>>4574 >imagine wasting valuable land on shitty fucking grass that will just die unless you trim it and fertilize it every fucking day I mean it's your right so do what you want but I'd rather put said soil to use and grow stuff on my spare time. Grass is only good if it's a wild non bitch species of grass that you build a ranch around to let Bison graze on year round.

>>4575 Not all soil is good to do that, besides grass serves completely aesthetic purpose. Tbh, it's either planting something that you can use, flowers (because at least they smell nice) or just using fake grass so it doesn't look shit.

>>4573 Oi you gotta license for that there savannah mate?

>>4440 >I think two conditions need to be met. They need to have gone through puberty, and they need to be able to sustain themselves economically. Having gone through puberty isn't biological adulthood. The brain is still developing even after that and there are still people in their 30s who can't sustain themselves economically for whatever reason. If we are going to determine it purely by facts and logic, then I think it should be 21 which is the average age when the human brain is fully developed.

>>4440 >think of the children Where would that end, just because you haven't explicitly taken any money from anyone doesn't mean its not welfare. Brains are a physical and inherited thing. By protecting stupid people from ruining themselves or their property especially at the expense of others, How would you plan to enforce your child protection? you'd only perpetuate the stupid. This includes their children. >>4442 >the brain hasn't finished "developing" The point of a libertarian society is that everyone is a sovereign. Having any laws would be possible, no matter the subject. For example: there are people too poor to buy an expensive house and some people who can afford such a house. We should make a law so all houses should have a starting or ending price in between what could be afforded by both groups. Thats practically socialist right? Lol ... But why? Is it because its about houses and not guns, or weed, or something else you like.

>>4467 Not the same anon with whom you were discussing this earlier. >We should make a law so all houses should have a starting or ending price in between what could be afforded by both groups. Except if you do that, how can you efficiently do it such that the sellers are able to fully recoup their costs and make a worthwhile profit? You can't just throw homeowners under the bus because you're more concerned about everyone else, as that would be an arbitrary (and therefore, illogical) position. Additionally, in implementing your idea, you would fall facefirst into the calculation problem: you could not possibly find a universal means of setting price thresholds such that homeowners would always and invariably be able to sell their home at a profit. Again, you would be forced to arbitrarily restrain price thresholds on a case-by-case basis, which, as I'm sure you can see, would likely lead to enormous corruption and nepotism. Besides, it's their property; if someone else has the authority to dictate the price at which you sell it, they are the ones who actually own it, not you. This is similar to how mutualists argue property is based on use: why should this be so? Why does it follow logically that one should magically have to give up one's hard-earned property as soon as one ceases to occupy it in some way? I realize that isn't the point you're making, but the reason I mention it, is because you're making a similar argument: that property should be conditional based on your subjective sense of justice, as opposed to the simple, versatile, autonomy-respecting concept of contract and reciprocity. Furthermore, in saying that someone has the right to dictate how you use or sell your property, you negate the very principle of private property. Going further still, you could take this to its logical extreme and say that your argument is tantamount to a negation of self-ownership, since, if you cannot own property, how can you state that you are your own property? Contrariwise, how can you non-arbitrarily decide that a person can only own themselves unconditionally, but that everything else must be owned conditionally?

>>4257 >This "should" be libertarianism's chance to shine, yes. But what are you expecting? I was expecting another Ron Paul moment where you had a large group of youth join the liberty movement. I was expecting another Henry Cobden moment where you'd see a lot of anti-lockdown organizations sprout up. I know Antifa isn't going to throw down their arms, but that there was _zero_ growth for libertarians in a time like this, and instead Antifa and lockdowners grew in strength? I mean, imagine if in the middle of the Holodomor you had government support increase even more. It's made me a complete defeatist. >Where the change is likely to happen is with those who have seen the ugliness firsthand. I don't think we're going to see it there, either. You've got people dealing with lockdowns and mandates and lost their jobs and livelihoods because of it who clamor for even more lockdowns and mandates. I remember Rothbard used to talk about how "They talked about the Socialist Man, where they could change human behavior to make socialism work--well it turns out the human spirit is more resilient than that!" I think he'd eat his words now. I don't know if it's because of some MGS2-like "Selection for Societal Sanity" that the government has made with the help of Big Tech, but I wouldn't be surprised. >By no means are these effects limited to groups of people small enough to be memory-holed. Around 74 million people voted for Trump. That's around a quarter of the country's population. Those aren't numbers that you can just disappear. It took Mao four years to kill 50 million people in a country with double the population of the modern US. Couple that with non-Trump voters who have had their livelihoods or seen others' stomped on just enough to wake up a bit. I think it IS going to happen: http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2021/january/20/viral-trumpsnewarmy-video-is-liberals-at-their-craziest-and-scariest/ Coupled with the fact that there has been no Battle of Athens against the fraud means that, yes, there's a lot of people here, but unlike Mao, I don't think there's going to be any significant resistance. Over this past year, Antifa has shown bigger and more effective riots than the one measly staged event at the capitol. >you also have millions of Americans who feel like the political system is no longer legitimate. Plenty of people now have firsthand experience of government intrusion into their homes and workplaces. Plenty have been ostracized from the Big Tech/MSM walled garden. If it turns out the Biden-Harris administration actually drink their own Kool-Aid, this will escalate. Historically speaking, I would argue that accelerationism tends to lead to more tyranny in the long run, not less. Sorry for being all blackpill and shit, but these are just the thoughts that have been running through my head for the past few months. I'm on the level of expecting gulags to crop up (LITERAL gulags) and trying to mentally prepare myself for how to deal with them and how to conduct my life when they do.

>>1334 Would you tell someone who has an irrational psychological need to chop off their own arm to get it removed or recommend them to a therapist? If someone goes to the doctor with suicidal thoughts should he prescribe a gun and a room to blow their brains out in? You don't understand the issue of having permanent physical solutions to what is objectively a mental problem?

>>4271 Reminder.

>>4071 How is that book, btw?

>>4152 It should be required reading imho, the fact some of these people went all the up to having the POTUS's ear directly speaks volumes of the trajectory of our country in the decades that followed. Unsurprisingly many of the accused were or became "educators" after the fact if they weren't already.

>>4161 *all the way up to smh

yo wtf you postin mosley lol? hes a fascist

>>4047 Oswald would have saved liberty in 1/3 of the world. He was an imperial fascist libertarian nya~

fine, I'll do it myself

>>3984 >Stack the courts and executive order everything. The judicial appointments have to be approved by the Senate though.

>>3995 Yes, but don't forget the RINO NeverTrumpers. Alternatively, they might rediscover "fiscal restraint"; who knows?

Nope, democracy is a fluke, i´m a individualist.

>>3637 If you niggers weren't afraid of the anarchism/communist dudes you wouldn't be trying to "stop" them. haha, again, anarchism>fascism

>>3880 Ancoms aren't anarchists though lol. They are authoritarian statists. Their ideology is much more closer to fascism than whatever Kyle believes in.

>>3885 this. they use the political term of anarchism being no hierarchy which is gay. ancaps use the real definition of no government

>>3863 Nah, I stand by what I said. Also, it's not namedropping. Mises is short for the Misesian Calculation Problem, and Hayek is short for the Hayekian Knowledge Problem. If you read a bit more, you'd probably know that, instead of just responding with meme buzzwords and echoes.

>>3863 Also, there are two other people on this board. I'm legitimately curious about why you're posting here.

>>3860 >Why are committees so terrible, why aren't there more attacks against them, and why do so many organizations continue to use them? They'll never tell you this but many corporations suffer from the same central planning problems as socialist planned economies. The ones that don't are much more technologically integrated and override bureaucratic infighting for resources with intense central control.

>>3834 You're looking for answers in the wrong places. The sorry state of our society is not because of the government structure but because of godlessness. Democracy has contributed in large part to promoting godlessness, and replacing the church with a horrible perversion of it in the form of scientism. It heavily incentivizes making the wrong choices, but the proximate cause is still those wrong choices, i.e. that men have become secular.

I'd argue the opposite. Technology is helping the state maintain it's power, but it's also helping us gain power over the state. Take 3d printers for example. You can print almost anything with them, including guns! And even before 3d printers, the knowledge to make homemade guns had been around for decades! Technology has made a lot more people self-reliant, and I think that self-reliantness is going to make the government "obsolete".

>>3847 When they cannot seize the people by poverty they will seize them by terror. Governments and elites in an unadjudicated world are not conscientious entities. Do you think communists will have a second thought over murdering your family for a printer?

>>3106 From what I heard most of them are larpers and not true anarchists. Some of them even brag about still paying taxes. So sad, wish they went full anarchist with it.

this shit is still going?

>>3566 Yep. Doesn't seem like it'll end soon.

>>3712 If you actually think this you're either illiterate or you've never actually looked at the LP platform or the candidates they run. >>3708 Because this is the end result of democracy. If you appeal to the lowest common denominator you will get the lowest common denominator.

>>3708 The GI bill?

>>3703 >Europe has no military But that's wrong, almost every country maintains a military that they feel is needed based on what their allies provide. Germany is surrounded by allies and its military is a political target, of course it's rather small compared to say the GDP. >and our presence in places like Germany actually subsidizes the local economy with US taxpayer dollars That's an idiotic take, a massive workplace will of course spawn business around it to cater to the needs of the people working there. The US is also blockading the Russia Oil pipeline as far as I know.

>>3704 >But that's wrong, almost every country maintains a military that they feel is needed based on what their allies provide <what is 'hyperbole' Yes, and who's been doing the providing-that's the question. Why are there even US troops in Germany to begin with? https://www.newsweek.com/germany-cant-explain-use-broomstick-instead-guns-nato-exercise-307902 >That's an idiotic take, a massive workplace will of course spawn business around it to cater to the needs of the people working there. You're basically acknowledging the truth of what I'd said but saying it's wrong anyway. It costs money to station the totally unnecessary soldiers there, the soldiers are paid handsomely by the US government and they go on and spend that money in local shops and bars in Germany after they're dismissed/relieved of duty-to say nothing of the many thousands of locals that are directly employed on base. This is why they say in the article that the 100,000+ population city Kaiserslautern could become a "ghost town" full of unemployed people if the US leaves. Every EUR not spent on Germany's defense by Germany is money that can pay for Germany's welfare state, education etcetera. This is why you can rightly refer to this otherwise inconsequential military occupation by the US as a "subsidy". Something of a tangent but I see neoliberals and commies all day criticizing the size and scope of the US military while simultaneously "NOOOO!"-ing every move that's currently being made to draw down our military occupations and it makes me wonder what their real thought process is/motivations are. >The US is also blockading the Russia Oil pipeline as far as I know.

>>3705 They are now moving them to Poland. Germans spazzed out over losing them despite complaining about them all the time.

>>3681 Don't have a big country. They have to overreach to preserve their security, there is no alternative

>How can liberty effectively counter fear? The short answer is that we shouldn't because it's a waste of time, it's wiser to focus on ourselves and to spend our energy trying to realize our own libertarian society, rather than focus on what statists are doing and to do nothing but react to the next big thing they're panicking about. We should leave behind state-critical libertarianism and preferably ignore statists completely, and engage in self-focused libertarianism instead: "We are all familiar with mainstream scholarship: the ideas, beliefs, and theories that form the rationale for contemporary mainstream society. Of course, corresponding to mainstream scholarship is mainstream society itself, the society in which these ideas, beliefs, and theories are put into action." "Unfortunately, in the libertarian world, we have no society, corresponding to our scholarship, in which our ideas, beliefs, and theories could be put into action. This fundamental asymmetry—mainstream scholarship/mainstream society; libertarian scholarship/no libertarian society—is libertarianism’s “elephant in the room.”" "Libertarianism has perhaps succeeded as a scholarship movement, but it has failed as a political movement." ... "The modern libertarian movement was founded by writers who objected to the laws of non-libertarian society. As there was no libertarian society to which they could emigrate, and as they were subjected to laws they found objectionable, their writings naturally focused on the legal theories and legal structure of non-libertarian society. Libertarian scholarship thus became largely a critique of non-libertarian society. The goal of libertarian scholarship became the liberalization of non-libertarian society. Though this was quite natural and understandable, in retrospect, the libertarian’s focus on non-libertarian theories and non-libertarian society may have been a costly diversion. Imagine, for a moment, if the most capable political minds in one country spent most of their effort theorizing about the politics of another country, or if the most capable thinkers of one religion spent most of their effort theorizing about the beliefs of another religion. What if the management of one company spent most of its effort criticizing the management of another company, or if the parents of one family spent most of their effort critiquing the parents of another family?" "To a significant degree, libertarian scholarship has been directed toward the theories and practices of mainstream society, rather than toward the goal of constructing a libertarian society in a polycentric social order. We have positioned ourselves not as leaders of our own social creed, but instead as critics of the non-libertarian social creed. We have expended a lot of time and energy trying to provide mainstream society with an improved social theory to guide their social actions. Meanwhile, we have neglected to construct a social theory to guide our own political actions in a non-libertarian world. Through libertarian scholarship, we have gained a thorough critique of mainstream society. But, we may have lost something more valuable: a society we could call our own." ...

>>3646 It's been like this since 1913.

Yeah, in former USSR shitholes, we have a term for it, it's called "oligarchy".

in case anyone had any doubts