Libertarian Discussion Thread II - Don't Thread on Me

[Autarkheia]

You are having a stroke. Seek medical attention right away.

Libertarianism used to be a mantle for whites as a reaction for expropriation and exploitation on the behalf of the NAM criminal underclass.The idea that each can keep their own productivity instead of being taxfarmed under parasitic relationship seemed appealing. It has since then evolved among some into "the state for me but not to thee", i.e the alt-right.

At any case, they are a symptom, not the disease.

NAM? Non-Aligned Movement?

I think I see what you mean though. For a racist or ultranationalist, libertarianism would be appealing because they wouldn't want the government redistributing their money to "those people". I am not saying this describes the motivations of all or most libertarians, just the small minority who are proto-fascists. These same people are not principled because they would presumably be okay with welfare as long as it goes to their own group. Likewise, they will cry about free speech only as long as it applies to themselves.

[Korstinhyt]

What do you think about security tokens as a part of libertarian future?

[Darussalam]

Libertarianism used to be a mantle for whites as a reaction for expropriation and exploitation on the behalf of the NAM criminal underclass.The idea that each can keep their own productivity instead of being taxfarmed under parasitic relationship seemed appealing. It has since then evolved among some into "the state for me but not to thee", i.e the alt-right.

At any case, they are a symptom, not the disease.

NAM? Non-Aligned Movement?

I think I see what you mean though. For a racist or ultranationalist, libertarianism would be appealing because they wouldn't want the government redistributing their money to "those people". I am not saying this describes the motivations of all or most libertarians, just the small minority who are proto-fascists. These same people are not principled because they would presumably be okay with welfare as long as it goes to their own group. Likewise, they will cry about free speech only as long as it applies to themselves.

To be fair, this is basically the worldview of most people in the world who aren't white, so they're only making the playing field equal.

[Elwher]

Paradox of tolerance in action. Reddit thinks they're brave free speech absolutists, subreddits get overrun by alt-right dipshits and become toxic cesspools of hate, the mods finally ban them, the userbase cries about m'freeze peach some more, rinse and repeat.

The ancap subreddit is also full of fascists so it was only a matter of time. Also, the pipeline is real.

Reddit, like any private corporation, has every right to determine what is and is not acceptable. That, ladies and gentlemen, is capitalism in action; their board, their rules.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Paradox of tolerance in action. Reddit thinks they're brave free speech absolutists, subreddits get overrun by alt-right dipshits and become toxic cesspools of hate, the mods finally ban them, the userbase cries about m'freeze peach some more, rinse and repeat.

The ancap subreddit is also full of fascists so it was only a matter of time. Also, the pipeline is real.

Reddit, like any private corporation, has every right to determine what is and is not acceptable. That, ladies and gentlemen, is capitalism in action; their board, their rules.

One could make rather compelling arguments that nowadays the online space and big social media sites in particular are the new town square and your speech being shut down by private groups is arguably more worrisome than .gov doing so.

[Reikoku]

Reddit, like any private corporation, has every right to determine what is and is not acceptable. That, ladies and gentlemen, is capitalism in action; their board, their rules.

One could make rather compelling arguments that nowadays the online space and big social media sites in particular are the new town square and your speech being shut down by private groups is arguably more worrisome than .gov doing so.

It worries me that even far-left anti-capitalists have started to embrace this logic that a private organization can do whatever it wants. They think they're playing the corporations like a fiddle, but I'm not so sure it isn't the other way around.

[Elwher]

Reddit, like any private corporation, has every right to determine what is and is not acceptable. That, ladies and gentlemen, is capitalism in action; their board, their rules.

One could make rather compelling arguments that nowadays the online space and big social media sites in particular are the new town square and your speech being shut down by private groups is arguably more worrisome than .gov doing so.

A person, or a group of people, made the sites out of their own resources. They are paying the large costs of maintaining them. As the saying goes, he that pays the piper calls the tune. If you stand on the public sidewalk and pass out KKK literature, I have no say over that. You do not have the right to do do on my front lawn, however.

A town square, on the other hand, is paid for and supported by all the people and is therefore immune from this sort of regulation.

As to being worrisome, a private group cannot do more than keep you off their front lawn, physical or digital. The government, on the other hand, can fine or imprison you if they are allowed censorship power. That, to me, is much more worrisome.

[Washington Resistance Army]

One could make rather compelling arguments that nowadays the online space and big social media sites in particular are the new town square and your speech being shut down by private groups is arguably more worrisome than .gov doing so.

A person, or a group of people, made the sites out of their own resources. They are paying the large costs of maintaining them. As the saying goes, he that pays the piper calls the tune. If you stand on the public sidewalk and pass out KKK literature, I have no say over that. You do not have the right to do do on my front lawn, however.

A town square, on the other hand, is paid for and supported by all the people and is therefore immune from this sort of regulation.

As to being worrisome, a private group cannot do more than keep you off their front lawn, physical or digital. The government, on the other hand, can fine or imprison you if they are allowed censorship power. That, to me, is much more worrisome.

Private groups front lawns however are virtually everything in the modern day due to the advent, nature and rapid spread of the internet. You can effectively be stripped of your platform solely by being kicked off Facebook and Twitter and that today accomplishes the same goal as the crown censoring you in 1770.

[Elwher]

One could make rather compelling arguments that nowadays the online space and big social media sites in particular are the new town square and your speech being shut down by private groups is arguably more worrisome than .gov doing so.

It worries me that even far-left anti-capitalists have started to embrace this logic that a private organization can do whatever it wants. They think they're playing the corporations like a fiddle, but I'm not so sure it isn't the other way around.

I don't think anyone, myself included, thinks that a private corporation can do whatever it wants. There are laws restricting what they can do, first off, and they cannot do things that turn off their customers too much or they will not stay in business very long. There is, and should not be, any legal requirement to allow unrestricted free speech on their property, either a digital platform or in their main lobby.

[Elwher]

A person, or a group of people, made the sites out of their own resources. They are paying the large costs of maintaining them. As the saying goes, he that pays the piper calls the tune. If you stand on the public sidewalk and pass out KKK literature, I have no say over that. You do not have the right to do do on my front lawn, however.

A town square, on the other hand, is paid for and supported by all the people and is therefore immune from this sort of regulation.

As to being worrisome, a private group cannot do more than keep you off their front lawn, physical or digital. The government, on the other hand, can fine or imprison you if they are allowed censorship power. That, to me, is much more worrisome.

Private groups front lawns however are virtually everything in the modern day due to the advent, nature and rapid spread of the internet. You can effectively be stripped of your platform solely by being kicked off Facebook and Twitter and that today accomplishes the same goal as the crown censoring you in 1770.

First, the crown in 1770 would, at best, fine you and perhaps jail you as well.

However, even granting the ability of Facebook and Twitter to block your speech (a position I do not necessarily hold to, given the multitude of specialized social media platforms), how does that translate into any sort of requirement for a private, for profit institution to give you a free platform for whatever idea you may have? You are not paying their server bills.

[Northern Davincia]

One could make rather compelling arguments that nowadays the online space and big social media sites in particular are the new town square and your speech being shut down by private groups is arguably more worrisome than .gov doing so.

It worries me that even far-left anti-capitalists have started to embrace this logic that a private organization can do whatever it wants. They think they're playing the corporations like a fiddle, but I'm not so sure it isn't the other way around.

Is this how we convert the reds to the glorious free market?

[Torrocca]

It worries me that even far-left anti-capitalists have started to embrace this logic that a private organization can do whatever it wants. They think they're playing the corporations like a fiddle, but I'm not so sure it isn't the other way around.

Is this how we convert the reds to the glorious free market?

It's how you get psy-op'd into becoming The Red. :^)

Private groups front lawns however are virtually everything in the modern day due to the advent, nature and rapid spread of the internet. You can effectively be stripped of your platform solely by being kicked off Facebook and Twitter and that today accomplishes the same goal as the crown censoring you in 1770.

First, the crown in 1770 would, at best, fine you and perhaps jail you as well.

However, even granting the ability of Facebook and Twitter to block your speech (a position I do not necessarily hold to, given the multitude of specialized social media platforms), how does that translate into any sort of requirement for a private, for profit institution to give you a free platform for whatever idea you may have? You are not paying their server bills.

You're just replacing the authoritarianism of the politician with the authoritarianism of the business owner by letting corporations act as censors.

[Elwher]

Is this how we convert the reds to the glorious free market?

It's how you get psy-op'd into becoming The Red. :^)

First, the crown in 1770 would, at best, fine you and perhaps jail you as well.

However, even granting the ability of Facebook and Twitter to block your speech (a position I do not necessarily hold to, given the multitude of specialized social media platforms), how does that translate into any sort of requirement for a private, for profit institution to give you a free platform for whatever idea you may have? You are not paying their server bills.

You're just replacing the authoritarianism of the politician with the authoritarianism of the business owner by letting corporations act as censors.

Does that imply that I have the right to stand on your lawn and pass out copies of Atlas Shrugged and decry all socialism as stupid?

[Hammer Britannia]

It's how you get psy-op'd into becoming The Red. :^)



You're just replacing the authoritarianism of the politician with the authoritarianism of the business owner by letting corporations act as censors.

Does that imply that I have the right to stand on your lawn and pass out copies of Atlas Shrugged and decry all socialism as stupid?

Yes, but when "Muh Ideology" gets put into place, everyone will magically like it except for a few minority groups. Meaning, you're just wasting time and paper for books

Also, it's "Our lawn". Land is not a commodity bought and sold in Hell AnComistan.

[Torrocca]

It's how you get psy-op'd into becoming The Red. :^)



You're just replacing the authoritarianism of the politician with the authoritarianism of the business owner by letting corporations act as censors.

Does that imply that I have the right to stand on your lawn and pass out copies of Atlas Shrugged and decry all socialism as stupid?

Corporations, much like countries, are not one person's personal property. The lawn of my home, however, very much is.

[Frievolk]

Does that imply that I have the right to stand on your lawn and pass out copies of Atlas Shrugged and decry all socialism as stupid?

Corporations, much like countries, are not one person's personal property. The lawn of my home, however, very much is.

*Coughs* Legally speaking corporations, very much unlike countries, are one person's personal property. It's called being a Legal Person.
Accordingly, the State (as opposed to the Country) is also a legal person, hence why it can take you to court (or be taken to court by you), etc.
The ramifications of what you're suggesting is way beyond the scale of "fuck property and the state in particular"

[Autarkheia]

No, my arbitrary distinction between what kinds of property are inviolable, and which are subject to being seized for the good of the collectivist ant farm, based on 19th century economic theory by radical European dudes, is completely legit and unproblematic in every way.

[Torrocca]

Corporations, much like countries, are not one person's personal property. The lawn of my home, however, very much is.

*Coughs* Legally speaking corporations, very much unlike countries, are one person's personal property. It's called being a Legal Person.
Accordingly, the State (as opposed to the Country) is also a legal person, hence why it can take you to court (or be taken to court by you), etc.
The ramifications of what you're suggesting is way beyond the scale of "fuck property and the state in particular"

I don't like this reality.

[Frievolk]

*Coughs* Legally speaking corporations, very much unlike countries, are one person's personal property. It's called being a Legal Person.
Accordingly, the State (as opposed to the Country) is also a legal person, hence why it can take you to court (or be taken to court by you), etc.
The ramifications of what you're suggesting is way beyond the scale of "fuck property and the state in particular"

I don't like this reality.

It is very weird when you start considering that "It's technically a person but not really but actually it is" [because Legal Personhood can be, and often is, very stupid in practice]

[Elwher]

Does that imply that I have the right to stand on your lawn and pass out copies of Atlas Shrugged and decry all socialism as stupid?

Corporations, much like countries, are not one person's personal property. The lawn of my home, however, very much is.

Does that mean that if it is a joint ownership, like between you and your brother, I can utilize it as it is not one person's personal property?

[Elwher]

I don't like this reality.

It is very weird when you start considering that "It's technically a person but not really but actually it is" [because Legal Personhood can be, and often is, very stupid in practice]

If you want the ability to take a corporation to court because the wheel fell off your car, as opposed to suing the assembly line worker who failed to tighten the nuts properly, then corporate personhood makes sense. Only a person can be sued.

[Frievolk]

It is very weird when you start considering that "It's technically a person but not really but actually it is" [because Legal Personhood can be, and often is, very stupid in practice]

If you want the ability to take a corporation to court because the wheel fell off your car, as opposed to suing the assembly line worker who failed to tighten the nuts properly, then corporate personhood makes sense. Only a person can be sued.

No I realize that. The weirdness and stupidity comes when you consider the fact that Legal Persons are, as the name implies, persons as according to law and thus are owed the privileges and rights that Real Persons naturally -or legally, depends on what school of thought you belong to- have.

[Elwher]

If you want the ability to take a corporation to court because the wheel fell off your car, as opposed to suing the assembly line worker who failed to tighten the nuts properly, then corporate personhood makes sense. Only a person can be sued.

No I realize that. The weirdness and stupidity comes when you consider the fact that Legal Persons are, as the name implies, persons as according to law and thus are owed the privileges and rights that Real Persons naturally -or legally, depends on what school of thought you belong to- have.

If I am understanding you correctly, it seems that you are positing that corporate persons should have the legal responsibilities of personhood but not the legal rights. That seems somewhat unfair, to me at least.

[Northern Davincia]

If you want the ability to take a corporation to court because the wheel fell off your car, as opposed to suing the assembly line worker who failed to tighten the nuts properly, then corporate personhood makes sense. Only a person can be sued.

No I realize that. The weirdness and stupidity comes when you consider the fact that Legal Persons are, as the name implies, persons as according to law and thus are owed the privileges and rights that Real Persons naturally -or legally, depends on what school of thought you belong to- have.

Who would vote in place of a corporation?

[Torrocca]

Corporations, much like countries, are not one person's personal property. The lawn of my home, however, very much is.

Does that mean that if it is a joint ownership, like between you and your brother, I can utilize it as it is not one person's personal property?

That means it's jointly-owned personal property, and thus still personal property.