What do you guys think of thomas sowell, the dude is smart and is more than redpilled on black people...

Sowell is a great American

been watching a lot of his videos. It's eye opening but it seems that the government social engineers don't want to acknowledge that welfare (instead of job creation) ends up hurting instead of helping.

>People seem to cling to NATSOC and rabbit on about it like autists because it's the easiest ideology

I don't really think that Cred Forums is a natsoc board, people don't even discuss National Socialism here, they just go along with it because of the "alt-right" meme thing.

I've always said that National Socialism is arguably not a right-wing ideology but a centre ideology that economically has more in common with socialism (left-wing) than with classical liberalism (right-wing).

>ADD
This is ironic because I have to take ritalin myself.

he exposed me to the truth that black people were the construction workers before the 60s and where well off withought any nigger shit like today, then they introduced welfare and single mothers now you never see a black in construction

Honestly I can live with USA remaining a republic (albeit somewhat restored)...but I'm getting rather cynical about "government by the people"

My copy of basic economics just came in the mail yesterday actually.

we've done multiple big polls over the course of the last years and the consensus is that most of the board is libertarian.

Because of the US elections libertarianism has gotten a bad rep here because of Johnson and his "immigration" policies.

It's the ideology I hear most about, ironically alongside Trump despite Trump being closer to Mussolinis Fascism.

> economically
Precisely. These people knew the truth that without economic liberty, there are no liberties.
Sucks too many people are so economically inept though, almost as if you need to be born with it.

I actually liked Heinlein's idea in starship troopers to limit voting franchise to those who earn it with military service.

Thomas Sowell is boss. I binge watched and read the shit out of him a few years ago. He has crystal clear vision and explanations.

I like bringing him up in conversations (aka idiots losing their shit on me) with liberals.

It's always
>the black community needs strong role models!
>muh wage gap!

Then I show them this

youtube.com/watch?v=G_sGn6PdmIo

They usually stop replying when I share that link.

I don't know much but at least I know my opinion on politics means jack shit if I don't know anything at all about economics. I've seen Natsoc faggots arguing for it without really touching on economic policy, as if they think having parades and executing Jews would make all of their problems dissapear kek.

I too remember those days. It seems like only yesterday we were uncovering the electoral fraud committed by the RNC and the devilish tricks of the MSM to keep Paul from the nomination. I'd also agree with your observation that this board is still libertarian in nature certainly there has been a shift more so towards paleo-conservatism and also the idea of what I can describe as national libertarianism has become more popular but I believe the majority of non-natsoc users here are still anti-statist. Accepting Trump has merely been an acceptance of trust in Trumps forms of intervention I suppose. Only time will tell if he will flipflop on his positions.

Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams are pretty based.

"The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do, what Jim Crow couldn't do, what the harshest racism couldn't do, and that is to destroy the black family." -Walter E. Williams.

all the smart people went to 8pol, if you want meaningful discussions go there.

right now this place is more goal-oriented as we are trying to get trump into office by any means possible and win the memetic warfare game hillary started by insulting pepe.

>all the smart people went to 8pol
but 8pol and 8ch are dead, the "great exodus" was just people posting here and there at the same time.

One of the few good ones.

Why would they tell their voterbase that their handouts are going to be cancelled user? These people are crooks who only want a subsidised salary and pension for the rest of their miserable lives - the cunts on centrelink and the maggots they vote in to keep it going.

>National Socialism is arguably not a right-wing ideology but a centre ideology that economically has more in common with socialism (left-wing) than with classical liberalism (right-wing).
You are entirely correct in your judgement here, but this "Nationalism" meme has gone on FAR too long. Nationalism is has nothing, NOTHING whatsoever to do with
>"love" for one's country, identity, family unit, or culture
It is about bringing the means of production under a government or syndicalised system or administration. It is nothing more than full blown socialism thinly disguised as petty protectionism. Don't fall for the many words masquerading as so-called "right-wing", they are contagiously leftist.

The word you are looking for is Patriotism, love of one's country, self, family and culture.

>Johnson
is not a libertarian, he's a leftist democrat

>all the smart people went to 8pol
yeah all 2 of them
>you can get banned there for mentioning jews
great board you have there

this man even suprised me as i thought black people were just fuckin idiots all around, also that indians lived in harmony with black people for a time

>Right-wing ideologies like libertarianism are obviously not common here because most Latin American countries were the victim of left-wing dictatorships, and to this day most still follow left-wing doctrines.

In many, yes, but a thread of liberty still courses throughout both Central and South America.

Reading Wealth, Poverty and Politics now. I can't find a single point he made in the book that I can stump !

The funny thing is that libertarians (atleast rothbardian libertarians) have been fighting against the central bank and fractional reserve banking while the statist cucks do nothing but yell about jews and praise Keynesianism

>Rothbard,

>hurrrr (((rothbard)))

sometimes i hate this place when it does shit like this. No critique of an actual opinion, just memes and discarding valid points and ideas because of ideologies

Read his book a conflict of visions, i very much enjoyed it. It helped frame a lot of what you see in politics all around you, the nice way he described the fundamental differences between visions helped me see more clearly the reasons why the same people fall into the same camp on completely unrelated issues from education to gun control to the economy

He drones on at points, remind yourself that its a BASIC economics book, i am completely new to the field so i found it good but i imagine if you have even a basic understanding of it you will get bored after he drills in the same point for another 20 pages

if you're new to this you should also read Hazlitt. He and Sowell are great for entry level readings. Move on to Schumpeter once you feel you have a good grasp on things, it'll open up so many ideas to you you can basically read anything after that.

I have been thinking about the presumed overarching ideology supported by the majority of Cred Forums and (I guess to an extent?) Cred Forums users, and it seems that the most consensus is found in a shared support of “conservative” ideology, and a shared disdain for so-called “liberal”, “left-wing” or “progressive” ideology.

But here’s the thing:

>What exactly is “left-wing” ideology today?

yes

crikey hes got a fair few books, where to start?

Currently reading The constitution of liberty by hayek, read 3 Sowell books and decided i wanted a change (not that i didnt enjoy em), read Bastiats The Law and now on this one. I wouldnt mind reading any of the people youve mentioned though, any recommendations of specific books?

t. science background that is very far away from economics

>>What exactly is “left-wing” ideology today?

democracy

social justice

egalitarianism

self-loathing

cultural marxism

feminism

I don't even mind people critiquing his Jewish ancestry using some of Kevin MacDonalds theory but it never happens, it's just defaulting to meming because they can't think of anything to say and they know the board will back them up.

That said, I do like Ancap memes because I'm not an insecure child who get's triggered and spergs out like the majority of Cred Forums when what I believe in is criticised.

>What exactly is “left-wing” ideology today?

They would probably frame it something like this;

Restricting the private sector for perceived wrongdoing, social benefits to protect the disenfranchised, globalization, environmental protection, bigger public sector, equality of outcome

I'm still in the minarchist camp.

these pics have me in stitches, how people sperg out ill never understand

in my personal view left/right is basically social/personal responsibility

at the far left is government babying everyone all their lives in return for all their labor earnings while far right is no central authority and basically everyone is responsible for themselves and anything they do is voluntary

I also disagree about the rest of Cred Forums since most of those sharing the consensus are from Cred Forums to begin with while you'll find a large leftist presence in popular boards like Cred Forums, Cred Forums or Cred Forums.

First one I read was Economics in one lesson then Foundations of morality although I found that a bit redundant so I'd recommend you just read Failure of new economics after that then move on to Schumpeter's theory of economic development. Human action, Capitalism and freedom and road to serfdom, all great classics as well.

I'll do good to just read basic econ

I think it's the only Cred Forums meme that consistently makes me laugh

that is not true tho

from 2014

strawpoll.me/1713434/r

a shame the archive from 2013 is lost tho, there were many other polls

If we are talking in terms of Anglo-American 'liberal' V. 'conservativism', both like the idea of democracy.
>social justice
What the fuck is it anyway, and assuming it is simply that everyone gets treated fairly etc., is that really something one would want to oppose?
>egalitarianism
Technically speaking, this would be something that the left used to support, but because both the left and the right support what is effectively the same economic agenda (i.e., free-market capitalism), this is no longer a viable goal.
>self-loathing
???
>cultural Marxism
???
>feminism
I’m not sure that ‘feminism’ is a suitable basis for an entire political ideology. It also depends what flavour you are referring to.
Kind of similar to the above; because the left and the right both pursue free-market economic policies, the disenfranchised, the environment and income equality are automatically off the table. Same story regards the public sector – neither the left nor the right promote policies that dramatically increase the public sector. Since the conservative right could reasonably be argued to be even stronger supporters of free-market economics, then this would mean that they don’t have any serious problem with globalisation.

Alrighty ill order them now, thanks mate.

>Schumpeter's theory is that the success of capitalism will lead to a form of corporatism and a fostering of values hostile to capitalism, especially among intellectuals. The intellectual and social climate needed to allow entrepreneurship to thrive will not exist in advanced capitalism; it will be replaced by socialism in some form. There will not be a revolution, but merely a trend for social democratic parties to be elected to parliaments as part of the democratic process. He argued that capitalism's collapse from within will come about as majorities vote for the creation of a welfare state and place restrictions upon entrepreneurship that will burden and eventually destroy the capitalist structure. Schumpeter emphasizes throughout this book that he is analyzing trends, not engaging in political advocacy.

>published in 1942

well ill be damned you gyppos know which shit to read.

Also you seem to have your head screwed on, what the fuck is happening in your cunt with the muslim brohood and sisi and shit, are you in all kinds of shit or are things getting better?

i dont think i havent laughed at a single one

>because the left and the right both pursue free-market economic policies
No they don't.

this, sounds wayoff the mark

Agreed, they're great. And I'm pretty heavily libertarian myself.

What's the name of that black guy who said that liberals should stop attempting to help the black race?

He was really good.

What the fuck are you talking about? This has never been the case over the last years.

Well, in practice they both seem to pursue free-market agendas.

theoretically left-wing parties in every Anglo state I can think of have participated in dismantling the welfare-state and privatizing as much state infrastructure as possible. Seems pretty in-step with free-market ideology to me.

Ironically, neither the Republican Party nor Democratic Party represent free market economics. The Democratic Party heavily supports regulations on business, wealth redistribution, and increasing government spending (meaning more taxes). The Republican party does the same shit but to a lesser degree and pretend that they support smaller government.

What mate

Thomas Sowell kek, literally the topic of the thread

There's a pretty dramatic difference between what the party says it supports and what administrations actually do in practice. But I think you see my point, that the left and the right are actually not all that distinct from each other.

Governments transferring monopoly power to private companies to do as the government asks is not free market economics, it's just intervention by proxy. For example, the government getting a contract with a corporation to do X for the government relies on government intervening in the free market. It's this sort of intermixing of both the public and private sectors that has created the corporatism in the US.

Larry Elder

He's great but his focus is on BTFOing bureaucracies. Look at the leftists. They want something to be done for them. They don't want to criticize the hand that feeds. They have an aversion to questioning the structures around them, instead preferring to just lash out at the society that is a subject to those systems. Where would the fight against "inequality" be without centralized control?

>danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2016/07/21/a-very-depressing-chart-on-creeping-cronyism-in-the-american-economy/

Why innovate when you can lobby government to simply block competition

>what the fuck is happening in your cunt
Where to begin. I could probably rant about this for hours but I'll try to boil it down and keep it short
>commies overthrow monarchy
>commies backstab each other for power
>they establish military to fight jews
>commies disappear after the war
>last commie is killed by mud brohood
>military strongman state capitalist takes over for 30 years
>2011 happens
>MB take that opportunity and rig elections with foreign gov backing
>2013 happens
>muzzies flee to foreign govs
>military deep state makes preemptive move to reclaim power
>another military state capitalist in power
>but this time it's only 4 years(tm) guaranteed
>99.99% approval rate

Neoliberal cuckservative

When it comes to public infrastructure, like prisons, roads and transportation, these are assets that were not in the free-market until they were put there by the government. So I don't think we can call this an intervention in the free-market, because they were not at play in a free-market in the first place.

I get pissed off by them because they're spammed incessantly. Have fun maintaining the will to read through libertarian threads when every other image is "hurr ancap rape children xDD free market will solve everything by nuking people who touch my elbow xDD". hurr durr durr... I've only seen these images fifty fucking times even though they kinda lost their charm after, I don't know, the first two or three appearances. It's the same regurgitated joke repeated by the same fucking people.
And they're seriously starting to use them as arguments as well. It's irritating.

CHrist what an absolute clusterfuck. Sorry to hear mate, I hope things work out for you. You're well read and shit, consider taking your talents abroad away from that instability if you don't have family etc.

>99 votes

lel

Calm your tits mate

You would need to tax in order for the government to even pay for that though. The market would create these institutions on its own as demand grew.

youtube.com/watch?v=IYO3tOqDISE

American Economist

Thanks ausbro. I'm looking to fuck off to Germoney after I'm done with my degree. Probably do my masters and try and find a job there. I just hope things there don't escalate or I might have to actually change plans. The yurop "refugee" situation really fucked up my plans for me.

Okay, this all relies on the assumption that humans will behave rationally (which we know they don't). I would be interested to hear how you envisage a prison emerging purely out of private enterprise.

Johnson isn't a real Libertarian, though. He's a gun-grabbing, open boarders corporate shill. The fact that you are using Ron Paul as a litmus test for defining libertarian is also somewhat disturbing, even though Paul has consistently stated multiple times that "the Republican party left me, not the other way around". There's a reason for that though...

As time changes, so does the political landscape's version of what is truly left/right. The only facets of the political spectrum that seem to remain consistent are libertarian ideology/authoritarianism. Liberty, as a concept for the masses, has always been hotly debated in the US because there will always be a group of people that think the people need liberty to feel more "free", whereas the other group will insist that unchecked liberty will lead to things like, poorly funded schools and mass shootings.

The reason Trump (as a populist) is taking off with the fire the Paul campaign should have is because his dose of Nationalism is sorely needed in a generation that realizes that the tail-end of the baby boomers gave us shit like Bush Sr./Clinton when the best option (Ross Perot) warned us over 20 years ago that where we are now was exactly where we were going.

youtube.com/watch?v=Rkgx1C_S6ls
youtube.com/watch?v=GdaitZx3njw

Heads of state make deals, behind closed doors and without consent of the voting public, then spend elections selling ideologies to the masses using controlled media to sell everyone that it is a good idea.

Folks are waking up, and this generation that is going to put Trump in charge is voting in the best interest of the country. Once it's where it needs to be, we can start flirting with things like staunch libertarian ideology. Until then, we have to get some house cleaning done.

Your raving violated NAP so imma nuke you now.

>I'm looking to fuck off to Germoney after I'm done with my degree.
NEIN. Sandnegger RAUS!

Yeah I imagine this has fucked up your plans pretty hard. There's always chile, you can be like the Chicago boys or whatever except you'll have curly hair and wuz kings

>Okay, this all relies on the assumption that humans will behave rationally (which we know they don't).
If humans don't behave rationally how would it be any better to put humans at the top to control things? A private protection agency would have to have a place put the people they arrest.

You're right, Netherlands sounds way better :^ )
too bad I don't speak your language

I'd consider Chile if they started giving free helicopter rides again

Good luck getting in. I'd hurry if I were you, we have elections in march and based Geert is sure to win.

We gonna build a dyke, and Germany is going to pay for it.

>wilders is running on a platform to ban mosques, the quran and all immigration from muslim countries

This. The idea that humans don't act rationally and require some kind of enlightened leader who can clearly see what is good for all far better than each can for themselves is bizarre.

>build a dyke
More like kill a dyke amirite?

We actually tend to put rules and laws at 'the top' to control things. These various norms and expectations are developed and enforced by people though.
>A private protection agency would have to have a place put the people they arrest.
Sure, but who awards that private protection agency the authority to arrest people? Who decides prison sentences? Or how prisons should be run? In London, before they had a real police force, there were people called thief-taker's. I think you will get what I mean better if you have a read of how that worked out.

This

>kill all the jews first

then we can entertain the idea of different ideologies without their interference

I agree with enlightened religious leaders in a secular society, someone who is concerned with the super rational. But that should be open for those who wish to pursue their teachings, not madatory or state sponsored in any way.

It doesn't have to be "some enlightened leader", but for a society to function, there must be a set of norms and expectations. You will find this at work in every single society on the planet. People are not born rational. This is a learned behavior.

>Sure, but who awards that private protection agency the authority to arrest people? Who decides prison sentences? Or how prisons should be run? In London, before they had a real police force, there were people called thief-taker's. I think you will get what I mean better if you have a read of how that worked out.
Where does the government get its authority from? The sad truth is that ultimately might makes right. The answer to the rest of your questions is the free market. If you don't like how a private protection agency functions then don't pay for their service, pay their competitors. Vote with your wallet. You can't do that with public law enforcement. You're paying through taxes regardless of their quality.

>based Geert is sure to win.
Not a big fan of government restricting freedoms but I kinda hope he does. After brexit this would solidify the credibility of the pendulum swing in Europe. God bless netherbro.

>might makes right
Yeah, for the most part this is how things go in reality. However, in the scenario in which we have a market instead of a governing body, then the same principle is applied.
>If you don't like how a private protection agency functions then don't pay for their service, pay their competitors.
This assumes that there will be competitors. In a totally free-market, why wouldn't one private protection agency simply use force to wipe out it's competitors? This is essentially what happened with the thief-takers.

>In a totally free-market, why wouldn't one private protection agency simply use force to wipe out it's competitors?
I don't see how this situation is any different than how countries engage in war. At least in a free market the people fighting would be doing it voluntarily. If we were talking about a situation where private protection agencies have a dispute between clients, the answer to this would be that they would resolve it peacefully as they are for profit and war is expensive. This is where private law would arise from.

I agree that there are some symmetries between international warfare and this hypothetical private competition scenario. I dont think in either scenario we can reasonably assume that those involved in the fighting will be participating "voluntarily". If you work for a private protection agency, and your fellow agents keep getting shot dead by a rival agency, then is there really much of a choice involved in whether or not you fight back?

>If we were talking about a situation where private protection agencies have a dispute between clients, the answer to this would be that they would resolve it peacefully as they are for profit and war is expensive. This is where private law would arise from.

War is actually very profitable for some, and very expensive for others. This is true of countless industries. One might also view the elimination of a competitor as a long-term investment...
Law only makes sense if it is recognized and is adhered to by the public. If you have competing or multiple 'private' laws, then you just have a more complex version of the same anarchy one can anticipate in a society with no laws at all.

What do you think of la prensa's chilling for IFFP and that fucking Soros Jew.

also, I been meaning to check which companies "patrocinaron" Clinton's speech last year to cross check who's getting benefited (besides the Motta's) on the Waked getting fucked.

>most of the board is libertarian
mostly because "gibs me dat" is a nigger/liberal thing and niggers seldom go into the internets

Like any other "genius" minority, he is simply capable of understanding what the smartest white men learned on their own.

There are plenty of meaningful conversations you faggot.

>If you have competing or multiple 'private' laws, then you just have a more complex version of the same anarchy one can anticipate in a society with no laws at all.
Absolutely. Which is part of the reason I'm not an anarchist. This conversation diverged from private prisons to private warfare. I like Robert Nozick's interpretation of how a singular or coalition of protection agencies would essentially become a de facto government.

He's a good bloke. Very cerebral. Some profound life lessons in this book.

>Marxist turned (((neocon)))
>red pilled

babbys first economist

Has he ever talked about scarcity in depth? As in him discussing ideas like post-scarcity and his take on if it'll happen. Or maybe even anything he thinks could fundamentally change economics in general, not necessarily post-scarcity? Or what his views would be in a post-scarcity world, anything like that at all.

You think it's bizzare? Go out on a Friday or Saturday night in any major town and city. You'll soon change your view.

>most of the board libfag
Kek yeah because most people on the board are a group of whiny bitches who circle jerk all day about Ron Paul, open borders, muh roads and private institutions everywhere.

Yeah, currently Brexit really needs other countries to have their own version of it.

The concept would build its own bulwark, and soon people in all the respective countries couldn't immediately criticise it. Brexit's currently being made fun of a lot here by our leftists in an attempt to devalue it because it's standing alone.

But if the French and Dutchlads have their own and even better, they're BOTH successful? Well, all three European Exits would start calling for something.

Why would this private protection agency/coalition turned de facto government be preferable to a democracy or some other public governing authority?

They'd be virtually the same in my opinion. I'm not an an-cap, I just answered your questions on how these things would be done. Private prisons are much simpler.

But they did do economic work, I remember reading a thread on here a few months ago talking about NatSoc economics and one user laid out everything they did including stripping banking families, like the Rothschilds, of power.
I don't believe in shooting Jews or their economic structure was perfect however parades are badass.

i read thomas sowell and watch his book overviews on youtube with wsj.

His book basic economics volume 4 is a must.

dude has video going back to the 60s shutting down lefty white guilt sjw.

>meaningful discussion
No you were just an underage b& who tried to hard on the internet.

I appreciate you answering my questions. I think the major difference would be that the private agency/coalition would have absolutely no motivation to provide for their citizens. There is very little profit in ensuring a clean water supply, securing vaccination programs etc. A private organization is held accountable to no one, a government is held accountable to the populace (at least in theory and some of the time in practice). Also, by becoming a de facto government, wouldn't this necessarily entail the end of competition for the role of de facto 'government'?

>leftist democrat
You're an actual sub 70

>this

We're going to watch Sowell start his academic life all the way through to his very real death and the world won't change. HE should be a fucking poster child for black pride in your country not fucking Scoop scoopy Dogg dogg

We have stormys, normies, and anons here hopefully in that order. Not everybody here is partial to one ideology more than another but it's easy to see that Cred Forums in general are race realists. Current events are just fun to talk about, you can't really blame anybody for that. Libertarianism and natsoc have been discussed to death already anyways.

>There is very little profit in ensuring a clean water supply, securing vaccination programs etc.
Nobody would pay for it. Competition would ensue. Private organizations are held accountable to consumers. One thing I failed to mention about a private agency being the de facto government is that it would be worse at defending the nation from a foreign attack because people pay voluntarily and would stop paying as premiums increased.

While I don't disagree, an awful lot of rappers are/were Republicans.

Whereby "were" I mean Eazy E of all people, because he's dead.

He can stay. He doesn't deserve to live with the monkeys we're going to deport back to the jungle.

He should be on mount rushmore

don't like his neocon tendencies though

>mt rushmore

Sowell, Friedman, Rothbard, Paul?

I'm just a Liberal troll and always have been, though you likely never knew it was me because I only started using this name after a day of extreme backlash on /sg/.

The only thing I consistently agree wish Cred Forums on is that PC faggots, feminists and BLM can go fuck themselves, and to recognize Jihadists as our primary threat. Other than that, you're all a bunch of raving Fascists it seems to me. The old libertarian Cred Forums rarely seems to explicitly show its head these days.