Should I just read Ayn Rand? or do I need to read the Academic Stuff like Friedman and Rothbard too?

>>24461100 (OP)
One of the few areas where there's genuinely almost nothing of any value. Read Hayek, nothing else is worthwhile.

>>24461100 (OP)
you need to read Rand, then Mises, then Rothbard, then Hoppe.

>>24461105
cope harder commie

>>24461100 (OP)
Just watch a bunch of YouTube videos. Why read when you can learn anything you want on YouTube.

>>24461220
Cope about what? The fact that never in human history has anybody taken your retarded "ideas" seriously? At least the communists used to be relevant.

>>24461100 (OP)
If you're gonna be a right wing fag, you should be a fascist instead and make it simple.

Just read Rand

>>24461100 (OP)
you need to study finance, particularly the underlying theories

Marx never managed to understand it, but he didn't let that lack of understanding stand in the way of his preconceived grievances, and billions of socialists following in his footsteps are basically criticising a system they don't really understand, kinda like Flat Earthers.

>>24461100 (OP)
I tried reading Rand but had to stop after like 20 pages. I hate her writing style. It bores tf outta me and I can't stay concentrated.

Hoppe is pretty close (personally and politically) to Rothbard and has an entertaining writing style. And his books are dirt cheap on amazon and other shit. Maybe try giving "Getting Libertarianism right" and "A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism" a go. They will give and a basic understanding of anarcho-capitalism.

>>24461100 (OP)
Libertarianism is a fucking meme and totally obsolete in the current political climate.

>>24461100 (OP)
read stirner

>>24461292
>>24461105
>>24461286
>>24461377
Hoppeanism is unironically the only coherent ideology ever created

>>24461377
Not OP
Can you explain why and what is better in your opinion (maybe with book suggestion)?
One of the only reasons I can think of is because it is difficult to maintain a libertarian society and close to impossible to create one. But reading them is still beneficial. They have very interesting ideas and good criticism.

>>24461100 (OP)
>Libertarianism
>Should I just read Ayn Rand?
Rand wasn't lolbert
there's just a massive overlap in her objectivism and lolbertarianism
like commies and various collectivist -isms are overlap but not the same

>>24461269
wrong board

>>24461294
pretty much

>>24461367
Iirc due to the pretty much settled consensus that there's no such thing as IP in these circles, you should be able to find many of these resources for free on the internet.

>>24461100 (OP)
Read something like Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell or any other economics book that libertarians recommend. You can only understand libertarianism after dispelling the myth that all selfish actions are inherently bad and that self regulation is possible. After that, you can then read Rand, Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe, Caplan etc.

t. former libertarian

>>24461100 (OP)
Libertarianism is inherently retarded philosophy, because they are darwinist in everything except the the usage of violence, which is the most foundational aspects of politics and the one in which darwinism (= the stronger guy wins) is also the most relevant. Basically violence (the state) should exist only for the express purpose of allowing corporations to do whatever the fuck they want, every other form of goverment (and therefore the entire history of humanity so far) is GOLLEGTIVISM. You could say that if liberals think that evolution stops at the neck, libertarianism think evolution should stop at the shoulder.

Come home.

>>24461412
Why does that make Libertarianism retarded? What advantage would a society get if they just kill the weak? People wouldn't want to be productive to achieve something they can enjoy in the future and incidentally make scientific and economic progress. The focus of people would shift more toward stealing what other people already own and thus no progress in economic nh shit. Libertarianism already focuses on the strong one being on top. There is just no real reason to kill the weak.

And the way libertarianism is thought of people would like protection to prevent getting killed and thus you start to have private security firms. That would make the way to anarcho-capitalism. And no state is gollegtivism too? And wasn't Ireland kind of stateless for a long time?

>>24461412
Do you know that there is still a state in libertarianism, right? You are talking specifically about anarchocapitalism, but other waves of thoughts like minarchism propose a minimalistic state.

just watch some lessons on mises youtube channel you don't need to read this stuff.

>>24461100 (OP)
The state? Into the trash it goes

>>24461412
It's the libertarian's central dilemma. On the one hand they ardently champion capitalism, but they don't actually want to live in modern capitalist society with its large-scale production, complicated infrastructure, and standing armies. They don't really analyze society beyond a restricted vantage point of small business owner or farmer living in some town-sized republic. (Of course you also have libertarians who envision a sci-fi dystopia with themselves as a freakish human/cyborg hybrid ruling over half the globe.)

>>24461100 (OP)
Mises.org has almost 800 books in their online library, most of which you can download for free.
https://mises.org/library/books
Mises was the founder of the modern Austrian School of libertarian thought, so you should definitely check out his work, especially Human Action. Rothbard and Hayek were his two most important successors. Rothbard was more extreme in his anti-statism while Hayek was more moderate. Rothbard is more entertaining to read in my opinion, but he also had some truly insane ideas. If nothing else, his writings are fun to wrestle with. Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature is a good place to start with him.
Hayek’s book The Road to Serfdom is probably the most well-known and influential work from the Austrian School, though many would argue it’s not the best representation of their ideology or even if Hayek himself.
Other big names are Joseph Salerno, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddin, Carl Menger, Hans Herman-Hoppe, Ralph Raico, Lew Rockwell, and, of course, Ron Paul.

>>24462413
For free? That's gommunism.

>>24461100 (OP)

Don't waste your time on literal "useful idiot"-core slop

>>24462643
Nah, they don’t believe in intellectual property rights.
https://cdn.mises.org/15_2_1.pdf

>>24461100 (OP)
watch some of this guys videos for starters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7b6NsFTcpXw
and yes you should read rand. read atlas shrugged last.

I think many systems could work for a long time as long as the population is white and homogenous. the problem is always the same. female nature seeping into politics, enabling jews and brown hordes.

>>24461387
>>24461367

so to speak

>>24461100 (OP)
(((Rand)))
(((Friedman)))
(((Rothbard)))
Just find a wealthy Jew and stick your tongue down the back of his trousers

>>24463201
/thread

>>24461100 (OP)
Pretty sure even Penn Jillette has toned down his libertarianism after seeing what an unprincipled freak show it is.

Rands writing is hot ass, just read the Mr.A comics and imagine a thousand pages of that.
Rothbard is core, Friedman is pragmatic entryism, Hayek is decent, Nozick is underrated but falls short, and Hoppe is not a libertarian and while he's right about democracy argument ethics are shit and Hoppe enjoyers should be physically removed so to speak

>>24463398
May you explain why you think that Hopp is not a libertarian and why his ethics are shit? I am genuinely interested.

>>24463411
Argumentation ethics are a very weak argument. 'Ooh you dont believe in free speech? But yet you believe you should be allowed to speak, curious'. One, you absolutely can engage in the speech process as someone of antiliberal bent, and two, It's a weak ass argument that proves nothing on its own as it still relies on the assumption of self-ownership, a principle with better grounding that also proves more. AE is a weak argument for a good position.
Hoppe is not a libertarian because he's not just closed borders pragmatically or strategically by virtue of demographics or the history of the West being more libertarian than the rest, but for principled reasons.
First, on closed-open borders; I can tolerate closed borders pragmatism of some kind kind, though principled libertarianism on natural rights grounds fully condones private borders but rejects collectivised ones and is in effect open borders as it's not the state's job to object when a willing illegal gets hired by a willing company. Them's the breaks. But there is such a thing as states being on the side of the angels by keeping a worse state out (re: Rothbard) and infinite migrants absolutely destroys any chance for libertarianism as it is an ideology for a high trust society of moral men, not to mention the demographic change fucks over voting in a democracy; so I'm not open borders in practice and can follow Hoppe quite a long way there.
But the issue is Hoppe believes in ethnonationalism because, he argues, the state gets to act in the interest of the public trust because they stole tax dollars and have a fiduciary duty to the tax recipients above foreigners they didnt steal from. It's not merely pragmatic, it's a postulate of justice as he sees it. But by that logic, any state intervention can be justified in the fiduciary interest.
tl;dr argument ethics is truly dogshit F tier argumentation, I like a lot of other stuff Hoppe writes but he crosses the line from libertarian to NRX on a principle level, bringing back collectivism through the back door.

Why Libretarianism versus ideas like Mutualism or Distributism?

>>24463469
to the degree mutualism is peaceful cooperation, it is a superfluous restatement, and to the degree it violates property rights it is bad. you can have mutualism in a rights based libertarianism

>>24463481
Mutualism would explictily operate under usufruct property rights with only the common ownership of land.

>>24461412
I love how statists just hate the idea a world order that's moral AND eugenic.

>>24463467
First of all thank you very much for answering. You are the first person that could actually explain their viewpoint upon me asking until now.

But yeah, the AE kinda seem chopped. Always found them a little strange, but didn't really kept thinking about it.

That open borders shits from you sounds true too. I will look further into it. If you have any nice sources I can read (favorable) or watch let me know

>>24463521
When it comes to any libertarian debate whatsoever, Rothbard's the man. For an insightful analysis of his natural rights moral-legal philosophy, read The Ethics of Liberty, ironically published nowadays with a foreword by Hoppe. There's a free pdf on mises.org. It's my favourite libertarian piece of writing - I believe defending libertarianism on moral rights grounds is the best most convincing argument, and when it comes to that Rothbard's the GOAT. Then for something different, read the Mises essay "A Strategy for the Right", detailing how the proper strategy for libertarians is right wing populism.
You'll see that there's a tension between these two positions - the natural rights view is open borders, but strategically, Rothbard considered it successful to be a closed-borders populist.When it came to actually winning, his principle was to win. In a sense, Trump is a true heir of Rothbard (which makes sense as Trump is an heir of Buchanan)

>>24461100 (OP)
Javier Kikei proved that this ideology is a meme.
>NOOOOO HOW DARE YOU, YOU NEED TO WAIT ANOTHER 4 YEARS MORE, PLEASE VOTE FOR THE REELECTION OR YOU ARE A COMMIE
Very funny. It always the same excuse. Plus, communism is dead since 90. Cope.

>>24463467
this completely misunderstands what argumentation ethics is. it is not simply you are using yourself, so YOU MUST LE OWN YOURSELF.

rather, it forms the basis for the system of universal law that Rothbard and Hoppe use as a foundation for their writings. Since arguing implies that there is a universal truth to argue about, arguing about law implies there is a universal - natural - law to argue about in the first place.

and yes, some of Hoppe is shit and wrong, but not his argumentation ethics.

>>24464461
based milei keeps vindicating libertarians and all commies can talk about is how MUH FREE STUFF is gone

>>24461100 (OP)
>Should I just read Ayn Rand? or do I need to read the Academic Stuff like Friedman and Rothbard too?
I mean sure, but after you've read Bakunin, IWW, and Autonomia. Why are you so interested in anti-fascism? Workplace organising is so much more important to Libertarianism.

>>24463385
You mean toned it down because he weaseled around the vaxx mandates and couldn't bring himself to align with what rich people perceive as "ignorant hillbillies"? Its so transparent.

>>24463469
The biggest issue I have with right libertarianism is their dubious "one size fits all solution" to the welfare question. Welfare in of itself is not bad HOWEVER a sexually irresponsible woman should not get welfare nor nogs who refuse to work.

>>24463201
>>24463298
Not all libertarians are jews and you'll find roughly the same amount on the left.

>>24463469 (You)
>Welfare in of itself is not bad HOWEVER a sexually irresponsible woman should not get welfare nor nogs who refuse to work.

Of course It is not that I see this as being a good thing to any degree (I do not) but I do not believe the state should have any business casting moral judgements upon it's citizens if a State with any
degree of authority is to exist at all in the first place.

A government only exists to serve the interests of it's people and society at large otherwise it has no real justification for it's existence to begin with.

Here is where I would have to disagree and side with a more classical Libretarian ideas of freedom and Autonomy. It's not that I see the former happening due to the existence of wellfare as necessarily being a good thing (from a personal and moral standpoint) but I do not believe the state should have any business casting moral judgements upon it's citizens, especially with regards to it's distribution of social services, (if a state with any degree of authority is to even exist in a libretarian society). In my opinion the state can only justify itself by acting as a conduit of the expressed interests of it's people who simultaeously form, both individually and collectively, it's contained society and form the consensus which dignifies those interests otherwise it has no real right to exist at all.

>a sexually irresponsible woman should not get welfare
What about her children? Are they not entitled to their most basic of needs? Welfare does not necessarily need to be a check delivered every month or food credit it can be valuable goods as well, think of the food package programs found in some US states.
>Nor nogs who refuse to work.
Their most basic crime in this sense was being born to a society, against their will, and being forced to labor against their own interests. If wellfare is to exist as an expression of society's willingness to sustain all (via the state) if wellfare is to exist then why is he any less entitled to that in this case?

>>24464538
>rather, it forms the basis for the system of universal law that Rothbard and Hoppe use as a foundation for their writings.
It's not. You didnt read Rothbard. You barely read Hoppe. Argumentation ethics is exactly what I said it was, and there are much stronger ways to show natural law exists. Rothbard founds his moral rights theory on self-ownership founded in natural law, the idea that he is an AE theorist is a laughable invention