File: 1687445548667.jpg (25.82 KB, 320x320, 1:1, ancap meme - altruism gove….jpg) ImgOps iqdb
they have elevated being an asshole into a philosophy and a worldview. Everything they say and believe just goes back to defending assholery
>>303919
It's taxes what make us trapped into this rat race system where money rules, given that you cannot simply go off-grid you have to withstand cattleherder schooling where you are turned into a dull teen who will later have not much choice beyond getting robbed by the scammer statist government to pay abusive cops, neglective pharma biased medicines, amongst many services you do not even ask for, while they do hide many real solutions to those problems they secretly create they will make you pay multiple time the price of a simpler solution while they finance wars and more cunning methods for turning us all into sick, clueless, despaired slaves who would not thrive unless they corrupt theirselves into their ways.
You wouldn't need NEETbux if you were actually able to grow your own food, isn`t it? But if try to still do so you shall be taxed and therefore in need of competing against other local farmers, many of them in your same situation, who wins this game? The one who destroys the land and machinery of their competitors of course, that's what taxes send us all into. And this was just a brief example of which ways make you climb through this society model.
Also patents rig the game even further, what about the poor man who suddenly has an idea to improve his life and his surroundings through his mere creativity and workforce? But he needs to pay for the patent, to whom? To the officer staff who will end up taking the money while committing fraud and taking the patents for theirselves, making this man unable by law to carry out his dreams while they hide knowledge to make other more dependant under their ignorance.
While due to these two rules of statism, the game is more and more expensive and that leads to trust banks, where you ask for loans where they will always win for if you sucessfully pay the whole mortgage, it's more than you were given and if you don't they will just retain the money while take away your endorsement, usually an important property of yours which they will sell away for more than it costed and rarely much cheaper than it ever was.
While you stressfully strive to make ends meet, they pulled the crypto game upon your last hopes so you change real money for their virtual currency, which value is always manipulated and never real, while cryptomining is not much beyond freely working for their programmers, until everything goes down and you can do a thing but to sell away your illusory cryptocurrency for always less price than you paid.
In the process, you wagie cagie is leaving you to tired, unhealthy and busy to even see the game you are being played on, so you do just give into booze, weed or porn, which they do rule too and never touch and this is how you finally fall into ruin beyond economic, selling yourself away in almost every aspect of your life.
It's taxes what make us trapped into this rat race system where money rules, given that you cannot simply go off-grid you have to withstand cattleherder schooling where you are turned into a dull teen who will later have not much choice beyond getting robbed by the scammer statist government to pay abusive cops, neglective pharma biased medicines, amongst many services you do not even ask for, while they do hide many real solutions to those problems they secretly create they will make you pay multiple time the price of a simpler solution while they finance wars and more cunning methods for turning us all into sick, clueless, despaired slaves who would not thrive unless they corrupt theirselves into their ways.
You wouldn't need NEETbux if you were actually able to grow your own food, isn`t it? But if try to still do so you shall be taxed and therefore in need of competing against other local farmers, many of them in your same situation, who wins this game? The one who destroys the land and machinery of their competitors of course, that's what taxes send us all into. And this was just a brief example of which ways make you climb through this society model.
Also patents rig the game even further, what about the poor man who suddenly has an idea to improve his life and his surroundings through his mere creativity and workforce? But he needs to pay for the patent, to whom? To the officer staff who will end up taking the money while committing fraud and taking the patents for theirselves, making this man unable by law to carry out his dreams while they hide knowledge to make other more dependant under their ignorance.
While due to these two rules of statism, the game is more and more expensive and that leads to trust banks, where you ask for loans where they will always win for if you sucessfully pay the whole mortgage, it's more than you were given and if you don't they will just retain the money while take away your endorsement, usually an important property of yours which they will sell away for more than it costed and rarely much cheaper than it ever was.
While you stressfully strive to make ends meet, they pulled the crypto game upon your last hopes so you change real money for their virtual currency, which value is always manipulated and never real, while cryptomining is not much beyond freely working for their programmers, until everything goes down and you can do a thing but to sell away your illusory cryptocurrency for always less price than you paid.
In the process, you wagie cagie is leaving you to tired, unhealthy and busy to even see the game you are being played on, so you do just give into booze, weed or porn, which they do rule too and never touch and this is how you finally fall into ruin beyond economic, selling yourself away in almost every aspect of your life.
Why did you make another politics thread? The other is still quite a long way off from bump limit.
I think they go too far in the other direction, I don't think everything should be privatised and I think there should be basic safety regulations. I'm all for small government, but my main problem is the government, like all mature organisations, is drowning in administrative bloat rather than what services it provides. For example, my country's health care system has more managers than doctors, my council employs thousands yet can only collect the rubbish once every two weeks and would take years to fix a pothole, I'm not really seeing the benefits of all these administrators nor an efficient use of tax payer money.
it's the only acceptable political stance when you realize every other alternative one way or another involves oppression.
>>303963
I agree with this. It also makes the difference between monarchy and democracy inconsequential. We should have about one page of laws detailing how you cannot harm other humans. This page should be available on the internet, and in every public library.
I agree with this. It also makes the difference between monarchy and democracy inconsequential. We should have about one page of laws detailing how you cannot harm other humans. This page should be available on the internet, and in every public library.
I think the Rothbardian extremes of libertarianism are very naive and sort of ivory-tower like. Even if in abstract, it would be better to have this overarching non-aggression principle and for society to operate through the free market, humans just seem driven to have their society more hierarchical and with an authority that rules by force. Even in smallish cults you see the classes and social order quickly form and establish itself.
That said, marginalism and praxeology is a better explanation of human action than anything else in economics. And they're very good at tearing apart the models and pretenses of other economic schools of thought. Most other economists function as court priests and just give justification for what the ruling class already wants to do, and Austrian-chads have always refused to play that game.
That said, marginalism and praxeology is a better explanation of human action than anything else in economics. And they're very good at tearing apart the models and pretenses of other economic schools of thought. Most other economists function as court priests and just give justification for what the ruling class already wants to do, and Austrian-chads have always refused to play that game.
>>304186
why is there really a huge gap between Chicago and Austrian schools? They are all for free markets. Only difference is Neoclassical likes more numbers and graphs to sound more sciencey, and Austrians are doing philosophy.
And like you yourself said Austrians have some kooky stuff that really goes beyond just being for free markets and capitalism, and Neoclassical mainstream/ Chicago, doesn't have that baggage.
why is there really a huge gap between Chicago and Austrian schools? They are all for free markets. Only difference is Neoclassical likes more numbers and graphs to sound more sciencey, and Austrians are doing philosophy.
And like you yourself said Austrians have some kooky stuff that really goes beyond just being for free markets and capitalism, and Neoclassical mainstream/ Chicago, doesn't have that baggage.
>>304187
>why is there really a huge gap between Chicago and Austrian schools?
They differ hugely on the role of the reserve bank and monetary policy. Which may not sound like a lot, but government control over money is like the cornerstone of its power. Chicago types still believe in the Keynesian idea of monetary policy stimulus during times of trouble and restraint during growth, except they advocate for stringent controls on inflation like with what Volker did during the 80s. The heyday of the Chicago school can be seen during the late 80s and 90s, when inflation was kept on a tight leash between like 1-3%. Austrians go a step further and want the decentralization of the control of money or the abolishing of the central bank, with it being replaced by either a government gold standard or whatever currency the people choose.
>Austrians have some kooky stuff that really goes beyond just being for free markets and capitalism,
It's also a lot more harsh and anti-democratic than people realize. They don't believe in the right to vote, they see democratic power structures as being illegitimate and many say that Feudalism was preferable to what came after the French Revolution. Rothbard, the giga-anarcho-capitalist, advocated unleashing the police on socialists. Hans Herman Hoppe is at this point a far right white nationalist, becoming /pol/ as fuck after the refugee crisis. Libertarianism is not beyond turning to authoritarianism to defend itself. The Pinochet love in those circles is not as ironic as people believe, and they regard Singapore as a better model for society than Sweden.
>why is there really a huge gap between Chicago and Austrian schools?
They differ hugely on the role of the reserve bank and monetary policy. Which may not sound like a lot, but government control over money is like the cornerstone of its power. Chicago types still believe in the Keynesian idea of monetary policy stimulus during times of trouble and restraint during growth, except they advocate for stringent controls on inflation like with what Volker did during the 80s. The heyday of the Chicago school can be seen during the late 80s and 90s, when inflation was kept on a tight leash between like 1-3%. Austrians go a step further and want the decentralization of the control of money or the abolishing of the central bank, with it being replaced by either a government gold standard or whatever currency the people choose.
>Austrians have some kooky stuff that really goes beyond just being for free markets and capitalism,
It's also a lot more harsh and anti-democratic than people realize. They don't believe in the right to vote, they see democratic power structures as being illegitimate and many say that Feudalism was preferable to what came after the French Revolution. Rothbard, the giga-anarcho-capitalist, advocated unleashing the police on socialists. Hans Herman Hoppe is at this point a far right white nationalist, becoming /pol/ as fuck after the refugee crisis. Libertarianism is not beyond turning to authoritarianism to defend itself. The Pinochet love in those circles is not as ironic as people believe, and they regard Singapore as a better model for society than Sweden.
>>304273
And yet when Pinochet himself needed someone to advise him he called on Milton Friedman and his Chicago Boys and not the Austrian kooks who worship him.
Friedman justified this, in that economic knowledge was no different than helping a dictatorship with medicine, and he also advised Communist China, so he is not partial to leftist or rightist dictatorships. He will give the same advice to anyone.
And yet when Pinochet himself needed someone to advise him he called on Milton Friedman and his Chicago Boys and not the Austrian kooks who worship him.
Friedman justified this, in that economic knowledge was no different than helping a dictatorship with medicine, and he also advised Communist China, so he is not partial to leftist or rightist dictatorships. He will give the same advice to anyone.
When you start asking Ancaps practical questions they start talking about "contractual neighborhood associations" and "private security" that would be more intrusive and authoritarian into your everyday lives than Uncle Sam is.
"contractual neighborhood associations" have a lot more reason to get into your shit than big bad Uncle Sam
"contractual neighborhood associations" have a lot more reason to get into your shit than big bad Uncle Sam
File: 1688315676642.png (830.06 KB, 2048x1432, 256:179, ClipboardImage.png) ImgOps iqdb
How do capitalists feel about the History of Man from 5000 BC to 1700 AD?
On the one hand there is the conservative impulse to say that basically was capitalism. You had private property and merchants. It shows capitalism is basic to human nature, even ape and mammal nature.
So it gives capitalism an eternalism. But the downside is it makes capitalism responsible for how shitty and slow life was for those 1000s of years.
The other classical liberal answer is to say capitalism was invented around 1700. And this gives capitalism credit for the super growth since then. And this happened to be Marx's view as well, when he said capitalism has exceeded the pyramids and romans in just a few years.
the benefit for this is it makes capitalism look like a miracle invention.
the downside is its a relatively recent invention, not eternal, not built into human nature.
one can even twist it to somehow blame socialism for the slowness of the past, that feudalism, serfdom, theocracy, God Emperors, were primitive forms of communism where the state owns everything.
On the one hand there is the conservative impulse to say that basically was capitalism. You had private property and merchants. It shows capitalism is basic to human nature, even ape and mammal nature.
So it gives capitalism an eternalism. But the downside is it makes capitalism responsible for how shitty and slow life was for those 1000s of years.
The other classical liberal answer is to say capitalism was invented around 1700. And this gives capitalism credit for the super growth since then. And this happened to be Marx's view as well, when he said capitalism has exceeded the pyramids and romans in just a few years.
the benefit for this is it makes capitalism look like a miracle invention.
the downside is its a relatively recent invention, not eternal, not built into human nature.
one can even twist it to somehow blame socialism for the slowness of the past, that feudalism, serfdom, theocracy, God Emperors, were primitive forms of communism where the state owns everything.
>>304346
The inclusion of China on this pretty much disproves the notion that capitalism is responsible for this, doesn't it? The industrial revolution and liberalism is responsible for this, not capitalism.
The inclusion of China on this pretty much disproves the notion that capitalism is responsible for this, doesn't it? The industrial revolution and liberalism is responsible for this, not capitalism.
Naive and childish but most ideologies are, nothing ever really works out like they planned. Some of their ideas are good, but their real crime is just flat out lying about what kind of state they're working towards.
They never really talk about their idea of dispute resolution, for example.
Their reply to argument against libertarianism/capitalist/ancapistanism is almost always "this just wouldnt happen". Ancaps and ancoms are the flat earthers of the political spectrum.
They never really talk about their idea of dispute resolution, for example.
Their reply to argument against libertarianism/capitalist/ancapistanism is almost always "this just wouldnt happen". Ancaps and ancoms are the flat earthers of the political spectrum.
>>304346
For a majority of history the economic model was manorialism/feudalism or agrarianism, not capitalism. Private property and for-profit operations were basically nonexistent. You were property of your local warlord, and he worked for whoever warlord was king at the moment. If you had to go to war you went to war and if you were relocated to the plaguelands to till the land you went there and tilled the land.
It took centuries of city building, migrations and power shift to finally develop the merchant class necessary to make mercantilism happen in the 1500s, and another two hundred years for it to become the dominant profit model.
Capitalism (private individual owns the means of production, completely disconnected from manorialism, guilds or state-sponsored companies) only comes after the industrial revolution (mid 1700s) and even then having a large estate worked by indentured or real slaves was still very profitable, probably more than having a company. The American civil war that ended the southern plantation system was in the 1860s, a few decades before Benz invented the car.
Capitalism per se wasnt 'invented' until the 1850s, and only as the opposite of socialism. If Marx wasnt the one that first used "capitalist ownership" he mustve been very close, and his is the definition we still use today to refer to capitalism (privately owned means of production operated for profit) and actually to differentiate between economic systems in general.
For a majority of history the economic model was manorialism/feudalism or agrarianism, not capitalism. Private property and for-profit operations were basically nonexistent. You were property of your local warlord, and he worked for whoever warlord was king at the moment. If you had to go to war you went to war and if you were relocated to the plaguelands to till the land you went there and tilled the land.
It took centuries of city building, migrations and power shift to finally develop the merchant class necessary to make mercantilism happen in the 1500s, and another two hundred years for it to become the dominant profit model.
Capitalism (private individual owns the means of production, completely disconnected from manorialism, guilds or state-sponsored companies) only comes after the industrial revolution (mid 1700s) and even then having a large estate worked by indentured or real slaves was still very profitable, probably more than having a company. The American civil war that ended the southern plantation system was in the 1860s, a few decades before Benz invented the car.
Capitalism per se wasnt 'invented' until the 1850s, and only as the opposite of socialism. If Marx wasnt the one that first used "capitalist ownership" he mustve been very close, and his is the definition we still use today to refer to capitalism (privately owned means of production operated for profit) and actually to differentiate between economic systems in general.
>>304546
>world population has gone up ~50% since i was born
And yet, there are fewer actual humans today than there were back then.
>world population has gone up ~50% since i was born
And yet, there are fewer actual humans today than there were back then.
Considering I'm a NEET schizo and its for self-sufficient Chads and probably makes the Chad/Wizard disparity even worse I'm highly against it.
>>304567
He doesn't, because Fascism doesn't disenfranchise men who just want to be left alone.
He doesn't, because Fascism doesn't disenfranchise men who just want to be left alone.
>>304568
lmao, fascism and communism are the worst ideologies to be a wizard under.
Under fascism neets/hikkies and people who dont work get sent to the camps
the only ideology suitable for this lifestyle is anarchism
lmao, fascism and communism are the worst ideologies to be a wizard under.
Under fascism neets/hikkies and people who dont work get sent to the camps
the only ideology suitable for this lifestyle is anarchism
>>304571
No, anarchism is law of the jungle. As cancerous as it is to long term sustainability, our interests lie with socialism.
No, anarchism is law of the jungle. As cancerous as it is to long term sustainability, our interests lie with socialism.
>>304574
communists are shit too, you are forced to have a job and if you neet it up you get sent to the gulag.
anarchism is lack of hierarchies, just as you said, leave me alone tier
communists are shit too, you are forced to have a job and if you neet it up you get sent to the gulag.
anarchism is lack of hierarchies, just as you said, leave me alone tier
>>304576
all other govs enforce their rule. anarchy doesnt. you have no guarantee of anything. it is just an interstitial void for others govs to emerge from, or a temporary niche that small groups practice
all other govs enforce their rule. anarchy doesnt. you have no guarantee of anything. it is just an interstitial void for others govs to emerge from, or a temporary niche that small groups practice
Based on the constant neetbux threads on wizchan, most wizards are economically the grey guy, but mentally the gold guy
>>303919
>Views on libertarianism
It's rationally sound but will never be popular enough for a major nation to be ran according to it's principles for any significant amount of time.
There are too many resentful losers for it to be widely accepted.
>Views on libertarianism
It's rationally sound but will never be popular enough for a major nation to be ran according to it's principles for any significant amount of time.
There are too many resentful losers for it to be widely accepted.
Even among the right its had a very sharp decline since 2016 in favor of economic populism that slays many golden calfs of pure capitalism
I consider myself a libertarian, but the party is full of retards who confuse being a selfish asshole with libertarianism. Freedom is not just absence of government restrictions, without that you get slavery because the strong and domineering will enslave the weak using violence. I know what you're thinking, what if we just have the government stop people from doing that! Then everything will be perfect with everyone being maximally free! Wrong. Of course people will begin poisoning the water and wreaking ecological havoc, starting fires, all sorts of shit that will materially wreck your shit. If they burn down the forests, are you free to take a hike in them? If they poison all the fish are you free to go fishing? Freedom is the ability to do things you want to do and the reasons you can't do them can be myriad. I find the treatment of government as some evil boogeyman to be tiresome because in reality the government is the most important shield that protects people's freedoms and the ones trying to take those freedoms away are usually the ones spreading anti-government propaganda.
File: 1693717847059.png (3.76 MB, 1410x2250, 47:75, ClipboardImage.png) ImgOps iqdb
I consider Libertarianism to be the best fit to bring about the next level of human development in this godless world. The proximate rival of socialism is only a very loose proxy conflict for Libertarianism's true adversary, religion. Socialism always strikes the Libertarianism as peculiarly religious anyways, and it is therefore usually in antireligious terms that the Libertarian debunks the Socialist.
I have written two very long posts on the subject in the politics thread, which recceived negligible response. I therefore assume implicit agreement.
They are:
>>305049
>>305667
I have written two very long posts on the subject in the politics thread, which recceived negligible response. I therefore assume implicit agreement.
They are:
>>305049
>>305667
>>303919
I subscribe to libertarianism, but I believe it would only work in a tiny community where everyone respects and trusts each other. Trying to base an entire society on it wouldn't work, because libertarianism as a system is not meant to cater to the interests of a large group of people, whose interests will always conflict.
I subscribe to libertarianism, but I believe it would only work in a tiny community where everyone respects and trusts each other. Trying to base an entire society on it wouldn't work, because libertarianism as a system is not meant to cater to the interests of a large group of people, whose interests will always conflict.
I see the far-right argentinian candidate Javier Milei call himself a libertarian, then I see the term libertarian in a the title of a book about anarchism. Seems to me as empty a word as that other one on which it rests: that of freedom, or liberty.
>>307107
There are a few more things that go along with it, and it's a pretty wide spectrum.
Generally, free markets, strong private property rights, and a strong focus on so called "negative" freedom/liberty. Or in other words freedom from coercion, usually with ethics based around the non-aggression principle.
The spectrum is more or less how much government whatever flavor of libertarian thinks is ideal. From none, to bare minimal, to small (almost none are fans of a large and powerful central government).
There are a few more things that go along with it, and it's a pretty wide spectrum.
Generally, free markets, strong private property rights, and a strong focus on so called "negative" freedom/liberty. Or in other words freedom from coercion, usually with ethics based around the non-aggression principle.
The spectrum is more or less how much government whatever flavor of libertarian thinks is ideal. From none, to bare minimal, to small (almost none are fans of a large and powerful central government).
taxes don't pay for shit. It is all made up bullshit. The government simply prints the money they need and raise taxes as a way of controlling inflation. They literally just destroy your money eventually. Everyone is playing a big game of make believe.