No.13263
Why do the fascists over at /pol/ think we have some kind of alliance?
They're authoritarian fuckwads
No.13264
Because Paleocons are semi-/liberty/ and they think we're all right wing.
While we might be "right wing," I'll side with the syndicalist over the NatSoc any day of the week because the symdicalist, even at their worst, can't do nearly as much harm.
No.13266
You can thank Stefan Molyneux for that. Have you guys ever heard of him? Ancap who has been playing up to the far-right NRx crowd within the last 2-3 years. Especially recently with all the Pro-Donald Trump shilling.
On Rational Wiki they mention that the NRx movement was born out of libertarianism. They are libertarians who believe that freedom and the free market are incompatible with liberal democracy. They have embraced fascism.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Neoreactionary_movement
No.13270
>>13266
>They are libertarians who believe that freedom and the free market are incompatible with liberal democracy.
They're fucking right. Democracy is just mob rule. Voluntaryism is a society absent an entity that claims and is allowed by and endorsed by the sheeple in violating property rights. Voluntaryism/libertarianism is not compatible with a massive coercive entity, even if that entity operates on the basis of what a coalition of the sheeple votes.
You can't have liberty if 51% of the people around you can vote to take away your economic or personal liberty, or your property.
No.13281
>>13270
hence you need a small, local, limited government
No.13282
>>13281
whose only job is the protection of property rights, personal rights, and the national defense.
No.13283
>>13281
whose only job is the protection of property rights, personal rights, and the national defense.
No.13289
>>13270
>sheeple
Are ayncaps always literally autistic?
No.13295
>>13289
No, some just don't understand capitalism. Most are, though.
No.13303
>>13270
I understand that ancaps want no government and libertarians want small government. What I find scary though are the increasing number of libertarians/ancaps who have embraced far-right fascism (the neo-reactionary movement).
Stefan Molyneux in particular used to talk about how he's in favor of open borders back in 2007. And that the real problem is the government and the crony capitalism, not the hard working Mexican illegals. Now he's sucking Donald Trump's dick and saying that we need a wall to keep out the Mexican illegals because Mexicans are pro-big government.
And he's been race-baiting blacks a lot too since the whole Trayvon Martin incident I think. He believes that shooting Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown was justified. He justifies police-on-black violence every time it happens. And he's race-baiting the Syrian refugees hardcore. He believed the police's actions in the whole Ahmed Clock Maker case were justified. He's just a race-baiting asshole. And he makes lots of misogynistic comments and attended an MRA conference. He made some homophobic comments too but then apologized. What do fuckers like that even call themselves ancaps/libertarians anymore? They are practically Tea Party Republicans at this point. There's very little separating them from the Tea Party anymore. They're just not socially conservative when it comes to abortion, Christianity and a few social wedge issues maybe.
Oh and speaking of the Tea Party, they stole your Gadsden flag "Don't Tread On Me."
No.13304
>>13303
>What I find scary though are the increasing number of libertarians/ancaps who have embraced far-right fascism
Yeah I tend to think that's pure astroturfing though. Far right fascism is as diametrically opposed to libertarianism as you can get.
No.13315
>>13303
>Stefan Molyneux in particular used to talk about how he's in favor of open borders back in 2007
Stefan Molyneux, like myself, are still in favor of open borders.
IN A FREE SOCIETY WITHOUT A WELFARE STATE.
You can't have a welfare state AND open borders, it's fucking fiscal suicide. Stefan, like myself, doesn't mind if a person from Mexico moves down the street from me, unless they want to be a drain of $40,000 of forcibly extracted taxpayer dollars per year.
No.13316
>>13303
>>13303
>And he's been race-baiting blacks a lot too since the whole Trayvon Martin incident I think. He believes that shooting Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown was justified
OH no, Michael Brown was shot after he tried to grab a cop's gun and Trayvon was shot after he assaulted some fat ass that was really gung ho about the neighborhood watch program (for good reason, considering the neighborhood had a string of break-ins and Trayvon actually quite prone to criminal behavior.)
No.13320
>>13281
I guess you're getting warmer; smaller government is better than bigger government. The fact that the smaller government is violently and immorally stealing from a smaller amount of people, and maybe even smaller amounts and less often, is good. The fact that they are violently and immorally stealing from people in the first place, however, is a situation I'm not going to ignore.
No.13338
>>13303
I really don't give a shit about Molyneux, but your post reeks of tumblr whinging. The shooting of Trayvon was justified. Who gives a shit about "misogynistic comments" or attending an MRA conference?
No.13342
>>13320
not if the government is small enough to mandate voluntary, not mandatory taxing.
No.13349
>>13338
Molyneux is a loudmouthed asshole. I have no idea how anyone could think he was representative of the majority of ancaps when he was never really into contact with any of the great libertarian thinkers.
No.13350
>>13349
>representative of the majority of ancaps
Maybe because he has like 300,000 subscribers?
No.13359
>>13303
>libertarians/ancaps who have embraced far-right fascism
How can they embrace fascism if they are against authoritarianism and nationalism?
No.13370
>>13266
>On Rational Wiki they mention that the NRx movement was born out of libertarianism.
RationalWiki says a lot of things. On RationalWiki Ryuulong isn't even b& m8.
No.13376
>>13350
So many? In that case, I can see why people think he's relevant. To me, he never seemed to be that important. I've read one of his books but it wasn't really groundbreaking.
>>13359
They can't. Leftyfag must've gotten something wrong.
>>13370
This. RationalWiki is shit-tier.
No.13378
>>13266
>citing RationalWiki
>in this or any possible timelines
No.13380
>>13266
Democracy is pretty shit, but that doesn't excuse using RationalWiki as a source
No.13448
>>13266
Although I don't agree withthe NRx types, they're right on the sense that democracy isn't a cure for all ails.
No.13453
File: 1448938467096.jpg (154.36 KB, 465x820, 93:164, 7f01a25e0ecfc09e0030ef6164….jpg)
No.13454
>>13263
It's because most of /pol/ is libertarian, and National Socialists are a small minority. You would know this if you've ever been there.
The fascist minority gets a lot more attention than it deserves, because people think of Fascism as "bad-guy-ism" and think that any community that allows Fascists is Nazi Germany.
No.13466
>>13454
40% of /pol/ is NatSoc, 30% is conservative, 20% is paleoconservative and 10% is libertarian
No.13469
>>13454
>You would know this if you've ever been there.
I was there. What you said may have hold true in the past, but now the national socialists are the majority.
No.13550
/pol/ is a mixed bag. A lot of right wing libertarians end up there. It's always amusing when some social issue pops up like gay rights rears its head. You have the natsoc storm weenies with their usual "GAS THE FAGGOTS, I BET THIS THREAD WAS MADE BY KIKES TO DIVIDE US!" And the libertarians basically saying "who gives a shit, it's their life and not our place to govern it." Then the infographics and green text kick off.
No.13570
>>13263
lmfao, did you make those pictures yourself? Nobody on /pol/ thinks of /liberty/.
I can think of one or more other boards obsessed with alliances, labels, affiliation and ideology though…
No.13574
>>13550
Infographics are little more than visual forms of thought-terminating cliche. Many of them are misleading, lacking in evidence, or draw false conclusions. To call them redpills is laughable. "Taking the redpill" means finding information on your own and making an informed decision despite those who would deny you the truth. You can't just hand people information that suits your agenda.
And of course there's the people yelling SHILL! KIKE! MODS BAN HIM! when they disagree with you. They're the biggest cancer.
>>13570
The "alliance" OP mentioned is with libertarians, not /liberty/ specifically. It was more like peaceful coexistence, which can happen with either the left or right wing when they have an agenda that requires shrinking government power.
>lmfao
Really nigga? Did you come straight into 8/pol/ from Plebbit or something?
No.13656
>>13574
>>>>nigga
>The "alliance" OP mentioned is with libertarians, not /liberty/ specifically. It was more like peaceful coexistence, which can happen with either the left or right wing when they have an agenda that requires shrinking government power.
Except the left don't have agendas for shrinking the state. Who enforces their collectivism if not the state? Leftists either acknowledge the necessary coercive role of government, deny it and treat the redistributive and coercive force in the economy as something other than a primitive government, or think that one day people will just voluntarily go along with collectivism without the slightest dissent. When someone describes themselves as a leftie libertarian, their liberalism seems to end with the tolerance of sex, drugs, religion and speech. In matters of free association, property and voluntary contract, they're statists through and through. The only reason leftists can at all claim to libertarian is because we live in a world where government is so pervasive that even modest claims to a private life seem radical and 'libertarian'.
The "peaceful coexistence" that existed here before you schmucks got groomed by a crafty band of leftists is more deep-rooted than a shared suspicion of the modern state. People on the right believe in competition and merit. Nationalists and fascists infuse this idea with the unit of a nation or race and celebrate it. Libertarians infuse this idea with the unit of the individual and celebrate it. Both believe that nature has endowed individuals (and races too, perhaps) with unequal faculties, both agree that individuals have a moral right to exploit these to their benefit. Unlike the left, neither makes a virtue out of want. Being poor doesn't legitimise the use of force. Having little does not entitle you to more. Material inequality is not a crime. Mix this with a reverence for established orders and you get a conservative.
Thus the political right. A church which houses market liberals, libertarians, nationalists, fascists, whigs, tories, blue-colour patriots and the industrial classes in a single political unit. Who applied Milton Friedman's monetarism? Not Thatcher, Reagan and Pinochet? Who attacked the primitive mentality of the hippie and the savage? Nor Ayn Rand? Who fought the "civil rights movement" and the social activist state? Not Murray N. Rothbard? Who developed concept of supracapitalismo, enshrining into law the principles that "private initiative, in the field of production, is as the most efficient and useful instrument of the nation"? Not Mussolini? These aren't mere coincidences. The reasons for these are the same reasons which have kept the political right alive on /pol/. There's an idealogical affinity.
No.14257
>>13263
It's called poisoning the well, the Hasbara, and FBI stormfag shills have been doing it for a looong time now, like since 2010, 2011 at least.
No.14258
>>13454
>>13454
>most of /pol/ is libertarian
Yeah may be like 5 years ago, before the FBI stormfag shill carpet bombing of cuckchan, the intensified Hasbara by the zionists and their pushing of the neoreactionary movement.
No.14259
>>14257
>>14258
>trying to revive bs circlejerk threads
die
No.14262
>>14259
Trying to revive? No, just coming back to these dank depths after months of not being here, putting in my two cents.
No.14266
>>14262
Why not bump one of the pedo threads instead? They are way more fun.
No.14268
No.14271
No.16447
>>13263
>>13263
does anyone have the other pic with the 2 hands shaking?
also we are allies until we get rid of the commie scum and leftist cancer, after that we will see…
currently there is a massive divide and conquer action going on on pol and they have threads suggesting to gas us like their kikes
we need to get pol united again
No.16460
>>16447
>national socialists
>not leftists
No.16461
>>16447
Besides, who cares what those neonazi retards think. They'd gas their own mothers if she couldn't run away fast enough.
No.16482
>>16460
>third position
>left
>>16447
Sorry, but libertarianism is judaism in idealogical form
No.16485
>>13263
The alliance isn't between National Socialists and Libertarians. It's between National Socialists and National Libertarians.
In other words, obey them on everything to do with nation and race and degeneracy and drugs and they might throw you a bone on economics… by privatizing state assets but then forcing them into a ultra-corporatist system.
No.16486
>>13303
NRx are really post-libertarian, since they put formalism over actual liberty.
In other words, instead of saying that government should be disbanded they just want to privatize it through formalism, where those who pay the most taxes have the highest ownership share, so essentially turning government into a corporation, and making everybody else's property a mere subsidiary of government.inc.
They are pretty much just corporatists. Essentially, a strawman of standard libertarianism taken seriously as a real desired outcome.
No.16487
>>16482
>libertarianism is judaism in idealogical form
Well said, my natsoc brother. That's why all the founding fathers were Jewish and Israel is a free market paradise
No.16489
>>16482
>>third position
>>left
Bullshit advanced by Hitler because of how self-conscious he was of how similar his bullshit was to communism. Disregarding all the rhetoric about muh workers/proletariat and how 'decadent' western democracies were it shared with communism, let's look at the actual facts of the ideology.
>state planning
>major industries owned by the state
>forced consolidation
>suppressed consumption
It was undeniably socialism, which is probably why it was in the fucking party's name. Being a bunch of cocksucking authoritarian racial supremacists to boot certainly doesn't make them 'le special snowflake third position', they're just your garden variety leftie thief cunts of seventy years ago.
No.16501
>>16447
>we need to get pol united again
Nope, fuck that. I left that board almost a year ago to this day when that faggot imkampfy took over and autolocked/autosage'd half of my Libertarian threads, going so far as to ban me for three weeks when I told him to fuck off because the old BO was never a biased fuckwad like him, and I haven't looked back since.
/pol/ is the personification of everything that was wrong with the second exodus. Most of them don't even understand this image nor give two shits about it, showing how much they care for why we migrated in the first place.
Fuck 'em.
No.16527
>>16447
fuck outta here, retard.
I like my slow board, unfilled catalog and the fact that I can comfortably reply to posts and have a sane discussion.
~99% of /pol/ is just 4chan trolls who try and act superior here becuase it's where the oldfags went, and where the "oldfags" supposedly are.
Also they're cancer, and I have no incentive to reply to 50 new, shallow "lol liberty BTFO!!11!1!1" posts every day.
No.16528
No.16622
so does anyone have the pic or not?
I should have saved it in fall 2014 when it was stickied
No.16645
>>16622
no, nobody has that pic and fuck off
No.16656
>>13263
Because you both believe in social darwinism even if it means that children starve to death or are gassed.
No.16657
>>16527
Not to mention the feeling of despondence when you see someone saying something thoughtless and then acting superior. "fuckin' lolbertarian btfo! you guys are retards!"
No.16661
>>16656
Bullshit, the nazis believe in subsidizing useless imbeciles because MUH VOLK
No.16668
>>16656
I believe all life has value, but it's a personal test of every life to show that value to survive. Nonintervention in this sense is not intervening with that life's attempt to survive. You can call this eugenics, but it's not really the same thing. As a pacifist, I believe killing is wrong and imprisonment as a form of reparation is almost always wrong, thus I advocate avoiding both whenever possible.
Socialists claim to value all life, but are quick to kill or imprison anyone who dissents/suggests alternatives in practice under mob rule.
I'd rather be the "eugenicist" that lets the nigger who had 20 kids "starve" virtually impossible under Capitalism lol, than starve millions via an active Holocene 2.0.
No.16669
>>16668
Holodomor*
Damn it, autocorrect, yah fucking commie.
No.16670
>>16661
Like most early 20. century socialists, the Nazis we're big on eugenics. Their desire was to elevate their ethnicity to an ever higher state of existence. It was social planning on the genetic/ethnic level. The Fabians shared the same idea as did many far-left Americans.
https://archive.is/7rh15
No.16671
Nothing wrong with eugenics, family planning or genetic self improvement btw. It's not significantly different from private education.
No.16676
>>16447
The one thing we have in common is that we both hate commies. Our similarities end right there; you hate the commies because of muh judaism and muh degeneracy, we hate them because muh property and muh liberty. The other contender for something that we have in common is that both libertarians and natsocs claim to value human excellency, but considering that natsocs have a collectivist view of what passes as excellent, this barely counts.
No.17672
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
Hahaha, suck it up, leftietarian faggots. You are not really evil, but you are useless to combat the commies and the brown hordes. I'll take Nazis over you for that reason alone.
No.17673
>>16656
> muh social darwinism
> implying it's a matter of opinion or moral worldview
> implying social creationism isn't the denial of scientific fact
Good genes tend to prevail, either within a social darwinist society or through collapse and self-destruction of social creationist societies.
No.17682
>>17672
You're the only one, fucktard. Nazis ARE leftists, it's all the same raft of socialist shit with some racism spraypainted on the side. Fuck yourselves anybody that humors those faggots.
No.17688
>>17672
>that channel
>those comments
wew
No.17693
>>17682
> You're the only one, fucktard.
I know for sure there are more like me on /liberty/ because I've read their comments. But more to the point, many people on /pol/ are libertarians. Last time I checked, only 40% identified as NatSoc, and I'd say most of them are former libertarians who got sick of the overwhelming leftie bias of Jew-dominated mainstream media.
> Nazis ARE leftists, it's all the same raft of socialist shit with some racism spraypainted on the side.
You have it backwards. Nazis (and Fascists) are essentially right-wing socialists, and the socialist part is just a tool for social cohesion. Believe me, talking a Nazi out of leftie economics is far easier than talking a leftie anarchist out of outcome-egalitarianism. The main problem with actual Nazis is they blame everything on Jews and Jews alone.
My position is basically that of MIses:
"It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error."
https://mises.org/library/foundations-liberal-policy
Hoppe is known to hold similar views. In the big picture, leftie-tarians are the ones increasingly alone.
>>17688
Welcome to 21st century politics, friend ;)
No.17696
>>17693
>I'd say most of them are former libertarians who got sick of the overwhelming leftie bias of Jew-dominated mainstream media.
Extremely correct. I think there are a lot of us post-libertarians who are going forward from the ron paul days to something new that we don't know what it is yet. And I don't care much for anti-semitism but I do not have any love for ragheads and niggers.
>Believe me, talking a Nazi out of leftie economics is far easier than talking a leftie anarchist out of outcome-egalitarianism.
Once again extremely correct. I rather live in a whites only society with the draft (essentially slavery but I can live with it).
I'd say let the leftie-tarians run wild with their bernie sanders friends. Because that is all it really is. They want to be a part of their friends communist social circles. I rather be a part of white natsoc circles than be a friend with a fucking communist.
No.17697
>>17696
Your comment is shit and you should feel bad
There's nothing left-wing about personal liberty
There's nothing in >being free to do whatever you want without hurting anyone< which says you have to love ragheads or niggers and be around them, at all.
No.17698
>>17697
I'd rather trade some freedom to live in a white nationalist nation with mostly free market economics. Sorry man but leftie-tarians can go fuck themselves together with their berniecucks.
No.17699
>>17697
You are misunderstanding his/our position.
> There's nothing left-wing about personal liberty
There's nothing libertarian about letting commies walk all over you and letting foreign hordes invade and take over your country.
> There's nothing in "being free to do whatever you want without hurting anyone" which says you have to love ragheads or niggers and be around them, at all.
That's what at the very least 60% of /pol/ believes.
No.17702
>>17699
Minarchists will always be in opposition to the leftietarians. Minarchism is the only brand of libertarianism that actually resides in the realm of reality. Trade some ideas for reality friends. Because I rather pull up my sleeves and make 75% of my ideas reality than 0%.
No.17703
>>13263
Divide and conquer shill GTFO
No.17704
>>17702
I'll tell you how this argument will go: I will ask you why anarchism is utopian. You will tell me it's because humans need a state to maintain order. I will cite examples of social order without a state to enforce them. At this point, the argument could go in one of several directions:
>Times are different! We're not in medieval Ireland anymore
There will be no further explanation as to why a lack of state control only works when you're in medieval Ireland. Obviously, this argument won't work with the Xeer, the early USA or more modern examples.
>None of these examples were really stateless
If one nation had a privatized army, another had privatized courts and police, and another privatized infrastructure, then obviously, all of these things can be privatized, and unless some factors are overlooked (whatever factors that would be), it would stand to reason they could all be privatized at the same time, too.
>If anarchy works so well, then why does it always lose to statism?
All societies fail at some point. Failure is not a peculiar trait of quasi-anarchist societies.
Did I miss something? Feel free to tell me I missed something. I'd appreciate it if you'd give me a response I haven't heard already, too.
No.17706
>>17702
> Minarchism is the only brand of libertarianism that actually resides in the realm of reality.
You mean because there's no ancap country? Well, America is no minarchy nowadays, if it ever was. I'm willing to support minarchists as long as they are moving in the right direction. I don't see why I should change my political ideals.
No.17707
>>17706
Keep you ideals. I literally don't care.
No.17708
D&C IN FULL EFFECT
SAGE IN ALL FIELDS
No.17709
>>17707
My point is I don't have to "trade my ideas for reality", I can have both ;)
No.17710
>>16656
Why should genes that aren't fit for reproduction be reproduced?
I'm not saying anyone should be gassed but if you can't feed your offspring then you shouldn't be having any and nature will take care of that.
No.17711
No.17717
non cuck libertarian minarchist here libertys a white thing, im ok with the fash
No.17718
Well lets face it.
For now we have the same enemy.
The globalists hate us as much as they hate you. Well no thats not true they hate us more because you're easier to keep under control.
Because our ideas are a lot more dangerous as they call for active opposition and a lasting liberation with the creation of a better people.
Plus we hate sweatshops.
No.17720
I go to /pol/ cus I didn't realise this board existed.
They're bretty funny tbh and have some fun times.
No.17721
They don't. It's just most of them used to be libertarians so they sympathise with you.
No.17726
It's not about alliance. It's about doing what we tell you to because you're a minority.
No.17728
>>13263
>They're authoritarian fuckwads
What an adult introduction to foster dialog.
I was a Libertarian.
Even before it started leaning left, and then became trendy and was infiltrated by the PC Crowd and people who wanted to talk about tone and aspects not directly relating to Libertarianism.
Mainly, I just want representation that represent the interests of me, my people and fellow countrymen, even if it happens to be to the detriment of other countries and non-citizens who exist within my borders.
I believe in borders, something at least half of Libertarians have issues with. These post is my argument.
>>13315
>Stefan Molyneux, like myself, are still in favor of open borders.
>
>IN A FREE SOCIETY WITHOUT A WELFARE STATE.
Even if these percentages were true:
>>13466
>40% of /pol/ is NatSoc, 30% is conservative, 20% is paleoconservative and 10% is libertarian
They are better than anything running this country right now. At least these groups of people are aware of actual liberty, economics and science. I am not a religious person, but I do acknowledge it as part of a culture and a national foundation.
Islam is a cancer. Israel has too much influence on American Affair, it's as if we are a commonwealth of their country.
The Pledge of Allegiance used to mean something. Money didn't used to be free speech for political candidates, and if Corporations are people - how come none have been to jail or executed yet?
No.17729
>>17728
>Corporations are people
It's better to think of them as states without a nation.
Meaning you couldn't imprison them. But you could place sanctions on them or go to war with them.
No.17730
/pol/ here
Stefan Molyneux is a sociopathic cult leader who's worldview consists of nothing but mommy issues, he's been having succes with more impressionable /pol/acks who don't know about his past and see a red pill as anything that panders to them. The /pol/acks who call themselves libertarian do so because libertarianism is the standard white dude ideology, they haven't yet realised that it is the ideology of the merchant/banker class and that they are the goys worshipping the temple of mammom.
The only function that libertarians possibly have is exposing the true nature of the merchant ideology that is so embarrasing that the merchants itself rather keep it hidden.
No.17738
>>17730
>Stefan Molyneux is a sociopathic cult leader who's worldview consists of nothing but mommy issues
Impressive reasoning. Very nice.
Stefan encourages critical thinking (even if you think he's bad at it), and debate. He encourages people to consider alternative moral principles, even if you think the framework by which it is done (UPB) is completely invalid. If you encourage people to examine outside ideas, especially when they're only beginning to look into your ideas, it seems to me that necessarily excludes you from being a cult leader.
I get it, a cult leader wants to cut people off. The issue is, Stefan is not demanding that you refuse to talk to people that aren't An-Caps, he's given two reasons for breaking off a relationship. He has never commanded this, but he has made a case for what should be done.
-Leaving family of origin. Stefan recognizes that spanking is thoroughly immoral- it's much worse than hitting a wife that voluntarily entered the relationship, is capable of leaving, and can use a weapon to defend herself somewhat adequately. Children never volunteered to have their shit kicked in because you don't understand that human-imposed aversion therapy is extremely ineffective in the long term, and it will wear off as soon as the child is capable of recognizing patterns; this means parents that spank for 10 years have been flooding their child with neurotoxins (cortisol) which shrinks their complex reasoning center (neocortex) and increases the size of their amygdala (more impulsive/stronger fight or flight reaction) for a decade because they're too fucking stupid to understand that negotiating and reasoning are infinitely more effective in long term behavior effects than aversion therapy which depends upon NEVER missing a beat (literally, pun intended).
Spanking is completely flawed as a theory of aversion therapy because
1. You will not be able to apply it consistently enough to create a negative association with the vast majority of bad behaviors, the negative association will be created with getting caught and the parent his or herself
2. It has negative side effects: see, turning your child into cavemangiganigger 2.0 by giving their developing brain damage à la PTSD
3. IT'S FUCKING RETARDED TO HIT A CHILD TO DEMONSTRATE THE EVILS OF HITTING; IF IT'S EVIL, WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU HITTING THEM. Even a child can get the hypocrisy, even if you say "durr, but it's only for demonstration porpoises, good raisin right?" (Yes, people who spank are so fucking stupid the words they speak are misspelled).
Don't give me the DURR BEST THEY COULD WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THEY HAD shit. If I know your life depends on me winning a marathon in a year, I can sit on my ass the whole time, run my ass off at the day of the race, and I technically did the best I had… from the day of the race onward.
So yes, if your parents spanked you thousands of times during your childhood, and they were emotionally abusive, and if they ever apologize it's in the form of "I'm sorry but (blah blah fuck you I'm not sorry)" and if they do apologize once they refuse to make any effort to see that you're satisfied that they have made up for a decade-and-a-half of abuse, it's completely up to you as to whether or not you want to continue that voluntary relationship. He recommends you have talk therapy (with a therapist who will at least consider deFOOing) before you end contact with them.
No.17742
>>17738
now for the against meme argument
-You do not have to cut people off if they "fail" this test for Anarchism
-You do not have to accept this argument at all, you're free to argue against it
-You're free to accept the validity of this argument and be an inconsistent an-cap
-If you want to be a consistent an-cap and you recognize this argument as valid.. and you aren't implementing it with people who you've exposed to anarchism for a long time… pick one (consistency/statist friends).
The argument is basically as follow, let's pretend it's a neocon:
-I would never dream of violating your right to disagree with me. Would you afford me the same right to disagree with you?
-Certainly.
-So if I disagreed with the Iraq War in the 2000s, you would agree that I should be free to act on my disagreement with it?
-Of course.
-So if I refused to pay the portion of my taxes that would go to the Iraq War, you wouldn't demand that I be imprisoned?
-Well, (blah blah I wouldn't like it), but there needs to be a rule of law.
-So I'm not free to disagree with you?
-Blah blah fog rule of law blah blah fog
-You understand that all these laws you want to impose are enforceable to the death? That if I act on my disagreement with them, they will first send letters, and if I resist they'll send police officers, and if I resist effectively they'll send bullets, if not, I'll be put in a cage. Are you saying I should be shot for acting on the basis of my conscience?
>No, but-
>So you're an anarchist?
>No, blah blah blah
>Either you're an anarchist, and I'm free to withdraw my support from whatever pet programs you prefer, or you're a statist, and you want me to be shot if I refuse to comply with whatever arbitrary dictums the mob has decided to impose.
To be clear, this is only effective if they understand that anarchism doesn't mean chaos and rape, you're not supposed to run up to everyone you've known for 5 minutes, this is like a last resort where you've talked to somebody for 3 years and they're still advocating pure fucking evil like foreign interventionism, drug war, FDA (The Jungle was bullshit, see Theodore Roosevelt, to paraphrase, Upton Sinclair is hysterical and dishonest), etc.
You can be an anti-racist and be friends with racists (I don't include Charles Murray in this group).
You can not be a consistent anti-racist and be friends with /pol/-tier racists. Look, you don't have to write off all racists right away, but if you present great arguments (let's say in 1835) that slavery is evil, and your "friend" still supports it years later, it's time to move on.
No.17743
>>17738
>Stefan encourages critical thinking
Stefan bans people who disagree with him on his forum, uses DMCA claims against people who critise him and urges people to cut of all contact with people who aren't ancaps. This is Critical Thinking™ , a brand name for an ideology, not a concept.
SJW's are know for their motte and bailey tactics, but molybots take it to a whole new level.
>If you encourage people to examine outside ideas, especially when they're only beginning to look into your ideas, it seems to me that necessarily excludes you from being a cult leader.
Cult leaders are judged as cult leaders by their behavior, not about the superficial disclaimers they use. You know how fucked up molyneux is, which is why you use such generic feel-good language instead of lining out his actual ideology.
>I get it, a cult leader wants to cut people off. The issue is, Stefan is not demanding that you refuse to talk to people that aren't An-Caps, he's given two reasons for breaking off a relationship. He has never commanded this, but he has made a case for what should be done.
Ah, I see, your mother wants you shot, your entire family wants you shot, everyone who isn't an ancap wants you shot and if you don't cut of all contact with them you're pathetic scum who doesn't have a shred of dignity… but it's really suggest a humble suggestion..
The family stuff is what it is all really about, the libertarianism is all copy pasted from others, it's a tool for recruitment, something that he has recently cast aside in an attempt to appeal to /pol/ types. Molyneux hates his family, this hatred made families into his Big Other, his entire ideology is based around their destruction and their replacement with his own wretched ego. He claims to be the saviour of philosophy, yet he doesn't know a thing about it. He is incapable of realising this because his stunted development makes him unable to see concepts as being detached from his ego, all other philosophy isn't even philosophy to him, because he is the greatest philosopher in the world and he doesn't understand it, so it isn't philosophy.
I recently saw a video in which emotionally manipulated his daughter into watching his "critique of frozen", he is all irony, he claims to be the only non-abusive parent in the world, yet cannot see his daugther as anything else but an appendix of his ego.
Freedom to molyneux, means being an appendix of his ego, and being removed from all else. It is totalitarianism at it's most kafkaesque.
No.17746
>>17743
What is it about Jews that makes them so good at starting religious followings?
No.17750
>>17742
He states that you do need to do that. There's no working around it, he literally did so, it follows from his ideology and he has never retracted. He hates everyone who isn't ancap, believes they want to murder him and orders his followers to remove anyone from their lives who isn't a member of his cult.
The great irony is again, that the Molyneux ideology doesn't leave people with any freedom at all. By turning freedom into a holy principle that is only expressed in the molyneux ideology, it is totalitarian, ironically totalitarian, the worst kind of totalitarianism.
>>17746
I think it is them seeing themselves as the chosen people, they are chosen, the rest is cattle, lucky to be lead. The irony of judaism, is that it is nazism for jews, with nazism being judaism for whites.
No.17751
>>17743
>Stefan bans people who disagree with him on his forum,
People disagree with him on a daily basis and don't get banned. Sorry if he banned you for shitposting.
>uses DMCA claims against people who critise him
DUDE FDR LIBERATED LMAO. There's plausible deniability in this case, if you're stating it as proven fact, you're a faggot.
>This is Critical Thinking™ , a brand name for an ideology, not a concept.
You haven't denied that he encourages debate.
>SJW's are know for their motte and bailey tactics, but molybots take it to a whole new level.
"Motte and bailey" tactics are, at worst, dishonest (not necessarily fallacious), not to mention you're a huge dick enveloping faggot if you're going to claim people use motte and bailey tactics without giving a clear example of how it is done.
>inb4 you have one example of an an-cap who doesn't understand shit about shit, therefore the whole philosophy is le dumb xddd
>Cult leaders are judged as cult leaders by their behavior, not about the superficial disclaimers they use
Lol, are you still spilling spaghetti about getting ass raped in that debate? How tsundere~
>You know how fucked up molyneux is
DUDE BEGGING THE QUESTION LMAO
>
Ah, I see, your mother wants you shot, your entire family wants you shot, everyone who isn't an ancap wants you shot and if you don't cut of all contact with them you're pathetic scum who doesn't have a shred of dignity… but it's really suggest a humble suggestion..
See above explanation of against me argument, retard. It's not something you're supposed to present to someone you've never discussed anarcho-capitalism with.
>the libertarianism is all copy pasted from others,
Good to know you're such a patrician original philosopher yourself. I'm sure know Western philosopher has ever borrowed ideas, or dedicated his life towards the spreading and refinement of an existing philosophy. EXCEPT FOR THAT FUCKING THIEF THOMAS AQUINAS, WHAT AN UNORIGINAL FAGGOT!
>it's a tool for recruitment
You realize if his goal was going to make a cult he'd be much better off with religion? See: Branch Dravidians. Far more dedicated than libertarians.
>Molyneux hates his family,
Yeah, and anyone who hates their family must be insane, right? Fun fact, according to my article on FDRliberated, not a single person in human history has ever had a legitimate reason to end contact with their family.
>He claims to be the saviour of philosophy, yet he doesn't know a thing about it
DUDE HYPERBOLE LMAO
>all other philosophy isn't even philosophy to him, because he is the greatest philosopher in the world and he doesn't understand it, so it isn't philosophy.
DUDE STRAWMAN LMAO
>I recently saw a video in which emotionally manipulated his daughter into watching his "critique of frozen",
DUDE, NEVER LET PEOPLE IN YOUR LIFE HAVE AN OPEN AND HONEST VIEW OF HOW THEIR BEHAVIOR MAKES YOU FEEL, LMAO
>It is totalitarianism at it's most kafkaesque.
Top kek. Nice meme, do they have all this shit on file at stefanmolyneuxmademyabusedchild stoptalkingtome/becauseIrefusedtoapologizeformyactions/catalog.html?
No.17753
>>17750
>He states that you do need to do that.
To be consistent, if you can not present an argument against its validity.
>There's no working around it,
The work around is not being a libertarian, not being a consistent libertarian, or finding a flaw in the argument. Faggot.
>He hates everyone who isn't ancap,
Dude hyperbole lmao. Yeah, that's why he interviews so many people who aren't ancaps.
>believes they want to murder him
DUDE MISREPRESENTATION OF AGAINST MEME LMAO
>The great irony is again, that the Molyneux ideology doesn't leave people with any freedom at all
Do you actually believe this shit? I find it hard to imagine this wasn't copy pasted out of some Molyneux hit site.
>By turning freedom into a holy principle
LOL, IF I USE ENOUGH DISMISSIVE TERMINOLOGY I MAKE ARGUMENTS?
Cool, in that case, by turning Molyneux-hate into a holy principle you're a gigantic nigger.
>the worst kind of totalitarianism.
yeah, I mean, it's literally impossible to imagine a worse form, right?
You can spew bullshit hyperboles, fallacies, and misrepresentations much faster than I can point them out, so just pretend I spent 5 full posts debunking it and you can skip to the part where you stick your fingers in your ears and close your eyes while crying.
No.17754
>>17751
>Lol, are you still spilling spaghetti about getting ass raped in that debate? How tsundere
Shit, I forgot to call you Thunderfoot. That's what that meant.
No.17755
>>17751
>>17753
>>17754
>meanwhile he posts my replies on FDRliberated, shit guys, I didn't think they'd actually call out all these fallacies, what do I say next? I need some more one-liner ad hominem attacks that are somehow valid arguments
No.17759
>>17751
Your post is form and done in the usual style of the misfortunates who follow molyneux. Name dropping terms, motte and bailey tactics and non-sensical rebutals.
>DUDE FDR LIBERATED LMAO. There's plausible deniability in this case, if you're stating it as proven fact, you're a faggot.
He did so, he violated the NAP. You know this, you probably agree with it because those people who expose him are undermining the saviour of humanity, I get it. Now drop the act.
>"Motte and bailey" tactics are, at worst, dishonest (not necessarily fallacious), not to mention you're a huge dick enveloping faggot if you're going to claim people use motte and bailey tactics without giving a clear example of how it is done.
Motte and bailey tactics are some of the worst tactics there are, it allows people to deny actuality by claiming principles. You use the motte and bailey tactic by retreating to the position that molyneux "just encourages debate", when he runs a totalitarian cult.
>See above explanation of against me argument, retard. It's not something you're supposed to present to someone you've never discussed anarcho-capitalism with.
No, that's the position you retreat to, to quell your cognitive dissonance. He literally states that all people who are not ancaps wants you shot, he literally states that you need to remove them from your life.
>You realize if his goal was going to make a cult he'd be much better off with religion? See: Branch Dravidians. Far more dedicated than libertarians.
"I didn't kill anyone with a knife! A gun would be far more effective" Now you're getting truly ridicoulous, there being cult leaders who are more intelligent, interesting, charming, likeable and succesfull than molyneux doesn't mean that libertarianism isn't his recruitment tool.
>Yeah, and anyone who hates their family must be insane, right?
No, but Molyneux is insane, his mommy issues are so gigantic that they constitute his entire worldview. He is the one-dimensional man, a living characterture from a kafka novel.
>>17753
>You can spew bullshit hyperboles, fallacies, and misrepresentations much faster than I can point them out, so just pretend I spent 5 full posts debunking it and you can skip to the part where you stick your fingers in your ears and close your eyes while crying.
You seem very panicked, you don't refute, don't argue and copy paste the usual talking point to quell your cognitive dissonance, all the while crying fallacy. You go through my post point-for-point, not being able to write a well written response in which you make your case, instead, you give me a non-response to every sentence. "no you!", "hyperbole", "not an argument!", "that's what the enemy says!", "you are with the enemy!". All snippets, all pavlovian respones, all indicating the lack of critical thinking, assesment and reading skills. That is the irony I was talking about, making Logic and Reason into patented brand names, and leaving you with no actual ability to reason, making freedom into holy principle, and thereby encapturing you in a cult that doesn't leave you with any freedom at all.
No.17761
>>17755
>>17755
>>17759
>Name dropping terms, motte and bailey tactics and non-sensical rebutals.
1. You can not present a sensible rebuttal to someone that doesn't present any arguments and just practices the tried and true leftist tactics of ad hominem and assorted fallacies
2. Saying that a fallacy is a "name drop" does not mean that what you said was not fallacious and it does not mean I do not understand the terms. Ad hominem attacks are attacking the person in lieu of the argument. You've done this. It's one thing to attack his character, it's another to imply those attacks have any bearing on his philosophy, which is exactly what you did. Faggot.
>He did so, he violated the NAP
Actually, he didn't make the request, Michael did, not to mention there's the plausible excuse of using this to prevent doxxing.
>you probably agree with it because those people who expose him are undermining the saviour of humanity, I get it.
Not really. If this is his "biggest, greatest hypocrisy" you guys are really making a gigantic mountain out of a molehill. The fact that you guys are taking this unproven wrongdoing as incontrovertible proof he's literally Hitler just shows me you're all irrational cunts with low standards of evidence for that which pleases you emotionally.
>it allows people to deny actuality by claiming principles.
Do you even know what a motte and bailey tactic is? It's having a system of thought where hard to defend but desired aspects are abandoned in a debate in favor of hard to attack but less desirable aspects. This is not fallacious, it is at worst dishonest, and you refuse to explain how any an-cap does this. Go fuck yourself.
>No, that's the position you retreat to
Except it's not. I would never present the against me argument without having spent at least a dozen hours explaining anarcho-capitalism to someone, when I had essentially reached an impasse.
>Now you're getting truly ridicoulous
Solid spelling there. Good to know you're infinitely more wise and intelligent than Stef, but would get your ass kicked in a 5th grade spelling bee.
>he literally states that you need to remove them from your life.
Good to see you understand everything about anarhco-capitalism better than I do.
>BUT THAT'S A HYPOERBOLE
TWO CAN PLAY AT THIS GAME, LOLOLOLOLOL
>No, but Molyneux is insane,
[citation needed]
Oh, wait, it's going to be some Molyneux hitsite, don't care.
>You seem very panicked, you don't refute,
YOU HAVEN'T PRESENTED ANY ARGUMENT ALL YOU HAVE DONE IS ASSERT HE'S EVIL/CHILDISH/DUMB AND THEREFORE LOL AN-CAPS ARE SHEEPLE, THAT'S NOT AN ARGUMENT YOU FUCKING RETARD
No.17763
>>17761
smh, I should proof read before I call out this fag for his spelling
No.17764
>>17761
>1. You can not present a sensible rebuttal to someone that doesn't present any arguments and just practices the tried and true leftist tactics of ad hominem and assorted fallacies
You can not present a sensible rebuttal because your pavlovian response overrides your ability to do so, because you run on talking points that you don't comprehend well enough beyond the ability to name drop them, you have to quote me sentence-by-sentence instead of actually engaging my post
>2. Saying that a fallacy is a "name drop" does not mean that what you said was not fallacious and it does not mean I do not understand the terms. Ad hominem attacks are attacking the person in lieu of the argument. You've done this. It's one thing to attack his character, it's another to imply those attacks have any bearing on his philosophy, which is exactly what you did. Faggot.
An ad-hominem would be stating that molyneux is wrong, because he is a deeply distubed cult leader. I did not do so, I stated that he is wrong, and that he is deeply disturbed cult leader. Ad-hominem doesn't mean saying mean things about molyneux.
>It's having a system of thought where hard to defend but desired aspects are abandoned in a debate in favor of hard to attack but less desirable aspects.
Which is exactly what you are doing, you abondon molyneux's statements about defooing anyone who isn't an ancap and retreat to "spanking is bad". You retreat from molyneux's operating of his cult, and fall back to his generic libertarian arguments.
>Solid spelling there. Good to know you're infinitely more wise and intelligent than Stef, but would get your ass kicked in a 5th grade spelling bee.
NOT AN ARGUMENT HYPERBOLE FALLACIOUS DO U EVEN KNOW LOGIC U NIGGER RETARD
>YOU HAVEN'T PRESENTED ANY ARGUMENT ALL YOU HAVE DONE IS ASSERT HE'S EVIL/CHILDISH/DUMB AND THEREFORE LOL AN-CAPS ARE SHEEPLE, THAT'S NOT AN ARGUMENT YOU FUCKING RETARD
I have presented a pavlovian subject demonstrating his training, proving my point by example. "That's not argument", that drilled line, that instant dismissal of all that is not of his cult as not even belonging to humaning reasoning and argumentation, is the totalitarian irony of the molybots.
No.17765
>>17764
>You can not present a sensible rebuttal because your pavlovian response
Pathologizing your opponents was done by Soviets to dissidents, do you think that was a valid tactic? One slave owner came up with a theory that the desire to run away in slaves was a mental illness (which could be triggered by particularly brutal treatment). Congratulations on achieving the same sophistic excellence as Soviets and slave owners. Faggot.
>An ad-hominem would be stating that molyneux is wrong,
Which is exactly what you did. You criticized his philosophy multiple times, you didn't just say "lol he's a big meany so think he's a bad person" but also "therefore his philosophy is le shit xdd"
>Which is exactly what you are doing
For me to implement a motte and bailey tactic I'd have to FIRST PRESENT A "MOTTE" ARGUMENT
IF YOU CRITICIZE SOMEONE ELSE'S MOTTE AND I CRTICIZE YOU FROM THE BAILEY, THIS DOES NOT MEAN I AM USING MOTTE/BAILEY, THIS MEANS YOU'RE TALKING TO TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE, FAGGOT
>NOT AN ARGUMENT HYPERBOLE FALLACIOUS DO U EVEN KNOW LOGIC U NIGGER RETARD
If you're going to spew fallacies I'm not going to avoid them in my responses ;))))))
>I have presented a pavlovian subject demonstrating
Lol, you realize Pavlov had nothing to do with cognitive dissonance? Retard.
>BUT YOU HAD A NEGATIVE RESPONSE TO STRONGLY DIFFERING OPINIONS, LE PAVLOV:)))
Most people do have a negative response to strongly differing opinions, dumb fuck, guess that means the whole world is a giant cult.
No.17766
>>17765
>Pathologizing your opponents was done by Soviets to dissidents, do you think that was a valid tactic? One slave owner came up with a theory that the desire to run away in slaves was a mental illness (which could be triggered by particularly brutal treatment). Congratulations on achieving the same sophistic excellence as Soviets and slave owners. Faggot.
Guilty by association! F-A-L-L-A-C-Y
No, the soviets locking up dissidents in psychiatric clinics does not make molyneux any less of an narcissistc megalomaniac with gigantic mommy issues.
>Which is exactly what you did. You criticized his philosophy multiple times, you didn't just say "lol he's a big meany so think he's a bad person" but also "therefore his philosophy is le shit xdd"
I said his philosophy follows from his insanity, I did not say that what he says is wrong because he is insane.
>For me to implement a motte and bailey tactic I'd have to FIRST PRESENT A "MOTTE" ARGUMENT
The motte is the defooing and believes about all non-ancaps being abusers you need to remove from your life, the bailey is the "spanking is bad" you retreated to in response.
>Most people do have a negative response to strongly differing opinions, dumb fuck, guess that means the whole world is a giant cult.
You didn't simply have a stronly negative response, you didn't even address me in a contradicting manner, you spouted indoctrinated lines that are used as standard responses to anything that invokes cognitive dissonance in you. That's a pavlovian response, the drilled lines, the standard procedure, the particularity of it in all molyneux's subjects.
No.17767
>>17766
The bailey is the defooing, the motte is spanking is bad*
No.17768
>>17766
>Guilty by association!
I'm not saying you're guilty of the same magnitude of crime, I'm saying you're using the same bullshit tactics.
>I said his philosophy follows from his insanity, I did not say that what he says is wrong because he is insane.
Sure you did. Motte and bailey. Stefan is wrong because he is insane, retreating to "Stefan only thinks what he does because he's insane, that's not why his philosophy is wrong." Good one.
>The motte is the defooing and believes about all non-ancaps being abusers you need to remove from your life, the bailey is the "spanking is bad" you retreated to in response.
Lolwut? I never abandoned the "against me" argument, so you can't say I retreated to the bailey. Retard. In fact, I STARTED with spanking and then addressed the "against me", which would imply that I retreated to the less defensible position, were I doing a motte/bailey tactic. Top memes, lad.
>you spouted indoctrinated lines
No, you did. :^)
No.17769
>>17768
>I'm not saying you're guilty of the same magnitude of crime, I'm saying you're using the same bullshit tactics.
And this is coming from someone who believes that the only reason that people that aren't ancaps is child abuse induced pathology.
>Sure you did. Motte and bailey. Stefan is wrong because he is insane, retreating to "Stefan only thinks what he does because he's insane, that's not why his philosophy is wrong." Good one.
Stefan's wrong philosophy follows from his psychology, his psychological status is insanity.
>Lolwut? I never abandoned the "against me" argument, so you can't say I retreated to the bailey. Retard. In fact, I STARTED with spanking and then addressed the "against me", which would imply that I retreated to the less defensible position, were I doing a motte/bailey tactic. Top memes, lad.
You didn't address the "against me" in itself, you tried toning it down to something that actually comes down to the same thing and started talking about spanking being bad, molyneux "encouraging debate" and few other general platitudes that don't relate to what I brought up.
>No, you did. :^)
No.17770
>>17768
How is your relationship with your non-ancap family members?
No.17771
>>17769
>And this is coming from someone who believes that the only reason that people that aren't ancaps is child abuse induced pathology.
Only reason, wow, you're sure a fan of these absolutist straw mans aren't you? No, it's not the only factor of belief formation, but being raised by tyrants makes people more amenable to the idea of state tyranny.
>his psychological status is insanity.
Yes, we all know that refusal to comply with all the standards of modern day society, which is objectively perfect, is a sign of thoughtcrime, er insanity.
>You didn't address the "against me" in itself, you tried toning it down
I did address it, in its proper context. Proper context hurts your strawman, so you have to pretend I am misrepresenting the argument by my failure to misrepresent it.
>>17770
>How is your relationship with your non-ancap family members?
How is your relationship with your family members?
Why do you, or do you not, believe in God?
What is your political philosophy?
Why do you feel entitled to my personal information when you refuse to stick your flag onto any position so that you may fling shit without ever having shit flung back at you?
Nigger.
No.17773
File: 1456013067663.png (285.28 KB, 774x705, 258:235, 12509112_1699315053638890_….png)
/pol/ is largely shit like large boards typically are. It's useful mainly because of its volume. Even if liberty-minded people are 10% of the total population, that's still a large amount of liberty-minded people. My issue with /pol/ isn't the NEETsocs, but the scarcity of educated opinions. I've gotten involved in discussions on technical and scientific topics in fields that I'm versed in and study as my job. People who have no idea what the fuck they're talking about get triggered when you say they're objectively wrong and try deflecting by calling you a kike. It's like trying to explain some abstract concept like negative liberty to white trash or some ghetto momma. By and large, /pol/ isn't a place for smart people. You have to sift through the trash to get to the effortposters who are actually saying intelligent things.
No.17775
>>17771
>Only reason, wow, you're sure a fan of these absolutist straw mans aren't you? No, it's not the only factor of belief formation, but being raised by tyrants makes people more amenable to the idea of state tyranny.
Molyneux's is an absolutist, this is what he believes.
>Yes, we all know that refusal to comply with all the standards of modern day society, which is objectively perfect, is a sign of thoughtcrime, er insanity.
Yes, growing up in a dysfunctional home under the influence of a narcisstic mother, who inflicted deep narcissistic wounds that resulted in his narcissistic megalomania is actually noble rebellion to the cistem!
>I did address it, in its proper context. Proper context hurts your strawman, so you have to pretend I am misrepresenting the argument by my failure to misrepresent it.
The argument is clear, crying "context" is the motte and bailey tactic. Context is the motte that is invoked when the molyneux's argument in itself, one that he never retracted and follows directly from his philosophy, is deemed too controversial. I addressed molyneux's "against me" argument, not the version you came up with.
>Why do you feel entitled to my personal information when you refuse to stick your flag onto any position so that you may fling shit without ever having shit flung back at you?
Because I feel bad about you and I can see that your in distress.
No.17776
>>17775
>Molyneux's is an absolutist, this is what he believes.
Really? You think that Molyneux has LITERALLY ONE REASON EXCLUSIVELY for COMPLETELY EXPLAINING EVERYONE'S BELIEFS? You're the fucking idiot, not him.
>resulted in his narcissistic megalomania
Yeah, libertarianism, the idea that no individual has a special moral status (even if elected) giving them the ability to violate the rights of other. Super narcissistic, bro! Good analysis!
>The argument is clear, crying "context" is the motte and bailey tactic.
Any retard could say this in response to someone clarifying their misrepresentation.
>Context is the motte that is invoked when the molyneux's argument in itself
Yeah, because providing information that Molyneux has provided previously, to clarify his own argument, that's totally an attempt by me to represent the argument. Fucking dumb ass.
No.17777
>>17776
> that's totally an attempt by me to represent the argument.
misrepresent*
No.17780
>>17776
>Really? You think that Molyneux has LITERALLY ONE REASON EXCLUSIVELY for COMPLETELY EXPLAINING EVERYONE'S BELIEFS? You're the fucking idiot, not him.
Yes, spanking is a pillar of his worldview, along with single mothers and women who don't fancy him.
>Yeah, libertarianism, the idea that no individual has a special moral status (even if elected) giving them the ability to violate the rights of other. Super narcissistic, bro! Good analysis!
Libertarianism isn't narcissistic in itself, it's a somewhat logical conclusion of what can be called the modern western ideology, but the molyneux version of libertarianism does follow from his insanity.
>Any retard could say this in response to someone clarifying their misrepresentation.
I took molyneux's argument as he made it, I addressed his argument, not yours.
>Yeah, because providing information that Molyneux has provided previously, to clarify his own argument, that's totally an attempt by me to represent the argument. Fucking dumb ass.
He also uses motte and bailey himself, I know.
Now tell me please, how is your relationship with your non-ancap family members?
No.17782
>>17780
>along with single mothers and women who don't fancy him.
Single mothers produce poor outcomes. Frankly, single mothers ARE "the undeserving poor" as in undeserving of help. A poor person that gets injured/born poor due to no fault of their own, yeah, they should be helped, a poor person who has a child that they know full well they can't support and won't be able to support and then demands that they get bennies with the implicit threat of social upheaval is a parasite I frankly I don't care for. Durr, where's my empathy?? I don't have much empathy for people who have no empathy for me. Should they be slaughtered/gulagged/genocided? No. But I really would like it if the people who are dependent on the money of the working majority would actually fucking be somewhat responsive to the desires and preferences and social norms of those who are providing for them. I really hate the fact that the modern welfare state has eliminated any capacity for providers to enforce social standards horizontally and non-violently.
>but the molyneux version of libertarianism does follow from his insanity.
Good meme, except Rothbard had a very similar version of libertarianism and can not be attacked and misrepresented in the same ways Stefan can be.
>I took molyneux's argument as he made it, I addressed his argument, not yours.
He also provided context before and after the argument. He said, very clearly, this isn't something you jump to right away, it's something you use after significant prior discussion. This is the airstrike you may decide to use if someone isn't responsive to utilitarian/natural rights arguments.
>Now tell me please, how is your relationship with your non-ancap family members?
You can have my life story as soon as you post yours :^)
No.17785
Jesus christ who are these two sperging out?
Is this normal among you lolbertarian types because fuck me if they don't just constantly seem to fuss over the most inane shit.
No.17787
>>17782
>Single mothers produce poor outcomes. Frankly, single mothers ARE "the undeserving poor" as in undeserving of help. A poor person that gets injured/born poor due to no fault of their own, yeah, they should be helped, a poor person who has a child that they know full well they can't support and won't be able to support and then demands that they get bennies with the implicit threat of social upheaval is a parasite I frankly I don't care for. Durr, where's my empathy?? I don't have much empathy for people who have no empathy for me. Should they be slaughtered/gulagged/genocided? No. But I really would like it if the people who are dependent on the money of the working majority would actually fucking be somewhat responsive to the desires and preferences and social norms of those who are providing for them. I really hate the fact that the modern welfare state has eliminated any capacity for providers to enforce social standards horizontally and non-violently.
What a wonderfull world that would be, perhaps a bit like the south american slums.
>Good meme, except Rothbard had a very similar version of libertarianism and can not be attacked and misrepresented in the same ways Stefan can be.
Rothbard saw right through the rand cult, that what molyneux's can truly be compared to.
>He also provided context before and after the argument. He said, very clearly, this isn't something you jump to right away, it's something you use after significant prior discussion. This is the airstrike you may decide to use if someone isn't responsive to utilitarian/natural rights arguments.
So you first use it as a way to twist family loyalties, the love parents have for their child, into an ultimatum in which you state they want you shot if you don't support your ideology before actually removing them from your life if you refuse to do so!
That's the twisted, sociopathic nature of molyneux.
>You can have my life story as soon as you post yours :^)
I have a good relationship with my parents, sadly no gf and I want to help who are in distress. Now tell me about your relationships, because I'm worried about you.
No.17788
>>17787
if they refuse to do so!*
No.17789
>>17787
>What a wonderfull world that would be, perhaps a bit like the south american slums.
Good meme. I don't mind helping poor people, but I don't want to pay them to produce more stupid people.
>Rothbard saw right through the rand cult, that what molyneux's can truly be compared to.
Lol, yeah, totally had nothing to do with their strong religious divide.
>So you first use it as a way to twist family loyalties, the love parents have for their child, into an ultimatum in which you state they want you shot if you don't support your ideology
No, they want you to be shot in the event that you act upon your moral disagreement with the evil actions of the state.
>I have a good relationship with my parents, sadly no gf and I want to help who are in distress. Now tell me about your relationships, because I'm worried about you.
Not life story-y enough.
No.17790
>>17786
Well ok it was a tad harsh. But seriously.
I look back after posting a while back and its just walls of text between two people arguing.
And it seems to be over one person?
What are you two even arguing over?
No.17791
>>17776
>17776
gobless merica
No.17792
>>17790
He's claiming one popular libertarian is a cult leader. He's said some pretty radical stuff by "normal" standards, but he allows for far too much outside contact to be a cult leader. Cult leaders usually have a much, much lower "drop out" rate and stronger convictions in their followers, do a far better job of discouraging outside contact, etc.
No.17794
>>17789
>No, they want you to be shot in the event that you act upon your moral disagreement with the evil actions of the state.
Like I said, twisting the love parents have for their children into an ultimatum in which that love is used as emotional blackmail into supporting your ideology. Because spanking isn't malicious enough.
>Not life story-y enough.
You don't have to tell me your life story, just tell me how your parents responded to your ultimatum.
No.17796
>>17794
>twisting the love parents have for their children into an ultimatum
After you've spent months on end arguing to no avail and they keep giving you fog in response to your arguments.
>emotional blackmail into supporting your ideology
Yeah, just like those abolitionists who WERE SO FUCKING EVIL when they emotionally blackmailed their friends into not supporting slavery. FUCKING CUNTS!
>just tell me how your parents responded to your ultimatum.
Haven't given it. Mom has brain damage, dad doesn't care about politics.
No.17797
>>17792
Arguable I guess. Cults come in all sorts of forms. I see someone already mentioned the Rand cult which would be a suitable example.
Though the Rand cult was pretty brutal in its efforts to enforce conformity (name changes for example)
Still there's cults that focus on a constant flow of members in and out of the cult. Relying on the fact that nobody will stick around long enough to bring it all crashing down or be too inclined to make an effort to attack the cult when they leave.
Though personally I've always found the libertarian crowd to be slightly culty overall.
Primarily in the disconnect they have from reality but it's not any more a disconnect than is always found in left wing groups.
On that note. Why are fascists being associated with libertarians these days? We're centrists. You guys are so far left the communists are experiencing an existational crisis.
No.17798
>>17797
>You guys are so far left the communists are experiencing an existational crisis.
No.17799
>>17796
>After you've spent months on end arguing to no avail and they keep giving you fog in response to your arguments.
Ah, I see, you must have pestered them for months first until the family situation is at it's emotional ends and are you are all at breaking point.
>Yeah, just like those abolitionists who WERE SO FUCKING EVIL when they emotionally blackmailed their friends into not supporting slavery. FUCKING CUNTS!
They don't just want you shot, they're also people who want black people to be slaves!
>Haven't given it. Mom has brain damage, dad doesn't care about politics.
Sad to hear about your mom, I hope you stay by her side and not let your ideological struggles create resentment among your family.
No.17800
>>17798
You're left wing in the classical sense.
Liberals.
Like hardcore liberals.
Liberalism taken to the edge. Edgey liberals perhaps?
Point is.
I am still unsure why people keep throwing us together.
You consider us evil nazi monsters who want to gas and rape six gorillion chosen babies and we consider you naive retards who have lived sheltered comfortable lives that have left them unfit to live.
Very different crowds you know?
Though we have the same enemy I'm not entirely sure you people even understand what that enemy is or what their objectives are as your ideological principles play directly into their hands.
No.17801
>>17799
>They don't just want you shot, they're also people who want black people to be slaves!
good meme
>>17800
Left-wing means egalitarian focused, aka left libertarians, i.e. not right libertarians who are realists on the you know which issue.
No.17802
>>17801
>on the you know which issue.
race
not jews that is
No.17803
>>17801
>good meme
You came up with the comparison.
No.17804
>>17801
Well arguable.
Traditionally leftists were anyone who was opposed to the status quo.
The term after all originates in the destruction of French society and where the supporters sat in a particular chamber.
Those who supported the revolution sat on the left while those who supported the monarchy sat on the right.
So arguably you could say we're all filthy lefties.
But then that's irrelevalt. Libertarians are liberals. Liberal extremists.
No.17806
>>17804
>But then that's irrelevalt. Libertarians are liberals. Liberal extremists.
They are in explicit ideology, but not in underlying ideology.
No.17808
>>17806
I would disagree.
The modern liberal is a sad parody.
The classical liberal is all about liberty and freedom so long as you don't step on anyone elses toes. It's why it didn't survive as a cohesive school of political thought, its literally the most inoffensive and mild political ideology ever concocted. Doomed from the start to be usurped by something more aggressive.
The libertarian crowd just try to take this and either give it some teeth or more strictly define what their predecessors took for granted.
That is when they're not being pic related.
Which is too often for my tastes.
No.17809
>>17808
With underlying ideology I was referring to the sentiments from which ideology stems, those are often the same between fascists and libertarians, which is why there is a cross-over on /pol/. All ideologies overlap in a sense that is counter-intuitive, in Europe, the largest competitors of marxist parties are right-wing anti-immigration parties.
No.17810
>>17808
I don't really see any overlap between us.
We're anti-globalist, you're utterly unconcerned about globalism on the verge of supporting it.
We want to ensure that everyone is actually able to use the freedom they have while you don't really care about that as it would mean limiting some freedoms.
We want a well organised society that actively seeks to improve the quality of life of its people and create better people for said society. You…well again you don't care. Simple greed is all that really seems to motivate you or a simple desire to rebel.
The fascist worldview is one of eternal struggle against an uncaring universe.
The libertarian worldview relies on struggle being avoidable.
No.17811
>>17810
>The fascist worldview is one of eternal struggle against an uncaring universe.
Horeshoe theory being supported once again
No.17812
>>17811
I dunno brah.
Few fascists have ever considered themselves left or right wing.
We really do stand on the centreground. Or arguably transcend the left/right dynamic altogether
No.17813
>>17810
>You…well again you don't care. Simple greed is all that really seems to motivate you or a simple desire to rebel.
Nothing greedy about wanting a monopoly on force with which to violate property rights, right? Everyone else should make sacrifices except the state.
No.17814
>>17813
But it's ok when we do it, anon! We're the good guys!
No.17815
>>17812
It's about power as a prism, facists see the world as a constant struggle, a zero sum game of power plays, one that must be won. Foucault, and the SJW's the largely followed from him, see the world through the same prism, "white privilege", "institutional racism", "patriarchy", everything is a battle ground for power, everything is political, every action represents a side in this all-encompassing struggle.
No.17817
>>17813
See here's another thing.
You don't seem to understand that people have a tendency to organise and that in any situation where we went "fuck guvernment lol" you'd quickly have gangs running around looting and pillaging.
Which would eventually lead to other groups emerging to enforce a set of rules in an area and protect the populace from these other people.
Many of these groups would enforce shitty or heavily biased rules.
The ones in charge of the armed groups who enforce said rules would style themselves as local rulers/leaders.
Meaning that in effect you reverse to something closer to the feudal era. Prior to concepts such as equality before the law or indeed the rule of law itself.
You become subject to your lords law.
Then eventually in the distant future one ruler takes over the land of the others and forms something more akin to a nation we have today.
Eventually he has to stop using his army to enforce his law due to a military force not really being suited for it, and something akin to the peelers are formed.
Again.
If you somehow manage to maintain a situation without the rule of law then it becomes the rule of the strongman.
Property rights cease to exist in any meaningful capacity as all you can own is what you can physically protect yourself.
>>17815
Well that makes more sense.
Still. It's not about the politics, life itself is a constant struggle a conflict just to survive.
No.17818
>>17817
>You don't seem to understand that people have a tendency to organise and that in any situation where we went "fuck guvernment lol" you'd quickly have gangs running around looting and pillaging.
Wrong
https://mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over
The whole premise for your resulting post is wrong, so not reading it.
No.17820
>>17817
>life itself is a
This is the root everyone who seriously thinks about politics shoots into the ground, it's the ultimate end of the downwards spiral of argumentation. Some say roots are for vegetables, I tend to share that position but not in a principled position against principles, I see our true roots as unexplainable by language, I don't think they we can choose and lose them.
No.17821
>>17818
Man I'm not even a few paragraphs in and I can see where this guy has completely overlooked important factors.
>For the warlord objection to work, the statist would need to argue that a given community would remain lawful under a government, but that the same community would break down into continuous warfare if all legal and military services were privatized.
I mean he literally touches the how of warlords. Rubs himself against it for a bit then completely forgets it.
Communities.
Back in the colonial era we saw this a lot with lawless regions that had no real organised government and instead had multiple communities each of whom had their own leaders and had organised themselves internally so as to ensure protection from each other.
Because they competed for resources, grazing lands, trade routes, etc. Often violently.
You smash the nation but that leaves you with thousands if not millions of communities. Many of whom are now in direct competition with each other for resources. Where before the nation could smooth over these competing interests or render them irrelevant through suitable redistribution of resources, you now have these communities all at each others throats.
And that creates chaos.
Chaos inevitably destroys communities leaving only the most well organised and powerful ones intact while the rest of the former nation are forced to live in a state of lawlessness.
But then what does he do?
Lets have PMCs handle everything and private for profit courts
Oh good sweet zombie buddha. I mean really. Pic related.
Any fool can tell you that you never trust an army you do not own. Ever. Because in every case someone has trusted a mercenary army to fill in permanently for their own army it has resulted in the mercenary leader asking why he isn't in charge and then deciding he is. Unless they killed the merc leader first.
And of course the mercs will go "pay us money to not kill you" because who is going to stop them? Another PMC? You'll have fucking turf wars between PMCs over extortion rights.
And private for profit courts?
The idea itself is ludicrous. What if two sides disagree over which court they should use for a dispute? And who enforces the courts verdicts if one side decides it doesn't like the verdict?
We had for profit courts in the UK at one point. The lords courts. Ran by the local lord to enforce his law. They always came down the lords side naturally and netted them considerable resources.
This is why the crown courts quickly rose to prominence. The kings judges were neutral and unbiased and the courts verdicts enforced by the kings men regardless of the lords opinions or desires. This cemented the authority and legitimacy of the english crown.
All this is before we even get into the idea of simply paying the court to give the verdict you want.
You will no doubt argue that market forces will always guarantee a "rational" outcome or select against the PMCs/courts that do these sort of things.
I counter with the cold hard reality. Humans are not rational. We disobey social norms and market forces on a regular basis for the sake of power and loot.
No.17822
>>17821
Oh god it gets better!
>Don't worry insurance companies will pay for the police so they don't have to pay for life insurance payouts
Considering the effort they put into not paying out a single penny to anyone ever. I can just see how this would play out.
They'll only pay out to a private police force if the force in question can prove in a rigorously documented manner that their actions had resulted in preventing a crime they would have had to pay for.
And that's if they don't just go "lolno" like they do these days.
No.17831
You can be pro-closed boarders, a racist, and a libertarian you know. White nationalist libertarian republic- what the US was originally founded to be.
No.17832
>>17831
Racism is a purely deterministic worldview, completely incompatible with the free will base of libertarianism.
No.17833
>>17832
>Racism is a purely deterministic worldview, completely incompatible with the free will base of libertarianism.
It's not purely deterministic. 70% of Pakistanis are inbred. Inbreeding lowers IQ by a good 10 points, usually. If you import Pakistanis, on average, they're going to be more prone to violence and less wealthy.
Does this mean no individual Pakistani can apply their talents? No.
No.17835
>>17832
You must either be completely blind or never have had the privilege to rub elbows with niggers, spics or arabs. My personal choice of race to despise the most are extremely religious arabs. They are nuts.
No.17837
>>17821
>You smash the nation but that leaves you with thousands if not millions of communities. Many of whom are now in direct competition with each other for resources. Where before the nation could smooth over these competing interests or render them irrelevant through suitable redistribution of resources, you now have these communities all at each others throats.
>Any fool can tell you that you never trust an army you do not own.
Like the state military or the police force?
>And private for profit courts? The idea itself is ludicrous. What if two sides disagree over which court they should use for a dispute?
There's a ton of possibilities. Obviously, they all have some disadvantages, but so does our current solution to this problem. Not that this problem is really that big. You're seriously overblowing it. I have no idea why that should even happen.
>And who enforces the courts verdicts if one side decides it doesn't like the verdict?
Depends. If there was a contractual agreement that verdicts should be enforcable, than that would either be the court itself, a third-party service or the party that benefits from the verdict. If there was no such agreement, you can bar the party that refuses to adhere to the ruling from visiting court again, or ruin its credit rating.
>We had for profit courts in the UK at one point. The lords courts. Ran by the local lord to enforce his law. They always came down the lords side naturally and netted them considerable resources.
Those weren't private courts.
>All this is before we even get into the idea of simply paying the court to give the verdict you want.
Do you think that a court would get away with allowing that to happen without losing like half its customer base? And if it did, what makes you think a state court would be any different?
>I counter with the cold hard reality. Humans are not rational. We disobey social norms and market forces on a regular basis for the sake of power and loot.
I don't. Only hardened criminals, politicians and people in countries ruined by politicians do.
No.17838
Do not assume good faith when someone claims an label. You judge them on the basis of what they advocate. For example, if someone believes what a Nazi can be expected to believe, then they're in all likelihood a Nazi. If someone claims to be a Nazi when they're being dishonest, obnoxious, or when the label is irrelevant to the situation, in all likelihood they're not as much of a Nazi as they would want you believe. It's just too easy to claim to be something for effect and appeal, which is why you should hold your suspicions.
Much of the problems with modern /pol/ stem from this. There are no few people hiding behind /pol/'s brand of nationalism (which has no future), and using it to spread ideas which would rightfully be rejected by all thinking people when expressed plainly. You see this most frequently in the form of aggressive collectivism veiled behind white interest and the KIKE charge which has become so meaningless that it can be applied against any anyone and anything. BEcause the process is predominantly negative, it is to discredit, the result can only be a temporary loss in confidence in the community's capacity to reason and in a lost in the level of trust invested in the community's common motifs or ideas. The fact that their ideas are shit, which is why they have to recourse to black propaganda techniques in the first place, means that be board recovers, restarting the process anew.
Welcome to Cass Sunstein's Brave New Internet.
No.17839
>>17837
Forgot to actually address this point:
>You smash the nation but that leaves you with thousands if not millions of communities. Many of whom are now in direct competition with each other for resources. Where before the nation could smooth over these competing interests or render them irrelevant through suitable redistribution of resources, you now have these communities all at each others throats.
Privatize these resources so there is a profit-motive to distributing them fairly. Problem solved.
No.17840
> rand cult
>You consider us evil nazi monsters who want to gas and rape six gorillion chosen babies and we consider you naive retards who have lived sheltered comfortable lives that have left them unfit to live.
>Traditionally leftists were anyone who was opposed to the status quo.
>But then that's irrelevalt. Libertarians are liberals. Liberal extremists.
and you respond to this
No.17845
>>17837
>I have no idea why that should even happen.
Well lets say we have a dispute. Perhaps you raped my sister or something or stole something of mine.
You prefer Shekelstein incorporateds courts because you know they'll come down on your side. While I prefer Smith Family Co-Op Courts because I know they'll favour my side.
How do we resolve the issue of neither side regarding the others preferred court as valid?
>If there was a contractual agreement that verdicts should be enforcable
That is kind of the whole fucking point of a court to begin with. If its verdicts are not enforcable then there is no point. If the verdicts are not enforced then no one has any reason to appear before the court or pay attention to its existence.
>you can bar the party that refuses to adhere to the ruling from visiting court again, or ruin its credit rating.
But what if I never appear before the court you chose anyways because I don't like that particular court service provider? I mean seriously. Fuck Shekelstein Incorporated Courts. I'm a Smith Family Co-Op Courts man. Barring me from appearing before your court is not a punishment at all.
And ruin my credit rating? Without government regulation preventing it there's going to be a fuckton of competing companies providing that service meaning you'll have multiple credit ratings, competition will demand they allow you to fiddle your credit rating if you pay them.
>Lords courts not private
Yes they were. They were used exclusively by the lords private property and his tenants. Not just anyone could bring a case into the local lords court.
>Do you think that a court would get away with allowing that to happen without losing like half its customer base?
What it lost it would gain in customers who want that service. Even if it had to change its name frequently to retain a veneer of legitimacy.
>And if it did, what makes you think a state court would be any different?
Well you see chummer in the real world we have these things called anti-corruption laws. When a judge is caught doing something like that he is investigated and often arrested or at the least stripped of his position.
>I don't. Only hardened criminals, politicians and people in countries ruined by politicians do.
So you're essentially saying that humans are inherently good and rational creatures who will never ever ever do anything wrong?
>>17839
That never works.
I mean jesus titty fucking christ. Pick up a history book. There's been so many resource wars its beyond hilarious.
No.17848
>>17845
>Perhaps you raped my sister
Seriously?
>>17846
>Rape seems to be a pillar of the libertarian worldview, everything is equivocated to it.
You dirty hypocrite.
>You prefer Shekelstein incorporateds courts because you know they'll come down on your side. While I prefer Smith Family Co-Op Courts because I know they'll favour my side.
And why should they favor your side, if you did rape my sister? If one of the courts can be relied upon to acquit criminals, then chances are it willl have a completely shitty reputation and trouble staying in business.
>How do we resolve the issue of neither side regarding the others preferred court as valid?
1. Pick a third court.
2. Go to court 1, then court 2. If they disagree on the ruling, do one of the other steps.
3. Demand an ad hoc court. There might be freelance judges who would gladly do the job.
4. Let your DRO's handle this question.
5. Look if the common law has a solution.
For example.
>That is kind of the whole fucking point of a court to begin with. If its verdicts are not enforcable then there is no point. If the verdicts are not enforced then no one has any reason to appear before the court or pay attention to its existence.
Indirect enforcement. Like I told you. Credit ratings, barring from court, publicly calling you a faggot, that kind of stuff.
>But what if I never appear before the court you chose anyways because I don't like that particular court service provider? I mean seriously. Fuck Shekelstein Incorporated Courts. I'm a Smith Family Co-Op Courts man. Barring me from appearing before your court is not a punishment at all.
It can be one, depending on the circumstances. If, in one of your contracts, there is a clause that Shekelstein Incorporated Courts handles disputes, but you're barred from going there unless you pay high fees, then it will hit you pretty bad.
Fun fact: Every punishment can fail. Some criminals stand in front of the prison on the third day of their release and beg to be let in again. This isn't news.
>And ruin my credit rating? Without government regulation preventing it there's going to be a fuckton of competing companies providing that service meaning you'll have multiple credit ratings,
And most of them will rightly assume that somoene who doesn't even arrive at court, or refuses to adhere to court verdicts, is a shitbag and deserves a low rating.
>competition will demand they allow you to fiddle your credit rating if you pay them.
Only if that were more profitable than being reliable and trustworthy. Besides, even if they do demand payments to shut their mouth about you raping my property and stealing my sister, don't you think that would be kind of a punishment, too?
>Yes they were. They were used exclusively by the lords private property and his tenants.
Sounds an awful lot like feudalism to me. The property of a landlord would not be regarded as rightful according to libertarian property theories.
>What it lost it would gain in customers who want that service.
You mean corrupt dicks who want to outpay each other in court? I think they'd rather keep half their fortune and sue each other in a court that doesn't demand outrageous bribes.
>Even if it had to change its name frequently to retain a veneer of legitimacy.
Yeah, actively trying to lose your goodwill? Way to have a successful business.
>Well you see chummer in the real world we have these things called anti-corruption laws. When a judge is caught doing something like that he is investigated and often arrested or at the least stripped of his position.
You know what the difference between the oh-so corrupt private judges and statist judges is? The statist judges will fuck you over for free without even having to fear for their career. I'm actually working in the legal field. I heard a prosecutor and a judge casually chat about how the guy they sentences was probably innocent. The safeguards that are in place nowadays will be in place in any private court worth its salt, plus the market mechanisms that will ensure grossly corrupt judges won't stay on their job for long.
>So you're essentially saying that humans are inherently good and rational creatures who will never ever ever do anything wrong?
Nope, I'm saying that by and large, humans follow the rules. Not all rules, mind you, but simple rules like "don't kill" and "don't steal" are almost universally accepted. Habitual criminals are usually living on the fringes of society and tend to suck at life, having little in the way of impulse control or conflict management.
>That never works. I mean jesus titty fucking christ. Pick up a history book. There's been so many resource wars its beyond hilarious.
>lol read a book xD
No.17850
>>17848
>1. Pick a third court.
And if I continue to refuse?
Simply because I don't want to go to court or don't think I've done anything wrong.
Also common law is pointless here as it would have no third party enforcer.
>Every punishment can fail. Some criminals stand in front of the prison on the third day of their release and beg to be let in again
Yes thats a widely known psychological issue caused by extensive prison time and the total lack of rehabilitation in prison systems where this frequently occurs. Like in the USA where the prisons are run on a for profit basis.
>Nope, I'm saying that by and large, humans follow the rules.
You've never seen a nigger then. Or lived outside a safe middle class neighbourhood or outside a nation with a strong police force and government who are able to keep the populace in line.
The majority of people will obey whoever appears to be in charge. Regardless of what that person says to do.
No.17855
>>17850
>And if I continue to refuse? Simply because I don't want to go to court or don't think I've done anything wrong.
Depends. If you ask ten ancaps, you will get fifteen answers as to how this could turn out. Me, I believe that the victim of a crime has a compensation claim against the perpetrator. Also a claim for retribution. So if you beat me up, I have a right to beat you up in turn, or I could legally hire someone to beat you up. Then you will probably drag me to court and they will fuck me over if they find that I either exceeded what justice requires, or they will say that I was right in beating you up and that this all could've been avoided had you just gone to court.
Can this lead to bloody feuds? Yes. But I think this risk can be mitigated, and I think it's worth the prize.
>Also common law is pointless here as it would have no third party enforcer.
Then call it customary law. Jesus H. Christ…
>Yes thats a widely known psychological issue caused by extensive prison time and the total lack of rehabilitation in prison systems where this frequently occurs. Like in the USA where the prisons are run on a for profit basis.
Or like in Germany, where they aren't.
>You've never seen a nigger then. Or lived outside a safe middle class neighbourhood or outside a nation with a strong police force and government who are able to keep the populace in line.
Yes, I've grown up in a hermetically sealed sheltered neighborhood and never faced a hardship in my life. Guilty as charged. Durr!
>The majority of people will obey whoever appears to be in charge. Regardless of what that person says to do.
That's a gross oversimplification of social dynamics. Thanks, you're the first person ever that made me write a shitty sentence like that.
No.17856
>>17797
I don't know why some people feel so strongly for or agains Molyneux. He is just one of many libertarian vloggers. Others are more to the point with much shorter and entertaining videos. He insists too much on psychological factors like childhood traumatic experiences. He's been evolving toward more nationalist-friendly positions as of late, and that explains his increasing popularity. Apart from that, I kind of like to watch his videos when I'm not in a hurry, but I don't see a reason to either strongly endorse or repudiate the guy himself.
No.17857
>>17838
OK, let's assume you are an honest NatSoc. Can you give some specific examples of where your position differs from false-flagging pseudo-Nazi shills? Honest question.
No.17859
>>17856
>He is just one of many
He is an anomaly that could in a Hegelian way, be seen as an ultimate end conclusion that collapses in itself, the black hole that is created when ideology reaches critical mass.
No.18085
because fascism and ana-cap is the same :v)
No.18297
>>13266
>>13303
>>13315
>>13338
>>13349
>>17730
>>17738
>>17743
>>17750
>>17751
>>17753
>>17759
>>17761
>>17764
>>17765
>>17766
>>17768
>>17769
>>17771
>>17775
>>17776
>>17780
>>17782
>>17787
>>17789
DAILY REMINDER
DAILY REMINDER
DAILY REMINDER
>>13574
We had the exodus from coontown before 4/pol/, do recall. So no, they're not even stormcuck-tier. They're the fanboys that wish they were stormcucks.
(as to that place, I've been range-banned since 2003 for constantly spamming against Christian Identity shills and their cult leaders like Matt Hale, what you kids today might know as "Deus Vultards." lol I have a hard time containing my 'power level' against them so I only manage about 10 posts per VPN)
No.18302
>>18297
The fuck, Molyneux?
No.18304
>>18297
>>18297
>>18297
>>18297
He's linking to a comment or whatever, it's google plus being bullshit. Retard.
No.18329
>>18297
In that 4th image Stefan quotes a comment, only difference is that he used quotation marks whereas in the first one he didn't. And that 3rd image proves that he was actually just quoting a comment but he didn't include the quotation marks. THINK, mate.
No.18335
>>17817
>You don't seem to understand that people have a tendency to organise
This is true.
HOWEVER
What /pol/lacks always never address in their argument is how they are going to generate a government that is not abusive. They always and repeatedly assert
>government is only bad when Jews do it, ignore the fact that 40% of ZOG is white, ignore the fact that the Rothschild banking cartel could not exist without the cooperation of white nobility from the Middle ages into the Early and Modern eras.
>the imperium will be great, God Emperor Trump totally won't be selfish or abusive
>Right Wing Death Squads will purge everything wrong and totally won't end up killing the wrong people
They exist with the gaping hole in their vision that just because they are behind a philosophy of government that such a philosophy cannot be twisted or abused, that it cannot be easily infected by horrible people who care not for the well being of their nation and believe they are entitled to the labor of others.
National Socialists stand on the fragile foundation of the benevolent despot. Just because they happen sometimes doesn't mean they are the norm. As /pol/ would put it, societies behave according to the norm, not the exceptions, and populations regress to the mean. Rulers do similarly, and for every "great" king, emperor, or leader, there are 10 mediocre leaders and 5 horrible monsters.
Unfortunately /pol/ can't actually respond to this issue, because the board is 50% spamming Trump, 30% spamming merchants, and 20% spamming Hitler.
No.18427
>>13289
many are 'autistic'. because if you arent you will likely fall to group think i.e. establishment i.e. democracy