10
11

What's happening to Stefan Molyneux and Libertarianism, you ask? (self.Anarcho_Capitalism)

of_ice_and_rockpredestination for the labyrinth: goo.gl/ZGHLa4 が 投稿

Stefan (and all of us) are moving to the Right for the simple reason that the libertarian assertion—that the nature of man is identical to the libertarian personality and our moral bias merely yearning to be free—is as false as is the progressive assertion that the nature of humans is altruistic (maternal).

Like almost all in social science, it turns out that despite a century and a half of pseudoscience, the evidence is in: man is rational and chooses between moral or immoral because of the incentives at the time. The conservatives were right. Man is merely rational.

So, conservatives work to limit incentives to the productive, and prohibit the unproductive. Immigration was just the last straw. But, for the past sixty years the central issue has been whether the individual (progressive and libertine) or family (conservative) should be the central object of policy. And the jury is in: while law must be designed for the individual actor, policy must be designed for longer time preference: the family, tribe, and nation.

When the industrial revolution hit us, the great wealth that was created inspired us to the falsehood that we had transcended our limits and the limits of nature. But, we had only moved the window of possibility to cover larger populations. That does not mean that there are no limits to production and consumption.

THE CONSERVATIVE (ARISTOCRATIC) MODEL: MARKETS IN EVERYTHING

  • A market for goods and services (the Market)

  • A market for reproduction (Marriage)

  • A market for enfranchisement (Defense and Emergency)

  • A market for commons (one house of government per class conducting exchanges)

  • A market for polities (competing small states and voluntary exit)

In other words, there are no free rides—especially on the cost of creating the norms and institutions that we call property rights that can exist only when insured by reciprocal defense. The market was not natural in any sense—the evidence is that the market was constructed by the suppression of violence, accelerated by the suppression of fraud, and now requires the suppression of falsehood, so that we can suppress the government itself: conspiracy.

Sorry, but the world is moving Right, and for good reason. Anything else is suicidal to family, tribe, nation, and race. The cosmopolitan era has ended. Its pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, pseudo-moralism, and conflationary argument is over. Libertinism ended along with neoconservatism and socialism. The experiment failed. We are unequal. We are competitors. We compete through cooperating because it is the least-bad form of competition that produces the most beneficial externalities. And only markets in everything make a condition of liberty possible.

Hayek was right. Liberty is the condition produced by the rigid identification and enforcement of natural, judge-discovered, common law that evolves to prevent and resolve conflict and retaliation-spirals, so that we may maintain the disproportionate value of cooperating on production, despite the constant incentive to engage in murder, violence, harm, damage, theft, fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by externality, socialization of losses, privatization of commons, conspiracy, rent-seeking, monopoly-seeking, statism, conversion-religion-disinformation, displacement-immigration, colonialism-conquest and war. -- Curt Doolittle

全 86 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]gb49tsy 17ポイント18ポイント  (8子コメント)

You know, I can really sympathize with the alt right and the NRx. The left is going fucking insane, and there isn't a day that goes by where I don't consider that the only way we are ever going contain these assholes it to just force it and pound these fuckers into their place. The only problem is, I can't think of a way to do that without also giving the state the power to pound the libertarians and others like us too. I think that is a very dangerous game, and history has shown the potential to backfire spectacularly.

[–]of_ice_and_rockpredestination for the labyrinth: goo.gl/ZGHLa4[S] 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

Well, Propertarianism is more than just a reaction to the Left's overreaching.

I do agree that much of the alt-right and NRx are sort of just reacting and 'feeling out' what might make sense to do to defend Western values, but Propertarianism is a system that is capable of presenting a principled, lawful plan.

You can think of it as Teutonic values finally understanding how to codify and defend itself, rather than what's been done in the past via National Socialism or something similar. Propertarianism is Techno-Commercialism solving its cultural capital calculation problem and National Socialism solving its meritocracy/marketization problem.

[–]gb49tsy 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Propertarianism

What's your definition? Because if I want Mexican guests in my home, on my farm, in my factory, and I provide the private means to do so, it sound like stopping me is would be violating my property rights. Or using the force of the state to put me into a contract that doesn't allow that would be a violation of my property.

[–]of_ice_and_rockpredestination for the labyrinth: goo.gl/ZGHLa4[S] 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

if I want Mexican guests in my home, on my farm, in my factory, and I provide the private means to do so, it sound like stopping me is would be violating my property rights

Well, what are these people doing and what particular commons are you a member of? As long as there's no imposition or violation of agreement, there's no problem.

The problem we're having right now today is that many of these immigrants are imposing both in terms of welfare, but also in terms of non-compliance with local norms.

[–]zoink 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

The only problem is, I can't think of a way to do that without also giving the state the power to pound the libertarians and others like us too. I think that is a very dangerous game, and history has shown the potential to backfire spectacularly.

This is a point I keep harping on.

An observation made by some on the alt or far right:

In the democratic system, the incentive is always for the country to become more progressive, because progressivism is the appeal to the lowest common denominator. There may be reversals, false starts, and Reagan Revolutions, but over the course of centuries democracy means inevitable creeping progress.

Scott isn't alt-right but it seems at least in the past many one the alt-right thought this was a fair assessment.

Cthulhu may swim slowly. But he only swims left.

Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.

It's a big reason, probably the original reason, why I became a libertarian. I'm not going to advocate putting in a bunch of the infrastructure and legitimizing the methods that makes a despotic governments job that much easier.

[–]gb49tsy 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

IMHO, if you look at all the positions of the alt-right and the NRx, it really all boils down to one question. How do we contain the left before they totally destroy everything? I wish I had a good answer to this. I honestly think a state based solution is more likely to backfire than it is to work. Other options include militant non state attacks, but that would also be a disaster, and I doubt it would be successful because the leftist mob outnumbers us and controls the media. If we could just stand aside and wait for the left to collapse the economy and kill themselves, that would be great, but I think the simple truth is that the left can do so much damage on the way down, and they can keep doing damage for a long time because whatever solutions they come up with will certainly make things worse. Look at Venezuela, they just can't stop fucking it up. Another option is an exit strategy, but unless you are rich, this is hard. I looked into this option extensively, I just couldn't make it work.

[–]zoink 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

How do we contain the left before they totally destroy everything?

Isn't it the same old song and dance that libertarians have been fighting forever? "Freedom and markets can't solve this issue, that's why we need government." Then everyone has their own pet issue that requires government varying levels of evidence to back up their assertion.

Or in this case a libertarian argument of "We need the government for this, and when we get it fixed we can can keep going."

Another option is an exit strategy, but unless you are rich, this is hard.

I have a few suggestions on mindset and practices that have helped me.

The chances of me being able to make a material change to society is remote. Doesn't mean you shouldn't try, but at the same time their's no point in worrying about things you can't control.

I'm not entirely convinced we are heading towards a doomsday scenario, at least not at a fast enough pace that other factors can't take steps to mitigate the problems.

I think there is the possibility that technology might outpace the left. Particularly if that technology leads to more decentralization. e.g. 3d printing, cryptcurrencies.

I looked into exit strategies for awhile as well and I actually became fairly convinced that the US is far better than most places and only slightly worse than a few places. Probably not enough difference to justify the time and cost of relocating to another country.

The biggest thing you can do is personal preparedness that ranges on a spectrum from just reducing the chances of calamity affecting you all the way to making a difference in establishing a libertarian society.

This is my currently financial plan. The gist is making your life robust enough to handle most situations short of the end of the world as we know it. A big beefy emergency fund, limit debt, a very basic prepper/survivalist style stock pile. The goal is to make it a year through tough times. I think things will either get better within a year or I had better be smart enough that a year gives me enough time to figure something out.

Another really important thing is a really strong social network. There's the benefits of just having friends that most people innately experience but there are utilitarian reasons as well. It give you a large amount of people who are willing to help you. People that in an emergency you can work together. It's great to have a bunch of libertarians, you can proactively make plans and work together to educate others.

This is a big area where I think alt-right anti-left collectivist thinking puts you at an advantage. I have found there just aren't enough conservatives and libertarians around. Plus as long as they aren't completely loony and capable of introspection I find people on the left to often times be more fun and interesting than most people I have met on the right. My friends with a left bent are outdoors men, hunters, gardeners, they can fruits and vegetable, they work on their houses. Do they advocate for more government? Yes, but if things went south I can count on them to work with me.

[–]glibbertarian -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Exit > Voice.

Space. Seasteading. Off-gridding. Liberland, etc... I think it's kinda pointless to try to change these systems from within anymore.

[–]usernameXXXX1GFG4hLXu7BFMWyADd4PnYCwj6oqnZxTgf 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Think of this, how well would the whole no boarders anarcho-capitalist policy work now against the left? You'd be inundated with socialist, marxist and Muslims looking to kill you and take everything you have and blame you for it.

[–]Verinio 16ポイント17ポイント  (10子コメント)

Stefan (and all of us) are moving to the Right

Stop perpetuating that one-dimensional political view.

for the simple reason that the libertarian assertion—that the nature of man is identical to the libertarian personality and our moral bias merely yearning to be free—is as false as is the progressive assertion that the nature of humans is altruistic (maternal).

No. First of all we aren't moving or changing our positions. We only discover new and better ways to reach our philosophical goals, especially in the current context of mass-immigration. Anti-rational blockades like having to affirm that immigration is inherently positive are being destroyed.

Stefan Molyneux is not moving to the right and neither are we.

man is rational and chooses between moral or immoral because of the incentives at the time. The conservatives were right. Man is merely rational.

No. I am sorry, you may sound smart, but that is just an assertion without evidence. The core principle of libertarianism is that the vast majority of people in the (western) world already live according ot the non aggression principle, but are manipulated into granting "the rulers" an exclusive right to break it.

One of the best arguments for voluntarism is that most people already live according to it.

for the past sixty years the central issue has been whether the individual (progressive and libertine) or family (conservative) should be the central object of policy.

Uhh ... nice theory, but when I think of central political issues of the last 60 years a conflict between family and the individual doesn't come to mind.

If you expand it into "the collective", then sure, but for the vast amount of human history you could always construct such a conflict.

That does not mean that there are no limits to production and consumption.

Actually technology kinda makes that basically infinite.

You sound very platonian. Putting all these concepts out there without actually linking it to any evidence that exists in reality.

I mean what you sound is interesting, but the fact that you just blatantly state it without supporting it with anything makes me very hesitant to accept what you say as truth. But that is just me. I am naturally hesitant to listen to people's theories, if they just use so many axioms.

[–]of_ice_and_rockpredestination for the labyrinth: goo.gl/ZGHLa4[S] 4ポイント5ポイント  (9子コメント)

Stefan (and all of us) are moving to the Right

Stop perpetuating that one-dimensional political view.

I wouldn't consider the Right one-dimensional. Indeed, as Haidt found, conservatives have the most balanced, inclusive range of emotions.

It's the other two political psychologies that have a more narrow range of emotions and issues. This is why conservatives tend to always form the bedrock of a given civilization.

man is rational and chooses between moral or immoral because of the incentives at the time

that is just an assertion without evidence

The history of conditional violence and conditional cooperation certainly seems to validate it.

The core principle of libertarianism is that the vast majority of people in the (western) world already live according ot the non aggression principle, but are manipulated into granting "the rulers" an exclusive right to break it.

Well, we support what's called 'universal standing', too. No one is above the law. Indeed, 'every man a sheriff' is the Western republican tradition. Thousands of years ago, we started off as self-legislating aristocratic warriors (Indo-Europeans), who were willing to purchase our sovereignty from slavery by risking our lives in violence and war.

One of the best arguments for voluntarism is that most people already live according to it.

I'm sorry, but that's not a compelling argument. Most people being docile in the present circumstance is really just a historical statement about how well the past aristocracies domesticated man, and pointing that out does diddly squat in prosecuting anti-social conspirators like Hillary Clinton.

It is only when a group of men are willing to utilize weapon technologies and risk their lives that liberty and sovereignty are created. Punish the wicked, as Curt says. Being a docile little lamb may work well for you in keeping you out of trouble, but there are higher men with higher ambitions than soft slavery.

a conflict between family and the individual doesn't come to mind

Of course, it does. Preference for libertinism destroys investments into norms that aid long-term family creation.

but for the vast amount of human history you could always construct such a conflict

The destruction of Western norms has accelerated in the past sixty years, is the point. They were degrading during the decline of the aristocracies, but we're seeing rapid decay in this past century.

[–]Verinio 0ポイント1ポイント  (8子コメント)

It's the other two political psychologies that have a more narrow range of emotions and issues. This is why conservatives tend to always form the bedrock of a given civilization.

LOL. Okay maybe innocent mistake on your part here, but I meant the left-right axis.

This is why conservatives tend to always form the bedrock of a given civilization.

If you actually use the word conservative for all of history then you make a mistake.

There is no eternal conservative party or morality that lasts throughout the ages. That is a silly concept.

As I said. Stop it with the left-right political dichotomy.

The history of conditional violence and conditional cooperation certainly seems to validate it.

Then list it instead of just saying things without backing them up. My crticism as you I hope understand was about your lack of evidence, not against the theory itself, so what you're saying is not a valid defence.

Well, we support what's called 'universal standing', too. No one is above the law. Indeed, 'every man a sheriff' is the Western republican tradition. Thousands of years ago, we started off as self-legislating aristocratic warriors (Indo-Europeans), who were willing to purchase our sovereignty from slavery by risking our lives in violence and war.

Uh-huh.

I'm sorry, but that's not a compelling argument.

Yes, it is. It's one of the best arguments out there. It shows that most people already live according to libertarianism.

Most people being docile in the present circumstance is really just a historical statement about how well the past aristocracies domesticated man, and pointing that out does diddly squat in prosecuting anti-social conspirators like Hillary Clinton.

This is not a counter-argument to my argument.

It is only when a group of men are willing to utilize weapon technologies and risk their lives that liberty and sovereignty are created. Punish the wicked, as Curt says. Being a docile little lamb may work well for you in keeping you out of trouble, but there are higher men with higher ambitions than soft slavery.

Yeah so? It's always a minority of people that pushes for certain things. This is not a secret.

Of course, it does. Preference for libertinism destroys investments into norms that aid long-term family creation.

Wrong argument.

I didn't use the word libertinism, so you using it and acting like it's my position is erecting and burning a strawman. I on purpose avoided to use your word "libertinism".

The destruction of Western norms has accelerated in the past sixty years, is the point. They were degrading during the decline of the aristocracies, but we're seeing rapid decay in this past century.

Yes. Liberties. But you said something about a conflict family vs the individual.

[–]of_ice_and_rockpredestination for the labyrinth: goo.gl/ZGHLa4[S] 3ポイント4ポイント  (7子コメント)

maybe innocent mistake on your part here, but I meant the left-right axis

I realized that was probably what you meant, and I think my point still stands (the Left-Right spectrum is not linear, rather what's going on is the Left is a warped portion of the Right's emotional portfolio).

There is no eternal conservative party or morality that lasts throughout the ages.

Sure there is: rule of law of some minimal sort sufficient to construct a society. Some cultures are better at it that they have more extensive rule of law, but rule of law is inherently necessary and implied whenever a society exists of some depth.

As I said. Stop it with the left-right political dichotomy.

1v1 me irl, m8

Then list it instead of just saying things without backing them up.

Oh, giving you a 1200-page education in thousands of years of European history or providing detailed, operationalized case studies in law will have to wait another day. I don't know who you are well enough to make that level of an investment. You can disbelieve Curt and me for now if you want. I think I'll live.

My crticism as you I hope understand was about your lack of evidence, not against the theory itself

The above is certainly declarative writing. Some writing modes appear like that in circles more in the know. It's fair for you to want every citation, as an outsider, but you won't be getting anything other than a recommendation to read some history encyclopedias, if you need a citation that war and conquest follow rational incentives, rather than we type those encyclopedias for you.

Well, we support what's called 'universal standing', too. No one is above the law. Indeed, 'every man a sheriff' is the Western republican tradition. Thousands of years ago, we started off as self-legislating aristocratic warriors (Indo-Europeans), who were willing to purchase our sovereignty from slavery by risking our lives in violence and war.

Uh-huh.

Here we go; first reading assignment!: http://www.bibotu.com/books/2012/Th%20e%20Uniqueness%20of%20Western%20Civilization.pdf

If you didn't know that the Greek, Roman, and Germanic republics were all Indo-European-derived, then you really are under-educated for these discussions. Even leftist historians know such things.

I'm sorry, but that's not a compelling argument.

Yes, it is. It's one of the best arguments out there.

I guess if your circle consists of fellow docile lambs, but I'm not moved, nor do I see how tyrants are either.

It shows that most people already live according to libertarianism.

Not according to libertinism, no.

[–]Verinio 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

I realized that was probably what you meant, and I think my point still stands (the Left-Right spectrum is not linear

Then stop using it please. It's just idenitity politics which directly and indirectly benefits the collectivists and authoritirians.

Sure there is: rule of law of some minimal sort sufficient to construct a society. Some cultures are better at it that they have more extensive rule of law, but rule of law is inherently necessary and implied whenever a society exists of some depth.

That is not what conservative means.

You can't just apply a word like that to all of human history. Redefine it and then use it for current political arguments.

Your definition has nothing to do with conservatism or what it means.

1v1 me irl, m8

I will if you don't stop it with your identity politics.

The conservatives of today are not synomynous with the "conservatives" of 200 years ago or the middle ages.

I don't know who you are well enough to make that level of an investment. You can disbelieve Curt and me for now if you want. I think I'll live.

I am giving you tips on how to properly argue with people.

Protip: People will call you out on that, especially outside of an enviroment where not everyone agrees with you.

The above is certainly declarative writing. Some writing modes appear like that in circles more in the know. It's fair for you to want every citation, as an outsider, but you won't be getting anything other than a recommendation to read some history encyclopedias, if you need a citation that war and conquest follow rational incentives, rather than we type those encyclopedias for you.

Oh you don't actually understand.

Okay. Just write up something. To make your axioms supported by something. Just summarize the trends and forces or mention them, where you need to support your argument. This has nothing to do with writing up the entire history of the human race.

If you didn't know that the Greek, Roman, and Germanic republics were all Indo-European-derived, then you really are under-educated for these discussions. Even leftist historians know such things.

You seem to have misunderstood my comment.

It was just a comment on how you are musing about.

I guess if your circle consists of fellow docile lambs, but I'm not moved, nor do I see how tyrants are either.

Not an argument.

Not according to libertinism, no.

I love how you just continue to use that word, even though I called you out on it to try to argue against libertarianism.

And what does that even mean?

Not according to libertinism, no.

Also not an argument.

[–]of_ice_and_rockpredestination for the labyrinth: goo.gl/ZGHLa4[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

the Left-Right spectrum is not linear

Then stop using it please.

The two poles still exist, even if the spectrum is multi-dimensional, and it's not like I said there weren't other points within that multi-dimensional space.

It's just idenitity politics which directly and indirectly benefits the collectivists and authoritirians.

Well, that's asking everyone to adopt your separatist values, which is never going to happen. Indeed, your values exist as a luxury on top of more foundational ones.

That is not what conservative means.

What does it mean, then?

The conservatives of today are not synomynous with the "conservatives" of 200 years ago or the middle ages.

That just makes them partial conservatives, which is indeed why there's a revolution going on within the conservative movement.

[–]Verinio 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

That just makes them partial conservatives, which is indeed why there's a revolution going on within the conservative movement.

no true scotsman

also contradicts

Well, that's asking everyone to adopt your separatist values, which is never going to happen. Indeed, your values exist as a luxury on top of more foundational ones.

What does it mean, then?

depends on the context

[–]of_ice_and_rockpredestination for the labyrinth: goo.gl/ZGHLa4[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

no true scotsman

Do you say this any time someone employs a dictionary-like device?

Definitions are necessary for any discussion.

[–]Verinio -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

Says the person who wants conservatism to mean anything positive in society to promote the current conservative ideas via identity politics.

I am helping you, man. Just stop buying into the 1 dimensional lef-right axis of politics. You won't be able to convince any leftists, they will just see you as everything they think convervative means and you will provoke a tribalist reaction.

Don't see this as arguing with you, but as helpful advice.

[–]of_ice_and_rockpredestination for the labyrinth: goo.gl/ZGHLa4[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Conservatism wouldn't be all and only what is 'good', no. It's merely the balance of society's values, where left-liberals and libertarians have taken some of those values and put an extremely high priority on them.

Left-liberals and libertarians are really niche specializations in a political division of labor. It's not like I'm saying they serve no purpose.

stop buying into the 1 dimensional lef-right axis of politics

You know, I come from generations of state champion wrestlers...

You won't be able to convince any leftists

I don't need to convert people to a particular value set, and it is indeed possible to negotiate with different value sets if you provide the requisite incentives. It's what the very market is, after all.

[–]BUILD_WALLHard Incompatibilist, Egoist 2ポイント3ポイント  (19子コメント)

Stefan has made it very clear that his shifting views are due to his recent (and correct) rejection of egalitarianism.

[–]of_ice_and_rockpredestination for the labyrinth: goo.gl/ZGHLa4[S] 5ポイント6ポイント  (17子コメント)

Is that somehow incompatible with the above?

[–]BUILD_WALLHard Incompatibilist, Egoist 0ポイント1ポイント  (16子コメント)

With respect to Molymeme, yes. Stefan has not rejected the very premise his whole defense of liberty is based on. I'm not sure he ever will.

[–]of_ice_and_rockpredestination for the labyrinth: goo.gl/ZGHLa4[S] 4ポイント5ポイント  (15子コメント)

As far as I understand it, Molyneux is keeping his ancapism quite under wraps, because it would shrink his audience greatly (this inherently must happen, as ancapism has too limited a property theory to enfranchise much of the populace) or because his views and emotions surrounding the issues are slightly morphing.

Many of us think both are going on at once. Same thing with Tom Woods.

[–]InGodWeTrust1776Identitarian Monarcho-Capitalist 0ポイント1ポイント  (14子コメント)

I just have a feeling that Woods is a full on altrighter (I mean, he's been defending the confederacy for years, so why not take the leap?) but keeping it under wraps to preserve his audience and keep his respectable image.

Moly though I feel might be struggling a bit more to let go of the NAP BS. It's only a matter of time, though. No one can retain ideas of moral perfection in the face of immediate danger.

[–]of_ice_and_rockpredestination for the labyrinth: goo.gl/ZGHLa4[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (13子コメント)

Well, I mean, Tom is a Catholic paleolibertarian. Doesn't really get any easier than that to set up to become a Propertarian. It's really just a matter of time and he'll be in our movement explicitly (not the alt-right and not NRx, but Propertarianism).

[–]InGodWeTrust1776Identitarian Monarcho-Capitalist 0ポイント1ポイント  (12子コメント)

Is propertarian and NRx somehow incompatible?

[–]of_ice_and_rockpredestination for the labyrinth: goo.gl/ZGHLa4[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (11子コメント)

Not necessarily incompatible. These three thoughtspaces mostly overlap, but have slightly different values and communication modes.

If I had to map it, I'd say Propertarianism is the one of the three best able to overlap the other two, but even as it does it there are still certain things that don't carry over (e.g. the alt-right's occasional flirting with anti-meritocracy and NRx's excessive elitism and passive bourgeois values).

[–]InGodWeTrust1776Identitarian Monarcho-Capitalist 0ポイント1ポイント  (10子コメント)

The altright is a very broad term though, and contains people that run the gamete from national socialist to ancap. I don't think you can pin the anti-meritocratic and egalitarian (economic) sentiments of a few on everyone in the movement.

Not sure what exactly you mean by excessive elitism and passive bourgeois values, but I may be to far into the forest to see the tress on that one seems how I consider aristocracy and monarchy to be the best ruling systems.

[–]of_ice_and_rockpredestination for the labyrinth: goo.gl/ZGHLa4[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (9子コメント)

The altright is a very broad term though, and contains people that run the gamete from national socialist to ancap.

No, anarcho-capitalism is closer to NRx than the alt-right. Indeed, NRx was set up by consequentialist ancaps who became post-ancaps. The term they started to prefer was techno-commercialism.

It was still largely the same market-based law, where DROs and the like were envisioned, but they wanted to distance themselves from the Enlightenment moralisms. They had a much more pessimistic dystopian vision of man and history than vanilla anarcho-capitalism.

The alt-right came later as a reboot of national socialism (in the good sense, not the caricatured one) and a reaction to all manner of neo-liberalism (some of NRx included).

Not sure what exactly you mean by excessive elitism and passive bourgeois values

NRx bloggers are what some within Propertarianism like to term "right-brahmin signaling": they spend a good deal of time merely waxing poetic back and forth to each other (just look at social matter's blog and you can quickly see the guy likes rhetoric for its own sake). Much of it is nothing but the right-wing version of leftist academia.

Many of them I'm sure have above-average IQs, have above-average incomes, and don't like to associate with the rabble. There's a passive priestliness there, then. It's one of the problems with the NRx movement, perhaps the single biggest one and why many Propertarians are reforming all these spaces into something actionable.

[–]Verinio 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

He has not shifted his views. Certainly not his core philosophy.

This is actually a common misconceptions with libertarians.

Just because we recognize a more efficent path to reach liberty, doesn't mean that we have shifted our views.

[–]Ricardo_Machista 6ポイント7ポイント  (11子コメント)

Dont you have a job, or anything?

[–]of_ice_and_rockpredestination for the labyrinth: goo.gl/ZGHLa4[S] 4ポイント5ポイント  (8子コメント)

I'm a post-bacc student, pursuing a MSc in (applied) Mathematics.

I do work off and on, though, with this lab, but I don't really need the money.

(I'm delighted this is the territory libertines have been reduced to, though.)

[–]RiseFromTheShit 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

What do you do that makes you not need to work? Smart investments?

[–]of_ice_and_rockpredestination for the labyrinth: goo.gl/ZGHLa4[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

I've been smart with my student aid. I mean, it's not like I'm rich and I certainly have never lived a hyperconsumerist lifestyle (I have a few high quality possessions that I find worth spending money on, but the rest is quite minimal), but I just haven't been frivolous with grants and what income I've saved from working (loading trucks, tutoring math, doing work in a lab).

[–]RiseFromTheShit 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Nice. Would your parents help you out financially if you needed it? I come from a pretty privileged background and though i'm completely financial independent now, I owe a lot of my success to my parents having faith in me and paying for my college, lol. I was a slacker in HS who pulled it together in college (did a few semesters at a CC and then transferred out)

[–]of_ice_and_rockpredestination for the labyrinth: goo.gl/ZGHLa4[S] 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Would your parents help you out financially if you needed it?

A little, if I was in dire straits, but people of British and Scandinavian descent still very much practice that absolute nuclear family ethic, where an empty nest is encouraged and offspring have to pull their weight.

I think how interested in theoretical systems and ideas I am also helped me in not having to lead a very expensive lifestyle.

[–]nunquam_dedemusJulius Evola 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

What was your bachelor in? Also what are you planning to do with your Mathematics degree? Any particular subfield(s) of mathematics you are interested in?

Asking as a master student in applied mathematics myself.

[–]of_ice_and_rockpredestination for the labyrinth: goo.gl/ZGHLa4[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Chemistry, and as far as Masters in Mathematics, I think most programs have you acquire a 600-level foundational understanding of general mathematics, and then you get to tailor the rest of the degree.

My plan is applied and computational math. Ideally, I'd like to apply the technical skills to genetics, but we'll see where bioinformatics is at in a couple years. I'd rather be in that field than finance, but I could be amenable to some kind of robotics/AI application (combining AI and biology would be my core interest, whichever angle I approached it).

Also, take what I'm saying now as statements made in near-total ignorance. Ask me in a year and I'll have a much better answer for you.

[–]PalestinianBankerCapitalist Anarcho-Dinduist 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Does a carreer in finance interest you? Math majors with Masters are looked as godly in Chicago

[–]of_ice_and_rockpredestination for the labyrinth: goo.gl/ZGHLa4[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I seem to have like 3-6 friends with heavy math backgrounds who either work in high finance or are moving into it.

I can respect the salaries they must be getting paid, but I'd rather get to experience brief moments of fascination with my career (AI+biology), something with a transformative vision that gives me knowledge that feeds into side philosophical writing I do.

If all I was doing was managing a bunch of finance accounts so I could buy a nice car or whatever, I'm making out less in my evaluative framework. I understand some people prefer the high-powered bourgeois life, but I only need a medium amount of nice things, not a silly amount.

[–]Abolish_Taxation 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Millions in America don't. I'm grateful to have my job.

[–]vapidnoisescointel spai 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

White people don't need jobs, they have privilege. /s

[–]jphert12Minarchist 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Interesting read.

[–]VercingteroxPractice, even when success looks hopeless. 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

So, when you talk about a market for reproduction, does this include the sale of cybernetic cat girls?

[–]of_ice_and_rockpredestination for the labyrinth: goo.gl/ZGHLa4[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sounds legit to me.

[–]DeAristoiTimocrat 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Any word on when his book is going to be finished/released?

[–]of_ice_and_rockpredestination for the labyrinth: goo.gl/ZGHLa4[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I've discovered over time—and Curt has practically already admitted to it in passing—that Curt's Asperger's makes him focus intensely on a problem and as he gets deeper into it, he perpetually creates more work for himself.

So, I think if it was up to him alone with no social pressure, there's a high chance he'd never produce a self-contained piece of work.

Now, will any of these potential outcomes be a problem for us? I think even the worst case scenario where he doesn't produce a self-contained work, but relies purely on accumulated interpersonal relationships and scattered articles to mobilize and unite all the elements of the insurrectionist Right, we'll still make it to the finish line.

I think many of us will be able to pressure him enough to produce a self-contained work (within the next two years, contingent on what transpires in parallel), but even as that happens, we know what his writing is like, and work in translating and repackaging its message to other kinds of psychologies and cognitive abilities will still need to happen.

So, my ultimate advice and conclusion is that as much as we may want him to do this or that slightly differently, we need to be thinking about ourselves and doing our own logistical bridge-building with different psychologies. Whatever Curt thinks he has mentally, many of us can reproduce with time (literally just a matter of me catching up to his understanding of analytic philosophy, and I could write the book), so I think we're inevitably grinding toward what we want.

[–]hikaru_aiVoluntaryist 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

DAE Stephen opinions = libertarians opinions

I'm suck of your idiolizing libertarian celebrities

[–]of_ice_and_rockpredestination for the labyrinth: goo.gl/ZGHLa4[S] 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

DAE English?

[–]True_KapernicusVoluntaryist 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Was anything really useful said? This looks like a word salad.

[–]national_identityNovice 1ポイント2ポイント  (7子コメント)

The market was not natural in any sense—the evidence is that the market was constructed by the suppression of violence, accelerated by the suppression of fraud, and now requires the suppression of falsehood, so that we can suppress the government itself: conspiracy.

This little bit here addresses something Curt and I discussed very briefly on Facebook, that there is no such thing as a 'free' market as a market norm itself actually prevents 'free' (free of regulations) transactions from taking place.

Such a thing can not be called a 'free' market.

[–]Keeping_itrealRoadophilia is a deadly sin 6ポイント7ポイント  (6子コメント)

A free market is called "free" because it is free from government intervention.

[–]Frankie_Fiver -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

Then there is no such thing. Governmental intervention has created markets through defining and enforcing property norms. What you call "free", is more accurately described as a preferred level of intervention.

[–]Keeping_itrealRoadophilia is a deadly sin 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

Governmental intervention has created markets through defining and enforcing property norms.

Now, if you wish to make a point, you need to give me at least one example of a market which did not exist before governmental intervention defined and enforced said property norms, and then provide evidence for why this is the case for all of them. If you make it that far, you will then need to establish why said markets couldn't have come into existence without government intervention in the first place.

It takes more than a simple statement to argue.

[–]of_ice_and_rockpredestination for the labyrinth: goo.gl/ZGHLa4[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Why don't you do what's easiest for the entire debate and show a market that exists absent the necessary punishments of parasitism?

Propertarian political economy actually explains why the West is so wealthy and why the rest are so poor. Your guys' political economy has no other explanation for why Africa is so low trust other than "they were brainwashed, man!"

[–]Keeping_itrealRoadophilia is a deadly sin 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

absent the necessary punishments of parasitism?

Are you claiming that this can only be provided by a State? Come on man, you're better than that.

Your guys' political economy has no other explanation for why Africa is so low trust other than "they were brainwashed, man!"

I don't know which "guys" you are referring to, but I personally find the issue far more complex than that. In my opinion, there are environmental, cultural and ultimately genetic reasons why we Africans are so damn poor. We were not just "brainwashed, man".

[–]of_ice_and_rockpredestination for the labyrinth: goo.gl/ZGHLa4[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

absent the necessary punishments of parasitism?

Are you claiming that this can only be provided by a State?

A monopoly government, yes, though I of course have no loyalty to rent-seeking state actors.

Indeed, law must always be monocentric. Property norms must always be coherent to the extent you do have cooperation. What many ancaps have been trying to talk about with 'private law' is just private contract, but the institution that informs those contracts is inherently public.

Truly, there could be no other genesis of a 'public' than (natural) law.

In my opinion, there are environmental, cultural and ultimately genetic reasons why we Africans are so damn poor.

Humans are capable of domesticating each other, though. You particularly see this occurring as cross-class exchanges.

[–]PriceZombie -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies

Current $11.28 Amazon (New)
High $16.09 Amazon (New)
Low $10.20 Amazon (New)
Average $11.28 30 Day

Price History Chart and Sales Rank

The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature

Current $16.53 Amazon (New)
High $16.86 Amazon (New)
Low $10.77 Amazon (New)
Average $16.45 30 Day

Price History Chart and Sales Rank | FAQ

[–]ValyrianSteelKatana 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

man is rational

That is a point of contention.

[–]of_ice_and_rockpredestination for the labyrinth: goo.gl/ZGHLa4[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

As you contend it, what would be your definition of rational?

[–]ValyrianSteelKatana -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Rationality (as per libertarianism) requires both a perfect knowledge of actions and consequences (impossible) and the capacity to act on such without impedance. But the capacity to act unimpeded is impaired by external and internal factors, such as social pressures and cognitive ability.

An example to put it terms of capitalism: when the whole of the media is screaming at you to smoke cigarettes because it's hip and cool and it makes you feel good, what are the odds of the average man realizing he does not need to smoke, that it is a costly and addictive habit, that it will likely kill him sometime down the line?

And you might fiddle-faddle about "but that's freedom!" and "nobody is forcing him to smoke!" but the fact of the matter is that the average man is not going to understand or care beyond his immediate gratification (looking hip and cool and enjoying the smooth, mellow flavor of his cancer-sticks). When he is dying in a hospital bed, he's not going to say, "Hmm, I had my fun smoking cigarettes, and this is the consequence thereof, and I must surely suffer the consequences for my actions." He's going to say, "Somebody's got to pay for my chemo!"

[–]of_ice_and_rockpredestination for the labyrinth: goo.gl/ZGHLa4[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Rationality (as per libertarianism) requires both a perfect knowledge of actions and consequences (impossible)

Why not define rationality how Mises did? That humans always choose whatever option they evaluate as granting them more utility.

The way I see it, humans are either always rational or never rational. I don't understand how they could be both, without setting up either an arbitrary boundary or by defining their identity as transient (in a Humean way, I could accept that, for this point) and therefore experiencing different levels of cognitive depth at different times.

But the capacity to act unimpeded is impaired by external and internal factors, such as social pressures and cognitive ability.

This definition renders the word worthless, and furthermore doesn't substantively address the concepts and elements actually being employed, only their labeling.

An example to put it terms of capitalism: when the whole of the media is screaming at you to smoke cigarettes because it's hip and cool and it makes you feel good, what are the odds of the average man realizing he does not need to smoke, that it is a costly and addictive habit, that it will likely kill him sometime down the line?

Well, the Austrians would just say he's still pursuing the option that grants him the most utility by way of complying with external pressure because he wants to be in enough of a standing with them.

There's not really an objective basis to tell him what he should be doing, that he's making a mistake giving in to social pressure.

He's going to say, "Somebody's got to pay for my chemo!"

Well, it would depend on the polity and its norms, but he's certainly not getting access to communal intervention of some sort without also paying into such insurance. He's not being allowed a free ride (privatizing the commons).

[–]TotesMessenger 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

[–]of_ice_and_rockpredestination for the labyrinth: goo.gl/ZGHLa4[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

The day we all get to meet together on the streets. OHHHH, SUCH GLORY

[–]steppeulvTruth: an uphill battle https://goo.gl/LUEQPg 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Man is merely rational.

No, man is merely trying to achieve ends. Rationality, acting within self interest. Rationality has to be limited to the knowledge of the actor. Rain dancing might be conceived as the best method to achieve rain. Man is only rational to extend that he knows, a condition highly rare, if not contrary -- in a psychical sense.

How is having children considered rational; in the sense that it's the goal of the individual.

How is being moral considered rational....

Judging the individuals actions as an observer with your own value system will lead to miss-diagnostics.

Is taking narcotics rational in your view? How come people use em? Because it's their ends/values.

Morality is objective, yet if a perfect circle doesn't exist does that mean that it should be dismissed? Aristotle, the perfect forms.

If propertarianists believe that they can create their mini-state and expect it to be held up by:

a: Government, in which case I'm curios as to how they would prevent people from acting within their self interest -- if people merely act rationally.

b: Voluntary/capitalistic means, in which case I don't understand the naive criticism of an universal principle for humanity.

[–]lakeyosemit2 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Don't feed the trolls.

[–]of_ice_and_rockpredestination for the labyrinth: goo.gl/ZGHLa4[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3ZokDra6dY

[–]youtubefactsbot 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

"violence is usually the answer." [0:09]

SHAREfactory™

moorebetter in Gaming

1,610 views since Jun 2016

bot info

[–]rammingparu3physical removal & helicopter rides 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

One of the best things about Overwatch are the voice lines.

[–]skinisblackmetallic 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

"Libertinism"? WTF is that? Never mind I do not give a fuck.

[–]of_ice_and_rockpredestination for the labyrinth: goo.gl/ZGHLa4[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Take a boogie break and you'll be fine.

[–]natermer 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

'The Right' you fantasize about doesn't actually exist.

That red pill you swallowed turns out to just be a blue pill with food coloring.

[–]of_ice_and_rockpredestination for the labyrinth: goo.gl/ZGHLa4[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

That red pill you swallowed turns out to just be a blue pill with food coloring.

https://youtu.be/Eal4fep7pK4?t=30s

[–]dissidentrhetoric -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I disagree with the mainstream view of left right, which is basically: left = amazing morally superior ideology, right = racist.

When people get over calling me a racist, they will see that a lot of my ideas are actually quite liberal. By liberal I don't mean modern SJW liberal.

[–]BBQCopter -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

policy must be designed for longer time preference: the family, tribe, and nation.

Wrong answer.

[–]of_ice_and_rockpredestination for the labyrinth: goo.gl/ZGHLa4[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Aww, shucks.