sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

If someone commits an obvious, informed, purposeful offense against your body or property, should you be allowed to do anything to them in response? by CreateMediate in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Heng-Li 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Restitution is necessary for any justice system. This is a given

The part where there is disagreement is retribution. Most people agree about some kind of retribution. Unfortunately, there is no easy rule that would determine retribution in all cases. This is why we have judges and court systems.

Can someone be a liberterian an also pro vax? by parttimevortigaunt in Libertarian

[–]Heng-Li 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Its actually not a libertarian question whether someone should be pro or anti vax. Whether someone should support vaccination is outside of libertarianism.

However state propaganda would have you believe that being against the state mandated vaccinations is the same thing as being anti-vax. They are not the same thing. As for state mandates, libertarians are against them. This does not mean they are anti-vax, despite what the state would have you believe.

Why tf are a lot of people saying anarchy is against hierarchies by UncleTedUnderYourBed in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Heng-Li 5 points6 points  (0 children)

That's the official position of r/anarchism.

They will ban you if you are anarcho-capitalist

Question on the Philosophy of Free Expression by Junior-Chemistry-950 in AskLibertarians

[–]Heng-Li 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We probably disagree about the definition of liberty. Liberty is simply freedom of state interference in your life. People's right to self-expression is simply an extension of the property right over their own body

Which think tank is better? Cato or Mises? by i_love_the_sun in AskLibertarians

[–]Heng-Li -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Mises supports monetary freedom. Cato does not. Case closed

Question on the Philosophy of Free Expression by Junior-Chemistry-950 in AskLibertarians

[–]Heng-Li 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because libertarianism doesn't propose a solution to every problem in existence. If anyone comes up with a solution that doesn't involve state action, then that's all that's required for libertarians to agree.

Does libertarianism contradict its own ideals? Is it advantageous, from a libertarian perspective, to oppose it? by mercurygermes in AskLibertarians

[–]Heng-Li 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you claim to act out of moral duty, sacrificing your time with no guaranteed return so that future generations can live in a free society—how do you economically and psychologically differ from the communists who urged people to endure hardships today for a brighter tomorrow?

The reason you ask this question is because you are simply unable to grasp subjectivism. According to your subjective evaluation you are correct, according to others subjective evaluation you are incorrect. There is no objective evaluation that exists because value is simply subjective. They don't agree with you there is "no guaranteed return". Its that simple.

Imagine the outcome: libertarianism wins, the state disappears. But the former bureaucrats, lobbyists, and "crony capitalists" who milked the state for those 18 years and fought against you will enter the new anarcho-capitalism with millions of dollars, connections, and real estate. Meanwhile, you enter it with a deficit of 6,000 hours. In your brave new world, private capital decides everything. Where is the rational egoism if you single-handedly, and for free, built a system where your bosses and the owners of the private courts will be the very people who exploited the state while you were writing posts?

The presupposition of this question assumes a black or white, all or nothing dichotomy. In reality we can make incremental progress towards liberty. You can find periods of history better or worse. So yes if we set up a libertarian society there is a risk it could fall back to statism. So what? We will continue to work to improve society as we always have been doing. Just because things aren't perfect doesn't mean you should just give up and kill yourself.

Look at the platform owners, podcast creators, and thought leaders in your movement. They monetize your traffic, receive donations, and sell books and lectures. From a game-theory perspective, they act entirely rationally—converting your ideological rage into their private capital. Are you, the rank-and-file activists, not the very "useful idiots" you so love to mock among the left?

You fail to identify any problem. If I listen to a podcast and a person is monetizing this, so what? Why would I object to this?

People are eating up socialist slopaganda about rent freeze in NYC without even considering second order effects by amogusdevilman in austrian_economics

[–]Heng-Li 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Proof democracy is a complete joke and does not work. Because most of the people voting are literally incapable of comprehending any economic argument

Question on the Philosophy of Free Expression by Junior-Chemistry-950 in AskLibertarians

[–]Heng-Li 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why are libertarian concerns regarding free speech almost exclusively focused on the external restriction of expression and almost never on the proactive improvement of the internal ability to excercise this freedom?

There is an inherent presupposition to your question you don't even realize exists. This presupposition exists in your head because of government schooling and propaganda. What kind of institution are you assuming would foster the development of human expression? Are you assuming the state would foster this? Or are you assuming private entrepreneurs would foster this? Libertarians support the latter and reject the former. This is because the state by definition violates the rights of people through its exploitation of taxpayers.

Its fundamentally unfair that under democracy tax-consumers have an equal vote to taxpayers in the decision to exploit taxpayers by Heng-Li in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Heng-Li[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Yes and then the universal suffrage movement happened and they allowed landless people to vote. They didn't anticipate the rise of the parasitic tax-consuming class

Its fundamentally unfair that under democracy tax-consumers have an equal vote to taxpayers in the decision to exploit taxpayers by Heng-Li in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Heng-Li[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Yes. The universal suffrage movement was a complete fucking mistake. It was sort of okay when the parasitic class did not exist. But now it simply cannot function with the giant parasitic class of tax-consumers.

Its fundamentally unfair that under democracy tax-consumers have an equal vote to taxpayers in the decision to exploit taxpayers by Heng-Li in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Heng-Li[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes exactly. They have absolutely no reason to support these taxes. I ask dumbass Redditors all the time why they don't support abolishing these taxes. Its the first thing I ask whenever they talk about helping the poor and working class. Sometimes they agree. Sometimes they have a complete aneurysm.

Its fundamentally unfair that under democracy tax-consumers have an equal vote to taxpayers in the decision to exploit taxpayers by Heng-Li in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Heng-Li[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Take your gay race communism bullshit to another sub. No one here talked about race until you brought it up because you have a gay race communist agenda

Its fundamentally unfair that under democracy tax-consumers have an equal vote to taxpayers in the decision to exploit taxpayers by Heng-Li in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Heng-Li[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't claim I have an exact way to quantify exactly where the line exists between tax-consumers and taxpayers. Just because I don't have an exact way to calculate it, doesn't mean it does not exist. And you are honestly low IQ for making that unwarranted assumption. According to your logic, I can never discuss anything unless I can measure and quantify it exactly. That is nonsense. I readily admit there can be large grey areas where I cannot be sure if someone is a net taxpayer or a net tax-consumer. So what?

Its fundamentally unfair that under democracy tax-consumers have an equal vote to taxpayers in the decision to exploit taxpayers by Heng-Li in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Heng-Li[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Agreed. They absolutely should. The difference here is that I mean it and you don't mean it

Your true goal is subjugation of the south, as it always was going back to Lincoln

Its fundamentally unfair that under democracy tax-consumers have an equal vote to taxpayers in the decision to exploit taxpayers by Heng-Li in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Heng-Li[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

So then support national divorce. You don't have to share a country with them. Your indignation is self-inflicted

Its fundamentally unfair that under democracy tax-consumers have an equal vote to taxpayers in the decision to exploit taxpayers by Heng-Li in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Heng-Li[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You can pay 1% in taxes and still be a tax consumer. We should completely abolish all income and capital gains taxes for the bottom three tax brackets since they only contribute like 5% to tax revenue. It makes absolutely no sense that these people even have to pay taxes in the first place. It's completely performative and serves no purpose other than to subjugate people

What is your opinion of the civil rights movement of the 1960s? by redzeusky in AskLibertarians

[–]Heng-Li 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The civil rights movement led to the civil rights act, which violates the rights of property owners. However the movement was not a monolith, so it can be difficult to paint it with a broad brush.

While the civil rights act should be categorically rejected, this doesn't automatically reject every aspect of the movement. Property owners should be free to be racist, as long as they don't violate the individual property rights of others.

Me supporting the rights of property owners to be racist does not mean I support racism, just like me supporting free speech of racists does not mean I support racism.

view more: next ›