/liberty/ - Liberty

>>101610

Now I will assert your bullshit claims yes I am doubleposting, stay mad moralfag

>Do you also believe that someone buying a piece of land neighboring yours and setting up a rival business is a violation of your property rights and gives you justification to walk across the property line and shoot them in the head?

Such a situation could be justified depending on the framework we have as a contest, there can only be one company that does provide defense services with the legitimization necesary to be assigned the authority of trying to impose the defense rights of the third parties that pay them (their costumers), while there can be individuals who defend themselves in a consistent basis there cannot be more than one collective that does such a thing, as the mere existence of other collective supposes an instant aggresion towards the original one that possesed such authority, this is exactly the same reasons why labour unionist and communist should be purged or persecuted as the animals they are, you cannot propose a framework of ethics that respects those you do not follow the framework as it does promote evilness, thus, being, unethical or ineffective in its ethicness.

TLDR: Violent imposition of monopolies is perfectly ethical according to libertarian principles as it is just another form of market competition, which is different from individual survival and self-ownership, being business collective by definition.

>>101612

I don't agree with your reasoning but it doesn't matter because it's completely irrelevant. Assume that it's a cake store, since we're talking about whether or not decreasing the value of your property counts as aggression, not the violation of some sort of weird universal Highlander contract.

So initially, you owned a cake store, and that cake store had a monopoly on the cake market in our hypothetical town, thereby increasing the value of the cake store dramatically. Another person opens up a cake store, thereby harming your cake store's value by taking away its monopoly. Does that count as aggression in your mind?

Being abundant is not the same thing as literally not being scarce. No matter how abundant water or air may be, there is still a fixed quantity of air or water that exists on your property, and if that particular quantity of air or water is altered, your property rights have been violated. If the disc on which you store content is tampered with, then your property has been violated. If a different disc, owned by a different person, that happens to store very similar content, is altered, your personal disc is not altered. Nothing that you own has been tampered with. Your property has not been violated. No intellectual property is property at all, and outside of trademarks none of it can be reasonably enforced in the free market.

>As both a Disney and Activision-Blizzard shareholder you are literally taking food out of my mouth.

>as the owner of a state-granted monopoly, competition is literally taking food out of my mouth

>as the producer of an inferior good, higher quality goods are literally taking food out of my mouth

>as the owner of a terrible restaurant, bad reviews are literally taking food out of my mouth

Nigger-tier argument, go ask for gibs somewhere else you tripleposting cockmongler. If your ability to compete on the market has been reduced, make yourself more competitive instead of kvetching and begging for a handout.

>>101613

It all boils down at how damaging that value decrease is, the most fundamental base for all property rights is "might makes right", those unable to exercise any might as social leverage (i.e. animals) are unable to possess property, like Rhodesians defending their lands, if you are unable to defend something, then, it is not yours by definition.

>Does that count as aggression in your mind?

Funny to see what kind of buzzwords you use to defend your ridiculous points, self-defense is not an aggresion, is the violence uses with the purpuse of preventing or neutralizing more aggresions from OTHER people, those unable to defend themselves (like animals, or little children- i.e. see Rothbard's case for adoption markets) are not only unable to have property, but are also able to be uses LIKE property.

You are mumbling some socialistic-tier autistic bullshit bro, why is it so difficult for statists like you to understand that people should be free to defense their property and business to thrive and compete? You are literally comparing violence with aggresion like a statists compares the social contract with self-ownership & property-rights.

Suck it, retard.

>>101648

>It all boils down at how damaging that value decrease is

That's retarded. Rights violations are binary; they either happen or they do not. You can't violate rights halfway, so it's nonsensical to assume that severity plays into whether a rights violation has occurred.

>the most fundamental base for all property rights is "might makes right"

No, it isn't. First because that implies rights are relative (by definition they can't be), second because there are wide variety things which you can enforce by might which are decidedly not property. Propertarianism is gay and you should strongly consider electroshock therapy if you believe in htis.

>>93524

Thats kinda fucked up but hot tbh

what website should i use to find a waifu?

>>101552

Outside.

>>101556

tell more

>OP thinks that his fascism is better because jews benefit from capitalism

>inb4opdiscoverszionism

>>95972

>>95981

Lol

>>100996

Kikes are children of cain, they bear the mark of cain (circumcision) and have been Chosen by God for misery and suffering. God only keeps enough kikes alive to torture them as a people.

Only the Messiah Christ, deep prayer and celibacy can save these low iq inbred mutants from the wrath of God.

Repent!

>>101538

break time is over, now back to /christian/ asylum

>>101538

cain is not a historical figure

he is as real as zeus or thor

prove me wrong

>>101455

>thinking you need statism to protect your self from other kinds of statists

>>101471

>truth is bait

>>101500

Well, it's true in a way. If you are being protected by one gang, you're being protected from another.

>>101522

You're not protected from statism though.

>>101156

>dat pic

Did it get infected?

>>101461

idk

Related Question: Can the state track you if you interfere with state use-only bandwidth?

>>101523

The state can kill you with telepathically implanted hypnotic suggestions if they wanted to.

>>101526

prove

RASPAKT WOMYN

Fuck off retard, shitting in every thread.

Burning widows is a self-defense tradition that prevents gold digging whores from murdering their husbands. I do accounting for people, you have no idea how common this shit is, theres a female client on her FOURTH estate, keeps coming in every year march 1st on the dot crying her eyes out about how her recent husband had a heart attack (belladonna) hanged himself, fell down stairs, or drowned in a pool. Have any idea how easy it is to wait for a 60 year old man to tire himself out from swiming laps, walk up to him, smile, and just hold his head underwater until the bubbles stop?

Widow burning ENSURED the wife had a vested interest in her husband surviving, women would pick up fucking swords to defend a wounded husband back then.

Also every one of those marriages was consumated, it wouldnt be called a marriage. Often it wasnt one until the wife was pregnant. Because every marriage was consumated, due to microchimerism the wife had a piece of her husbands DNA inside her. The man's DNA is his own property, if he wants to burn it instead of leaving it to his sons in a will, thats his own business.

What are you talking about, stammerman lost that debate. Talking about economics has not swayed a crowd in ever, peterson stuck to emotional appeals which actually work.

>>101532

Peterson clearly won the debate about the actual topic though

>>100621

Is that the lake felatio rapist?

>>100699

>moderate leftists

>right wing

God how I hate whites.

>>101485

you are probably psychotic friend

is this a /liberty/-inspired creepypasta?

They didn't do enough then

Please, OP, I need more.

>>98054

>Some AnCaps believe they can survive and live the Fallout dream? Why are they so disillusioned while others could possibly do it?

This is actually amazing, not only do you display a complete lack of understanding for what anarcho-capitalist arguments are, but you also display a severe lack of understanding for the English language as well. Bravo you fucking retard.

>>98054

I don't care if I survive the "fallout dream" so long as the statist cucks don't outlive me.

>>98066

Except they will. People walk all over you now that there are police and laws, imagine when there is not.

>>101457

the only people i've had walk all over me are cops and prison guards, i fail to see your point

>>101456

fucking saved

I can dig it, op.

>offering cookies in order to convince libertarians to allow you to subvert and corrupt the NAP

Fuck off, kikeroach.

>>101392

No, the war didn't start until the second film. That was just a minor (relatively-speaking) skirmish/dispute akin to the Homestead Strike.

>>101437

*Actually, John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry would be a better example.

Useful idiots.

>>101436

No, there isn't a single thing that's "left-wing" about libertarianism. The fundamental principle of libertarianism is private property. The idea of private property is founded entirely on the principle of exclusion–this is mine, and you can't have it. Exclusionary private property is in fundamental opposition to left-wing ideals such as sharing, equality, and xenophilia. Going beyond the idea of private property itself, and looking at the implications of a private property system, one may see that the libertarian order encourages those behaviors associated with social conservatism, including a discriminatory in-group preference and delaying of gratification, while discouraging libertine hedonism, separation of responsibility, and other leftist modes of behavior. Any left-wing detractors to this declaration, who attempt to practice their degenerate lifestyle within a covenant community, will immediately be physically removed from within its border, blacklisted by the businesses and insurance companies, and barred from further entry. If they refuse to comply, either with the initial removal or the subsequent banishment, they will get shot and not a single tear will be shed.

No one is blaming the jedi for having literally created CIS. Jedi in SECRET created a clone army only they control, and then sowed dissent in the republic senate to emasculate it, make it powerless, and give more power to the Jedi themselves. Also there's an undertone where humans, the largest number of citizens, were suppressed during the Jedi's rule to achieve some mystical 'balance' which really meant more control for the perpetually child-hungry Jedi order.

Eventually the Jedi's statism and multiculti created the CIS, which is a pseudo-socialist fascistic body they blamed on the humans!

Would Snowpiercer count as libertarian media?

I know there was one libertarian comic called the Voluntarist or something that was cringy because it put politics before telling a good story.

>>101365

>muh cuckstitution will prevent tyranny

Then explain mass surveillance, gun control, Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Fed, endless war, etc.

>>101376

I would prefer if the government got rid of the laws that enable a small number of banks to wield such power in the first place, but I see no problem with using the state to restrict the power of firms that have obviously benefitted from the state, e.g. Goldman Sachs, Facebook. But I don't think that's going to happen, because the state is sponsored by these entities already, and the media either slanders or blackouts anyone who tries to enter politics with the goal of ending tyranny. Just look what they did to Ron Paul.

>>101384

not prevent, but slow the fuck down and make it more difficult.

Take the difference between the UK and the US. Very similar culture, decently similar genetics. Yet, one country is a place where you get arrested because you twitted something "wrong" and can't buy a butter knife, while in the US you can write whatever you want and own guns.

Why is that? The UK didn't have any constitutional protection, so the first politician with a hitch to scratch could pass whatever the shit he wanted. Meanwhile in the US you need a big majority and then there is the supreme court and the fact that people are more easily educated in what are the basic rules of the society and that they include the government shall make no laws against freedoom of speech and that US citizens can have guns.

Of course this system is not perfect, but it's what we have now and what we have to work with. If you want perfectionism just look at communism and see the results.

>>101356

just create your bank bro

>>101376

>if you are against making laws to stop the banks from banning conservatives and libertarians because "m-muh gubmnenetns"

Point to someone advocating for such a law. All I see are people pointing out that these banks effectively are the government. I have no problem with using state violence against people that would seek to use the same against me.

>>101386

There's a world of difference between acknowledging that the Constitution is occasionally useful as a speedbump and claiming that it's some all-powerful document capable of stopping big government in its tracks. It has some utility at present, but it's still fundamentally deficient as a preventative measure and should be replaced by something even more limiting at the earliest convenience.