Libertarians on the internet

[Blackburn]

It seems like, from my small perspective that the internet population consists of 90% self styled Libertarians. It seems to be the philosophy of choice for basement dwelling Reactionaries.

Do we get many closeted or not so closeted Libertarians trying to mx with the RevLeft community?

[RGacky3]

Its the philosophy of people who never have seen society, i.e. people who don't have windows.

[Tim Cornelis]

Libertarians on the internet

Isn't that a pleonasm? It's a non-movement with Ron Paul (or Stefan Molyneux) as personality of cult. You dare criticize one of them and they go nuts (or in case of Molyneux, he'll ban/block you).

I think there's one Ancap on revleft.

[danyboy27]

It seems like, from my small perspective that the internet population consists of 90% self styled Libertarians. It seems to be the philosophy of choice for basement dwelling Reactionaries.

Do we get many closeted or not so closeted Libertarians trying to mx with the RevLeft community?


being a libertarian is all fine and dandy until the shit hit the fan and you have to pay a 70 000 medical bill beccause your insurance company tricked you.

or until you are with no job collecting that evil social security money.

[Octavian]

We should distinguish that libertarian it's self means that you highly value liberty. It's right libertarians that are the ones who tout how great the free market is(wonderful if you're rich). For the most part right libertarianism is the stance people take when they want to be conservative but don't want to identify with that label.

[RichardAWilson]

Libertarianism is bourgeois freedom. The freedom to make money. The freedom to spend money. The freedom to run your business as you’d like. The problem is that with freedom comes responsibility.

That is where the Libertarians have gone wrong. Businessmen have an obligation to preserve our common goods (I.e. the water, air, soil). After all, fresh air is as much my right as it is a man owning a coal burner.

Another problem with Libertarianism is that it confuses bourgeois freedom for genuine freedom. They're often anti-trade union (Rand and Milton Friedman). Why shouldn't a worker reserve the right to join a union and struggle for better working conditions? An anti-union Libertarian is employing an oxymoron. However, this goes even further than Trade Unionism.

The Libertarians do nothing to address fundamental rights for children (medical care, education and food). If the parents can't pay: the children suffer. How is that freedom for the child? The freedom to be born poor and then be condemned to a life of malnutrition and illiteracy?

Libertarianism worked well during primitive societies. It just can't work in a Civilized Society.

[The Man]

Its the philosophy of people who never have seen society, i.e. people who don't have windows.

No. It's the philosophy of idiots.

[Bardo]

being a libertarian is all fine and dandy until the shit hit the fan and you have to pay a 70 000 medical bill beccause your insurance company tricked you.

or until you are with no job collecting that evil social security money.

Everyone knows that any libertarian can support himself and his family with nothing but a gun and a box of matches.

That is if they really want to survive. ;)

[Liberi]

"Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality."

[AnonymousOne]

It seems like, from my small perspective that the internet population consists of 90% self styled Libertarians. It seems to be the philosophy of choice for basement dwelling Reactionaries.

Do we get many closeted or not so closeted Libertarians trying to mx with the RevLeft community?

No. It's the philosophy of the young and the naive. Which is a fair chunk of the Internet. I was an Anarcho-Cap/Libertarian for about 4 years. They're good people, they just don't understand.

[cogar66]

"Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality."

We're obviously talking about the Capitalism supporters who stole the word "Libertarian".

[RGacky3]

No. It's the philosophy of idiots.

I would'nt say that, a lot of them can pull together very complex logical arguments, and do logical gymnastics to make a point, all of which can be debunked juts by looking out a window.

[cogar66]

I would'nt say that, a lot of them can pull together very complex logical arguments, and do logical gymnastics to make a point, all of which can be debunked juts by looking out a window.

Looking out the window doesn't work because gubmint ruins reality.

[Mr. Cervantes]

We should distinguish that libertarian it's self means that you highly value liberty. It's right libertarians that are the ones who tout how great the free market is(wonderful if you're rich). For the most part right libertarianism is the stance people take when they want to be conservative but don't want to identify with that label.

I thought all libertarians were rightwing libertarians.

I never met a libertarian that wasn't rightwing. There isn't much of a difference between them and ancaps. Libertarianism is just a modern anarco capitalist lite variation.

[Octavian]

I thought all libertarians were rightwing libertarians.

I never met a libertarian that wasn't rightwing. There isn't much of a difference between them and ancaps. Libertarianism is just a modern anarco capitalist lite variation.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=274
There's 214 of us.

[Blackburn]

Yes, I have not met a self styled internet Libertarian that compromised on the Right Wing Economic stance. It's why the majority vote for Right Wing Candidates.

EDIT: well there you go (Above post). :)

[RGacky3]

Looking out the window doesn't work because gubmint ruins reality.

Looking out the window and the ability to see causality, you only need the ability of a 10 year old really.

[Mr. Cervantes]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=274
There's 214 of us.

The term libertarian - socialist doesn't make any sense to me.

It seems like a disservice to the definition of the word socialist.

It makes as much sense as a definition like that of fascist - pacifism.

[RGacky3]

No it does'nt, actually libertarian in the way it is used in the United States does'nt make no sense, they are not for liberty AT ALL.

Liberianism origionally meant libertarian socialist, i.e. close to anarchist, which makes total sense because they are actually for real liberty.

[Mr. Cervantes]

No it does'nt, actually libertarian in the way it is used in the United States does'nt make no sense, they are not for liberty AT ALL.

Liberianism origionally meant libertarian socialist, i.e. close to anarchist, which makes total sense because they are actually for real liberty.

Generally speaking libertarianism as a term anymore is used only in rightwing or anarcho capitalist circles.

In this case the original word and definition whatever it might of been has lost it's meaning.

[RGacky3]

Generally speaking libertarianism as a term anymore is used only in rightwing or anarcho capitalist circles.

In this case the original word and definition whatever it might of been has lost it's meaning.

In the United States your right (not so in europe), but for that reason I actually Love the term libertarian socialist, it makes people thing about what sort of "liberty" libertarians actually want, (which is the equivilent of the king having the liberty to do whatever he wants with his subjects and realm without intervention from pesky democratic institutions).

[Johnny Kerosene]

I thought all libertarians were rightwing libertarians.

I never met a libertarian that wasn't rightwing. There isn't much of a difference between them and ancaps. Libertarianism is just a modern anarco capitalist lite variation.

If I remember correctly, the term libertarian was first used to refer to an Anarcho-Communist. It's just been tainted by people like my boss, and my co-workers. It's rather challenging to not start an argument every other time that they open their mouths, but it's just a summer job and it's not worth the trouble. It's a shame really, that they're tea-baggers, because aside from their politics they're pretty cool people.

[Revolution starts with U]

The term libertarian - socialist doesn't make any sense to me.

It seems like a disservice to the definition of the word socialist.

It makes as much sense as a definition like that of fascist - pacifism.

I've half a mind to neg-rep you for that comment. In my mind, anything but libertarian socialism is merely playing lip service to the word "socialist."

[Ocean Seal]

Libertarian capitalists are quite funny.
Its the state that prevents capitalism from working
So then when has capitalism worked
A.) Back before the Great Depression
And what do you think caused the Great Depression
A2.) No Man there was no such thing. The govtment just made it up.
B.) Capitalism has never existed without a state
So how does one get rid of a state
B2.) Um ummm ummmmm
So you're suggesting an idealist construct?

[thefinalmarch]

If I remember correctly, the term libertarian was first used to refer to an Anarcho-Communist.
Yes. From wiktionary:


The French word is first attested in a letter in May 1857 by French anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque to anarchist philosopher Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, reading:[1]
“Anarchiste juste-milieu, libéral et non LIBERTAIRE…” In translation:
“A centrist anarchist, liberal and not LIBERTARIAN…” hence the sense is of “extreme left-wing”.

[Salyut]

Isn't that a pleonasm? It's a non-movement with Ron Paul (or Stefan Molyneux) as personality of cult. You dare criticize one of them and they go nuts (or in case of Molyneux, he'll ban/block you).

I think there's one Ancap on revleft.

Molyneux is a scary dude. I don't think he's ever been discussed on Revleft...

[Blackburn]

Molyneux is a scary dude. I don't think he's ever been discussed on Revleft...

Had to google that name.

Oooh that *******! Yeah, a real wacko. :laugh:

[Distruzio]

Isn't that a pleonasm? It's a non-movement with Ron Paul (or Stefan Molyneux) as personality of cult. You dare criticize one of them and they go nuts (or in case of Molyneux, he'll ban/block you).

I think there's one Ancap on revleft.

I'm an anarcho-capitalist as well. Well, more specifically, anarcho-monarchist. Slight variation without the implied vanguardism. This'd be my first post on RevLeft. So... nice to meet you all. I'm Distruzio, AnMon/AnCap troll.

[JustMovement]

Welcome. Im a pancako-jamist. Without the implied lemon-sugarism.

[Distruzio]

That sounds delicious!

[Franz Fanonipants]

I'm an anarcho-capitalist as well. Well, more specifically, anarcho-monarchist. Slight variation without the implied vanguardism. This'd be my first post on RevLeft. So... nice to meet you all. I'm Distruzio, AnMon/AnCap troll.

wtf is this

[RGacky3]

Generally speaking libertarianism as a term anymore is used only in rightwing or anarcho capitalist circles.


Not outside the US

[Mr. Cervantes]

Not outside the US

That's very provocative to me.

It seems like those behind the American libertarian movement are trying to use the word and definition in order to confuse everybody in gaining populace support. A right-wing conspiracy? You decide. ;)

I'm only familiar with American libertarians which would explain my comments earlier.

[ZombieRothbard]

It stands to reason that there would be more libertarians of various economic persuasions on the internet. Obviously if you are an avid internet user, you have more access to unbiased news and non-mainstream sources than most people do. I think if ANYBODY actually studied the state of the world from an unbiased point of view (void of government propaganda), they would be inclined to become a libertarian.

[Skooma Addict]

I'm an anarcho-capitalist as well. Well, more specifically, anarcho-monarchist.

What?

[Skooma Addict]

It stands to reason that there would be more libertarians of various economic persuasions on the internet. Obviously if you are an avid internet user, you have more access to unbiased news and non-mainstream sources than most people do. I think if ANYBODY actually studied the state of the world from an unbiased point of view (void of government propaganda), they would be inclined to become a libertarian.

It is because libertarians are generally nerds or not very extroverted so they spend a lot of time on the internet. I think most libertarians adopt more reasonable ideologies as they get older. Most I know came to adopt a consequentialist pragmatism which is superior to libertarianism in all ways.

[Revolution starts with U]

It stands to reason that there would be more libertarians of various economic persuasions on the internet. Obviously if you are an avid internet user, you have more access to unbiased news and non-mainstream sources than most people do. I think if ANYBODY actually studied the state of the world from an unbiased point of view (void of government propaganda), they would be inclined to become a libertarian.

If you are saying they would become libertarians of each/any persuasion... I would agree.

If you mean right-wing libertarian, your charge of my bias is insulting, and I implore you to prove it.

[Agnapostate]

There is an abundance of pseudo-libertarians on the Internet, partially due to the fact that their constituency is composed of middle-to-upper class people with regular computer access (for obvious reasons), and partially due to the fact that people attracted to the ideology tend to be socially awkward and can spend copious amounts of time online. As Will Wilkinson wrote in Libertarian Democraphobia (http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/05/04/libertarian-democraphobia/), the cultural aspects of pseudo-libertarianism give off definite vibes that, "it's a uselessly abstract ahistorical ideology for socially retarded adolescent white guys."


I'm an anarcho-capitalist as well. Well, more specifically, anarcho-monarchist.

Do you attend joint meetings with the anarcho-statists, the anarcho-fascists, the anarcho-dictators, and the Carnivorous Vegetarian Society?

[jake williams]

It stands to reason that there would be more libertarians of various economic persuasions on the internet. Obviously if you are an avid internet user, you have more access to unbiased news and non-mainstream sources than most people do. I think if ANYBODY actually studied the state of the world from an unbiased point of view (void of government propaganda), they would be inclined to become a libertarian.
If you mean a "libertarian" as someone who opposes the bourgeois state, then I think anyone would come to that position if they were sufficiently informed and weren't bourgeois. The sophisticated bourgeoisie, however, whatever sympathy they might have for "libertarianism" as an ideology, understands that the state basically acts in its interests. It has interests only in minimizing those aspects which don't, or which serve other parts of the bourgeoisie at their expense, and even then, strategic compromises are often found.

If you mean a "libertarian" in the sense you actually mean it, then no. Someone who actually knows anything about the world clearly understands that in every class society, either a state is developed to protect the ruling class or the ruling class ceases to rule. Since capitalism is necessarily a class society, capitalism and anti-statism are utterly incompatible.


"Right libertarians" exist on the internet in particular both because internet debate is disproportionately petty bourgeois (and lumpen-proletarian, a class fraction with a similar absense of class solidarity), and because internet debate is disproportionately young - that is, it goes on amongst a youth which has grown up in a time of immense weakness in the working class movement and where bourgeois ideology has experienced considerable triumph.

[RGacky3]

It stands to reason that there would be more libertarians of various economic persuasions on the internet. Obviously if you are an avid internet user, you have more access to unbiased news and non-mainstream sources than most people do. I think if ANYBODY actually studied the state of the world from an unbiased point of view (void of government propaganda), they would be inclined to become a libertarian.


Except for eveeryone that does'nt, funny though in the US, it seams all the propeganda seams to be about free markets free markets, and it also seams that its the ONLY country with free market libertarians.

[Distruzio]

There is an abundance of pseudo-libertarians on the Internet, partially due to the fact that their constituency is composed of middle-to-upper class people with regular computer access (for obvious reasons), and partially due to the fact that people attracted to the ideology tend to be socially awkward and can spend copious amounts of time online.

I find these comments incredibly ironic given the trend in world view for the majority on this site. :laugh:




Do you attend joint meetings with the anarcho-statists, the anarcho-fascists, the anarcho-dictators, and the Carnivorous Vegetarian Society?

:rolleyes:

[El Pelón]

Ironically, if you look at certain libertarian sites, such as the Mises Institute or the Cato Institute, libertarians are the ones who take Marxism the most seriously. One of the founders of the Austrian School, Bohm-Bawerk, actually took the time to read Marx's Capital and refute it. As far as I can tell, as far as bourgeois ideology goes, libertarianism based on Austrian economics is the most serious and consistent bourgeois ideology. Though they too are not living in reality, because if you have recourse to someone like Rothbard, he will often end up saying that real existing capitalism (the plunder, the imperialism, monopoly, etc.) isn't really capitalism, to have real capitalism we would have to abolish the central bank and have individual banks print their own money, etc. Basically, the economics of La-la land.

[ModelHomeInvasion]

"Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality."
:rolleyes:

[JustMovement]

I dont argee that all libertarians are pseudo-fascists or blood hungry reactionaries. The truth is that many of them (not the US tea party types) are socially progressive, their heart is in the right place with their concern for liberty (cue rant about idealism), and they need to understand that their conception of liberty as the right to property in practice is a severe to curtailment of the broader (and shared I would argue) conception of liberty as the autonomy of the individual.

[Distruzio]

Ironically, if you look at certain libertarian sites, such as the Mises Institute or the Cato Institute, libertarians are the ones who take Marxism the most seriously. One of the founders of the Austrian School, Bohm-Bawerk, actually took the time to read Marx's Capital and refute it. As far as I can tell, as far as bourgeois ideology goes, libertarianism based on Austrian economics is the most serious and consistent bourgeois ideology. Though they too are not living in reality, because if you have recourse to someone like Rothbard, he will often end up saying that real existing capitalism (the plunder, the imperialism, monopoly, etc.) isn't really capitalism, to have real capitalism we would have to abolish the central bank and have individual banks print their own money, etc. Basically, the economics of La-la land.

All of you observations are spot on! I wonder though, how is the economics of common sense la-la land economics? And why can't we say that the capitalism that exists today is not actual capitalism consistently defined?

[ZombieRothbard]

The propaganda in the U.S. is against markets, as it has been since the New Deal. The public schools teach us that Rockefeller was more of a threat to our freedom than the state is, yet Rockefeller killed nobody, and the state has killed millions upon millions.

[Revolution starts with U]

IDK what school you went to, and what TV you watch, Zombie, but I have gotten the exact opposite impression. We were/are always told how wonderful the free market is, and how it made us the most powerful nation in history (lulz).

It seems to the right-wing, propaganda is reality, and reality is propaganda. The MSM doesn't report on some conservative issue because it's absolute bollox, and they cry "liberal media bias."

[La Comédie Noire]

Yeah when I took history in high school they loved the ever loving shit out of markets and talked about how men like Carnegie and Rockefeller got a bad rap because of yellow journalism and leftist agitators.

There was also times where they went to great lengths to explain why the national guard shooting down striking workers was wrong.

I should also mention the curriculum was highly critical of the new deal.

[Ocean Seal]

It is because libertarians are generally nerds or not very extroverted so they spend a lot of time on the internet. I think most libertarians adopt more reasonable ideologies as they get older. Most I know came to adopt a consequentialist pragmatism which is superior to libertarianism in all ways.
I guess its a case of the chicken or the egg. Are they introverted because they follow a philosophy of individualism and when you approach someone and tell them that they're a leech, they tend to not want to talk to you. Or when you tell them that your dream is to become John Galt, and they find out who John Galt is, they probably have enough reason to stay away from said libertarian. Or is it that because of their inherent introversion they adopt the libertarian ideology.

[L.A.P.]

The propaganda in the U.S. is against markets, as it has been since the New Deal. The public schools teach us that Rockefeller was more of a threat to our freedom than the state is, yet Rockefeller killed nobody, and the state has killed millions upon millions.

So you believe that the state does not function in favor of the ruling class which is composed of people like Rockefeller? Lol.

[Agnapostate]

I find these comments incredibly ironic given the trend in world view for the majority on this site.

This forum is not dedicated to promotion of an ideology that benefits capitalists in its limited applications, except for pragmatic support of liberal reformism.

Conversely, while the full implementation of pseudo-libertarianism/pseudo-anarchism would obviously be undesirable for capitalists, given that it would result in rapid economic collapse that would cause the ascendancy of either socialism or fascism (more likely the latter), the use of pseudo-libertarian rhetoric is useful for capitalists who claim that worker protections are constraints on their freedom.

An example is Charles Koch's The science of success: how market-based management built the world's largest private company (http://books.google.com/books?id=FLswhxYVbcYC): "Of the many books I read, two really helped start me on my intellectual journey: F.A. Harper's Why Wages Rise and Ludwig von Mises's Human Action. Harper's book clearly identified the causes of real, sustainable wage increases and distinguishes them from illusory increases. He explains that real wages are determined by the marginal productivity of labor. In Human Action, Mises argues that a market economy based on private property and the rule of law promotes civility, peace and prosperity."

[Agnapostate]

Here's a more detailed explanation of this phenomenon of pseudo-libertarians as "socially retarded adolescent white guys."

Redistribution: Blocking the Revenge of the Nerds? (http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2007/06/redistribution_1.html)


One of my pet ideas (http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2005/09/what_took_you_s.html) is the Jock/Nerd Theory of History. If you're reading this, you probably got a taste of it during your K-12 education, when your high grades and book smarts somehow failed to put you at the top of the social pyramid. Jocks ruled the school. If the nerds were lucky, they did the jocks' homework in exchange for decent treatment.

According to the Jock/Nerd Theory of History, most historical human societies bore a striking resemblance to K-12 education. In primitive tribes, for instance, the best hunters are on top. If the village brain knows what's good for him, he keeps his mouth shut if the best hunter says something stupid. The rise of civilization gave the nerds a better deal, but as long as almost everyone worked in agriculture, brawn continued to pay well.

But then something amazing happened: Nerds got enough breathing room to develop and implement amazing wealth-producing ideas. The process fed on itself, devaluing physical ability and elevating mental ability. Nerds built the modern world - and won handsome financial rewards in the process. (Yes, I'm painting with broad strokes, but bear with me).

With the Jock/Nerd theory firmly in mind, this sentence (http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2007/06/what_i_believe.html) takes on a deeper meaning:


We don't take steps to redress inequalities of looks, friends, or sex life.

Notice: For financial success, the main measure where nerds now excel, governments make quite an effort to equalize differences. But on other margins of social success, where many nerds still struggle, laissez-faire prevails.

It's suspicious - and if you combine the Jock/Nerd Theory with some evolutionary psych, it makes sense. When the best hunter in the tribe gets rich, his neighbors will probably ask nicely for a share, if they dare to ask at all. But if the biggest nerd in the tribe gets rich, how long will it take before the jocks show up and warn him that "You'd better share and share alike"?

Punchline: Through the lens of the Jock/Nerd Theory of History, the welfare state doesn't look like a serious effort to "equalize outcomes." It looks more like a serious effort to block the "revenge of the nerds" - to keep them from using their financial success to unseat the jocks on every dimension of social status.

P.S. If any jocks are reading this, please don't hurt me! I'll do your homework!

[Skooma Addict]

I guess its a case of the chicken or the egg. Are they introverted because they follow a philosophy of individualism and when you approach someone and tell them that they're a leech, they tend to not want to talk to you. Or when you tell them that your dream is to become John Galt, and they find out who John Galt is, they probably have enough reason to stay away from said libertarian. Or is it that because of their inherent introversion they adopt the libertarian ideology.

It is the latter. Although I am not sure if introversion is the best term to use. They are "nerdy" in a bad way, and they are not very good socially. They also don't have a good enough understanding of the real world, and they usually suffer from an unprecedented degree of confirmation bias.

However, all of these things usually get better with age. Which is why so many libertarians moderate as they get older.

[JustMovement]

Here's a more detailed explanation of this phenomenon of pseudo-libertarians as "socially retarded adolescent white guys."

Redistribution: Blocking the Revenge of the Nerds? (http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2007/06/redistribution_1.html)


Ahahaha thats funny because Nozick (a libertarian) has a very similar theory about why intelectuals are leftists. he says that intelectuals tend to well in school and in the academic setting, but when they go out in the real world they dont do as well, so to get back at the "successful" buisiness men polticians and so on they adopt left wing anti-market views.

[Ilyich]

I would assume that when anyone uses the term 'libertarian' in this thread, they actually mean 'propertarian.'

[Tim Cornelis]

Anarcho-monarchist actually makes a lot of sense from the view point of the right-wing libertarian. After all, the owner of private property has an absolute monopoly on power on his private property. A king, consistent with the "philosophy" of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, is the owner of a country, basically a gigantic landlord. (as a monarch owns his country he will take better care of it, like a home owner takes care of his house according to Hoppe. This explains why the Kim dynasty has done such a good job in North Korea, thanks Hoppe you f-ing psychopath for this great theorem!)

Institutions right-wing libertarians support (apparently) as a consequence of their reasoning about freedom:
*absolute monarchy
*certain forms of slavery

Wow, your philosophy is amazing! Really a maximization of freedom!

[Revolution starts with U]

It's just a point of evidence for me on how to reiterate to right-wingers that logic is meaningless unless it corresponds to reality. Monarchies were consistently corrupt, inefficient, and tyrannical.
The reality is that the individual is not necessarily the best caretaker of his property. I see not how one could deny this historical fact. Individuals can use their property for good, for bad, or even let them grow defunct.

[Distruzio]

It's just a point of evidence for me on how to reiterate to right-wingers that logic is meaningless unless it corresponds to reality. Monarchies were consistently corrupt, inefficient, and tyrannical.
The reality is that the individual is not necessarily the best caretaker of his property. I see not how one could deny this historical fact. Individuals can use their property for good, for bad, or even let them grow defunct.

Quite true! Only, wouldn't the same obvious rule apply to a monarch?

Hoppe never suggests, contrary to our friend's above deliberate misrepresentation, that monarchies are to be reconstituted or otherwise preferred to anarchy. What his thesis makes explicit is that monarchies, in comparison to democracies, tended to be resisted moreso by the population and could therefore be considered more conducive to liberty than democracy. If you never have the chance to wield political power, then you tend to resent that power when wielded against you. In a democracy, anyone can wield such political power, so to speak, so therefore you are incentivized to expropriate the previous expropriator back. Which means you will more likely tolerate democratic oppression than monarchical oppression.

[Revolution starts with U]

Quite true! Only, wouldn't the same obvious rule apply to a monarch?

Hoppe never suggests, contrary to our friend's above deliberate misrepresentation, that monarchies are to be reconstituted or otherwise preferred to anarchy. What his thesis makes explicit is that monarchies, in comparison to democracies, tended to be resisted moreso by the population and could therefore be considered more conducive to liberty than democracy. If you never have the chance to wield political power, then you tend to resent that power when wielded against you. In a democracy, anyone can wield such political power, so to speak, so therefore you are incentivized to expropriate the previous expropriator back. Which means you will more likely tolerate democratic oppression than monarchical oppression.

Hoppe argument is more like "a monarch has a greater interest in maintaining the well-being of his property." But that aside; one glaring difference is that, in a democracy, you are far more likely to come up to someone with the material power to stop your transgressions cold in its tracks. The Monarch can basically do what he wants, moreso if he were a private owner not subject to the whims of the feudal aristocracy. A senate is like a room full of monarchs all claiming the same territory. And all with competing self interests.

[Kuppo Shakur]

Its the philosophy of people who never have seen society, i.e. people who don't have windows.
Don't be hatin on Linux, bro.:D

[Comrade Crow]

It stands to reason that there would be more libertarians of various economic persuasions on the internet. Obviously if you are an avid internet user, you have more access to unbiased news and non-mainstream sources than most people do. I think if ANYBODY actually studied the state of the world from an unbiased point of view (void of government propaganda), they would be inclined to become a libertarian.

Yeah but right-liberterarians are weird.

[RGacky3]

Don't be hatin on Linux, bro.:D

Ok, lets be serious.