Should radical libertarians move to Bir Tawil?

[Hash]

Nobody to have posted in this thread yet is a radical libertarian. About half of the posters self-described as such are not libertarian at all.

The proper meaning of 'radical' is ultra left-wing. So, yes, you're right.

No.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Lack of property rights, at least unenforced, makes it pretty un-libertarian.

Enforced by who? Once you start regulating things, it's a slippery slope to Stalinism.

[k-onmmunist]

Nobody to have posted in this thread yet is a radical libertarian. About half of the posters self-described as such are not libertarian at all.

The proper meaning of 'radical' is ultra left-wing. So, yes, you're right.

No.

Yes. Get a dictionary

[Хahar 🤔]

This is why we can't get sh**t done.  People really think it's uber cool to make fun of other people for their politics.

Personally, I don't think libertarians have any impact on whether things get done.

Regardless, why is it necessary to demean other human beings for their political beliefs?

Because some political beliefs are extreme and dangerous.

Yeah, because 150 million people died last century from small government.

Epic.

Truly. Government is the root of many evils.

Somalia is gladly free of them.

[A18]

That an anarchist society has certain traits does not demonstrate that all anarchist societies must have those traits.

[Hash]

Nobody to have posted in this thread yet is a radical libertarian. About half of the posters self-described as such are not libertarian at all.

The proper meaning of 'radical' is ultra left-wing. So, yes, you're right.

No.

Yes. Get a dictionary

OK.

Adjective: Radical
1. (used of opinions and actions) far beyond the norm

Now go away.

[Sewer]

That an anarchist society has certain traits does not demonstrate that all anarchist societies must have those traits.

Racist.

[A18]

That an anarchist society has certain traits does not demonstrate that all anarchist societies must have those traits.

Racist.

Um, what?

[Free Palestine]

This is why we can't get sh**t done.  People really think it's uber cool to make fun of other people for their politics.

Personally, I don't think libertarians have any impact on whether things get done.

Regardless, why is it necessary to demean other human beings for their political beliefs?

Because some political beliefs are extreme and dangerous.

Yeah, because 150 million people died last century from small government.

Epic.

Truly. Government is the root of many evils.

Somalia is gladly free of them.

Somalia is not an anarchist libertarian utopia people like to label it as.

[Хahar 🤔]

This is why we can't get sh**t done.  People really think it's uber cool to make fun of other people for their politics.

Personally, I don't think libertarians have any impact on whether things get done.

Regardless, why is it necessary to demean other human beings for their political beliefs?

Because some political beliefs are extreme and dangerous.

Yeah, because 150 million people died last century from small government.

Epic.

Truly. Government is the root of many evils.

Somalia is gladly free of them.

Somalia is not an anarchist libertarian utopia people like to label it as.

It has anarchy. Would it thus not be an anarchist utopia?

[SPC]

This is why we can't get sh**t done.  People really think it's uber cool to make fun of other people for their politics.

Personally, I don't think libertarians have any impact on whether things get done.

Regardless, why is it necessary to demean other human beings for their political beliefs?

Because some political beliefs are extreme and dangerous.

Yeah, because 150 million people died last century from small government.

Epic.

Truly. Government is the root of many evils.

Somalia is gladly free of them.

Somalia is not an anarchist libertarian utopia people like to label it as.

It has anarchy. Would it thus not be an anarchist utopia?

Being anarchist does not necessarily mean being libertarian. See Bryan Caplan's piece on the anarcho-statists in Spain.

[Хahar 🤔]

This is why we can't get sh**t done.  People really think it's uber cool to make fun of other people for their politics.

Personally, I don't think libertarians have any impact on whether things get done.

Regardless, why is it necessary to demean other human beings for their political beliefs?

Because some political beliefs are extreme and dangerous.

Yeah, because 150 million people died last century from small government.

Epic.

Truly. Government is the root of many evils.

Somalia is gladly free of them.

Somalia is not an anarchist libertarian utopia people like to label it as.

It has anarchy. Would it thus not be an anarchist utopia?

Being anarchist does not necessarily mean being libertarian. See Bryan Caplan's piece on the anarcho-statists in Spain.

How would your society differ from Somalia?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

That an anarchist society has certain traits does not demonstrate that all anarchist societies must have those traits.

Finally, an intelligent comment.

[k-onmmunist]

The widespread ignorance about anarchism on this board is frustrating.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

The widespread ignorance about anarchism on this board is frustrating.

Those Spanish Communes in the 1930s were in many ways admirable; though hopelessly naive efforts. No wonder the Stalinist Communist, who were bizarrely actually taking up the far right position in the republic, with their uber-disclipine came out as more dominant.

Happy?

[k-onmmunist]

The widespread ignorance about anarchism on this board is frustrating.

Those Spanish Communes in the 1930s were in many ways admirable; though hopelessly naive efforts. No wonder the Stalinist Communist, who were bizarrely actually taking up the far right position in the republic, with their uber-disclipine came out as more dominant.

Happy?

You're not the one who doesn't understand it. I can actually respect anarcho-communism to some extent.

[Free Palestine]

This is why we can't get sh**t done.  People really think it's uber cool to make fun of other people for their politics.

Personally, I don't think libertarians have any impact on whether things get done.

Regardless, why is it necessary to demean other human beings for their political beliefs?

Because some political beliefs are extreme and dangerous.

Yeah, because 150 million people died last century from small government.

Epic.

Truly. Government is the root of many evils.

Somalia is gladly free of them.

Somalia is not an anarchist libertarian utopia people like to label it as.

It has anarchy. Would it thus not be an anarchist utopia?

Being anarchist does not necessarily mean being libertarian. See Bryan Caplan's piece on the anarcho-statists in Spain.

How would your society differ from Somalia?

By not being half-ruled by hardline Islamists.

[dead0man]

What?  You don't have Sharia as part of your libertarian utopia?  How odd.

[k-onmmunist]

What?  You don't have Sharia as part of your libertarian utopia?  How odd.

Sharia and Libertarianism are incompatible. As is any form of religious law, as a matter of fact.

[dead0man]

Just to be clear, I wasn't serious.

[Хahar 🤔]

This is why we can't get sh**t done.  People really think it's uber cool to make fun of other people for their politics.

Personally, I don't think libertarians have any impact on whether things get done.

Regardless, why is it necessary to demean other human beings for their political beliefs?

Because some political beliefs are extreme and dangerous.

Yeah, because 150 million people died last century from small government.

Epic.

Truly. Government is the root of many evils.

Somalia is gladly free of them.

Somalia is not an anarchist libertarian utopia people like to label it as.

It has anarchy. Would it thus not be an anarchist utopia?

Being anarchist does not necessarily mean being libertarian. See Bryan Caplan's piece on the anarcho-statists in Spain.

How would your society differ from Somalia?

By not being half-ruled by hardline Islamists.

Without a government, how would they be prevented from taking over?

[SPC]

This is why we can't get sh**t done.  People really think it's uber cool to make fun of other people for their politics.

Personally, I don't think libertarians have any impact on whether things get done.

Regardless, why is it necessary to demean other human beings for their political beliefs?

Because some political beliefs are extreme and dangerous.

Yeah, because 150 million people died last century from small government.

Epic.

Truly. Government is the root of many evils.

Somalia is gladly free of them.

Somalia is not an anarchist libertarian utopia people like to label it as.

It has anarchy. Would it thus not be an anarchist utopia?

Being anarchist does not necessarily mean being libertarian. See Bryan Caplan's piece on the anarcho-statists in Spain.

How would your society differ from Somalia?

By not being half-ruled by hardline Islamists.

Without a government, how would they be prevented from taking over?

Without violent coercion, who's going to prevent people from exercising violent coercion?

[Scam of God]

This question is meaningless in the context of the Atlas forum, as not one of the posters in this thread besides myself is a genuine libertarian.

Libertarianism means more than a mere devotion to the defense of gun rights, or opposition to the war on drugs, or support for a free-market economy. Moreover, what most here fail to realize is that this last element can be wholly eliminated, in the final analysis, and remain a deeply libertarian one.

The true libertarian - the libertarian whose intellectual predecessors lay not in the neoliberal ramblings of Ayn Rand but in the purely anarchic tradition espoused by thinkers such as Max Stirner - believe, first and foremost, in the primacy of spontaneity: that is, in the need for the application of human order to the naturally chaotic state of things. This philosophy is best encapsulated through volunteerism: the public corporation is not the sole guarantor of economic freedom; far from it. The socialistic commune which is predicated on mutualism is far more 'free' of an institution than, for instance, Microsoft, which manipulates the public through its stranglehold on the State to its own benefit. We call supporters of corporatism corporatists, and not libertarians.

Human freedom is the ultimate goal of all committed libertarianism. Where the market can accomplish this, then it is to the market we look. Where volunteerism is required, there we shall pursue it to our own ends. A genuine libertarian need not support the market on principle; he needs only support whatever it is that extends the greatest amount of freedom to the greatest amount of people (for I will always be in danger of servitude if my neighbor is also).

In a libertarian "state" (I use the term here very loosely, to describe a patchwork collection of voluntary societies and not a top-down hierarchical structure of government), communism - small "c" - would actually be encouraged, because it contributes to localism and the development of positive communities through the free association of individuals.

The problem with modern 'libertarians' (four-fifths of whom wrongly describe them as such) is that they have wholly and happily swallowed the neoliberal Washington consensus hook, line and sinker, and willfully neglect their more anarchistic heritage. If they were to rediscover that heritage, and put down The Fountainhead for just a moment, they might soon realize that their natural allies are on the Left, and are further to the Left than any mainstream political body at the moment, and would accordingly attempt to persuade the Left to adopt libertarian means to progressive - which are simultaneously libertarian - ends.

Thus, rather than butting heads between progressive statism and progressive anarchism, we must instead ask: how can we shift the vital energies of progressivism away from the top-down activism they've employed since the era of the New Deal, and towards minarchist progressivism that encourages individual initiative on the part of the free man to liberate himself from the mores of fear and superstition? Moreover: how can a genuinely minarchist Left confront and defeat a statist conservatism that is more than happy to use the powers of the State to impose its social and cultural views on the masses and to wield military power in the defense of its vested interests?

[Mechaman]

This question is meaningless in the context of the Atlas forum, as not one of the posters in this thread besides myself is a genuine libertarian.

Libertarianism means more than a mere devotion to the defense of gun rights, or opposition to the war on drugs, or support for a free-market economy. Moreover, what most here fail to realize is that this last element can be wholly eliminated, in the final analysis, and remain a deeply libertarian one.

The true libertarian - the libertarian whose intellectual predecessors lay not in the neoliberal ramblings of Ayn Rand but in the purely anarchic tradition espoused by thinkers such as Max Stirner - believe, first and foremost, in the primacy of spontaneity: that is, in the need for the application of human order to the naturally chaotic state of things. This philosophy is best encapsulated through volunteerism: the public corporation is not the sole guarantor of economic freedom; far from it. The socialistic commune which is predicated on mutualism is far more 'free' of an institution than, for instance, Microsoft, which manipulates the public through its stranglehold on the State to its own benefit. We call supporters of corporatism corporatists, and not libertarians.

Human freedom is the ultimate goal of all committed libertarianism. Where the market can accomplish this, then it is to the market we look. Where volunteerism is required, there we shall pursue it to our own ends. A genuine libertarian need not support the market on principle; he needs only support whatever it is that extends the greatest amount of freedom to the greatest amount of people (for I will always be in danger of servitude if my neighbor is also).

In a libertarian "state" (I use the term here very loosely, to describe a patchwork collection of voluntary societies and not a top-down hierarchical structure of government), communism - small "c" - would actually be encouraged, because it contributes to localism and the development of positive communities through the free association of individuals.

The problem with modern 'libertarians' (four-fifths of whom wrongly describe them as such) is that they have wholly and happily swallowed the neoliberal Washington consensus hook, line and sinker, and willfully neglect their more anarchistic heritage. If they were to rediscover that heritage, and put down The Fountainhead for just a moment, they might soon realize that their natural allies are on the Left, and are further to the Left than any mainstream political body at the moment, and would accordingly attempt to persuade the Left to adopt libertarian means to progressive - which are simultaneously libertarian - ends.

Thus, rather than butting heads between progressive statism and progressive anarchism, we must instead ask: how can we shift the vital energies of progressivism away from the top-down activism they've employed since the era of the New Deal, and towards minarchist progressivism that encourages individual initiative on the part of the free man to liberate himself from the mores of fear and superstition? Moreover: how can a genuinely minarchist Left confront and defeat a statist conservatism that is more than happy to use the powers of the State to impose its social and cultural views on the masses and to wield military power in the defense of its vested interests?

O Rly?

[Scam of God]

This question is meaningless in the context of the Atlas forum, as not one of the posters in this thread besides myself is a genuine libertarian.

Libertarianism means more than a mere devotion to the defense of gun rights, or opposition to the war on drugs, or support for a free-market economy. Moreover, what most here fail to realize is that this last element can be wholly eliminated, in the final analysis, and remain a deeply libertarian one.

The true libertarian - the libertarian whose intellectual predecessors lay not in the neoliberal ramblings of Ayn Rand but in the purely anarchic tradition espoused by thinkers such as Max Stirner - believe, first and foremost, in the primacy of spontaneity: that is, in the need for the application of human order to the naturally chaotic state of things. This philosophy is best encapsulated through volunteerism: the public corporation is not the sole guarantor of economic freedom; far from it. The socialistic commune which is predicated on mutualism is far more 'free' of an institution than, for instance, Microsoft, which manipulates the public through its stranglehold on the State to its own benefit. We call supporters of corporatism corporatists, and not libertarians.

Human freedom is the ultimate goal of all committed libertarianism. Where the market can accomplish this, then it is to the market we look. Where volunteerism is required, there we shall pursue it to our own ends. A genuine libertarian need not support the market on principle; he needs only support whatever it is that extends the greatest amount of freedom to the greatest amount of people (for I will always be in danger of servitude if my neighbor is also).

In a libertarian "state" (I use the term here very loosely, to describe a patchwork collection of voluntary societies and not a top-down hierarchical structure of government), communism - small "c" - would actually be encouraged, because it contributes to localism and the development of positive communities through the free association of individuals.

The problem with modern 'libertarians' (four-fifths of whom wrongly describe them as such) is that they have wholly and happily swallowed the neoliberal Washington consensus hook, line and sinker, and willfully neglect their more anarchistic heritage. If they were to rediscover that heritage, and put down The Fountainhead for just a moment, they might soon realize that their natural allies are on the Left, and are further to the Left than any mainstream political body at the moment, and would accordingly attempt to persuade the Left to adopt libertarian means to progressive - which are simultaneously libertarian - ends.

Thus, rather than butting heads between progressive statism and progressive anarchism, we must instead ask: how can we shift the vital energies of progressivism away from the top-down activism they've employed since the era of the New Deal, and towards minarchist progressivism that encourages individual initiative on the part of the free man to liberate himself from the mores of fear and superstition? Moreover: how can a genuinely minarchist Left confront and defeat a statist conservatism that is more than happy to use the powers of the State to impose its social and cultural views on the masses and to wield military power in the defense of its vested interests?

O Rly?

You excepted, of course, though I would like to see you push rapprochement with the Left a bit more harder. Simultaneously, I'd like to see those leftists here with libertarian sympathies attempt to reach out to the growing libertarian movement more forcefully, and offer policy positions that would satisfy both wings.