Where to start?

>>24484242 (OP)
https://www.youtube.com/@StosselTV

>>24484243
I'm expecting literature?

>>24484242 (OP)
Mises, Friedman, Rothbard, Hayek, etc

Rand wasn't a libertarian but Objectivism paralleled its development and shared common dna. lesser figures like Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Walter Block, too are worth exploring.

also read the roots in thinkers like Bastiat, Locke, Mill, Paine and De Molinari.

>>24484242 (OP)
Getting Libertarianism right by Hoppe was a good and easy start for me. Enjoyable and interesting read. If you liked that maybe try A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism by him. Its longer but still a good read.
And try reading random shit by Rothbard.

And if you want random shit read Nozick or Kuehnelt-Leddihn.

>>24484282
I tried reading Kuehnelt-Leddihn. It was gravy until he spent an entire three fourths of chapter complaining about rock music and I just dropped it. Absolute whiner. Anything that's approaching the same shit but a tad more libertine perhaps might be more my speed.

>>24484306
Yeah. I got some interesting ideas form him but didn't read the whole book. My main problem was that he didn't really made any arguments himself, but quoted other people. This way I couldn't really get warm with his argumentation style because he sometimes quoted Burke and then De Tocqueville and so on. It were always different argumentation styles and I needed to get used to it but I couldn't because he quoted too many different guys. I don't like it when people do that.

I maybe try finishing the book when I have more peace in my life, because some things were actually pretty interesting.

>>24484242 (OP)
Start by licking boots of your boss.

>>24484320
Why leftist are so reluctant when it comes to the study of other politics? They all reduce this thing as a bootlicking tomfoolery.

>>24484332
NTA but even as a more classically inclined liberal I can't stand modern libertarians and ancaps. I gained some hope it could help shake the traditional political order when Milei won in Argentina, not out of particular sympathy for him but genuine interest in seeinf something new, but when Trump won the election and all the so called "libertarians, don thread on me, off with the fed" started clapping their hands together like those cutesy seals from japanese aquariums to Trump giving government positions to CEOs (something that historically has never went well) giving Tesla and other companies a bunch of government tax payer backed contracts and a bunch of other absolutely fucking gross interventions from the government in the market I lost all faith in them as just another arm of le traditionalist conservative block that somehow must agree on every measure as long as their political side, or should I say their soccer team, does it. It's not a real thing and quite possibly won't ever be.
I know letting the followers of a certain ideology form your opinion about it is bad form but we all know the truth

>>24484242 (OP)
In the trash.

offtopic. fuck off to /pol/

>>24484242 (OP)
Modern libertarianism has lost any meaningful connection to a body of philosophy/political theory that liberty as an ideal - especially an American one - is tied to. Political movements move, you are not allowed to ask the question that is answered at the beginning of the movement and you are not allowed to question the goal that was decided by the answer. You conform, you regurgitate, you mentally isolate yourself from the influence of other people and even their ideas within your own internal monologue. Like a good slave. >>24484692 is correct.

>>24485122
I don't subscribe to any mainstream libertarian movement. My philosophy is basically "leave me alone or I'll kick your fucking teeth in mate!" I think that makes me anarcho-libertarian. I was more agreeable when I was younger, but then real life happened.

>>24484242 (OP)
Michael Huemer, likely the only libertarian that you will ever need. Very concise and well articulate when it comes to developping his arguments; also ordinary language philosophy which is always a plus.

Most people grow out of it by their mid-twenties. Don't bother.

>>24484242 (OP)
Could I interest you in a different ideology?

mises > rothbard > hoppe

>>24485347
I am a completely different guy. But I would be interested. I have pretty much only read right-lib stuff and will read conservative and more auth-right shit.

But I would be glad, if you can give me good book recommendations for a different ideology. Would be best if they are not 700 pages stuff. I am stupid.

>>24485201
>i became a boring midwit conformist in my mid twenties

Daily reminder that there is a pipeline from Kant to libertarianism and that rejecting it places you in hegelian bullshit terrain. I beg that all hegelian haters gather in libertarian political thought.

>>24485383
I just want to be left alone. I don't need old dead guys to justify that.

>>24485370
Since you seem receptive Im just going to try and convert you to what I believe.
Lesson 1: Ideological systems are stupid. Generally, you interpret reality in your own mind, and make decisions based off your interpretations. You should do the same with ideology. Take what seems right, and leave what seems wrong.
The first book I would recommend, even though its considered meme tier, is Industrial Society and its Future. Its sharp, critical, controversial, and short. While it is not explicitly Auth-Right it has become a favorite text amongst people who consider themselves Auth-Right. Kaczynskis manifesto serves as an articulate critique of technology and technological progress, which acts as a vehicle (if not a direct cause) for most of modern societies ills.

>>24484463
One of the strong theses in modern libertarian thought (contrasting with classical liberalism) is that power always corrupts, so libertarians getting corrupted by public contracts does not contradict libertarian political philosophy. If governments were a scientific experiment, libertarianism would be proven the most if libertarian policies work but the libertarian politicians in charge end up being corrupt.

>>24485383
Kant is one of my favorite philosophers and Im not a Libertarian
>>24485387
Lame, faggot, ideology.

>>24485394
>make your own decisions
>read the Unabomber Manifesto

>>24485399
You're a perfect example of why I don't want to associate with other people. You completely lack self-awareness.

>>24485399
Kantian categorical imperative gets you to negatively defined rights because the categorical imperative can only be fulfilled with negative propositions. We can have a categorical imperative not to steal, but not a categorical imperative to build houses for the poor, because you'd have to add a myriad real life conditions such as the houses' size, placement, etcetera (which is the same reason why positively defined rights are stupid), and such conditions would make it a hypothetical imperative and not categorical. And, since Kant says that we have to act as if our action was an universal law, the sum of moral inactions of all people would lead to negatively defined rights, which are the rights of libertarian thought.

>>24484242 (OP)
I always thought animal farm was a pretty good book about libertarianism. Or A Tale of Two Cities. That's an excellent book on libertarianism, and it's effects.

Or did you want propagandists? Rothbard is a good propagandist. He'll have you defending his power over you before the morning.

>>24485387
>just leave me alone

Imagine trying to form a party with people with this philosophy.

>>24485394
I read the Unibomber's manifesto and I found it shoddy and unconvincing. Do you have another recommendation?

>>24485432
I never said I was a joiner. Wow, did you miss that obvious point too?

>>24485394
So you are more of a reactionary (if you want to call it that).
I have listened to the manifesto and it had solid ideas. But only listened, not read. I may try it reading it in the future.
I have read a little bit of secondary literature of Gomez Davila, who could kinda fit your "thought-system". But that book wasn't that great and Gomez Davila seemed to have some strange ideas, so I dropped it halfway through.

So according to your logic if I agree with the though-system of libertarianism and it seems right, you would "agree" with it?

>>24485122
You learn the theory and implications behind different politics and then form your ideal one or in a real scenario you attach with the one that suits you the most, not the other way around
>Le brainwash and stuff
That's a you problem

>>24485488
If people actually did that, there wouldn't be any socialists. Instead, resentment, inferiority complexes, and failure translate in unstable personalities prone to one-dimensionality in societal disputes into vulgar fantasies of expropriation.

>>24485509
Do you think that's unique to socialists? Every life ruining wretch on this planet justifies it through that same logic. Including the billionaires.

>I'm sad
>life mad
>people bad
>fuck you, imma get mine
>and here's why it's all holy

>>24485560
The difference is that sociaism pretends to believe in social justice, instead of admitting they're just greedy, resentful little bastards.

>>24485567
So do the rich. Eugenics is SJW shit. They're gonna improve society.
So do the right. We're gonna institute a theocratic LARP as the regime, to save everybody.
Humans are full of shit brother.

>>24484242 (OP)

>>24485574
The current right-leaning administration is devolving their own power as quickly as they can. A bunch of left-leaning judges are trying to stop them through purely authoritarian means, by issuing decrees that are way, way out of their jurisdiction.

>>24485631
>The current right-leaning administration is devolving their own power as quickly as they can.
Explain.

>>24485635
You haven't heard of DOGE? Picrel shows even CNN reported it.

>>24485647
Hahahaha. OK I didn't know that. Hahaha
OK you win

>>24485652
I've heard of low information voters, but this is really too much.

>>24485574
>Eugenics is SJW shit.
I'm trying to think of something more retarded I've seen typed out, but I truly cannot. I'm sure /b/ or /pol/ has plenty, but I haven't been to either in years.

>>24485780
He has a point. Eugenics started as a serious political movement within social democracy in parallel with more voluntarist readings about it. Look it up.

>>24484242 (OP)
Have your brain removed. Then everything will be easier.

>>24485122
>Scientology works!

>>24484242 (OP)

Just read material analysis instead of wasting time with stuff like this. Or risk yourself becoming a pseud like anon here>>24485509

>>24485863
>>24484470
>>24485201
Give this guy's some Karma now!!!!

>>24484463
Don't confuse libertarianism with the "Republicans with weed" party. You'd be more correct to call the DPRK a democracy.

>>24484242 (OP)
A bit outdated but very light and practical approach is books like How to Live Free in a Unfree World.
It's a starting point that is pretty easy to digest compared to the philosophies the book is based on, and it's all put in the context of putting libertarian ideas in practice on a personal practical individual level right now in the real world rather than wait for someone else to change the world into a hypothetical ancapastain.

Rothbard's early writings were fucking brilliant. Shame he wound up so lame later.

>>24485399
Why did so many libertarians love Kant but Ayn Rand hated him?

>>24485780
They're correct though

>>24485780
The poster is right, read State of Fear by Michael Crichton, he outlines this phenomenon very well, eugenics was incredibly popular with all of the same people that in a different era would champion radical climate change solutions, DEI, trans propaganda etc

>>24486333
Synthetic a priori.

Kant's philosophical system favors classical liberalism and several attempts have been made to make him Libertarian. Kant thought anarchy would violate the categorical imperative. He also thought that since a perfect state was impossible it was necessary to treat the existing governments of his time as legitimate. He was also in favor of the collection of taxes. Due to Kant making the conditions of social contract moral instead of just pure self interest the capacity for more freedom for the contractors is easily argued.

>>24485397
Isn't this a Lord Acton talking point?

>>24486365
I think it goes in cycles, first eugenic, then dysgenic, etc etc

>>24486421
Thanks

>>24486421
I would wager Schopenhauer would even less libertarian as his ethics not only pointed towards morality but also compassion which a disinterested libertarian would see as moving towards authoritarian "oughts"

>>24484242 (OP)

Libertarianism is internalised capitalist alienation to the point where people believe that the individual is a self contained actor, fully independent from external material realities or society as a whole. It's delusional

This kind of sheer blindness to material reality is necessary to make proponents of this ideology blind to the sheer wealth and power of multi-millionares and billionares who benefit from such libertine policies. Which of course ties to blindness to systematic inequalities.

>>24486984
Capitalism is not even a necessary element of libertarianism. Nozick talks about a libertarian state as a blank utopia able to contain the content filled utopias of other prescriptive ideologies. For example, a white religious ethnocommunity as the amish can only exist in libertarianism, because the community is freely constituted by people who believe in those principles, whilst statal intents to achieve the same have been geopolitical and humanitarian disasters. The same could be said about socialist communes, which could peacefully exist in a libertarian community; in fact, all leftist anarchists should advocate for standard right wing libertarianism, because we would respect them more than statist leftists, who always behead them after the revolution is completed.

Of course, free market capitalism would be the dominant model in the libertarian community because it has been empirically proven the most effective way to fight poverty, but other lifestyles and production models are allowed to exist, unlike in authoritarian socialism. The hardest pill to swallow for a socialist is that when people are allowed to do what they want, the resulting economical model tends to be free market capitalism, so their ideas get materially refuted even though the libertarian ideas refuting them have not been come up with through a material/utilitarian perspective on ethics and politics. There is a happy coincidence between what is just a priori and what is materially better for all, not as a whole but as a sum of individuals.

>>24486984
Fisherites and Spinozists deserve the rope. Begone, Satan.

>>24486421
I personally link Kant to libertarianism via his deontologism and categorical imperative. There are ways to support libertarianism with consequentialist/utilitarian arguments, because even with its partial implementation it has done wonders to reduce suffering in the world, but for me they are not rigorous arguments, it's like saying that Newton's laws are true because we can fly rockets using them when it is the other way around.

And, for me, the categorical imperative can only be truly satisfied with negative propositions, which gets you to at least the minimal logical framework libertarianism works with , namely, negatively defined rights (the right not to be killed, not to be robbed, etcetera). >>24485425

>>24486951
Of course

>>24486955
Schopenhauer likely would be tenuous. He thought free will was an illusion. His views on politics in general would likely put him further away from libertarian stances. I would be in agreement.

>>24487071
That is still something that is extensively debated. At an epistemic level both sides can claim Kant up to a certain point. If the party makes a divergence from Kant on mathematical grounds then whatever residual agreements are left are ad hoc. If the party makes a divergence on the nature of the extent of property rights then Nozick is the likely result. If no significant divergence occurs then the framework Kant established allows for its own diversity of views. This last one could result in any number of strict, ad hoc, or even accidental overlaps.

>>24484242 (OP)
Genesis chapter 3.

>>24484332
For some reason /lit/ is full of subhuman leftists who get triggered if the OP mentions "libertarian" or "conservative", it just attracts all the faggot leftist trolls like flies to shit. I'd link their posts to prove my case, but I don't want them to encourage them in any way.

>>24484332

>>24487060
>Capitalism is not even a necessary element of libertarianism
And yet interestingly enough it works quite well with the presumption of private property through Capital. Why pay taxes to a government when you can pay that money as rent to your landlord instead? Who'll then hire g̶o̶o̶n̶s̶ private police to kick you out if you don't comply. I prefer to skip the whole middle (or is it medeival?) part and go back to monke instead.
>Nozick talks about a libertarian state as a blank utopia able to contain the content filled utopias of other prescriptive ideologies
Popper would like a word with him.
>white religious ethnocommunity as the amish can only exist in libertarianism, because the community is freely constituted by people who believe in those principles
Well, good for them that their cute little technophobic paradise found itself on the right side of the Atlantic (and melanin content). Don't want to find ourselves on the pointy end of slave trade now ,do we? Not much a rifle scythe can do against an M14
>in fact, all leftist anarchists should advocate for standard right wing libertarianism
Maybe they are just not blind to economic context? Or they understand that no state /=/ no heirarchy/exploitation
>free market capitalism would be the dominant model in the libertarian community because it has been empirically proven the most effective way to fight poverty
>because it has been empirically proven the most effective way to fight poverty
hahahaha........ha
>The hardest pill to swallow for a socialist is that when people are allowed to do what they want, the resulting economical model tends to be free market capitalism
Any pill is hard to swallow when it outright contains snake oil as the active ingredient.
>libertarian ideas refuting them have not been come up with through a material/utilitarian perspective on ethics and politics
Clearly not. Just like all puritan ideologies from an infantile age.

>>24487360
wasn't Pooper the guy who basically asserted that societies in general should just accept massive waves of migrants because doing otherwise is tantamount to totalitarianism? the whole "cold war liberal" movement was a joke honestly but I'm thinking of reading Moyn's book on it to figure out their motivations.

>>24487389
He argue that an open and tolerant society can't allow intolerant ideas to take root within it

>>24487399
right. but that has teleological consequences. which doesn't disprove my point.

>>24487360
(1/2)
You haven't truly answered to any of my arguments, it's just these smug twitter-like remarks.

The Popper's paradox of tolerance, which happens to be one of the ubiquitous cliches of the left to illegalize every party they don't like, only applies to democracies where there is a strong political power which can oppress the population as a whole, because democracy presumes there can be a way to add up divergent individual wills into a single collective will, which is false because of the Arrow's impossibility theorem. If there is a democratic state with enough powers to reppress people, it might be sensible to ban intolerant people, but in a libertarian regime where all sub-communities are of free subscription and free leaving (unlike the state), there is no paradox of intolerance. I can join a community which only allows black people with a socialist production style and left it whenever I want if the contract allows it, but if there were a stronger state whose government that same community had access to, there might be a risk that they oppress non-blacks and capitalists. To be honest, there is a hole in Nozick's idea when implemented in anarchism (maybe that's why he was a minarchist), which is that children of the members of a freely constituted community can be easily brainwashed to be part of it as well so that they don't get to know the blank framework of the libertarian community, rendering it a de facto illegitimate social contract very similar to the state's, so I think that the minimal state must keep an eye on children by requiring parents to provide schooling with certain characteristics. That gap in the theory has nothing to do with Popper's paradox of intolerance.

>And yet interestingly enough it works quite well with the presumption of private property through Capital. Why pay taxes to a government when you can pay that money as rent to your landlord instead? Who'll then hire g̶o̶o̶n̶s̶ private police to kick you out if you don't comply. I prefer to skip the whole middle (or is it medeival?) part and go back to monke instead.

Not all forms of libertarianism are anarchist, support the police. About the private property thing, it is absurd to reject private property. For now I haven't developed a consistent theory to directly infer private property, but I do have one to reject forced collective property and hence to accept private property with a not literal reductio ad absurdum but something very similar to it.

For example, if I have a fishing rod (it is a form of means of production) with which I can feed myself and my family and the community forcibly decides that, as a means of production, it must be collective property, due to Arrow's impossibility theorem, an ALWAYS arbitrary criteria to share the fishing rod must be set (since it is a finite, scarce resource), and due to the iron law of oligarchy,

>>24484332
Because all post-Reagan libertarianism are just extremist shades of neo-liberalism, aka globalist plutocratic capitalism.

>>24487503
(2/2)

and due to the iron law of oligarchy, such arbitrary criteria will be set either by a single person or a small group among the most powerful of the tribe. And such person or small group in charge of setting the criteria to share the fishing rod is the true only owner of the rod, which is the same reason why statal property is not really communal property, and the reason why a socialist anarchist commune would degenerate to an oligarchy in a very short time.

So private property is necessary. And if private property is necessary, capitalism within that private property must be tolerated. If I have my fishing rod, what is the wrong thing about selling fish and then applying a capitalist saving and investment strategy to my benefits? Or if I have a house (which, don't forget, Marx considered personal goods and not means of production), what is wrong about providing hostage to travellers and then apply a capitalist investment strategy on my benefits? or hiring employees? If the uses of private property are decided by the community (by an oligarchy within the community, in reality), then it is not true private property.

>>24487503
impressive fart smelling going on here. cut from the same charlatan cloth as mises. many such cases

capitalism is anti-free market btw, go suck some WEF jewish cock in a relevant /pol/ thread, you flat earther of political theory

>>24487545
you act as if leftists don't engage in the same tactics.

>>24487545
>you flat earther of political theory

Meanwhile all hegelian and rawlsian rape babies around the world trying to do political theory without Arrow's impossibility theorem and the iron law of oligarchy. Enjoy your statal stomp right in the balls.

>>24484242 (OP)
You don't, at least not until we get a new planetary body.
Jeffersonian fantasies are childish on worlds of 10 billion people. Too many low IQs to wrangle.

do you really need to read books about libertarianism? premise is simple enough: take the invisible hand to its ultimate conclusion.

it's obvious there are lines invisible hand should not be made to cross. private police forces competing with each other is not going to work (lol). not only that but is it the time to be arguing about how superior privately owned highways would be when your neighborhood is being taken over by literal cannibals from 3rd world?

libertarianism is like communism for people with triple digit IQs to dream about and waste time with when they should really be thinking about race.

>>24484242 (OP)
please fuck not Ayan Rand

>>24487632
I'll always remember the story of the small town that didn't have a fire department that decided to do a private fire department that operated on a subscription model. So you could pay a monthly fee. One time a guy who didn't subscribe found his house was on fire and called the fire department and begged them to come. Offered to pay not only the monthly fee but also pay the entire previous year if they would come. They turned him down and said he wasn't a customer so they couldn't help him. His neighbors who did pay the fee called the firefighters who came with all their equipment and watched the mans house burn down because they were only there to stop the fire from spreading to his neighbors house.

>>24487619
who are these 10 billion people you speak of? are they some kind of rhetorical abstraction or something concrete?

>>24486984
"society" is a spook.
It doesn't exist.
The individual does.

>>24484242 (OP)
>Where to start?
David Boaz
https://www.amazon.com/Libertarian-Mind-Manifesto-Freedom-ebook/dp/B00LD1OSTY

>>24484274
LATIN SUPREMACIST CALLING FOR ALL MEXICANS TO BLAH BLAH

lol I saw you outside of 4chan, I know it was you.

>>24487599
you're a total pseud throwing around theories like you learned them yesterday while regurgitating the ideology crafted for you by the current neo-liberal era plutocracy, an ideology entirely to make you a worthless, impotent, atomized retard.

>>24488744
Thomas Metzinger would disagree although he'd use different terminology

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nozick-political/

>>24484332
Decades of financial austerity which prolongs recessions, kills the economy, and decreases prosperity all at the urging of libertarian types probably has something to do with it. Keynesian economics has come to dominate the globe today because there is a fundamental truth that government can enhance and supercharge the business cycle to make demand and production grow steadily. Where on earth is the best place in terms of quality of life? Scandinavia with its massive government programs and nationalized resource sectors. Where is the best place on earth for raw economic production? China, which is literally communist. Anyone who still champions nonsense about leaving the free market to itself is just literally not paying attention to reality.

>>24487599
lolbertarians are literally a joke

>>24484242 (OP)
For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto is absolute peak.

>>24488341
Dumb from him not paying the monthly fee. Why isn't the dumb retard fighting the fire himself if it's making him so pissed? Probably a socialist complaining about the system.

>>24489446
> Government is good when it acts in the interests of big corporations
> Favouring the big corporations makes me a socialist
Kys

>>24488983
You are just butthurt that you can't refute anything. You threw that Popper paradox of intolerance like if this was your twitter account where you have 4 or 5 low T neckbeards clapping at your nonsense. There is nothing more reddit than Popper's paradox of intolerance yet you namedropped it with a smirk only to say that I'm the one namedropping theories when at least I'm weaving a train of thought to justify their use, which you are absolutely incapable to follow or to reply to. It's unbelievable the share of reddit leftist midwits we have in /lit/, it's getting out of hand.

>>24487503

You don't understand what an intolerant community truly means. It is very much possible for those communities to impose their ideas and will upon others and put the whole system (if it can even be called that) into question. Of course the course of these things depend upon the specific realities of economic production and it's relationships, something that libertarians chose to be completely blind to.

>children of the members of a freely constituted community can be easily brainwashed to be part of it as well so that they don't get to know the blank framework of the libertarian community,
You say shit like this and then expect me to not make Twitter snarky remarks. This is quite literally a teenager talking. There is no such thing as a "blank framework". Everyone is involved in some work for survival. And that work is always social. Every community forms ideologies based on that and teaches it to their children. Your own ideology comes from the womb of Capitalist context. And now you're telling me that communities that teach their children their own ideas and ways of production are "brainwashing them" , because they are not brainwashed by your Capitalist libertine nonsense? Are libertarians truly deluded enough to think that their belief system is a complete blank state and is not interdependent on sociopolitical context? Get off your high horse
>if I have a fishing rod (it is a form of means of production) with which I can feed myself and my family

1. the very profession "fisherman" cannot exist without greater societal context and it's division of labours. The fisherman himself would need products of other people's labour and his own nature of labour is decided in that context.

Nothing exists in a vaccum. A point hard to grasp for the alienated psyche of the libertarian.
2. The fisherman's rod may or may not be a product of his own labour. Most likely not if it comes from the greater society and labour of other people. Not hard to assume then that in a non-capitalist framework it belongs to the society at large.
3. The problem is not with a fisherman trying to feed himself from his own labour through his work via that rod. The issue appears when, under a capitalist framework one "fisherman" owns 20 rods and rents them out to others inorder to steal the produce created by their labour. Which is entirely caused by the capitalist having access to means of production that others don't.

This is how you end up in a world where people who, under collective effort, can quite literally build houses from their own two hands can't afford a decent place to live for themselves. .....

>>24489565
> The issue appears when, under a capitalist framework one "fisherman" owns 20 rods and rents them out to others inorder to steal the produce created by their labour. Which is entirely caused by the capitalist having access to means of production that others don't
Based.

>>24487060
>capitalism would be the dominant model in the libertarian community because it has been empirically proven the most effective way to fight poverty,
Bait used to be believable

>>24487528
>>24489565
You can harp on about corruption all you want. And it is a problem in any heirarchial system without proper checks and more damnable, without public consciousness. But what's the capitalist libertine answer to that? It is to make the corruption through power and resource control legal and turn faux state oligarchies into actual billionare oligarchies. Much like what happened to post Soviet Russia. Worst case scenario you can say that Capitalism is inevitable as long as corrupt assholes exist in the world. But supported by a moral ought? Far from it.

It's like solving the problem of crime of rape by making rape legal. This critique of collectivisation does not imply Capitalism as a solution. Which tantamounts to taking a step backward instead of forward.

>then apply a capitalist investment strategy on my benefits? or hiring employees? I
As I said before, the problem is unequal distribution of means of production and he social relationships of production emanating from it. Which allow accumulation of capital in the hands of a minority (let's call them oligarchs)

>>24489565
By "blank" I don't mean that there is no underlying ideology to it, but that the set of rules of the libertarian community must be minimal. Private property, free association, right to live, etcetera. Within that minimal set of rules, people can associate and conform new communities with their own additional rules as long as they don't violate the minimal rules in the libertarian framework. For example, a socialist commune can be undertaken in a libertarian community, and they can add a rule to share all production with the other members of the community. What I mean by "brainwash" is that children in that commune (or any other subcommunity, it could be a capitalist company) may be raised without teaching them that they live in a libertarian community and that it's not compulsory to share all production or, in the case of a company, to be part of it and work for the bosses, because that way new de facto states would appear. So I think there must exist certain statal control in education so that children get to know the libertarian regime and to avoid new de facto states, it's essentially a minarchist argument against anarchocapitalism. It's not that children must be obliged to be part of capitaism, because the libertarian regime it's not necessarily capitalist just because it allows capitalism to exist, since it also allows socialist communities to exist, whilst statal socialism does not allow capitalist, freely constituted communities to exist.

>>24489579
> unequal distribution of means of production and he social relationships of production emanating from it. Which allow accumulation of capital in the hands of a minority (let's call them oligarchs
Based

>>24489565
As for the second point regarding the fisherman argument
>2. The fisherman's rod may or may not be a product of his own labour. Most likely not if it comes from the greater society and labour of other people. Not hard to assume then that in a non-capitalist framework it belongs to the society at large.

Whether the fisherman has built his fishing rod or has paid for it, he has earned complete right to make use of it. He is not obliged to share the products of his usage. And you may say "but the guy to whom he bought the fishing rod didn't built it himself, he used materiales provided by other people, so there is a social cost to it and he must share", and there you'd be in a platonic third man argument. If all the chain of resource trading has been voluntary, then the fisherman ought not to share anything of his production, he should be allowed to set the price he pleases as long as the market is free and competitors can appear. If not all the chain of resources has been voluntary, if someone has stolen from anyone else and that has made possible that the fisherman has its fishing rod, then it must be proven and settled through justice for that particular case, not for society as a whole. And if it can't be proven, it must not be assumed that all private production as a whole is illegitimate in order to make tabula rasa and set a socialist authoritarian regime, because that violates presumption of innocence and it's better to have a free guilty man than to jail an innocent man.

>3. The problem is not with a fisherman trying to feed himself from his own labour through his work via that rod. The issue appears when, under a capitalist framework one "fisherman" owns 20 rods and rents them out to others inorder to steal the produce created by their labour. Which is entirely caused by the capitalist having access to means of production that others don't.

So if the fisherman is allowed to have a single fishing rod and he saves money to acquire more fishing rods and hire people to use them, it is completely legitimate, there is nothing essentially different about it, it's just a quantity matter. The workers are getting benefits from the saving and risk the capitalist has been exposed to during his capitalization process. The capitalist deserves a share of the production even if he does not use the fishing rods anymore, because risk and time have a price, and the capitalist is exposed to the highest risk, since he would have to respond with his own net worth if the company goes bankrupt (unless the state saves him with tax money, which is crony capitalism and not libertarian capitalism). Risk is the same reason why interest rates are legitimate even if the loaner is not producing anything tangible; there is a risk that you don't give me back the money and I cannot use it during that time, and that has a price. Marx also condemned interest rates as a necessary surplus generating element in capitalism, which is nonsense for this reason.

>>24489579
You insist on making capitalism a necessary element of libertarianism. Libertarianism sets a right to private property, and a true private property right allows the owner to apply capitalist investment strategies on his property. So
>This critique of collectivisation does not imply Capitalism as a solution

Is true, but I haven't said that. Capitalism is not a solution to the worse option of statal collectivisation, private property is, and true private property allows capitalism to exist but also other production styles. Capitalism was born not so long ago in history, and there have been other societies with free trade and private property like the otomans, but they weren't capitalists because they didn't know the investment and reinvestment strategies of capitalism, they'd rather spend what they earned in free market than to reinvest it.

And no, the libertarian solution to corruption is not making corruption legal. All corruption stems from the military and taxing power the state has. If a company gets overpriced public contracts funded by taxpayer money in exchange for paying commissions to politicians, the original corrupt element is the state, which has illegitimate taxpayer money thanks to the monopoly of violence it holds. That company is not governed by free market but by statal oppression, and it would probably go broke in free market.

So if there are companies owning means of production, which they have freely acquired via voluntary exchange, they are not necessarily corrupt, because the necessary element of corruption is the state. However, companies could become de facto states in libertarianism for many reasons, one of them being the education one I've tried to overcome with my arguments.

>>24489581
This reads like written by someone who is yet to experience the real world or what people are like. This system won't last 5 years with so many competing ideologies (and the underlying material interests) thrown together into a rooster. With some of them being essentially intolerant to others. So how does this work? Your system is somehow secure because the minarchist state would indoctrinate children into libertine ideas but somehow those same children, now adults, could decide to form communities, with ideas intolerant of other communities, without compromising their libertine core? Explain to me again how a tossed coin can land on both head and tails at the same time.

I guess this is what happens when your ideas are not based in real world circumstances because you don't understand where they come from. This seems less like a libertarian problem and more like a you problem. For, on some level every self aware libertarian should know they are defending the interests of Capitalist upper class.

>>24489604
This entire post is just another milquetoast defence of Capitalism and it's exploitation by framing everything under capitalist logic. Where the concept of "right" and "legitimacy" are predefined by a logic that would perpetually benefit the owner of 20 rods and his future generations at the expense of the poorer 20 workmen and their future generations. This creating the very class system that is being criticized.

Of course, this can only be justified in a fictional reality where a fisherman can save enough money to one day buy 20 rods and then never have to work again via investment and gains. In the real world though, the 20 rod fisherman, by the virtue of belonging to the upper fisherman class, had access to the capital to build a 20 rod business to begin with. And the 20 fisherman working for him will never accumulate enough wealth to own 20 rods themselves because he pays them just enough to stay alive and maybe afford a life that is standard for a fisherman worker in that society.

>>24489730
>>24489661
Btw risk does not produce anything. People do. And there is absolutely no reason to believe that risk should be awarded. The Capitalist can only take risk because he has the Capital for that risk to begin with. So essentially you are not awarding a capitalist for taking risks. You are awarding him just for existing as a part of the Capitalist class which allows him to take away the fruit of a very large mass of people in society.

Basically you are paying them money for owning money. Which is what shareholder capitalism essentially is. You may counter this by saying that they would lose if the business fails. That maybe true for an individual enterprise but as a whole humans will always work, will always produce stuff to eat and live. So the market on a whole will always be profitable because it has to be. Therefore for the capitalist, on a whole, all they do is sit back and watch as their wealth is added to by the effort of society.

>>24489730
>capitalist logic
>class system
>exploitation

>le milk toast

>>24489730
>the fisherman will never accumulate enough because.. he just won't, OK?!

>>24489741
>Cannot explain how taking away the wealth produced by other people via exploitative labour relationships, supported by the logic of private ownership is not exploitation.
>Cannot explain how people belonging to opposite end of a system with differing material realities and relationship to production are not part of a class system

>le no point

>>24489749

>Doesn't understand how history works

>>24489722
Libertarianism is indeed an unstable regime that requires a very wide majority of people under it to believe in its principles. One of the main controversies among libertarians is whether we should advocate for anarchism or for minarchism, given that violent people in anarchism could accumulate enough guns to establish a state again, and that a minarchist state would tend to grow. But the fact that it is unstable does not mean that it is unjust or desirable, because if the population is truly convinced of those ideas, if they understand that every political authority is illegitimate (even a minarchist one), we would asymptotically get closer to the ideal. An oppressive and stable regime is not better than a less oppressive and less stable one, thus why I despise the end of history bullshit from Hegel and Marx.

>those same children, now adults, could decide to form communities, with ideas intolerant of other communities, without compromising their libertine core?

They can be intolerant to other communities without wanting to impose their conditions to other communities. A freely constituted community may not allow white people to be part of it, and that's legitimate as long as they don't try to harm white people. When I see these woke videogame companies hiring woke people with non normative identities only, the average response among right wing people is to say that it is discrimination balbalabla. For me, they have the right to do it, though free market incentivizes hiring people regardless of those things, because excluding potentially more competent employees based on identitary criteria implies a competitiveness loss.

>>24489018
I'm going to be honest with you. I have never heard of him and don't know what you are talking about.

>>24489761
unjust or undesirable

>>24489730
> Owning 20 rods is le EVIL
Kys

>>24489761
>thus why I despise the end of history bullshit from Hegel and Marx
Marx was an anarchist at core. That's why I don't buy into him since I'm not convinced non-statism is possible.

Libertarianism conveniently has a very myopic definition of a state since the end goal is to take power from it and give it to private oligarchs. You envision a world with a libertarian minarchist overworld containing within itself multiple communities. I envision a minimalist state overlord whose power has been devolved to private conglomerates who have become mini states in their own right. But since they are not "states" but "private enterprises" the libertarian is fine with it even though they may essentially carry the same power. "But you are free to not participate in it". Except anyone who does that can "choose" to starve and die.

Libertarianism is a smokescreen precisely because it wishes to award all the powers of the state to private oligarchs but still call it a "free" society owing to a semantic trick and enforce the logic of private ownership on its subjects to justify oligarchal power and control.

In a republican democracy the state has atleast some accountability to the people. Libertarianism has no such thing. The iron law of private property would ensure that we'd be essentially living under Kings.

>They can be intolerant to other communities without wanting to impose their conditions to other communities
That's not what intolerant means. What it means is other communities are not tolerated and their ideology is cajoled, harrassed, attacked out of existence. This happens all the time in the real world.

>>24489792
> The iron law of private property would ensure that we'd be essentially living under Kings.
Based.

>>24488744
>>24489018

For me society exists inasmuch temperature exists. We can understand large scale phenomena by synthesis and simplification, but we should be aware that such large scale phenomena has constitutive elements (particles colliding for temperature, or individuals interacting for society) and that the suppression of them also alters the more abstract aggregated conceptual entity. Republicanism, socialism, statism, all the anti-libertarian menaces, assume there can be a single, unified will of society as a whole, when in reality a purported unified will is always held by political elites who destroy or poison the elements allowing them to think about a society in the first place.

>>24489792
I don't doubt that Marx thought that his ideas would lead to the end of the state, but for me that's not possible because of my already stated arguments. Marx didn't believe in negative and individual rights, for him freedom was a positive collective freedom to do things as a community. And, because of the iron law of oligarchy (which I've largely abused throughout this thread, though that does not make it less true), the collective will of a community will always be, in reality, concentrated in newcoming elites. This is the same argument I've used to reject collective property as an obliged requirement of a community.

>>24487503

>For example, if I have a fishing rod (it is a form of means of production) with which I can feed myself and my family and the community forcibly decides that, as a means of production, it must be collective property, due to Arrow's impossibility theorem, an ALWAYS arbitrary criteria to share the fishing rod must be set (since it is a finite, scarce resource), and due to the iron law of oligarchy,such arbitrary criteria will be set either by a single person or a small group among the most powerful of the tribe. And such person or small group in charge of setting the criteria to share the fishing rod is the true only owner of the rod, which is the same reason why statal property is not really communal property, and the reason why a socialist anarchist commune would degenerate to an oligarchy in a very short time.

Even if we assume Marx got his economy right (he didn't) and we end up with a post scarcity society, the iron law of oligarchy would still operate. If we have infinite resources to produce anything, would the communist commune let me produce libertarian books against the community? Probably not, and that prohibition would need a political authority, an outright state or a de facto state.

snakes must feel so fucking embarrassed for showing up to earth like that. literally brought nothing but his own ass

>>24489809

Society is not just a sum of its individual parts. The individuals must come together to define their social relations and the particular mode of production, those relations allows for. And it is from those relations that society is born. Your temperature analogy doesn't work because we don't need to define the state of an atom wrt other atoms. It's speed and velocity can exist on its own. It's dependent on its surroundings but those surroundings are not necessary to barely describe it. Which is not true for individuals in a society. For an employer to exist an employee must exist and so on.

You assume that individuals are just atomised entities floating in space and only interacting with each other inorder to engage in production through the chemical bond of money(capital). This is just your alienation talking. This has no precedence in human history and is a actually dehumanizing to the self.

>>24489821
>Marx thought that his ideas would lead to the end of the state,
From what I know, he did believe so. He wanted the working classes to abolish the state since all production would be managed communaly. As in a village commune but on a global industrial scale. He lived in 19th century and saw the state as instrument of power for feudal kings and capitalists.
>This is the same argument I've used to reject collective property as an obliged requirement of a community.
There is no obliged requirement of a community to begin with. Collective property simply comes from the ethical ground that we don't want to live in heirarchial class systems which exploit some members for the benefit of others leading to material consequences like poverty, homelessness etc. (which btw is what a capitalist libertarian system would do to everyone involved).

>. If we have infinite resources to produce anything, would the communist commune let me produce libertarian books against the community?
I don't think communism has any such contradiction since they are explicitly intolerant of ideologies which would lead us back to poverty/starvation/boot licking etc. Any attempts at taking away worker's power by reinstating private ownership would be quashed. Communists do not believe in such idealistic unabated liberal values. For them material results are primary and it makes logical sense that better material results for workers would be possible if he leeching capitalist class and it's private ownership of everything is abolished.

>>24489792
>. But since they are not "states" but "private enterprises" the libertarian is fine with it even though they may essentially carry the same power

I have already postulated that risk with the children brain washing thing within subcommunities (which can be socialist communes, companies, whatever). The fact that libertarianism has that risk does not mean that the solution is republicanism or any other regime with a standard state, because the standard state not only does that as well but also has a monopoly over it. We are taught political theory metaphysics/language gymnastics to justify the state, like "general will" and "social contract". There is no general will, there cannot be, it's literally a mathematical theorem called Arrow's impossibility theorem; and there is no social contract, constitutions may be better than tyrannies with arbitrary powers, but they are not legitimate either, they were decided by a ridiculously small subset of people in the newcoming elites.

>"But you are free to not participate in it". Except anyone who does that can "choose" to starve and die.

This is a very common topic I've seen among leftists. They think that partaking the workforce is a de facto oppression, because the alternative is to die from starvation. What if you spawn in a island in the middle of nowhere? If you don't work, you would die as well, and there can be no oppression because you are alone, so physical needs are not constitutive elements of oppression, nature does not oppress. So when a capitalist hires you, he is giving you a solution to your need, though not because of your need in itself, but in his own self interest, something which leftists don't understand because they always think that trade implies a loser and a winner when in reality both can win. Two people can agree for their own self interest and win.

>The iron law of private property would ensure that we'd be essentially living under Kings.

I reckon that your concept of libertarianism is intoxicated by Curtis Yarvin/Peter Thiel/CEO king technocratic shit. Just because there is a freak with certain theories about libertarianism it does not imply that all libertarian theory is like that. Curtis Yarvin is a flanderization of Hoppe, who only said that monarchies tend to preserve private property more because they are highly illegitimate and then citizens are very prone to revolting (unlike republics, which feel the right to oppress people because they are the legitimate product of the general will).

For me Hoppe is too focused in historical monarchies. Today monarchies can be much more oppressive than in the past because of technology. But what he says is not nonsense from a historical point of view.

>>24489880
>I have already postulated that risk

It is not a risk it's an inevitability baked into the libertarian system based on private enterprise. And NO, your brainwashing analogy DOES NOT work here. Get it through your head. A private enterprise can follow ALL the rules of the libertarian system and still end up materially equivalent to a State (or even worse) by owning everything and everyone.
1. Your rules are not broken here.
2. No brainwashing is necessary.
3. The system is still libertine
And yet we end up with something worse than a State. Something with more power over the individuals and even less accountability for it. Just because you are not willing to let go of private ownership which somehow MUST exist in your bootlicking ideology.

> If you don't work, you would die as well,
Are you actually retarded? The problem is not working itself. Humans must work. The problem is a few people basically lording over everyone else through their ownership of means of production. And taking the benefit out of everyone else's work. The problem is the system.

Do you actually believe that work is not even possible without a capitalist and we would starve and die if Capitalists don't exist? The OPPOSITE is true lol. It's the Capitalist who would starve and die without the workers. Because that is what is implied by your analogy. Do your hands and legs freeze if you are not ordered around by an employer?

This island analogy is so stupid it's almost making my brain hurt. Having a hard time refraining from ad hominem.

>Just because there is a freak with certain theories about libertarianism
This is not about theories lol. This is about real life and real consequences. As I said before, it's nice to be a privelaged teenager having read a lot of theory books. It's another thing to have lived experiences of the same economy by participating in it and watching and analysing the truth in action.

Libertarianism with capitalist characteristic is a recipe for feudal lords and kings to take over. With their power not derived from a divine right to rule but a right to private property. This is not a matter of theory. This is what we'll move towards with less and less State participation in a capitalist system.

You are replacing whatever accountability the State had towards the people with no accountability at all. This republican state that you admonish so much as an oppressive force did not appear on its own. It was won through years of revolution, fighting and dying against the kind of kings you support. And you intend to replace that State with something much much worse.

>>24489880

Btw the collective will of the people is very much a real thing. Because it is only through collective action towards a goal that we overthrew monarchies and won some rights and political representation. And that's how the republican states that you hate came to be. Now the libertarians are buys eroding those institutions and taking away any power the people had to begin with.

You can cry all you want about the state not representing the people at all. But as long as the state is won through such revolutions followed by continous popular political action it will have a degree of accountability based on how aware and active the public is about their rights.

Unlike the libertarian system which would take us all for fools and have us worship some oligarch king's right to his "private property" and thus his control over our lives and labour

>>24489955
> Libertarianism with capitalist characteristic is a recipe for feudal lords and kings to take over. With their power not derived from a divine right to rule but a right to private property. This is not a matter of theory. This is what we'll move towards with less and less State participation in a capitalist system
Based

>>24489987
> Unlike the libertarian system which would take us all for fools and have us worship some oligarch king's right to his "private property" and thus his control over our lives and labour
Based

>>24489955
>Do you actually believe that work is not even possible without a capitalist and we would starve and die if Capitalists don't exist?

I said that the capitalist gives you a solution by hiring you, thanks to his means of production (which I have already have argues that are legitimate) and other employees who are willingly working there. It's not the only possible solution, as I have thoroughly repeated in this thread.

I won't reply further so this thread will probably die because it's only you and me and I consider that no progress has been made so far. The theoretical grounding is too different.

>>24484242 (OP)

Before I leave the thread, I would like to recommend Liberalismo: Los 10 principios básicos del orden político liberal by Juan Ramón Rallo. It's in Spanish so I didn't recommend it first but maybe someone here knows Spanish as a second language.

>>24490071
Also the author does not believe in intellectual property so you can easily find it in pdf.

>>24489513
Read my post again. Government is good when it nationalizes resources and then provides the fruit of those resources to the population through social programs of uplift. This creates the best places on earth for a person to live. On the other hand. when the government does favor corporations, it is undeniably powerful in creating an economic engine, albeit also massive economic inequality since corporations will never willingly return any of those gains to the general citizenry.

>>24490412
> This creates the best places on earth for a person to live
Nope and there's no empirical evidence for that.
> Muh Europe
Those countries are only rich and can afford welfare because of the labour exploited from China and third world countries.
Again, what you call good government is just capitalist corporations seizing the state to beat everyone else out of the market.

>>24490071

>I said that the capitalist gives you a solution by hiring you, thanks to his means of production (which I have already have argues that are legitimate

Funny how you'd establish the legitimacy of the Capitalists minority's control over the entire world before telling everyone else that they should be grateful that the Capitalist minority is "benevolent" enough to allow everyone else to work on their property while leeching their own rich lifestyle off of the product of that majority's work.

That the Capitalist class has some natural right over the entire planet and everyone else should be grateful that they are allowed to live, work and survive on planet Earth. That not working for a Capitalist is tantamount to not working AT ALL.
What a joke!

Since you are parting let me make it straight for you. The only true reality of production is workers and natural resources, nothing else. Only workers and resources are ABSOLUTELY BARE NECESSITY to produce everything that we have. Capitalism and it's free market labour relationships are just a thinly veiled class system which allowed one powerful class to leech and steal the work of others, and control the methodology of production/labour through their access to natural and man made resources via Capital and Capital accumulation. It's barely any different from Kings/nobility and their "divine right to rule".

This is something even right wing people are waking upto. Hence their copes with National Socialism or (god forbid) National "Maoism"
For your sake I hope you are a part of the leech class or atleast a very VERY good beneficiary of the system otherwise I'd have to, in 4chan lexicon, classify you as a cuck

>>24490581
I belong to the capitalist class though. Not that I agree with everything they say. The working cloasses should have it way worse and homeless people as well as other scum should be put to work houses.

>>24490655
All the more reason why petty burgeious should oppose libertarianism. Because under a libertarian system the big corpos will immediately eat you up and your children will end up becoming the same "scum" you despise.

>>24490581
I said that I wouldn't reply anymore but you are tempting me. Understanding economic phenomena as purely material/corporal is absolutely inoperant. Read about the idea by Hayek that prices are information signals. Learn about monetary theory and the history of money, how monetary conventions arise and how they are an intellectual technology to make coordination easier, how the division of labour is mostly an intellectual division of labour and not just physical or temporal, learn how risk alters prices.

A loaner provides a service with his trust, he makes it possible for you to do something you couldn't do, and if the activity you are undertaking with that money is profitable because people demand it, you will be able to repay. But there was a risk that it wasn't, so the risk has a price as interest rate even if the loaner didn't produce anything material.

The same can be said about capitalists. Because you understand economy only in corporal terms, you think that the general scientific information is enough to produce, that if we have knowledge to build machines then the capitalist is stealing from us the benefits of industrial revolution by owning them. But general/scientific knowledge is not enough, the market is collapsed by particular information signals, in the shape of prices, differentials to be exploited by free agents acting for their own self interest. The price of potatoes in Ukraine is not general knowledge, it is particular, and it has a paramount importance, it is as important as to know how to produce potatoes to decide whether or not to produce potatoes in Ukraine.

Capitalists have a role in handling with information and assuming risks, so it is perfectly legitimate that they want to earn money with their activity.

When there is a free market and the price of some commodity is too high, many capitalists will want to take advantage of that to earn money, so they will increase the supply and the prices will decrease. When there is no free market, supply is more or less fixed so the prices tend to increase a lot.

In a socialist regime, these information infrastructure is completely destroyed. Prices become artificial if not non existent, which makes coordination very difficult. Read about the economic calculation problem.

>>24490692
It is funny to me how Marx builds up his whole system under the premise that his materialism is not crassly corporal, that there are material phenomena that are not strictly corporal like commodity fetishim or alienation. But when it comes to his economy, it is indeed crassly corporal, because he does not understand risk, nor prices as information, nor money. The conclusion is that the capitalist is a parasite because the proletarians are the ones moving their bodies, it sounds plain vulgar to me and to anyone who has a grasp of more abstract economy.

>>24490682
Doesn't matter to me, I own a big corpo. Even if my children did end up eaten up by the system I wouldn't mind. I may even intentionally disown or sell into slavery one of my own children, for example if they end up gay or communist.

>>24490713
>The conclusion is that the capitalist is a parasite because the proletarians are the ones moving their bodies

Trve

>>24490692
>Learn about monetary theory and the history of money,
The history of money is very much tied to the history of class division going back to ancient egypt. It has always been an instrument of power (among other instruments of power)
>how they are an intellectual technology to make coordination easier
Socialist experiments have shown us that alternatives work just as well. Money as a medium of exchange is very different from money as Capital and an instrument of Capital accumulation (and hence exploitation)

>Because you understand economy only in corporal terms, you think that the general scientific information is enough to produce, that if we have knowledge to build machines then the capitalist is stealing from us the benefits of industrial revolution by owning them.
Yes this is true.
>The price of potatoes in Ukraine is not general knowledge, it is particular, and it has a paramount importance, it is as important as to know how to produce potatoes to decide whether or not to produce potatoes in Ukraine.

You are still using a paradigm to justify its own existence but I'll take the bait. The "information" carried by prices only works under a system which assumes wealth accumulation through productive activity as it's fundamental axiom. I.e capitalism itself. We can always figure out if Ukraine has a crop failure or not via the very fact of the presence of their potatoes in the market and their quantity. Scarcity influences prices, not the other way round. That scarcity is observed first and then the prices are influenced, therefore the information of the scarcity exists beforehand it's effect on the prices.

Anyway, I was not arguing for a moneyless society to begin with since I'm not entirely sure how that would work. This has nothing to do with my critique of Capitalism.

>Capitalists have a role in handling with information and assuming risks, so it is perfectly legitimate that they want to earn money with their activity.

Translation: Capitalists are engaging in a labour activity which involves them holding power over the direction of production and use of labour/resources and using that power to exploit other people. Just because they have the capital to do so to begin with.

It's funny how you justify capitalism through its own logic.
>Bbbbbut they own money and risk money so they deserve to loot everyone else

>When there is no free market, supply is more or less fixed so the prices tend to increase a lot.
When there is no free market there must be an alternative method of distribution which may or may not involve prices. Prices can only be reduced by an Capitalist insofar as he is willing to undercharge his workers. So lower prices come with the caveat of lower income.

>>24490692
>>24490810

>A loaner provides a service with his trust, he makes it possible for you to do something you couldn't do, and if the activity you are undertaking with that money is profitable because people demand it, you will be able to repay. But there was a risk that it wasn't, so the risk has a price as interest rate even if the loaner didn't produce anything material.

Yup just don't ask the loan shark how he managed to amass that wealth which the loanie did not have to begin with. What workers him or his family exploited, or how it was all loaning and earning interests all the way back to ancient times. How his ancestors worked stolen land and slaves.

Capitalism is nothing but a nice sounding justification for what is essentially goon law and mafia logic. Take things by force and then feign libertine values when you've had yours.

Though I find your criticism that I'm too corporeal interesting. It's almost like your justification for Capitalist wealth rests on some esoteric/mystical bases in the act of parsing market information and using capital to create capital. You are just 2 steps away from justifying a King's divine right to rule through God kek.

>>24490810
> The history of money is very much tied to the history of class division going back to ancient egypt. It has always been an instrument of power (among other instruments of power)
So having power is bad? Kekked

>>24490834
>So having power is bad?

It's a judgement for you to make. It's not that power does not exist in a leftist paradigm, but what is opposed is abuse of that power to exploit people in a way leftists see and define exploitation. Which they define via a material lens.

I guess no one would complain about power or heirarchies if all slaves lived happy lives of comfort and all the workers got excellent healthcare and housing. But that's not power is usually used for , is it? It is used to make everyone else as miserable as possible for the benefit of a few who hold that power. I guess that's the major complaint here

>>24490810
>Scarcity influences prices, not the other way round. That scarcity is observed first and then the prices are influenced, therefore the information of the scarcity exists beforehand it's effect on the prices.

Scarcity influences prices, not the other way around, but that doesn't imply that scarcity in iself is enough to achieve the same level of coordination or that prices are not useful, for the same reason why we measure temperature and not particle collisions. Prices can reach abstraction levels which, to this day, most people neither consciously understand nor are able to explain, yet they (prices) prompt social coordination. There you see that prices are a very advanced technology, it similar to the fact that all of us use computers but not many understand them, probably not even 1k people in the world understand every element involved in making a computer work, yet we mass produce them and use them everyday. Similarly, we don't have to consciously understand prices to use them and to acknowledge them as useful. It does not matter whether or not you know that interest rates are prices of risk and time, they are and they work fine, especially in a free market (which, by the way, we don't have, because central banking disturbs the interest rates of all the economy)

>When there is no free market there must be an alternative method of distribution which may or may not involve prices. Prices can only be reduced by an Capitalist insofar as he is willing to undercharge his workers. So lower prices come with the caveat of lower income.

That is the part about the economic calculation problem of socialism that most socialists don't understand. You think that the information is given and that the distribution of resources is merely a computational algorithm which may be coded to achieve equality. When there is an authority planning the economy, it's not just that it is computationally harder to assign given resources with a given information, it's that the very fact of having a planned economy disturbs information creation and hence production, information and production you need to plan the economy in the first place. That "alternative method of distribution" you talk about ignores the fact that a forced distribution plan not based in private property and voluntary trade completely alters production, and distribution needs production. Don't get me to a collaborative, decentralised socialist commune because I have already proven that such thing ends up with an oligarchy.

>which may or not involve prices

A central distribution plan does not necessarily have to abolish prices but it always disturbs the quality of information within them, they become noisier signals less suitable for coordinating production.

>undercharge his workers

I have already explained why risk, time and information make capitalist's activity legitimate. But you insist on the petty and fallacious psychologism that I think with an alienated capitalist logic.

>>24490866
> ess no one would complain about power or heirarchies if all slaves lived happy lives of comfort and all the workers got excellent healthcare and housing.
US has one of the best healthcares in the world, quality and service wise.
> It is used to make everyone else as miserable as possible for the benefit of a few who hold that power.
What do you advise for? Letting the ooga boogas roam free around the streets? There'd be more violence and shit. Turns out the lower classes seek to oppress other people as much as the capitalists, just in way more gruelsome ways.

>>24490424
>Nope and there's no empirical evidence for that.
Yes there is, by any reasonable metric of life satisfaction, Social Democracies with large government spending directed at the citizens and funded by national resources are the best. You out yourself as ideologically blinded and a total buffoon if you deny this.

>>24490945
>US has one of the best healthcares in the world, quality and service wise.
But at what expense? You won't see people shooting down health insurance ceos or other people cheering the shooter in places like Europe. Everyone I know in the US tells me that the health insurance system is fucked. And without insurance you are basically dead because everything is overbloated 100x.
>What do you advise for?
It's not my advice mind you but the leftist answer is to let the worker masses hold political power over state institutions and control of natural resources which they work on. That way you won't end up with a system which keeps them poor.

>>24484242 (OP)
I lean left (somewhat) socially and right (somewhat) economically but I'd rather be called a slur then a libertarian.

>>24491756
Your opinion anon really matter to us anon

>>24489556
you're a deranged retard, not once did i mention popper or the paradox of intolerance. i just pointed out you are a retard throwing around ideas like a 12 year old, which arent worth the time to respond too because you're not worth the time, hence replying 20 hours later.

>>24491112
> Social Democracies with large government spending directed at the citizens and funded by national resources are the best
They can only finance it with money exploited from the third world.

>i just pointed out you are a retard throwing around ideas like a 12 year old, which arent worth the time to respond too

>>24492209
No, they tend to finance it with nationalized oil reserves. Corporations exploit the third world to pad their profit margins.

>>24489446
Of independent regions or countries with a majority ethnic Chinese population, China is the poorest. It's less productive per person than Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong.
Nordic countries perform very well on economic freedom indexes.

>>24493111
How can those enterprises be profitable, If there's no labour value extracted from slaves or underpaid workers.

>>24484242 (OP)

>>24493111
Those same corporations are taxed heavily by social democracies to fund social programs

>>24491112
> Yes there is, by any reasonable metric of life satisfaction, Social Democracies with large government spending directed at the citizens and funded by national resources are the best. You out yourself as ideologically blinded and a total buffoon if you deny this.
Why assume that the high reported life satisfaction is merely a result of their economic system? They are also small nations with high levels of social trust, and we know social bonds are important for wellbeing. Costa Rica ranked 6th in the 2022-2024 world happiness report. Are we going to start advocating for Costa Rican economic policies now?

The World Happiness Report's own analyses find that nations, as biggest contributing factors are more happy when:
- they're in rich nations
- people feel they have someone they can rely on
- they have high life expectancy
- they feel free to make life choices

A liberalized economy is the best way to get a nation rich.
>>24493111
International corporations raise the wages of workers from low income counties. You'd be making people in low income nations poorer by having them leave. So rich nations are benefitting poor nations by giving them better jobs.

>>24495026
>You'd be making people in low income nations poorer by having them leave. So rich nations are benefitting poor nations by giving them better jobs.

I'd like to test this theory in a world where US is not protecting international trade and meddling into middle East every decade or so.

>>24495034
> I'd like to test this theory in a world where US is not protecting international trade
There are natural experiments where shipping routes got cut off and the affected countries suffered lower economic output as a result. So to extrapolate to making it harder to trade worldwide, this move impoverishes everyone unless someone else takes up the slack.
> and meddling into middle East every decade or so.
If we meddled in the Middle East less, it would still be true that less jobs from international corporations would make those nations poorer. The rich Gulf states welcome international businesses.

>>24495037
The corporation's naturally take more than they give. That's how they make that money in the first place. Without the aforementioned labour, the third world may or may not go poor but the corporations will die.

>>24495046
You seem to have a zero sum mentality. Workers produce more value when they're part of an effective organization like a corporation. This allows both the workers and the corporation to mutually benefit from the increased productivity.

>>24491756
Okay, nigger

>>24489762
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Metzinger?wprov=sfla1

>>24495092
NTA, but thats part of the issue.
Workers produce significantly more than they are awarded for, the compensation on the part of the company doesn't compare, and as history has proven, companies aren't necessary for humans to labor effectively. Companies bank on the fact that people produce more than they are compensated for, they have to in order to drive profits for shareholders YOY.
Example, as of 2023, the average American worker was producing value at a rate of about $65/hour, yet the average hourly pay (considering salaries broken down to hourly as well) was like $19/hour which is shockingly low considering everyone is included. A majority of this surplus value is actually funneled into bonuses, raises and other general shareholder value too, then the rest is dispersed to middle management to allocate or take themselves.

Modern companies are essentially labor vampires, allowing for an excessive amount of money to be directed into the pockets of a couple people at the top by through extreme exploitation. The people being exploited only need the company because they are optionless, in part also because of the company. The extraction and utilization of a modern workers surplus value, without any intention for the worker to benefit from it, is an actual science on the companies part

>>24495262
the reason this kind of braindead resentful take is stupid is that "the most exploited" workers are also the highest paid, companies like google make millions of dollars in earnings per employee but guess what google is one of the highest paying employers with base salaries of like 200k not being uncommon, oh no won't someone think of the google engineers!

>>24484332
>They all reduce this thing as a bootlicking tomfoolery.
I respect Ancaps who do agree that NAP and property laws do not apply to leadership and proprietors of giant transnational corporations sharing bed with governments.

But that's like 5% of them, the rest are fully susceptible to their own "nanny state" critique, only for them it's Nanny Amazon.

>>24495267
You have it backwards actually, Google engineers don't produce value in the extreme, part of the reason the average labor produced number crunches to $65 an hour is partially because a large majority of white collar workers, including google engineers are paid well beyond what they realistically produce, they are, or were basically a protected class in and of themselves (the tech industry is actively working on crunching engineers out as they are found more and more to be unnecessary, overhired, or overpaid) and can't be justified with Trumps 2017 tax changes since they can't be written off.

>>24495092
>You seem to have a zero sum mentality
It is zero sum because corpos make it so.

>This allows both the workers and the corporation to mutually benefit from the increased productivity.
In theory, yes. In practice you have Academi mercs raping underage boys around an oil field they are guarding, which has 0 (zero) % of it's revenue heading to the local populace.

Mutually beneficial cooperation is a possible route, but serious investments in a strongly underdeveloped markets are very longterm and very risky, so slash-n'-burn in terms of labor or resource exploitation is just a mathematically more advantageous approach for most cases, unless nanny government steps in and strongarms a certain approach that happens to be more politically convinient atm.

>>24495279
>serious investments in a strongly underdeveloped markets are very longterm and very risky
Imagine the faces on the guys who legit invested heavily in Ukrainian agricultural assets back in 2012.

>>24495262
> Workers produce significantly more than they are awarded for, the compensation on the part of the company doesn't compare, and as history has proven, companies aren't necessary for humans to labor effectively. Companies bank on the fact that people produce more than they are compensated for, they have to in order to drive profits for shareholders YOY.
Example, as of 2023, the average American worker was producing value at a rate of about $65/hour, yet the average hourly pay (considering salaries broken down to hourly as well) was like $19/hour which is shockingly low considering everyone is included. A majority of this surplus value is actually funneled into bonuses, raises and other general shareholder value too, then the rest is dispersed to middle management to allocate or take themselves.
You would have to give me more details on this figure. But a line of thought it may be taking that I heavily disagree with is treating all revenue as being solely due to workers, then just using the average revenue generated per worker to give us an idea of how "exploited" they are.

I'll conceptually state what I think the metric should be if we're going to moralize about fair pay. The upper limit of fair pay is when you are paid the amount of revenue that would decrease if you specifically were not working. Otherwise you are saying your boss is responsible for paying more than you produce on an individual basis.

This is conceptually very distinct from how much revenue workers produce on average. It's very plausible that as a sum total, all the workers produce $65 an hour, but if only one member of staff did not come to work today, revenue would only decrease by $19 an hour. Imagine a supermarket. Would revenue decrease if one worker did not come to work that day? Probably. But it would not decrease as drastically as an average revenue generated figure would suggest.
> history has proven, companies aren't necessary for humans to labor effectively.
If we listed the most productive businesses, they'd almost all be corporations or privately owned in some fashion. If we want to stretch back far in the past, humanity was all extremely poor.
>>24495277
Count me very skeptical about your claim regarding Google software engineers not producing a lot of value. Why would Google pay them more than the value they generate? Google wants to maximize profit.
>>24495279
I have in mind cases where people are voluntarily working for international businesses. This will be the majority of cases. Being threatened to work is a different story. What you'll find is that the best paying jobs in poor countries are either those offered by international corporations.

>>24484242 (OP)
Start having sex.

>>24495262
Anyone who can't understand that this level of wealth concentration constitutes exploitation is blind.

>>24495868
Totally but it does make me laugh that people still talk about it like it's solvable through 20th century economic models

>>24495869
I favor late 18th century models, myself

>>24495868
It's not. This graph is from the same country with some of the highest median salaries in the world. Creators of high economic value don't impoverish everyone else.

>>24495925
>Creators of high economic value don't impoverish everyone else.
They don't account for the risk and effort. Lazy commies think that someone creating their own company and putting forth all the risk in that company's success is on par with someone who answered an ad in the paper. They have no realistic view of what's going on.

>>24495868
Inequality is not inherently unjust, so it does not matter how intense inequality is. If such inequality has its origin at voluntary contracts then there is no exploitation. Libertarians stress poverty, not inequality, and capitalism has got a great deal of humanity out of extreme poverty, so we actually need more capitalism and less state intervention. The state size in GDP% has grown in parallel with the development of capitalism because now there is more to steal, yet we see social democrats trying to sell that the size of the state is the root of prosperity.

>but we could redistribute wealth so that we completely eliminate poverty

I don't even completely disagree with that, I'm a minarchist because of certain problem with children I find in anarchism (>>24489581
), so if there is a state we may tolerate subsidies for extremely poor people but ONLY for them, and paid with a single rent tax, not the current tax clusterfuck we have know, whose only intention is to deceive people by making difficult to internally quantify how much we really pay in taxes and thus avoid revolts. And if people progressively overcome poverty then the government spending for that purpose should be proportionally cut.

What we should avoid at all costs is redistribution as a general roadmap towards prosperity, that all people in the lower end should receive subsidies from people in the higher end of the distribution even if they aren't poor. Redistribution is not merely a second order thing by which you always produce the same wealth and you just have to redistribute it, redistribution disturbs wealth generation itself.

>>24495941
income tax, not rent tax*

>>24495838
Unironically this. To be libertarian is to not be an economic incel.

>>24495934

I'm sure a feudal lord "risks" failure of crop and loss of income as well when he allows any peasant to work his land. And I guess that "risk" gives the feudal lord the right to that land and it's produce.

Of course most people defending this state of affairs by invoking "risk" probably don't have the number of braincels to see how retarded this sounds.

>Uhhhh uhhhh muh feudal lord rrrrisks h-h-his land. Therefore h-h-he must own the produce
Well mr. Retardo how can the risk of crop failure justify the feudal lord's ownership of land when that risk is a posteriori to the land ownership. And by what logic is the risk of crop failure (a natural occurence) justify one man's hold over the crop itself (a man who didn't even work the fields)

You absolute fucking dolt if the reality of a certain amount of labour creating a certain social necessary product exists then that social transaction WILL occur. No amount of harping on about its risks of failure will give any one party the right to own that commodity.

People will ALWAYS eat food and will ALWAYS need clothes and home. No amount of risk in creating and selling these products will justify the capitalist's private ownership.

Capitalists do not own the commodity to be sold because they take "risks" (whatever that means besides losing money, which itself is a function of society's labour output and hence not their's to own in the first place). They own the commodity because they own the means of production itself.

>capitalism has got a great deal of humanity out of extreme poverty,
Kek

im a libewtawian, i cant think 1.5 steps ahead

>>24491756
I lean somewhat left economically and somewhat right socially, and you're a libertarian.

>>24496317
>And by what logic is the risk of crop failure (a natural occurence) justify one man's hold over the crop itself (a man who didn't even work the fields)
Because he assumed the risk by purchasing the lands. I hope this helps you figure it out.

>>24484242 (OP)
hans hermann hoppe

>>24496317
I'm other anon.

Capitalists are not feudal lords. You are equating production in the Ancien Regime to production in the Liberal Regime, which leads you to absurd conclusions. Peasants couldn't leave the lanlord's land, it was political power and not a contract, so the only way he could lose his land and other means of production was through a war with other landlord or because the peasants escaped, he didn't lose it because of going bankrupt due to crop failures. If the peasants are politically tied to the feudal lord, he does not need to sell desirable products in the market, because he can live directly off the food they produce. Essentially, the feudal lord imposes a debt (tax) onto peasants that remained even if the crops failed, so the peasants assume twice the risk: the risk of having a bad crop and the risk of having to pay taxes even if the crop is bad.

On the contrary, the capitalist, as he does not hold political power, needs to get external benefits from people who want his products so that he can, among other things, pay his employees' salaries. He has a debt with the employees and not the other way around, and if the production fails, the debt does not dissappear, so if he goes bankrupt he will likely have to sell the means of production to pay off all his debt (may it be salaries, bank loans or whatever). This is true financial risk and has an economic value, it is a service for the employee not to have to assume this risk himself, thus why Marx is wrong about surplus.

>how can the risk of crop failure justify the feudal lord's ownership of land when that risk is a posteriori to the land ownership

My argument is to justify capitalist's remuneration given a privarte property, not to justify private property of means of production themselves, that has to be justified on moral grounds which I have already explained in this thread >>24487503

>>24496317
>>24496474

>For example, if I have a fishing rod (it is a form of means of production) with which I can feed myself and my family and the community forcibly decides that, as a means of production, it must be collective property, due to Arrow's impossibility theorem, an ALWAYS arbitrary criteria to share the fishing rod must be set (since it is a finite, scarce resource), and due to the iron law of oligarchy, such arbitrary criteria will be set either by a single person or a small group among the most powerful of the tribe. And such person or small group in charge of setting the criteria to share the fishing rod is the true only owner of the rod, which is the same reason why statal property is not really communal property, and the reason why a socialist anarchist commune would degenerate to an oligarchy in a very short time.

>So private property is necessary. And if private property is necessary, capitalism within that private property must be tolerated. If I have my fishing rod, what is the wrong thing about selling fish and then applying a capitalist saving and investment strategy to my benefits? Or if I have a house (which, don't forget, Marx considered personal goods and not means of production), what is wrong about providing hostage to travellers and then apply a capitalist investment strategy on my benefits? or hiring employees? If the uses of private property are decided by the community (by an oligarchy within the community, in reality), then it is not true private property.

>>24484242 (OP)
the problem with libertarianism is that it's impossible currently

the logical of libertarianism is that you need to get rid of all jews and then perform segregation on a mass scale

>>24496484
>the logical
logical conclusion
oops

>>24496317
Moreover, the labour theory of value is inoperant nonsense. The value of commodities and services can't be translated to abstract work units. There is no equivalence between a doctor's work hours and a peasant's, because infinite peasant hours of work would never get the same results in medicine as some hours by the doctor, because the peasant knows nothing about medicine. To estimate the value of a commodity or service you need subjective comparisons made by agents in the market, you can't resort to work hours, nor work effort.

>People will ALWAYS eat food and will ALWAYS need clothes and home

That does not help to proof an objective theory of value at all. Physical needs are objective facts of nature but that does not mean that there is an objective value to them which we can infer from work hours for the reason I explained before. And moreover, the subjective value theory is as intuitive even for these cases because these needs and struggles so close to human experience are always subjectively valued.

>>24484274
>he's back
based

>>24496505
to prove*

>>24496317
Difference is that owners of businesses actually add value to the business and aren't just leaches making money off the top. When people have looked at how much revenue dips upon the sudden unexpected death of a founder, for instance, it tends to be found that revenue dips in a manner comparable to the amount the founder was making, implying that they really were adding that much value to the business.

In hindsight this should make a lot of sense. As an analogy, of course the captain of a ship is the single most important factor regarding whether the ship reaches its destination. You can say that the ship wouldn't reach land if all of the ship hands weren't there, but losing just one of the workers doesn't have the same impact as losing the captain.
>>24496331
It has. Pic related.
>>24496484
Ashkenazi Jews make a lot of money because they are 0.75 to 1 standard deviation IQ points above the baseline 100. Essentially, they make a lot of money because they earn a lot of money.

>>24496845
Two economists are walking in the woods.

They come across a pile of bear poop.

One economist says, “I’ll pay you $100,000 to eat that.”

The other thinks for a moment, shrugs, and eats it.

Then, feeling queasy, he says, “Okay, now I’ll pay you $100,000 to eat that pile over there.”

The first economist, wanting his money back, eats the second pile.

They continue walking, and one says, “We both ate poop, and neither of us is richer than before.”

The other replies, “True, but GDP just went up by $200,000.”

>>24496918
Fun thought experiment that has little to do with the real world.

>>24484242 (OP)
Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner.
The Law by Frederic Bastiat.
The Problem of Political Authority by Micheal Huemer.
Anarchy, State and Utopia by Robert Nozick.
Anything by the above as well as Tucker, Rothbard, Mises, Hayek, Block and Hoppe.

>>24486984
>where people believe that the individual is a self contained actor, fully independent from external material realities or society as a whole.
Absolute strawman.

>>24489447
People give those corporations money voluntarily and actually get something in return. Governments forecfully take your money in order to spend it on refugees, food stamps, wars for Israel and to keep old people alive for an extra three months.

>>24496845
>GDP graph
Ok this is just bait at this point. Wouldn't be surprised though if libertarianism was one giant shitpost all along.

>>24496999
GDP per capita purchasing price parity is correlated with:
Food taking up less of the household budget
Being able to purchase larger baskets of goods generally
Longer life expectancy
Less infant mortality
More electricity use
More sanitation
Cleaner streets

I could go on. The short of it is than the secret to mass consumption is mass production. But sure, feel free to pretend like scoffing because you have difficulty with abstract thinking is an argument.

>>24497020

The good thing about this thread is that you have proven that the kind of mind which thinks that Capitalism is even capable of lifting people out of poverty and corporations add value is also the kind of mind which thinks "world gdp go up" = "people richer than before".

"Midwit" almost sounds like an overestimation at this point.

>>24497026
Generally speaking an increase in GDP corresponds to greater wealth and quality of life.

>>24497026
> The good thing about this thread is that you have proven that the kind of mind which thinks that Capitalism is even capable of lifting people out of poverty and corporations add value is also the kind of mind which thinks "world gdp go up" = "people richer than before".
> "Midwit" almost sounds like an overestimation at this point.
yeah, I give up. You're a retard. It's like you don't see a difference between living in North Korea and South Korea. Don't breed and do your best to avoid sharing your political opinions in public in the future.

>>24496845
wrong

>>24496331
it unfortunately has, yes

>>24495537
>What you'll find is that the best paying jobs in poor countries are either those offered by international corporations.
Yeah, but that's available to like 5% of the population tops, and their entire function is making it worse for everyone else to the corporation's benefit.

It's like arguing that tapeworm infections are good because tapeworm ends up being the best fed thing in the body.

>>24495869
>like it's solvable through 20th century economic models
Does "deliberate mass murder" count as a XX century economic model?

>>24496845
>owners of businesses actually add value to the business and aren't just leaches making money off the top
In theory.

>>24496474
>Capitalists take bear all the risks, they are at constant threat of going bankrupt if their financial decisions are not optimal
Of course. That's why they perform risk-management, which comes down to fucking over everyone else in the safest way possible. Can't be at risk of substantial salary debt if labor is devalued and salary is miniscule. Can't be at risk of labor loss if labor is infinitely replaceable. Can't be at risk of asset loss if assets are infinitely replaceable. Can't be at risk of market saturation if consumption is infinitely scaled. Can't be at risk of market access loss if markets are infinitely replaceable. Can't be competed out of a market if you have government regulation privileges. Et cetera.

Guys are not deliberately building a clown world, it's just that clown world simply happens to be the minimal risk environment.

>>24497444
Of course the capitalist wants to minimise risks given certain revenue objectives (if he wants a 15% revenue, he has to be more risk tolerant than others, but he will not assume what he considers unnecessary risks), but he does it by launching profitable products, and that's good for the employee because he wants to continue working there and to be paid on time. The fact that capitalist' remuneration is morally acceptable because of risk does not mean that the capitalist wants to maximize risk, and it is not incompatible with the fact that the capitalist wants to minimize risk.

>Can't be at risk of labor loss if labor is infinitely replaceable

Labor is not infinitely replaceable. If that were true, salaries could be zero in abscence of a minimal wage. Try offering a 0.1$ hourly salary in the US, no one is going to accept that shit offer, they will work for the competitors which offer better salaries. The capitalist would be happier if the hadn't to pay salaries, he'd totally accept free labour if the employees are competent and can survive, but workers have negotiation power and they force the capitalist to provide similar wages to the ones in competitor companies.

>Can't be competed out of a market if you have government regulation privileges

That is true but that's not free market kek. Libertarians want to get rid of that as much as possible.

>>24497444
>>24497468

I'd like to stress this point:

>The capitalist would be happier if the hadn't to pay salaries, he'd totally accept free labour if the employees are competent and can survive, but workers have negotiation power and they force the capitalist to provide similar wages to the ones in competitor companies.

This negotiated salary increase depends on competitors being able to irrupt in the market, which is most possible if there are unregulated, free markets. If the government, via legislation, makes difficult to start a new company, which might in the future provide better salaries to get competent employees from already existing companies, that constitutes a privilege to preexisting companies, which may feel entitled to not increase salaries, at least not as much as if the market were freer.

In Switzerland there is no minimum wage and salaries don't fall.

>>24497414
Ashkenazi Jews do make up 33%-40% of the Jewish population depending on what estimate you use. However, the Jewish population of Israel is 73%. That gives you 29.2% if we use 40%. A more recent Rindermann estimate that makes use of a battery of cognitive indicators like international test scores yields an estimate of 96. Assuming the non-Ashkenazi Jew population has an average IQ of 90, you'd estimate (96-90*(1-.29))/.29 = 111.

Nobel Prize winners on average have estimated IQs from 145-157. A population that was .75 to 1 standard deviations above the mean would be expected to be disproportionately represented among Nobel Prize winners.

Jewish Americans score higher than all other religious groups besides Unitarians on the SATs.

>>24497422
> Yeah, but that's available to like 5% of the population tops, and their entire function is making it worse for everyone else to the corporation's benefit.
These would be poor countries with or without the international business. Plenty of nations have gotten rich off of international businesses flooding in. I see little reason to think international businesses are making everyone else in the region poor.
>>24497424
> In theory
And in practice. It has been verified that when founders die, the revenue of a business dips about in line with the salary of the founder. The business owners really were creating that much value.

>>24486984
To me libertarianism is more about the state not being an effective tool then it is about individualism. People will naturally organize themselves into groups, and every human action sets of a chain of events that has a effect on everyone else in some way or another. So there does not exists a "logical proof" A -> B -> C and thus tax is immoral, but by empirical evidence (https://www.heritage.org/index/) we can see that governments are generally a breeding ground for corruption. Every law passed by government is enforced by police and is unavoidable, laws passed by companies are TOC agreements which can always be refused. Even if your only option is a greedy monopoly that has an unfair TOC it can still be refused, a law can never be refused. The analogy in the free software movement is "free software" vs "open source" where free software believes you should have a right to be able to modify and redistribute source code of programs and open source advocates that the flatter org charts results in better performance of the entire organization (valve thinks the same https://www.valvesoftware.com/en/, obviously this is just one company). I could actually see communistic societies succeed if there wasn't a state enforcing it, again pointing to the programming world there isn't a "state" it's all free communication, anyone could abondon any project whenever they want.

>>24490945
>>24491745
I'll give a different position. There's something to be said for the US being great at medical innovation and having more access to cutting edge treatments. But we also shouldn't kid ourselves that the US is an example of free market healthcare. When you look at how much money the US spends on government provided healthcare, it actually looks like a European country.

This would mean that in order to have a truly European single payer model of healthcare, all the US would need to do is to combine Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, and all the other subsidies into one system that includes everyone. In the process, we'd make retirees have worse healthcare and we'd have to start prioritizing what we fund like the Brits do, but my major point here is that the US already has government spending on healthcare that is similar to the Euros.

This isn't to mention all the regulations that the US has. It is much more difficult to become a doctor in the US than in say Germany.

>>24484332
Is this an earnest post because right wingers don't read their own political theory (what little there is LOL) let alone the political theory of left wingers

>>24498960
Most leftist don't read theory either. And anecdotally, I do find many libertarians were inspired by at least one text.

OP asked for literature on libertarianism and 80% of fags here started to suck their own dicks for no reason. I expected more from you /lit/

>>24497468
>but he does it by launching profitable products
In theory. In practice non-competitive tools are just safer and more reliable, simple math.

>The fact that capitalist' remuneration is morally acceptable because of risk does not mean that the capitalist wants to maximize risk
Capitalist minimizes his risk by maximizing it for everyone else. Socialize the losses, etc.

>If that were true, salaries could be zero in abscence of a minimal wage.
Anon there is factually more slave labor right now than at any point in human history.

>That is true but that's not free market kek. Libertarians want to get rid of that as much as possible.
I understand that, but Libertarian ideals and the reality of market are two different thing. The conditions that drive a small business to compete by producing quality product and paying high wages (and typically failing, but someone has to succeed eventually) are the same ones that drive massive transnationals to retain their position by oversaturating the market extremely low-quality products, slicing the wages, destroying competition through non-competitive means, stifling innovation and control government interference. Neither can even begin to survive if they step away from their vital strategies.

>>24497483
>This negotiated salary increase depends on competitors being able to irrupt in the market, which is most possible if there are unregulated, free markets.
Well duh, thanks for pointing out why unregulated, free markets are among the worst nightmares for a hundred-billion transnational conglomerate. Why the fuck would they want salary negotiating power for their drones? Kneecap the competition and drive salaries down, two birds with one stone!

>In Switzerland there is no minimum wage and salaries don't fall.
Switzerland has the least venture investment and emergent successful businesses on the entire continent, even less than war torn shitholes like Ukraine. They Old Money there doesn't need legislative trenches against potential competitors because they are insanely entrenched as it is, and the line between them and the government is not thin - it's straight up nonexistent.

>>24499459
Hans-Hermann Hoppe - What Is To Be Done?
Frederich Hayek - Road To Serfdom
Murray Rothbard - The Libertarian Manifesto
Erik Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn - Liberty or Equality: The Challenge of Our Time
Erik Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn - Menace Of The Herd
Ludwig Von Mises - Human Action

Also left libertarianism:
Mikhail Bakunin - God And The State
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon - What Is Property?

Happy?

>>24497498
>These would be poor countries with or without the international business.
By that logic, rich countries could never enter existence without rich countries already being there to springboard them. You do realize that's insane?

>Plenty of nations have gotten rich off of international businesses flooding in
Yeah, about 1 for every 5 to 10 ruined by it.

>It has been verified that when founders die, the revenue of a business dips about in line with the salary of the founder.
What kind of fucked up logic is that? Aristocratic estates - you know, the historical epitome of "don't do shit@collect rent" also historically dropped in price and revenue on inheritance. How the fuck does that prove creation of value? If Trump gets shot tomorrow, there will be some market panic and Dow Jones will drop by a few billion, along with revenue of most businesses - does that prove that Donnie personally creates that value?

No, I'll do you one better - blockade of Hormuz straight increases the price of oil and with it revenue of petrol exports. This proves that military blockades produce value.

You know how shit this argument is, any Libertarian knows not to present FUD for legitimate loss or creation of value, they use the very same argument when (deservingly) shitting on government policies that paint FUD that they themselves create as the justification for more interference.

If we want to detect real creation of value, we need to take the actual function of this leadership - creation of policy and decision-making - and point out them making decisions and policies that end up creating value. You don't use that argument because you know that the current policies and decisions of such leadership do overwhelmingly more to destroy value rather than create it.

>>24500118
>By that logic, rich countries could never enter existence without rich countries already being there to springboard them. You do realize that's insane?
That doesn't follow at all from what I'm saying. So if you need a clarification, I am stating that the countries that are poor with international businesses would still be poor without them. There has become a group of people who are less poor as a result of the international businesses being there. A country can become richer through having a lot of FDI. There are many cases of this. There are also countries that got rich by building their own national champions. But my overall point is that countries are not being impoverished in this way.
> Yeah, about 1 for every 5 to 10 ruined by it.
They were poorer prior to the international businesses coming in. You're acting like there was a bunch of rich counties, and then a bunch of corporations flooded in and made them poorer. Meanwhile the rich countries are the one with the most corporate jobs while poor countries are characterized by people running informal businesses with no stable employment.
> What kind of fucked up logic is that? Aristocratic estates - you know, the historical epitome of "don't do shit@collect rent" also historically dropped in price and revenue on inheritance. How the fuck does that prove creation of value? If Trump gets shot tomorrow, there will be some market panic and Dow Jones will drop by a few billion, along with revenue of most businesses - does that prove that Donnie personally creates that value?
We're talking about jobs. It's a good metric for any job. Suppose a programmer suddenly dies and as it turns out, the company loses an amount of revenue comparable to the worker's salary, who was paid $40 an hour. Then it seems that programmer actually was adding about $40 of value to the company per hour worker. A retail worker suddenly dies. The revenue loss was comparable their salary while they were paid $17 an hour. Turns out the value they were adding really was about $17 an hour. Apply this to the CEO. Again, since the revenue loss is comparable, CEOs really are adding that much value.

It's pretty easy to understand why this is a good way to estimate the amount of value someone in a business adds. Your alternative is probably to shrug and say the business owner probably isn't doing much because he's not scanning items or moving boxes.
>You don't use that argument because you know that the current policies and decisions of such leadership do overwhelmingly more to destroy value rather than create it.
I know that business owners are typically creating value in line with their salary through direct natural experiments.

>>24500178
Ignoring my points tho.

>>24500186
I'm not going to respond to every point you make if I don't see the importance of it. E.g., I never said anything about FUD.

>>24500199
> I never said anything about FUD
Yeah a company's founder dying has absolutely no relation to that.

>>24500106
>In theory. In practice non-competitive tools are just safer and more reliable, simple math.

What non-competitive tools? The only non-competitive tools I can think about depend on the state to exist. We could argue about marketing, which tries to sell products using psychological manipulation and not a necessarily better product. But for me marketing is legitimate anyway because the alternative would be that there were a centralised statal forum on the internet to publish in a very aseptic way the purported objective characteristics of the products, and that would bestow the state too much power.

>Capitalist minimizes his risk by maximizing it for everyone else. Socialize the losses, etc.

Depends on what you mean by socializing losses. If it's among the owners (including stock investors) then it is completely fine, but those losses are private in reality even if there are a lot of owners. If socializing the losses means a bailout for the company paid with taxpayers money, it is completely wrong and disturbs the virtues of free market, by which non profitable companies should go bankrupt so that the other companies learn how to do things better and don't feel safe because in the end the state will save them if they fail. Hence, the state is the problem again.

>Anon there is factually more slave labor right now than at any point in human history.

There is also more population than ever by far, so the percentage of slaves is not higher. Capitalism and the industrial revolution has got humanity out of the Malthusian trap by which total population underwent positive and negative growth cycles due to bad crops. This has had benefits even for not so capitalist countries, because even them don't have completely close markets and can trade with productive, capitalist countries. Also the countries where there are slaves are not from the west (China, Russia, India), so they probably need more liberal values, but it's hard since the west is currently undergoing an antiliberal drift as well.

>but Libertarian ideals and the reality of market are two different thing

True, that's why libertarianism is not a conservative ideology/slash political philosophy. For big companies to incur in anticompetitive practices, they need the state. A prime example of that is central banking. Because there is a statal bank which can bailout all private banks within a country, private banks feel free to make all sorts of unsound investments and loans, which is the reason why growth-crisis cycles are so harsh currently. They would probably also exist without central banking because investors' growth frenzy would still exist as a psychological phenomenon but crisis would be much shorter and softer because there wouldn't be statal incentives to be too bold.

>>24500214
We're talking about the impact of a founder dying on revenue. There's no need to invoke FUD any more than we need to invoke FUD to talk about the impact of a programmer dying on revenue.

>>24500106
>destroying competition through non-competitive means

I don't know what you exactly mean by that. Do you consider a multinational company buying a smaller company an anticompetitive praxis? For me it probably is but only partially and by accident (since multinational companies are often privileged by the state), but not wholly and essentially. Suppose there is a free market with no state or with minimal state intervention, which has lead a company to be a multinational, and that company sees in the market a small company that solves a specific problem that the multinational does not, and thus they want to buy them. Leftists tend to think that is anticompetitive but for me it isn't, because if the small company thinks that the solution they offer is irreplaceable and that they can have consistent profits throughout the upcoming years to the point where they might exceed the purchase offer by the multinational company, then they won't sell. It is not agressive nor anticompetitive with free markets which don't legally benefit multinationals, so it is not fully anticompetitive (not fully competitive either) if there are some competitive benefits for multinationals.

>>24500106

>Well duh, thanks for pointing out why unregulated, free markets are among the worst nightmares for a hundred-billion transnational conglomerate. Why the fuck would they want salary negotiating power for their drones? Kneecap the competition and drive salaries down, two birds with one stone!

That's one of the reasons why I'm a libertarian. Crony capitalism is materially better than socialism, but the underlying morals and aesthetics to it are abhorrent, because they privatize benefits but socialize losses. I somewhat respect more the ideals of an antistate socialist than a common sense statu quo conservative, even if I prefer to live in the model of the latter. But libertarianism with free markets is both materially better and morally superior than both libertarian socialism and crony liberal state capitalism.

I also insist that negotiating power exists in free markets. Unions should be allowed in a libertarian regime as long as they are autonomous and don't depend on the state, otherwise they become extensions of the political power and act more towards workers dependence on the state to appease and control them than better workers' conditions.

>>24500215
>The only non-competitive tools I can think about depend on the state to exist.
Well, there is also cartels, corporate espionage, access denial, corporate raiding, and many many others. But a great deal of the ones that do rely on the state.

> If socializing the losses means a bailout for the company paid with taxpayers money,
It also means such things as abuse of infrastructure, exploitation of natural resources, and liquidation of pillar enterprises for quick benefit.

>This has had benefits even for not so capitalist countries,
This might also have something to do with the trap escape being a consequence of technological advancement (of which capitalism itself is the consequence, not the cause) and not capitalism. One can constantly fear the reverse argument when any success of non-capitalist economies is pointed out - "it's not policy it's just tech!"

>For big companies to incur in anticompetitive practices, they need the state.
Yeah, so they make one.

My entire argument in this thread was that Libertarians tend to present state as some vile cosmic force that descends upon the Free Market from the depths of the Collectivist Void, and not something that the biggest proprietors deliberately create and cultivate by using their tremendous resources in accordance with their own interests. Like all the hedge fundies just haaaaaaaate securing handouts, forming oligopolies, destroying competition through intervention and using the rest of the dirty arsenal to secure 99,9999% of global wealth - truly, it nauseates them, they are strongarmed into it, they dream of markets being truly free and all their pedo senator golf buddies (and in like half the cases their own nephews and cousins) getting shot.

The bourgeoisie never was the victim of the state - it was historically the creator of the modern state, and remains it's largest beneficiary, it's conscious nurturer and symbiote. But for some reason the Libertarian analysis is ironclad in bourgeoisie being blameless and untouchable. It laughs at Communists when asking how Communists who want to abolish the state will keep the vanguard who abolishes it from creating a new, even worse state, but completely ignores the issue of big biz doing exactly the same thing for any hypothetical NAPtopia.

>central banking
Daily reminder that FRS is a "private entity with government oversight". Once again, the vile symbiosis.

>>24500252
I think a big issue here is that the more libertarianism opposes "crony capitalism" and the more radical it's praxis becomes, the more it loses any identity to just straight up commies.

Add violent insurrection to the unions and we're just doing some ancom shit without the color red.

>>24495941
>Inequality is not inherently unjust
The big problem with inequality is not that it's unjust - it's that from a certain point it becomes utterly inefficient at anything other than self-perpetuation. "Voluntary contracts" were based when they stimulated development and growth, but now they only justify stagnation in the same way as the "divine right" did back when voluntary contracts were based.

>>24500260
>Well, there is also cartels, corporate espionage, access denial, corporate raiding, and many many others. But a great deal of the ones that do rely on the state.

The ones that don't rely on the state in your list (for example, espionage) are aggressions that should be prosecuted either by the minarchist state or by whatever private security option there is in anarchism. Cartels can also exist in a free market, for example all companies in a sector can agree to set the same prices, which is not good for the consumers, but if there is a free market it is only a matter of time until a new company sets better prices and sweeps them all, so the incentives to form cartels are low. And if you think about it, public services are the most monopolistic and cartel-like, as they survive thanks to money taken from others and that is money that citizens can't spend on similar services offered by the private sector, and that makes very difficult to compete for private companies. For example, because in Europe we have to pay taxes to fund public healthcare, paying for private healthcare is like paying twice for healthcare, so only the richest can afford it, which means less clients, less capitalization and worse services. But the worst perversion is the following: After all of this happens, the state says to you "see? private healthcare is too expensive, they want to take advantage from you, this is why we need public services and taxes". A mafia-like emotional extortion.

>>24500475
>but if there is a free market it is only a matter of time until a new company sets better prices and sweeps them all
Now imagine if the cartel participants came up with some sort of set of prohibitions that limit the capacity of new competitors to enter the market. And established a common subsidiary which provides them with service of enforcing those prohibitions, paid with a fraction of their combined revenue.

They could call that "Goober Mint Ltd" or something like that.

>>24500260
>It also means such things as abuse of infrastructure, exploitation of natural resources, and liquidation of pillar enterprises for quick benefit.

The environment is something that worries me as a capitalism supporter. Libertarian thinkers tend to say that capitalism takes care about resources the most because profit maximization implies innovation to minimise costs, and if a resource becomes too scarce, new not so scarce technologies are going to replace the previous one. I find this intuitive and it is also empirically proven, because oil depletion predictions have completely failed and alternative technologies are being developed, but at the same time I don't like teleological arguments as if there were no limits to scientific discovery, although nuclear fusion seems promising. Either way, even if I don't totally accept those kinds of libertarian arguments, I deem the alternatives worse: Except for the alienation from nature thing, original marxian theory does not consider the environment at all, he talks about post scarcity in an even more hypothetical and teleological way, but when implemented, the USSR dried up the Aral Sea in 30 years, a worse natural disaster than any capitalist one I can think of, though I may be wrong. There is also theoretical justification for this he abscence of prices or using adulterated prices via central planning destroys the needed information to evaluate scarcity and to seek alternatives.

The other alternative, the new degrowth trend in the left, is not much better. They think of humanity just as a consumer and not a producer, in a rather neo-malthusian fashion. They are not aware that more humans, if they can survive in good health conditions, imply more intellectual division of labour and can seek more sustainable alternatives, so degrowth hinders the innovation needed to overcome the scarcity which worries degrowth supporters in the first place.

>>24484274
I learned recently that you're a fucking Spic, therefore you can NEVER be based. Only cringe.

>>24500475
>but if there is a free market it is only a matter of time until a new company sets better prices and sweeps them all, so the incentives to form cartels are low.

Everytime I casually browse this thread and encounter writings like this, I am reminded of how libertarians are basically isolated children who might or might not be too sheltered.

>>24500260
>This might also have something to do with the trap escape being a consequence of technological advancement (of which capitalism itself is the consequence, not the cause) and not capitalism. One can constantly fear the reverse argument when any success of non-capitalist economies is pointed out - "it's not policy it's just tech!"

Both things were needed, science/technology and free market capitalism, one being free competence of general information and the other free competence of particular information. Some libertarian thinkers tend to disdain technology and only attribute the increase in life conditions to capitalism, but leftists, Marx being the main one, commited a worse sin by stating that the increase in productivity was only due to technology and that capitalism was actually stealing the productivity increase. If that were the case, the USSR probably wouldn't have collapsed. Socialism seemed to work at first in the USSR because they were living literally under a feudalist mode of production, which lacked both technology and free markets. Of course productivity is going to increase if you add technology to the equation, but general scientific and technical knowledge is not enough to prospere long term, particular knowledge of decentralised free agents is needed, you can't sustain an economy without prices or with fake prices invented by a politburo (prices must be understood not only as costs but also as particular information signals), and that's why they collapsed after the initial technnological boost, and why socialist revolutions didn't succeed in the west, where technology was not enough to increase production because they already had the technology.

Capitalism helped by technology gathers both conditions, general and particular knowledge.

>>24484274
Shut up, mexipig wetback NIGGER.

>>24500260
>Yeah, so they make one
>The bourgeoisie never was the victim of the state - it was historically the creator of the modern state, and remains it's largest beneficiary, it's conscious nurturer and symbiote. But for some reason the Libertarian analysis is ironclad in bourgeoisie being blameless and untouchable

I don't know what other libertarians think, there are ignorant fucks in all ideologies and ignorant libertarians may worship CEOs like Elon Musk, who are privileged by public contracts, I don't know. For me, the rich are not untouchable at all, but my solution for it is mostly concerned with presumption of innocence. As we don't know nor can we quantify the extent of statal stain there is in someone's net worth, it would be unjust to assume a quantity and take it from then as a reparation, as it would be to make tabula rasa by destroying all wealth so that free market results are just from then on. So the most just solution is to set the just rules (which don't bestow privileges) and let the market do its thing; the original inequality will never be cleansed but we will gradually approach to that point. And no, the starting conditions are not the only relevant thing to predict the outcome at all, the most rich families in the world constantly change, many of them lose a great deal of their net worth, so capitalism is not a feudalist automatic process of accumulation.

Regarding what you say about the modern state being founded by liberals (in the European sense of the word), it's true and paleolibertarians stress that a lot, they condemn communal land seizing by the liberal state in order to auction it to the bourgeoisie or to keep it as statal property (which is not collective property at all). But I don't follow the Hegelian or Marxist theory of history or of history of philosophy, for me all the truth of ideas is not revealed in history, so it's not like the fact that liberals made the modern state implies that all liberal/libertarian ideas implicitly support the state which liberals made in history. If all people understood libertarianism as I describe it and they agreed, they wouldn't tolerate crony capitalism as much as it is tolerated now, and that process is something that can be done by the sum of single individuals convinced by these ideas, it's not like our lives were merely a scenario for the progressive perfection of ideas and institutions which are the real agents and above us and that discarded capitalism because the state tends to grow to the Absolute. These things are bullshit to me.

>>24500270
>I think a big issue here is that the more libertarianism opposes "crony capitalism" and the more radical it's praxis becomes, the more it loses any identity to just straight up commies.
>Add violent insurrection to the unions and we're just doing some ancom shit without the color red.

Private property and capitalism are allowed in what I describe, in communism they aren't. In a libertarian political community, socialism is also allowed as long as it is done in a private community via free subscription and they don't impose it to others. You may think "private property of means of production required for socialism? that's absurd" but it is not absurd, in fact, certain kind of private property is required even if you want to establish collective property as a political requirement to all members in the community (which would be a straight red/black flag and not a yellow/black flag with the option to be socialist). If you establish such a political community and invaders come to seize everything, of course you would consider that to be illegitimate and would fight them, so, as a group, there is a notion of private property against invaders, because private property does not equal to individual property. Anarcho socialism/communism is just a subset of anarchocapitalism, because in anarchocapitalism it would be illegitimate as well that a capitalist tried to steal from the freely constituted commune.

>Add violent insurrection to the unions and we're just doing some ancom shit without the color red.

Not allowed in the free market libertarian model. Unions are an option to increase the negotiating power of the workers as a whole; they shouldn't be violent, shouldn't be compulsory and shouldn't be allowed to get over a new employees' will to reject the contract terms established by the union, unless the capitalist has signed a contract with the union to offer the same contract to all upcoming employees.

>>24500334
This is part of the marxist theory of capitalism. Capitalism was a good thing because it had prompted some progress and wealth with respect to feudalism, but now it is stagnant, Tendency of the rate of profit to fall, collapse of capitalism and whatnot, so we have to look forward to new production styles. Well, when Marx wrote that, he thought that capitalism was already in the verge of collapsing due to decreasing profits, and we have seen he was dead wrong, median (not average) salaries are still growing, and are especially growing in countries with economic freedom or more relative economic freedom than before.

Moreover, socialists, even Marx, think that distribution of wealth does not affect wealth production, they think of them as completely separable operations, which is not true, statal wealth distribution has disastrous effects and incentives for wealth production.

>>24500844
Keynes does the best work on this. When wealth becomes highly concentrated in the hands of the rich, it leads to reduced overall demand in the economy. This is because of the principle of diminishing marginal utility: as a person accumulates more wealth, each additional dollar yields less satisfaction or utility. The wealthy, having already satisfied most of their basic and luxury needs, are less likely to spend additional income, choosing instead to save or invest in ways that may not directly contribute to consumption.

In contrast, lower and middle income individuals tend to spend a larger portion of their income because their basic needs are not yet fully met. If more wealth were distributed to these groups, it would generate greater consumption and stimulate production to meet that demand. Keynes saw this as essential for maintaining high levels of employment and economic activity, since businesses produce in response to anticipated consumer demand.

Therefore, excessive wealth concentration can dampen economic growth by diverting income away from those who would spend it and toward those who will hoard or invest it unproductively. Keynes did not advocate for abolishing wealth or markets but believed that some redistribution (through taxation or social spending) was necessary to ensure that aggregate demand remained strong and that capitalism remained stable and self-sustaining.

>>24484242 (OP)
Start with the greeks

>>24484274
Based
Total luciferian death

>>24502507
>>24484274
>>24496510

>>24500113
No, i'll be when these retard shut their asses

>>24501605
Keynes only meant for his policies to smooth out the business cycle. He didn't take them to be recipes for economic growth during periods after recessions. In fact, Keynes advocated raising taxes and cutting stimulus after recessions. Fundamentally, Keynes' goal was to smooth out the business cycle: make the periods of economic growth more modest (since taxes will need to be raised) in trade for more moderate recessions.

Going beyond Keynes into modern economic thought, macroeconomists would bring up the quantity theory of money: MV = Py where M is the quantity of money in the economy, V is the velocity of money or the rate it exchanged hands, y is real economic output and P is the price level.

When you do Keynesian stimulus when you are not in a demand driven economic downturns, the following happens:

(1) The velocity of money V increases. In the short run, prices remain "sticky" such that you can treat P as constant. Thus, because M is relatively constant, V has increased, and P is relatively constant, y goes up to keep the statement MV = Py true. Sticky prices can come in the form of workers wages remaining relatively the same around this time, input prices remaining relatively the same over this time.
(2) However, this has not actually improved the fundamental productivity of the economy. The wages of workers will be raised, and input prices will be raised, but since the potential size of the economic pie has not actually gotten bigger, P will eventually go up enough that it brings y back down to the equilibrium output, but now prices are higher.
(3) This nightmare version of "Keynesian economics" is better thought of as meth head economics. They chase the high of a stimulus, have a good time, return to baseline, chase the high of a stimulus, have a good time, return to baseline, all while ruining their fundamental health.

Economists actually generally support higher interest rates as being conducive to greater economic output. By having a higher savings rate, it increases the supply of loanable funds. The increase in supply of loanable funds both lowers borrowing costs for businesses and the the quantity of loans supplied. These investments grow the economy.

>>24505233
Economists actually generally support higher savings rates as being conducive to greater economic output*

>>24505233
Your framing overstates how strictly Keynes opposed stimulus in recovery. While Keynes supported austerity after full recovery, he was pragmatic: until full employment returned, stimulus remained justified.

Saying “Keynes' goal was to make the periods of economic growth more modest” doesn’t fully capture Keynes’ view. Keynes didn’t want to suppress growth, he wanted to avoid unsustainable booms that would result in busts. His aim was stability, not mediocrity. There are examples of post-recession stimulus which are justified.

Also, in reference to your equations, you state that M is relatively constant, which is rarely the case when fiscal or monetary stimulus is applied. Further, you conflate fiscal stimulus (Keynesian policy) with changes in V (a monetarist concept). Keynesian stimulus generally involves increases in G (government spending) rather than assuming V will increase. Also, you ignore the liquidity trap scenario Keynes was concerned with, where V collapses, and monetary policy becomes ineffective, thus justifying fiscal stimulus.

Further, your use of the phrase "meth head economics" betrays that your criticisms on this topic are ideologically motivated rather than genuine. You are operating from a fear based position, and in doing so, you mischaracterize real Keynesian theory. Your argument is more accurately directed against politicians or policymakers who misuse Keynesian tools (I.E., stimulate even during booms for political gain) rather than Keynes himself or responsible Keynesian economists.

Next, your statement that "Economists actually generally support higher interest rates as being conducive to greater economic output..." confuses long-run capital formation logic with short-run macroeconomic management. In classical models, higher interest rates can encourage savings, increasing capital stock. However, in Keynesian models, higher interest rates dampen investment and reduce aggregate demand, especially when the economy is below potential. Empirically, very high interest rates depress investment, especially by small and medium enterprises. The idea that higher savings automatically lead to more investment assumes Say’s Law (supply creates its own demand), which Keynes explicitly rejected (Keynes wins the day here).

In short, you have caricatured. Keynesianism, ignoring the conditionality and discipline Keynes advocated. You conflated fiscal stimulus with changes in monetary velocity. Your overzealous opposition to Keynes also led you to overlook real-world scenarios (like liquidity traps, hysteresis, and output gaps) where stimulus can still be productive after recessions. And lastly, you misused classical savings-investment logic in a context that requires short-run demand-side analysis, not long-run supply-side dynamics.

While you do have a kernel of valid concern, it is enmeshed in an almost hysterical bias which leads you to overgeneralize and become sloppy in your overall economic framework.

>>24484242 (OP)
Pic very much related.

>>24505345
The Road to Serfdom is an awful little tract designed to mislead and impoverish a nation.

Hayek’s central claim, that even mild economic planning inevitably leads to tyranny, is not an argument. It is a melodrama. It’s the economic equivalent of saying that putting cream in your coffee leads inevitably to heroin addiction. The idea that regulating railroads or providing universal healthcare inexorably leads to gulags is not only logically absurd, it is empirically disproven by every mixed economy in the modern West.

Britain did not turn into Stalinist Russia after the Beveridge Report. Scandinavia did not descend into despotism after building welfare states. In fact, countries that embraced moderate economic planning emerged with stronger democracies, healthier citizens, and, yes, higher GDP per capita. Serfdom, it seems, is more closely associated with unregulated monopolies and chronic unemployment than with government health insurance.

Hayek appears deeply suspicious of democratic majorities doing things he personally dislikes, like taxing the rich or regulating markets. He sets up an opposition between freedom and planning, but curiously neglects the mechanism by which planning occurs: voting. If the people elect a government that imposes progressive taxation or creates a national pension scheme, Hayek sees this not as democracy in action, but as creeping tyranny. One begins to suspect that by “freedom,” he means freedom for capital, not for citizens.

>>24505357
Normally I would not respond to such a post, but it seems like you're arguing in good faith. As such, I shall provide a rebuttal.

I suspect that you have not read 'The Road to Serfdom', because nowhere in the book does Hayek claim that economic planning 'inevitability' leads to tyranny. What Hayek actually argues is that government economic planning has a *tendency* to erode democratic and liberal norms, which may then develop into the emergence of totalitarian government.

As I'm sure you realise, the gulf between 'tendency' and 'inevitability', is an enormous one. As such, I see no reason to discuss the rest of your points, as they are all predicated on an understanding of Hayek's argument which is fatally flawed.

May I strongly suggest carefully reading books, before you attempt to form critiques of them.

I say this not to be rude, but to inspire you to re-evaluate your engagement with Hayek, and with literature which challenges your worldview more broadly.

>>24505421
Good Lord, we must stop the presses! Ah, calamity, it is too late! It has already gone to press as "The Road to Serfdom" instead of "The Tendency Towards Serfdom"! Oh the humanity!

On a serious note, it is disingenuous to quibble over this semantic point and ignore that Hayek's explicit purpose in writing the book was to outline a universal warning regarding the risks of government intervention into markets which, through history, has not been vindicated, but, rather, invalidated. Hayek was an alarmist who oversold his case. Your attempt to focus your entire criticism of my post on the use of a single word betrays your unwillingness (or inability) to actually engage with my critique.

>>24505463
In my original post, I implied that you were intelligent enough to appreciate that there is a *substantive* (not semantic) distinction between X *inevitably* causing Y, and X having a *tendency* towards Y.

Evidently I was mistaken in my appraisal of your intelligence. It is not a mistake I will make again.

>>24488744
>the number one exists, but numbers higher than one do not exist

>>24505482
You're just going to ignore the title of the book? Hayek deliberately chooses a title which conveys inevitability: a road to a place will inevitably take you to that place.

Again, if only you had been his editor, you could have saved him this embarrassment by altering the title to to convey the substantive difference between a definite road to a place and the mere tendency towards that place.

>>24505499
So you're just going to ignore the actual *contents* of the book?

If we go by the title alone -- as you seem to want to do -- the pertinent question isn't whether the words 'The Road' imply inevitability, but what 'The Road' even is. In other words, by your logic, we can't even *have* this discussion in any intelligible sense.

Are you stupid, perchance?

>>24505499
>a road to a place will inevitably take you to that place
I'll put this in a way you'll understand since I suspect that you are obese.
You're driving down a long road and on this road there is a McDonald's, a Chick-Fil-A, a Subway and, at the very end, an ARBY'S. You are going down "The Road to Arby's" but you don't necessarily need to go there.

>>24505506
Ah! That is the question now, isn't it, what is ‘The Road’? As the book makes plain, it is centralized economic planning by the state.

You were careful to avoid addressing whether ‘The Road’ implies inevitability, I suspect because doing so would acknowledge that Hayek himself invites a deterministic reading, one which undermines the claim that his argument rests only on "tendencies." That semantic defense, then, collapses under Hayek’s own rhetoric. No speculation about your intelligence is needed on my part, just close reading.

>>24505515
The title implies a strong warning, not a prophecy.

The process is contingent, not automatic -- it depends on *how far* the path is followed.

The words 'The Road' are a metaphor. Do you know what a metaphor is? Or, do you think that to begin down a road is to necessarily arrive at the end of that road? If that is so, I'm sure the scientific community would be delighted to learn that you've discovered teleportation.

>>24505508
Your example is a broken analogy, since you tacitly admit that the endpoint of that road is the place in question, and it's only if you take clear exit points do you avert inevitably arriving there. This also undermines the spirit of what Hayek was meaning with his phrase: that once central planning begins, pressures and incentives make it harder to reverse course.

>>24505529
By your own admission: harder, but not impossible.

Checkmate.

>>24505525
The connotations of a metaphor are what matters, and for Hayek, it's clear that the road is central economic planning by the government, and that taking this path inevitably, eventually, leads to serfdom. That is the whole purpose of his selecting this as a metaphor. If it is crucial to preserve the substantive difference between inevitability and mere tendency, why pick this particular metaphor?

>>24505539
Y'know man, instead of sperging out about the title, you could try reading the book, since you clearly haven't.

>>24505534
Oh dear, anon, that is not checkmate. Hayek is saying that taking "The Road" (centralized economic planning by the government) inevitably leads to serfdom. That is to say, centralized economic planning by the government leads to serfdom. It is not checkmate to say that you can reverse course and move further away from serfdom by going in the opposite direction of centralized economic planning by the government. That actually affirms my point. In order to refute my point, you would have to show how you could take The Road to Serfdom, walk all the way down the road to the logical end of the road, but then not be in Serfdom (a logically incoherent sentiment since taking the road all the way to the destination necessitates arriving at the destination).

>>24505553
I have read it, and remember, it was the original criticism of my post which put the focus on the semantic difference between "inevitable", which the title clearly connotes, and the rest of Hayek's writing which does couch everything in a mealy-mouthed hedging of his bets which contradicts what Hayek's clear intention is.

>>24505344
I was under the impression that you advocate redistributive policies outside of a downturn context as a general rule. You didn't specify any conditions on your original statement. You simply said excessive wealth concentration can dampen economic growth by diverting it from those who would hoard or invest it unproductively. So you shouldn't be surprised that I interpreted you as using Keynesian reasoning to advocate for this outside of a downturn based context.

Let's take the US as it currently is an example. Would you advocate policies to increase spending and aggregate demand in the economy in the current context where unemployment is 4%?

>>24505357
> Britain did not turn into Stalinist Russia after the Beveridge Report. Scandinavia did not descend into despotism after building welfare states. In fact, countries that embraced moderate economic planning emerged with stronger democracies, healthier citizens, and, yes, higher GDP per capita.
I don't see a general trend running that way. Switzerland has a higher GDP per capita than most of Europe while having lower government spending as part of its economy. Ireland as well, while also having government spending as a lower portion of its economy. Singapore has a low amount of spending as a percentage of its economy while being rich. The UAE and Qatar are rich, low tax countries. And of course the US has a higher GDP per capita than most European countries. I don't see a strong trend that more government spending increases GDP per capita.

>>24505616
Two things, first is that "unemployment", in the modern sense, is highly unrepresentative of what the true unemployment situation is, since total labor force participation has been declining for some time, and those who completely drop out are simply not counted, when potentially they could be activated into employment. Taking this into account, "full employment" is farther off than one might at first conclude.

Second, as I alluded to earlier, there are longer range time horizons that should be taken into account. Certain, so-called "redistributive policies" could end up increasing both productivity and demand if it takes the form of providing education to a young person who might not otherwise receive it, leading to a lifetime of increased productivity and demand for that person's life.

I suspect you are looking to strengthen the contours of my position vis-a-vis inflation, which is a constant concern, especially in a tight labor market situation. To address this concern, we must consider what factors are currently driving inflation. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, approximately one third of all inflation for the years 2020 - 2022 was due to an expansion in corporate profits. This suggests that a significant portion of modern inflation is a result of monopolistic price gouging. Thus, to curtail redistributive spending in deference to inflation concerns would be injudicious, it would essentially be rewarding sectors of the economy who are leveraging disproportionate power to tilt the entire economy towards their own benefit and against that of the citizenry.

In short, we must be cautious of inflation, but we must be equally cautious of the wrong actors being blamed for it.

>>24505628
In Post-War Western Europe, the mixed economic model provided superior recovery, with Western Europe closing much of the economic gap with the US between 1950 and 1975.

And there are, of course the Scandinavian countries: Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland, which have some of the highest GDP per capita globally, which invest heavily in social programs, and often outright nationalize large portions of certain resource sectors.

Furthermore, both Japan and South Korea had strong government planning of industrial development (Japan from the 1950s to the 1980s, South Korea from the 1960s to the 1990s). The results were miraculous economic growth, leading to their modern incarnations which have high GDP per capita and robust welfare systems.

In contrast, we can take a country which followed shock therapy liberalization: post-Soviet Russia in the 1990s, and subsequently suffered massive declines in GDP, and general well being.

>>24505658
Remember my claim isn't that lower government spending doesn't lead to more economic growth. I am just claiming that the trend doesn't seem so devastatingly clear to me, because we can both list of very rich countries that are relatively low tax. That said, all of the countries I listed off have a higher real GDP per capita than the ones you listed besides Norway.

>>24484242 (OP)
?