/liberty/ - Liberty

Gold, property rights, and physical removal

Winner of the JulayWorld Attention-Hungry Games™, Week 5

/retro/ - 1990s ans[sic] 2000s nostalgia

Nominations for week 6 coming soon.


Report your front-end woes 2: Electric Boogaloo

What is the Imageboard Federation?

JulayWorld onion service: bhlnasxdkbaoxf4gtpbhavref7l2j3bwooes77hqcacxztkindztzrad.onion

Max message length: 32768

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

Captcha
no cookies?
More

(used to delete files and postings)


Good ideas don't require force. If you don't agree, we have helicopters.


FAQ and QTDDTOT HHHPinochet Board owner 11/27/2019 (Wed) 11:32:59 ID: 261585 No.926 [Reply] [Last]
COVENANT COMMUNITIES A lot of posters seem to be ignorant on what a covenant community is and what its implications are. A covenant community is a small, homogeneous, gated community with strict controls on who can and cannot enter, who can and cannot gain residency, and what conduct must be observed within the community. In other words, it is a privatized micro-ethnostate. The idea was popularized by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, attached are some select quotes from Hoppe explaining the covenant community in his own words: >there would be little or no “tolerance” and “openmindedness” so dear to left-libertarians. Instead, one would be on the right path toward restoring the freedom of association and exclusion implied in the institution of private property. <but what if leftist filth moves into the covenant community under false pretenses, resists all the social ostracization, and acts like a complete nuisance without violating any property rights, so you can't shoot him for trespassing? There exists a legal principle known as estoppel, which says those who do not value or abide by a certain norm are not entitled to appeal to that norm in their own defense. Commies don't believe in property rights, so they have estopped themselves from appealing to property rights in their own defense. Therefore, there is no need for a covenant community to wait until the commie commits a trespass before physically removing it. I'M 12 AND WHAT IS THIS? If you're a NigSoc, commie, or any other dissident who thinks he has a TOTES BASTE AND REDPILLED take that DESTROYS private property norms with LOGIC and REASON, please see this link first (just ignore the one on immigrants and immigration, it's retarded): https://archive.is/bbtHt If you would like clarification on one of these points or have a "gotcha" question not covered by the list above, please post it in this thread.
Edited last time by HHHPinochet on 01/03/2020 (Fri) 19:13:18.
101 posts and 18 images omitted.
Is there a biological basis behind certain people being unable to be libertarian? If, for the sake of argument, it was determined that people of certain identifiable characteristics (IQ, say) would never have the cognitive capacity to be libertarian, what would a libertarian society do with these 'people?'
>>1944 Wouldn't that apply to most people of color though? Where are you going with this
>>1944 They would be physically removed, so to speak. By virtue of estoppel those who do not respect a certain principle are not entitled to appeal to said principle in their own defense. Those who do not recognize property rights will be treated as outlaws were in America's Old West--banished from centers of civilization and shot on sight if they return. If certain characteristics, such as IQ, are found to be correlated with criminal behavior, the eggheads at the insurance companies would take this into account when assigning risk. If someone is judged to be a significant chimpout risk, they'd probably be barred from entry into most establishments, and forced to live in a slum with other high-risk niggers sufficiently far away from all the wypipo.
Open file (9.72 MB 500x350 niggerfuneral.gif)
>>1944 >Is there a biological basis behind certain people being unable to be libertarian? There is a biological basis, but it doesn't prove that certain people can't become libertarians, it only proves that they're likely to become libertarians for different reasons and respond to different rhetoric. It has to do with Jung's cognitive functions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_cognitive_functions Cognitive functions also play a role in your IQ, and you might even say it's a more accurate measure for intelligence. High IQ doesn't stop people from becoming anti-capitalists though, in fact, a high IQ makes it more likely for you to be a commie just as much as an ancap. >If, for the sake of argument, it was determined that people of certain identifiable characteristics (IQ, say) would never have the cognitive capacity to be libertarian, what would a libertarian society do with these 'people?' What >>1949 says. The despotic market-consciousness will sort them out. On the other hand, if low IQs are just harmless weirdos and aren't a net-negative to their society, they will not achieve market superiority but they might live peacefully in their own isolated corner of the market.
>>1945 If anything, wouldn't it apply to the sexes? After all: 1 - Jonathon Haidt has noted significant differences in libertarians regarding the emotionless, rational nature of their positions ( https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0042366&type=printable ). 2 - Testosterone appears to regulate political beliefs ( https://www.cep.ucsb.edu/papers/2013Petersen_Ancestral_Logic_Politics_w_SI.pdf ). 3 - Male brain development receives a flood of testosterone that significantly redistributes their brain towards the development of the prefrontal cortex over more hyperemotional centers of their brain ( https://www.babycenter.com/0_brain-development-is-the-difference-between-boys-and-girls-a_10310673.bc?PageSpeed=noscript ). It also explains the large male:female disparity in libertarianism. I think there's a case you could make that most female brains are simply incapable of processing libertarianism.

Welcome to /liberty/ HHHPinochet Board owner 08/19/2019 (Mon) 22:30:01 ID: e35c08 No.3 [Reply] [Last]
A board for discussing private property norms, Austrian-school economics, and natural rights. Refugees not welcome. RULES 1. Don't be a faggot. Faggots get bullied, and if they become a persistent nuisance they will be banned. 2. Refugees not welcome. Dissidents--NEETSocs and commies alike--are not forbidden from posting. However, keep in mind you are guests of this covenant e-community, not residents, and will be physically removed if you violate Rule 1. 3. Keep whataboutisms, gotchas, and similar low-effort critiques of libertarianism in the designated shitting thread, i.e. the QTDDTOTT. 4. Please spoiler all NSFW images. 5. /monarchy/ is our official sister board, feel free to pay them a visit. If you have banners or flags you'd like me to add, please post them here. Complaints/comments/concerns regarding moderation and board policy go here as well.
Edited last time by GK_Stone on 01/25/2020 (Sat) 19:12:40.
84 posts and 39 images omitted.
Need more flags like Mutualism and Christian Anarchism like the old board.
>>602 I'm against Empiricism. Anglo crap.
>>1894 >mutualism Gay. >Christian Anarchy There's already a flag.
>>1918 the old board had the Mutualism flag.
>>1934 This isn't the old board. The only blue checkmark LARPflags that will be added are for the LARPs that aren't completely cringe.
Edited last time by HHHPinochet on 02/19/2020 (Wed) 20:22:55.

Open file (492.71 KB 864x1291 PkNKj1582280485.jpg)
ANCAP TECH TREE Anonymous 02/21/2020 (Fri) 10:13:17 ID: b61ffb No.1956 [Reply] [Last]
Discuss it.
1 post omitted.
Discuss it? You provide 0 initiative and information and you want me to waste my time here since you are not going to bring anything to the table? Fine
Open file (497.24 KB 864x1291 HhNzQ1582351665.jpg)
>>1959 Under anarchy there will be nobody telling you what to do. Maybe you should try socialism.
I told you I could fagt
Open file (57.20 KB 470x481 get the chopper.jpg)
>>1963 >get out of my covenant normie <it's, like, FREEEDOM, maaaaaan. You can't tell me what to do. Ah, but I can.
>>1964 So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish
>>1964 Technically yeah but practically infeasible

Open file (45.33 KB 678x709 nn.jpeg)
Ancap muzak Anonymous 02/02/2020 (Sun) 11:23:59 ID: 43dab2 No.1734 [Reply] [Last]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVyqTFUgQ78 Maybe you need some propaganda.
20 posts and 17 images omitted.
>>1946 Just use this flag if you want to advertise yourself as a homosexual:
Open file (78.09 KB 699x555 dFOKdPqDg4A.jpg)
>>1947 Absolutely saved
Open file (7.91 MB 640x360 hoope_wave_greta.webm)
[KILL YOURSELF IN THE SPOT]

Open file (175.35 KB 1440x1084 Hitler crowd.jpg)
Anonymous 11/26/2019 (Tue) 07:58:13 ID: 5a63c8 No.906 [Reply] [Last]
Let me put the pieces together for you. This is a discussion of strategy. National socialism is not the totalitarian lie that you've been fed, even good historians from the libertarian camp repeat the establishment talking points. National socialism is: >extremely anti marxist >anti democracy >pro self-determination >idealist Sound familiar? National socialism is a revolutionary ideology that was only the result of a people realizing that the communist international jews were controlling them against their self determination, so they reacted with force. It supposes the existence of a state and defines the role of the state as securing racial health. The color red was chosen and the word socialist was used in order to win the exact sort of people who would have otherwise been deluded into communism. Where communism claims that the conflict is international class vs class, NatSoc claims it is nation vs nation (nation meaning race). The exact same thing is occuring today. We live in a sham of a representative democracy where subversives are centralizing more and more power for communist purposes while we passively appeal to constitution and precedent, and to our peril. It is only a matter of time before the balloon goes up. If you agree to the following: >Race is real >Tribalism (racial in-group preference) is natural and unavoidable >Jews are not white

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

Edited last time by HHHPinochet on 02/09/2020 (Sun) 06:27:31.
99 posts and 48 images omitted.
>>969 >Do you have brain damage? It bears pointing out your reddit spacing if you're going to make such an accusation based on nothing but your opponent's usage of insults - which have been forthcoming from yourself, it is useful to note > It does not require a great leap of imagination to see that Capitalism is in fact the modern equivalent of what was once known hundreds of years ago as Jewish Usury, profit for profit and not an expedient method of societal innovation which a true free market is, and it gets even better when subsidized by the state, and such a market needs regulation. They're the dominant beneficiaries of tax money being pumped into propping up their businesses and regulation preventing competition from smaller businesses. They're the beneficiaries of the exact same system as National Socialism posits, merely exercised by them rather than by the Puritan Hiter. You mistake that system turned against a people as freedom leading to degeneracy, and suggest instead propping the folk up with it, not for a moment trusting the people who founded civilization to do so again. I believe in my people's achievements, which is why I don't find it necessary to have some unskilled ex-soldier to dictate to that people how they should live their lives in the hopes of recapturing that success - a success brought about by liberty, now forced by totalitarianism. >Only way your ideology could work was after a world war in which a country is left in total ruins by nukes and we have to revert to what you call "free voluntarism" and "communes" as a response to solving the problems of having such important things as civil service/hospitals/roads/schools/trains/industry instead of just coming together as a unified system, as one race and one nation, apparently this to you is "totalitarianism", shows what a whole nothing you know. The argument that nothing can be achieved without relying on the selfsame system as our oppressors can easily be turned around on your ideology: "Only way your ideology could work was after a racial war in which a country is left totally depleted of people and we have to revert to what you call 'hard work' and 'corporations' as a response to solving the problems of having such important things as welfare/immigration/banking/media instead of just coming together as a unified world, as one species and one planet, apparently this to you is 'totalitarianism', shows what a whole nothing you know.' see, here you've demonstrated the same framework of thinking as a liberal, unsurprising for an ideology deriving itself entirely from the ideals of the masonic revolutions. I can justify any system by citing it's necessity as proof that it is not totalitarian, and any size of empire you like based on appeals to unity. The true rejection of Marxism is that a people must have self-determination, not through a bureaucracy, but through their own achievement, and that loyalty to one's own requires rejection of unionist claptrap like your "one race and one nation" to defend your people and culture from outsiders - as the Austrians tried to against your beloved unemployed construction worker made lunatic-in-chief. Not the worst arguments you could present by far, but it reveals your utter unwillingness to even consider that on any point your ideology could be wrong, a point of view I think it would be fair to call dogma.
Open file (104.14 KB 677x907 1577912031725.jpg)
i'd just like to add to this thread that whatever you're yelling at each other with, at least it's not shill bullshit to me! look at "in-depth" (long) responses and debating of arguments >>917 >>919 >>929 >>933 >>941 >>945 >>952 >>1381 >>1692 among many many others i can sense that we are far away from all the 4chingchong niggerisms and nigger threads and have people that actually put effort into their discussions, nice. perhaps you're simply not amerimutts?
>>1939 Not one of the quoted, but I'd like to add that I have a lot of respect for those amongst the /pol/ack horde that are actually well read. It's always frustrating to be halfway into a debate with a communist and find that they haven't even read Das Kapital.
>>1939 Muh Amerimutts
>>1957 Why would you bump the shit thread just to say this

Open file (233.05 KB 1000x785 PROPAGANDA.png)
OC Thread: Julay Edition Anonymous 10/22/2019 (Tue) 22:48:44 ID: fd811b No.451 [Reply] [Last]
OC, fresh memes, and rare Aurelias.
161 posts and 139 images omitted.
Open file (15.61 MB 3600x1800 Rise of Liberty.png)
>>1930 >>1931 What text should I add here anons?
>>1018 The mostest based
>>1932 >>1933 Taxation is theft!
>>1157 >404

Open file (56.78 KB 304x304 komipoint.png)
Random/Shitpost Thread Anonymous 01/23/2020 (Thu) 18:17:39 ID: 481c8d No.1601 [Reply] [Last]
Listen up kiddo. We need to have a little chat. You thought you could lurk around here just because you're a cool guy and we share the same worldviews? You thought /liberty/ was open and free for everyone? That's not how it works, pal. This isn't some hippie-dippie commie shithole. Nothing in life is free besides the cheese in a mousetrap. You gotta leave a post in this thread every time you visit the board if you wanna keep the lights on over here. Yes, I know, I know, but someone had to say it. You know how the economy is these days, it's tough for everyone. Don't make it more difficult for the rest of us, we all have to carry our own weight. We all have to do our part to keep the place running. There's no room for freeloaders around here. Leave something in this thread each time you visit the board and we can keep on being friends.
108 posts and 90 images omitted.
>>1897 You know, we need a utopian capitalism, something to serve as a vision and a preview of what we want, and to counter both utopian socialism and all the dystopian post-modern shit out there about the future. I don't know about you guys and how you first came to ancap, but personally, the aesthetics in those cities threads really attracted me to it, even though ideologically I was against what ancaps talked about. For me at least, the promise of living in weird, cool places in some ancap world made my naive imagination work against me to fill in the blanks, and it made me curious enough to research ancap ideas on my own back when I didn't want to listen to ancaps (who I considered to be libertine degenerates at the time), so I think aesthetics are really important.
>>1917 Warning: i kinda lost myself here. Aesthetics are vital for any movement, religious, political, scientific(like the string theory, I bet that only few people that support it also understand it) and even economic(Keynesian). Back when I was a "Normal" libertarian, during my read of Atlas shrugged, I got enchanted by the idea of galt's gulch and how everyone there would actually work hard to improve their condition, and as a consequence they would improve the lives of everybody. However the Galt engine(infinite energy) was such a big turnoff for me that I would go on to become Traditionalist, until I re-read Rothbard and eventually found Hoppe. Now i feel as like I've gone through everything. I started brainwashed by my teachers as a Marxist, the only books I had read in the realm of politics and philosophy before that where Leviathan and The Prince. I broke out of commie brainwashing by reading Das Kapital(I never finished nor intent to). Then I became a right wing radical(NatSoc-Fascist) for a long time, absorbing all kinds of media from them; at this time i decided to read Evola and once again I would became enthralled, his arguments against modernity where pretty satisfactory for me, (It was at this time that I read Atlas shrugged and got introduced to Rothbard) except the Buddhist crap. Ride the tiger was the breaking point, since I did not like the idea of waiting and riding the tiger, I tried to convince myself in many ways but I could not. I felt compelled to read more and find answers, but because of my knowledge, I could no longer go back to modern democracy or conservatism, nor to fascism. From the works of F. Dostoevsky and Adam smith through Hobbes again to Stirner. It took me years to find Hans Hermann Hoppe and Austrian economics and finally become an Anarcho-Capitalist. I am very solidly placed now since there is nowhere else to go, so I am staying here, figuratively speaking, to make as much as possible. This "movement" must become even more anti-fragile, in the words of Taleb, art and literature is one the keys for this. While Menger, Mises, Rothbard and Hoppe laid the long lasting foundations of Austrian Economics and Anarcho-Capitalism, because this movement is so small, in the realms of art and aesthetics very little was produced. Democrats, commies and fascists have their """utopias""", imaginary and real to fall back on, while I can only think of few novels and periods of time for ancap. It should not be this way, the aesthetics of capitalism are actually everywhere, it's very hard to think of economical progress and wealth as a product of voluntary interaction and innovation instead of *insert whatever that makes people comfortable*. Finally, to no surprise, I think the utopia IS here, created by those interactions that I described, it's just corrupted by the state, thus we already live in a dystopia. The trend of technology and science being owned and sponsored by the state and the ruling elites can only make this more obvious. Imagine if the works on intranet were made public in the 80s, if nasa wasn't so protective of their projects and made it all public in the 90s, if the internet wasn't censored nor regulated every 2 years or if you would not go to jail for "violating" patents and copy rights.
>>1919 Wow, that's one hell of a ride. >I broke out of commie brainwashing by reading Das Kapital How ironic. >It should not be this way, the aesthetics of capitalism are actually everywhere, it's very hard to think of economical progress and wealth as a product of voluntary interaction and innovation instead of *insert whatever that makes people comfortable*. >Finally, to no surprise, I think the utopia IS here, created by those interactions that I described, it's just corrupted by the state, thus we already live in a dystopia. The trend of technology and science being owned and sponsored by the state and the ruling elites can only make this more obvious. Yes, of course, technically that's true, but the problem is that the good that capitalism brings is so diluted by the negative effects of statism that it's all hard to notice. In fact, the state is credited for everything that the market does, while the market is either implicitly or explicitly blamed for the problems indirectly or even directly caused by the state. In order for it to be "utopian" (and I hate this word btw), an envisioned capitalist society has to be completely free from a state and governed only by market forces, and since we never really had a truly free society in recent history, what we would get would be so radically different to what we have now that it would definitely earn the title of "utopian". And yes, technically anyone can imagine anything and say "this is the ancap utopia", plebs can argue how practical it is later on too, but if utopian socialism has a right to exist no matter how fucking stupid it is, then so does utopian capitalism by the same rules. What would essentially separate "utopian capitalism" from "utopian socialism" though, is that unlike socialists/modernists we don't want just one single universal utopia to be forced onto everyone, we want many competing, overlapping ones. I think any uncucked libertarian understands that happiness is subjective and there's no single one-size-fits-all ideal or solution for everyone, so if we are to be realistic and honest (and we are) we can promise a utopia, but always mention that it will be within a kind of "meta-utopia" of many specialized or overlapping private jurisdictions catering to some niche society ("niche-topias") in which people live by the ideals and laws that they prefer according to their own versions of happiness. The utopian capitalist rhetoric in a nutshell would ideally be something like: "Yes, your utopia is possible, and I will even help you achieve it, but the catch is that you have to let others have their utopias too". I think that's as simple as it gets if you can condense it into one simple statement. Otherwise no one is going to come to our side if all we do is specialize in telling people that their dreams will never come true. I was just reading about a new genre of fiction leftists are trying to steal called "solarpunk" which is supposed to be where everything is nice and comfy in the future instead of blackpilled and depressing like cyberpunk. It kinda sucks how leftists are trying to steal yet another genre and corrupt it into a new vision for utopian socialism, but with an emphasis on eco-socialism this time to go along with today's trends, and obviously they don't do this kind of shit for nothing, aesthetics generate a kind of halo effect for an entire movement. If someone says "ancap" what's the first thing that comes to mind? Somalia? If it isn't something cool and positive, then we need to step up our game. We are telling the truth here, so why hold back? Is the truth boring? If we don't promise to make anime real, some disgusting commie eventually will. http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-32-play-to-peoples-fantasies.html
>>1929 >I was just reading about a new genre of fiction leftists are trying to steal called "solarpunk" which is supposed to be where everything is nice and comfy in the future instead of blackpilled and depressing like cyberpunk. It kinda sucks how leftists are trying to steal yet another genre and corrupt it into a new vision for utopian socialism Part of the reason for that is that historically science fiction has been infused with socialist ideology - the fathers of science fiction such as Jules Verne and H.G Wells generally emerged from the tradition of utopian socialism, and if we look at the pre-Marxist roots of socialism it's easy to see why, with the likes of suggestions to convert the world's oceans into lemonade. I imagine this kind of thinking in early socialism came from a rejection of the hitherto dominant pragmatist politics of the preceding era, where political participation was mostly unheard of. Ultimately I don't think that science fiction (the primary fount of utopianism) is leftist by nature, but I do think that it's early roots influenced it's development towards a more leftist underlying philosophy.
>>1935 >with the likes of suggestions to convert the world's oceans into lemonade This is peak modernism. >I imagine this kind of thinking in early socialism came from a rejection of the hitherto dominant pragmatist politics of the preceding era, where political participation was mostly unheard of. Leftists are immoral, this is the annoying thing about them, they have successful tactics because they're unhindered by any morality, and they can lie about literally anything and still sleep peacefully at night. We have to emulate their methods without compromising on ethics and morality, to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves (so to speak). We have more right to making any utopian claims than them though, because we have an even more credible scientific basis for our beliefs, the thing is, ancap isn't just economics, it's also systems/complexity theory, so if you can get educated on the science, you wouldn't have a problem modelling an ancap society along with whatever wacky shit might happen there, and you wouldn't even have to talk about economics while you're doing it. On the totally free market literally anything would be possible, but whether everything would be plausible is a different question.

Open file (250.25 KB 700x420 ClipboardImage.png)
Anonymous 02/09/2020 (Sun) 21:49:46 ID: f0a2aa No.1852 [Reply] [Last]
>dharmapilled Non-Christians get physically removed, so to speak. You aren't a pagan or satanist, right Anon?
7 posts and 3 images omitted.
Open file (215.49 KB 592x570 Swedes+March+gay.jpg)
>>1878 >Protestant
>>1854 Discordianism is super fucking gay and egalitarian. Look it up.
>>1893 I can't believe in what i read for my religious precept , sorry.

Anonymous 02/11/2020 (Tue) 13:09:48 ID: e882dc No.1885 [Reply] [Last]
Automation and A.I. in the next 20-30 years is going to result in a massive radical transformation and many jobs will be lost but new ones will be created in other sectors. Massive reductions in the cost of products and services like food and transportation are going to occur. After this transformation happens and prices for consumers comes down, living standards are going to increase, right? People would supposedly have much more disposable income, right? We all know healthcare, college and housing are artificially expensive due to government intervention, and these costs will continue to rise. My question is, are the increased costs of healthcare, tuition and housing going to keep increasing which will NEGATE any benefits of this automation? In the future in America are healthcare/tuition costs in the typical american's budget going to be the largest expense people have to pay for because the costs have been so artificially inflated by government intervention? Imagine if food and transportation is insanely cheap but health insurance costs a fortune for everybody. I really hate that the government intervenes in these sectors, it makes it look like "the free market" is responsible for these high prices, this myth won't go away. We need to solve these problems before it's too late.
1 post and 1 image omitted.
>>1885 >Automation and A.I. in the next 20-30 years is going to result in a massive radical transformation and many jobs will be lost That shit always gets thrown around but for the most part it's just a buzzword that makes people think that skynet is going to flip their burgers. As it stands our robotics and agents are very much specialists in what they do, meaning that it requires formulating an exact niche that say a robot is going to do, then pretty much purpose building it to that spec in hard and software. It takes a tremendous amount of work to go from "like let it drive trucks maaaan" to an actual product which can reasonable do something and at that point you have to ask yourself about the costs of implementing and maintining a robot compared to employing someone. In essence we evolved to be a good arbitrary function fitting machine that throws out lots of stuff to "hardcoded" subsystems in order to even manage the scarce resources we have to work with which to me implies that any AGI on the level of a human will either cost you an arm and a leg in energy alone or tell you to fuck off because it wants leisure time too.
Something about the medical apps from Google and Apple and the disappearence of medical jobs?
>>1885 Any innovation that decreases the input costs of production will result in an increase in disposable income and a net increase in employment. >My question is, are the increased costs of healthcare, tuition and housing going to keep increasing which will NEGATE any benefits of this automation? Who knows? Central planning is fake and gay, so questions like this can't be answered in any meaningful way. Maybe the gains in technology and market processes will outpace state regulation, maybe it won't. The question of which effect will be greater is purely speculative, and its answer has no effect on policy prescription--innovation should still be allowed and intervention should still be discouraged, in either case--so there are no productive gains in hypothesizing over it.
>>1885 There's only so much physical land on the planet. The living standards in Africa increased over the past 100 years and look at the problems it has caused.
Prices will come down somewhat, but job loss among blacks latinos and arabs will outpace it, especially as their population rapidly increases in proportion to the productive members of society. This will increase the tax burden on white men, pushing our poorest further into poverty and a cycle of despair and drug abuse. Essentially it will lead to greater inequality and more of a favela like society. As the proportion of society which is able to build and service automation tools decreases, and the majority of dead weight brown population who relies on technology they cannot even fathom increases things will look more like South Africa where the infrastructure is maintained by a minority on razor thin margins. Any power outage of failure will lead to massive riots and power grabs for more gibs.

Open file (156.44 KB 960x613 bc.jpg)
Anonymous 01/23/2020 (Thu) 21:45:21 ID: 9375fd No.1609 [Reply] [Last]
Abolishing Central Banking should be the primary policy proposal of the Libertarian party in 2020. What do you guys think?
15 posts and 5 images omitted.
>>1843 >>1844 I'm not conflating anything. Fractional reserve banking does not involve lending out a fraction of the bank's assets, because the money being loaned out does not, strictly speaking, belong to the bank. Fractional reserve banks lend out a portion of its client's demand deposit accounts as loans, which is an undeniable breach of the terms of contract. The contents of of demand deposit accounts are not the bank's property, they are property of the clients who pay the bank to to store their property. Loaning out demand deposits is no different from a storages locker facility renting out the valuables you store there, with the hopes it will all be back by the time you return. A 100% reserve bank is perfectly able to lend out the contents of savings accounts, secured by a CD. Because that money is the bank's property, on loan to the bank for a specific period of time and returned with interest, with the understanding that the client is not guaranteed access to that money within the interim. And no, it's not a trivial matter to separate fractional reserve banking from inflationary fiat and centralized banking. Were it not for inflationary policy being enforced top-down across all banks simultaneously, fractional reserve banking would not be possible. Any one bank attempting to inflate the number of receipts in circulation would immediately be pounced on by competing banks who will cash in on its inflated supply of notes, forcing bankruptcy. https://invidio.us/watch?v=U69Qrz0xtbI
Open file (853.11 KB 1092x727 Libra.png)
Central banks will be unuseful anyway.
Open file (146.20 KB 850x1088 1519527192116-1.jpg)
>>1848 >Fractional reserve banking does not involve lending out a fraction of the bank's assets, because the money being loaned out does not, strictly speaking, belong to the bank. That's semantics at that point over my use of the word "total assets." You don't see a customer's money as an asset in the bank. I do. I don't think we'll be able to reconcile this difference but I will attempt to respond to the rest of your post where applicable. >Fractional reserve banks lend out a portion of its client's demand deposit accounts as loans, which is an undeniable breach of the terms of contract. 1) Depends entirely on the contract. 2) Banks are not vaults in your basement, they're lending institutions that also happen to store money. Your money is a micro-investment, and your bank account is collateral. For all intents and purposes, a bank and a credit union are the same thing in today's society. Interest rates (on deposits) would have to be negative if a bank DIDN'T use your money for the lending process. That or they'd have to charge for basic- >they are property of the clients who pay the bank to store their property. I see we're in agreement there. I would rather keep my "free" bank account (by fulfilling X criteria) and earn interest on it (like a credit union) with the risk of losing it if the bank lends poorly. Again though, this comes down to more of a difference in opinion of how a bank should operate. >Were it not for inflationary policy being enforced top-down across all banks simultaneously, fractional reserve banking would not be possible. Fractional Reserve Banking has been practiced since the middle ages. If I recall correctly, Italian merchants popularized the practice during the renaissance. Sweden was the first one to make a centralized fractional reserve bank in the 1600s. Current centralized institutions could not survive in a free market, but they couldn't survive for the same reason Wal-Mart or McDicks couldn't survive, not because the practice itself is flawed. >Any one bank attempting to inflate the number of receipts in circulation would immediately be pounced on by competing banks who will cash in on its inflated supply of notes, forcing bankruptcy. Then why didn't that happen historically? I can think of several reasons for this, but they have more to do with trade secrets, loaning processes, etc. than they have to do with a centralized institution. Fractional reserve is a banking system that allows commercial banks to profit by loaning part of their customers’ deposits, while a fraction (typically a very small one in centralized banks) of these deposits are stored as real cash and available for withdrawal.
>>1879 >That's semantics at that point Semantics aren't trivial when you're discussing contract theory. A contract in which the bank stores your money for you is materially different from a contract in which you loan your money to the bank in exchange for its promised return with interest later. Violating the terms of contract will never not be fraudulent regardless of any consequentialist argument you can make. >Then why didn't that happen historically? Because historically fractional reserve banks and inflationary currency emerged simultaneously. Rothbard goes over this in the pamphlet linked above and Robert Murphy discusses it in the lecture linked above.
>>1879 >>1880 >Depends entirely on the contract. The terms of contract are very clear. Demand deposits are one thing and CDs are another.

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms
Delete
Report

Captcha (required for reports and bans by board staff)

no cookies?