this should be required reading.

this should be required reading. it doesn't matter if you do not completely agree with it, this is the beginning of third option of political theory. I've spent my youth in boring, suffocating bifurcated politics then I've gained new horizon after reading it.

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Now read Democracy: The God that Failed

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This. And then read Moldbug.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        He seems like a LARPing weirdo, at first glance at least.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          he's a bit geeky to be sure but quite intelligent and pragmatic before becoming yarvin. namegays cannot speak truth in this age.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Do you believe that his work went downhill after his renaming? I know nothing about him.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            yes, he basically restates his old work in safer language to get more readers. start with this if you want to read him.
            https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2008/04/open-letter-to-open-minded-progressives/

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I've never seen a writer write so many points to have so much evidence to be proven wrong, so illiterate, it shows how just because you can write your text doesn't become truth. Moldbug says he read old books and it shows, he wants to take an irrelevant old book, use as a citation and then proceed to say that what he implies is real and erudite because its a book outdated but obscure. If you believe there is some truth to his early writings, you need to keep up to datePwwwap.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Now when you say "third option" you mean...?

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Rothbard
    Libertarians are moronic. Austrian economics even more so.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They're not. Their analyses are materialist hence are compatible with Marxism. At least Rothbard and Hopper. The rest of them and most people regurgitating their opinions online are worthless.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Their analyses are materialist hence are compatible with Marxism.
        Why do morons consistently conflate things like this? This is almost as bad as boomers who believe that liberals are "the real nazis" because of flags.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I mean liberals are an experiment of israeli fascism and have been since the hippies

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I mean boomers who would look at this image and say "OMG they're literally the same" because they think fascism is when you put up flags.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Fascism is when you put up flags, except for the gadsden flag

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            those two flags could not be further apart in meaning

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What is the yellow chevron with purple circle

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Intersex

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Neither are Fascist. How about that?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Capitalism isn't incompatible with Marxism but a requisite component in the historical development to socialism. I see you don't have a single argument and react emotionally.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Only if you believe in dialectical materialism, which libertarians don't. But you'd know that if you weren't just regurgitating the moronic hot takes of tradcon e-celeb grifters.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I am not a libertarian and nowhere did I parot the "moronic hot takes of tradcon e-celeb grifters." Feel free to explain where and how I did.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Answer me this... in accordance to Rothbardian logic how would a society made up of only legal contracts, composed of fallible knowledge, deal with all those inflexible ridged prices agreed upon? Could contracts just be constantly broken so prices could move more freely so markets could "work" or what happens when all the prices turn out to be unworkable?

        >Their analyses are materialist
        Literally all forms of libertarianism boils down to some form of divine revelation/scholastic "natural law".

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Lmao it is hilarious that you think this is a criticism. I can’t even begin to unravel your fricked up world view where contracts are going to pose a problem for the economy.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > I can’t even begin to unravel your fricked up world view where contracts are going to pose a problem for the economy.
            You don't see any irony/issue squaring an economic theory based on the idea of fully free prices always adjusting to fix economic issues and a political philosophy based on involatile contracts signed with historic fixed prices?
            In the real world inflation makes that work somewhat more smoothly since most of those burdens decrease in real terms but than again the lolberts want zero inflation so again good luck with that. A society with no government, no inflation and everyone honoring agreements obviously isn't possible.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I literally do not understand what kind of problem your moronic commie brain is perceiving, investments failing is not the end of the world, it is the opposite, we need investments to fail to find correct prices.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're being daft or avoiding the issues of systematic "failure". Maybe go study debates on price rigidity and business cycle theory a little more.
            Voluntary contracts as an exclusive means of social control won't work for so many obvious reasons I'll let you think some more up but I already said what I think:
            >A society with no government, no inflation and everyone honoring agreements obviously isn't possible.
            You can maybe mix that up a little differently. Hardcore deflation like the Rothbardians wants takes governments to impose, everyone isn't voluntary going to accept lower incomes. Capitalism stayed the dominate paradigm thanks to permeant inflation keeping real wages and debt costs acceptable.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How about you read one fricking austrian economics text, even a lot of mainstream ones will do you good, we don’t need the government for prices lmao what the frick. Prices are decided by the market. I can’t even begin with how full of frick your brain is.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What exactly do you think Austrian economics has to say about price rigidity? If you define away a problem of course it's not a thing.
            The thing is price adjustments and contractual obligations. Contracts fix nominal prices despite what the market thinks real prices should be. If you want to make contracts meaningless (like you said, everyone can fail and noting has to be honored) you can have zero inflation but otherwise things aren't going to work smoothly. In the real world inflation plays a role there.

            >Their analyses are materialist
            Mises certainly isn't. That's the entire point of methodological dualism. The Austrian school is generally the reverse of the "environmental" Marxists - subjective over objective, demand over supply etc.

            >The Austrian school is generally the reverse of the "environmental" Marxists - subjective over objective, demand over supply etc.
            Quite wrong. Austrian economics and Marxism are actually very "supply" side. If you start talking to much in demand terms than you end up in topsy turvy land and the inevitable crisis both see always coming could be gamed.

            What does the government actually do other than leech though, empirically the free market solved all its own problems and the problems that exist are government created. Anarchy has always worked, it is the only thing that does work, the next step is to give it a heavy dose of ivermectin so it can work all the better

            Governments incorporate business enterprise and make capitalism possible. Empirically businesses aren't primarily operating in the black market but are incorporated and playing the game and gaming the rules to the best of their abilities. Anarchy would end the game and make the informal economy take over stuff it can't do well

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Just as a society can exist without a state so can companies.

            Hell, criminal organizations exist completely outside the law yet still have a structure not unlike a private companies.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Incorporation is definitionally a public affair. You probably think NFTs are a serious alternatives to intellectual property. Criminal organizations are radically different from public traded corporations, you have no understanding of raising funds or liability, etc if you think otherwise.

            This contracts issue is not even close to the gotcha you think it is, I can’t even tell what the problem you think there is. Society doesn’t collapse if not every creditor gets their money back, and not every creditor getting their money back is essentially the fundamental importance of getting government out of the economy, if anything that a contract can fail is literally why we need a free market, this is the whole process of ascertaining price data.

            The government propping up business is how business goes wrong.

            But hey, if you weren’t moronic you would be ancap, so.

            >I can’t even tell what the problem you think there is
            How familiar are you with Austrian business cycle theory and it's criticism of Keynesianism? If you actually understood the central issues you'd "get" what I'm getting at.
            Also whatever you think a "free" market is you have to consider oligopoly. Economists like writing about "perfect" competition but there's absolutely no reason to do that mostly.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >intellectual
            >property
            no such thing. choose one.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/intellectualproperty.asp

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you can't own an idea, that's just moronic and anti-competitive.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You literally can, they're even alienable and there's a market in them

            >anti-competitive
            Woah, welcome to the progressive party

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This contracts issue is not even close to the gotcha you think it is, I can’t even tell what the problem you think there is. Society doesn’t collapse if not every creditor gets their money back, and not every creditor getting their money back is essentially the fundamental importance of getting government out of the economy, if anything that a contract can fail is literally why we need a free market, this is the whole process of ascertaining price data.

            The government propping up business is how business goes wrong.

            But hey, if you weren’t moronic you would be ancap, so.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Contracts can be renegotiated if circumstances change.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          whats wrong with natural law exactly? it just is what it is.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Their analyses are materialist
        Mises certainly isn't. That's the entire point of methodological dualism. The Austrian school is generally the reverse of the "environmental" Marxists - subjective over objective, demand over supply etc.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Has anyone else read this?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I did. My takeaway was wondering how many of those problems could be solved by machine learning, taking something super complicated like a forest ecosystem and designing a planting and harvesting schedule with a mix of trees to maximize profit by minimizing the environmental impact which would effect the next harvest. Probably optimistic practically since the schedule would be on the order of decades and the patience of institutions has gotten markedly worse since the events of the book.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the overarching theme of that text is that reality is deeply complex and that the state's detached bubble of directors inevitably construct a simplification of reality (and further try to reconstruct their simplifications into reality) based around their objectives which leads to unforeseen consequences....
        and so your takeaway is to let another detached goal oriented simplification machine have a crack at it?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I was already pretty well aware of all that, I kept reading because the examples were interesting. But yeah, basically. Not sure how you would manage the input/output but a computer is way better at handling large arrays of data than an appointed director

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Based. Rothbard is kino and right about (almost) everything. Add in Hoppe and some Chaos Theory and you have a complete ideology right there

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    My problem with Rothbard and Hoppe is that I have a Burkean scepticism towards abstraction. When you ask them how this ideal stateless world of private coroporations would function, they will confidently explain to you why and how everything would work out. But it's based on the abstract reasoning of a scholar sitting at his desk. It's fanciful abstraction about self-organizing high complexity systems with myriad emergent effects, interdependencies and potential for unintended consequences. It's top to bottom thinking of the dangerous kind, so I'd prefer to see some societal experiments first before I'd put my faith into any such theoretical enterprise.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What does the government actually do other than leech though, empirically the free market solved all its own problems and the problems that exist are government created. Anarchy has always worked, it is the only thing that does work, the next step is to give it a heavy dose of ivermectin so it can work all the better

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You will never get anything else than "abstraction" from philosophy. If you read those authors they also mention historical data. If you want something more concrete, it will be actually doing some form of political operation and patching things up as they come along.
      I really don't understand the empirio-tardation conservatism. By the very "Burkean" standards this would-be pragmatist, anti-rationalist attitude has proven time and again for centuries and in all countries, races, climates, to be systematically defeated by people with an even vaguely abstract backing to their actions (no matter how false). It is self refuting. It will always be [current year ideology] on second gear.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Burke wasn't against abstraction per se, he was critical of social reforms that do no emerge organically as gradual responses to real world feedback loops but instead are based on abstract arguments about "freedom" or "the state" (top to bottom thinking). States exist everywhere because they are successful in maintaining a baseline of social order. Longevity implies resistance to competition and a higher probability of stability and continued existence than other systems. Being sceptical of attempts to overthrow the state on the basis of abstract analysis is simply a matter of caution. As I said, I'd be interested in seeing social experiments with stateless systems.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's why every single libertarian is watching Argentina under a microscope. We don't know how it will pan out but free market reforms have been largely beneficial when implemented, Poland being a good example.

      Marxism went completely sideways from what intellectuals expected for instance.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >When you ask them how this ideal stateless world of private coroporations would function
      In reality pretty much like many African countries. You basically need a government to form and maintain a functioning free market in the first place but libs just pretend it's a free lunch

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This. Libertarianism is so peculiarly American (even if there are non-American thinkers in the movement), given the country's history as a frontier society, so it's natural for them to assume that you just don't need government and markets, roads and everything else would spring up by people's own initiative (which was often how things did happen in the frontier). Almost every other developed country has a more robust tradition of raison d'etat, even the ones that became more laissez-faire in terms of economic policy later on.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    OP is 16 and most likely a closeted homosexual

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I was wondering why you thought Gray's Anatomy should be required reading

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Politics is a complete waste of time

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      it's the middle road between tuning out completely and going full scorched earth on the establishment with rifles that have the scary kind of handles. Stacking money and buying politicians with it is how things get changed.
      https://news.yahoo.com/george-soros-pours-millions-texas-090059290.html

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Rothbard was the first philosopher who really caught my attention, around the age of fourteen. I still have a soft spot for him and some of the other Misesians as a result. At least those cranks sound like they believe the shit they say, unlike the Cato types. Plus I have Hoppe to thank for pointing me in the direction of philosophers I've ended up appreciating more. I don't know if I'd say this or any ancap works should be "required" but I guess it still beats the lib'd up bullshit kids usually are exposed to.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm the most intelligent person in this thread.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *