/liberty/ - Liberty

I don't care about 'Europa'. 'Europa' has to watch its own ass, just like I'm watching mine.

>>18952

The best Germans can do is push welfare down until it only guarantees a living wage. We can't abolish the welfare state per se, this would be against our constitution. We can't even change this clause in our constitution, because it is one of the few clauses that is protected from being changed.

My point being, Americans have no idea how deeply engrained welfare is in the People's Republic of Yuropoor.

>>18957

constitutionally cucked

>>18960

It gets better: Refugees are guaranteed the right to enter our country. This right has been severely limited after its inception, admittedly, although you can see how much that's helping us now. This rule started out as a tool to mitigate genocides, which I gotta admit is a good intention, but as always, the lefties ruined it.

>>18957

Can you implement forced labor as a condition for welfare payments? I heard welfare recipients in Germany must accept any shitty job they are offered, either private or public. Even if you make them dig holes and fill them up, that should limit the appeal of welfare programs.

>>18964

The job centers already do try to push shitty jobs on people, and make them fill tons of paperwork. I'm not sure if that's such a good idea, to be honest, because this just makes the bureaucracy bigger and more inefficient, thus more costly, but the benefits of welfare are still huge. A married couple with three kids will get around 1300 € per month, healthcare and other insurances and they won't have to pay the rent themselves. That isn't much, but if filling out some applications every month, having a lower standard of living than all your peers and being treated like shit by some pretentious bitch at a job center is all you have to do to get that, then you can bet a lot of people will choose this deal. Especially when you have an unreported employment, too.

As for what happens when you don't take the work, then the benefits you receive will be lowered or - if you're a real dick about it - be cut entirely. Then you still have a chance to get foodstamps, though. No one likes THAT deal, though, judging by the statistics.

>>18966

Didn't a woman get her benefits lowered for not working in a brothel?

Sinners, the whole beuracracy…

>>18969

Not sure if that happened, but I wouldn't rule it out. Some women have been asked to work in brothels by the job centers, despite the job centers claiming they'd never do that. Not sure what the courts would have to say about that, but I'm sure at least some would find a way to avoid applying that law.

The way prostitution is treated legally is fucking retarded, honestly. The government can't make its mind up on whether it's a job like any other (it isn't) or if it should be destroyed with fire and magnets (it shouldn't).

>>18970

Why isn't it a job like any other?

>>18972

Because having sex is one of the most intimate acts there is.

>>18976

That's just like, your opinion though

>>19000

Let me rephrase that. Jobs aren't allowed to discriminate under current laws in Europe.*

>>18946

>that video

Thanks brah, I have become so desensitized to the dildo narrative that I had almost forgot what it felt like to be angry.

Looks like we are going to need a few more helicopters.

Have private communities/towns/cities/countries with private borders. I hate mass immigration and mass rape too. That's why I believe that governments shouldn't be able to decide who you can and cannot live with. You should have the right to remove any Muslim who enters your private community, but government power - your solution to this problem - stops you from sovereignly choosing your lifestyle and security. If /pol/acks really cared about European people then they would fight for their freedom to create borders. There are enough people in Europe who are against mass third-world immigration that you could easily set up huge communities with incredibly strong defences. But /pol/ chooses to change leftist governments instead of abolishing them. If you want White leaders then stop sustaining the idea that governments can legitimately monopolize governance!

>>18946

Yes, I'll prepare myself accordingly to take out any Muslim AND Nazi gangs that try to take over my town.

You guys always try to appeal to us libertarians as equals, but we know where the boot is going in the end. We don't need your racial totalitarianism to solve this problem. You want to turn us into inverse Muslims essentially with all the same stunted clan culture.

>>19043

This. I'm not choosing one group of monkeys over the other. I'll be siding with the civilized white folk who don't hate non-whites and non-white folk who don't hate whites but don't want violent crooks running around. I won't give someone the boot if they're white or brown or whatever, but crazy racist fuckwits like Chandan need to get the fuck out. Immigrants should respect the laws and customs of the countries that they're in.

>>19019

Jokes aside, if white/black/brown/other nationalists fuck off of their own combine for their people only, that's perfectly fine. Voluntary association, people don't have to like each other and all that.

>>19031

>>18952

Good solutions. Private property, the right to defend yourself and bear arms, and the abolition of welfare would stop the migration of leeches and/or violent migrants to Europe dead in it's tracks.

>>19043

>Yes, I'll prepare myself accordingly to take out any Muslim AND Nazi gangs that try to take over my town.

This. You'd have to be thick as a fucking redwood not to know where shit like this ends. Honestly whenever I see 8chan libertarians try to appeal to /pol/ neonazis by talking about how the free market will cure 'degeneracy', I just think it's pitiful. Why even engage those retards? It just encourages them. The vitalic interpretation of society is taken seriously by no one but stormfront and a few of it's imageboard colonies like /pol/, even trying to engage with those people like they're rational beings does nothing but arouse contempt in their throwback neanderthal brains.

No equivocation on shit like this. Do not fucking tread on me.

>>19043

You may find yourself hopelessly outnumbered. Better reach out and convince as many as possible while you can.

>>19059

The reasonable ones are former libertarians and I think they can be brought back. They also have a point. The rope-happy Nazi larpers may well be infiltrators.

Libertarians have been reaching out to lefties for decades, and that's even more hopeless. Natsocs accept merit and hierarchy, lefties never have and never will.

>>19076

Let me guess, you are a Jew :^)

>>19087

>It's less libertarians trying to appeal to the nazi status quo on /pol/ making them feel inadequate and hopeless until they crack.

typo. less libertarians trying to appeal to the nazis, and more the nazi status quo making them feel inadequate and hopeless until they crack.

Libertarians start compromising when they spent too much time on pol because pol has them believing its hopeless and that there is no other solution than doing everything they say so we can beat the jooz.

>>19090

>implying you shouldn't take your ancap mask off

>>19105

Would you look at that, you even had some merchant images all loaded up and ready to go to defend the neonazis' honor. And you believed they were effective outside of /pol/. No wonder you're so defensive about pandering to those dumbfucks.

As for the rest of your godawful post, I'd like to make it as clear as I can that I do not give two shits about 'my fellow whites' getting massacred for being nazis, just like I wouldn't care if they were massacred for being communists or monarchists or any other kind of scum. I would rather the darkest fucking african on this earth be my neighbor if he gave a shit about the Constitution than any faggot on /pol/, or you for that matter. Fuck you you half-bright wart on the ass of libertarianism.

>>19119

>honest debate must start with the truth

Why not swap out that flag, then?

>>19134

Because I'm not a NatSoc. I'm a Hoppean ancap. We aren't all leftie open-borders, wigger faggots, you know.

>>19170

Since his only source was anecdotal personal experience, questioning the source is a perfectly "kosher" debating tactic. If you say "believe me, Nazis are pure shit, you'd better reach out to commies", it does matter whether you are a Jew.

As for the debate, no rebuttal was provided to my argument that NatSocs, at least, respect hierarchy and meritocracy, while commies dont. I think that's a damn good reason to avoid commies. Sure, you can attract a few by selling libertarianism as something it is not, but that defeats the purpose.

Besides, as I said, I don't target the "true believer" Hitler worshippers, only former libertarians who got tired of leftietarian faggotry.

OTOH, as an ancap, I admire Mises, Rothbard and a few other Jews. I also like Thomas Sowell (a black man) in aspects not related to race.

>>19143

You're a /pol/-tier leftie troll.

>>19220

Considering your flag, I'll take that as a compliment.

>>19178

>NatSocs, at least, respect hierarchy and meritocracy, while commies dont

You act like hierarchy and meritocracy are the main point of libertarianism and not just an element of it in structures designed to produce liberty

Well, at least NatSocs respect hierarchy and "merit" while they throw away all your rights to go on a suicide run race jihad.

>>19244

> You act like hierarchy and meritocracy are the main point of libertarianism and not just an element of it in structures designed to produce liberty

I'd say neither. The real issue is that hierarchy and meritocracy (ie, visible differences in life outcomes) happen to be an inevitable result of free-market capitalism, because people are not all the same. A NatSoc is less likely to object to this outcome than a commie. That's my point.

> Well, at least NatSocs respect hierarchy and "merit" while they throw away all your rights to go on a suicide run race jihad.

That may be a fair description of Turner Diaries fans, for whom Hitler's mistake was being too soft on Jews. Those are not the NatSocs I have in mind. Hey, commies are still #1 in terms of terrorists, lunatics and mass-murdering tyrants.

>>19246

>I'd say neither. The real issue is that hierarchy and meritocracy (ie, visible differences in life outcomes) happen to be an inevitable result of free-market capitalism, because people are not all the same. A NatSoc is less likely to object to this outcome than a commie. That's my point.

Yes, but it doesn't mean that libertarians should accept nazism, or make alliances with them (not to mention how one sided the "alliance" is).

NatSocs accept hierarchy but they are anti-competition, since they want to violently protect their national market from capitalism and international free market competition.

A lot of people who support free markets in a relative sense support other things which mean they are not libertarians. That's okay, but I wish these people would realize that they only want a so called "free market" in the context of an authoritarian socially conservative state that engages in protectionism, and they should probably stop calling themselves "libertarians" and start acknowledging they are paleocons. It's even worse when these people call themselves "anarchists" like Cantwell.

You don't get to support right wing totalitarians "just for a little while" to get rid of left wing totalitarians and come out with your libertarian credentials unscathed.

>>19257

It reminds me of the socialist anarchists who join forces with the Marxists and get screwed by them over and over again.

I thought Ancaps were above that, but apparently not, but know this; it's not an alliance you are getting yourself into, it's submission.

>>19257

> Yes, but it doesn't mean that libertarians should accept nazism, or make alliances with them (not to mention how one sided the "alliance" is).

I'm aware of that. It's not really an alliance, it's more like a non-aggression pact or a Finnish-style co-beligerance against the red hordes. There's a common enemy and there are some common goals, such as defeating communism and stopping the hostile immigrant invasion and replacement of the national electorate.

> NatSocs accept hierarchy but they are anti-competition, since they want to violently protect their national market from capitalism and international free market competition.

That's a non-issue. The case for free trade is unilateral. IOW, even if other countries enact trade barriers, your own country benefits by not doing the same.

http://www.vforvoluntary.com/young-economist/81-chap19.html

I try to explain this concept to them. If I believed otherwise, I would happily join the Nazis in supporting defensive trade barriers in a Rothbardian "nation by consent".

> in the context of an authoritarian socially conservative state

Some people prefer a social conservative community. Nothing unlibertarian about that. OTOH, forced integration (like forcing someone to live around homosexuals, trannies and foreign-looking people) is essentially unlibertarian. To each their space. Freedom of association.

At least a socially conservative community would be sustainable as an ancap community. A leftist degenerate brothel can exist as a place to visit, but it's not a place where sane, healthy children can be raised and become functional, productive citizens.

> and they should probably stop calling themselves "libertarians" and start acknowledging they are paleocons.

Nope. They are paleolibertarians.

> It's even worse when these people call themselves "anarchists" like Cantwell.

You mean Cantwell isn't an ancap? what's your evidence?

> You don't get to support right wing totalitarians "just for a little while" to get rid of left wing totalitarians and come out with your libertarian credentials unscathed.

Who delivers those credentials? You?

Right-wing dictators seem to leave power peacefully far more often than commie dictators.

More importantly, they leave the country in a much better condition.

They also are living proof that no, it's not democracy that brings prosperity, it's the free market, no matter how it's enforced. This fact alone is a massive source of delicious leftie tears.

>>19260

>You mean Cantwell isn't an ancap? what's your evidence?

He did support the militant "ancaps", a while back. Not sure if you remember them, or were around back them.

Their logic was as follows:

1. The NAP allows you to initiate aggression for the sake of defending your own life (not sure who told them that)

2. Left to its own devices, the free market would find a way to achieve immortality (lolwut)

3. Therefore, in our fight against the state, we don't have to follow the NAP.

By endorsing them, Cantwell has shown his complete disregard for the NAP, as well as his general level of retardation.

>>19264

> He did support the militant "ancaps", a while back. Not sure if you remember them, or were around back them.

I've been an ancap for quite a few years, but no, I wasn't "around" (ie aware of that particular debate or group). The way you describe it, indeed, it sounds pretty retarded. Care to provide a link?

I've only recently found out about Chris Cantwell. I find his show quite entertaining, a good way to blow off steam. That's about it. When you said he wasn't an ancap I thought you were talking about his more recent positions and statements.

>>19273

>I've been an ancap for quite a few years, but no, I wasn't "around"

Meant whether you were around on /liberty/. My bad.

Anyway, look no further:

>>10176

>When you said he wasn't an ancap I thought you were talking about his more recent positions and statements.

Actually, that wasn't me. Maybe he's got enough cognitive bias to warrant being called an ancap, I'm not sure about that, but I can see why others wouldn't give him the benefit of doubt.

>>19092

Hans-Herman Hoppe is basically the only thinker that I think should be considered when it comes to libertarianism, immigration and borders. The open-borders libertarians are just morons when it comes to public land and that citizens have a right to it but non-citizens clearly fucking don't.

Your arguments in >>19090

are spot on and this is how many european libertarians are gravitating towards.

I think that you don't need a fancy name like neocon, neolib or paleolibertarian. You just have to say that you're pro-market.

Libertarians, I should hope, should find common cause with those whose values are also pro-choice, pro-enterprise and pro-individual.

Nowhere does this require that you compromise on your principles. Oppose your opponents wherever you find them and support those whose cause is your cause. For me that means opposing socialism of the nationalist variety, the internationalist variety and the stateless variety.

The D&C anon above spoke about NatSocs (socialists) being opposed to free trade, free association and private competition. That's true and it's wrong. All these positions however come from a collectivist mindset and are made with reference to false socialist assumptions about the market system. These need to be challenged the same way arguments for nationalisation, welfarism and the minimum wage are challenged.

The whole neo-fascist movement would evaporate if governments/parties would stop pushing progressivism. That means stopping the forced diversification of western communities and the imposition of "liberal" values on those who don't consent to them. For the vast majority, popular determination on the culture wars (gay marriage, abortion, common core) and immigration reform would placate them. The extremism witnessed online is just desperation as things get worse. Most /pol/acks and self-styled fascists don't want genocide, they just want representation.

>>19264

While that logic is entirely retarded, I don't see an ethical problem with attacking certain elements of the state in self defense.

(As they are violently aggressing against you through theft and arbitrary law at the barrel of a gun)