>How do you feel about former libertarians going full authoritarian right-wing? I don't care. >What are some good arguments against those kinds of ideologies being the best ones? How do you judge ideologies? Values.

>>5531 >How do you feel about former libertarians going full authoritarian right-wing? It sucks but they were retards who follow the popular trends instead of thinking for themselves and having principles. >What are some good arguments against those kinds of ideologies being the best ones? History and reality, we can see how authoritarian ideologies suck dick simply by observing how they fare today and how they did in the past (They almost always lost against less authoritarian ideologies or collapsed on their own)

The opposite happened to me relatively recently. I was a national socialist fascist type for the past few years but then I realized how much big government sucks after witnessing all the censorship, overreach, and bureaucracy that comes with it. I never cared much for economic systems when I was NS, but after reading about Austrian thinkers and listening to speeches given by Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, etc., it's pretty plain to see that a laissez-faire economic system is the most efficient. I already had a general distrust of (((central banking))) so the anti-fedpill wasn't hard to swallow. Anarcho-capitalism is essentially the natural endpoint of a completely free market and I couldn't think of anything the state provides that a private institution couldn't do better.

>>5531 Sorry, my old gamergate anons. I turned out into libertarian nationalist and compromised the purity of values and principles with pragmaticism and accelerationism to cope from how badly beat we got. The worst part is that I achieve extremely significant political success similar anons through the methods that our political rivals used (abusing institutions, using underhanded methods, using freedom as an opportunity to subvert and destroy the opposition). I yet still yearn for that freedom we all wanted back then in idealistic times, but the times are desperate as they continued to reduce us.

>2023 post >Getting posts now Well I'm happy that /liberty/ is back, generally I fucking hate it. I think that the rise of authoritarianism on both sides is fucking shit and things were better when imageboards were more libertarian

>>5563 Politics is low-time preference, so that's to be expected. Plus, Hoppeanism explicitly enables some degree of self-defense from non-aggressive individuals through the application of absolute self-ownership. I think a big problem libertarians have had for a while is in this "the lesser evil is still evil" mindset. Same mindset behind the border drama. You can't get open borders through the state, but closed borders will at least reduce the number of people being screwed over by the state, especially when it's a welfare state like what we have now. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with not ruling out politics as a potential avenue for success, but I hope you keep your eyes open for over options, too. <t. Newfag, so take my words with a grain of salt.

>>5531 Immeasurable disappointment. Authoritarianism is for faggots who can't deal with personal responsibility and want a government to babysit them for "free."

>>5566 Do you have any good arguments against them, or perhaps some methods of preventing the growing Authoritarianism?

>>5568 The old argument was democracy, a self correcting system. Then the left wing put 75 years of effort into ending democracy and silencing the votes and voices of anyone on the right. Now the only possible way for their voices to be heard and to correct the problem is either authoritarianism or revolution. That's the problem with suppressing democracy and the natural consequences of what liberals have done to the country. If we can dismantle the anti-democracy, authoritarian control of government, speech, and media that the left wing has, we might have a chance at preventing that and saving democracy. But it's a slim chance because the left won't even acknowledge their own responsibility in their personal lives let alone in the greater political situation.

>>5569 Personally, I view the inherent structure of democracy as being one of the major culprits. Authoritarians steal just a little from everyone to pay a whole bunch to a handful of people, and do this everywhere. The losses are dispersed, and the profits are concentrated, so they can always rely on the majority to be fine with screwing over the minority for extra "free" shit. Add to that Arrow's theorem, massive voter fraud, and the fact that the government can control the narrative by choosing which options to vote on, and when, and no wonder the leftists were able to subvert it this completely. What we need is a more consistent application of property rights. The wisdom of the crowd only applies when there isn't coordination, and the tragedy of the commons can be avoided by totally getting rid of anything held in common. Hoppeanism does a great job at this, especially with regard to the cultural subversion that the left have relied on to enforce their ideology thus far. Between Millei's political solution to politics, the Free State Project, and counter economics, I'm sure a viable solution could be worked out, but for now we need to make our ideas more accessible and interesting to the common individual. We already have the superior philosophy. That's my take on it, at least.

>>5570 Superior philosophies don't necessarily win. Libertarians today find themselves being drowned out in the political conversation by two larger and opposing authoritarian wings. The left who want to end all opposition through total control of politics, media, and social conversation. And the right who want to bring about an authoritarian leader to dismantle the social, media, and political structures the left have built to achieve their goals. Between these two, aligning with the right has the best chance of resulting in a stable and more balanced environment in which libertarian practicality and common sense can return. The main risk is that the liberal will do what they always do and overreact and bring about an even more authoritarian dictatorship that stomps out all opposing views, much as they've done in Canada and the UK already.

>>5571 I agree for the most part, but it's democracy that enables these parasites to fester. Libertarianism is not democracy. Libertarianism is the NAP, and property rights. Democracy goes directly against Libertarian ideals by lending itself to socialism by structural necessity. Securing free speech, self-defense, and the ability of individuals to hold full and exclusionary control over their property, including themselves, is paramount for a successful libertarian order, and democracy is incompatible with these libertarian principles due to rational ignorance, as well as flat out irrationality of the collective. Remove the collective's ability to enforce theft on others, and the only options for people to grow will be through providing superior services to each other. It's not the case that libertarianism is inherently unstable, or incapable of winning on it's own merits. Libertarianism is, to the extent that it's been tried, the most successful system of all. The problem originates from the incentive structures that are inherent to a democratic system such as the one we have now. If we could bypass the collectivism, or separate ourselves from it somehow, we'd likely see far more success. If you haven't done so already, I'd recommend you read Hoppe's "Democracy, The God That Failed" for more info on the matter.

>>5572 I have to disagree because socialist societies are largely anti-democracy. USSR, CCP, North Korea, UK, Canada, liberal states. All socialist societies seek dictatorship and to end democracy. Libertarianism is the ultimate democracy because each individual has two votes, one political vote, and one financial vote in the free market based on how much currency they have. The second is not equal across all people, but that latter type of vote actually matters a whole lot more in mass than the former because it can't be defrauded, suppressed, or faked.

>>5573 My point was that democracy is a self-defeating system that has more in common with socialism than it does with libertarianism. Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production, which usually ends up being controlled by the state. Democracy is the rule of the people. The collective ownership of the body politic. Democracy is better, but both end up falling short on their originally stated goals. People are self-interested, and have neither the ability, nor the care to make the best decisions for anyone but themselves based on anything other than their own knowledge on a given matter. There are too many ways of articulating this for it to be easy for me, and I'm not particularly good at wording my points in the first place, but there are a lot of useful resources on this board if you care to lurk around a bit. Ultimately, I think it'd be easiest if I could explain the concept of time preference to you, but I'll admit that I have a hard time separating one theory from another, or keeping myself on a single topic. It might be best to keep this more as a discussion. Maybe someone could correct me if I end up getting things wrong.

>>5574 >Democracy is the rule of the people. So is libertarianism. The people through libertarianism and free market capitalism have more power in the system than at any point in history. >People are self-interested, and have neither the ability, nor the care to make the best decisions for anyone but themselves based on anything other than their own knowledge on a given matter. Yes, this is the central tenet of libertarianism. People naturally have self interest and vote for their self interest by spending money in the free market which causes massive companies in the market to respond to their needs. No other system can deliver that sort of service to the people.

>>5575 Libertarianism has no explicit rulers, each individual rules themselves, and chooses who, if anyone, to follow. This form of rule is known as anarchy. Democracy is "rule of the majority" or "the collective." When you vote on a given matter, you aren't just deciding what will happen to you. You're deciding what will happen to everyone affected by the election, regardless of whether they voting for or against it, or if you chose not to even vote. Under a democracy, your only means of defending yourself from the mob that seeks to tax you to fund the welfare state is to pray to god that the lesser evil side ends up being the majority, and it's always a choice between two evils, and usually a rigged choice at that. On the market, you can choose to go to any business you want, or make your own if the options don't satisfy. Not only are the results immediate and personalized, but they don't force anyone else to comply with your decisions. Even if a politician gets into office, they have no incentive to do what you want, and every incentive to screw you over in the long term because they have a high time preference, and almost no form of accountability. Alternatively, the free market forces individuals to offer the most desired products for the most agreeable prices without any means of subterfuge or subversion, save for the influence of the state. Money is the only form of voting that works. The absolute best democratic system, with the best voting system, would still be a mere imitation of the market, and not even a good one at that. Relying as much on the market, and as little on the political system known as "democracy" will produce the ideal system, but between democracy and, for instance, monarchy. Monarchy actually ends up producing a greater form of accountability to the people, and a greater ability to resolve corruption when it inevitably forms. Monarchists have something to lose if they can't maintain the wealth of their subjects, and the value of their lands for as long as possible, while a politician is only incentivized to make their own campaign appear good, and are actively incentivized to sabotage their opponents. This is why inflation is so rampant. MMTards can push debts onto the future almost indefinitely, and anyone that tries to reduce it will suffer the consequences of inflation. The average voter isn't smart enough to figure out what is happening, and certainly doesn't have the luxury of wastable time to spend researching the topic just for the ability to add their measly vote in an attempt to counterbalance the millions of uneducated voters. I have more to say, but I think I'll let you give me your thoughts on this before I continue.

>>5576 I feel I've done a terrible job explaining this. I'll just post a video that does it better. I did say I wasn't good with wording my points. https://youtu.be/b5ZxM_uh9mc?feature=shared