[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 1776q / b2 / choroy / f / miku / radfem / ss / wmafsex ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

Non-authoritarian Discussion of Politics, Society, News, and the Human Condition (Fun Allowed)
Winner of the 82rd Attention-Hungry Games
/tikilounge/ - Relax, take it easy

June 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

Ya'll need Mises.

File: e2ae5c49697b682⋯.png (444.73 KB, 800x542, 400:271, 1561431829.png)


>socialist gotchas

>"in ancap how will we get X?"

>"I'm 12 and what is this?"

Feel free to ask all your stupid question here. Check the wiki https://archive.fo/bbtHt before posting.

Previous episode: >>/97996/


What is stopping me from owning a nuke under ancapistan?


File: e8326349799b457⋯.pdf (171.9 KB, Nuclear Weapons, Prolifera….pdf)


The better question is what's stopping you from using it.



Sure, what is stopping me from using it?



If the excellent game theory piece is too long or big-brain for you, consider this: Nukes are just very large guns. The objections you would have to civilian proliferation of ukes are essentially the same to the objections gun control advocates have for firearms. Likewise, the arguments that show civilian gun ownership is no big deal and reduces crime are the same arguments which show nuke ownership is no big deal.


File: e8b44f87235ecee⋯.png (1012.28 KB, 1440x912, 30:19, 1561493602224.png)

Why do you guys hate neoliberalism?


Just noticed there were a few questions in the old thread after it bump-locked, I'll answer them here:


>I don't necessarily want to rely on mercenaries for my defense. If others want to then fine. I just prefer to have my own guns to defend myself.

That's fine, best thing about the market is you get to choose what products you buy. There would undoubtedly be communities that would be defended entirely by volunteer militias in ancapistan, rather than PMCs. Your security insurance company would give you a discount if you owned a gun at home, because you are now a less costly client to insure. If you could certify that you know how to use said gun, and train regularly with it, you'd likely get a further discount. If you and a few dozen other armed individuals trained as a team regularly, and sent proof of this to McInsurance as having formed a local militia, all of you might get an additional discount. Or, McInsurance might decide that a volunteer militia is security enough for your locale, and pay you to provide security instead. I suppose this is technically still mercenary work, but I would guess you were imagining something like anonymous guys in black operator gear patrolling your neighborhood, not well-trained locals.


>How would property rights work for rivers and lakes? Say if a river goes through your property do you own that part of the river or the whole thing?

You would only own that part of the river that goes through your property. So if you were to pollute your portion of the river somehow, and the pollutant was carried downstream into your neighbors property, you would be liable for damages.

>If the rest of the world balkanized would it still be possible to develop advanced technology?

Sure, just look at Europe throughout history. Easily the most technologically advanced continent in the world from the High Middle Ages onward, despite very severe balkanization. If anything, balkanization would promote even faster technological growth due to specialization and the division of labor. Smaller regions would specialize in whatever they have comparative advantage in, and trade with other regions for the rest of their goods. Specializing like this is cheaper and leads to more technological growth, and competition with other regions encourages everyone to maintain peak efficiency rather than slacking off and coasting on established success.

>Could developing space travel still be possible in a world that has been balkanized and consists of tiny countries since space travel was normally state sponsored?

Here's the thing about space, and technology in general. In the market, technological gain at all costs isn't intrinsically good, because it's all about opportunity cost: if the things you give up for technological growth are too severe, it doesn't make sense to pursue technological growth. To use an extreme example, if there's a massive drought happening, it doesn't make sense to mandate that we put all our efforts towards making faster gizmos when more developed irrigation and fertilizer is clearly what the market demands. The same thing applies to space. Thanks to state sponsorship of the space program, we probably ended up going to space earlier than we would have. But that came at the detriment of the rest of the economy; if those taxes that went towards NASA's R&D were allowed to remain in the market, they could have been invested in more conventional tech, like consumer electronics or networking. Spaceflight might have been delayed by ~10 years or so, until telecom satellite technology became viable, but we might have gotten the Internet a decade earlier this is obvioulsy oversimplified, but I hope you take my meaning. And if you look at history, almost every major scientific advancement has come from private individuals fucking around with shit; despite the memes, the state has done comparatively little for tech advancement, and wasn't involved at all until the 20th century. And even then, how much of that could you say was true advancement? NASA's pyramid-building of rockets, while undoubtedly impressive, didn't do very much to establish new scientific principles. It was just a showcase of some very big, and very expensive, feats of engineering. People like to bring up how the Internet was "created" by DARPA as well, but if you look deeper into it, this doesn't really add up. What DARPA created had no resemblance to the Internet as it was used in the private sector, and didn't have the same kind of usability at all. The DARPAnet just sent packets of information unidirectionally from peer to peer. That's nothing what the Internet is like today, and those changes that the private sector made to the Internet was what made it viable.



Because neoliberals are just blue neocons and neocons are Trotskyites. Polite sage for doublepost.



Thank you for answering my questions. It's very enlightening. I wondered why the old thread wasn't responding much.


If anarchy/volunterism is predicated on an inherent sovereign agency, what requires it to be an ideology for it's communion? If everyone "should" be free to choose because it's a fundamental inviolable law, are they not already choosing? Would this not mean those who think they aren't, are doing so by an appeal to authority for their own delegation?

If capitalism and property ownership are determined through the ability to compete and/or cooperate for resources that have already been claimed by agents who've established their communal covenant prior to your existence as an agent, are you not already violating the nap by entering the community and taking it's resources while opposing it's covenant? If the world wants your submission and has clearly throughout time demanded it with the ultimate threat of death, or the inability to choose between what they offer anymore regardless of where you choose to go, is it not your responsibility to protect your life and ability to be an agent by aligning with the preestablished community that most closely represents your ideology and the most capable of stopping those who are most capable and intent on opposing it?

>inb4 fuck off /pol/

I'm with you guys on the lib kick. I just don't see any reason why you're not working together other than getting hung up on a false schism between ideology and pragmatics. We're all already governing ourselves whether we pretentiously delegate or pretend not to tbh.



I'm not sure I understand what you're asking, so pardon me if this isn't the answer you're looking for.

>what requires it to be an ideology for it's communion?

Technically speaking, nothing. There are lots of pragmatic arguments in favor of liberty and ancapistan as well as ideological ones. I wouldn't even call myself an ideologue, unless you consider all ethics to be a part of ideology. I believe in liberty because A) a free society is in my own interests, and in the interest of my friends and family, and B) I think the NAP and property rights are the basis of sound ethics. I'm not an ideologue, in the sense that I feel no urge to go fight and die in the name of an idea. I don't have much of an urge to lay my life on the line for a stranger's benefit, either, regardless if those strangers share a belief system with me. My in-group preference doesn't extend that far outwards.

>is it not your responsibility to protect your life and ability to be an agent by aligning with the preestablished community that most closely represents your ideology and the most capable of stopping those who are most capable and intent on opposing it?

It sounds like you're asking if it's okay to engage in political action and align yourself with people who share some of your goals, but not all, e.g. ancaps who vote republican. And the answer is yes. Given that we live in a coercive system, and given that this coercion isn't going anywhere anytime soon, it makes sense to try and minimize the coercion inflicted upon you, including through influencing the government. Some people say this is violating the NAP, and that voting is an act of aggression because you're asking a coercive entity to do violence on behalf. I think those people are virtue-signaling faggots, who just created a post hoc justification for why they're more enlightened than you are by doing absolutely nothing. There are people–Marxists and their various allies–that have loudly and repeatedly announced their intentions to use the state to inflict violence upon me, to use it to confiscate my property and make my life a living hell. This is clearly an act of aggression. Influencing the state in response to this is not aggression then, it's perfectly justified self-defense.



>I'm not sure I understand what you're asking, so pardon me if this isn't the answer you're looking for.

>Technically speaking, nothing.

>And the answer is yes.

These we're the two answers you gave to my questions.

> I believe in liberty because A) a free society is in my own interests, and in the interest of my friends and family, and B) I think the NAP and property rights are the basis of sound ethics

>My in-group preference doesn't extend that far outwards.

Red Herrington me on the rest. Let me ask one more. If while in the US during the civil war, would you have joined and fought with the confederacy, or moved to the hills with friends and family in confederate states?



I'd like to think I'd have fought with the Confederacy. The Union threat would have been an existential one to my way of life. Since I would very much like to keep my way of life as it is in the Confederacy, I would agree that the Yankees should be stopped. If I did nothing, they would impede on my way and my community's way of life. What I meant when I said I didn't want to fight and die for strangers is that I reject this notion of championing the cause of liberty for complete strangers, who share exactly zero characteristics with me besides some ideological convictions. For instance, take the situation in Yemen. The Yemenese are being treated quite horribly by the Saudis. But I'm not Yemenese, none of my friends or family is Yemenese, and I live thousands of miles away from Yemen. Because of these facts, I can't bring myself to get whipped up into a moral outrage because one group of kebabs is being mean to another group of kebab on the other side of the world. I'll wish best of luck to the Yemenese but I'm not going to virtue-signal about how horrible their plight is; I care more about my people than I do about them.



Good to know. There will be a time when you or your decendents will find that the war never ended, and the boundaries were drawn in our minds before they were laid upon soil. Godspeed anon. Thank you for your time.


File: f1d01490f3789b3⋯.jpg (346.71 KB, 900x1338, 150:223, 009.jpg)

What if statism is one of the great cosmic filters, and the main reason why there's no alien life in the universe is because all intelligent species fell for the socialism fallacy and killed their own race and planet before getting the chance to leave their home system?

What if the reason we don't get any visits from time travellers from the future is because there is no future and humanity is going to be stuck in a communist one-world government dark age until another Chernobyl happens and kills the whole planet with it?



The fact that you can't tax millions of people to pay for its maintenance indefinitely



If there are ayys out there, I think simple distance is enough to explain why we haven't bumped into each other yet. Through a very, very, generous interpretation of the anthropic principle, we can start from the assumption that any ayys have been developing about as long as we have, and are at around the same level of development. This is a very generous interpretation and that's a very weak assumption, but I'm only using it to infer what physics tells us is true: you can't communicate faster than the speed of light. Given that any potential ayys are hundreds of light-years away, then, it would take hundreds of years for us to hear anything from the point they start communicating. And if they haven't been producing radio waves for much longer than we have (see above), then we shouldn't expect to hear anything for a good long while. And that's assuming we're listening on the right frequency. And that the ayys are screaming 'WE'RE HERE COME FIND US PLZ RESPOND' all day, every day, in all directions.



If nuclear weapons are freely available, the price would be driven down due to a huge demand. Now I realise that it would be better if everyone had a nuke, rather than a minority, since if a minority had nukes, they would rape everyone else. E.g. if only a few people had guns. If everyone has nukes, there is the threat of retaliation.



Statism is the attempt of certain pseudo-illuminated to transform the social meme into a more homogenous conglomerate so as to aid in the use of macro-scale psychic manipulation. Alienspecies have either transcended flesh-reliance or have sprouted out into sort of solidarity apex predators (or, apex grazers, energetically speaking).



>huge demand for nukes

I don't think so anon. Sure the price would go down, but not enough to make it attractive for your average Joe. What would you even need them for if there are no states around? Maybe private security firms would have an incentive to mantain one or two, but beyond that I don't really see it.



But guns occasionally do get used for the sole purpose of causing damage.



Occasionally, yes. But that frequency goes down the more guns there are because the cost of using a gun for aggressive purposes (see: retaliation) increases at an increasing rate. The Lemennicier article up here >>103578 goes into more detail on this, it's essentially the MAD argument codified into game theory and formal logic.



I agree, but nukes are different in a sense because they can be used remotely (so can guns, but rarely), and when used, create tremendous property damage, and casualties.



A likely argument I see immediately regarding in support of privately owned nuclear weapons is the fact that their existence remains due to the state, non-private, forces that had placed them into commission to begin with. While a stateless market-driven society would be able to access these potentially through some shady dealings with a third-party, it is likely that some wealthier inhabitants of this society would also be focused on hiring third parties to dismantle nuclear weapons as well.

We can assume many in this stateless society would also most likely construct a nuclear weapon for purposes relating to defense against the powers that have them (like the article posted above).


File: 12a329ea3e02ec6⋯.jpg (142.76 KB, 1141x601, 1141:601, Safe operation of McNukes.jpg)


Well yes, but yuge damage brings yuge retaliation. If one billionaire can acquire a nuke, then so can another. And because the potential consequences are so high, Mcnuke detonation would be virtually unheard of, even less common than a mass shooting at a gun show.


If gun rights go in the U.S., is that it? Is it over? Is the U.S. the last bastion in the world?



>What is stopping me from owning a nuke under ancapistan?

If you're smart enough to build a nuke by yourself, you deserve to own it



The question you want to ask is: should I acquire a fissile nuke or thermonuclear nuke?


Invidious embed. Click thumbnail to play.

I just wanted to post this. It always gets me hyped.


Asking a question for a change:

How would you say vigilante justice on another's behalf would work in ancap? "Vigilantism" in defense of one's own property and community is simple enough to justify, but acting to defend the rights of another person who has not employed you could get a little complicated. Let's say you're a prospective vigilante, and you were very reasonably certain that Smith was keeping Jones chained up in his basement without Jones's consent for Smith's own amusement. You are acquainted with Jones, but he is neither a member of your family, nor a client you are paid to protect, nor has he called for your assistance that you know of.

In my view, it would work something like this: You couldn't simply break into Smith's house. But, if you have told Smith that he is violating Jones's rights and you will work as Jones's agent to defend his rights if he does not cease, you would be in the right to take whatever steps are necessary to free Jones. However, if for whatever reason upon being freed Jones refuses to acknowledge you as his agent, and does not recognize you as acting in defense of him, Smith is only then liable to sue you for property damage. Does this sound accurate?



Was the U.S. engaging in the first Iraq War justified? They were fighting to free Kuwait.



>They were fighting to free Kuwait.

They really weren't, though.



So if you saved your neighbor but had a different ultimate ulterior motive in mind than actually saving him, it wouldn't be justified?



I'm just not sure the Iraq war is comparable, since no one was really saved at all, ulterior motive or otherwise.

I guess the question boils down to whether there exists a legal framework for acting as someone's agent without them hiring you as such, provided they endorse your actions after the fact. In most scenarios, the question of whether it's legally permissible to assign yourself as someone's agent is obvious–it's essentially a form of fraud, making deals and signing contracts on someone else's behalf without their consent thereof. But, if you're reasonably confident that the person won't press charges for this fraud and will be grateful, it's not a readily enforceable crime. I think this might actually deserve its own thread, so I'll make one.


Regarding dams that used to be used for hydroelectric power, which then are used solely for flood control, why? Why not keep collecting the extra power? You already have a large amount of the capital cost sunk into the construction of the dam anyways, right?



You're asking to have a bureaucrats thought process explained and clarified. I'm not sure anyone here can do this, because not even the bureaucrats truly know why they do these things.



I was actually thinking that there was some engineering reason for it.




Silt accumulation leads to decreased water height over time and less efficiency as the turbines operate best at high pressure.

Dredging the silt may be too expensive to justify the potential energy gain of an aging power station.

Also changing weather patterns might mean there just isn't enough water throughout the whole year to make power and irrigate, and farmers like to lobby for the latter.





File: af9a4b49a0c916d⋯.png (336.65 KB, 639x531, 71:59, Fig5.png)

File: 7551bd85a4032b6⋯.png (664.03 KB, 746x974, 373:487, Fig9.png)

File: caebf420ffbfbd9⋯.png (1.2 MB, 793x1268, 793:1268, Fig1.png)

4th gen nukes are fun



what about a suicidal billionaire with an antimatter bomb that could literally blow up the entire planet?

apparently there's some speculation that antimatter is easier to create that they are letting on and that it's being actively suppressed.. the truth is probably somewhere in between tbqh

then there is also the team that made small pox through genetic re-engineering


the fact is that it's going to be someday easy for a psycho to get a world destroying weapon.. hopefully we can colonize space by then


File: 9bd87e30341eda9⋯.jpg (63.9 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, maxresdefault (1).jpg)

and i also wanna point out that any billionaire today could make or purchase a nuke

it only gets scary when you start thinking about doomsday machines and world destroyers which aren't quite in the reach (yet) of a "common" billionaire

here is "the vice guide to purchasing nuclear weapons on the black market"


something like a thousand nukes went missing at the end of the cold war from ukraine


File: 0c4726092e39ab2⋯.jpg (212.02 KB, 1068x1228, 267:307, kuwait_rel96.jpg)



kuwait is basically suffocating the basrah port –look at it on a map– and it's been contentious since the beginning.. also kuwait might really have been drilling sideways or whatever

also saddam was told he can invade kuwait by saudi and american contacts so it was more of a setup

basically he fucked up but the saudis and americans were up to their usual tricks.. kuwait should have understood that they need to sell iraq more port space and squeezing them was bound to cause conflict… property rights are actually more like treaties and they are always negotiable and in the end might ultimately equals right as a form of leverage.. squeezing a local military power to one tiny oil terminal isnt a reasonable plan of action or peace



>what about a suicidal billionaire with an antimatter bomb that could literally blow up the entire planet?

When you create whataboutisms like this, you need to look at the alternative: what's more likely, that someone low time-preference enough to become a billionaire is also simultaneously high time-preference enough to kill himself and the whole world? Or that some high time-preference chucklefuck gets elected, and decides to blow up the world?


File: 8e7c9b45089a01f⋯.jpg (24.95 KB, 280x269, 280:269, g-090214-cvr-desperate-12p….jpg)



less people are elected also and people have a chance to stop them.. for example the commanders have overridden launch conditions in the past



File: 79e7bb6e76e967d⋯.png (397.51 KB, 635x454, 635:454, Excalibur_firing.png)

File: 7310d67eceac298⋯.jpeg (8.41 KB, 260x194, 130:97, download (25).jpeg)


also wanna point out that antimatter isnt needed for a world ender

you can stage fusion indefinitely and hydrogen is cheap so if a billionaire can make a 600kiloton fusion bomb they could probably make a million teraton doomsday device with relatively little effort


anyway statism doesnt magically solve the problem.. either some kind of AI hivemind thing (with its own dangers) or interstellar colonization (not just interplanetary) are probably the only solutions and my current ego would prefer the latter

4th gen nukes can direct their energy like a laser so it would be like a real life fusion powered deathstar

This is partially what the movie goldeneye was based off but mixed with the polyus:



> The concept involved packing large numbers of expendable X-ray lasers around a nuclear device. When the device detonated, the X-rays released by the bomb would be focused by the lasers, each of which would be aimed at a target missile.[2] In space, the lack of atmosphere to block the X-rays allowed attacks on missiles thousands of kilometers away.



>people have a chance to stop them

Same thing goes for muh billionaires, you can't build a nuke alone. The fact that a government leader very nearly did this only reinforces the point I was making: people elected into office will always be higher time-preference, more insane, and more retarded than a billionaire. Becoming a billionaire requires positive qualities. Getting into office requires negative ones. Ergo, a politician with access to nukes is more dangerous than a billionaire with access to nukes.



>Same thing goes for muh billionaires, you can't build a nuke alone.

not necessarily true.. especially in the future and a billionaire can PURCHASE a nuke alone

sure.. billionaires are going to make better decisions on average than elected officials but there are MORE of them and potentially less barriers for them setting off one of these devices



> Ergo, a politician with access to nukes is more dangerous than a billionaire with access to nukes

it's a numbers game though..

is the danger of one elected official setting off a nuke with the military barriers and all the safeguards more than potentially thousands of individuals who could acquire a device?

the state cant prevent them all as it is today but for whatever reason we have not had an event happen yet with the current balance of power.. could be luck, but we need something even more robust to protect our future either way.. my hope is interstellar colonization

[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 1776q / b2 / choroy / f / miku / radfem / ss / wmafsex ]