/lit/ - Literature

GOT MINES!

>>14234836
Nothing, second worst ideology of all time. Just liberals with autism.

>>14234836
None of those companies have started wars, staged coups in other countries, demanded taxes under threat of going to jail, drafted citizens into an army or done any attempts at mind controlling citizens akin to MKULTRA.

>>14234836
Librarianism is just retarded spelling of liberalism. So the philosophy would be found in the works of liberals.

I hear libertarians saying that they can justify libertarianism upon Deontological or consequentialist lines. Rothbard wrote a book called "The Ethics of Liberty" and David Friedman wrote a book called "The Machinery of Freedom."

natural law approach of Rothbard and more contemporary argumentation ethics approach of Hoppe

>>14234836
By your picture you are referring to what is actually neoclassical liberalism.
They just seem like market fundies to me. I don’t know how much they like Smith, Ricardo and Mills versus their Austrian school bunch, but they’re nuts

>>14234850
>Northrop Grumman
>They prefer peace
Oh brother. We caught one.

>>14234850
>done any attempts at mind controlling citizens akin to MKULTRA.
Google is much better at that kind of stuff.

>>14234836
Starts with enlightenment liberalism of the French and British variety especially Adam Smith and Jean Jacques Rousseau. William Godwin is an important figure later on, and then Libertarianism as such comes into its own primarily through Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Murray Rothbard, and Friedrich Hayek.

>>14234836
>what is the philosophical justification for libertarianism?
lowering the age of consent

>>14234884
>Hayek
>libertarian
nice try, I'll give it a 3/10

>>14234888
>Free market fanatic
>Rabid anti Communist
>wrote political philosophy books justifying libertarianism
>rabid Keynes hater
"hes not a libertarian"

>>14234916
Hayek and his peers at the Mont Pelerin Society (with the sole exception of Mises) argued for welfare state policies which any contemporary libertarian would deem as "communism".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

>>14234950
he asked for philosophical justifications not biographies
the Austrians are an indispensable foundation

>>14234850
Look up Business Plot and Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co.

>>14234950
A Hayekian welfare state is so minimal, that you wouldn't receive any benefits from it.

>>14234961
>Business Plot
Never proven (even if not disproven either). Either way, the point is not that companies can't be corrupt, it's that the government is objectively worse both in practical terms (because governments have done far more shit in reality) and theoretically, because it's forced upon us.

>>14234974
>companies can't be corrupt
most retarded thing ive ever read on all of lit and 4chan in general. kys

>>14234993
>/lit/ - illiteracy

>>14234993
>lacks basic reading comprehension
kys

>>14234836
>>14234837
mah poperty is mah grith

>>14234993
leftypol discord faggots can't read

>>14234974
Imperialism was the expansion of capitalism beyond national borders. It resulted in a lot of Bad things. It’s not the only time that the state was used to strengthen corporations and increase their profits. In fact, that has happened repeatedly through history. You should read some.

>>14235016
Empire predates capitalism
this only applies to thalassocratic powers

>>14234916
>free market fanatic
he argued for a prototype version of UBI, claiming that it would make the market more "democratic" because with this payment more people would have their economic voice heard (not sure why not go for the extreme and simply organize economy around the ballot but there you go with your "libertarian" Hayek)
>rabid anti-communist
1950s US was rabidly anti-communist too and yet many of their policies were definitely not libertarian (progressive taxation, central banking etc.)
>wrote political philosophy books justifying libertarianism
you don't know the shit about libertarianism so I wouldn't expect you to know precisely how and why Hayek did not defend a consistently libertarian position
>rabid Keynes hater
Marxists also hated Keynes because he presented the powers that be in the West with a cure for economic recessions which (according to Marx) were supposed to become increasingly painful for the working class and culminate in a proletarian revolution, I guess that somehow makes Marxists libertarians in your brainlet mind? also factually incorrect - Hayek embraced neo-Keynesianism in the late 70s unable to defend his capital theoretic position on trade cycles, he more or less agreed with the Keynesian position on deflation and only warned against excessive deficites during the boom period of the cycle (which is something even Keynes would do)

Locke

>>14235016
>Imperialism was the expansion of capitalism beyond national borders
No it wasn't. Imperialism = one nation invading another and subjecting it to its rule. Nations are government constructs, and it's the government that forces people to join the army and go to war.

Furthermore, of all the empires that have existed since ancient times, the only ones correlated with "capitalism" would be the British and Dutch Indies companies, both of which were propped up and given forceful monopolies by the state. Not to mention that, overall, neocolonialism was a failure for the purposes of profit. The British actually spent more money maintaining India than they ever got out of it (as documented by Jacob Viner).

>>14235022
This, I would add that not anybody who dissagrees with someone instantly takes the opposit to the argument presented.

>>14234836
It depends what you mean by "libertarian".

>>14234850
Corporations are creations of governments.

>>14234856
This, they can use their axioms to justify any of their beliefs.

>>14234884
You can't really use enlightenment liberalism to end up at modern lolberts. Most liberals really were concerned about liberty not muh unquestionable axioms, the whole notion of negative/positive rights weren't really clear (it's not even really today).
Hoppe and Rothbard believed in a money monopoly (only gold or gold backed notes would be recognized as legal tender) enforced by magical woo woo thinking about common law and writing your name in all caps or something whereas Hayek believed in a free market. You'll notice a lot of these guys use magical thinking to naturalize their ideal normative arrangement.

>>14234850
>None of those companies have started wars, staged coups in other countries, demanded taxes under threat of going to jail, drafted citizens into an army
Amateurs

>>14234850
>any attempts at mind controlling citizens akin to MKULTRA.
Yeah, there's no need to be that crude when you control what information people consume.

>>14234850
>None of those companies have started wars
I'd pick up any book of history covering the back half of the 20th century and then show yourself the door

Just read Universally Preferable Behavior, you dumb niggers.

Why does libertarianism enrage people so much

>>14234850
they caused this though
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid_epidemic_in_the_United_States

Discussing politics is low-IQ, low-brow, and cringe.

>>14235082
>Corporations are creations of governments.
You have that backwards

>>14235175
>governments are creations of corporations

Peak brainlet

>>14235175
>governments are creations of corporations
I didn't know Jean Jacques Rousseau posted on /lit/

>>14234850
Literally the whole of south america and the ex banana republic are stomping grounds for these multinationals to get profit and commit human rights offences, Coca cola literally cuts off water in parts of the world.

>>14235194
>>14235203
NeoClassicalLibs spotted

While it is of course possible for one man to initiate violent aggression against another man and his property, he cannot upon pain of contradiction argue that he has a right to do any such thing, for by its very nature, the essence of discourse is to concede to one's opponent the right to use his vocal chords, chest cavity, tongue, throat, etc., and to stand or sit on a certain piece of property. Thus, in arguing for the right to throttle people or steal their possessions, one cannot pass the test of self-reference.

>TL;DR
Arguing against the NAP is a performative contradiction.

>>14234836
Law of the jungle.

>>14235243
This is completely wrong by the way. Latin America spent most of the 20th century following heavily interventionist and protectionist government policies. The Brazilian dictatorship created more state run companies than any other government the country has had, for instance.

>>14234850
Yeah man, and Chiquita just sells bananas

>>14235294
>This is completely wrong by the way.

It's not.

>>14235320
It absolutely 100% is. Latin America for the most part has insanely high amounts of tariffs, regulations, subsidies, state enterprises etc. It also speaks volumes how the most pro-market countries in the region are the wealthiest (Chile, Panama, Costa Rica, Uruguay).

>>14234836
What is the philosophical justification for forcing your beliefs on others?

>>14235340
This

>>14235082
>things observed about markets and how people function
>magical woo woo

>>14235340

You seem to be a Latin American neolib, probably Brazilian.

By the way, neoliberalism is not in favorable of long-term income equality. Chile is not boiling for nothing.

https://relooney.com/NS4540/CH-LA_1.pdf

>>14235378
Chile is far better in idh terms than the rest of the region. Protests are about disparity, not overall wellbeing

>>14235378
>neoliberalism
Not a real term. And yes, Chile is objectively the best country in South America, and is doing much better than the more leftist leaning countries in the region. It doesn't mean they don't have problems.

>>14235340
>Costa Rica

>Prior to 1940, government hospitals and charities provided most health care. But since the 1941 creation of the Social Insurance Administration (Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social – CCSS), Costa Rica has provided universal health care to its wage-earning residents, with coverage extended to dependants over time. In 1973, the CCSS took over administration of all 29 of the country's public hospitals and all health care, also launching a Rural Health Program (Programa de Salud Rural) for primary care to rural areas, later extended to primary care services nationwide. In 1993, laws were passed to enable elected health boards that represented health consumers, social insurance representatives, employers, and social organizations. By the year 2000, social health insurance coverage was available to 82% of the Costa Rican population.

That's social democracy.

>Costa Rica is among the Latin America countries that have become popular destinations for medical tourism.[163][164] In 2006, Costa Rica received 150,000 foreigners that came for medical treatment.[163][164][165] Costa Rica is particularly attractive to Americans due to geographic proximity, high quality of medical services, and lower medical costs

Why Americans go there for treatment?

>Since 2012, smoking in Costa Rica is subject to some of the most restrictive regulations in the world.

Not very pro non-intervetion by the government.

>There are both state and private universities. The University of Costa Rica has been awarded the title "Meritorious Institution of Costa Rican Education and Culture".

Why do they have State Universities? Again, that's social democracy, not a Neoliberal model.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_Rica#Health

Just some examples.

>>14235279
brainlet argument, I can for example claim that anyone has ownership only to chosen parts of his body but not to his body as a whole thereby avoiding these retarded "contradiction", it's not even a Marxist argument that objection was made by your own libertarian philosopher Roderick Long. in fact I can restrict my own freedom as much as I please for the sake of an argument while still retaining ownership over the parts of my body that are necessary for me to make this argument. also you have to be pretty brainscorched to think that a logical leap from ownership over my body to unrestricted property rights of multinational corporations is somehow trivial and obvious.

>>14235175
Governments grant corporations the right to exist. Who controls the government is another issue but nowhere is corporate control formally recognized today.

>>14235365
>observed
They aren't basing their claims on observations but pure logic, see >>14235279
Any empirical study concludes the gold standard was objectively a government enforced failure but lolberts claim it's somehow "natural".

>>14235389
>Not a real term

It is a real term. Policies that try to dissolve social welfare programs, that seek to cut investments in free education and health, that seek to dissolve labor law regulations, that cut taxes for people with huge incomes and large businesses, etc., etc are called neoliberal.

>>14235413
>they have smoking laws, healthcare and universities
Yes, so do 99% of the countries in the world, stop memeing. I'm talking about actual business restrictive practices. Setting up a company, trading, models of taxation and regulation etc. Starting a business in Costa Rica takes 15-20 days, compared to over 100 in Brazil, for instance.

>>14235428
So you’re in favor of soavery

>>14235436
>It is a real term.
Can you name some books written in the past 40 years by self-described neoliberals who write about neoliberal theory?

Of course you can't, because it's a dumb pejorative term used by socialists.

>>14235437

You are Brazilian, aren't you?

>>14235438
No, I merely pointed out an inconsistency in his argument. Hoppe's argumentation ethics is a pretty new thing and still widely discussed in libertarian circles as far as I am aware, I wanted to wake him up from his dogmatic slumber to quote Kant and point out some problems with this approach.

>>14235441

It is a term that encompasses the policies I have listed. These are policies that create long term problems. You can give them any name you want.

Social democracy is a better system of government. This does not mean that capitalism is bad, that commerce is bad, that laws that facilitate the creation and management of companies are bad. But any policies that generate social inequality or make reducing inequalities more difficult to achieve are policies that do not serve as a model for any population that wants to reduce their social problems.

It's a mistake to take the US as main model for all the things in the world.

>>14235451
Why would a person not be entitled to his own body, just parts of it?

>>14234836
Every system can work, as long as you have good people in it. Libertarianism would be god tier in such a hypothetical world.

The problem is real people aren't good. And libertarianism with bad people would be even worse than what he have right now.

Still, libertarian critique of representative democracies and modern countries is on point and worth reading.

>>14235454
>I made up a term
>that’s not a real term
>it’s real by my own biased personal standards

>>14235454
>It is a term that encompasses the policies I have listed.
It's a strawman term, plain and simple, used only in a prescriptive manner by leftists. In practical terms, it doesn't matter if you're giving welfare to shitters, only that you have a pro-market economy that makes it easy to trade, set up and run business, pay taxes in a simple and direct manner etc.

>>14235436
Just say privatization of all investment decisions and more regressive taxation.

>>14235441
The term neoliberal was self-used by Mises and basically everyone surrounding the mont pelerin society in the 1950s.

>>14235454
"Social democracy" practically doesn't mean anything.

>>14235458
You could say it's an axiom.

>>14235459
It works really well in White countries :)

>>14235468
>The term neoliberal was self-used by Mises
By Friedman actually, I believe, in one essay during the 50s, and was quickly abandoned after "liberal" in the US became a blanket term used to describe leftists, and Friedman and co. started using "libertarian" instead. Since then, the term "neoliberal" is used exclusively by leftists in a strawman manner. Like I said, you cannot mention a single writer in the past 40 years who has written a book called something like "Introduction To Neoliberal Theory" etc.

>>14235460
>>I made up a term

No. It's been in use for quite a lot of time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

Also, I suggest you take a look at the wonderful world of nineteenth-century non-regulation in industry. Many of the philosophers of "economic liberalism" espouse ideals that perfectly marry those of industrialists who did not want the government to interfere with their right to hire children or pay crumbs for people to work for 12 hours a day.

>>14235458
And why would he or she be entitled to his or her own body? Shifting the burden of proof won't do you much good, learn basic eristic. The thing about Hoppe's argumentation ethics is that he doesn't in a single sentence justify why exactly having control over YOUR WHOLE BODY is the only way to avoid performative contradiction when in fact one could be much more parsimonious and avoid it by maintaining control over only those parts of one's body which are necessary to make an argument which is exactly what I've shown. For a lengthier refutation, please refer to this
>For the sake of argument, on Hoppe’s behalf, grant that by saying “I propose such and such,” I take myself to have certain rights over myself. I take myself to have some sort of right to say, “I propose such and such.” I also take you to have some sort of right to control over your own mind and body, to control what you believe. (Nota bene: I don’t think Hoppe can even get this far, but I’m granting him this for the sake of argument.)

But all I need to avoid a performative contradiction here is for me to have a liberty right to say, “I propose such and such.” I need not presuppose I have a claim right to say “I propose such and such.” Instead, at most, I presuppose that it’s permissible for me to say, “I propose such and such”. I also at most presuppose that you have a liberty right to believe what I say. I do not need to presuppose that you have a claim right to believe what I say.

However, libertarian self-ownership theory consists of claim rights.

So, by saying, “I propose such and such,” at most I presuppose the permissibility of my saying “I propose such and such” and of your believing “such such,” but I don’t presuppose that anyone or anything has any claim rights or duties at all.

Hoppe’s argument illicitly conflates a liberty right with a claim right, and so fails.

Q.E.D.

>>14234850

Egoism is the guideing principal

>>14235479
Aren't most white countries socialist?

>>14235459
>Every system can work
Objectively wrong.

>>14235463
>used only in a prescriptive manner by leftists
This is just wrong revisionism. The term liberalism by the turn of the 20th century already became more associated with positive interventionism so the term neoliberalism was self-used by many to differentiate themselves by the 1950s, the thing is other people started using the term and it became baggage and then they stop using the term themselves.

>>14235468
>"Social democracy" practically doesn't mean anything.

Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist-oriented economy. The protocols and norms used to accomplish this involve a commitment to representative and participatory democracy, measures for income redistribution, regulation of the economy in the general interest and social welfare provisions.[1][2][3] Due to longstanding governance by social democratic parties during the post-war consensus and their influence on socioeconomic policy in the Nordic countries, social democracy became associated with the Nordic model and Keynesianism within political circles in the late 20th century.[4] It has also been seen by some political commentators as a synonym for European socialism and as overlapping with democratic socialism.[5][6]

Social democracy aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes.[7] It is characterized by a commitment to policies aimed at curbing inequality, eliminating oppression of underprivileged groups, and eradicating poverty,[8] including support for universally accessible public services like care for the elderly, child care, education, health care and workers' compensation.[9] The social democratic movement often has strong connections with the labour movement and trade unions which are supportive of collective bargaining rights for workers as well as measures to extend decision-making beyond politics into the economic sphere in the form of co-determination for employees and other economic stakeholders.[10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

>>14235481
>the wonderful world of nineteenth-century non-regulation in industry
In the XIX century, wages and life expectancies drastically surged up. Before then, material conditions were in almost a perfectly flat line all the way from ancient times with the exceptions of times of crisis.

>>14235495
>This is just wrong revisionism.
So mention some books about "neoliberalism" written in the last 40 years that aren't Naomi Klein tier strawman leftist attacks on it, lel.

>>14235486
1. Everyone has consciousness
2. Consciousness is not understood
3. If one wants to understand consciousness, one must observe it
4. Observing consciousness of more people grants better results
5. Consciousness is best shown by those who can act independently, thus showing more of their true selves
6. Consciousness cannot be separated from the body except by death
7. Therefore, one should have a right to their own body

>>14235500
Yes you can claim you have all kinds of "goals" but there's no objective standard. Neoliberalism is a more coherent ideology, keep privatizing services until there's no public ownership of anything.

>>14235517
Just go to google books and custom range date, you can find all kinds of talk in publications in the 1960s

https://books.google.ca/books?id=tb0tAAAAMAAJ&q=neoliberalism&dq=neoliberalism&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiz76SerIbmAhUCYawKHSXBCuc4ChDoAQguMAE

https://books.google.ca/books?id=pfISGq3aB2UC&pg=PA334&dq=neoliberalism&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj6srz_q4bmAhUIUK0KHQ56CTQQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=neoliberalism&f=false

>>14235533
I know that you want to emulate the style of Wittgenstein's Tractatus with this enumeration of subsequent premises and theses but you are nowhere near his intellectual.
>conciousness is not understood
>if one wants to understand conciousness
if conciousness is not understood, then how the fuck can anyone understand it?
also the premise that everyone has conciousness is shaky at best, read the solipsists (of course if one is a solipsist then all political philosophy and ethics become obsolete since noone exists except for me and with that all political problems disappear but that's another thing)
>observing conciousness of more people grants better results
what the fuck does that even mean? better results in what?
>conciousness is best shown by those who can act independently
this is an empirical assertion and not at all a self-evident one - you'd have to have some experience of people acting independently (as you yourself have noticed in proposition 3.) in order to decide in favor or in opposition to this statement however you wouldn't be able to do that if everyone hadn't already had control over their bodies so the whole reasoning is circular. overall the whole argument is just terribly worded and organized.

>>14234850
>this is your mind on capitalism

>>14234837
This is the only respectable defense of liberalism/libertarianism. Cutting right through all the pretend bullshit and not giving a fuck.

>>14235428
>logical leap from ownership over my body to unrestricted property rights of multinational corporations is somehow trivial and obvious
Who are you responding to?

>>14235494
Kek

>>14235345
Better arguments

>>14234836
Libertarians believe that the free market is a natural outcome of Man's tendency to truck, barter, and exchange. They believe that this natural market is internally perfect in its efficient service of human needs and desires, and that any problem with the market is caused by interference from the government. This natural market is a result, as mentioned before, of human nature (hence natural market) and as such manifests and maintains itself without external compulsion—this tendency for the market to manifest without being "created" or guided by a central force is called "spontaneous order". Libertarians generally believe that spontaneous order doesn't apply only to the Market, but also to the organisation almost the entirety of society. The typical argument that libertarians give for for this (and against the idea of planned economies) is that there is an insurmountable epistemic problem for any directing authority to know and facilitate every individual need in society, and as such it must be left to the forces of the market to serve them. They also stick a sentiment similar to Mill's statement in On Liberty that no one can know what is for the good of an individual that that individual them self, and as such they should not be compelled to live in a way that they do not wish to; however they apply this to consumption and production. This absolute belief in the ability of the market and spontaneous order to perfectly organise society naturally leads to the question: For what purpose does the state exist? the libertarian will, depending on his ideological commitment to the market, either argue for the Smithian obligations—defense, justice,public infrastructure—,this a typical libertarians; if they are "radical", they will answer the question: the state is a parasite that only infringes on the market and free human action, and as such should not exist at all—this is a full-blown anarcho-capitalist (the greentext in the OP is more along this line of thinking). However they answer, the result is a deep skepticism of the State and a strict censure of its reach. After all, if society always organsises itself most efficiently naturally, then anything the government does will tend to tip it off balance and create problems. As such, individuals need the utmost liberty to participate in the market and the satisfaction of their wants. Typically they will pair this economic foundational argument with the traditional liberal arguments against arbitrary state interference with individual lives, formal equality in society and before the law, and a strict position against paternalism. So whenever you think libertarian, think of an economic faith in market society to fulfill social and individual needs which is always at odds with the government.

Right leaning libertarian
I mostly can’t get over the non-aggression principle. I don’t think the free market always works out best economically, I just believe it’s ethical. I don’t love huge corporations either and I believe in order for the free market to work we have to vote with our dollar

>>14234836
Literally just read Kant and don't stop after the groundwork.

>>14234836
corporations
>oh no, they're trying to sell me something! they're putting ads up! oh the humanity!
government
*genocides you

>>14234836

>>14234974
still, under a libertarian system certain corporations would gain enough power such that they would effectively replace the state, perhaps lacking some of its predecessor’s incompetency, but also lacking any incentive to better the conditions under it if it doesn’t benefit them, though this is not a given

>>14236076
Under libertarianism corporations couldn't exist. People would just own gold and ignore ponzi corporate stock

>>14234836
The only problem is government regulation of those companies.

>>14235452
this is the best post in this thread.

>>14234855
Found the brainlet.

>>14235428
No, *this* is a brainlet "argument".

>>14234837
this but unironically

>>14235163
hi stef

>>14235762
Finally a decent answer to anything in this whole damn thread.

>>14235762
how do i get smart like you mr?

>>14234836
Libertarianism advocates a broad concept of free enterprise; it doesn't endorse specific chartering of companies, rather unendorses any which gain anything from government.
This shouldn't start with memes, but with the demand every commie gives: read it first.
No one should talk about economic theory without reading both Capital and Wealth of Nations first. They inescapably encapsulate the majority of concepts in use on the subject today.

>>14234884
Jean Jacques Rousseau influenced pretty much all political thought concerned with people power, whether it be liberalism or communism or liberterianism.

>>14239377
He was based

>>14236336
>capitalism isn't the problem, those tiny regulations, equivalent in strength to a piece of twine around an elephant's neck, are

>>14238614
with a bit of time and a spirit for learning, you can know whatever you want to. you just have to set your mind to it.

>>14235452
Yep. Best post.
And why is this? Because each "side" must get its sop and therefore libertarianism can't do its magic.
TL;DR
Communism doesn't work because its stupid.
Whatever the hypocrites on the right believe doesn't work because of cronyism.
And libertarianism can't work because there are too many idiots (but it's still better than letting everything go to the dogs)

>>14234836
How the fuck is Google crushing me?

I received my whole education from Google. The state, on the other hand, did never educate me properly. If I can now read five different languages despite growing up in one of the poorest states in Brazil, it's all thanks to Google!

>>14235279
this is not any better than that kid who, while at recess, would insist he actually had a force field and you didn't really get him with your kamehameha

>>14239538
Why?

>>14235762
You never explained the justification for any of that though. Libertarians don't tend to base their beliefs on empirical data but pure logic.

>>14239501
https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-cia-and-nsa-research-grants-for-mass-surveillance/