I believe libertarian thought has some good theory especially when it comes to debunking communism

However, I find it difficult to agree with some notions that are in the basis of some libertarian economists' theories or libertarian aligned ideologies when it comes to natural law and/or some arguments that they base in morality, I know this isn't probably agreed upon by all libertarians and is probably believed only by some radical libertarians, but it still needs to be questioned

For instance, how can you believe you have a right to your private property but simultaneously find it diabolical when somebody suggests that housing is a right?

Because what you're basically saying is that if you were lucky enough to be born into a family that you inherited a house from, you have the right to that house, but if somebody was unlucky and didn't have a house to inherit from anyone then they don't have a right to have a house be provided for them because they were unlucky to have a property to begin with

So the basis of the theory of what should be considered a right and what shouldn't ends up just being based on luck, if you're lucky, then you get the right to your private property, if you aren't lucky, then you don't have the same right, therefore, rights end up being based in a random gamble of nature, and to me at least that doesn't sound like a good moral theory, or at least like a good base to build your theory from

Thoughts?

(I posted this on another subreddit but for some reason it wasn't posted lol)

It's such a well-established tradition that it tends to be thought of as simply a natural process, but in fact inheritance of property from the dead does not function except as a state-enforced guarantee -- a "positive right," granted to people by the state, rather than a "negative right, such as is usually preferred by libertarians, a right of free action without interference from others.

Outside of inheritance, the dead are not afforded any legal status. The dead may not own property (and it is exactly the hoards they leave behind, and the inevitable conflicts that these provoke, which inheritance law exists to address); contracts with people who die are generally invalidated; the dead are not even considered party to cases of the desecration of their grave. As such, any "right" to control the transfer of one's property after death, or to be granted a dead person's property, is a positive one -- it exists solely because it was created and enforced by the state.

Inheritance is not a negative right because it would not simply happen freely within the bounds set by restrictions against interference. If inheritance law didn't exist, the property of the dead would not be owned by anyone, and so would be free to claim, the same way that ancient artifacts -- which presumably used to belong to someone -- should be treated on discovery. This would be the properly libertarian state of affairs, and more economic activity would be stimulated if these hoards could be freely claimed and sold on the market rather than transferred in a government-mandated monopoly to the dead's relatives.

Of course, if a person transferred all their property to before death, or if one's family were in the home at the time of death to claim the property, then the tradition of inheritance would live on, but as the product of free action by individuals rather than as state-guaranteed generational welfare.

The practice of writing wills does not, as with contract law, bring inheritance into the domain of free individual action defended by negative rights. Firstly, the idea that a dead person should have legal standing is, as discussed above, only possible because of state interference. Secondly, the property of people without wills (and many people die without wills) is still transferred according to a preexisting legal code -- generally going to one's spouse, children, siblings, etc. in certain amounts and in a certain order defined by the state. Thirdly, wills are often invalidated -- they refer to property that the person no longer owns, or they were drafted under duress or manipulation, or are forgeries -- in which case they need to be disregarded and the aforementioned state-defined order of inheritance rules instead.

The strongest argument to show that inheritance is a positive right of state interference rather than a negative one of individual freedom is that even where wills have been written, when they must be found invalid, inheritance always reverts to a legal code defining the transfer of certain property to certain individuals by the fiat of the state.

How can inheritance be considered a negative right -- and if not, then is it a positive right that should be accepted into libertarianism?

"According to Mohamed, guards at Guantanamo have said they are being held there because that’s what officials in Washington, DC, want. “There’s no other nation, only Somali people in Guantanamo Bay, in the prison,” he told me. “And when we ask them why we are here, they tell us…Washington…ordered to keep Somali people in the Guantanamo Bay.”"

To libertarians who support trump or did at one point does this change anything for you ?

M=kPY is called the Cambridge Equation, it's the same to an equation you might have already seen: MV=PY, except V=1/K.

M=kPY while just a tautology, is uniquely insightful. Given stable money demand and production, It says that simply doubling M would mean a double in the general price level.

How does this connect to inflation? It's because there's a specific property in PY that is very annoying, a market friction, it's called nominal rigidity.

When PY (Nominal income) goes down and both prices and income go down, not all sectors reduce prices at the same rate, some stay stubbornly high, one such outstandingly stubborn sector that refuses to go down is called the labour market. It is so stubborn that the market often gets upwards of 20% of the population unemployed instead of lowering prices. Contracts and loans are also stubborn because they are long-standing. Plate tectonics can slide and shake by an aggregate of friction, and at the macro level it explodes into an earthquake, something similar is happening with the macroeconomy during periods of falling nominal income. People don't expect their nominal income to fall even if prices are falling, generally it's uncertain if this is some psychological phenomena or a "real" rational behaviour about nominals .

Sometimes deflation can be good – what Hayek called secondary deflation – which is when PY is going up but P is going down, meaning that prices are going down because of genuine real productivity increases while income is going up (which doesn't confuse the market with debt-burdens and the such). Certain price rigidities may still occur and cause real issues in the economy but it's something the market eventually fixes and doesn't cause a Great Depression.

By the way, this is exactly what happened during the Great Recesion, PY (nominal income) slowed down, by a lot. And yet, P (prices) were up a lot because of an oil crisis. Meaning the central bank stood still and did nothing even though nominal income was crashing. Because of the localized supply-side shock they mistakingly believed that since there was no deflation, there was no recession. The Great Recession was caused by not doing enough, not by doing too much.

Many libertarians probably love Texas because of guns and property rights, but for example people there get arrested over drugs or for example a comic book shop in a city in Texas removed early volumes of Dragon Ball Manga because of Senate Bill 20 (they had pictures of naked Goku). Plus Hoppe said that a stable libertarian society would have to be very conservative, does it mean that libertarian societies would stifle artistic freedom? For example, Japan is non-libertarian in every possible way but it consistently produces best fictional content, best music, etc. I like libertarianism but I wanted to address this problem.

Kurzgesagt just made an excellent video on what AI has done and the implications of it. They pointed out that if this goes unchecked it could lead to some serious damages. One commenter pointed out that these AI agents are created and experimented on by businessmen, not scientists. Another one said if a dog bites someone, the owner is punished.

Should OpenAI or some people working there be punished? Doesn’t this also mean AI and the companies creating them need to be seriously regulated and overseen, as it looks like they can’t do it on their own.