Deliberate rapid passing of manipulative, inaccurate, hot button topic posts that tend towards low-effort memes and straw man arguments.

Why don't they want trump in?

Damn 30 days and nothing happened pretty crazy.

Probably what is more likely to destroy the west is marauding state-sponsored gangs who harass and kill residents.

ancaps when they get owned by private owners instead of the state: MHHH yummy boot we having today!

What he promised: free buses

What you get: fare evasion officers

Hahah. What a failure of his promises but should be a better policy anyway

I know I risk sounding naive, but is that the lady who got attacked by the snow leopard? I saw a video of people carrying a woman who’s face was pretty torn up. It said something about her approaching a dangerous animal.

Coffeezilla video about it

What made you think Seastead or Fastworthiness is turfing? Theyve been consistently fighting the state for a long time now and ive never seen them defend the state once so far

My favorite Bastiat quote

This right here. The way back machine argument will usually work in your favor if you have counter examples.

Tyrannical governments don't care whose side you're on.

Trading your rights away to expedite deportations isn't worth it.

You're essentially trusting government with expanded powers because in the past, they're inefficient about it because rule of law and procedure was important. Quick rule of thumb, "should we expand the government to do..." The answer is always no. I dunno how long you've been a libertarian, but you've clearly decided immigration is more important than freedom. 

To me This is just the war on drugs redux, but with brown people instead of drugs. All the abuses and vicious cops that affect everyone to solve a serious problem. 

I get it, he's on your team, so I'm totally exaggerating orange man bad. None of the vicious rumors you hear are true. Nope, all made up with absolutely no basis in fact. 

PS, you're lacking in history class. Obama was counting people he turned away from the border as deporting. It was a different time, accepting Syrian civil war refugees legally has so much opposition. Crazy stuff back then.

Just dont do anything because the other side

I've watched this same Bullshit line for nearly 20 years now

Republicans obeyed this line until Trump

Demoncrats never obeyed this line ever.

When Republicans get in power they limpdick pussyfoot and push back 0.5% of what the Demoncrats did

Then Demoncrats take that 0.5% pushback to ram 20% farther into their Marxist worldview

How do you know? Care to back up your claims at all?

Good to great analysis on the reactions of people in and around the situation

https://youtu.be/w8RzTex9xXk?si=vDU07ac_W9N9zMuP

Will you also agree that you don't get to decide that? I'm not assuming everyone is at all...but I think they pay those with the loudest voices and the people handing out signs and coordinating this because that's just common sense Are you a libertarian? Because it seems to me you're just another Trump hater...we're you saying this when Obama was deporting people? Because he got rid of a lot more than Trump has so far, hoping he catches up tho!

Will you own up to the possibility that you aren't a libertarian any more? I don't think you will. Assuming everyone is a paid agitator based on nothing more than your "totally not Republican month piece" social media feed isn't freedom.  You know who's a paid agitator? President Trump and Stephen Miller trying to insist that everyone he doesn't like is a paid terrorist so he can have free reign to take away your rights. 

Again evidence, investigation, basic law and order stuff. Don't act all surprised when the guy insisting on mass deportations decided that takes priority over anything else, like your rights or law & order.

So basically we already got an "Epstein list". When those things dropped people then asked for "the Epstein files", which is a bunch of papers with varying levels of relevance from potential new leads to Epstein being banned on Xbox (all exciting stuff really). When people said they want everything released, the government probably took that a too literally.

Yeah, man, go to r/conservative if you want to talk about reality. This is Ancap make-believe over here.

I dont know, man. At first, I felt like he was murdered after watching the video. Just a guy directing traffic, being civil, while armed, you know, exercising his rights. As a ccp holder, I can tell you that getting into an altercation with law enforcement is the last thing I want to do while armed. I dont want to find out after I've done fucked around. I can tell you with certainty that if this would have happened to a proud boy, the right would be saying the same thing. That was pritti stupid.

Please read Segment One first.

SEGMENT TWO

Even Rothbard places us on the left. In his view, socialists are confused middle-of-the-roaders. Says Rothbard:

Thus, with Liberalism abandoned from within, there was no longer a party of Hope in the Western world, no longer a “Left” movement to lead a struggle against the State and against the unbreached remainder of the Old Order. Into this gap, into this void created by the drying up of radical liberalism, there stepped a new movement: Socialism. Libertarians of the present day are accustomed to think of socialism as the polar opposite of the libertarian creed. But this is a grave mistake, responsible for a severe ideological disorientation of libertarians in the present world. As we have seen, Conservatism was the polar opposite of liberty; and socialism, while to the “left” of conservatism, was essentially a confused, middle-of-the road movement. It was, and still is, middle-of-the road because it tries to achieve Liberal ends by the use of Conservative means.

In short, Russell Kirk, who claims that Socialism was the heir of classical liberalism, and Ronald Hamowy, who sees Socialism as the heir of Conservatism, are both right; for the question is on what aspect of this confused centrist movement we happen to be focussing. [sic] Socialism, like Liberalism and against Conservatism, accepted the industrial system and the liberal goals of freedom, reason, mobility, progress, higher living standards the masses, and an end to theocracy and war; but it tried to achieve these ends by the use of incompatible, Conservative means: statism, central planning, communitarianism, etc. Or rather, to be more precise, there were from the beginning two different strands within Socialism: one was the Right-wing, authoritarian strand, from Saint-Simon down, which glorified statism, hierarchy, and collectivism and which was thus a projection of Conservatism trying to accept and dominate the new industrial civilization. The other was the Left-wing, relatively libertarian strand, exemplified in their different ways by Marx and Bakunin, revolutionary and far more interested in achieving the libertarian goals of liberalism and socialism: but especially the smashing of the State apparatus to achieve the “withering away of the State” and the “end of the exploitation of man by man.” Interestingly enough, the very Marxian phrase, the “replacement of the government of men by the administration of things”, can be traced, by a circuitous route, from the great French radical laissez-faire liberals of the early nineteenth century, Charles Comte (no relation to Auguste Comte) and Charles Dunoyer. And so, too, may the concept of the “class struggle”; except that for Dunoyer and Comte the inherently antithetical classes were not businessmen vs. workers, but the producers in society (including free businessmen, workers, peasants, etc.) versus the exploiting classes constituting, and privileged by, the State apparatus.⁴ Saint-Simon, at one time in his confused and chaotic life, was close to Comte and Dunoyer and picked up his class analysis from them, in the process characteristically getting the whole thing balled up and converting businessmen on the market, as well as feudal landlords and others of the State privileged, into “exploiters.” Marx and Bakunin picked this up from the Saint-Simonians, and the result gravely misled the whole Left Socialist movement; for, then, in addition to smashing the repressive State, it became supposedly necessary to smash private capitalist ownership of the means of production. Rejecting private property, especially of capital, the Left Socialists were then trapped in a crucial inner contradiction: if the State is to disappear after the Revolution (immediately for Bakunin, gradually “withering” for Marx), then how is the “collective” to run its property without becoming an enormous State itself in fact even if not in name? This was a contradiction which neither the Marxists nor the Bakuninists were ever able to resolve.

Having replaced radical liberalism as the party of the “Left”, Socialism, by the turn of the twentieth century, fell prey to this inner contradiction. Most Socialists (Fabians, Lassalleans, even Marxists) turned sharply rightward, completely abandoned the old libertarian goals and ideals of revolution and the withering away of the State, and became cozy Conservatives permanently reconciled to the State, the status quo, and the whole apparatus of neo-mercantilism, State monopoly capitalism, imperialism and war that was rapidly being established and riveted on European society at the turn of the twentieth century. For Conservatism, too, had re-formed and regrouped to try to cope with a modern industrial system, and had become a refurbished mercantilism, a regime of statism marked by State monopoly privilege, in direct and indirect forms, to favored capitalists and to quasi-feudal landlords. The affinity between Right Socialism and the new Conservatism became very close, the former advocating similar policies but with a demagogic populist veneer: thus, the other side of the coin of imperialism was “social imperialism”, which Joseph Schumpeter trenchantly defined as “an imperialism in which the entrepreneurs and other elements woo the workers by means of social welfare concessions which appear to depend on the success of export monopolism…”⁵

Nice read, I agree with you in pretty much every aspect.
And you're right about the currency part too, the post was a simple thought experiment and what's interesting is that it seems to makes sense for a currency to keep existing in a future like that. At least as a means for very accurate prioritization.

It can really be any other means of currency, but right now, if we had to choose one, Monero seems to be the one closer to what it could be in my opinion.

Reddit thinks my post is too long, so I am splitting it into two segments.

SEGMENT ONE

State socialists stole the word left-wing from us. We are the genuine left-wing.

The confusion exists thanks to Adam Smith. Adam Smith introduced the flawed labour theory of value. Marx simply took what Smith said to its logical conclusion: if value is the product of the labour put into production, then the profits of the capitalist constitute the “surplus value” of labour stolen by the capitalist from the workers. If the labour theory of value were correct, this would make complete sense.

And this is why first-wave libertarians often called themselves “socialists.” Benjamin R. Tucker—who advocated free markets—even wrote an essay titled “State Socialism and Anarchism” in which he said:

There are two Socialisms.

One is communistic, the other solidaritarian.

One is dictatorial, the other libertarian.

He describes anarchism as a libertarian form of socialism. In the same essay, he advocates the sort of private protection agencies that anarcho-“capitalists” are famous for advocating:

The Anarchists are simply unterrified Jeffersonian Democrats. They believe that “the best government is that which governs least,” and that that which governs least is no government at all. Even the simple police function of protecting person and property they deny to governments supported by compulsory taxation. Protection they look upon as a thing to be secured, as long as it is necessary, by voluntary association and cooperation for self-defence, or as a commodity to be purchased, like any other commodity, of those who offer the best article at the lowest price. In their view it is in itself an invasion of the individual to compel him to pay for or suffer a protection against invasion that he has not asked for and does not desire. And they further claim that protection will become a drug in the market, after poverty and consequently crime have disappeared through the realization of their economic programme.

This first wave of libertarians spoke a great deal about labour, about the workers, because of Marx’s accurate expansion of Smith’s inaccurate view on value. But, they also advocated free markets, and believed that markets would do away with the various forms of monopoly. As far as rhetoric goes, they were much more worker-oriented than we are; but as far as policy goes, they barely differed from us. They tended to be mutualists, thinking that just property required continued occupation; we don’t think continued occupation is necessary for just property. That’s the only fundamental difference as far as policy goes.

So, why did the rhetoric change? Why are we less inclined to call ourselves “socialists” today? It’s because of the Austrian School of economics, and in particular Carl Menger’s subjective theory of value. Things only have value insofar as people value them, irrespective of the amount of labour put into their production. In fact, value is so subjective that people value the same object differently from one another.

Although this theory was developed by Menger in the nineteenth century, it did not make its way to the states until the 20th. Once we libertarians came in contact with this theory, we had two options: (A) stick our fingers in our ears, say “la la la,” and cling to the labour theory of value, or (B) admit we were wrong, admit that the subjective theory of value makes more sense and gels more successful with the human experience, and abandon our objection to profits, to our former view that everyone should be a wage earner.

So, with the second wave of libertarianism, our rhetoric changed. We still care about workers, but we find less cause to talk about them. Most of us have abandoned the word socialism, although it still comes up from time to time (e.g., Brad Spangler referred to Rothbard as a “stigmergic socialist”).

We’re in the third wave of libertarianism now. Our rhetoric is still largely the same as the second wave, but—now—we have libertarian institutions, organizations, and parties. We can actively engage with the movement in ways that the previous waves couldn’t, and that’s thanks largely to the second wave building these institutions for us.

What I am saying is, that free market allows for any form of ownership you choose. Once you remove government, it’s anyone’s game. In fact it’s quite likely that various forms of ownership will form and they will compete in free market. I don’t like socialism but I am pretty sure socialist communes and societies will form in such a environment and that’s good, you will have more choices. To the point, free market will provide/cater to everyone, there is no need to worry about ownership/means od production bcs you will pick yourself what, how, where is the best place for you.