>>135824 Saving it all. It is part of history. Found it in an dusty folder among the other Leslies while looking through some "old" stuff. >sometimes I think I save too much, but I'll never know because I never will have the time to sort through it all
Hello fagets, Leslie's creator here. I just wanted to state that I'm a lazy faggot and I didn't even finish the pic that's shown here. Gimme motivation and maybe I'll finish this one and additionally make a refference sheet in the future.
>>147141 Breaks the NAP only if the manufacturer forbids you from fixing your stuff or modifying in general (in USA Apple bribes senators and judges to lock up people who offer unauthorized repairs and stuff). But in general planned obsolence is a gay shit and no self-respecting company should practice that. Just boycott them.
Okay here is something that I do not understand. There was some talk of some respected economic fag and he said that it is fine if someone buys a steak and the seller uses the money to get a haircut and the barber uses the money to buy some logs ... and basically the whole hive starts buzzing but there is there is a problem with competition and stuff. Can someone dumb this down for me?
>>158235 Sure. She is young, also she is probably going to sell some drinks she has made herself to fill a need in the market. >also how is she going to become a late night statistician if she don't mingle?
>>166570 A fair question; transitioning would likely either be slow or sloppy. I would think government programs, licenses, and other things could/should be shrunk down to nothing over time or nullified by the removal of infrastructure. Ownership of pulbic roads could either be left public in the same fashion un-claimed land used to be, or demolished/renovated depending on how much space or resource is used on it. They could also be bought or auctioned to the highest bidder if things go the diplomatic/gradual route.
I'm no expert on the topic of transitioning into ancapistan or really an ancap but those seem like moderately reasonable courses of action to take.
>>192228 Attached are three books which might help you understand anarcho-capitalism a bit better. The first is one of the earliest works written on the idea of governance not based in coercion, and it was written in the 19th century by the French economist Gustave de Molinari. I would also recommend The Law by Frederic Bastiat, a friend of Molinari who was very influential in libertarianism. I have also attached two articles by Murray Rothbard, a 20th century American author who is ethnically Jewish but strongly criticized Israel, cultural Marxism, and banks during his life. The first deals with monetary policy and the second reconciles libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism with nationalism. >what does an ancap think about the natsoc world view ? It will vary from one ancap to another. Many will dismiss natsoc/fascism as just another "evil collectivist statist idealogy", but personally, I don't mind working with NatSocs against our common enemies.
>>192233 >but personally, I don't mind working with NatSocs against our common enemies As a National Socialist, I share this sentiment. We can wait to iron out the details of our state/non-state until AFTER the DotR.
>>192244 >that typo, tho Many Ancaps can bring great arguments and points to debates, and are fairly even-keeled. Though I've viewed the ideology mostly as overly-optimistic, self-centered, and entitled. To explain all three in a little more detail: >overly-optimistic I've seen a lot of Ancaps place emphasis on the inherent good of mankind, and that when one is allowed to achieve his fullest unhindered and unburdened by intervention by a governmental institution, his efforts to improve his own standing in life will come also as a benefit to the community. I wish it was like that, but I've had too many experiences with people both as a collective and individually to believe in that. >self-centered Somewhat of an addition to the last point. Anarcho-Capitalism's obsession with individual enterprise seems selfish to me at times. That it treats those who don't succeed, whether it was within their power to do so or not, as 100% at fault for their own shortcomings. And that, when one has the option of helping themselves become very wealthy or helping those around them to being a little wealthy, it is always in a person's best interest to take the former. >entitled I lot of the ideology, I think, can be boiled down with a metaphor: it's like wanting to stay at a 3-star luxury resort with all of the perks staying at such a luxurious place entails, and then complaining when the owner of the resort hands you the bill. It promotes getting all of the benefits of living in a civilized, 1st-world country without paying anything to those running the country to help them actually maintain it all. I might be completely wrong on all points, and I fully expect for it to be pointed out by someone, but that's just my two-cents from listening to Ancap talking points.
>>192251 >overly-optimistic Maybe you're right, to a certain extent. That's why I believe that a high-trust community, which would most likely be homogenous and definitely with a high degree of cultural cohesion, is an important prerequisite to founding and maintaining a libertarian society. It reminds me of the quote from one of the founding fathers, I think Washington or Jefferson, about how a free society must be a virtuous one too. This point also reminds me of something Bastiat said, "Do not legislators and agents belong to mankind? Or do they believe themselves made of a finer clay?" His point being that if man is by his nature bad then then mustn't state, consisting of men, also be bad? >self-centered Many anarcho-capitalists do seem a bit too individualistic, turning their nose at any show of concern for the tribe. Really, the only sort of individualism that is necessary for liberty is legal individualism, the idea that each agent has total authority over how their property is used, including selling or destroying it, with the exception being that a person can not sell their own bodies, only rent them for labor. >entitled The difference is that with a hotel there is competition, and no coercion. If someone in a libertarian society found that the prices they were being charged by their protection firm for ensuring their house was safe from burglary were too high, they would have the option to seek a different provider, ask the firm to reduce its price to a more tolerable level, or forego the service. And if a hotel company forced you to stay at their hotel and shut down all nearby competitors, and then charged you the price it saw fitting, would you be an ingrate to resent them?
>>192285 One could argue there is also competition between countries for immigrants, especially if you're an upstanding person with skills that would be valuable to the nation. One could also argue that you aren't forced to stay in one nation. Unless you live in a totalitarian state with completely closed borders in both directions, you are free to leave whenever you wish, provided you have a mode of transportation out of the country.
>>192228 I've met based ancaps and cucked ancaps and it really depends on how redpilled they are about the social condition of society. I personally am leaning towards (paradoxically) "anarcho-fascism," which isn't a real ideology. I feel that anarcho-capitalism is objectively correct on economic and long-term political matters but needs to be melded with the understanding of social cohesion from fascism.
>>192240 I believe that open dialogue and pairing of philosophies is necessary to have an agreed-upon worldview ready for the DotR. The problem is that ancaps (and libertarians in general) don't want to be any more socially unacceptable than they already are and scare away their niche audience, while many fascists believe capitalism is a Jewish invention. Therefore it's nigh-impossible to have prominent thinkers other than some e-celebs conduct an honest discussion.
>>192251 Anarcho-capitalists believe societies organize organically as they have for thousands of years; state interventions are the exception rather than the rule and tend to cause one or more major flaws. Society obviously won't be perfect and individuals definitely aren't perfect but as an aggregate they will behave more rationally than conscious planning.
Also, the free-market system probably exercises more natural selection than any other system. Obviously individual merit isn't 100% responsible for performance but even other indicators are affected by natural selection. Since the Agricultural Revolution society has looked down upon single motherhood because, besides sexual impurity, it implies economic hardship and poorer performance from offspring. When the government provided free handouts single motherhood exploded and now it is no longer such a taboo. We like to make fun of blacks for this propensity but the truth is before the "Great Society" they generally had more-or-less functioning families.
To keep up the hotel metaphor, government is essentially forcing you to stay at a 3-star luxury resort with the price of a 5-star resort and terrible service. Anarcho-capitalists want the freedom to shop around for resorts and pick the one that best fits their needs and budget.
>>192286 >immigration Probably a poor argument to use with a NatSoc tbh. To clarify, in an ancap society the only ways to immigrate would be to purchase property (from someone who is willing to sell to you) or be sponsored by someone who would pick up all the costs you impose on his neighbors. Society would also be perfectly free to discriminate against you as long as they do not harm you physically.
>>192251 >>192285 >>192286 >>192304 It is really a tough thing. Ancap has really good points, the science makes sense but theories are just theories. The most important thing is that it stands for freedom. I don't like to be told what to think. The natsoc ideology has the strong point of living like an athlete and working for the people, strife and self -sacrifice.
>>192721 The only problem is that was essentially the Alt-Right was and we never got anywhere politically due to counter-signalling and a general disagreement on strategies and goals. Adolf Hitler said that political alliances are always harmful and it is better for a movement to go it alone due to these reasons. I believe that anarcho-capitalism and national-socialism are each presently insufficient alternatives and we need to create a new ideology based on everything we've learned.
>>192723 Can't we side both part of the left and right understanding that the whole global establishment is fucked, that they're just playing by hijacking the group that best fits them in a determined moment? That's just my idea it might just be stupid but after seeing Antifa and Identity Evropa side by side with the yellow vest thing, sound kind of possible.
>>203762 Well, if a group of corporations agree to set their prices at an unfair level in a society without a state, it will generally be quite easy for a competitor to come about and sell the same (or a similar) good or service, especially since there wouldn't be so much bureaucracy and taxes involved in entering the market. The longer a monopoly or oligopoly lasts, the more likely it is it's being protected by the state. An interesting historical example of this is AT&T's state granted monopoly on telephone services (in the attached pdf). I hope you find this answer at least somewhat satisfying, I'm not always great at explaining ideas.
>>203770 Thank you for your explaination. Lately I read up on the damage they do and how hard it is toll bust them. In theory your explaination makes sense but I wonder. After all they are setting up a position of power and will try to defend it with all means necessary. If there are hundreds of millions at stake they won't shy away from manipulation and murder.
>>204531 In a theoretical libertarian society, people would be well armed, and if a corporation started acting more like a violent gang and violating the NAP, they would most likely be stopped pretty quickly.
>>192723 - minarchist - only tax payers vote - rules of debate in goverment - longer presidential term - petition statted referendi can change politics/remove politicians - state: military, basic law, printing of money, courts, laws of contract - solidarity program if you are sol - if your company is a monopoly, you can be instructed by the goverment, until a competitor arises. - children, mothers of young children, pregnant women and the elderly can get special care. - veterans have a lower voting hurdle. - possibly a monarch with veto right only. - basic health and environmental program - propaganda for solidarity and self improvement and against slave or king morality - the rest is hands of
>>217237 - strong boarders - absolute free speech - right of defense for you and kin - everybody can sell stuff (declare your buisness if you want to vote). - no value added tax, but transaction tax (prevents to risky financial markket behavior, funds the small goverment) - full reserve banking, speculation on your acvount is voluntary - no bans on home production, home selling, own repair, etc. - for the people that are inherently herd animals: simple trad/fururism propaganda.
- nobody cares for your delusion of gender, but you do you. if you harm our children, you are dead.
- imigration by merrit and strive. asylum for those who know how to behave.
>>218831 The early United States were minarchist. Any government (de facto a monopoly) is bound to find excuses and loopholes to expand its jurisdiction, either slowly or rapidly. It's the biggest Jew there is.
>>218838 - let only net tax payers vote: its their money, so they want the gouverment to be small - rules of debate are always helpfull - anchor the minarchist elements in the constitution - give the voters the ability to start referendi
>>218841 The system is only as good as the culture. The expansion of government could not have happened without the Progressive Movement which saw intervention as the solution to every problem.
It doesn't matter how you structure a government; as long as the people are comfortable with its existence then eventually a very vocal group will want to expand it. It doesn't matter how they word the constitution, they'll use the "living document" BS and use referendi to their advantage. Also guilt/self-satisfaction can overpower self-interest; well-to-do whites tend to be the most socialist.
Rejecting Enlightenment principles and returning to tradition as a guideline for society is key.
>>223898 >"Leslie, are you sure zis is safe?" "Perfectly!" >"Und how do you know zis?" "I bought enough helium to support two ponies and enough ballons to hold it all." >"But dropping me isn't somezing to vorry about?" "It was either blowing my weed budget on a harness or buying weed, what did you expect?" >"More from you." "I'd be offended, but I'm too high to care." >*sigh* "Just don't drop me."
>>227207 >>227204 Thanks, I hadn't drawn a pony from that angle before, so I'm glad it came out looking reasonably decent. >Does it violate the NAP to spread those cheeks? Only one way to find out. >>227205 Here it is
>>233875 It appears to be some sort of Political game set up by a dude, with 7 total iterations with varying levels of failure. It doesn't appear to be a factual representation of Leslie, rather it is a player choosing to operate ish in concert with Leslie as an OC in the context of the game (which is based on the real world, which players have to choose a country to operate out of, which leads me to think that Leslie's portrayal is more accurate than I initially recognized, but not without criticism). The page uses Mlpol original images, and the edits about Leslie took place on Apr '18 (just after our 1 year) so the user is probably authentic, if misguided (I get Leslie Fair is based on Laissez Faire, but French Canadian?).
>>233859 >>233875 What the fuck >>233858 No, p*dos would be unwelcome in pretty much any libertarian social order outside of sandnigger shitholes like Saudi Arabia, which will probably never see liberty anyway, at least for as long as Islam is the dominant religion. Any attempts to engage in perverted activities with a child would automatically (and justifiably) be seen as coercive by almost all defense agencies and people, and no one would want to live near or pay a business that would help a kid fiddler, so even if they weren't given a helicopter ride, they'd probably be homeless, foodless, and unprotected. Of course, there might be a few who go uncaught, but that will happen under any system.
https://austrolibertarian.com/murray-rothbard-versus-the-koch-libertarians/ Here's an article concisely explaining the reason why groups like the "Libertarian" Party and Cato are egalitarian-sympathizing moderate fags in contrast with the diehard, unapologetically unegalitarian views expressed at the Mises Institute, the Property & Freedom Society, lewrockwell.com and so on.
>>166570 Depends on how exactly the nation went Ancap. If it was planned, it probably gets auctioned off. If not, it gets claimed by various parties and traded/stolen until it's all in the hands of those who can have it.
>>243408 I don't know about making her a unicorn, having her as an earth pony makes her seem like more of an underdog, with the businessmare thing and all. If you want to redesign her, maybe try a different cutie mark? An M16 sillouette might be fitting.
I was thinking about volunteer work in the context of market theory today. Is helping the poor/sick/starving/injured really something that helps in the end or do you actually make it worse by delaying the problems and the fatality of incorrect behaviors in the "market" of behavior? Like if you stop some people from starving you allow the system and behaviors that allow people get in such a position to continue. If you let the catastrophe happen on the other hand it might change the peoples mind to prevent such things in the first place rather than deal with the fallout. Not sure what to make of this.
>>243917 There's really no objective answer to this, it's really a matter of cultural preference. I say, if someone wants to work for a living but can't find work, I'd prefer to live in a society charitable enough to help him find work, and that children and the ill/disabled and the elderly being at least be provided with some basic necessities when their families can't would also be something I'd want, although I'd moreso want for a strong family unit, like we had before fiat money and the welfare state, to keep the young, sick, and old from relying on charity. As for people who simply want to have fun all the time and not work for a living, I say let them starve.
>>243917 It depends on many factors. Just giving for free can result in a situation like Africa and it's warlords. By doing so exploitive corporations would continue and possibly ramping up. Like you said.
Doing so in conjunction by targeting their money (let's say in this case the consumers) (unless they have a different agenda, and goal then that get's messy.) By offering the free service one needs to also bring attention to those consumers (a moral argument) to redirect funds elsewhere. If nobody cares for that, then you can use those desperate people for your own competing business (they have an axe to grind). You can also show the corporation a more, or cost effective solution that solves the problem. They can also market it to gain an economic edge (this also comes at the cost of when it is solved the corporation might not want to let go of it's edge.) The value of reciprocity can be a force of nature. But not everyone reciprocates it's a social and biological problem. Lack of reciprocity and goodwill deteriorates society, but finding out when, where, and how to measure it is difficult.
Inside the economic system long term goals (and really long term goals) vs short term goals. The workers can work at your business at less than the competition, because they are scumbags.
The gilded age of America and it's monopolies shows what happens when capitalism turns into cronyism. No free market, no options, no escape. This tends to have people look outside the broken system. (Speakeasies and the alcohol prohibition.)
Sometimes the problem stems from phantom forces (misunderstandings, communication errors, ect.)
>>248524 Because pony butt involves posture that emphasizes the butt in a manner similar to a hooman female when bent over in a submissive and/or sexual position, except that's their natural position. Additionally, they spend all their time that way, so there is unavoidably greater development in the posterior than you would find in a hoomun.
>>248524 Mainly because of this >>248525 and because it's not in any obscure place but on the same level as the barrel, making it the most distinctive part of the pony (aside from the tail) when viewed from behind. Looking at a hooman's butt is creepy because it's in a direction away from the rest of the body, but at a pony's is natural because it's meant to be looked at.
>>251063 >I don't feel like making the goddamn hair right now. >I don't feel like WARNING! Time to pause poner. Nothing good comes from something forced or rushed. I think you would agree that Leslie needs inspiration and patience.
Pardon, but didn't someone post an ancap Discord link a week ago? I get it's >Discord but random ideas pop up about economics that don't merit their own thread but need to be discussed with some random bloke who's not an idiot.
>>254696 In the interest of transparency, I deleted that post. It was posted without any information or explanation, and since staff can't be bothered to infiltrate every discord, website, link, etc. that is posted (to verify legitimacy or eliminate overt/covert honeypots) it was deleted. OP was notified when the post was deleted that transparency on his end would make the post permissible.
>>254699 Fair point. I ought to have joined at that point but I was busy and didn't have the time to make a new >Discord account that has no connection to personal emails (I don't trust those trannies an inch).
>>254685 If you want a place to discuss matters of economics that wouldn't merit much interest here, I recommend julay.world's /liberty/ board. Alternatively, you can create an economics thread here, or more broadly, a QTDDTOT thread. You could also post economic questions in this thread. I don't think Discord is the best place for discussing those kinds of matters for anyways, risk of doxxing aside.
>>264470 Obviously not every ancap agrees, but I like Stephen Kinsella's stance against intellectual property as it is undoubtably the biggest chokehold placed on us nowadays. Without IP the tech industry would be much more open-source and "just create your own platform" would be a lot more viable.
>>264470 In the short term, there really is no solution. The state makes it very difficult to start your own platform and reach the size of massive established ones, and the chance of a politician giving a damn about free speech online, getting elected, and being able to push legislation that will prevent tech censorship are next to non-existent. But an anarcho-capitalistic social order without state-granted oligopolies would mean that there would be a flourishing of social media sites competing for users. Of course, some would be more successful than others, as in any market, and some might reach the size of Twitter or Facebook, but without a state to protect their status as the dominant platform, they would need to remain competitive. With the social justice mobs and communist intellectuals dead, in exile, or resigning themselves to actually finding a real job, censoring a large portion of your potential client-base on the basis of opinions that the former groups would have deemed unacceptable would be economic suicide.