era.

Peter Vallentyne: "The origins of left-libertarianism: an anthology of historical writings"

>muh property
>muh NAP
>muh natural law

What if I told you arguing against property and the NAP is a performative contradiction. As argumentation itself presupposes norms such as non-aggression, rationality and self-ownership.

I believe he means the collective would encroach on the individual's property. The individual would open gunfire to ward them off and the collective would fire back in self-defence.