all 25 comments

[–]magnora7 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

pro-war pro-hate? I'll pass

[–]HoppeanAncap 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

how so?

[–]d3rr 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I can't believe Johnson ran with a CFR member. No hope for LP which means no hope.

[–]HoppeanAncap 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

yea true

[–]magnora7 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

So Hoppean is just another word for Ancap? Which is just another word for 'let he with the most money run everything' which is basically the system the US has now?

[–]HoppeanAncap 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

what do you mean?

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

What don't you understand of what I said? By letting big money run everything, we wind up with a system very similar to the one we already have

[–]HoppeanAncap 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Not necessarily. It would be more akin to a natural aristocracy of community leaders.

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

What is "natural" about letting billionaires run everything? That's exactly why the era of monarchies came to an end, because that system doesn't work.

[–]HoppeanAncap 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Absolutist monarchies are an usurpation of the natural order of feudal aristocratic kings

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Absolutist monarchies can only exist because of feudal aristocratic kings, who then get entrenched and become the status quo. That's how it's worked for centuries

[–]HoppeanAncap 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Feudalism is better tho. Absolutism results in socialist nightmares

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

Aristocracy?

Are neolibertarians antiConstitutional?

[–]HoppeanAncap 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

The Constitution of US was a tyrannical document imposed over the Libertarian Articles of Confederation

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Tyrannical? As in an aristocracy?

Articles of confederation? Libertarian??

Is this a pro-slavery group?

[–]HoppeanAncap 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

slavery violates the self ownership principle

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

The articles of confederation endorses the slavery principle.

[–]HoppeanAncap 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Show me.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Was the American Revolution Fought to Save Slavery?

...in the 1770’s, a major decision was made in the British courts that was instrumental, offered hope to slave communities and had a tremendous impact. James Sommerset was the “erstwhile” slave of American Charles Stewart. Stewart brought Sommerset with him to London in 1769. In September of 1771, Sommerset disappeared and found refuge. On November 26, 1771 Sommerset was kidnapped and placed on board a ship bound for Jamaica where he was likely to be sold. The abolitionist community in London went to work in his support. In 1772, after countless deliberations, the British Lord Chief Justice Mansfield finally ruled in favor of Sommerset. Mansfield said “?the exercise of power of a master over his slave must be supported by the laws of particular countries; but no foreigner can in England claim such a right over a man; such a claim is not known to the laws of England?the Man must be discharged.”

Word spread like wildfire throughout the slave communities in America that Britain was freeing slaves. This was simply not the case as Lord Mansfield went to great lengths to try to stress the importance of this particular case and not a judgment of slavery overall. But the interpretation was broad and the perception was that freedom was more likely to be with the British than with the American colonists.

The writing was on the wall after this case. Slavery would not be tolerated on British soil, and would in time be abolished in British colonies. This was unacceptable to the southern colonies, as slavery was the foundation of the southern economy.

This is also consistent with one of the most popular philosophical ideas of the time. Particularly John Locke’s trinity, “life, liberty, and property.”

Crucially, the idea of property rights and ownership. It's not difficult to understand why this was popular, or difficult to imagine how it was applied.

The ratified version of this idea that is contained in the Constitution was modified to the "pursuit of happiness".

[–]HoppeanAncap 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Both docs were shit

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Libertarian Articles of Confederation

Really? You think they are shit?

IMO the principles are generally sound.

However, the unspoken motivation behind them were hypocritical.

Progress is never perfect.

[–]HoppeanAncap 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Natural Law is better

[–]HoppeanAncap 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

epic