well, austrian economics should be value-free, so you can use it as a tool to do whatever you deem good.
I'm also one of those people who probably would not push libertarianism to the max. One limit I see is that with libertarians is always "if there is problem X or Y, eventually the free market will find a solution". Which is fine, but what about people who will not live to see that moment?
Also austro-libertarians are too focused on material needs. They don't understand that sometimes people want not more goods, but purpose and status. Which is why sometimes you may need to create inefficiencies just to avoid having the population going crazy.
Things like that.

Now, how are you OP a supporter of austrian economics but not a libertarian?

Wouldn't that make you a national capitalist or someone like Pinochet? I respect that because at least my overlord recognizes human nature and will encourage a better society out of pragmatism. The problem results when the guy after you doesn't agree with your assessments and has other ideas about how the economy works (or doesn't care).

>>1309
>I think austrian economics can be useful to figure out the best way to implement regulations that don't fuck up the economy and society.
The Economic Calculation Problem will tell you that such a state of affairs is impossible.

>>1313
>They don't understand that sometimes people want not more goods, but purpose and status.
That's acknowledged rather unambiguously by the Action Axiom. Even today, the vast majority of popularity and status which people acquire is within the market system, not centrally planned. Why exactly do you assume that CONSUME PRODUCT is the only possible motivation people can have in the market?

>>1314
>Personally I think such an "ideology fusion" taken to its logical extent would have the framework of anarcho-capitalism with ethno-nationalism and Christian tradition.
That is in effect what Hoppe pushes for, no? Ethnonationalisn doesn't even need to be pushed as an ideology, it's a natural outgrowth of biological in-group preference. The only reason it hasn't taken root on its own is that whites are constantly gaslit from birth, through the schools and media, into not exercising in-group preference. Given that the state has crowded out the church to create its own civic religion, the removal of the state will very quickly lead to churches reasserting themselves and reigning once more.

>>1316
>Why exactly do you assume that CONSUME PRODUCT is the only possible motivation people can have in the market?
I know that nobody literally think that that's the only incentive, that wasn't my point at all.
I'll try to explain myself better.
Libertarians always push the narrative about the efficiency of the free market in creating material goods, which is true.
They will then promote certain policies, for example open borders for goods and often people.
What they forget is that maybe people would prefer to have closed borders but have a sense of purpose, even if it's giving them material goods.

For example I remember a Tom Woods show in which someone (I don't remember who), pointed out that when Obama put tariffs on chinese tires to save a few thousand jobs, it cost the americans billions and billions, so much that it would have been better to just give millions to the worker.
Now, this is an extreme example and Obama was retarded probably, but it doesn't consider for a moment what that job meant for those people, the place it gave them into society. I'm not saying that the workers had a right to a job, but the fact is that if they lost their job it's not like they would have found themselves in a free society, they would just have found themselves in a statist shithole with slightly cheaper chinese tires.

Another example is that libertarians will say if a migrant nigger or a mexican steals your job, maybe you're the problem since you don't have skills superior to them. That is fair to say, but still people don't really give a shit if it's fair or not, they want a sense of purpose and status in the society.
I mean, if I have a son I don't give a shit if he's an idiot, I'll try to give him the best place and the best things. A society of people should care for its people, even a voluntary one, otherwise it would not survive. It cannot always give the best of everything, but some compromises may be done without causing total collapse.

These things don't have any space in libertarian theory, and I don't think they should have a place there, but I also think they make libertarians insufficient for the real world or at least the current world where Liberty is losing ground.
Libertarians have too much utopian thinking. Too many times they'll just say "the free market will fix it", eventually, one day, but what about now? People are often suffering now and don't give a shit if some Indian got out of poverty if they lost their comfy job as code monkeys.

To summarize: libertarians promote the free market because it creates maximum efficiency in the production of goods. It allocates the workforce in the best place possible. The problem is that people don't want to be allocated more efficiently. Maybe they want to be allocated less efficiently but feel like they matter, they're doing something of worth, they have status in their place.
These are real human desires, but libertarians forget about them.

So, one could use austrian-economics knowing that he's screwing up the economy in some places but avoid screwing up the morale of the people so he can avoid a communist revolution tomorrow.

>>1317
>What they forget is that maybe people would prefer to have closed borders
Open borders libertarians are retarded and should be gassed.

>they lost their job it's not like they would have found themselves in a free society, they would just have found themselves in a statist shithole with slightly cheaper chinese tires.
And even if you don't live in a perfectly free market, the reduced costs of having cheaper tires will increase the disposable income in the economy, which will increase demand for all goods, which will lead to a net increase in jobs. I think I see what you're trying to get at here but it's not a really good example, because the benefits of comparative advantage are present even in regulated economies.

>Another example is that libertarians will say if a migrant nigger or a mexican steals your job, maybe you're the problem since you don't have skills superior to them.
The people who say this are retarded, because they fail to consider that migrants can only be paid less than Americans because the state so heavily subsidizes their existence.

>I mean, if I have a son I don't give a shit if he's an idiot, I'll try to give him the best place and the best things. A society of people should care for its people, even a voluntary one, otherwise it would not survive.
This statement isn't incompatible with private property norms. If anything private property norms are the easiest way to build voluntaryist ethnostates.

>but I also think they make libertarians insufficient for the real world or at least the current world where Liberty is losing ground.
Libertarians have too much utopian thinking.
The issue I have with this statement is that most of the examples you gave of "utopian free market thinking" was someone dressing up a state intervention as free market.

>To summarize: libertarians promote the free market because it creates maximum efficiency in the production of goods. It allocates the workforce in the best place possible. The problem is that people don't want to be allocated more efficiently. Maybe they want to be allocated less efficiently but feel like they matter, they're doing something of worth, they have status in their place.
I don't entirely disagree, but you, or perhaps the libertarians about which you're talking, have misunderstood what economic efficiency means. In the Austrian view, economic efficiency is not the maximization of production. It is the fulfillment of desired ends. Suburbs, for instance, are more "inefficient" than cities from a strictly production per square mile equation, but if people value front lawns and extra breathing room more than the production they're losing from not being city dwellers, they're efficient.

>>1314
>and will have to branch out of strict economics and ethics to find a true [i]Weltanschauung[/i].
I keep telling y'all niggas but ya never listen: Metamodernism is to culture, what the Austrian school is to economics. Culture == market of ideas. Learn about metamodernism bros, don't stay in the dark

>>1318
>cause the state so heavily subsidizes their existence
what is the state?

>>1338
A territorial monopoly on arbitration in property disputes, maintained through coercion.

>Anyone else here strongly support Austrian economics, realize it describes reality but are not a libertarian or anarchist?
Yet, unless you are actively trying to perform double-think and avoid addressing the obvious contradiction between some of your ideas. If you recognize Austrian economics as an accurate depiction of what the world is like, then you should also recognize the conclusions that come from applying its ideas, like the undeniable fact that monopolies are bad for the customer and thus the state is not good for the people it rules over; the economic calculation problem and how anything provided by the state will inevitably create scarcity/overabundance of resources/services, and such other things that make private property and markets highly incompatible with the idea of the state.
Praise Jesus btw.

>>1320
I watched Truediltom's video on it years back so I partially understand it. What are some resources you recommend? Also, how do meta-irony and post-irony relate to postmodernism and metamodernism, respectively, and why not the other way around?

I support libertarianism merely because it allows free speech and fascist ideas to flourish

>>1339
right. but where is a libertarian state subsidizing migrant minorities?

>>1347
No one said a libertarian state is subsidizing migrant minorities. A libertarian state wouldn't subsidize anything, and is a contradiction in terms anyways.

>>1348
>No one said
dixie professor said >>1318
>The people who say this are retarded, because they fail to consider that migrants can only be paid less than Americans because the state so heavily subsidizes their existence.

>>1351
He doesn't say "the libertarian state" subsidizes migrants, as you suggested, he said "the state" does that.

>>1354
he claims the state subsidizes minorities when replying to a hypothetical libertarian scenario
>are there schools in a libertarian society that teach reading comprehension?

>>1357
You've completely misunderstanding.

The guy he is replying to is making a statement about what libertarians currently say, "...libertarians will say that...", to which his answer contains no assumption about a hypothetical libertarian state existing, as it's about actual current reality.

They do teach reading comprehension in public schools, did you pass?

>>1357
The scenario in >>1317 regarding spic workers was how the proper solution for our current government, using the current tools available.

Yes, unlike the public school in which you were surely educated.

>>1344
Most of what I read was not in English so I don't really know what to recommend. I read some leftists trying to co-opt the philosophy into another cool, hip, and new leftist movement disguised under some vague 2deep4u bullshit, which is why I didn't bother with English sources, but I guess you can try reading the guys Robin Van den Akker and Timotheus Vermeulen who are supposedly the "main thinkers" of meta-modernism, but I haven't read them myself so I don't really know what they talk about. You can also check out the interviews of David Foster Wallace or even his book Infinite Jest if you have the time for it, he died shortly before meta-modernism became a thing, but his books kinda started post-irony and meta-modernism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2doZROwdte4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI

>Also, how do meta-irony and post-irony relate to postmodernism and metamodernism, respectively, and why not the other way around?
Because meta-irony and post-modernism is primarily about the deconstruction of concepts, while post-irony and meta-modernism is primarily about reconstruction of concepts. Post-irony reconstructs the things deconstructed by post-modernism, this is why post-modernism has no use for post-irony, post-modern people cringe at sincerity and try hard to be cynical and distanced from sincere beliefs, and post-irony is not only cringy for them but also really frustrating because they don't have a clever way to attack it and mock it, they are forced to argue sincerely against it. I don't think meta-modernism has a use for meta-irony either unless you're willing to admit that you don't really believe in anything and aren't idealistic, in which case you wouldn't be meta-modernist.

When modernists are arguing about some opposing ideals that they have, it's like a shitflinging contest where everyone tries to get as much shit onto each other while staying as clean as possible themselves, but the post-modernist, being the loser that he is and already covered head to toe in shit, would say: "if I can't win anyway, then I will make sure everyone else will lose with me" so he dives into the most toxic cesspool he can find, and then proceeds to run towards everyone and smear them in his filth, happily accepting all the shit they throw at him instead of trying to dodge it. This is what's called "meta-irony", it's impossible to insult meta-ironists because they already made a mockery of themselves and everyone else as well. They don't believe in anything, and they don't allow anyone to believe in anything. You can't insult them by calling them weak, ugly, disgusting, contemptible, etc... because they already became these things on purpose in order to make a mockery of your strength, beauty, virtue, truth and whatever else you hold sacred. Just think about your typical hipster, bull dyke, antifa retard, or anyone being "counter culture".

Post-irony on the other hand is an end to irony and a return to sincerity. Post-irony allows for idealism again, and for you to talk about something constructively instead of just attacking things with irony or meta-irony. Post-irony is when you speak about what you believe in such an absurd fashion that people can't tell if you're being ironic or not, and they go along with it anyway thinking you were joking when you were actually totally serious. It's a very effective tool for escaping censorship and SJW thought police and it can even allow you to support socially-suicidal things like fascism in public: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkLAgLDjogY

Cultural Marxism and the rampant degeneracy we have today is only possible because of post-modernism, and it's useful for libertarians to know this, because trying to explain culture via economic concepts will not give quite a satisfactory answer, you can't explain everything wrong with society with just time preference alone. If you want to know about post-modernism and its relationship with Marxism, you can check out this great lecture by based Stephen Hicks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BGbHG63x8w

>>1372
Saved, thank you. I'm thinking of making a Youtube channel one day which will debunk blue-pills, though not necessarily in such a serious format as The Academic Agent (best economics Youtuber out there, subscribe if you haven't already) nor as snarky as AltHype. I think meta-modernism is the key to all this and helps with good memery.