/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

It’s because the liberal narrative is that all that shit exists to help, support, protect, etc the world outside the west, I.e charity which libertarians despise. Lolberts are completely placated by any right-wing politician giving them a wink behind the mask in saying
>oh also of course our protection is dependent on access to their resources/market/government and being under our protection is non-negotiable

>>2558881
Why would you ask that question here? Try reading their blogs or watching their videos

>>2558898
This slop is the best you're going to get on this website, just assholes seething. People here are too dumb to understand the arguments for libertarianism, which are fairly simple

>>2559805
Simple, perhaps, but propertarianism is still obviously a joke.

Check here

Antiwar.com is an American political website founded in 1995 that describes itself as devoted to non-interventionism and as opposing imperialism and war. It has a right-wing libertarian perspective and is a project of the Randolph Bourne Institute. The website states that it is "fighting the next information war”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiwar.com

Antiwar.com

Because libertarians are rich entitled spoiled children and our neoliberal system which already caters to their every demand is not enough for them; they want more. They will always want more.

>>2558881
So the world Capital System is made up of multiple nested hierarchies, starting with the hierarchies in the social division of labor (aka laborers with the task of commanding other laborers in the name of Capital) moving onto the hierarchies in the national capitalist market wherein workers are subordinated to the national market as a whole, then small capitals are outcompeted by and subordinated to larger and larger capital up to the entire national state as the top of this national capitalist hierarchy, with the state functioning as the executive apparatus for the entire national capitalist structure; the next set of hierarchy is that between the actual national states now and their respective national/transnational firms on the scale of the actual world market which again sorts as the smaller less powerful national capitals are subordinated to the larger ones that then subordinate themselves to supranational structures to compete with their global competitors, which, since the 19th Century, finally all come together to form increasingly complex and real globally integrating executive committees for global capital; think the Congress of Vienna, or the League of Nations, and now the United Nations; which primarily emerge to stabilize relations between the entire world capitalist power structure between imperial national states and their imperialist transnational firms

What is very important to grasp here is that these hierarchies are not stable, in fact they are also riven with antagonism all the way down, from top to bottom; from the antagonism in the labor force between the laborers acting solely as labour-powers and laborers operating as managers of capital, up to the antagonisms between small and large capitals, and the antagonisms between the various nations, and the imperialist blocs. Libertarians ultimately reflect the outlook of the petit bourgeois, the small capitalist; and yet whilst the development of the system progressively annihilates, then reconstitutes more subordinate than last, then annihilates again this class, it is nevertheless entirely reliant on the continuation of the system for the perpetuation of the system; thus a contradictory movement occurs; wherein the libertarian is forced to confront the entire world capitalist system wherein the class position determining his own consciousness is both reliant on but also destroyed by the entire world system; thus takes on a backwards looking orientation, always arguing both in favor of the total deregulation of the state in a maneuver favoring the economic and private tyranny of capital so as to secure small capital (and yet this leaves him even more vulnerable to both big capital and should his state be weak the predation of other national capitals as well; for only the intervention of the state can hope to protect small capitals from the vicissitudes of modern competition) and also always fighting for the smaller capital in any question; so that on the world stage he must argue for his particular bloc thus breaking the world executive system, on the international stage he argues only for his own nation thus weakening the association of capitalist powers his own nation may play a part in, on the national stage he argues to weaken the national state’s intervention in the national market in the vain hope of weakening the hand of the bigger capitals thus destabilizing the conditions of his own nation, on the increasingly smaller scale he argues more and more fervently for the tyranny of the small capitalist tied to a fantasy of an entirely petit bourgeois society of small commodity producers; this shrinking does not extend to the proletariat of course, the standpoint shut out by bourgeois consciousness, and which regardless represents a universal class and thus global universal interest contrast the petty particularism of the petit bourgeois libertarian

I watched an interesting video a while ago analyzing the causes behind America's war of independence, and it essentially boiled down to the fact that although both Britain and it's American colonies were well on the road to capitalist liberalism by the late 18th century, the British government had a dual role as botu the guarantor of the profits and property of the British ruling class, as well as the manager of a global empire. Meanwhile, the colonial governments in America only fulfilled that first role with respect to the colonial elites. This led to a contradiction wherein the British government was forced to temporarily work against the interests of the colonial rulers in America for the broader interests of its empire (e.g. tax them to pay for wars in Europe, maintain peaceful relations with Indigenous allies, fund new colonial ventures in India, etc.). I think that right wing anti-globalism and anti-interventionism (dare I say, anti-imperialism) in America is fuelled by a similar contradiction. Even if America's role as the head of a Western imperialist coalition is good for the collective Western bourgeoisie (and especially American bourgeoisie) as a whole, this doesn't mean it's good for all levels of it at all times. Imagine as an example a small time manufacturer that struggles to keep up with larger competitors at the best of times, when along comes free trade and those competitors can pick up and go to Mexico or China, thus cutting costs and becoming even more competitive. It's not hard to see how this could lead to the emergence of a movement which is hostile to the more international aspects of modern capitalism and the American empire, but still very much pro-capitalist.

>>2560020
this is quote a long video about british india, but a similar thing occurred there with two camps. mercantilists in the East India Company just wanted to cautiously collect tribute, make profit and do trade without expending too much money in wars, which could also affect stability.
Expansionists wanted to wage wars to conquer territories to gain even greater profit. but the mercantilists thought it was too costly, and didn't want to take responsibility for ruling vast lands and populations.

libertarians believe in selling everything that isn't nailed to the ground, their ideal state is literally a failstate like russia during the mid 90s

Because they are idealists who think the modern capitalist economy is "not real capitalism".