Abolitionists for the win.

We advocate for what ought to be irrespective of what is.

Yep. Discoveries lead to inventions lead to discoveries lead to inventions and so on.

I suppose people who fool themselves are the easiest to get fooled by other people

Ludwig von Mises Speaks: On Money

https://youtu.be/cle9IWPrBBs

But an invention is creating something that didn't previously exist right?

Discovery on the other hand is about something that already exists.

I'm slowly starting to understand that Liberty is a discovery rather than an invention

The first part of the book reads more like a philosophical treatise

Incredibly useful insights in there

Just standing on the shoulders of intellectual giants. Credit to this legend

Brb going to write a 10,000 word essay on the Austrian view of why Sydney Sweeney is attractive

I feel like I know way too much about American history for a non-American 😂

This is the argument from Rothbard and many enlightenment era folks, which I agree with.

If you want to get a pov from a libertarian who disagrees with this, I would point you to Walter Block. He's the expert at saying controversial things 😂

Incredibly controversial if you live in a country with a history of some form of feudalism or serfdom. Or one in which eminent domain laws exist. So basically, everywhere.

Property titles are legitimate if they are acquired through first-use i.e. homesteading (mixing your labour with an unowned resource) or via a contractual transfer from someone who has already acquired a title through homesteading.

For example,

If you step on an uninhabited island and declare that everything on it is yours, then that's not a valid title of ownership. Only that which you homestead can be yours.

And following this declaration, if you forcibly prevent someone from homesteading a previously un-homesteaded resource, that is unjust.

Practically, we live in a world where governments have 'declared' that they own everything and consider their authority to be the foremost in deciding what to do with unused resources.

The function of a legal system, state-based or market-based, ought to be to determine what is valid and just property. We don't live in that world. I consider those who want to bring about such a world to be hardcore advocates of freedom, utopian and idealistic as they may seem.

Which movie is this?

Yesssirr

I saw this note and remembered to make a mention of it here towards the end:

nostr:nevent1qqszp94z8fnaz9ynhz95p3st4wz2splkkgaa5j6rgehwzu652kyg4gcpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsygp57x42dv2s3hst4vlssmzt6kaa0dg0skv528rwdzkf2h7gxm3u6cpsgqqqqqqsgguhu6

It comes down to the difference between that which is alienable and that which is inalienable.

To say something is 'alienable' means you can transfer it to another person, while the word 'inalienable' describes that which cannot be transferred.

A man's property and the resources he owns are alienable. He can enter into legally binding contracts that involve the transfer of such things.

But a man's will is inalienable from his self. He cannot separate the two, which means he cannot enter into a legally binding contract that involves his self.

Such a contract would violate the right of his future will to ownership of his future self, making it contradictory and legally bogus.

Hence, if a person enters a contract of voluntary enslavement, that can only be considered as a promise, not a legally binding transfer of an ownership title.

Should a person who entered into an enslavement contract decide to stop being a slave at some point in the future, the contract then becomes void. The slaver cannot legally enforce this contract in a court of law.

If the slaver attempts to physically restrain him from leaving, he becomes an aggressor who shall be prosecuted.

P.S. Note that this makes the 'social contract' of citizenship under a government completely bogus. It's even worse in this case as it involves the will of someone else in the past violating the right to self-ownership of other people in the future.

Every modern government is essentially a slaver if this reasoning is taken to its logical conclusion.

In addition to involuntary conscription being slavery, there are also other statements I use as litmus tests for how much a person believes in freedom like,

"Taxation violates property rights and is hence, theft."

"Property right is a human right."

"Property rights are necessary for freedom of speech and expression."

"Not all property titles are valid and just."

"Contracts can only be made with alienable ownership titles."

"Right to life and self-ownership is inalienable and cannot be violated."

"Freedom is not about popularity contests and free stuff. It is about the inviolability of natural rights."

How a person responds to these statements would give me a good idea about whether he is serious about human freedom or just virtue signalling.

Haha yeah but it's important not to do things solely for the sake of breaking stereotypes. Simply wanting to be a better person must precede wanting to change people's minds. It has to start within. Interestingly, when this happens, you stop caring about changing people's minds regarding what they think of you.

Regarding OP: Partially justified in expecting that Bitcoin will help those who are marginalised.

I say partially because regulations, price controls, taxation, bureacratic meddling with industry and trade, moral policing and weak property rights actually play a big role in keeping the underprivileged where they are, in addition to fiat money and central banking.

No matter how much education a person is given, if he or she cannot put it to use by being productive, lowering time preference, accumulating capital, saving and investing, their condition will not materially or spiritually improve. The state, with its various interventionist policy programs, keep them where they are.

Inequality of various kinds will always exist in a free market or a fully planned economy, because of our subjective preferences, differing circumstances, varied talents and capabilities. That's just how human beings are.

But the thing is, in a free market, those at the lowest rungs always get better economically thanks to an overall improvement in the standard of living, because those at the top do not have their positions guaranteed.

They have to constantly innovate, produce better, and satisfy the mass of consumers in the best possible way to remain where they are.

What I described above is the real 'liberal' position from the enlightenment era, now associated with the term 'libertarian'.

To sum it all up:

💯

One can dream

Yep, and it's pretty diabolical that it's illegal

Like internet bans are always enforced at the ISP level because failure to comply will likely get their licenses revoked

Spectrum is usually leased rather than owned so there's no property right based ownership, meaning allocated spectrum can be taken away without much difficulty

If we can't be censorship resistant at this level, then nothing on top of it is truly censorship-resistant

That's true

But I'm talking about people being able to set up ISP's and provide internet connection without relying on the state to coordinate with other existing ISP's

I love Chappelle. I think he's one of the GOATs.

Chappelle's show isn't very relatable to me, but I love this episode:

https://youtu.be/9DLuALBnolM

On the furniture?! 😭

😐

Bruh how the fuck do you walk around your house with your shoes on

I can never understand 😭