Libertarian Discussion Thread II - Don't Thread on Me

[Darussalam]

"Our corporate overlords are conservatives (in Republican sense)" is such a blasé 2000s meme that could only conceivably survive in a place stuck in Obama-era time-capsule stasis like NSG. It's trivially untrue in the leading tech sector where Peter Thiel's political views made him a glaring exception, and virtually all renowned companies in other sectors regularly paid obeisance to the new state church in the West. This is only natural, capital is promiscuous and will conveniently align with anyone. This is not an evidence of belief, just matter of convenience in the Western world where the cult of Progress wins and is here to stay.

Obviously, companies don't scrupulously observes parts of intersectional politics that entail class/wealth distribution, or even racial politics beyond regulations on blasphemy imposed by HR departments (not many non-Tamil Brahmin "BIPOC"s will get employed as software engineers in Google regardless of what's happening, for example). This isn't really relevant, though. Bolsheviks fought with German and American capital, the entire field of criticism to capitalism is a sham to begin with, entirely subsumed as a subset of the capitalist world, already made a commodity, consumption product circa early 20th century. Woke capital's BLM tributes is just an expression of same thing: capitalism enveloped in a critique of itself.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Daily reminder that all left terms appeared simultaneously as part of an organized brahmin conspiracy

[Nuroblav]

Daily reminder that all left terms appeared simultaneously as part of an organized brahmin conspiracy

So the use of the word 'triggering' has gone up?

Hahahahahahahahahaha

[Northern Davincia]

Objectivism is bad public image, so most high end executives and business types aren't Objectivists. Rather, they'd want to appeal to the hip liberal communist-chic crowd.

Liberal.
Communist.

Methinks you do not know what these words mean.

The modern liberal doesn't really know what their end goal is for society, and if they were to describe it, I imagine it would sound communist.

[Duvniask]

Liberal.
Communist.

Methinks you do not know what these words mean.

The modern liberal doesn't really know what their end goal is for society, and if they were to describe it, I imagine it would sound communist.

The "modern liberal" has no real vision of the future and probably wouldn't even be able to conceive of anything approaching communist society, because it is far too alien to their capitalist realism.

[Northern Davincia]

The modern liberal doesn't really know what their end goal is for society, and if they were to describe it, I imagine it would sound communist.

The "modern liberal" has no real vision of the future and probably wouldn't even be able to conceive of anything approaching communist society, because it is far too alien to their capitalist realism.

Perhaps, but their descriptions of the future approach something like "no poverty, no racism, no environmental degradation," and other things of that nature.

[Duvniask]

The "modern liberal" has no real vision of the future and probably wouldn't even be able to conceive of anything approaching communist society, because it is far too alien to their capitalist realism.

Perhaps, but their descriptions of the future approach something like "no poverty, no racism, no environmental degradation," and other things of that nature.

But such "visions", if I can even call them that, are confined to capitalism and the idea that simply getting the right people in charge will solve things - it doesn't mean they are imagining a post-capitalist future.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Perhaps, but their descriptions of the future approach something like "no poverty, no racism, no environmental degradation," and other things of that nature.

But such "visions", if I can even call them that, are confined to capitalism and the idea that simply getting the right people in charge will solve things - it doesn't mean they are imagining a post-capitalist future.

That's what I don't like most " modern liberals",people in power have different definitions of problems than ordinary people.These capitalists may not care about poverty and racism, but only about financial freedom and political interests.

[Phoenicaea]

i suppose that the philosohycal matter, behind the scenes, that you search for, is the misunderstanding aobut the word ‘power’.

if you see, at the end, it is the incapacity of understanding that such ‘power’ definition is not real, same as a cult, drives to low-degree ‘materialism’.

[Elwher]

i suppose that the philosohycal matter, behind the scenes, that you search for, is the misunderstanding aobut the word ‘power’.

if you see, at the end, it is the incapacity of understanding that such ‘power’ definition is not real, same as a cult, drives to low-degree ‘materialism’.

To elaborate on that idea, the basic difference about the term is between the power to run your own life and the power to run other people's lives.

To me, those who believe in the former are Libertarians, no matter if they are capitalist, socialist, or whatever; while those who believe in the latter are authoritarians. The unfortunate intersection between the two ideas is defining where the effects of your running your life affects the ability of others to run theirs.

[Ordysius]

Are Paleo-Libertarians welcome here?

[Nuroblav]

Are Paleo-Libertarians welcome here?

Who knows. I presume so but a lot of us will probably disagree on the ideology.

[Ordysius]

Are Paleo-Libertarians welcome here?

Who knows. I presume so but a lot of us will probably disagree on the ideology.

Yeah I could see that happening lol

[Nuroblav]

Yeah I could see that happening lol

Generally I think this tends to be where the right-libertarians are, but alas, here I am anyway

[Elwher]

Yeah I could see that happening lol

Generally I think this tends to be where the right-libertarians are, but alas, here I am anyway

There may be more of the right-libertarians here, but we have had some fascinating multi=page discussions with the left-libertarians as well. To me, a true libertarian has to accept the entire spectrum of libertarianism as valid, otherwise one is supporting a form of authoritarianism.

[Northern Davincia]

Are Paleo-Libertarians welcome here?

Sure, we don't enforce strict borders here.

[Cisairse]

Are Paleo-Libertarians welcome here?

What is the difference between paleolibertarianism and classical liberalism?

[Nuroblav]

Sure, we don't enforce strict borders here.

I mean, this is a libertarian discussion thread after all

[Elwher]

There may be more of the right-libertarians here, but we have had some fascinating multi=page discussions with the left-libertarians as well. To me, a true libertarian has to accept the entire spectrum of libertarianism as valid, otherwise one is supporting a form of authoritarianism.

Indeed. Much as take a huge disliking to capitalism, I'm still happy to work with other libertarians to bring a freer society - same with other leftists, no matter how authoritarian (so long as - in the case of leftism - different forms of leftist societies are able to be created should people wish; you probably won't find me happily living in a marxist-leninist society ).

That brings up something I find somewhat confusing. Most of the capitalist libertarians I know of would have no problem with a group deciding to run a communal/socialist enclave in their society (although most would also claim it would be unsuccessful). It seems, and I may be judging by too small a sample, that most socialist libertarians do not share the same willingness to allow a capitalist enclave in their society. Is this the case, do you think, and if so, why?

[Nuroblav]

-redacted-

[Duvniask]

There may be more of the right-libertarians here, but we have had some fascinating multi=page discussions with the left-libertarians as well. To me, a true libertarian has to accept the entire spectrum of libertarianism as valid, otherwise one is supporting a form of authoritarianism.

Indeed. Much as take a huge disliking to capitalism, I'm still happy to work with other libertarians to bring a freer society - same with other leftists, no matter how authoritarian (so long as - in the case of leftism - different forms of leftist societies are able to be created should people wish; you probably won't find me happily living in a marxist-leninist society ).

Sure, we don't enforce strict borders here.

I mean, this is a libertarian discussion thread after all

Incredible naivete here, to be perfectly honest with you. We live in an interconnected global age, and your utopian dream of socialist and capitalist societies or communes or whatever the fuck coexisting side-by-side like disconnected little islands is pure fantasy. It would be like suggesting Northern abolition could somehow have existed alongside Southern slavery with no tension in the United States; the Northern states were necessarily entangled in it, being required to return runaway slaves to their owners (per the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850), not to mention the economic links between North and South would inevitably mean they were helping to perpetuate that dreadful institution even if not a single piece of legislation suggested it. Your idea of a free world would be precisely the same, as tensions would inevitably emerge. Capital is a force that knows no borders and it is entirely within the rational self-interest of capitalists to expand their markets, their workforce and the overall resources at their disposal, so they can accumulate ever more. This is a recipe for a conflict-ridden state of affairs.

It also betrays a mere skin-deep set of principles; if you genuinely cared about human freedom you would not reduce it to some strange notion of taste; why, yes, dear capitalist, if you like your exploited labor force you can keep it! So long as it's not in my backyard! Slavery is permissible so long as you agree to it and keep it in your own confines! Is this really something you genuinely believe?

[Nuroblav]

Indeed. Much as take a huge disliking to capitalism, I'm still happy to work with other libertarians to bring a freer society - same with other leftists, no matter how authoritarian (so long as - in the case of leftism - different forms of leftist societies are able to be created should people wish; you probably won't find me happily living in a marxist-leninist society ).
I mean, this is a libertarian discussion thread after all

Incredible naivete here, to be perfectly honest with you. We live in an interconnected global age, and your utopian dream of socialist and capitalist societies or communes or whatever the fuck coexisting side-by-side like disconnected little islands is pure fantasy. It would be like suggesting Northern abolition could somehow have existed alongside Southern slavery with no tension in the United States; the Northern states were necessarily entangled in it, being required to return runaway slaves to their owners (per the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850), not to mention the economic links between North and South would inevitably mean they were helping to perpetuate that dreadful institution even if not a single piece of legislation suggested it. Your idea of a free world would be precisely the same, as tensions would inevitably emerge. Capital is a force that knows no borders and it is entirely within the rational self-interest of capitalists to expand their markets, their workforce and the overall resources at their disposal, so they can accumulate ever more. This is a recipe for a conflict-ridden state of affairs.

It also betrays a mere skin-deep set of principles; if you genuinely cared about human freedom you would not reduce it to some strange notion of taste; why, yes, dear capitalist, if you like your exploited labor force you can keep it! So long as it's not in my backyard! Slavery is permissible so long as you agree to it and keep it in your own confines! Is this really something you genuinely believe?

Actually yeah good point

I'll admit I didn't think that post through, and my mind has changed back to what it was before on the matter.

[Nuroblav]

Alright lemme try again

That brings up something I find somewhat confusing. Most of the capitalist libertarians I know of would have no problem with a group deciding to run a communal/socialist enclave in their society (although most would also claim it would be unsuccessful). It seems, and I may be judging by too small a sample, that most socialist libertarians do not share the same willingness to allow a capitalist enclave in their society. Is this the case, do you think, and if so, why?

I think it comes to our strong disliking of capitalism's hierarchical structure. To be honest it would kinda defeat the point of why a libertarian socialist would be created in the first place - to decrease the power of capital and authority. It would feel a bit hypocritical to keep it going in the area, even if it were just a small enclave.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Puritans return to your CDT

[Duvniask]

Puritans return to your CDT

Which is? LWDT and RWDT were both given the Final Solution.