What exactly is the difference between right-libertarians and left-libertarians?

State means violence. As long as you can quit the collective at any moment, it's not a State.

This is why modern countries are States and not very large ancap societies. Nobody will let you out of jail and let you move to another country just because it was a victimless crime.

What if I find a friend and we form a fake "collective"? Can we own stuff freely?

The political compass meme is incoherent and anyone that subscribes to it is retarded

Attached: photo_140@24-04-2022_22-45-42.jpg (828x735, 62.05K)

It's better than the alternatives. I took the 10 Groups test and it said I am a "Eurocommunist". Meanwhile I am religious

So, you could say that they define 'A' in NAP as something else but just physical violence. I would like to hear their definition of Aggression in that case.

>If you accept NAP
Left-libertarians don't

>Anarcho-capitalists think that property rights can be enforced without a state
The property rights of individuals and small collectives (e.g. families) are ONLY enforceable when infringers are resisted by the infringed. Similarly, the state primarily protects itself and its close allies, not its dependents. This is true of virtually every state of riot/anarchy in history.

I talked with one and he claimed that they do.

Okay, so what do they believe in?

Then he's lying or doesn't understand its meaning.

Well, you kind of have to admit that forced removals as suggested by Hoppe could be considered as breaches of NAP pretty easily. I mean, how would the Hoppeans enforce them without a threat of violence?

Left-Libertarians are just closet communists. Right-libertarians are just right.

It's not a breach of NAP since you would need to agree to whatever rules the community has as a conditional of owning the property in it. If you break the rules, then you don't own the property, therefore you can be physically removed.

Since humans are not robots nobody would want to live in a society with _just_ NAP, so there will always be extra community rules regulating bad behavior.

The political compass isn't real

There isn't a difference between a state and a society. They're both essentially forms of social contracts implicit vs. explicit. A society would still have a social contract - you can't have a grouping of humans who live together and work together without some rules or norms being established that are implicit.
>Anarcho-capitalists think that property rights can be enforced without a state
And they can because a social contract will exist to enforce it. People will accept the risk of theft meaning possible harm; just like they do now.

But what if you live in a farmhouse alone somewhere being a practicing member of religion X, but then other people practicing religion Y move in forming a village around the same area, and because they are now majority, they demand that you have to leave because you don’t comply to their religious rules? Or what if our current society ended up turning into anarcho-rightist society and your neighbours had different ideas about society than you, and they end up declaring that your neighborhood has a ruleset that demands your removal, despite you owning that house?

It’s not like world is divided into clear-cut pre-existing ideological communities, so an anarcho-rightist society would be bound to get messy around the definitions of what area is whose community. ”You don’t have to move there” doesn’t really work if you already have people living there.

>There isn't a difference between a state and a society.
There is a reason why people use different words for those things. Because they mean different things.

A group of people who live in a society that force you to live in a certain way under threat of violence is State. Absence of such a group of people is a society without State.

Also State != Government.

Meant to quote

Right libertarians aren’t the turbo spergs who complain about drivers licenses because white nationalism has been so demonized they can’t practice tribalism healthily, and so many nigger spics infest this country that their subconscious opposes any solidarity in the nation, or social programs because their animal brain doesn’t want “others” receiving their resources and reproducing their genes (yes it’s been studied to death that ethnic homogenization leads to support for social welfare programs). Left “libertarians” have basically the same social platform as the right pedos, but also want white men executed.

>Because they mean different things.
Not really, no. They have the same function - you're making a tautology.
>A group of people who live in a society that force you to live in a certain way under threat of violence is State
And that's what society does too - do you think violence wasn't used before sedentary civilization to enforce property ownership? That's just not true. Tribal societies were extremely violent and unequal because of this.

*are the turbo spergs

>and because they are now majority, they demand that you have to leave because you don’t comply to their religious rules?
If they did that, that would be a violation of NAP and the lone farmer would have the right to attack them. Being a majority does not matter (in the legal sense).

>your neighbours had different ideas about society than you, and they end up declaring that your neighborhood has a ruleset that demands your removal, despite you owning that house?
Those rulesets and the procedure required to change them should be defined and agreed by me before I own the property.

So if you want an example of a genesis of a such community.

Bob buys a bunch of land. He is the sole owner of it.
Bob sells Alice a part of the land, but the conditional of her owning the property is:
1. Agreeing to X rules.
2. Requiring that whoever she sells the property to, has to also agree to X rules.

In a few generations, there is a community living on that land with very specific rules. If you brake the rules, you don't own the property anymore, since it was the conditional, and now you can be physically removed.

>It’s not like world is divided into clear-cut pre-existing ideological communities, so an anarcho-rightist society would be bound to get messy around the definitions of what area is whose community. ”You don’t have to move there” doesn’t really work if you already have people living there.
Yes, ancap is very idealistic. Night-watchman state that would protect it from outside world could work though.

I don't have a problem with agreeing that tribal societies had a very primitive form of State. Still, society can exist without a State, or at least try to minimize it.

>brake
*break wtf

Left worships democracy as the ultimate arbiter and considers anything with hierarchy statist, including employer-employee relationships
Right worships free market and thinks that mob rule is retarded

Left libertarians are walking contradictions

If property rights can only be enforced by the state then why crimes against property are much higher in the cities where there is way more police/state presence than in rural areas where the presence of the state is much lower?

They have many differences, but one thing which applies to all of them is that their entire worldview is incredibly childish. Who in their right mind think that authoritarianism is an option for a society, instead of a necessary evil.

After 2 years interacting with both on a near-daily basis, I came to the conclusion that it's all about whether you're serving the GOP or stalinist looneys. Left-libertarians have no shame parroting talking points that are perfectly known to be Stalinist/Maoist propaganda and historically left anarchism has done nothing but help Stalinists reach power and prop up terminally-retarded people like Chomsky. Right-libertarians gleefully swallow all the "small government" bullshit from the party that wants to ban abortion, condoms, porn and protesting and right anarchism boils down to cryptofascists like Hoppe and Paul and unabashed millionaire cock suckers like Rand, Rothbard and Block.

By the way ancapism is real anarchism, and that's precisely what makes it cringe.

None of them think that authoritarianism is an option, you have no idea what you're talking about.

because of basketball fans

>but the conditional of her owning the property is:
>1. Agreeing to X rules.
>2. Requiring that whoever she sells the property to, has to also agree to X rules.

if so Alice was never the owner of the property in the first place, and that contract would be null in a right-libertarian point of view for infringing in the property owner's right
if she is truly the owner of her property she can change the rule of her property unilaterally
it's the same principle that right libertarians point for the right of secession

Yes, in other words lib-left can only be done through force which means it's technically impossible for lib-left to exist in reality

idealism is a mental illness and anyone unironically using the political compass needs to take the meds

You can use exclusion
>Can I come here?
>Only if you agree to work towards the collective instead of individual good
You can pick and eat your own apple but you can’t lay exclusive claim to apples from a tree.

>if so Alice was never the owner of the property in the first place
You can call it whatever you want. It's a contractual agreement between two individuals and it is very libertarian.

Idealism is extremely important to help you guide through this world. The society will probably never live up to those ideals but it's good to know what is good and what is bad.

Left-libertarians want the freedom to smoke weed and have abortions and right-libertarians want less taxes and more guns. Its not rocket science.

>Anarcho-capitalists think that property rights can be enforced without a state

"Omar Hussein Ahmed, an olive oil exporter in Mogadishu, the capital, said he and a group of fellow traders recently bought missiles to shoot at government soldiers.

“Taxes are annoying,” he explained.

Right libertarians also want the freedom to smoke weed and have abortions though.

It's a matter of priority, which is why left and right-libertarianism is a difference in degree and not kind.

So it's just cultural differences? meme answer

Social politics isn't "cultural differences" but okay.

Worshipping blacks

Social politics literally does not exist for libertarians.

It's like if people started calling themselves fit-libertarians or gamer-libertarians. It makes zero sense since they are not going to use the state to force their values anyways

idealism as in philosophical perspective not a vague platitude

They both want the same thing - i.e. no government, it’s just that they have different expectations of what will happen afterwards.

Lefties think the whole world will turn into an LGBT-friendly hippie commune where everyone can be safely sustained off of a (voluntary) 10 hour workweek.

Righties tend to differ in their interpretations a bit - anything from a bitcoin utopia to warlordism.

One doesn't actually exist because, as it turns out, middle management is authoritarian.

neither exists

>I constantly switch between these two so I am qualified to talk.
>I am qualified to talk.

That opening sentence says otherwise.

You're understanding of politics clearly comes from popular culture and not anything authoritative.

Okay retard.

Attached: 1280px-Bandera_CNT-FAI.svg.png (1280x774, 17.12K)

Actually you are allowed to eat apples commune has reserved for you, but planting apple trees on your own is a crime.

i wanna fuck lolis, and leftoids want to fuck boys and turn them tranny instead

In a right libertarian society you can organize yourself into a left libertarian commune

In a left libertarian society, right libertarians aren't allowed to organize thenselves

Guess where the freedom at?
thats minarchism, not anarchism

you can be a philosophical anarchism and a minarchis though

>It's better than the alternatives.
No it's not. Authoritarian/Libertarian is the only axis, and more importantly the only measurable axis. Whatever laws, trade policy, environment, soical, religious is irrelevant - enforcement of those policies are all funded by taxes or the money printer. % of GDP spent on enforcing each policy is the measure of liberty/authority in that space.

Socialism can only survive if someone suppresses market activity since someone is always better off trading what he produces rather than giving it to a collective. "From each according to his ability to each according to his need" never works in the long run because the individual incentive is to break ranks. That's why socialism has always been brutally authoritarian.

>mob rule is retarded
it is. Giving equal votes to everybody effectively allows plebs to gamble with house money. If a policy doesn't effect you directly, you can form power blocs and trade your vote for a percentage on a different issue. I can get behind some kind of weighted voting system, f2p, but (heavily) p2w. considering how much is spent on campaign ads by donors, it's really not that much different, just more transparent when you can buy votes directly instead of spreading smears and disinfo.

Just a state by another name

>if so Alice was never the owner of the property in the first place, and that contract would be null in a right-libertarian point of view for infringing in the property owner's right
>if she is truly the owner of her property she can change the rule of her property unilaterally
this poorfag has never had the displeasure of being in a homeowner's association.

The state still existed in Spain and anarchists worked in it. In fact they begged the government to bail out their failing worker-managed firms.

all idealism is are guidelines to help you find best practices for various situations. however this implies a static environmental model. the real world is dynamic, situations change and best practices become outmoded. clinging to an ideal that no longer works is why civilizations all reach a tipping point when they either reform or collapse.

>fit libertarians
higher insurance premiums for fatties, it's a voluntary contract
>gamer libertarians
has never spent a penny on gym membership, never will.

Libertarians have no problem with workers putting their resources together to form a co-op.
Tree-huggers have a problem with a worker selling his labor for a wage and they become violent if they see it.

That's the difference.

>you would need to agree to whatever rules the community has
In fact, if you are to stay on the territory of the commune, you will have to. See:

>State means violence. As long as you can quit the collective at any moment, it's not a State.
Left libs have states.

>someone is always better off trading what he produces rather than giving it to a collective
creating a black market takes effort and risk of exposure (prohibition, war on drugs). much easier to simply fudge the numbers, claim you produced more than you actually did (soviets).

Hoppe for the future
It's coming soon enough
How much can we achieve?
Hoppe for the future
It will belong to us
If we believe
If we believe

LibLeft => imagine a group of people living in a community where everyone can do whatever they want to help and provide for everyone. you can go work in a farm and then in the factory and use community provide car/books/house together with fellow LibLeft!
LibRight => imagine a society where everyone is free to own private property without "The State" interfering. you can apply to work for any company, save money and buy your own stuffs like car/books/foods or even illegal stuffs like Nuke/Turrets/etc to defend yourself. Once you finally work hard and have enough money you can start your own company, hire workers, sell products and become rich who own almost everything with only people oppositing to your are other company who want to grow rich themselve but hey that's the nature of competition (you might even get to ally them if you want!)

Did I get it right?

Yellow have working brains, green are giant children.

No, LibRight would use their freedom to create a deeply conservative ethnost… ethnocommunity.

both are pipe dreams thought up by manchildren

+RAPE DICK+ +RAPE DICK+ +RAPE DICK+ +RAPE DICK+ +RAPE DICK+ +RAPE DICK+ +RAPE DICK+ +RAPE DICK+ +RAPE DICK+ +RAPE DICK+ +RAPE DICK+ +RAPE DICK+ +RAPE DICK+ +RAPE DICK+ +RAPE DICK+ +RAPE DICK+ +RAPE DICK+ +RAPE DICK+ +RAPE DICK+ +RAPE DICK+ +RAPE DICK+ +RAPE DICK+ +RAPE DICK+ +RAPE DICK+ +RAPE DICK+ +RAPE DICK+ +RAPE DICK+ +RAPE DICK+

>imagine a group of people living in a community where everyone can do whatever they want
>That community having a farm
>Or cars
>Or houses
Explain how that would happen. Everyone would just come to get the benefit the can.
Do you use a token system? You get tokens when you provide for the community and spend them to get from the community.
In that case I would be more than happy to lend some tokens against more tokens.

Right libertarians are real libertarians and left libertarians don't exist. That's about it.

Left "libertarian" is just some made up bullshit that nobody even brought up until recently so the establishment could co opt and dilute the idea of libertarianism.

it's something like that.
you and your wife can work freely which jobs you want to work with or have knowledge about them for example john is a good baker he bake bread and provide for everyone and he occasionally help with his neighbor fred who is a farmer etc. now imagine hundreds of people working various jobs to provide for the family and everyone can use each other property like foods, houses, cars, etc.
do you want to go some where to do something? here's a community provide car that you can use for it as long as you return it to the community! here's a house you can live inside as long as you don't mind people going into your house! etc. etc.
youtube.com/watch?v=v-g5ySEluvI

*it's something like this

and no I'm not Libertarian. I just decribe what I think of their ideologies.

>thats minarchism, not anarchism
No, it's not. Anarchism does not contradict to armies and hierarchies as long as they are voluntary.

much much lower population density and wealth inequality

left libs support anti-government collectivism, right libs support anti-goverment individualism

Blacks.

Right-libs support anti-government collectivism too. In fact any serious right-lib does not imagine libertarianism working outside of strong communes.

>left libs only allow collective ownership?
Only some really psychotic Maoist types call for abolishing private property.
And vice versa, only strawman-tier lolberts call for abolishing of public roads and such.
but generally speaking, left values public property more, right values private property more
from what I understand, ideal libertarian army is purely defensive militia/guerilla - can't occupy a country in which there's a gun behind every leaf of grass (supposedly)
as for hierarchical society, humans are biologically wired to be hierarchal and like to follow a leader or try to the leader - that's also why liberatrianism is inherently flawed

once you buy the property it is yours and you have the right to take it from the community whenever you please, the "community" trying to take the property from you would be in violation of the NAP
Communities have no power over the individual properties and all supposed conditionals are null and void under the libertarian ethics

If you can't take your property out of that association you never owned the property to begin with

The way to get the property in the first place is by accepting the rules of the community, which includes rules that restrict how you can sell the property. See >Bob buys a bunch of land. He is the sole owner of it.
>Bob sells Alice a part of the land, but the conditional of her owning the property is:
>1. Agreeing to X rules.
>2. Requiring that whoever she sells the property to, has to also agree to X rules.

>In a few generations, there is a community living on that land with very specific rules. If you brake the rules, you don't own the property anymore, since it was the conditional, and now you can be physically removed.

Not if she can't take her property out of the association whenever she wants , other wise it's a violation of property rights and not libertarian at all

homeowner associations are as illegitimate and a violation of property rights and ethics
if you can't take your property out of it, it was never yours to begin with

It's not a violation of property rights. Nobody forced her to buy the property. She knew what are the requirements.

Your desire to restrict contractual agreements between voluntary participants is very statist.

Alright user, if calling the relation X(Alice, land) a property triggers your autism we can call it something else. It's still a valid libertarian contract.

No, once the property is yours it is yours and you can take it out of the community unilaterally for the same reason you can unilaterally secesseed from the state under the libertarian ethics
Bob has no right to do shit if Alice decide to chance the rules after becoming the owner of the property, any conditions are null and void
what you propose would necessitate a state to use force against the free use of ones property

>It's not a violation of property rights.
yes it is
once the property belong to someone this person has total sovereignty to take their property from any association and change the rules over it whenever he wants
that what private property means and if you can't do that the property is not yours
It's the same justification for the right of secession
your are the type of idiot that think a contract of slavery would have any valued or base under libertarian ethics

It's not
If the contract says she owns the property she can do whatever she wants with it and no conditional of use are valid

Alright, the logical relation Owner(Alice, land) is not true. Instead, after paying Bob and signing the contract, the relation CommunityMember(Alice, land) became true.

The relation CommunityMember(P, L) has many similarities with the relation Owner(P, L). It grants the person P the privileges to do whatever they feel like on the land L. Kill intruders, build stuff, etc. But there are limitations on the transfer of the relation to other persons.

Since Bob was in Owner relation with the land L, he has the right to grant a weaker relation to Alice, namely the relation CommunityMember, and also absolve himself of the relation Owner.

Does this clear things up?

Attached: 1637026042997.jpg (900x900, 37.6K)

As I said, Alice is not the property owner, so it's not a violation of property rights.

And selling yourself into slavery is not libertarian for philosophical reasons which we accept as an axiom.

The NAP is an Ancap fantasy, not something that determines weather or not you are Libertarian.

Please tell me what exactly does it mean to be a left-libertarian.

This, a strong community benefits the individual just as much as the collective. The issue is when the community treads on the individual.

In a similar way, in case of Owner(Bob, land) being true, Bob has the right to grant other, weaker relations to other people.

For example, Alice could pay Bob a monthly fee, so that Bob grants her the weaker relation Renter(Alice, land) for a limited amount of time.

The relation Renter(P, L) is also similar to the relation Owner(P, L). You get to live on the land, do certain things, with some exceptions, bring your friends, defend against intruders, etc. But you're not allowed to transfer the Renter relation to anybody else. You are not allowed to sell the property.

Or are you going to argue that landlordism is not allowed in libertarianism too?

Attached: 1631952769721.jpg (1200x675, 64.12K)

>here's a house you can live inside as long as you don't mind people going into your house!
which is why all hippie communes eventually devolve into sex cults.

wilful ignorance is inexcusable.

YOU'VE ENTERED WARP SPACE

wtf did this just get imported?