/liberty/ - Liberty

>OP thinks that his fascism is better because jews benefit from capitalism

>inb4opdiscoverszionism

>>95972

>>95981

Lol

>>100996

Kikes are children of cain, they bear the mark of cain (circumcision) and have been Chosen by God for misery and suffering. God only keeps enough kikes alive to torture them as a people.

Only the Messiah Christ, deep prayer and celibacy can save these low iq inbred mutants from the wrath of God.

Repent!

>>101538

break time is over, now back to /christian/ asylum

>>101538

cain is not a historical figure

he is as real as zeus or thor

prove me wrong

RASPAKT WOMYN

Fuck off retard, shitting in every thread.

Burning widows is a self-defense tradition that prevents gold digging whores from murdering their husbands. I do accounting for people, you have no idea how common this shit is, theres a female client on her FOURTH estate, keeps coming in every year march 1st on the dot crying her eyes out about how her recent husband had a heart attack (belladonna) hanged himself, fell down stairs, or drowned in a pool. Have any idea how easy it is to wait for a 60 year old man to tire himself out from swiming laps, walk up to him, smile, and just hold his head underwater until the bubbles stop?

Widow burning ENSURED the wife had a vested interest in her husband surviving, women would pick up fucking swords to defend a wounded husband back then.

Also every one of those marriages was consumated, it wouldnt be called a marriage. Often it wasnt one until the wife was pregnant. Because every marriage was consumated, due to microchimerism the wife had a piece of her husbands DNA inside her. The man's DNA is his own property, if he wants to burn it instead of leaving it to his sons in a will, thats his own business.

>>100621

Is that the lake felatio rapist?

>>100699

>moderate leftists

>right wing

God how I hate whites.

>>101392

No, the war didn't start until the second film. That was just a minor (relatively-speaking) skirmish/dispute akin to the Homestead Strike.

>>101437

*Actually, John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry would be a better example.

Useful idiots.

>>101436

No, there isn't a single thing that's "left-wing" about libertarianism. The fundamental principle of libertarianism is private property. The idea of private property is founded entirely on the principle of exclusion–this is mine, and you can't have it. Exclusionary private property is in fundamental opposition to left-wing ideals such as sharing, equality, and xenophilia. Going beyond the idea of private property itself, and looking at the implications of a private property system, one may see that the libertarian order encourages those behaviors associated with social conservatism, including a discriminatory in-group preference and delaying of gratification, while discouraging libertine hedonism, separation of responsibility, and other leftist modes of behavior. Any left-wing detractors to this declaration, who attempt to practice their degenerate lifestyle within a covenant community, will immediately be physically removed from within its border, blacklisted by the businesses and insurance companies, and barred from further entry. If they refuse to comply, either with the initial removal or the subsequent banishment, they will get shot and not a single tear will be shed.

No one is blaming the jedi for having literally created CIS. Jedi in SECRET created a clone army only they control, and then sowed dissent in the republic senate to emasculate it, make it powerless, and give more power to the Jedi themselves. Also there's an undertone where humans, the largest number of citizens, were suppressed during the Jedi's rule to achieve some mystical 'balance' which really meant more control for the perpetually child-hungry Jedi order.

Eventually the Jedi's statism and multiculti created the CIS, which is a pseudo-socialist fascistic body they blamed on the humans!

Would Snowpiercer count as libertarian media?

I know there was one libertarian comic called the Voluntarist or something that was cringy because it put politics before telling a good story.

>>101365

>muh cuckstitution will prevent tyranny

Then explain mass surveillance, gun control, Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Fed, endless war, etc.

>>101376

I would prefer if the government got rid of the laws that enable a small number of banks to wield such power in the first place, but I see no problem with using the state to restrict the power of firms that have obviously benefitted from the state, e.g. Goldman Sachs, Facebook. But I don't think that's going to happen, because the state is sponsored by these entities already, and the media either slanders or blackouts anyone who tries to enter politics with the goal of ending tyranny. Just look what they did to Ron Paul.

>>101384

not prevent, but slow the fuck down and make it more difficult.

Take the difference between the UK and the US. Very similar culture, decently similar genetics. Yet, one country is a place where you get arrested because you twitted something "wrong" and can't buy a butter knife, while in the US you can write whatever you want and own guns.

Why is that? The UK didn't have any constitutional protection, so the first politician with a hitch to scratch could pass whatever the shit he wanted. Meanwhile in the US you need a big majority and then there is the supreme court and the fact that people are more easily educated in what are the basic rules of the society and that they include the government shall make no laws against freedoom of speech and that US citizens can have guns.

Of course this system is not perfect, but it's what we have now and what we have to work with. If you want perfectionism just look at communism and see the results.

>>101356

just create your bank bro

>>101376

>if you are against making laws to stop the banks from banning conservatives and libertarians because "m-muh gubmnenetns"

Point to someone advocating for such a law. All I see are people pointing out that these banks effectively are the government. I have no problem with using state violence against people that would seek to use the same against me.

>>101386

There's a world of difference between acknowledging that the Constitution is occasionally useful as a speedbump and claiming that it's some all-powerful document capable of stopping big government in its tracks. It has some utility at present, but it's still fundamentally deficient as a preventative measure and should be replaced by something even more limiting at the earliest convenience.

>>101318

>How would you survive with mom

Fairly easily. I'd contribute monetary assets and the house, and she'd cook/pay the bills she can afford to pay. Fortunately we're both financially stable enough that this living situation isn't required.

>>101320

>>101343

You know he meant *without

>>101382

>what typo is

>>91344

pass on every opportunity to expand while other power maneuver themselves into superior positions

then ask your citizen if they would voluntarily stop for communist subversion destroying your culture and society

>>101244

Are capitalists hyper-exploitative or are they short-sighted and incapable of reacting to issues in real time? You boot-lickers really need to make up your mind.

GOOD LUCK EBOLA-CHAN!

>>101206

>http

>>101230

https is really only necessary in websites with sensitive user input.

GOOD LUCK EBOLA-CHAN

>>101201

Just glancing at the table of contents…

There's not very much surprising here. Members of different groups tend to act with an in-group preference towards that group. Different groups have different characteristics imparted onto them by biology. These aren't earth-shattering facts, and they have no unilateral implications where policy is concerned.

>>101094

you're right, if I wasn't completely unsatisfied with my life I wouldn't even care about politics. After all I started caring only when I became unsatisfied.

>>100961

There's a pretty clear-cut difference between defending yourself from aggression in the present and initiating aggression against someone who has wronged you in the past. I'm not saying that vigilante justice is morally wrong, mind you, but it is a NAP violation.

>>101054

You're missing the deeper meaning. It's not about whether it is an NAP violation or not, but what variable allows someone to ignore the NAP violation. Clearly ignoring it implies either…

>A) The individual does not recognize it as an NAP violation

>B) The individual recognizes it as an NAP violation but allows it anyways

If A, one can ask "why is it not?" If B, the important question is which variable is making the individual ignore a clear violation of the NAP? Did the guy have it coming? Is it retribution? Is society filled with people who hate the NAP and don't follow it? (If the latter, they must have some system of morality/ethics otherwise society would cease to exist, but in AnCapistan, why WOULD they have a competing set of ethics/how did it survive to let it flourish in society while also allowing a flourishing society?)

These are the important questions, anon.

>>100848

A duel implies both parties consented to the duel. Like in olden days, one man would challenge another man to a duel. If the other accepted than the duel is on. But if the other refused than the initiator cannot take further action. He gets the satisfaction of making the other man look like a coward, but at the end of the day no one gets killed or wounded.

If the duel is refused and the initiator gets butthurt and attacks the other man anyway, than he violates the NAP.

>what if he waves a gun in you face?

Than that can be perceived as a clear and present threat and violates the NAP. The only reason anyone should ever pull out a gun is if he intends to use it right then and there.

>what if he calls you a fag?

Than he calls you a fag. It may hurt your feelings for a bit, but I wouldn't call it an NAP violation. Sometimes you have to put your pride aside and be the bigger person in situations like that and walk away. If you want to make a duel out of it you can, but it makes you look petty.

I hope this helps.

>>101053

why is vigilante justice a nap violation? is institutional justice a nap violation too then?

>>101029

I'm so sorry, who is forcing you to buy video games?

>>101008

I don't see the problem either, sorry. For the customers, it isn't optimal, yes, but the customer doesn't matter more than anyone else. As a customer, I want games to be free and distributed on whatever platform I like, and I don't care about how much that will cost anyone else. Customers, like every other actor on the market, are selfish, insofar as they are customers. Therefore, as customers, they don't have any moral highground. That something is not optimal for the customer is no argument that it is wrong. The game developer and the publisher both seem to profit from their exclusive deals, and why shouldn't they? They put the work in. The game developer spent hundreds or thousands of hours creating the game, and the publisher has to maintain servers, quality control, and all the like. Both would like assured profits for their trouble, and who am I to say they shouldn't have them? My own whims are no more legitimate than their whims.

>>101008

it does not break the nap

>>101013

Sony did the same to Square-Enix (look how long it took for an FF7 pc port) and Sega for their own console, yet there were still competitors to both.

>>101008

Paying a game developer to make a game exclusively for your platform isn't bribery, it's smart business. Microsoft and Sony pay game devs to make console exclusives all the time.

Bribery would be more fitting if a corporation makes a heavy donation to some politician's foundation and in return the politician make policy that favors said company exclusively.