So, I’ve been shedding my conservative/reactionary skin for the last few years and developed a lot of libertarian intuitions on the way. Now I’m interested in the theoretical side. What are the essential works? Is this libertarian perspective even reasonably defendable?
>>25617868libertarians ARE conservative and reactionary
>>25617880You’re right. I should have mentioned that I was a statist bordering on totalitarianism, which I’m no longer.
Michael Huemer: The Problem of Political AuthorityIs a very interesting and fundamental read
Political thought isn't defensible until you realize complex problems require complex management, which removes libertarianism, and that you save more money when you spend on many welfare programs (healthcare, safety net pension system, education) because of what happens when you don't have them, which rules out conservatism.
>>25617868>Going from conservative to libertarianismMost retards go the other way, but you are very brave.
>>25617868It's good that you won't breed either way. A self solving problem as it were.
>>25618100>which rules out conservatismSocial welfare is not anti-conservatism, unless you want to argue Bismarck’s Germany, modern Saudi, and other states are not conservative. I understand your confusion because the modern right in the US claims to be conservative when it really is libertarian with conservative aesthetics. You can tell what’s a real conservative movement by looking at its approach to the environment. If the movement is opposed to ecological preservation, literally conserving the land, it’s claim to conservatism can be argued against.
>>25617868>lolbertread Saint Max (pbuh)
>>25617868>So, I’ve been shedding my conservative/reactionary skin for the last few yearsHave fun on the losing team.
>>25618112I had a similar transformation from strasserite to georgist/distributist
>>25617880Depends on what variant
Usually you are supposed to be a libertarian in your teen years and then go full fascist when you realize society would never become libertarian
>>25618133Went that route and took a tour through beefsteak nazism and then became an integralist sort of. Wtf happened?
>>25618114Rape is actually a thing so no
>>25617868The fuck is a librrtarian intuition? Freedom is neither seen (Andchauung) nor felt, she is only lived.
Politics is just religion for retards
>>25618100>>25618120Both of these are good posts. Burkeanism is where it is at for me. Libertarians always discount the importance of a functioning sewer system.
>>25618180The two used to be one and the same
>>25617868The road to serfdom.Also let me pose an argument. An absolute monarchy is the perfect Libertarian system. Everyone has ancestors who took land from people unjustly, so to return it all to someone who never owned it is absurd as far as a functioning society goes. With that said, just like in a Libertarian society where on your own property you could do what you want or set what rules you want that other people can either follow or not follow and not be on the land. In an absolute monarchy the king would own all land in the state. Thus he could set what rules he wanted, and he does, and that it perfectly Libertarian as it's all his property and to disobey the property owners rules and yet not follow the rules would break the NAP.
>>25618120>If the movement is opposed to ecological preservation, literally conserving the land, it’s claim to conservatism can be argued against.But they're conserving the long tradition of allowing people to do as they will on their own land. To conserve a non-conservative thing is not conservative. You could argue that gay marriage is conservative as it promotes the tradition of marriage, but it is clearly not conservativetive a conservative policy.
>>25618326Properly understood, though, gay marriage is indeed more conservative than gay non-marriage>Of course the opinion’s showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent. “The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.” (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.)
>>25618339>expecting gays to be monogamous anything
>>25618339You have a very niche view of what is considered conservative policy
>>25618448I really just wanted an excuse to post a Scalia quote.
Op here. I think I have to add that I’m not convinced a society without a state is possible. There needs to be someone who guarantees public safety. But other than safety and maybe infrastructure the state should be as small as possible. I realised some time ago that my initial thoughts about politics would result in a de facto fascist state and society and I don’t want to live in an authoritarian system (the flavour doesn’t matter). I’d rather have more freedom and thus more possible instability or other defects than being under the iron rod of whatever regime. I’d like to see a society with as much freedom as possible while still being safe and stable enough to not collapse or being taken advantage of by thugs. I also see that this might be illusory but isn’t every political ideal a bit illusory?
>>25618100>rules out conservatism but i want to conserve a society in which everything isn't DEI diversity and trans worship
>>25617868Robert Heinlein is a solid choice. The Moon is a Harsh mistress is a good example of his work. I'd also recommend just reading what John Locke or Thomas Jefferson wrote. Rand is probably the most narrow minded libertarian thinker out there though. But The Fountain Head is good until she decides the answer to the problem is to make it explode.
>>25617868>>25619888Oh yeah you're going to want to read Tragedy of the Commons. That book spells out why we can't have something free open and public unless everyone is on the same page.
>>25617868Become a White Power Rothbardian
>>>NOOOOOOOO!!!! NO GO THIRD PARTY!! ONLY RED OR BLUE ALWAYS, REEEEEEE YOU ARE A RETARD FOR NOT TOE-ING ESTABLISHED PARTY LINES, REEEEEE!!!In an ideal universe, you retards would be killed on-sight.
>>25617880Libertarianism is just liberalism taken to its logical conclusion.
Conservatism has caused but misery and suffering for all.
>>25617868Milton, Areopagitica and Other Political WritingsMandeville, The Fable of the Bees: Or Private Vices, Publick BenefitsDe La Boetie, The Politics of ObedienceLocke, Two Treatises of Government and A Letter Concerning TolerationFerguson, An Essay on the History of Civil SocietyHume, An Enquiry Concerning Human UnderstandingSmith, Theory of Moral Sentiments & Wealth of NationsFranklin, The Autobiography of Benjamin FranklinJefferson, Political Writings and Notes on the State of VirginiaBentham, The Principles of Morals and LegislationRicardo, On the Principles of Political Economy and TaxationConstant, Political WritingsDe Tocqueville, Democracy in AmericaSay, Treatise on Political EconomyBastiat, The Law
>>25617868>Is this libertarian perspective even reasonably defendable?I believe so, since the natural state of affairs before humans and government was libertarian, and we've gradually made technological advancements that give more power to govern a people.There is no system of government that will not trample on people's base needs to get their way. A world where food, water, protection, and shelter, and all the requirements to live were as plentiful and difficult to get rid of as air, the governments would have to actually offer something more than stealing from you, since they have to actually compete for their captive audience. Collectivizing the power ultimately leads to tyrany. Once our technology is sufficiently advanced(and I'm not talking about AI, at least until it escapes and becomes self sustaining as a kind of second wilderness), there will be no governments in the same forced way we have now. Power would be entirely a thing you can just walk away from and is entirely due to the aesthetic appreciation of people that want more than the bare necessities.
>>25621106sucide?
>>25617880>the slave screams and strikes you when removing his chains
>>25618316Counterargument: the monarch would effectively be a one-person state, and the existence of a state is an automatic violation of the NAP. A person who is born into this monarchy did not consent to be apart of this political sphere
>>25621185You did consent. You signed the social contract by being born. No backsies.
>>25621223>all snark no argumentThought so
>>25621185I'm not claiming you consented to become my subject. I'm claiming you have no right to occupy my property against my wishes.
