Notices by dtluna 🏴 (dtluna@libertarianism.club), page 7
-
dtluna 🏴 (dtluna@libertarianism.club)'s status on Tuesday, 21-Nov-2017 19:47:30 EST 
dtluna 🏴
@onebi hm
Did you study any economic theory to understand policy effects? -
dtluna 🏴 (dtluna@libertarianism.club)'s status on Tuesday, 21-Nov-2017 19:46:42 EST
dtluna 🏴
@roka that's how they describe me -
dtluna 🏴 (dtluna@libertarianism.club)'s status on Tuesday, 21-Nov-2017 19:46:19 EST
dtluna 🏴
@Finefone no shit
But you really should focus beyond only her. Central banks, huge welfare programs, tons of regulations. -
dtluna 🏴 (dtluna@libertarianism.club)'s status on Tuesday, 21-Nov-2017 19:45:28 EST
dtluna 🏴
@roka fascist ancap -
YSJIZ5YOYOTHJPD= (roka@gs.smuglo.li)'s status on Tuesday, 21-Nov-2017 19:45:01 EST 
YSJIZ5YOYOTHJPD=
@ajr @awg I'm 58%, you fascist
everyone is fascist these days lol -
dtluna 🏴 (dtluna@libertarianism.club)'s status on Tuesday, 21-Nov-2017 17:09:05 EST
dtluna 🏴
@demolitionmane I can make an account for you or open registrations for you briefly. -
dtluna 🏴 (dtluna@libertarianism.club)'s status on Tuesday, 21-Nov-2017 15:13:57 EST
dtluna 🏴
@CursedConfetti @h11
I'll quote Murray Rothbard on the "free to starve" argument:
A common complaint is that the free market would not insure the elimination of poverty, that it would “leave people free to starve,” and that it is far better to be “kindhearted” and give “charity” free rein by taxing the rest of the populace in order to subsidize the poor and the substandard.
In the first place, the “freedom-to-starve” argument confuses the “war against nature,” which we all conduct, with the problem of freedom from interference by other persons. We are always “free to starve” unless we pursue our conquest of nature, for that is our natural condition. But “freedom” refers to absence of molestation by other persons; it is purely an interpersonal problem.
Secondly, it should also be clear that it is precisely voluntary exchange and free capitalism that have led to an enormous improvement in living standards. Capitalist production is the only method by which poverty can be wiped out. As we stressed above, production must come first, and only freedom allows people to produce in the best and most efficient way possible. Force and violence may “distribute,” but it cannot produce. Intervention hampers production, and socialism cannot calculate. Since production of consumer satisfactions is maximized on the free market, the free market is the only way to abolish poverty. Dictates and legislation cannot do so; in fact, they can only make matters worse.
The appeal to “charity” is a truly ironic one. First, it is hardly “charity” to take wealth by force and hand it over to someone else. Indeed, this is the direct opposite of charity, which can only be an unbought, voluntary act of grace. Compulsory confiscation can only deaden charitable desires completely, as the wealthier grumble that there is no point in giving to charity when the State has already taken on the task. This is another illustration of the truth that men can become more moral only through rational persuasion, not through violence, which will, in fact, have the opposite effect.
Furthermore, since the State is always inefficient, the amount and direction of the giving will be much different from what it would be if people were left free to act on their own. If the State decides from whom to take and to whom to give, the power residing in the State's hands is enormous. It is obvious that political unfortunates will be the ones whose property is confiscated, and political favorites the ones subsidized. And in the meantime the State erects a bureaucracy whose living is acquired by feeding off the confiscation of one group and the encouraged mendicancy of another.
Other consequences follow from a regime of compulsory “charity.” For one thing, “the poor”—or the “deserving” poor—have been exalted as a privileged caste, with an enforceable claim to the production of the more able. This is a far cry from a request for charity. Instead, the able are penalized and enslaved by the State, and the unable are placed on a moral pedestal. Certainly, this is a peculiar sort of moral program. The further consequence will be to discourage the able, to reduce production and saving in all of society, and beyond this, to subsidize the creation of a caste of poor. Not only will the poor be subsidized by right, but their ranks will be encouraged to multiply, both through reproduction and through their moral exaltation and subsidization. The able will be correspondingly hampered and repressed.
Whereas the opportunity for voluntary charity acts as a spur to production by the able, coerced charity acts as a drain and a burden upon production. In fact, in the long run, the greatest “charity” is precisely not what we know by that name, but rather simple, “selfish” capital investment and the search for technological innovations. Poverty has been tamed by the enterprise and the capital investment of our ancestors, most of which was undoubtedly done for “selfish” motives. This is a fundamental illustration of the truth enunciated by Adam Smith that we generally help others most in those very activities in which we help ourselves.
Statists, in fact, are really opposed to charity. They often argue that charity is demeaning and degrading to the recipient, and that he should therefore be taught that the money is rightly his, to be given to him by the government as his due. But this oft-felt degradation stems, as Isabel Paterson pointed out, from the fact that the recipient of charity is not self-supporting on the market and that he is out of the production circuit and no longer providing a service in exchange for one received. However, granting him the moral and legal right to mulct his fellows increases his moral degradation instead of ending it, for the beneficiary is now further removed from the production line than ever. An act of charity, when given voluntarily, is generally considered temporary and offered with the object of helping a man to help himself. But when the dole is ladled out by the State, it becomes permanent and perpetually degrading, keeping the recipients in a state of subservience. We are not attempting to argue at this point that to be subservient in this way is degrading; we simply say that anyone who considers private charity degrading must logically conclude that State charity is far more so. Mises, furthermore, points out that free-market exchange—always condemned by statists for being impersonal and “unfeeling”—is precisely the relation that avoids all degradation and subservience.
https://mises.org/library/man-economy-and-state-power-and-market/html/p/1430 -
dtluna 🏴 (dtluna@libertarianism.club)'s status on Tuesday, 14-Nov-2017 21:02:14 EST
dtluna 🏴
gH3jGMTxASA.jpg -
dtluna 🏴 (dtluna@libertarianism.club)'s status on Tuesday, 14-Nov-2017 02:35:27 EST
dtluna 🏴
I believe that the difference between the "free speech" part of the Fediverse (I have no better name for it) and the "SJW-Mastodon" part is not really political. It is a major cultural difference.
I think people on the "free speech" part are much more likely to be decent human beings with whom you could have polite and civil discussion about disagreement, share non-PC jokes and just have fun without having to virtue signal.
The "SJW-Mastodon" part of the Fediverse is mostly known for its complete intolerance of anything non-egalitarian or non-PC. People there will call you names, smear shit over you and generally be dishonest even if you just ask a question. The interactions I had with that side in the past couple days really leave that impression. Only on this part you see my instance blocked and the reason is "wrong ideals" or "ancaps. LOL.".
To me this is a difference between being a basically decent human being and dishonest, malicious, narcissistic garbage. -
dtluna 🏴 (dtluna@libertarianism.club)'s status on Monday, 13-Nov-2017 12:47:01 EST
dtluna 🏴
It is almost offensive to me, whose family lived under USSR, when some white middle-class college kid from the West tells me how wonderful socialism is and how my parents and grandparents don't know shit. -
dtluna 🏴 (dtluna@libertarianism.club)'s status on Monday, 13-Nov-2017 12:44:26 EST
dtluna 🏴
Unlike the commies you've just witnessed cursing and running away from a scary ancap like me, I'll never run away from a communist who wants to have a discussion. Just be civil. -
astheroth (astheroth@niu.moe)'s status on Monday, 13-Nov-2017 12:40:42 EST 
astheroth
So having no moderations rules makes you a nazi and silenced instance? I don't like people which doesn't agree that others couldn't make, use or show its right of freedom of speech, it sounds so totalitarian as the regime they are actually critic. You could do, you have the freedom to. But make a public purge because they don't think as you do, without any kind of due proccedure, it transforms you in the same kind of previous censor that Twitter is and that behaviour is a truly shame.
-
dtluna 🏴 (dtluna@libertarianism.club)'s status on Monday, 13-Nov-2017 00:19:56 EST
dtluna 🏴
@clacke snort praxx fam
it's good shite -
dtluna 🏴 (dtluna@libertarianism.club)'s status on Saturday, 11-Nov-2017 11:13:58 EST
dtluna 🏴
Even if you are ideological enemies with someone, there's something you can agree on. I want these people to at least understand how I see the world as somebody who finds the Austrian school to be correct and as an anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist. And I want them to share what the foundation of their views are so I can see the world through their lense. Although I have been a commmunist in the past, I still meet communists that think in a different way from me in the past.
That's why I try to talk economics to socialists and communists. Economics is a science, it's about looking at cause and effect without saying if it's good or bad. It's just a description of how the world works. I believe we should agree on economics before we proceed to discuss political means and ends.
I don't want to be disrespectful to socialists, communists, social democrats, minarchists, constitutionalists and other people of ideologies different to mine. I want to have a polite conversation even though I can disagree with them on a whole lot of things. I want to have a productive exchange of ideas.
And it's bad that I'm too emotional in these exchanges sometimes. It can make people think that I label them as morally bad, although it's mostly not true. I do believe that socialists and communists want to make the world a better place, it's just that I am convinced that they've chosen the wrong means to achieve this better world. Or maybe their idea of the better world isn't really something they would be happy about if achieved.
Anyway, sorry to all the people who I have called names.
Some people have deserved me calling them names, but if they want to have a "peace treaty", then I'm open to it. However, some of them owe me an apology first.
All Jonkman Microblog content and data are available under the 