/lit/ - Literature

>>15983707
>Is it possible to make a synthesis of Hoppe's libertarianism and Linkola's ecocentrism
I guess you could found an ecofascist state on your property, but you wouldn't be able to stop everyone else from raping the Earth with emissions on their property, you could only refuse to trade with them until they got their act together and hope the rest of the market agrees with you.

>>15983707
>>15983725
Rothbard himself recognized that industrial pollution violates the NAP and must therefore be prohibited. But Rothbard did not draw the full implications of his principle. Not just industrial pollution, but personal pollution produced by driving, burning wood in one’s fireplace, smoking, etc., runs afoul of NAP. The NAP implies that all of these activities must be prohibited, no matter how beneficial they may be in other respects, and no matter how essential they are to daily life in the modern industrialized world.

bump

>>15983816
> But Rothbard did not draw the full implications of his principle.
Because he's oversocialized. Reminder that Kaczynski is right about everything. Radicality IS truth. The presocratic were right.

>>15983816
funny how this kind of libertarianism would require a government far more restrictive and total than any that currently exists on earth

>>15984000
What do you mean by oversocialized?

>>15984029
The horseshoe theory is right.

bump

redpill me on snuffkin

>>15984229

You could run a libertarian state and impose steep Georgist-style taxes only upon the value of any land and natural resources which are monopolised/used up/destroyed/etc, so as to financially disincentivise environmental damage. It's possible that you could then offer tax relief for carbon capture schemes or for planting more trees, maybe even to the point of recieving money from the state if you're efficient enough. It's not quite Hoppean libertarianism, but it's something sort of close.

>>15983707
>Hoppe's libertarianism
That’s liberalism. See >>15984029

Change necessary to halt global warming cannot be contained within capitalism.
Stop associating Snufkin with your degenerate nationalism

>>15984554
Shut the fuck up.

The only way I can think of is for OP to kill himself.
This is one of the few situations in which I actually mean that.

>>15984554
Shut up bitch.

>>15983707
why do so many people still cling to libertarianism?
What's so hard about abandoning their cringe ideology?

@15985205
@15985237
>non-reading empty heads
>>>/pol/

No, for exactly the reasons you suspect it isn't possible.

Read Kaczynski on self-propagating systems and think through this yourself.

Unfettered capital is going to lead to all agents engaging in an exploitation game.

Each little Hoppean fiefdom is going to exploit resources according to its principles.

The deep ecology fiefdom will restrain its resource exploitation with eyes on long (very long!) term sustainability.

Some arbitrary fiefdom that does not share these values will not restrain its resource exploitation with eyes on short (just shorter than long) term goals.

Each fiefdom is embedded in a common system of broader resources, such that each individual fiefdom's use of resources has impacts on the surrounding system.

Eventually, the unrestrained fiefdom will begin to impact the resources of the deep ecology fiefdom. This is a violation of the NAP.

Suppose the unrestrained fiefdom refuses to alter its behavior and further refuses to adopt the values of the deep ecology fiefdom. Then the only option available to prevent resource destruction is force.

Because the deep ecology fiefdom restrained its resource exploitation, it is significantly behind in technical/martial development, pure manpower, etc.

The values of deep ecology will necessarily be wiped out by more consumptive, competing sets of values.

Supposing you prefer deep ecology, your options are: impose these values by force before falling behind in power (e.g. ecofascist government, anti-tech action, etc), or find yourself a resource system that is not held in common with others (e.g. deep ecologist Earth and ancap Mars, with the costs for interaction prohibitively high for both parties -- bullshit cope).

>>15985250
>@
Why do you have to parade yourself around like such a fuckup all the time? 24 hour a day posting. Fucking disgusting.

>>15984554
I don't like you but you are correct on this one, there can't be ecological regulations without the state imposing them on private entities.

>>15985266
>I don't like you
ftfy

>>15985256
why write like this

>>15983707
Maybe expand the NAP to include all existing natural life and all future life. But just from humans towards nature- nature itself cannot understand or respect something like that due to hunting etc.

>>15985266
Regulations aren’t working, black-tongue.

>>15985301
because the state is not even trying

>>15985322
Why would they?
Recommended reading for you.

>>15985278
Sorry really shit up the spacing.
It makes it easier for me to correct typos on my phone but I should really lump everything back together at the end instead of shitting up thread.

>>15985247
We just want the government to fuck off and people to stop telling us what to do

>>15984554
>>15985250
>>15985301
>>15985430
>not directly arguing, just suggesting people "read this" and think

This is why I despise marxists, they always do this. Go back to chapotraphouse.

bump

>>15983707
The philosopher used to advise the king, but now both the philosopher has been divided into sociology, psychology, anthropology, science, math, and the king, also divided down into powers of the market, special interest, money, capital. There is no conventional form of revolution to be had, there is no state left to overthrow. It's all been distilled to a point where no one understands how to do anything, they can only perform some small portion and parcel, shipping off to some distant land 10 times over before the product reaches somewhere else. Their culture would never allow them to get along with those who collaborate on the product, yet the products come through either way.

>>15986322
There is are boards here for people who just want to look at pictures if reading and thinking for yourself is too much for you.

>>15987644
Butterfly doesn't read any of the books she recommends, though. She traffics in vacuous, pseudo-intellectual twaddle, and avoids having to defend her half-baked ideas by constantly being vague about what she's actually saying.

>>15987494
What?

>>15985256
>Each little Hoppean fiefdom is going to exploit resources according to its principles.
What about >>15983816?

>>15986322
>>not directly arguing, just suggesting people "read this" and think

Are you against reading and thinking anon? If you would just like to post on a forum for people who don't read or think /pol/ would be more your speed.

>>15983707
>a synthesis of Hoppe's libertarianism and Linkola's ecocentrism
>>15983816
>. Not just industrial pollution, but personal pollution produced by driving, burning wood in one’s fireplace, smoking, etc., runs afoul of NAP. The NAP implies that all of these activities must be prohibited, no matter how beneficial they may be in other respects

Malthusian physical removal of the sub-80 iq human biome is imperative, which can be accomplished 'ethically' by simply not trading subsidized agricultural foodstuffs of any kind beyond the western world for half a century. It would have already been cheaper in absolute terms to have glassed China rather than shutting down the world economy -- there goes 80% of the industrial pollution over night.

>>15988292
Based

Stop taking these shitty meme ideologies unironnilically

>>15989169
>meme ideologies
Every ideology is by definition a meme you fucking dipshit.

>>15988054
Old way= less division of labor, close working relationships, same mutual interests

New way= high division of labor, "coworkers" might never meet, different mutual interests

libertarianism in a freedom sense however capitalism and socialism ultimately favors growth over ecology and will destroy the earth to assert their anthropocentric systems

>>15983707
>Civilization, as a process, is indistinguishable from diminishing time-preference (or declining concern for the present in comparison to the future). Democracy, which both in theory and evident historical fact accentuates time-preference to the point of convulsive feeding-frenzy, is thus as close to a precise negation of civilization as anything could be.

Honestly you just want accelerationism but without the technological singularity. If you're against anthropocentrism, you're signing the world up to be taken over by technological singularity (regardless of if you subscribe to a biocentric philosophy), if you aren't then you risk massive environmental losses that continuing the modern conservation mentality affords. I think the best bet is to; continue this stream of not necessarily misanthropic but beyond-anthropocentric focused philosophy trend we see in newer contemporary thought, while somehow organizing an anti-democratic bloc within the status quo. This affords the potential for a return to "diminishing time preference" while also leaving a quasi stewardship mentality in place (if you believe capitalist realism can be dismantled without landian futurism or fisher style suicide). What you realize is that some degree of discrete anthro-appreciation is necessary for the biocentric foundation to find it's roots. Without that you'll be unable to prevent accelerating technological singularity. Basically I gleamed that civilization needs to be equally intrinsic in its value as nature, this is the only way for biocentrism to not be overwhelmed by post humanity. Think strategic rather than violent ecology, sure you risk becoming manufactured dissent but encouraging accelerated capitalism is a good way to end up with scary robots, and scary robots don't care about trees anon. While reading linkola and hoppe, read The Dark Enlightenment by land, just keep in mind Land won't provide you with ecology, but sometimes an on par antithesis is equally as educational. Good luck fren!

>>15989960
>Honestly you just want accelerationism but without the technological singularity
this has to be possible first.

>>15989978
That's my point anon, it's not.

Bumping

>>15986322
Learn to read, bitch boy.

>>15983707
When I was in high school I was a living meme, and therefore attended meetings of the local Libertarian party. One interesting idea they had about pollution and environmental damage was to treat it as a violation of property rights subject to litigation. For example, if some company pollutes an aquifer that runs under your property, you can sue them for the damage and loss of value. Or more powerfully, everyone who could prove damage to their property from climate change could sue those responsible for climate change in proportion to their emissions, etc. With how many possible cases of litigation this would open up potential polluters to, since stuff like climate change affects nearly everyone in the world, it would provide a disincentive against environmental damage far stronger than the current system of centralized regulation, while still being fundamentally based on the supremacy of property rights rather than the current system that violates property rights for the sake of the aforementioned ineffective policy.

>>15989960
>scary robots don't care about trees anon
Why is this the case? Can't they be programmed otherwise?

>>15983816
>>15990952
Legal responsibility for pollution and degrading biodiversity is too hard to trace, though. Also Hoppe wholeheartedly hates "nature-environment worshipers".

>>15989960
Absolutely based. Thanks a lot, anon.

>>15984348
Surprisingly based

bump

>>15985256
Great post anon.

>>15989960
>Honestly you just want accelerationism but without the technological singularity.
So... "primitive accelerationism"?

bump

>>15983707
That would probably be the most based thing in existence.

>>15991736
No problem fren!

>>15991182
The point of a technological singularity is that it is beyond human intelligence, meaning you can't control or program it.

>>15992077
Again, that's impossible. My argument is that you can't have primitive accelerationism, because it biocentric philosophy cannot prevent technological singularity. To reiterate, it's my opinion that because biocentricity is impossible (as it is a value based worldview) under threat of technological extinction, that the new trend of nonhuman focused philosophy and anti-democratic thought should be fostered. This could allow a return to a "future-focused civilization" and sustain the small degree of anthro-appreciatiom necessary to keep biocentric thought alive. That's not "primitive accelerationism" because my point is that primitive accelerationism is impossible. Instead we should try the opposite of that before our entropic state of affairs leads to something beyond human control, where ecology will be snuffed out. I'd call this a more grounded eco-authoritarian approach, where we can get to a safe place to enact linkola-style necessities without the threat of accelerationism. Read the post.

>>15993001
You're so eloquent.Thanks for your insight, anon.

>>15991634
Yeah, I guess Hoppe didn't need air or water to survive. Why should we care what aliens think?

>>15993059
Thanks anon, I just love the trees.

>"Is it possible to synthesize warlordism with a concern for the environment?"

The answer is no.

>>15993159
I'm sorry I couldn't hear you over the sound of me beating this cro magnon faggot with a club.

>>15993159
Why not?

>>15993458
Because warlordism by definition is a survival of the fittest situation which means valuing anything besides your own survival(like the environment) means death or slavery.

>>15993504
But the Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the survival of the fittest.

>>15993135
Would you consider yourself at all sympathetic to revolutionary arguments (e.g. TK's Anti-Tech, the wildism movement, the indomitvistas, etc.)?

I ask because I feel that Linkola goes the furthest in presenting a constructive (and arguably positive) vision for the future, but I've never seen his take on what concrete steps should be (in terms of building power for a movement, since I don't consider policy proposals to be concrete steps). That might be because I've only read Can Life Prevail, which must be a fraction of his writings.

Maybe a better question for you if you're not on the full Anti Tech revolution type train: what would good political steps be, or what would you recommend reading to figure that out? Without fedposting.

>>15993535
Well let me correct myself: It's more like a 'Mad Max war of all against all' than it is survival of the fittest. Clearly even mentioning the term "survival of the fittest" to a /pol/goloid like you immediately invokes NatSoc imagery.

>>15993564
>a /pol/goloid like you
holy kek

bump

>>15993559
>Would you consider yourself at all sympathetic to revolutionary arguments
Yeah totally, I mean I get it but it's also not the stance that I would take because (burke posting) revolutions don't always go as planned. I'm a linguistics and archaeology student, used to be a Kropotkinite, but the more I started studying prehistoric cultures the more I realized modernist arguments and thoughts are outdated. We face much larger language and culture based problems with over socialization and population dynamics, than any infighting ideologue can address (not speaking to Ted, just those bookchin and anarchist thinkers). You have to remember that contemporary politics are still 100% human centered, but philosophy and ecosophy are starting to take a turn which is the change we need to focus on. If you read people like fisher and land, you start to realize that the status quo is difficult to escape or change without being absorbed by it. So the post-human philosophy needs to take charge in order to shake up our surroundings (which I would argue it's doing slowly). Read as much contemporary philosophy as you can, skip the read theory bs focus on what's hot now. Post human and non-anthro philosophy has been gearing up since the 80s, so you should have a lot to look for. Look into land and fisher like I said, and get past current affairs and existential bs. If a political body is ever to meet the earth's needs, it'll require an external head or sovereign to think the long game. Getting a small group of people to coordinate this beyond democracy and populism, to think without hampering, is in my opinion the best bet. If you want to look at small term, bioregionalism and creating outdoor education for children look like great avenues for this stuff. Scouting organizations are dying, and creating forest based youth groups (like early scouting/wandervogel) seem promising for the long term. But just spreading the non-anthro, antipopulist, antidemocracy thought is enough to get things burning. If said oligarchy isn't responsive to our biocentric needs we're fucked, but we were fucked anyways so this is what I think the best bet is. Once we get population down and reorganize philosophy, we're in the clear and hopefully will be fine. Just think long term and remember to get past politics. I also really like the conservative revolution thinkers Junger and Schmitt, you'll get some eco with junger (who was a pretty cool guy) and the sovereign legal theory with schmitt. Just do you anon and keep a level head.
>which must be a fraction of his writings.
It's all in finnish, but if you learn the language you get mad props from me!

>>15994334
Thanks anon, I appreciate the thoughtful reply. I'm walking a path similar to what you describe with bioregionalism and outdoor education, but I am always looking for context and understanding so I appreciate all the reading recs.

>Just do you anon and keep a level head.

I will do you (& the birds & the trees) proud.

I'm pretty sure Hoppe himself would be in favor of throwing you from a helicopter for even asking.

>>15993504
The environment IS your survival. The environment IS the bedrock of a people. Even the Nazis realized this. The idea that the only path to success is the most exploitative one is simply false.

>>15994625
I crie every time, and remember to just read the dark enlightenment, land's early work is much different.

>>15994334
This is the best post I've ever read on this board.

>>15994676
>Claims to be libertarian
>Enforces this through state violence
Every time...

>>15994923
Your heart is in the right place, anon.

>>15996057
Do you think voluntarism is the only kind of libertarianism or something?

>>15996302
I think Libertarianism is another word for retarded

>>15996310
So are you one of those hip young fascists that are too redpilled for personal liberty, or one of those hip young socialists too woke for personal liberty?

>>15996057
Politics are a state of violence baka, that's just basic political realism...

>>15996352
Not him but neither, freedom through discipline and duty not indulgence and liberties desu.

>>15996352
I rest my case

To surrender to the ecosystem is to forsake your intention. Rise to the point that ecology is an instrument, not the master.

>>15996369
>you're technically free if you just stop wanting things we don't want you to have :)
Blow me.

>>15996381
Epic big brain plays there. Don't have to actually think about whether you're full of shit if you never let the shit you're full of confront reality.

Is Moomins worth watching if I'm not a small Finnish child?

>>15996593
Watch the 90s anime series. It's pretty nice if you like Studio Ghibli type stuff.

>>15985247
why do so many people still cling to nazism?
What's so hard about abandoning their cringe ideology?
why do so many people still cling to communism?
What's so hard about abandoning their cringe ideology?
why do so many people still cling to liberalism?
What's so hard about abandoning their cringe ideology?

>>15996482
That's not what I was saying at all. Rights and liberties are nothing more than temporary film flam, whose goal is to disguise true political relations. If you think liberty and freedom are the same thing you're wrong. When I say "disguise true political relations" what I mean is that they're merely a parcel that prevents the body politic from disseminating where they lie. Basically, if you think you're an individual guaranteed something, then you won't acknowledge the violence inherent in authority. True freedom is being able to remain internally free while demanding the constraints of authority, anything else is the kind of propaganda the enlightenment has been feeding people to think they're immune to political violence. Self discipline is a virtue, liberty is another name for hedonism.

>>15996593
Yes, it is my favorite show next to tin tin and jim henson's storyteller!

>>15993001
So let me get this straight. You postulate that if the political position is not a anthropocentric one, the singularity is inevitable?
That would be because singularity focuses on the superation of the human condition and the incapability of human intelligence to domain it?
On the other hand, only anthropocentrism can "save" human beings, but it would require a great deal of consideration for nature in order to prevent an ecological collapse?

>>15987994
>traffics in vacuous, pseudo-intellectual twaddle, and avoids having to defend her half-baked ideas by constantly being vague about what she's actually saying.
Sounds like standard leftist rhetoric

>>15996833
Close, what I'm saying is that biocentrism will not survive post-humanity. We need support for non-anthropocentric philosophy (anthropocentrism will equally lead to environmental collapse, that's deep ecology). My claim is that, in the face of technological singularity, some degree of appreciation for humanity is necessary (as the only piece of the ecosystem able to prevent post humanity from disregarding biocentrism). Therefore human civilization needs to be intrinsic like nature.

>>15996890
rent free

>>15996688
>What's so hard about abandoning their cringe ideology?
what's the alternative? and if you say "well of course MY cringe ideology is the One True Cringe Ideology" i'm going to find out where you live and club you to death with the bibliographic type specimen of whatever cringe ideology you call your own

>>15983707
private property is ecological because if you own land why would you try to destroy it through overexploitation and pollution? This is where innovation comes in.

>>15996961
>I own this part of the river
>I'll dump my waste into it since I own it
>If it ends up poisoning the people down river they should've cleaned it up since that portion belongs to them

>>15996906
Why biocentrism won't survive singularity? After all, the merging between machine and nature could be a posibbility in the standards of technophiles, because it's a "usefull" solution to the envriomental problems.
> We need support for non-anthropocentric philosophy
I didn't understand what you are proposing here.

I think that any ideology who puts humans under something will inevitably lead to post-humanity, since it's not the main value that must be protected (imo anthropocentrism needs a deep ecology focus, since it's in the envrioment where humans can develop at it's natural and ideal way). Therefore, anthropocentrism should not be understanded as "everything within the parameters of human valutation", but what is better for humans and the nature, since both are strictly cojointed

>>15996921
>what's the alternative?
Not arguing with memes.

>>15996974
and that's where innovation comes in.

>>15997008
>Ignores the actual issue

>>15996974
>they should've cleaned it up since that portion belongs to them
It's YOUR waste.
I don't know how you managed to type that out and not notice how retarded you sound.

>>15997020
>solving the issue means ignoring

yeah no wonder commies don't like work

>>15997030
Then why is my portion of river completely clean? I think I'm being framed here

>>15997056
You can't even see the issue, you are too consumed by ideology

>>15993001
>The point of a technological singularity is that it is beyond human intelligence, meaning you can't control or program it.
Then I fail to see how you can assume they would be anti-trees. There's no chance in hell that we can create an AI more sophisticated than us, our perception is extremely limited to what we can infer about ourselves.

It seems like you want a transhumanism that is biochemical more than artificial/technological. Less RFID's more serotonin but you're talking about it in a more workable language context.
>>15994334
Damn good post.

Dropping transhumanist pdf's cause fuck it. They're a bit authoritarian but one guy talks well about Heidegger:
https://docdro.id/nkTtI3q
https://docdro.id/pel9TXP
https://docdro.id/vuyV77m

>>15997056
>murderers are fine because I can buy body armor

>>15997113
>>15997150
part and parcel of living

>>15986322
Not a Marxist

>>15987994
I have read that.
>>15996890
I deny your disingenuous insults

>>15997126
Thanks (those were both me lmao) I work under the assumption that if "nothing human makes it out of the near future" then that applies to our ecosystem as well. I have no qualms with what you're saying but I'll limit myself to this assumption because I only know basic minsky, kurzweil, and asimov. I also have no problem with humans altering themselves the way you describe, but I equally fear that if humanity is not in the picture at all then the ecosystem has no chance (maybe that truly is a remnant of anthropocentrism I must overcome, but I just don't know and am too uncertain to change).
>>15996984
>why won't biocentrism survive singularity?
This was the assumption that I predicated my argument on, solely because I fear that biocentrism is purely a human concern. When I say we need support for non anthropocentric philosophy, I refer to the trend of thought that de-escalates the importance of existentialism in order to escape this rut of entropic nostalgia culture that feeds on humanism. The only way to do this without acceleration (and by my argument keep biocentrism) is to simply foster philosophy that goes beyond humanity to the point where it can be installed beyond popular control. This would create a return to diminished time preference (civilization) and leave humanity in a position to prevent any further damage to the ecosystem (including that inflicted by itself and as a precaution against posthumanity).

>>15997491

>>15997987
>to simply foster philosophy that goes beyond humanity to the point where it can be installed beyond popular control.
Like the state acting like some kind of religious authority? The revival of worshipping Nature and other animistic religious practices sounds like the fastest way to achieve something like that. People don't care about the Malthusian trap or the Seneca effect, but they would be all eyes and ears to the myth of Pachamama.

>>15985256
This is sadly true. This is why the ultimate eco solution cannot come from individuals, communities, States, or any Central authority, but it can ONLY come from one cohesive ecospirituality driven culture. That is the only way. I've thought about this a lot, and the only way to exist sustainably is if our desire to live in harmony with the planet comes from a deeply spiritual place cemented in a durable culture.

Think Anthem by Ayn Rand, but invert the lesson; the protag is actually wrong and the Luddite society is correct

bump

>>16000058
>>16000216
Buw how?

>>15983707
>>15983816
>>15985250
Can I dress like a Finnish ted-pilled elf and get away with it, if I'm Italian?

>>16001193
Not only you can, you must.

bump

>>16000216
preach

>>15983707
No
Just embrace ecofascism

>>15996724
>If you think liberty and freedom are the same thing you're wrong.
I don't.
>True freedom is being able to remain internally free while demanding the constraints of authority
Yeah okay back to square one, being whipped isn't really a punishment if you're begging for it, I get it.
>Self discipline is a virtue, liberty is another name for hedonism.
Are you absolutely out of your god damn mind? Liberty is another name for hedonism? Having the ability to make my own choices is hedonism? You don't even know what hedonism is, nor the value of liberty. Your ignorance pains me. Hedonism is to value pleasure to the point of over-saturating yourself with it and destroying its value. If you see being presented with the ability to choose for yourself as nothing but the chance to ruin your fucking life with bad decisions then you're nothing short of mentally fucking ill.

>>15993564
Cringe bro

>>15997491
Yikes

>>16002619
I could easily kill him in one strike

>>16002619
There's nothing more embarrassing than weak pseudo-intellectuals threatening to harm whoever disagrees with them.

Besides, what is he even trying to defend here? "The higher productivity of labor performed under a division of labor based on private property"? Is this just a rant against communism?

>>16001193
>Italian
I mean the finns love it, so being a non-white shouldn't stop you!

>>16002619
>I don't think freedom and liberty are the same thing
>muh free will and decision making are the same thing as liberty
Pick one

>>16002619
>Hoppe
>The University of Nevada, Las Vegas is a public land-grant research university in Paradise, Nevada

Little academic parasite suckling from the government's teat dares to speak about productivity.

>>16003132
>No, having the liberty to make your own decisions and being allowed to make your own decisions are two different things
Nothing says 'great argument' like dancing around semantics, you fucking simpleton.

>>16003066
He's not threatening anybody nor trying to defend anything. He's simply explaining that, under his philosophy, those lacking the mental capacity necessary to understand simple things that make human society work are detrimental to that society and should be treated as such. It's the same reasons retarded people and felons don't get to vote in the US, your subhuman ability to understand and navigate reality means you can't be trusted to do so on the same level as the regular people you would be cohabitating with.