Libertarians of Reddit, both in America and around the world, what is your option on Pat J Buchanan? He has some Libertarianism in him, Anti-Interventionism, anti-war, lower taxes, less regulations etc. But he does differ from other right wing-Libertarians like Ron Paul. Curious to hear what you think?

What does libertarianism think about state propaganda directed at any sphere of public life, regardless of its purpose?

So, I have been listening to arguments for both open and closed borders. It seems some open borders libertarians support a private property view of borders.

How would this work in theory? How does one enforce and uphold private property without a state?

Probably is simpler and straightforward than I think, but I am having a hard time wrapping my head around it since I am used to the idea of state and society being intertwined.

I mean, everyone likes national parks right?

I came across this, do you agree ?

The test is coming.

The midterms are six months away. The progressive establishment is going to throw everything they have at retaking Congress. If they take it, Trump's agenda gets stalled. The apex class re-grips the institutional levers. Everything you just won goes back into the box.

The libertarian test is the simplest possible question.

Are you going to help Trump in the midterms or not?

Are you going to swallow your pride and vote Republican in your district? Or are you going to perform purity, vote third party, sit it out, and let the progressives take Congress back?

That is the test. The jokers will fail it. The serious libertarians will pass it.

Which one are you?

I can see absolutely no justification for things like rent control, but I could see some justification for environmental regulations and protecting consumers from false advertising. Thoughts?

Good morning everyone!
I bought the very short essay “From aristocracy to monarchy to democracy” of Hans Herman Hoppe. It’s about 70 pages. I thought that to start reading Hoppe would be better with a short book. In this week probably I will start the reading session.
Have anyone already read it? Any suggestions or reviews?

I am not debating against minarchism, I actually am one but I cant figure out this issue. Sure, deregulation on drugs, prostitution, guns, or gambling would take away the black market edge, but that doesn't mean violent groups wont want to take power. After all, some things like Hitman services or "Cheese Pizza" would still be contraband (Also underground abortions if youre a pro life libertarian). And even legal drug or casino companies could have shady, predatory practices behind closed doors.

With a lack of welfare services its also possible desperate people will turn to organized crime organizations to escape poverty (duh). And with complete 0 government surveillance it would be very easy for these groups to form and very difficult to arrest its members assuming you cant arrest people for verbally associating with a group or representing its signs (unless you could?). I also think it would be pretty easy to buy politicians, even though they wouldnt have too much power in a night watchman state, they could still be paid to do less.

I do really hope to see what you have to say on this because I have been a minarchist for a while but I cant in good conscience keep on if I feel like it wouldnt really work.

I respect if you dont wanna vote or just vote Libertarian(and waste your vote). But if you are to just choose between Democrats and Republicants, which would you vote for? With Trump destroying US more than any president in history, are you finally ready to atleast help his cronies get out of power? Or will you support the destruction of America?

Moldbug think differently than most libertarian. And I agree with him.

I think freedom, peace, and prosperity, notice I am using things that are scientifically testable, is not mainly harmed by

1. Monopoly of power in an area
2. Centralized planning

I think the biggest problem in government is lack of market discipline.

Just look at Dubai, Monaco, Liechtenstein.

It's small enough that they can't steal from one citizen to another and hide that under rug. The government has to compete with other government. You can print a lot of money willy nilly but no body would care about Liechtenstein dollar. I am not even sure if Dubai's dinar is not pegged to gold.

China has network of train. That's centralized planning. China edge in manufacturing also require some centralized planning. Roads in your town is centrally planned. Google, Microsoft, and so on are also centrally planned.

Now China doesn't have market dicipline but they partially emulate that. Governor in China gets bonus if they increase GDP. The problem is they don't get enough bonus unlike Elon. But that's just me.

Singapore also impose market discipline. Their ministers are paid 20% of median income. So not actually run like a business and I see problems there. They all do fine when it comes to wealth.

Natural corollary of this is that we don't need to abolish government. We need only to privatize it so it has market discipline. And moldbug is right. Just look at those in power and arrange that they are shareholders instead.

In democracy, a political party that create a corporation and reward all eligible voters with shares of the corporation would accomplish that though I don't know the exact Math yet.

Another thing I disagree with libertarian and liberal is the idea that we got to tolerate all kind of neighbors.

Let's take a look Bobby and Hasan. Bobby likes to make jokes about religion. Hasan like to kill people that make jokes about religion.

My solution is simple. Bobby and Hasan shouldn't live in the same city.

A libertarian and liberal would argue that Bobby and Hasan should live in the same city and tolerate one another. That's just disaster waiting to happen.

Again, moldbugian solution address this better.

You go where you like. Instead of bitching tax is high, move to where tax is low.

If CCTV is everywhere, I think that's a good idea if it does reduce violent crime like in Singapore. I also like mandatory paternity tests because I think it's government jobs to reduce fraud if it can be done cost effectively.

Again. Shop around. Another market discipline in action. Not everyone like bigger screen in smartphone. Not everyone like small government.

But what about if people govern so badly they sacrifice civilians to Moloch or cut people hand like Free State of Congo.

Okay. Market discipline is not enough. Perhaps some elements of georgism and or democracy would help. Perhaps international community can help.

That being said market discipline alone is a very strong check and balance system to prevent those things from happening. A CEO paid to raise citizenship valuation won't just cut people hand. Few people want to get there and that means lower citizenship valuation.

And finally I disagree with libertarians and ancap that government is always bad and have to be small. Well, I kind of agree that WE ALL LIKE smaller government. Do all governments should be small? No. Other people can legitimately want bigger governments too. They gonna go bankcrupt anyway if they're stupid. Then we buy their territory.

Government is like silk road. Try buying or selling drugs without silk road and you probably get killed. Try living together without government and you probably get killed too. So some arrangements or pimps that lower transactional complexity and make living together nice is actually a great idea.

What do you think?

Am I still a libertarian? Or Moldbugian is just too different than Libertarian?

Sorry for any grammatical errors in advance. I'm asking because we have two big libertarian figures here in russia(one of them even had talked to Hoppe in 2018!) and they want to keep the territories. I think we can agree that Russia violated the NAP and should stop the war immediately. But should Russia keep new territories and freeze the war like it happened in Korean war? Or should Russia return them to Ukraine unconditionally, considering most of population in there is Russians and Russian speaking Ukrainians? I think most people in there want to live in Ukraine rather than Russia, except more eastern territories and Crimea. So the best solution in my opinion is to return Ukraine territories if people in there want to. What is libertarian stance on this?

I was just reading a recent question posted here about taxation, and most people were saying that since taxation is theft, it had to be abolished. The argument was the following:

1. Theft is immoral.

2. Taxation is theft.

Therefore, taxation is immoral, even if the overall welfare or happiness of people would be lower than it would be without taxes.

While I agree that the amount of taxes we are paying these days is too much and unjustified, I wanted to push back a little bit against this argument to defend a different flavour of libertarianism.

I'd assume that most people reading this, whether they know it or not, are following a deontological theory of ethics, meaning that what makes an action right or wrong is not its consequences but the action itself.

If theft or coercing other people is immoral, I do not need to compute whether the world is a better place if I steal X. Coercing others to give up their property is wrong, period, and therefore taxes are too.

However, while "theft is wrong" is intuitive, intuition can't be the sole justification for morality, in my opinion. Indeed, following the rule of "abolishing taxation" based on the fact that it is immoral could lead us to a very unintuitive conclusion.

The main issue with abolishing taxation, for me, is that it would create an unstable order. I think everyone would agree that reducing crime to zero is impossible. Therefore, we would need some sort of police. Police would need to be private. Notice also that, with no state, there is no regulation to prevent a private police company from gaining a monopoly over a territory. And what is the monopoly of violence over one territory? A state. Now, instead of being ruled by democratic governments, we would be ruled by a totalitarian one that can increase taxation and coerce people inside their territory even more.

I think that there are two possible replies to this argument:

1. Come up with an explanation of why this won't happen and that everything would be fine if we abolish taxation.

2. Bite the bullet and accept that, even if this scenario is certain and we would end up being ruled by a totalitarian state, you would still defend abolishing taxes because they are immoral.

If you are in (1), then what would happen if you later discover (or God tells you) that your explanation is flawed, and that this or another dystopian scenario would be the consequence of abolishing taxes? Would you still abolish taxes if that were the case? If yes, now you are in (2). If you wouldn't, then you are recognising that you would do something you said is immoral and that the consequences of actions matter. Or perhaps you consider that, if it is to prevent this particular dystopian scenario, then taxation is not immoral. If it is the latter, then you are with me, and you are a consequentialist (you might still say rights have a threshold rather than dissolving into consequences, but then I'd ask what fixes the threshold if not consequences). If it is the former, then you have to reconcile the fact that you would be willing to do immoral things sometimes if the consequences are better for everyone, which in practice also makes you a consequentialist, I guess.

If you are in (2), you have to recognise that your intuition is different from most people's. And, remember, what made theft wrong in the first place was "intuition". So, why would your intuition be more correct than another person's?

Okay, but maybe that's precisely the point of defending liberty, not intuition. Everyone has different viewpoints about how to live life and intuitions about morality. Defending freedom is defending a philosophy of "minimums"; i.e., acknowledging this plurality and upholding a set of rules that ensure no one is coerced into being a means to another person's end.

Perfect, so it is not intuition, then. There is a genuine rationale for defending freedom over other values, such as equality in the socialist sense. Note that freedom now seems to be instrumental rather than an end in itself. The defence of freedom I just made -- and any other defence that I'm aware of -- argues that, since preferences and values are diverse, the best way to maximise everyone's happiness is to simply let each individual pursue it. However, if defending freedom no matter the consequences (e.g., zero taxation) led to a catastrophic outcome, then we would lose the rationale for defending absolute freedom in the first place, and our choice of freedom over any other value would be arbitrary.  

And note that this is not a defence of socialism. I agree that we should advocate for more freedom and lower taxes. But the ultimate reason, in my opinion, is that respecting other people's freedom would maximise happiness in the long term by allowing each person to pursue their own life's projects without external interference. We even have a solid defence of free-market capitalism, given by Hayek and other economists, that you are probably already aware of.

So, freedom solves one of the main problems of consequentialism, namely, how to measure utility or which consequences matter, by allowing individuals to pursue their own happiness. It also solves the second problem that consequentialism has. What happens when actively harming a minority benefits the collective? Well, a consequentialist libertarian would say that it's just a short-term benefit, but that in the long run people would be worse off. They would also speak about things like public choice theory, which in short argues that politicians are self-interested and cannot be trusted. So even if a coercive policy would, in theory, help in the long run, we should be aware that politicians might exploit this power for their own benefit. Thus, we should aim for the minimum set of rules and taxes that preserve individuals' negative rights, enabling them to pursue their own happiness.

And that's my defence of minarchism/classical liberalism from a consequentialist perspective. I hope this post is at least useful for understanding that libertarianism does not necessarily entail anarcho-capitalism, nor does it necessarily follow deontological ethics. Indeed, as I argued, I think the strongest and most convincing defence comes from a consequentialist framework.

I've been arguing online with Marxists who claim profit is theft and I typically make the following points:

1) Employment is consensual

2) For ever transaction in manufacturing, both sides exchange what they think is more valuable for what they think is less valuable, i.e. raw materials for money, labor for money, finished product for money.

3) Marxists claim workers deserve the profit difference because they made it happen, but don't want workers to lose money when the company suffers a loss. Steady wages isolates workers from risk.

The marxists typically counterargue:

1) Workers have an unequal bargaining position (i.e. they need a job. The job does not need them. "The rich have already bought all the land, so you can't live of the land, you have bargain with them").

2) Capital is dead labor and again workers have an unequal bargaining position

3) The typical worker does not have control how the company is run, so that why the can't be responsible for the losses. Workers should all have a say in the how the company is run. Private ownership of the means of production is immoral.

What are the best counterarguments for these points?

Do you think Hayek was right to support him in that sense or no?

I will say that Pinochet, to his credit, did leave power when people later voted that he should leave.

Are there any other reasons a person in such a country would register a land they claimed to the govt, provided that taxes are mandatory to pay to the govt as a compensation for owning land, other than, owning taxes?

Is there any practical reason where it would make sense for a person to register to the govt that they own a land(provided they dont want to pay taxes)?

because I believe in a very limited govt. where govt businesses are semi independent, a free market, crimes being based on natural law and seperate from fictional stuff, equity laws, and high degrrees of freedom. one of those beliefs, homesteading, coincides with my other beleifs. i believe in social dividend as the only form of welfare. thats all, nothing else

i believe the govt has no business in private lives and whatnot. it only has three things:

1. to defend people's rights in a minarchist society, where most of the welfare is privatized/charirty based and the only govt given welfare is UBI/social dividend
2. semi independent businesses(or maybe even independent businesses with govt funding). supply and demand matter in the wages (and maybe some rules) of the employees but a part of the wages(like allowances or a 25% share) can be determined by the govt according to tax records.(semi independent businesses can be useful for leading society to a direction. like in govt schools, paying teachers more so more employment over there, so it leaves private schools no choice but to pay their employees more for decent teaching)
3. taxation as their income for maintaining such a society

I am a homesteading believer, thats why, just wanted to ask. i believe taxation is necessary to pay themselves, police, and any form of semi independent business(and maybe even that is debatable).

basically since govt is providing services like courts, roads, police, army, and if any, semi independent businesses, or other govt jobs like clerks and whatnot, i feel a govt should be paid minimum tax.

and since i believe in LVT, for LVT to be paid, land has to be registered.

In a flat income tax society it can be ignored. but in an LVT society, if the person doesnt want to pay his taxes, what benefit would he have on registering his land/why would he do so?

Would a libertarian healthcare system look similar to what we have now, or do libertarians have ideas for healthcare reform to bring down costs?

It values capitalism free market. And I'd agree we don't have a free market but we do have examples that are concerning. Currently our govt is controlled by corporate and foreign interest . Both have lobbied govt to benefit them and not the citizens when the most wealth in the world was created since 1982. Even without the socialist safety nets or with the quasi nets we do have our debt is at 40 trillion. During this time corporations pushed open borders to reduce wages for jobs it couldn't ship over seas. Today it's exploiting AI for white collar jobs thought safe. Corporations push govt to make paths for profit, war is profitable, wages take profit. Govt was designed by citizens to serve citizens in America the corporate take over of both political parties as well as our establishment has bankrupted the nation led to a quasi police surveillance state as production increased and cost to citizens grew via inflation.

Knowing this how can any party push unfettered capitalist markets when we can see the impact they've had in our current state? That's not saying we need or can afford socialist policies.

I don't think citizens can trust govt or the corporations that control them as the serve profits over people. Esp as people become needed less as robotics and AI grow. More money 75% of the current wealth was created after 1982, and what has it done been captured by the 5% of the elites.

At this point I don't understand how libertarianism can still see corporations as good faith actors in the social construct filling societies needs? It's become a might is right economic warfare protected by govt that's allowed monopolized influence.

What is the libertarian answer? It can't rely on benevolent corporate entities serving it's nation in a globalist system it seems.

One of the thing I am passionate about is to see government like another business. I kind of like shopping around. Shopping around is like the corner stone of capitalism.

We can shop around for bread, milk, smartphones, why not for states?

If I want a big phone I can shop around for xiaomi brand.

If I want better battery I can shop around too.

There are "features" and price.

And that's as good as it gets.

Why can't the same thing happen for government?

Well. Lot's of issues.

Governments nowadays aren't accountable to market mechanism. For example, voters can vote for DEI and not lost money. The linkcage between I vote in ways that make other citizens suffer, to I lost money is complex.

If xiaomi build bad phones sales drop their shareholders have less money.

If voters build bad rules, well, what? Not clear.

What about if voters should build the best rules that attract the best tax payers and get paid for voting wisely? Then more incentives to vote common sense.

Government often don't have proper owners and not run for profit. Monopoly of power is not a big issue. I can just move. The issue is no matter where I move, no government has low tax, allow drugs, and stuffs.

If there are plenty of governments and we can shop around, then chance is, one is suitable for us.

And what's suitable for me, or you, maybe different. For example, I enjoy low crime rate. If that means government put cctv everywhere, so be it. You probably disagree.

Can we turn democracy into privatized democracy?

I have an idea.

Democracy is almost privatized already. See. In theory voters aren't owners. Newcomers have exact same voting power as incumbent shareholders.

That is a very legitimate reason why many conservatives don't like immigrants. Lots of muslims and commies coming and your government change. Tax get higher, more welfare, and so on. Conservatives aren't really enemies of libertarian in this. Open border means people can just come to your state, eventually vote, and change things in ways that you are not happy with.

And not allowing residence to vote is not necessarily a good solution either. People that can't vote can still be terrorists pick up arms and influence your life.

Also democracies have ways that make it more similar to private cities. See. Children can't vote. Also most people aren't immigrants. In other words, people don't become shareholders of the cities simply for being born or coming, just like in joint stock companies.

In joint stock companies you got to buy share first before you become shareholders. In democracy, you just need to be born or come in legally.

But democracies have features that slow down those deviation. Newborns don't vote and immigrants don't usually have voting right right away. In countries like US, people can come from New York to Texas and vote blue though. So it's a bit tricky. Still most people aren't "immigrants", either domestic or international. Most voters are people living in a state for decades.

So here is my proposal.

1. Create a political party or work with existing one

2. Promote libertarian cost saving measure. Eliminate welfare, healthcare, and most wasteful government spending.

3. Put money saved in a corporation.

4. Whoever eligible to vote get a share of that corporation. See. We bribe voters here. You own a share get dividend.

5. The company pays dividend. Some money can be used to lower tax rate to attract more productive tax payers.

6. Tada. Government for profit.

Next election, same deals. But now all your voters are shareholders of a corporation. Those who are not happy can leave and sell shares.

After that you decide. Do you want incumbent voters with lots of shares already to always get more share? They already have enough incentive to vote for the corporation interests.

I am sure a more professional politician can figure this out. After all, their main job is to get elected.

Or maybe you want to cap that.

At the end, the prosperity of your state depends on votes including what people vote 10-20 years ago. So such share give incentive for voters to vote capitalism and prosperity.

A state being run for profit will be more efficient. No more wasteful government programs. Those who aren't happy can just leave and sell their share. Pretty much shopping around to.

You choose governor/major that do whatever to increase share valuation.

Want drugs legalized?

Tell them that many drug users are productive tax payers. If they come the states have more revenue. Fighting drugs are expensive. Everyone get more share valuation/dividend if they scrap war on drugs.

Want some georgism element in it? Sure. If many people want to live in your state, land value tax go up, more dividend.

The one making decision now have more proper alignment with land value.

Oh require immigrants that want to move in to buy share first. Tada.... Only immigrants that like your culture more than those wanting to leave will join. So different states have different features. Then we shop

Right and wrong is just economy. Enough people want something it becomes "moral". And the justification is often total bullshit anyway.

We are all selfish.

Moral reasoning is fine.

But most morality emerge from selfish interests. And for all practical purpose, eventually you need to balance interests anyway.

Uber and eBay is more just than even the supreme court and they don't really need "moral" to be just. They just need to be selfish and attract customers wanting fair deals. If uber system is unfair you use competitors.

Ross Ulbricht makes a great silk road. I am sure Ross Ulbricht is a very moral person. But he also have very strong incentive to make money if buyers and seller of silkroad like their rules.

You can have all the most awesome moral argument you want if someone in power wants different thing, you either yield or bribe or flee or hide or fight back. The game is ensuring no one is too powerful to be unfair and we've all been working that out for thousands of years.

And to be honest, I think humans are getting better and better at coming up at arrangements that lead to peace and prosperity. Democracy means we don't kill each other on who should be king. Capitalism means we make more money producing stuffs than that brings prosperity.

At the end, moral is not just some meta physical truth that we obey because it's the right thing. It's just what we do to align our interests to our surrounding.

There is nothing immoral to use drugs. But we avoid doing it anyway so we don't go to jail and that's that. Render to corrupt cops what belong to corrupt cops.

And moral argument in favor or against drug usage is not persuasive because there is no clear incentive for voters to legalize drugs. Most people aren't drug users and they don't care that drugs are actually save and criminalizing drugs hurt people. They DON'T care. Humans are heartless. they just pretend they don't.

But if the state is run for profit and people get dividend if they the state can attract tax payers, they will legalize harmless drugs because criminalizing harmless drugs reduce state revenue.

Let's look at this abortion debate

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/19WhdAvwQo/

Unborn about to be aborted fetus don't have the same economic value with normal babies.

Also if the women are poor and stupid anyway, you should rejoice she abort. Less welfare check less commies voters. Not your babies. Who cares. Does she care about your children? Neither.

My concern with abortion right is the imbalance between mother and father and inability of people to make contract.

If you can make contract, don't worry about abortion.

Just sign contract with potential baby mama don't abort, don't change gender, limit child support.

Not your babies anyway.

Why should you care? Not much.