Is this the best case for right wing libertarianism found in literature?

>resorting to a war-based argument
How... 19th century.

See
For the argument Hayek made in OP's book :3

No, what economists are rejecting is Keynesianism.

Argument from consequences does not mean that taxation is not theft.
You could define it as "theft necessary to maintain current sociological trends", but it is still theft.

Sure, it's theft in a broad sense, but it's not an immoral form of theft, as ought implies possibility.
Basically, "taxation is theft" as an implied argument that taxes ought not be levied is retarded and should be ignored.

>certain monopolies need to be propped up for the state to exist.
and enforcement of the law under threat of force is one of them. Nor are ICBMs the last word internationally. I don't see how that is any less relevant today. Capital autonomization isn't complete until peter thiel's got his drone swarm

I don't know if your friend is engaging this kind of behaviour, but "tax is theft" often functions in this way: rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey

The way I use "tax is theft" is when SJW-types advocate for some minor reform and I ask them if they advocate for people being put into cages at gunpoint for resisting this reform. It's a good way of elucidating for people that there's ways of acting in the world that aren't political.

Saying "tax is theft" and then saying "but it's an okay kind of theft" seems intellectually dishonest to me. "Theft" obviously has deeply negative connotations, which is why it's used in this context.

well if people could just say that, taxation is theft but it's necessary theft, I think we'd be getting somewhere. Until then we just have people trying to sideline the issue with this doublespeak

how is that intellectually dishonest? It sounds like the most outright type of honesty possible. It has negative connotations because it is negative, directly, and then you have to argue that it is for greater benefits, ultimately.

There is literally nothing wrong with serfdom.

Some people (probably the majority of people) pay taxes willingly.

Based

Define "right wing libertarianism". Isn't Hayek a "liberal"?

Theft is a legal concept, just push on what sort of legalistic logic is being used to arrive at that conclusion because no actual court is going to back him up in the real world. Claiming taxation is a crime also entails that the entire foundations of the existing constitutional order is essiently criminal. And ultimately so what? Many things actually are crimes today which probably shouldn't be and some which aren't might make it better for us if they were. The state of affairs is always pretty arbitrary.
The real big issue is what's the point of taxation? What does abolishing taxation even entail? Since you're taking on a "libertarian" they probably think that taxation is used to finance government expenditures. That's actually questionable. Modern governments can spend all they want without taxing. The problem is they are probably still thinking in the old "gold standard" paradigm. Libertarians legitimately have a big fear of inflation and to much of a role of government in economic activity. None of that has to do with taxation technically speaking. See:
neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/02/mmp-blog-38-mmt-for-austrians.html
Also take a look at the "free market" alternatives... wtf is cryptocurrency and how is money apparently coming out of nowhere there.

Theft is not a legal concept, it is a personal concept, prehistoric. It is has been arbitrated by law and so needed a legal definition. And do you think that the courts came to the conclusion that state theft isn't theft is a proof? Is there no alternate reason they might have come to this conclusion?

>Isn't Hayek a "liberal"?
A classical liberal

Absolutely not you fucking morons

please don't talk to me that way it violates my NAP

no it doesn't and you don't get your own NAP

yes it does and yes I do.

Great argument :3

sorry, was meant for

where my fellow paleocons at?

kill yourself cocksucking trannylover

Not me... I just was accusing that individual of not having an argument. :3

>Theft is not a legal concept, it is a personal concept, prehistoric.
For something to be "stolen" you need to own it and be recognized as the legitimate owner. As a private judgement I can claim to own everything.

>do you think that the courts came to the conclusion that state theft isn't theft is a proof
It's the actual state of affairs. You're using a word, "theft", which isn't yours to define as you see fit since you can't enforce your definition.

> Is there no alternate reason they might have come to this conclusion?
Sure since you can create all kinds of elaborate metaphysical rule sets and systems to defend whatever position you want.

Nice adjective but you're not getting anywhere closer to actually defining what you mean by "libertarian" or "right wing". All liberals ostensibly believe in the rights of individuals and there's potentially different roads to that end. A libertarian, in the American sense, believes in private property rights unqualified and "right wingers" tend to as well... that is as long as they're upholding traditional social mores and wouldn't have problems swerving when that no longer holds true. Defining a "right wing libertarian" as a "classical liberal" doesn't seem right, many of the real historical "classical liberals" would probably be "new liberals" under modern context. Notting really maps out well.

Of course you can claim to own everything but you do not experience this. I can claim Tolstoy is my favorite writer but he is not. The subjective is about the personal experience, and it is separate from whatever you may claim to be your experience.

I will grant that Hayek is okay and has made some valuable contributions to the field of economics, but his writings on political theory are far less nuanced and impressive. Also, everything meaningful Hayek has ever said has been effectively incorporated into mainstream economics, the dregs that remain in the Austrian tradition are worthless in the year of our lord 2019

>Of course you can claim to own everything but you do not experience this.
Obviously. There's an objectively recognized "legitimate" distribution of goods at any time. Historically how this came to be doesn't so much matter.

>The subjective is about the personal experience, and it is separate from whatever you may claim to be your experience.
I don't understand... are you claiming if you feel like you're being stolen from then it's ipso facto true or your feelings are irrelevant to some higher judgement.

Attached: dialectics son.png (500x464, 121K)

>I don't understand... are you claiming if you feel like you're being stolen from then it's ipso facto true or your feelings are irrelevant to some higher judgement.
Property only exists as a subjective experience, and so theft is as well, yes. It is a sort of existential attachment to objects, generally starting with your own body and moving outwards.

That's where you're wrong... property is an intersubjective experience. There's only physical objects to be experienced and destroyed without anyone else to get in the way to complicate things. You don't "own" your own body in the same way you "own" a physical object, your confusing different relations here. Like I said theft is a legal concept and very much loaded so you can come up with notions like "intellectual property theft".

It's only not the same because of the sequential order. I have to go through my body first to get to anything else. But it is essentially the same.

It's not the same. Your physical experience of being oneself, which is unalienable, and actually "doing things" then claiming the end product are fundamentally different. You can use your body to "steal" and if you're not externally recognized as an "owner" whatever you're getting at here doesn't matter.

the connection between my self and body aren't unalienable though, just less alienable. And meanwhile I strive to make the connections between my self and my property beyond my body as directly connected as I can

Fair enough :3

No one can "steal" or "borrow" your experience of self from you, they can only "do" that to your "property" and what that actually is is subject to revision as you can see with slaves being property and then they weren't, women couldn't even own property but then they could, you couldn't own algorithms but then you could, etc, etc.

Attached: schizoid.gif (381x374, 14K)

what you are saying now only makes sense if you see it from a legal definition first, but of course it couldn't have been legal first, people existed before the laws, the concept had to exist before the law could arbitrate it. Property regardling slaves didn't change when slavery was legally abolished, the states arbitration, and from my eyes, its propaganda, is what changed

Nozick.

There has always existed actual states of affairs which since humans first evolved the cognitive capacity they surly have developed logical justifications for and have criticized from higher ethical/moral/whatever standpoints but there's really no isomorphic notion of immutable "property" over all that time. Animals existed before people but they didn't have developed notions like we do, it's not "the same". Just because people felt in control of their body doesn't mean they felt they owned a piece of land in the same fashion.