>>1418
>Rothbard's critiques against it are dumb strawman arguments.
What are his arguments? Considering that you just admitted Ancom's arguments are "extremely fucking stupid," it could be that Rothbard isn't strawmanning at all.

>>1421
Rothbard's the death wish of anarcho communists is a strawman argument.
The Spanish anarchists didn't ban the use of money, at least I don't think

>you'd think we'd have a massive number of books written against it.
That's because it's always been a fringe ideology and no real threat compared to neoconservatism, neoliberalism, or authoritarian communism. Had fascism won out in WW2 you'd probably see more books about that, or if Stirner had become more popular than Marx you'd see books against Egoism. Anarcho-communism died down after the rise of the Soviet Union and has only resurged because of radicalization in universities and the internet spreading sophistry as well as it does truth.

I have not read No More Bread: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Conquest but probably is 50% moral platitudes, 20% wrong assumptions about the world and 30% carrying those assumptions to their conclusion. Communism in general can be distilled to several foundational myths including: the Rousseauian concept of freedom, the labor theory of value, class as the ultimate division of society, and (according to Marx) "scientific" materialism and the historical dialectic. Also sprinkle in a bit of egalitarianism, which Rothbard DID take on effectively. Communists are trained to respond to boomer-tier arguments but if you take out their foundational assumptions the whole edifice crumbles. Communists think they have the high ground because their ideology is more-or-less internally consistent and logical, but it is founded on inherent falsehoods so they get antsy when you go after those.

>>1426
I did find a good historical article about Anarcho-syndicalist Spain which is so lauded by stereotypical college students: http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/spain.htm

>>1428
>

Lol dude every fucking time I post this in a reply to an ancom, they post this refutation.
http://www.spunk.org/library/places/spain/sp001532.html

I personally emailed Bryan Caplan to see if he can respond to the refutation and he said he never will. What a pussy.

Libertarians don't have any real arguments.
Leftists create massive point by point refutations of our works and we have absolutely nothing to counter it with.

Why isn't there a point by point refutation to das kapital or the conquest of bread?
Are libertarians just lazy?

Communists and normies who are potential communists see the commies winning and then they believe the communists are correct.
What a joke.

>>1431
>What a pussy.
Depends on if he's working on other projects that are taking up his time and what these projects constitute. I think I'll email him as well to figure this out.

>Libertarians don't have any real arguments.
>Leftists create massive point by point refutations of our works and we have absolutely nothing to counter it with.
I don't know what you mean by "arguments" because there plenty available, albeit relatively unknown even within our movement. However, there is a tendency even among scholars to write a good condemnation of communism and leave it at that, pretending the intellectual war ended after Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth. Leftists, of course, never admit defeat (hence why they're an eternal threat even when brain-dead) and will keep pumping out content supposedly "refuting" through word games and selective evidence. To actually beat them you have to smash every argument they come up with, just like AltHype does with race and IQ.

Of course the leaders and scholars in the libertarian community prize their time highly and cannot keep repeating themselves; they accomplish more by going into new areas. It's the secondary scholars/students who have to do the repetitious work explaining the logic of the genii, modernizing their work and beating back the rehashings of socialism. An architect builds a castle but he's not needed for maintenance; ordinary workmen maintain it and repair any damages from onslaughts. Right now there are too few workmen and the walls are ill-repaired.

>Are libertarians just lazy?
Potentially. Of course you have a lot of meme pages on Facebook and people who post libertarian memes, but I don't know many who act as intellectual shock brigades. I can count the number of actual good libertarian-themed Youtube channels on one hand and they'd be lucky to have a hundred thousand subscribers among them. Compare that to the nu-left's presence on that platform. It's not because there are a lot more commies than libertarians because comment sections generally tend to have a right-wing/libertarian bent to them, particularly in gaming subcultures.

I really have no idea about why this is so. Is it because communists are by nature more collectivistic and passionate, whereas libertarians are often individualists and logical? Maybe it's because communists feel they're on the verge of revolution while libertarians are more black-pilled. It is apparent of course that communists are better organized and they attack in groups with the same arguments they've heard from elsewhere–the more I type this the more I realize the Borg in Star Trek are a decently portrayed fictional version of communism–tiring out opponents more than actually beating them. In contrast to this religious fervor newcomers are met by fellow libertarians with a "meh" who will provide works or interesting articles to read only on prodding. There are countless great articles on Mises.org that never get shared. I think Tom Woods–a boomer–exposes more people to more libertarian thoughts than anyone younger than him. God bless him but he's an example to follow, not a crutch.

Also, libertarians tend to attack concepts rather than works when they're not talking about contemporary events. Seems to me that articles and books tend to address things like the labor theory of value, the myth of the minimum wage, etc. rather than compendiums of oppositional thought. Delving into these abstract concepts is all well and good but it's not marketable to the masses nor does it stop a hardcore commie, because he'll just go, "Well what about X." Identifying problems like these is necessary to fixing our lack of reach.

I actually plan to start up a Youtube channel in a year (hopefully everything doesn't burn down before then) after I get more /lit/. Think of a combination of AltHype/Academic Agent but with a more receptive/cheerful behavior. Taking down No More Bread was an idea I had for a while.

>>1431
To be fair, you don't really need a point by point refutation of Das Kapital or the Conquest of Bread. Logically speaking, once the foundations are proved to be untrue, we do not know the truth value of their conclusions. One could go and find a few truths within such, but the point is that the communist theory is thus incorrect. The labor theory of value being bullshit means that commies need to come up with actual proofs for every single conclusion derived from it. Of course, they cannot (a lot of these conclusions are untrue), but that's a separate point to what I'm making here.

>>1431
>Bryan Caplan
Why would you expect that fag to help you with anything? He's Kochsucker controlled opposition, he only exists to make sure people associate the image of libertarians with open border cock smokers such as himself.

>Leftists create massive point by point refutations of our works
What's the point by point refutation of the Action Axiom? Has a commie solved the Economic Calculation Problem yet? Thinking about things in terms of point by point refutation is the wrong way to go. If you're vomiting walls of text at leftist NEETs who vomit replies right back, you've already lost, because you've limited the debate to whatever superficial, surface level thing you're arguing about. Austrian school economics is completely internally consistent given its first principles. If those first principles can't be disproven it's unassailable, and no leftist has succeeded in disproving them. Likewise, it's a waste of time to discuss anything in leftist ""philosophy"" because the first principles can easily be shown to be not just wrong but logically incoherent. Since all of the subsequent justification are meaningless without that foundation attacking those subsequent arguments is redundant.

>>1432
>I think I'll email him as well to figure this out.
Good luck, he's done arguing with them.

>>1432
>To actually beat them you have to smash every argument they come up with, just like AltHype does with race and IQ.
I totally fucking agree.
We aren't doing this though and it's a major problem.

We should have a wiki with point by point refutations to leftist arguments. We DON'T(the mises wiki doesn't count) so leftists and normies think they've won.

>I can count the number of actual good libertarian-themed Youtube channels on one hand and they'd be lucky to have a hundred thousand subscribers among them.
Exactly. It's such a shame because the breadtubers completely dominate the platform now and brainwash people with nobody to counter them.
What a fucking timeline.

> Seems to me that articles and books tend to address things like the labor theory of value
It seems the marxists dominate this one too. The marxian LTV is much more complicated than people think so people end up strawmanning it.
I don't see any actual refutation to the marxist LTV anywhere.
I've even seen leftist refutations to bohm bawerk as well and claim BB strawmanned marx.
Where is our comeback?

>I actually plan to start up a Youtube channel in a year (hopefully everything doesn't burn down before then) after I get more /lit/. Think of a combination of AltHype/Academic Agent but with a more receptive/cheerful behavior. Taking down No More Bread was an idea I had for a while.
Please do this, but don't go full alt right and get into race and IQ stuff because it just makes us look bad.

>>1433
>To be fair, you don't really need a point by point refutation of Das Kapital or the Conquest of Bread.
YES, YES YOU DO.
You're saying we don't actually need arguments and refutations to them. Yes we do!!

>once the foundations are proved to be untrue, we do not know the truth value of their conclusions.
But you can destroy the rest of the theory as well in a point by point refutation. The more arguments the better.
It's incredible that libertarians don't know actual refutations to marxism so they just get btfo.

I mean, I believe the marxist class system is absolutely bullshit but I have no way of attacking it because I don't understand philosophy all that well.

>>1434
>Thinking about things in terms of point by point refutation is the wrong way to go.
Bull fucking shit.
Communists are willing to listen to our arguments and attempt to refute them. If we actually had arguments written down somewhere, we could just point to them whenever commies bring up their dumb arguments.
You're just trying to make us give up, what the fuck?
Your strategy is just "we're right so we don't actually need to argue, just let them walk all over us".

>>1437
>YES, YES YOU DO.
>You're saying we don't actually need arguments and refutations to them. Yes we do!!
You're not understanding the argument being made in >>1433 . If someone makes an argument that starts with, "Let's assume that 2+2=5. And so, we can conclude from that assumption that...", you don't need to disprove every subsequent point they make. It's a waste of time. Because it's all based on 2+2 equaling 5, once you show that 2+2 doesn't equal 5 the whole argument falls apart. That is, in essence, what Das Kapital is. The whole argument requires you to take as a given the Labor Theory of Value, polylogism, and Marx's class theory. If you can refute those (and we have), you've refuted the whole book. Point-by-point autismal refutation is only relevant for topical, flavor-of-the-month shit like the Green New Deal.

>>1438
>Communists are willing to listen to our arguments and attempt to refute them.
No they don't. Where have they done this, on a fundamental level? Where is the communist answer to the Action Axiom? Where's the communist refutation of the SVT?

>>1437
Every single refutation past a certain point would follow the exact same format of "the premises are false, hence this reasoning does not prove the conclusion, and here is the capitalist model for how this stuff actually works".

Your "point by point rebuttal" would be a very small amount of actual argumentation followed by a fuck ton of just repeatedly stating what amounts to the same thing.

Even if we ensure that every point addressed has a completely new argument for it, since the general form of Marxist philosophies is one of a somewhat internally consistent body of reasoning that's ultimately based on faulty premises, then you would end up with a largely self referential document which again falls back into repeating itself.

Since you don't understand philosophy, I shall explain why attacking the premises of the argument is sufficient. All Marxist theory derivations are made with the assumption that the first principles are correct. The theory of surplus value is derived from the labor theory of value. Hence, by disproving the LTV, we now know that surplus value is untrue. So on and so forth.

Similarly, since Austrian economics (or at least the main claims, people in the school can make claims that in the end are not logically valid but the core values have been subjected to enough logical rigor that we know they are true given the axioms) is logically consistent, the correct way to refute the field is to disprove the fundamental axioms of the school. I have yet to see a leftist "refutation" that does so.

From an optics perspective, though, I see why such a thing would be useful. It would be a good thing to have, even if a bit superfluous. It actually might be better to have such a repetitive point by point refutation, in that sense, to instill a feeling of "this stuff is so untrue that you can refute it entirely with the same basic ideas".

>>1434
>Has a commie solved the Economic Calculation Problem yet?
They don't need it because they have "workarounds" which sound nice, like market socialism. The effect of this is that they give a superficial summary of our argument (basically an intellectual vaccine) to a normie, then present their "solution" which is complicated enough to "wow" the normie into believing it works. This is what goes on in universities and it's behind all the crap you hear regurgitated (as well as from mainstream sources regarding muh externalities and the like). It's intellectual trickery to push the onus of proof on us even though logically it's still on them. The only way to proceed that doesn't look like concession is to root out their overcomplicated theories in detail. Unfortunately, that means actually reading all this literature until we understand it better than they do.

>you've limited the debate to whatever superficial, surface level thing you're arguing about
I'm thinking that rather doing a sentence-by-sentence refutation, a more efficient method is to present the opponent's framework, show that it actually applies to them (so they can't claim "that's not what I said!") and then debunk it in detail. This way it is sectional and more coherent.

>If those first principles can't be disproven it's unassailable, and no leftist has succeeded in disproving them.
That doesn't matter. You're assuming that the audience is perfectly rational and fully aware of both arguments. Socialists just have to make it look like they're disproving our principles through rigmarole or "muh historical examples" and they claim victory. Appearances really do matter in a mass movement, that's why cult followings exist.

>Likewise, it's a waste of time to discuss anything in leftist ""philosophy""
If leftist philosophy got anything right it's the practical use of political and rhetorical tactics (hence why they remain accurate) and discussing it is worthwhile on those grounds alone. Like people are saying, claiming victory, picking your ball up and going home is suicide. A bad ideology that people know about gets more traction than a perfect one that is never discussed for its merits. When you say "these principles show I'm right and you're wrong; never bring this up again" you'll look dogmatic and afraid of criticism even if you are right. I like Academic Agent but his video on the LTV did a minimum to help, judging by the comments underneath. Of course he's working on plenty of other worthwhile projects so we need people to keep this war of attrition going.

>don't go full alt right and get into race and IQ stuff
I can't promise anything, but the more controversial the topic the more I'll shroud it in academic language (like "The Negligence of Intelligence in Economic Theory"). This firstly makes it harder for censors and secondly grants you extra legitimacy (I've seen people dismiss AltHype's arguments because of his "unacademic" attitude). Actually edgy content would go on a second channel (either Bitchute or Minds) that I would never talk about on YT.

The important thing to do is to make refutational videos against Breadtubers (like AltHype is doing). They have the numbers and they've put in effort in their videos but they aren't the brightest individuals. A comparable amount of effort targeted at their content would piggyback off their popularity, particularly by fighting the zombie hordes in the comment section (good thing downvotes don't work, with a dedicated support base you could conceivably get top comments on their vids refuting all their points) and advocating for open debate. Put the onus on THEM to respond so they look like cowards for not responding and learn to thwart their rhetoric if they do.

>>1440
>Your "point by point rebuttal" would be a very small amount of actual argumentation followed by a fuck ton of just repeatedly stating what amounts to the same thing.
Completely wrong.
This article was written by an austrian and goes into detail refuting the marxist LTV.

Why couldn't we expand this for the rest of marx's theories?

You're just trying to blackpill us so we will give up.
It's incredible that libertarians don't even try to go after marxists and ancoms and just let them win.

>Hence, by disproving the LTV, we now know that surplus value is untrue.
Aside from my image, I don't see austrians doing that at all.

>>1434
>Thinking about things in terms of point by point refutation is the wrong way to go. If you're vomiting walls of text at leftist NEETs who vomit replies right back, you've already lost, because you've limited the debate to whatever superficial, surface level thing you're arguing about.
Exactly.

You can try refuting communist arguments, I think this should only be done once. Having to do it over and over again to every single communist (who are all as numerous as insects) would be incredibly tedious. Communism is also like a hydra, for every head that you cut off, 7 more grow in its place. You will need to program an AI or hire 10 million shills to automate this refutation job for you as no lone human being is patient enough to do this forever, and will eventually get frustrated and burned out.

Another problem is that after you get burned out from trying to be civil and refuting commie arguments in a "civil" fashion, you look for more efficient ways to debunk each-other's views and you become more vicious in your refutations, your walls of text and evidence turn into snarky ironic one-liners, because that's what "refutation" becomes in a fast-paced and highly-competitive environment/market of ideas, it's simply the most effective way to refute someone while spending the least energy, and this creates the same cesspool of toxicity like what politics on twitter has become.

With refutation, you are not creating new beliefs or supporting old ones, you are just mutually destroying each-other's existing beliefs, making you both seem like absurd madmen to third-parties. The most important thing is to not be caught up with everyone else in this trap of endless argumentation where you refute each-other into mutual absurdity. Instead, we should preferably avoid spending energy on arguing altogether unless we are arguing with someone who sincerely wants to know something, but more importantly, I think we should do our best to ignore enemy attacks and to focus on making ancap cool and legit and to have fun, instead of making leftism look fake and gay.

As an example: Christianity on the internet wasn't popular back when people were just debunking atheists and their points. Remember how common atheism was on the internet before the 2010s? Edgy atheists were literally everywhere, they would beat Christians with snarky one-liners all the time, until eventually Christians discovered their own ironic language and started mocking atheists with ironic *tips fedora* memes, but this doesn't create Christians out of people, by itself it doesn't make Christianity look cool, what did make Christianity (of all things) look cool were post-ironic memes like Deus Vult and the many others like it, or in the case of ancaps, what makes us cool on the internet are post-ironic Hoppean Snek memes and post-irony in general, and not clever snarky remarks about something that the government/communism does wrong.

>>1441
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g69PwVI-tTQ

The comments section is a shithole.
I really wish someone would COMPLETELY refute the LTV instead of doing a half asked job.

>>1443
>dude don't even try lmao
What the fuck is wrong with you people?

We're losing because of you people.
We have to at least try, holy shit.

People don't even KNOW the austrian refutations to the LTV.
According to normies, there is no such refutation.

>>1442
>this article was written by an austrian and goes into detail refuting the marxist LTV
Yes, this is Bohm-Bawerk. Almost every Austrian economist agrees with Karl Marx and the Close of his System. You don't see Austrians doing this very much is because Austrians have known that LTV is bullshit for over one hundred years.

>Why couldn't we expand this for the rest of marx's theories?
We totally could, but after you go after the fundamentals, you enter the realm of just referring back to your earlier arguments (as I said in that paragraph you ignored).

>blackpills
lmao ok

>don't even go after marxists and ancoms
That could be done more, and I agree that it would probably have some use. My problem here is that you don't seem to understand how arguments work. The refutations we already have are sufficient from a purely intellectual standpoint. Optics are a different story.

>aside from my image
Your image is part of the most famous Austrian rebuttal to the LTV that exists. It's a document that is held to be true by Austrians. Perhaps they don't feel the need to repeatedly state such when it is something that should be obvious by this point?

The theorem of surplus value relies upon the LTV almost entirely. If you cannot go from "LTV bullshit" to "surplus value bullshit" then you are retarded.

>>1446
>You don't see Austrians doing this very much is because Austrians have known that LTV is bullshit for over one hundred years.
Marxists have created countless refutations to this though and austrians haven't responded to those.
This for example(use google translate)
https://voyager1.net/economia/bohm-bawerk-nao-refutou-marx/

There is absolutely no reason to not create point by point refutations of marxist theory. Libertarians are just lazy and terrible at strategy.
You people let the left win.

>We totally could, but after you go after the fundamentals, you enter the realm of just referring back to your earlier arguments (as I said in that paragraph you ignored).
Who gives a shit? The more arguments the better.

>lmao ok
It's fucking true.

>The refutations we already have are sufficient from a purely intellectual standpoint.
No they aren't, marxists and communists are constantly refuting our theories.

Literally all we need is an extremely large and detailed wiki refuting marxism and communism point by point.

It's incredible we haven't done something like this while the left has endless articles refuting us.

You want a real quick and easy refutation of the Labour Theory of Value?

OK, so Marx says that commodities are non-human objects that satisfy human wants.

They have use-value and exchange-value, and he then argues that exchange-value is separate to use-value (which is about the quantity and quality of resources, the value they have as being useful).

Exchange-value must come from somewhere, he says, and that it cannot come from any material property, as material properties fall under use-value.

Therefore, he says, the only common property that commodities have left is being products of labour.

Now, this is the, albeit shortened, logic that he uses to make the claim that labour is what generates value. Read Das Kapital volume 1 chapter 1 if you don't believe me.

The problem should be immediately obvious, mate. He's forgotten that commodities by his own definition all have the property of satisfying human wants. Concluding that labour is the only possible thing that can generate exchange-value is therefore pretty fucking wrong yeah

>>1445
>dude don't even try lmao
Well idk bro, the nigsocs for example haven't written a long-ass book or article refuting every single thesis of their ideological opponents, and their movement is neither logically consistent nor intellectual by any means, but they still seem to be enjoying quite a lot of popularity despite all of the negative attention that they get. Maybe you have to admit that what we sorely need to win and convince people isn't just a brain, but also a heart and maybe even a pair of balls? I mean, if normies won't even bother to read Rothbard, what makes you think they care about anything so niche like your meticulous refutations of the LTV? Maybe there's something else to winning than just being reacting to everything the enemy does?

Anyway, I don't exactly disagree with you. If someone can refute some big popular leftist myth, then they should. Having one in-depth article or book that we can refer to in arguments about the LTV would be great. I just think that by itself it doesn't mean anything to refute leftists, it's just playing to not lose instead of playing to win. Right now we really need more visionaries and idealists, people that can properly de-intellectualize complex topics, instead of overly-intellectualizing simple things just for the sake of it. We need people who can create ideas instead destroying the enemy's ones, or who can communicate emotionally and show us a vision of what ancapistan would look like instead of just being pre-occupied with the neverending task of genociding leftist strawmen.

In fact, communism as a whole was already a refuted idea in everyone's minds during the Cold War era but somehow everyone's a communist again. What happened to all those refutations? Were they not good enough? No, the problem is that refutations don't create anything new, they only destroy the enemy's idea, but the alternative that people are left with (fake capitalism) is unsatisfactory so they go back to finding justifications for whatever idea you "refuted". Rothbard on the hand, instead of just being another communism-refuter of his time, actually created something new and it's outlasted everyone from that period. We need more guys like Rothbard, and less culture warriors who can only refute things.

>>1446
>The refutations we already have are sufficient from a purely intellectual standpoint.
Yes, from a purely intellectual standpoint. Hence the problem: no one, not even intellectuals, is purely intellectual. You might as well pretend everyone is a 1000 IQ alien, or a robot, or an angel. It's my stance that a scholar, supposedly an intellectual person, rarely changes his view drastically after the age of 30 even if he's proved wrong. When confronted with an opposing point of view he pokes holes in his opponent's and modifies his existing theory to make it stick in ways that weren't predicted by the refuter. This goes on until he retires. People are inherently selfish and they want a set of ideas they identify with to succeed, rather than pursue truth objectively.

>Perhaps they don't feel the need to repeatedly state such when it is something that should be obvious by this point?
They ought to. Every other ideology and religion repeats its basic axioms until they're ground in the heads of a population. Those that don't fall by the wayside.
I remember Gary North saying some years back that communism is a dead and buried ideology and the only thing to take down now was Keynesianism. He was right in an intellectual sense but unfortunately our opponents have learned the dark arts of necromancy.

>Literally all we need is an extremely large and detailed wiki refuting marxism and communism point by point.

>It's incredible we haven't done something like this while the left has endless articles refuting us.
Wikis are overrated, Metapedia was intended to be a wiki for the Dissident Right but it never caught on. When you have potentially unlimited articles you need potentially unlimited writers. I still use (((Wikipedia))) for non-political information because chances of finding comprehensive info are better with more than a handful of autists. For things having to do with libertarianism mises.org usually has an article already, though the search isn't as convenient.

>>1452
>their movement is neither logically consistent nor intellectual by any means, but they still seem to be enjoying quite a lot of popularity despite all of the negative attention that they get.
I hate to be pedantic but they do have their share of literature, with philosophers such as Evola being on the more "esoteric" side. They tend to ignore economics other than "money shouldn't rule society" and their focus on culture tends to be a winning strategy as it's not a tug of war versus left-wing populists, it appeals to man's natural search for belonging and the effects of culture are much more apparent to the average joe than economic principles. This and edgy memes that are genuinely counter-cultural are highly appealing to a dissatisfied individual.

>also a heart and maybe even a pair of balls
This. There are two sides to a movement: intellectualism and mass-appeal. An intellectual base provides "legitimacy" to a movement, makes it look like it's coming up with new thoughts and trains the next generation of leaders (think of the Fabians). Libertarianism does this part pretty well: what's wrong is inaction and letting socialists build up an intellectual base rather than attacking it from every angle. The mass-appeal of a movement is how "hip" it looks: is it memetic, is it culturally relevant, and does it have passion (that is, counter-cultural). Libertarianism dropped the ball completely in the last few years. Legitimately it had great appeal when Ron Paul was in the public consciousness and we had slogans like "End the Fed" and "Taxation is theft." Now, the only libertarians most people refer to are the Koch buddies who fit in right with PragerU. Hoppewave was a good attempt to regain branding but it's always been more obscure than fashwave, itself very obscure. Socialists have idiots in public office but they're actually public (no such thing as bad publicity), and the people representing "capitalism" are neocons/neolibs. We need to emphasize freedom and redefine the popular meaning of it away from Rousseau.

>>1451
nice reddit formatting you got there

>>1454
From what I know so far, their literature tends to be of the unintellectual sort and founded mostly on pathos and eros, instead of logos, it's like reading motivational speakers like Tony Robbins or Gary V, who really know how to play with emotions and get you motivated in something, and I'm by no means complaining, we really need the same kind of literature if we want to win, this is also what Alex Jones and Molymeme get right if nothing else, they really know how to use emotion to build a cult-like following. Socialist and fascist literature also preys on victimhood, they diagnose the problems you have perfectly well, better than you can even describe yourself, and when reading their books you say "The author knows exactly what I'm going through! Those capitalist defenders of corporations will never understand how I feel!" and of course after the socialists entered your heart through empathy, only then would you open up your mind to their socialist poison. How many examples do we have of libertarians doing this? Again, it's just Molymeme.

If anything, we need more fictional ancap stories, and not just non-fictional intellectual literature. The typical 14 year old boy, a representative of the next generation, will not walk into a bookstore and head straight for the "economics" section (and even if he does, it will be packed with pop-economics, Keynesian bullshit, and hardcore communist literature), the 14 year old kid would rather go straight for the fiction section, maybe pick some cyberpunk book, and go home to read about how some commie heroes are taking down those evil big corporations. The "economics" section is not for guys like him, it's for guys like us who have nothing better to do but to sort through all that shit because of high IQ or autism or whatever. Having read it all, we decide to take on the Promethean task of stealing fire from the gods and passing it down to mortals, the "gods" in our case being Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe, and the mortals being normies, the only twist being that we do not trick the gods into giving us fire (civilization), but rather, the challenge is tricking normies into accepting it (it's a kind of reverse-theft). We all have stories we want to tell, we are all talented in some way, so why not create something with the same intensity and time that we spend mentally masturbating and proving people wrong on the internet? An ancap-themed story in an interesting book/game/movie/song would be 10x better than yet another boring, emotionally-sterile essay on why socialists are wrong about something.

>>1454
Wikis are not overrated
Look how much damage rationalwiki has done

We need all of our arguments laid out in detail somewhere point by point

>>1456
100%. Winning the culture war requires producing quality content that people like. You have to be more creative and influential than the other side through entertainment output. This was how Jews got in control of media in the first place: when their content was only hinting at degeneracy rather than outright promoting it their books, movies etc. were really good and sold well. The converse happened with Christian media: by being staid and unfunny anything "Christian" became reviled as such, except for unique media like Veggie Tales. Humor is probably the easiest entry because it is a means of dealing with incongruencies in the world; it's no coincidence that the best comedians today tend to be right-wing/libertarian.

Serious novels and whatnot, on the other hand, are in short supply. The most recent popular books with libertarian themes were Heinlein's works such as The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Though classic books are great promoting them exclusively is a boomer-tier strategy. The Tuttle Twins is a children's book series instilling libertarian values, but they're children's books. Firefly was a highly acclaimed show that I heard has strong libertarian themes, but it was cancelled. I disagree with your view of cyberpunk, it tends to be right-wing (synthwave, the quintessential cyberpunk music, certainly is) despite the "big evil corporations" theme, it's just black-pilled. I wouldn't be surprised if commies do make some inroads into cyberpunk though.

It'd be nice to have a fiction /lit/ thread. My original dream hobby was to be a writer but due to the impending turmoil happening around 2030 (according to Martin Armstrong) I decided that edification in economics is much more important in the short-term. Compared to teaching oneself to be a good writer learning a good amount of economics can be done in a relatively shorter time. Also, there's a lot less risk as a glut of books exists so unless if your work "catches on" it'll go relatively unnoticed. At least if you're an economist you can copy-paste your arguments to give us a slightly stronger edge, but if you do the same as a writer it's shameless self-promotion. Books are a gamble and you can read the lives of professional writers if you don't believe me.

Games are a good avenue but you need a unique idea and even then you're competing with an ever-expanding market. Ditto for songs, which are more strongly talent-based in the indie sphere (political music doesn't tend to do too well outside its respective niche). Movies need a high budget and technical knowledge to even be watchable. I unironically think that the best avenue to take would be animation, as there's a thirsty market but a relative shortage of good material (which is going down as the (((cartoon industry))) has forgotten what makes a good show). Develop a good idea, get a team together, practice on the style, work on a pilot, upload to Youtube and you could get millions of views fairly quickly. It's not easy of course and the medium has to come first before the message or you get preachy, which people are sick of.

>>1460
Is Rationalwiki anything but a joke at this point? I haven't seen it unironically referenced since I debated "secular humanists" on Nationstates.

>>1462
The problem is that it has extremely high google ranking, when you google anything remotely right wing you get rationalwiki.

>>1445
Are you retarded? Did you even read his post?

>>1449
No, we don't. Autismal point-by-point refutations are not convincing, even if they weren't superfluous. The left didn't become powerful by OWNING the right through FACTS and LOGIC, but by marching through the institutions and seizing control of what information is and isn't visible to people. Your precious refutations already exist all over the place, mises.org alone has a dozen articles for every whataboutism you could care to name. That's not how people are convinced.

>>1456
>>1452
This guy gets it, listen to him.

>>1468
>Autismal point-by-point refutations are not convincing
Yes, yes they are.
Communists do this all the time and they are very convincing.
Not only that but doing this would help a lot of uninformed people and new libertarians understand the arguments against communism and government intervention in general.
I see so many libertarians or even "conservatives" make terrible stupid boomer arguments against communists and leftists and then just get btfo because the communists know their shit.

I don't know why you think just giving up is the way to go.

>Your precious refutations already exist all over the place
Not really, I mean a lot of it is there but it's all hidden in extremely long boring articles instead of an easy to read faq or point by point refutation.
Also mises.org is terrible for not including sources.

>>1469


>I see so many libertarians or even "conservatives" make terrible stupid boomer arguments against communists and leftists and then just get btfo because the communists know their shit.

This doesn't happen

What happens is commies and cultural marxists (in popular discourse) instinctively sense that they are speaking from a position of high status, and hence feel no reservations about pontificating, browbeating, and talking down to members of the outer party, who instinctively feel they are treading on thin ice by talking back to someone further along the pseudosanctimonia spiral than they are, self-consciously self-censoring, making sure not to say anything that steps outside the overton bubble in general, and not anything that would appear to be combative, dismissive, or devalidating, to apparent social betters in particular. Their purpose in the kabuki theater is to be seen losing to people selected by regnant underlords to have voices on their platforms, a means of thus advancing their policies without visibly apparent hierarchy or command and control.

They do the rhetorical equivalent slapping people in their faces and flinging poop from their tree tops; if the other party simply takes it and does not try to engage back on the same level, then of course, observers will naturally sense who is signaling greater power in the relationship, and will align with the more powerful side.

Consider the episode of the Covington Boys; people who espouse bio-lenninist talking points are used to their positions in the social hierarchy; they have have gotten a taste, experienced the magic themselves; they say the magic words and the people who they put in their crosshairs cower and flee, immediately surrendering their ground to them, whatever it may be. There is a certain narrative that they expect, the social play-acts whos roles and progression that they are accustomed too.

So what happens, then, when someone is seen defying their role?

How dare that WHITE MALE not bow and scrape in the face of a holy ordained underclass member? Not only that, but to have the temerity to look *confident*, a knowing smirk as he and his brothers hold their frame, wearing symbols of the Great Enemy no less? Doesn't he know he is supposed to be broken and cringing? Not even a slave, but a *chew-toy*? Displays like this threaten the status of shitlibs everywhere!

...Such being major reasons why the 'Trump phenomena' actually became such a phenomena; the man was not obsequious, he did not merely talk back to people who slighted him, he *insulted* them; talked down to them the same way they were so used to talking down. Which thrilled allies and sent prior establishment enemies flying in the apoplectic rage and derangement of narcissistic injury. 'Finally', flyover-man thought, 'someone who is fighting for me'.

>>1469
>Yes, yes they are.
Do you not understand how humans work? When most people see this kind of "argument" scrolling through their Faceberg timeline, they get bored and move on. People are convinced through memes and what makes them feel good, not scrolling through someone else's autism.

>>1469
>>1470
>>1477
I think you are talking about different encounters. The whole brow-beating is of course from people in a position of authority (or people who think they ought to be in a position of authority) and this happens irl or when there's no anonymity.
Also, we're not talking about Faceberg arguments. People there are high time preference/not being serious and don't want to read long essays unless if they're actively searching for them. Memes in such a case are necessary.
What >>1469 is referring to is internet arguments for the sake of argument, whether in a comments section, a forum, or on Discord. You're highly likely in this case to be faced with a know-it-all commie (basically the bourgeoisie of their movement) who smugly corrects your thought-out arguments with a copy+paste from a refutation someone else wrote five years ago. If you know what you're doing you can defeat each individual argument, but your opponent's goal is to tire you out, make you have to use loony communist definitions, and try to make the argument about communist thought which you're less familiar with. The goal of such internet arguments is of course not to convince the other side but to convince onlookers that you're more right.

In such a case autismal point-by-point refutations would be refreshing because you could use the same tactics because you could use the same tactics, especially if the refutation is better than the boomer-tier arguments people often make. I often use mises.org articles but they are sorted rather poorly and it takes effort to find what you want. Commies are often NEETs with too much time on their hands and arguing with them becomes a mental drain as you formulate your response; cutting down time would be a Godsend.

>>1470
>This doesn't happen
It always happens dude.
Most libertarians or conservatives don't even know what marxism or anarcho communism is.
Large cringe memes which strawman leftist theory get upvoted on libertarian subreddits and people think we're btfoing them or something, we're just making ourselves look like fools.

>>1479
Rhetorical steelmen > strawmen every. single. time.
If we want to beat the Left we want to make it look at least as attractive as they make it and then pulverize that into smithereens.

>>1469
>I don't know why you think just giving up is the way to go.
Now you're the one being unreasonable, can you try reading what people are telling you instead of strawmanning? If even you don't want to listen to people trying to reason with you, what makes think commies or normies would?

No one is "giving up", what we're essentially having here is a debate about strategy - by only being reactive to the enemy, you're committing to a defensive strategy, while others think a more offensive one is more effective. Technically both are absolutely necessary, this isn't exactly an either/or situation, but in my posts I argue that PRIMARILY being proactive is better than PRIMARILY being reactive, and it makes total sense: Why do we have to be constantly on the defense? Why not reverse the situation and put leftists on the defensive? To force them to put in an effort? To give THEM headaches and waste their time and force them to burn a bit more calories with their tiny brains? This is not giving up, forcing them to work for you is the superior path. Communists are not our raison d'etre, we do not exist just to be antithetical to everything they do. If we want to win, we must be proactive and strike first, we must be the ones putting things out there for them to sort out instead of waiting for them to do something so that we can scold them for it.

I actually really love your idea of having a huge detailed wiki and I proposed something similar to it for /monarchy/ before. I do hope someone takes on this kind of project. If we had something like that, we can easily copy-paste or refer to articles on it instead of having to type out the same shit all over again for people who we will inevitably argue with, essentially automating the process and saving us time and effort. Also, (and more importantly) it could be an easy FAQ for newfags to learn about libertarian topics instead of more difficult places like mises.org, where you're required to dig through walls of texts just to get a simple question answered, although mises.org would also preferably be linked there as well as other non-pozzed libertarian resources.

My only problem, as I said before, is the naive expectation that refuting everything that leftists have said so far will somehow defeat leftism, that normies or commies will read it and then think "Wow, these libertarian guys sure know what they're talking about, they sure took their time to do their research and formulate it all into these neat collections of essays and bullet points, proving me wrong with facts and logic, therefore based on all this evidence in front of me, I am forced to concede defeat." That's just bullshit. If everyone were so rational, everyone would already be a libertarian. The fascists, and many other groups, don't have any proper refutations to anything, but they still enjoy a lot of popularity, so there must be more to convincing people than actually having good arguments.

>>1481
I generally agree and we ought to focus on being proactive. This of course means making our ideology known and understood among a large group of people which involves the same tactics. We still need more Youtube channels pumping out content and making a splash in social media. We need our explanations for how the world works to as widely spread as it is comprehensive. However, there's no denying that the Left has a head start in this and so undermining their influence is going to be necessary sooner or later, particularly as they're trying to shut the door on political dissent.

People choose avant-garde ideologies, whether communism, fascism, or libertarianism, because they are dissatisfied with the existing model that society is based on. People do not tend to be radical when they think society is functional. Communism blames dysfunctional societies on class interests, fascists on national subversion, but both think the thing they're "rebelling" against is "unrestrained capitalism" and so they demand restrictions on freedom. The average person does not see the mistakes in the assumptions and so they come for a ride which links us with the clearly deficient world order. Sites like FEE often play into this as they are based on refutation which points out that things aren't so bad (from a private standpoint). FEE is strongest when it attacks the existing order by pointing out an area of legislation or control that has created a dysfunctional system. Therefore we must hammer home that we are every bit as anti-establishment and that only our system will prevent the same dreaded elites from coming back.

How this is done is up to debate but we must never let ourselves fall on the side of the establishment. Rather, it is more effective to paint the other side as actually furthering the cause of the establishment, because it lays accusation that a supposed opposition is perpetuating the same things it regards as immoral. People who really want change will jump to whatever movement is most promising to bring about change, both in terms of sincerity of message and in social influence. Socialism is the dominant "opposition" in most countries and therefore bringing it down in both areas will be beneficial. Fascism has been more or less successful because it attacks both the incongruities of socialism and strawman "capitalism" while offering an apparently coherent way of thought.

>>1483
This.
The largest mistake libertarians do is by claiming things "aren't so bad" and defending the status quo.
Why do some libertarians do this, it just makes us look terrible.

We should be radicals fighting against the system.

>>1502
It's mostly the Cato/Reason Kochitarians, beltway cucks who call themselves libertarians but shy away from anything "extreme", such as opposing anti-discrimination laws or calling for the abolition of the Federal Reserve. If you want to learn about the rift between these kinds of people, who currently run the "Libertarian" Party and major publications like Cato and Reason, and principled libertarians and libertarian publications such as Tom Woods and the Mises Institute, this article should prove informative.
https://www.bastionmagazine.com/articles/murray-rothbard-versus-the-koch-libertarians

>>1503
Also, if you want proof of this divide here's a video of a debate between Dave Smith and Nick Sarwak. Dave completely eviscerates Nick Sarwak and pushes his shit in hard.

>>1506
Ah shit I meant here. Sorry, I don't know how to imbed because I'm retarded.

https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=adou3a9g040

>>1507
*imbed
embed. Goddamit why am I screwing up so much?

>>1507
Damn that was a pretty entertaining debate and holy hell is Nick Sarwak out of touch. It really showed with the "jokes" he tried to pull

>>1506
>>1507
This video is pretty based.
Libertarians need to play dirty if we're going to win.
Cucked libertarians that play by the rules are the ones that get shafted.
Beat the commies and fascists at their own game.

>>1481
Are you the russian that posted the post-irony stuff? Anyway, you are pretty intelligent, kudos to you, am glad to have you at our side. I'm the guy that, just like OP, was skeptic about a less serious and offensive approach, but after reading more Hoppe and Meta-Modernism i changed my mind. As an experiment I was able to get one my parents and my grandma and sister to dislike the government already, but not to accept the anarchy part; considering the short time used, post-irony rhetoric is far more useful than simply trying to refute socialism, communism, democracy and etc.. But when the time comes it might be good to have the refutations at the ready, just in case.

>>1539
>Are you the russian that posted the post-irony stuff?
Yes, I'm sure I already pissed off the entire board with my posts about that.

>Anyway, you are pretty intelligent, kudos to you, am glad to have you at our side.
Wow, thanks.

>As an experiment I was able to get one my parents and my grandma and sister to dislike the government already, but not to accept the anarchy part
That's amazing, congrats.

>But when the time comes it might be good to have the refutations at the ready, just in case.
Yes, of course. I think it all has a lot to do with emotional management, because no matter how right you are, if you make the other guy feel stupid or defeated, you are still wrong. There were even studies done on how showing evidence which contradicts someone's beliefs actually makes them more entrenched in those beliefs (the backfire effect), so we really have to be as wise as serpents but innocent as doves, and to be really sneaky in our tactics. There's also a really great book called 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene, which talks about indirect refutation and similar kinds of stuff, an absolute must-read for any propagandist:
https://medium.com/@asandalis/law-9-win-through-actions-never-through-argument-cec9fa4a3e5e

>>1546
That post irony stuff is pretty interesting. Just out of curioisity there's this Russian youtuber with long blonde hair that's libertarian and talks about it a lot. What do you think of him?

>>1550
I like him, he's the hero we need over here, he single-handedly popularized libertarianism in Russia with his Youtube channel and activism, and it's because of his streams/lectures and the explanations of the autists from old 8chan's /liberty/ that I became an ancap myself. He's also where I first heard about post-irony/new-sincerity along with other ancaps shilling the same thing for some reason, prompting me to do my own research on it out of curiosity. This year he's planning on bringing Walter Block to Moscow.

>>1560
That sounds awesome.

>>1560
Why don't we have big popularizers of liberty in the west on youtube?

This guy and that Brazilian guy have helped the libertarian movements there tons.

>>1572
You should talk to ancap guy, he seems to think that "libertarians don't meme hard enough."

>>1583
>he seems to think that "libertarians don't meme hard enough."
Unironically. If you even have to use an ironic meme to attempt to mock the effectiveness of memes, then I guess you're proving my point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izXCk0gT3rw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKl6WjfDqYA

>>1436
>>1432
What if we did a kind of spin on QTDDTOT, where we submit hypothetical Leftist questions / talking points, and have the board come up with counterarguments? Then we can compile a kind of "Libertarian Catechism" of sorts. So to speak.

>>2419
You could do that, yeah. I imagine the left-wing hypotheticals produced by reactionaries would yield more interesting responses than the typical canned leftist arguments.

You want one? Here's one, most are in the pockets of major city governments and actually do fuck all for liberty

It's also utopian af and people who talk a big game about altruism are just self-intrested and are doing it for themselves or the validation of their peer group, and the rest of human beings are just self-intrested but outwardly project it and are non-principled egoists, as per the argument of Hobbesian man-in-nature arguments go. In short people suck and to think they will get along in this arrangement is laughable

>>2419
I have one, a bit memey buy I think it's a decent question.
If a man has no property of his own, how do you kick him off of yours? As it would violate the nap to force him onto another's property.

>>2459
I imagine it would go something like a game of hot potato, until the man lands on a property whose owner doesn't object to his presence, or until he lands on unowned property. Assuming he's willing while escorted off the premises each time, anyways. If he resists, he'd likely get shot.

>>1418 >What are some actual decent arguments against anarcho-communism? >against communism lol The ideology is desgined to be as hostile to freedom and economic activity as possible. Since it robs all producers and forces "equality," there's no incentive, and no reason for anyone to excel. Also, since it's puts power into only a few hands, there's little error correction. Leftist insanity will run wild in such systems.

it requires a special breed of human and once you breed a human into that you've pretty much created a bug it's doable but wrong, like making pugs

>>1418 The fact that you can't have a free society without a free market and private ownership... It's such a basic concept that commies are just too retarded to understand. How the fuck can you call a society where you can't technically own your own home a free society? Ancoms believe in a fairy tail land where everyone just collectively thinks exactly the same, collectively decides to offer their services for free, and collectively works to maintain their retarded ideology. I wouldn't be against them in the sense that, if we got rid of the state, there would be nothing stopping me and a bunch of ancaps from building a covenant and keep the commies out. But would I like to live in an ancom commute? Fuck no! Though realistically, I don't think an ancom commute would last more than 2 or 3 years. Their economic system has been proven time and time again to fail. Whatever they try to form will fail, so I wouldn't worry about it.

Reminder that Catalonia was A STATE Also it was extremely authoritarian https://jim.com/cat/blood.htm

>>1583 Maybe that's true.

I have always though, if there is a world with numberous of socialist communes, it wouldnt be inevitable to expect that one commune will be more productive than the others. So we can expect that this commune will be gaining more profits, so there is not real equality in all the human society. That is an argument that can validate why is socialism and real equality can only be achieved with an authoritarian state, so they can organize the economy so no one can take profit, but as we know that is impossible because of economic calculation.

>>3181 >So we can expect that this commune will be gaining more profits, so there is not real equality in all the human society. If there is still such a thing as profits, then it doesn't seem that you're describing a post-capitalism society. But if you just mean that a commune might produce more stuff than another, I don't see how it is a problem for anarcho-communism, or any other anti-capitalist anarchist traditions.

You are alive today. This is something. You may be able today to go to a cafe and eat outdoors, but don't let your guard down. Tomorrow will be worse. Americans must be totally obsessed with freedom now. Every conversation, thought, and action must be spent looking for loopholes, resisting, and prepping. The elites want to kill you. How could care you about anything else?

>>1428 >class as the ultimate division of society Collectivist division of society in general. There is no difference between National Socialist racial divisions and Marxist class divisions besides the changed names.

Americans want to have a civil war over homosexuals, abortion, and illegal immigrants, but no one cares that the USA is a bankrupt warmongering police state.

Americans say everyone must be a mindless sheep.

>>1418 Communism claims that private property either isn't real or is "theft". If you can't own property, then you can't own yourself either. If you don't own yourself, then you have no rights or bodily autonomy. Some commies try to resolve this paradox by making a distinction between "personal property" and "private property", but that's complete nonsense. "Personal property" is still private property. If no one but you can enter your house, unless you give them permission, then guess what? That's private property. If you and all your commie friends voluntarily agree to share a piece of private property and the resources it produces, then guess what? You're allowed to do that under anarcho-capitalism.

>>5482 >Some commies try to resolve this paradox by making a distinction between "personal property" and "private property", but that's complete nonsense. "Personal property" is still private property the means of production

Let us say that Ruritania is ruled by a king who has grievously invaded the rights of persons and the legitimate property of individuals, and has regulated and finally seized their property. A libertarian movement develops in Ruritania, and comes to persuade the bulk of the populace that this criminal system should be replaced by a truly libertarian society, where the rights of each man to his person and his found and created property are fully respected. The king, seeing the revolt to be imminently successful, now employs a cunning stratagem. He proclaims his government to be dissolved, but just before doing so he arbitrarily parcels out the entire land area of his kingdom to the “ownership” of himself and his relatives. He then goes to the libertarian rebels and says: “all right, I have granted your wish, and have dissolved my rule; there is now no more violent intervention in private property. However, myself and my eleven relatives now each own one-twelfth of Ruritania, and if you disturb us in this ownership in any way, you shall be infringing upon the sanctity of the very fundamental principle that you profess: the inviolability of private property. Therefore, while we shall no longer be imposing ‘taxes,’ you must grant each of us the right to impose any ‘rents’ that we may wish upon our ‘tenants,’ or to regulate the lives of all the people who presume to live on ‘our’ property as we see fit. In this way, taxes shall be fully replaced by ‘private rents’!” Now what should be the reply of the libertarian rebels to this pert challenge? If they are consistent utilitarians, they must bow to this subterfuge, and resign themselves to living under a regime no less despotic than the one they had been battling for so long. Perhaps, indeed, more despotic, for now the king and his relatives can claim for themselves the libertarians’ very principle of the absolute right of private property, an absoluteness which they might not have dared to claim before.

Americans scream tyranny makes you safer, but actually the police state actually increases danger. Now instead of worrying about criminals, you also need to be avoid the Gestapo and terrorist bombings that are a response to tyranny. Americans do not seem to understand that tyranny leads to having a dictator because everyone who is a danger is killed off.

>>5507 Nigger dont you run when im talking to you.

Communism is for retards with down syndrome

>>1418 >What are some actual decent arguments against anarcho-communism? They don't believe in property. You spend all day catching a fish in the river then some guy comes along and says he's more hungry than you and eats it. That's why communes don't work in practice you need somebody to generate a surplus without getting rewarded and without being a slave. The USSR at least had gulags.

>>5510 Not very helpful. Please provide real arguments.

>>5527 It's the best post in the thread, maybe on the board. You don't understand why this is, because you're a retard with Down's Syndrome. Enjoy your gulags and mass starvation, downy.