/liberty/ - Liberty

Ask him what the fuck immigration has to do with fedoras.

You don't, because as far as I know the libertarian argument for open immigration is based on the idea that the state has no legitimate property right to the land, and therefore cannot forbid trespassers from entering. The real argument would be convincing the nationalist that the state is illegitimate in the first place. You could try say open immigration leads to more prosperity in said nation, but anybody can pull total bullshit out of their asses to say the policies they favor lead to the best conclusions.

Its not like there aren't Libertarians opposed to immigration, like Hans-Herman Hoppe.

>open boarder

spelling mistake or Freudian slip?

>>7887

Boarder? I 'ardly knew her!

>>7884

This. Also a free society would actually be preferable for both racists and anti-racists because the anti-racists could avoid associating with racist communities and vice versa. So those stormfaggots could go live out their brilliant values on land that they own legitimately and everyone else can refuse to trade with them because they're stormfaggots.

>>7897

Seriously, one of the dumbest arguments I've heard against libertarianism was that "it tells white people not to care about each other only money".

Libertarianism doesn't tell you anything. If you want to have your own national socialist combine where info is restricted to stormfag shit and all "degeneracy" is unhallowed you most certainly can do so.

>>7897

>muh white reichwinger compound boogeyman

The average /pol/ack may suffer from terrible idiocy but you are just a cuck.

>>7897

>So those stormfaggots could go live out their brilliant values on land that they own legitimately and everyone else can refuse to trade with them because they're stormfaggots.

nazis are faggots but so r u

>>7925

The boundaries of irony has been blurred, we live in a post-ironical world.

>>7915

>The average /pol/ack may suffer from terrible idiocy but you are just a cuck.

Because I want people to freely associate with whomever they so choose? Right. Racists don't want to associate with anti-racists or vice versa, letting them avoid each other would be preferable for both sides it would seem to me.

>>7916

>nazis are faggots but so r u

good argument, friend

>>7939

we aren't arguing with you

just calling you faggot

>>7939

>Because I want people to freely associate with whomever they so choose?

No, it's because you use braindead boogeyman about compounds full of rabid stromfronters and felt the need to tack on the "everyone can refuse to trade with them" which is a dog whistle used by leftshits to indicate that everyone who doesn't support their progressive society free of hate will be attacked in any way they can get away with.

Or is the same ire coming the way of non-whites who will build exclusionary ethno-religious communities and will outnumber the stormfaggot boogeyman while doing so?

>>7945

>which is a dog whistle used by leftshits to indicate that everyone who doesn't support their progressive society free of hate will be attacked in any way they can get away with.

You're basically saying the same thing us libertarians are saying, except you call us leftshits and pretend it's news that stormcucks will get the shit boycotted out of them by anyone with half a brain.

>Or is the same ire coming the way of non-whites who will build exclusionary ethno-religious communities and will outnumber the stormfaggot boogeyman while doing so?

Depends. If they are racists or otherwise assholes, then yes, I would gladly boycott them.

>>7944

Okay, well feel free to make an argument as to why I should give a fuck about your opinion.

>>7945

>No, it's because you use braindead boogeyman about compounds full of rabid stromfronters and felt the need to tack on the "everyone can refuse to trade with them" which is a dog whistle used by leftshits to indicate that everyone who doesn't support their progressive society free of hate will be attacked in any way they can get away with.

Are you suggesting that voluntaryists would generally and happily trade with extremely authoritarian racists who don't understand economics? I'd imagine most voluntaryists WOULD refuse to trade with a compound of Neo-Nazis. To clarify, I wasn't suggesting boycotting every community that didn't have forced desegregation.

>Or is the same ire coming the way of non-whites who will build exclusionary ethno-religious communities and will outnumber the stormfaggot boogeyman while doing so?

If they're ignorant assholes, hell yes. If they have a relatively benign ideology and show no signs of attempting to create a new government (as in a government that claims right to land it does not legitimately own, initiating force, etc.) then I wouldn't care.

It's one thing for voluntaryists to boycott people pushing a fascist ideology, with or without regard to any -isms. It's not a stretch to suppose that they might consolidate and disrupt the nice thing they have going.

It's another for them to do the same to just plain racists. That's just a personal preference; an expression of one's free will. You can froth at the mouth and call them cucks but at the end of the day they don't have to do business with anyone. It's unlikely the market would favor either frothing racists or hysterical, uptight anti-racists. Most people realize they have biases whether or not they want to admit they exist. If there's no "PC police" then I think they won't mind casual prejudice.

>>7965

>It's another for them to do the same to just plain racists.

Depends on how much of an asshole these racists are. Personally, I couldn't care less about racist grandpas who don't want to sit next to a nigger on the bus. Hell, I don't want to sit next to a fucking smelly nignogger..

>>7882

You don't.

>>7925

Triggered, GaymurGoober?

>>7882

Well for one, what stance does the nationalist take on immigration?

Is he like the autistic meme-spouting /pol/ack who thinks his country is for whites and whites only and every non-white should be deported based on a misguided perspective on race? Then point out the fact that societies are never fixed in place and human ethnic groups are constantly evolving over time and that there's nothing wrong with limited controlled immigration.

Or is their stance that of a moderate (limit immigration, kick out illegals of all races and secure the country for the citizens no matter what race they are while bringing in decent immigrants who applied legally)? In that case, you are objectively wrong and the nationalist wins.

>>8763

And who should enforce these rules?

>>8768

Now, if only you could show me a powerful government that used its powers to solve a single, urgent issue and didn't abuse it otherwise.

>>7884

>Hans-Herman Hoppe.

Is he worth a read? I do like the sound of a more nationalist libertarian I'm more of a Paleocon though

>>8678

>Is he like the autistic meme-spouting /pol/ack who thinks his country is for whites and whites only and every non-white should be deported based on a misguided perspective on race?

My view is that it is best for a country to stay as homogeneous as possible because people with a shared background - culture, heritage, language, race, religion - will be more sympathetic and cohesive, advancing a society. In America's case, I would prefer it to be at least 90 - 95% European admixture; realy WASPy with some other minorities as well.

>>8774

In case you're still lingering around, I've read your post, pondered on it, tried to come up with a response and then there was dinner. Anyway, thanks for the read, it was actually interesting, even though I disagree.

>>8678

>you are objectively wrong and the nationalist wins.

what about the NAP doe

I understand that the state cannot own an entire country, but doesn't an ethnicity own its native land? Shouldn't private defence agencies be able to protect borders?

related video

>it's okay to enforce the state's borders against immigrants because statistics show they are likely to take welfare, commit more crime and expand the state

>initiation of force is justified against groups who might use greater force in the future

Am I hearing this correctly past Stef's appeals to pragmatism and emotion? Is this really okay, /liberty/?

>>15696

Stef is retarded, what did you except

>>15669

> doesn't an ethnicity own its native land?

No. If I go there and manage to settle down, it's my land. Just because they were once there, does not mean that nobody new can move in. People has been moving and mixing for thousands of years without anyone caring about nationalism (which is a relatively new phenomena that has already failed). Reality cares nothing about imaginary collectives like "ethnicities" or "nations".

>>15696

Do you want him to get shot?

>>15706

He was probably spanked as a child

>>15696

I think Stefan is catering to his audience. He knows nationalism is on the rise, might as well enjoy the ride while it inevitably becomes obsolete.

>>15740

It was obsolete long before it was made.

>>15740

>while it inevitably becomes obsolete

Whatver you're smoking, I want some.

>>15752

when there is finally one united ummah and the shahada is heard in every land, home and heart

>>15752

S P O O K E D

P

O

O

K

E

D