/pol/ - Politically Incorrect

Pretty much spot on with the Alt-right… Though obviously trying to downplay the racialist/tribalist aspect.

>No longer trying to convert or reason with the left, simply at open war with them.

Also good.

>>4879284

Libertarianism as a political movement died around 2012

They tied themselves into the Tea Party movement and managed to get them on board by promising that libertarianism would stop leftism in the government and get rid of the cucks. Then they got played the mainstream and lost their credibility

Libertarianism is dead. Many of the young people who were once libertarians have become alt-right/far-right because they realized that libertarianism's only solution to anything is "less government" and "muh free market", which solves nothing in the current world and ignores that many of our problems don't come from the government, they come from NGOs and rich elites. Simply put, more and more young right-wingers are going towards the alt-right and leaving libertarians behind because it offers them nothing.

>>4879523

I've been to my uni's libertarian club a couple of times. They're nice enough people, but it's really depressing how deluded they are. There were like 3 people total there the day after Randlet dropped out.

>>4879832

>I don't agree with racial separation. I'm just sick of every inequality being portraited as systemic racism, when median ethnic IQ is not even taken into consideration.

You dont have to. People segregate themselves. What most of /pol/ is arguing for is an emergency measure against the pozzed masses.

>>4879284

This has to be the most respectful and empathic description of nationalism or "alt right" ever made.

Mises Institute belongs to the socially right-wing libertarian circles, but this was pretty nice, even for them.

Still, he forgot to mention Jews, so sage.

>>4879885

>ever made

by non-nationalists, that is*

>>4879284

>libertarians

https://archive.is/PShJe

>The projects of the rightwing elite have long been low marginal tax rates, liberal immigration, globalisation, curbs on costly “entitlement programmes”, deregulated labour markets and maximisation of shareholder value. The projects of the leftwing elite have been liberal immigration (again), multiculturalism, secularism, diversity, choice on abortion, and racial and gender equality. Libertarians embrace the causes of the elites of both sides; that is why they are a tiny minority.

>>4879805

> You don't have to be a nazi to know that the state can in fact be made to work to the benefit of the people.

Well libertarians aren't anarchist so they are for a limited government, whether it is to give it monopoly on army, or the justice system, or borders it's what separates different libertarian doctrines. Also I am not saying that Hitler's government didn't benefit the german people, however is there any guarantee that in a fascist state after one or two generations the government won't slowly become more coercive and corrupt? Well the answer is no and that is the same for a libertarian state as well(however since the government is smaller it won't happen just as fast). The real question is: would it be easier for the people to revolt against the corrupt government in a libertarian society or a fascistic society and even before the melting point, would the people have a better and safer life in a libertarian or fascistic state?

>>4879832

>hurr durr property rights is a prerequisite for speaking

that guy's an idiot. and what the hell is "nature-environment worship"?

>>4879945

Fascism implies ending multiculturalism and strengthening the institution of the family. Libertarianism tends to tolerate or even promote materialist influence, which undermines the family and native culture in favor of multikult, hedonism, and limitation of property right to only the state (left) or transference of moral and material authority to the highest bidder, who is naturally intertwined with the state more and more as their market share increases (right). Live in an orderly state explicitly directed to advance the cause of the nation would be preferable to weakening allowing the state to become weaker than the moneyed interests with which it will inevitably compete.

>>4879945

I think that most people that like to play Nazis on /pol/ fully agree with gun ownership rights for exactly this reason - as a guarantee against the government eventually turning against them.

>is there any guarantee that in a fascist state after one or two generations the government won't slowly become more coercive and corrupt

But a corporation can also become more coercive and corrupt with generations, or within a single generation as its power and influence grow. Concentrations of power are always a potential threat to ordinary people, whether in private or in state hands.

However I imagine you don't support the "death tax" or other similar measures.

Anyway I simply wanted to point out that the state can work for the benefit of the people.

I think that the values of the people who build that state are what determines whether it's good or bad, not simply its size.

Either way I only like some elements of fascism but I also like the idea of direct democracy and meritocracy.

I admire the balance between economic left and right, private enterprise and regulation for the public good that was struck in Nazi Germany. But I also have some radical ideas that have nothing to do with it.

For example of meritocracy - what about officers and generals being promoted in peace time based on performance in various tactical and strategical simulations?

Direct democracy is mostly figured out and it works wonderfully in Switzerland although it should go even further, and if referendums can be called in easily to revert government mistakes this can be a check against a lot of potential abuse by the state.

You can also have something in the constitution like "if the support for a government falls below 40% it is automatically dissolved with new elections and the army and police should stop obeying its orders".

What happens when you combine these ideas of direct democracy and meritocracy with Hitler's economic, racial and state development policies? Not fascism, but not libertarianism either.

You would still have a strong state, but one that people can steer if it starts going in a wrong direction.

>>4880183

>Direct democracy is mostly figured out and it works wonderfully in Switzerland although it should go even further, and if referendums can be called in easily to revert government mistakes this can be a check against a lot of potential abuse by the state.

The Swiss votes over which jet fighter to buy was ridiculous and you know it.

Like 1/10th of people on weapon forums actually knows a damn thing about advanced weaponry, and weapon forums are already tiny by itself.

It is these little mistakes that anger me.

>>4879470

Did they mention the rampant faggotry?

>>4880210

yeah but overall "the dumb masses" will still make better decisions than the politicians in the vast majority of cases

I mean the masses are often dumb and uninformed, but at least they are not malicious towards themselves.

While the politicians, often very well informed, still make bad deals in favor of lobbyists and whoever is paying them, or slowly genocide the local population with mass migration and cultural marxism

>>4880265

and to finish off, basically I believe in the quote that "democracy is the worst system except all the others"

but only if we take the actual meaning of democracy and not the fraud that is "representative democracy"

>>4880265

>but at least they are not malicious towards themselves.

What about Germans?

>>4880260

No. Because there wasnt such a time. Every single live poll showed exactly the opposite of the lolberturdian made "census" (which was bull).

At least you admit half truth now.

>>4880265

If you want this, I want the complete separation of the armed forces and politics.

Wait, that is impossible lol.

>>4880266

>libertarian

>nationalism

>two conflicting ideologies

Time to become anarcho-fascist!

>>4880260

/pol/ was mostly divided. Even during /new/ there was alot of growing backlash against libertarians.

>>4880260

>Remember when /pol/ loved jews and anti-semitism was just a maymay fellow oldfags?

>>4879832

>I don't agree with racial separation

Kill yourself.

>>4879805

Things like BLM only have any steam due to the INTERNET

>>4880336

This is the shittiest political graph I have ever seen in my life.

>>4880336

Why do people still refuse to get that what ebil nutzis are demanding isnt an increase in the size of goverment, but rather that they actually DO SOMETHING?

If anything, the "democratic" United States of Kikeslaves have the biggest and most encompassing state ever since the USSR. This shit chart doesnt reflect that.

>>4880355

post alternative pleb

>>4880183

>I think that most people that like to play Nazis on /pol/ fully agree with gun ownership rights

As did real nazis in Germany.

>>4879832

You fuckers need to learn how to use stroke.

That shit is so uncomfortable to read.

>>4880364

So are you saying socialism doesn't require a massive government to enforce it? Are you claiming that ANY socialist country would have a smaller government that a libertarian country?

Yea I think we both know that's full of shit. I have no problem with nationalism, strong country and borders, but government isn't the solution, it's the fucking problem.

>>4880336

>being this American

>>4880266

>Libertarian Nationalism

>Not Nationalist Capitalism

>>4880299

There is nothing conflicting about saying let's have a free market for white people.

Liberty is not libertine, self control must come from within, this was one of the guiding ideas of the founding fathers.

Whites are the best at controlling ones agency.

Rothbard & Hoppe were very sympathetic to right wing populism, Hoppe went so far as to call having royalty as better than democracy.

Today we have Cantwell and Molyneux be pro Trump after accepting the demographic issue.

Freedom is a thing whites can practice and enjoy.

>>4880423

> libertarian

> not capitalist

Pick one

>>4879284

Who was it that said that the two parties should be almost indistinguishable and advocate nearly the same policies so that no matter who is in power nothing changes.

>>4880260

No, never and I'm an oldfag from old/pol/.

>>4880449

Someone named Carroll Quigley who was apart of that same groups who rule those parties wrote about this in Tragedy & Hope

>>4880439

>There is nothing conflicting about saying let's have a free market for white people.

That's called protectionism and completely goes against the inherent values of libertarian ideology.

Nice try lolberg.

>>4880457

yea that's what i thought, you've got nothing like a typical leftist

>>>/leftypol/

>>4880463

Thank you, the name escaped me.

>>4880473

>supports libertarianism

>a leftist ideology

>calls others leftists

noice

>>4880463

This guy goes into greater detail – you are probably thinking of some quotes by a few fellas who engrossed themselves in the Occult. I cannot think of the name of any of them at the moment.

>>4880473

lol

>>4880481

You're saying libertarianism is a leftist ideology? My sides just went Hiroshima.

>>4880481

>>>/leftypol/

>>4879832

>There's nothing pozzed about what he said or libertarianism in itself.

>I don't agree with racial separation.

:^)

>>4880503

>>4880506

>>>/oven/

>>4880336

this made my eyes turn gay

>>4879284

Libertarians just don't take it far enough. A libertarian who recognizes what the masses lack, is a National Socialist.

>>4880078

I don't really see the connection between the promotion of materialistic influences and hedonism. Libertarians don't really care what you do in the bedroom behind closed curtains as long as you don't force other people to join you. Now you might be saying that someone might have sex on his front yard with no fence so somebody's children will see it and libertarians can't do anything because it's his property. Well if reasoning with him doesn't work, the best thing to do is social exile, in that if someone does something that is taboo then nobody will ever speak to him, interact with him or barter with him(depriving him of food, water, services such as a mechanic or plumber and so on). So he will either have to move or change his behavior. Remember that a black person or a muslim act civilized when they are an extreme minority and have no government protection. Now you might be saying that this only works when the majority of the neighborhood condemns such degenerate acts and I agree, but you also need a majority if you want to create a fascist state(a minority can't really come to power by force and sustain it, you need the will of the majority), remember that Hitler came to power by a democratic majority.

>limitation of property right to only the state (left) or transference of moral and material authority to the highest bidder, who is naturally intertwined with the state more and more as their market share increases (right)

The redistribution of property is a tough one, and I admit that I don't really have a good answer for it, yet. I guess if the state stole your property(it happened to my family during the communist dictatorship) it should be given back to you, but then should America be given back to the indians and the rest to return to Europe?

>Live in an orderly state explicitly directed to advance the cause of the nation would be preferable to weakening allowing the state to become weaker than the moneyed interests with which it will inevitably compete.

This isn't really an argument for fascism and against libertarians but rather that it is better if the state promotes the advancement of it's people. States can easily be against it's people like in Sweeden and Germany and people can live and a pure life free of degeneracy even without a state imposing it. I doubt that after America became free from the British it was a hedonist and degenerate society full of race-mixing faggots.

>>4880183

>But a corporation can also become more coercive and corrupt with generations

>However I imagine you don't support the "death tax" or other similar measures.

Well I personally believe that for a company to become huge and maintain it's status que is quite hard without government intervention. To sustain a monopoly without a state means that you always have to put a better and cheaper product on the market, which only benefits the consumer. Now I am sure that we can talk about buying the competition or sabotaging the other companies and so on, but I am quite tired. Video related is quite good for this subject (is a small part of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-LJ3wZjD4I)

>I think that the values of the people who build that state are what determines whether it's good or bad, not simply its size.

That might be true, however the framework that is initially laid will determine how fast it will become corrupted.

I would like to discuss about a meritocratic state with you as I also have a friend who is for a meritocratic state, but it's really late were I live and I really got to sleep. I will just end it with this. I do not believe in the initiation of force and as such I don't want a state or anybody else to impose it's doctrines on me. I will own my own firm(or work at one) and my own private land.

>>4880554

fuck off storm nigger

>>>/pol/

>>4879284

Disgusting attempt at creating infighting.

While I'm glad that you've taken a break from shilling for Cruz, find a better way to occupy your time besides trying to divide /pol/.

>>4880290

>>but at least they are not malicious towards themselves.

>What about Germans?

Show me one recent poll where a majority is or non-european immigration.

>>4880566

Well ironically pol is divided, we've got the NatSoc (leftists) one side and libertarians on the other.

I think the common ground of nationalism brings us together, but the socialism bullshit doesn't leave room for common ground.

Basically if what are perceived as leftists now completely vanished, NatSoc fags would be the new /leftypol/

>>4880591

Does /pol/ even talk much about socialism at all? I see Bernie constantly attacked for it. I have also heard German socialism isn't the same as modern socialism though, but I don't know if that's true myself.

>>4880620

We used to, until they ran off to their hugbox to circlejerk.

>>4880336

>Libertarian Nationalism (Republic)

YOU ARE A FUCKING REPUBLICAN, JUST DEAL WITH IT.

In my opinion, what we need to do is revitalize the Republican Party and turn the new, young right on the establishment. I actually like many tenants of Republicanism and American politics, so if we can fix the key issues and become more nationalistic like we used to be, then from there I think we can rise.

>>4880620

Nah, the NatSoc fags only talk about the nationalism, they never talk about the socialism side of things because that puts them in leftypol tier.

>>4880626

"Republicans" don't represent me as it stands. I do believe a Republic is the right system however.

>>4880626

Most people don't even remember Goldwater Republicans.

>>4880626

Oh and I don't know if the current "establishment" can be fixed, likely needs to be burned to the ground.

>>4880591

>NatSoc (leftists)

>>4880627

>Nah, the NatSoc fags only talk about the nationalism, they never talk about the socialism side of things because that puts them in leftypol tier.

Is every lolbergarian as retarded as you? Honestly now.

>>4880577

>implying I wasn't making fun of the lolbergtarians obvious attempt at census cracking

It's an age old tactic

>back in the old days of /pol/

>you newfags

>us oldfags

>I remember when /pol/ was all *insert group*

>I remember when /pol/ hated *insert idea or group*

>I remember when /pol/ loved *insert idea or ideology*

>>4880286

>and to finish off, basically I believe in the quote that "democracy is the worst system except all the others"

Funny, because the most democratic countries are those self destructing with migrants. Why? Because the media is not a democratic institution, and there is no useful way for the dissenting public to change their mind other than violent overthrow of the corrupt "democratically" elected governments. And that is why the "dumb masses" are dumb and make decisions that harm themselves and only realize it when it's too late. Because democratically elected education boards are also brainwashed.

The best form of government is actually a benevolent dictatorship. Prove me wrong. (you can't)

>>4880620

Bismarck's socialism was a scam to steal german pensions.

Bismarck lied, people died and the state kept the pensions.

Socialism is always a scam. Johnson did the same thing with social security.

They are stealing your money right before your eyes.

>>4880661

This is a good example of the delusion of NatSoc fags, they hate "leftists" but are "leftists". It's like their fags hiding in a closet afraid to face the truth of what they are.

>>4880690

Not everyone on /pol/ is an American though.

>>4880687

>The migrant crisis happened spontaneously in dozens of countries because they are democratic

Wew. I hate democracy more than you, but it is hardly the real reason for the migrant crisis.

George Soros financed the entire invasion at the behest of the United States who do not want an independent europe and who need conflict in europe to make their moves on the eastern front.

>>4880241

>one guy on the alt right who's homosexual

>rampant faggotry

>>4880690

Yea NatSoc fags are just being edgy, otherwise they would be spending their effort on leftypol trying to convert the social leftists into national leftists.

>>4880711

they're*

>>4880286

Representative democracy is good in theory, but I guess it's doomed to fail due to lobbying.

In Switzerland they use direct democracy pretty well. I wonder if it could work in a huge, less intelligent country like America, or if it could work on a state level with a smaller federal government.

While looking to see if any libertarian circles (outside of the altright) were talking about this, I found this blog and this post in particular:

https://anarchistnotebook.com/2015/12/07/fashism/

I thought it was going to be some lefty nonsense but this guy seems to really get it. Wouldn't doubt it if the author browses /pol/. He understands why libertarians can't offer and don't seem to want to offer a solution to saving western culture, and with the rise of the communists in the left using state power, the only solution is to seize state power yourself.

I'll give him another year and a few more terrorist attacks before he's shit posting with the best of us.

>>4880748

I disagree with the measure of left and right (I also wouldn't use wiki as a source). In my definition the size of government from 0 to 100% defines the spectrum.

You can argue why size of government may not be a good estimate on ideological enforcement, but trotting out some leftist wiki definitions isn't making your case.

>>4880767

Cutting out a tumor is also divide and conquer.

And of course

>(1)

>>4880767

Even lolbergs hate the new lolberg movement.

Look at christopher cantwell

>>4880771

> the only solution is to seize state power yourself

The solution is to LIMIT state power through strict enumeration, not "seize it for yourself".

>>4879832

>4 Jews

>>4880774

>I disagree with the measure of left and right (I also wouldn't use wiki as a source).

I know but unless you provide a better source you can go shove it.

>In my definition the size of government from 0 to 100% defines the spectrum.

I know, which is why I said

>They're only leftists according to your own definition, you delusional faggot.

>You can argue why size of government may not be a good estimate on ideological enforcement, but trotting out some leftist wiki definitions isn't making your case.

See first point.

My definition of libertarians is that they like to suck kike dick and as long as none of us provide any citation for that, both our definitions are equally valid.

>>4880413

Duty for duty's sake is just bootlicking faggotry though, like your "duty" to bail out banks with your tax dollars and die for Isreal, goy, don't forget your duty to help those poor Syrians with open borders. Duty can exist independent of the state as long as there are strong grassroots leaders and a decent morals in society, imposing Duty on someone might work but never as well as if they believe in it themselves and hold themselves accountable to that duty, few people really do in practice compared to compulsory duty but those that do are much more consequential and powerful in exercising the duty than those who are compelled to do so by the state. At the very least many people can be expected to make an honest attempt at fulfilling obligations to family and community absent coercion (You don't need the government to force you to provide for and protect your children for example unless you are a nigger), and duty to family/community is much more important than any stupid objective traitorous politicians decide to force on us.

>>4880789

>lolbergs

Nice argument.

>>4880798

A moderate is someone who tries to mediate between two camps yet has no means of solving issues themselves.

They're politically ineffectual.

>>4880806

I posted my chart above using size of government bounded between 0 and 100 as the measure.

0 - Right

100 - Left

>>4879284

>trying to defend his ideology despite it's rapidly diminishing relevancy in today's political atmosphere

One great thing I've heard from a lot of people, in particular TDS, was that all these ideas are great, but they don't work when you're no longer a Western society. European ideas are no longer relevant when you're not a Euro-centric nation, which is what we're vastly becoming.

Won't even get into the shittier parts of Libertarianism beyond that. Non-europeans could give zero fucks about what we think is best because they aren't like us and will never share our same European values. This is the problem blacks are now protesting against and why they're openly assaulting the Constitution as being good for white people because it was built and intended for white people.

Until libertarians pull their head out of their ass and start addressing the cultural and racial issues they are going to be ignored.

>>4880732

NatSocs are "left leaning" as is. Libertarians just don't want big Government. But we realize, you need a big Government to root out corruption and decay.

>>4880824

That wasn't the argument dumbass

I stopped being a lolbertarian when I realized you couldn't improve black IQ by raising black children in white families.

I used to believe that you could change human behavior and culture on a large scale by simply forcing them to live in safe, secure lolbertarian free white/asian environments. The day I realized I was wrong was the day I went full 1488 gas the kikes race war now.

>>4880839

Big government isn't going to root itself out. Your premise is fucking delusional.

A strictly enumerated government can't utilize it's power to corrupt outside of its scope.

>>4880839

I would say you need a big(ger) government to watch out for the people of the nation and only the people of the nation, which corruption does fall under. Libertarianism wouldn't solve a lot of the issues we have today. It would either ignore them or exacerbate them.

>>4880828

So they are cucks? Why don't they just fight for what they believe in instead?

>>4880828

I prefer decentralized state government like the United States used to have, or city states in old world Europe, personally.

These discussions always turn to arguing definitions, as if this is a science and the definitions are exactly defined.

>>4880863

Again, a system designed under strict enumeration of functions can't simply become corrupt because it can't act outside it's defined powers.

>>4880858

Because you made none, faggot.

Sage divide and conquer threads

Sage divide and conquer threads

Sage divide and conquer threads

Sage divide and conquer threads

Sage divide and conquer threads

Sage divide and conquer threads

Sage divide and conquer threads

Sage divide and conquer threads

Sage divide and conquer threads

Sage divide and conquer threads

Sage divide and conquer threads

Sage divide and conquer threads

>>4880866

I still have my glorious foreskin, my dad was based enough to refuse the kike claim on it.

UNCUT FOR LIFE

>>4880904

>UNCUT FOR LIFE

I agree. It's still a non-sequitur.

>>4880885

Congress has the sole power to declare war, yet for close to a century presidents have unilaterally declared war.

There are thousands of other examples.

Enumeration of powers solves nothing, because what matters is what force exists to stop you.

>>4880839

Big Government institutionalizes corruption and decay. When has the government ever solved problems?

Never. Your pet problems have never even been addressed by the government. It is much more likely that the authoritarian dictator you crave so much would establish a SJW dystopia that enacts more terrible laws.

>>4880885

Right, I get what you're saying, but the problem is even strong and strict systems can become corruptible. The United States was built with this in mind and it only took a century in a half to get their way in and another 100 years to completely break down everything once they were in. Goes back even further if you include the First and Second Central banks which didn't get their charter renewed.

We need to get over this notion of Central Banking first and foremost. Who knows what 100 years without one would do in Western society.

>>4880923

Yea but that's why this country failed. There's nothing in the Constitution for pretty much the entire Federal government, including the Fed, and yet it exists.

The Constitution failed to restrict the growth of government and now this country will collapse at some point. This will need to be corrected.

>>4880899

You're just spamming.

>>4880861

>I-I used to be a libertarian tactic

You were never a libertarian, otherwise you'd know that you are not forced to live among black people in a libertarian society.

>>4879284

The faster these poor guys ditch Rand "Detroit Republican" Paul the better.

>>4880937

see >>4880940

Constitution never mentioned central bank or anything of the kind, the Constitution failed to prevent its creation.

>>4880945

I'd wager most races in a libertarian society would naturally self-segregate.

>>4880932

>When has the government ever solved problems?

>Never

Libertarians everybody.

>>4880953

They've never even accepted him. Libertarians have no leader, they follow ideas.

>>4880945

>you are not forced to live among black people in a libertarian society.

You are when your new feudal lords decide you must be.

>>4880970

Logical fallacies aren't arguments. Surely you have a list of all the wonderful successes of government?

>>4880970

>implying he's wrong

>implying you are not on wikipedia right now looking for examples of successful government programs

>Feudal Lords

What?

>>4880980

> feudal lords

You do realize libertarianism requires rule of law right? It seems to me you don't even understand what libertarianism requires.

>>4880336

This political spectrum is the political equivalent of the imperial system of measure.

>>4881000

Not familiar with that terminology, have any links?

>>4880996

>not being a anarcho-statist

>>4881019

Government didn't build roads, they took taxes and private contractors built roads. You can argue the eminent domain government used to get the land, but that would also exist under libertarianism.

>>4880932

>When has the government ever solved problems?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Repatriation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act

>>4881019

stupid statist we don't need roads in a perfect libertarian society we would all own a boeing 757!

>>4880983

>Logical fallacies aren't arguments. Surely you have a list of all the wonderful successes of government?

Well yes, the majority of technological and scientific advancement from the past century or so of Western society has come from government investment into problem solving. Nationalize railways work wonders in countries like Australia, and privatizing the Rail has led to a deterioration in Britain. Sanitation is a job much better done by government that it was by private enterprise, as is emergency services. Lastly, I'm pretty sure your military (which is/was one of the most powerful fighting forces in history) isn't being toppled by any paramilitary groups, is it?

>>4880994

>You do realize libertarianism requires rule of law right?

Who enforces that law? What meaningful way do they have to make me comply? If company A decides to form a vassal state, how the fuck are you going to stop them? After all they're letting you make the choice, they own the food and you can either get the food and work under them or be free and starve. Your choice, freedom of association bro.

>>4880862

you have no idea how governments and budgeting work. literally EVERYTHING in government is carried out through employees. those employees stop working if they dont get paid.

cutting tax revenue from the government can deplete what they have quickly. VERY QUICKLY. govt buildings will be quickly bought up, employees laid off or quit. entire departments and branches of functioning government collapse. look at detroit. abandoned government buildings. city is crippled, but still has some offices so they desperately try to squeeze their remaining businesses. those businesses resist knowing the city needs their tax revenue more than they need to keep their business in that city.

i work in local government. the city lives pay period to pay period completely dependent on their bank account being filled. if that money dried up, the city wouldnt be able to pay immediately. they do not have a safety net.

our govt is insanely close to collapsing right now as it is. back to sherrifs offices with a small police department and a city hall that has no lawyers and just a part time mayor and city council.

presidents like trump want to drastically cut the tax rate. this will cut their revenue, and force them to shrink. all the responsibilities the city takes on (welfare, programs, etc) will still have responsibilities, but the city will not be able to enforce. the mayor would have to either give up the responsibility as soon as he can, or risk being sued for not upholding.

then even if income rises, the city will no longer have those responsibilities forever being smaller.

libertarian is not a set govt system. its just a general philosophy that govt should be limited. what should limit the govt differs from person to person. someone can be libertarian and think the govt should handle roads, but not police or military. while another can think the opposite. once can think the govt should have a constitution,

>>4881031

>Government didn't build roads, they took taxes and private contractors built roads.

Good luck getting everyone to pay for that fun when it's not mandated by a government :^)

>>4881040

>libertarian is not a set govt system. its just a general philosophy that govt should be limited

Then it's a really meaningless p;atform to claim you stand on.

Libertarians just like to stick their head in the ground and not worry about the rest of society or its future, tbh fam.

>>4880839

>you need a big Government to root out corruption and decay.

A big government is different from an authoritarian one.

>>4880467

>and completely goes against the inherent values of libertarian ideology.

You must be pretty autistic to need to choose between one ideological extreme (Libertarianism) over another (Natsoc).

>>4881061

>lolbergtarian or neetsoc

I've noticed this consensus cracking a lot lately.

Tip: they're both shitty and preached by NEET scum

>>4880862

>>4880932

>implying

When have people ever been able to think for themselves on a massive scale, in the last century?

NEVER

>when has the government ever solved problems

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party

Do you want something non-kosher that isn't wikipedia?

>>4881052

>Nobody wants roads

>No demand for roads

>Roads would just disappear without the government

Excuse the hyperbole, but whenever there's a demand for something, there's a market.

If people want roads (they do), then some contractor will just build it or repair it, etc.

That's what they have been doing for hundreds of years. The only difference is that the government

doesn't siphon off any of the money to pay for its bureaucracy and affirmative action programs, etc.

>>4881015

The imperial system you know, Miles, inches, feet, yards, etc…

Nowhere outside of the united states the idea that big guv = left and small guv = right is taken serious.

I always saw it as a narrative the American right made up following WW2 just to joint NatSoc and Communism at the hip.

>>4881039

OK so I'll grant you that economy of scale does make government a potentially efficient option for some problems, but again nothing you listed is outside the scope of what a libertarian government would also do, and under a Republic many of those functions are delegated to the respective states.

>>4881040

Libertarianism is a philosophy, but it works well with a Republic + Nationalism (with respect to borders/national interest) + Military

>>4881085

"muh roads" is a really shitty Government, from someone who grew up in a rural area, if the people want roads, they'll make them & maintain them. There would not be ATV trails where I lived had there been no interest.

>>4880754

Our direct democracy does not work as foreigners think it works - not even most Swiss get it.

Voting about stuff in Switzerland is a tool within the parliamentary system. An insane departmental executive culture can only be reigned in with plebiscite as the last resort. It is the ultimate political nuke there is. An issue voted on is in most cases history the day it was voted on. If the establishment still wants to work around it, then serious troubles ensue - just like the next votes show. Most are a second round or political nukes.

In a more legit manner, the Cantons vote mostly about big spending projects. When a highway around a city will eat a billion Swiss Francs, most voters don't want to spend it. Even if they directly would profit from maybe better traffic, but a billion, wat

Voting on fighter jets also is a gauge for the army on how much support there is. If the result is not in favor, but still 48% support the request to spend, then in other discussions within the federal level, the army can say they have half behind them. A result of 70:30 against would destroy them.

We were asked in the 90ies, do you want to spend 20 billion CHF to build basically infrastructure for the EU? We voted yes. So other train projects in the same vein weren't that controversial. Votes that "failed" from a nationalistic standpoint were a lot in 92 (IMF/national gold holdings) and the one on minarets. That one was stupidly childish.

IIRC, the US has the same system. Just not on a federal level and this will hurt their system, because of the administrative state that arises in D.C., unchecked, while the states have to vote on important matters and can't stand up to Washington because voting is more conservative and dismissive by nature. Very ugly. To take a vote in a Canton as a blueprint to impose national policy would be outrageous in Switzerland. But this happened a lot via California and the Supreme Court.

>>4881098

I think the correlation between large government and ideology is well founded. You can also look at it from an engineering perspective, the larger the system, the more power and control systems are required to drive it.

>>4881105

Tell me more about how your shitty ATV trails are even remotely comparable to controlled-access highways.

>>4881085

>Excuse the hyperbole, but whenever there's a demand for something, there's a market.

There's only a market when you can sell a product.

So ALL roads would be toll roads, or there would be no publicly available roads.

>If people want roads (they do), then some contractor will just build it or repair it, etc.

How are you going to pay them for roads? With what money? I don't want to pay for roads out of my pocket, but fuck you I drive on them anyway. What are you gonna do about it faggot?

>>4881102

>nothing you listed is outside the scope of what a libertarian government would also do

Again, that's meaningless. Nothing a Libertarian society does is something that a Fascist society would be lacking, aside from all forms of degeneracy and social poisons. Sure maybe a Libertarian government could do it, but how are they going to have any authority if they're so small and don't use force?

A libertarian society would lack many of the positive aspects of fascist society. For example, who stops degeneracy and cultural subversion when they're legitimized by Libertarian values?

>>4879832

>pozzed

Spotted the Redditor.

>>4880839

Goverment is the cause of corruption.

Something can only be corrupt relative to the state.

Therefore it should be small and limited.

>>4881105

Really shitty argument*

>>4881125

The point I'm making is, if the people want it, they'll make it. There is also a dirt road that is basically a shortcut from one end of the community to the other end, a fellow with a business takes his grader to it now and again to keep it good because the Government won't do shitall, they can barely keep the roads plowed or replace decaying bridges.

>>4880892

Oath voided?

>>4881125

>He thinks the government has been building highways

Blue-pilled as fuck. The government takes your money, gives half of it to private contractors to build roads and pcokets the rest. Don't believe me? Look it up. 50 cents out of every highway dollar are "lost" along the way.

>>4881147

Government is not the only cause of corruption, you're delusional.

>>4881143

Legitimized, not exactly. Degeneracy often brings with it consequences that the current state covers up with the safety net. Such a safety net would not exist under libertarianism at a government level, so if it existed at all it would be at the family level.

So if some coal burner gets her ass pregnant, the state isn't going to support her. She would have no choice but to beg for help from the people around her and that will create an implied constraint on degeneracy.

>>4881147

People are the cause of corruption, big government gives the mechanism to accomplish it.

>>4881147

What a bold statement.

Because Governments are not made of people.

>>4881124

>I think the correlation between large government and ideology is well founded.

Of course there is, but is not on a left/right spectrum.

If you want to correlate it to something, the only thing i can see its a revolutionary/conservative spectrum.

Most if not all great social changes on this planet were achieved by strong willed dictatorships.

And this is the death of the right on our modern world, the left is allowed to monopolize the social changing forces of society while the right always campaign on the platform of "doing less" or "doing nothing" while signaling that the revolutionary elements of its own side are madmen.

Libertarians are just autistic liberals who hate government.

Liberals and libertarians both want the same end result of uptopian peace and love open borders globalism. They simply disagree on the methods.

>>4881096

Pretty sure da gubmints already got Energy and Housing down pretty tight.

>>4880771

>Again, we have never had a civil war. Why do I keep hammering this away?

Because I’m seeing all the ingredients for a real one building in the country. Whether it happens or not remains to be seen.

However, I’ve been on the record elsewhere on the Net about this, so I might as well make it clear on my own site. By 2020 we will have an out-and-out “fashist” movement emerging on the political stage. They will be uncompromising, unapologetic, unfazed, and undeterred. The usual rhetoric and name-calling will not silence them. They will be masters of effective propaganda tactics currently used by the Left. The realtalk that we hear uttered in fringe parts of the Internet will be proclaimed loudly on center stage of debates.

What we’re seeing right now is but a small taste of what’s to come.

I know, because I read their blogs and listen to what they say. They have spent years quietly perfecting their slogans, polishing their arguments. They have been biding their time. Moreover, the mainstream media and mainstream culture has simply written them off as ignorant and uneducated, dismissing the legitimate grievances that they seek to champion.

yeeup.

>>4881176

>So if some coal burner gets her ass pregnant, the state isn't going to support her. She would have no choice but to beg for help from the people around her and that will create an implied constraint on degeneracy.

But generous benefactors like Mr Soros will ensure her child has a stable life and is financially supported, since they will become the new highest powers.

>Degeneracy often brings with it consequences that the current state covers up with the safety net

That safety net can be removed and the state maintained though. A fascist society can at least ensure that degeneracy is not supported, while a Libertarian one can't stop generous benefactors from supporting degeneracy.

>>4881161

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

>>4881161

Corrupting ot not, it is an institution which allows corrupt people to loot and steal from their neighbors.

It is magnet for corrupt people.

>>4881161

There can't be corruption without the state.

>>4881291

>corporations can't be corrupt

Libertardians everyone.

>>4881265

>>4881275

>>4881291

>don't give a livable wage to politicians

>audit everything Government, including the auditors

>>4881299

Corporations only have an obligation to their shareholders, fucking stormweenie. I love big corporate cock up my anus.

governments are will always be the be the monopoly on force whether it be a mongol Horde, a pmc, a barbarian horde or an occupying army, these forces will embed themselves in the population after a time of crisis they will then justify themselves, see the kingdoms that formed from roaming tribes after Rome with the backing of the church

the point of the matter is unless a community can form a defense of it's own against all threats it will have to pay tribute to it's local monopoly of force. and if this community dose not like this it must rebel and replace the force.force will always exist

force=power=control=law=state=tax's

>>4881311

>Corporations only have an obligation to their shareholders

That's irrelevant.

"Want to have work so that you can earn money and continue to live? Go suck my dick or else you're fired:"

>I love big corporate cock up my anus.

Not surprising.

>>4881320

B-b-but muh enlightenment, muh Utopia.

>>4881299

Corporations can't be corrupt without the state. They are only corrupt in the nature of their deals with the state.

>>4881355

I just gave you an example how corporations can be corrupt without the state, yes, specifically because there's no state.

>>4881055

"meaningless" no, its a philosophy. if someone says theyre a libertarian, you know they dont like govnerment in general and think that government power should be on the low side.

>>4881102

>Libertarianism is a philosophy, but it works well with a Republic + Nationalism

agreed. by todays standards the early united states was extremely libertarian. roads were private, taxes were almost non-existent. police had the same power as an average civilian, etc.

>>4880870

Yeah, this country is close to being ungovernable because the extremes are getting further apart and the middle is hollowing out. I think the best solution is to declare the large metropolises as self-governing entities so the rest of the country can come to a consensus, which is impossible with the pozzled denizens of fag cities like San Francisco.

>>4881373

You did no such thing.

>>4881373

But please, attempt to give an example.

>>4881391

>You did no such thing.

>>4881400

>But please, attempt to give an example.

See >>4881324

>>4881324

socilailist ideas are what creates corporations large enough to be like this. government regulations limit competition and make it harder to compete. dont believe me? try to open your own ISP. further regulation makes smaller businesses struggle or fail, while the big businesses can survive, now with even less competition.

>>4881408

That's not corruption. That's attempted coercion.

>>4879832

> redpilled

> There's nothing pozzed about… libertarianism in itself.

> I don't agree with racial separation.

You are a failure.

>>4881433

>>4881433

Full Definition of corrupt

transitive verb

1

a : to change from good to bad in morals, manners, or actions; also : bribe b : to degrade with unsound principles or moral values

>>4881449

That's not the legal definition of corruption as applied in this conversation. It's only the basic definition of corrupt, and in a general sense at that.

Decent attemp at sophistry though.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corruption

>Dishonest or illegal behavior especially by powerful people (such as government officials or police officers)

>>4879284

Why don't those faggots just become part of the alt-right?

>>4880260

Kek. Yeah I was kind of supportive of their ideology.

until reality showed me that their shit doesn't work and its a form of wishful thinking

>>4881495

I don't know. Individualists man. If everyone who opposed this Goddamn cancerous political atmosphere we're in now; this marxism, communism, pseudo-progressive politics full of half-baked ideas and pseudo-intellectuals, we'd be able to overthrow it.

>>4881491

>Implying the corporations won't become ultra-powerful

Once one gets a monopoly, either vertical or horizontal, it's all over. They can then set their prices. You either pay their ridiculous prices or you starve.

>>4881491

>That's not the legal definition of corruption

Who would enforce the law that legal definitions even matter?

>>4881491

>>Dishonest or illegal behavior especially by powerful people (such as government officials or police officers)

Corporate owners are powerful people since they can decide over whether or not someone has the means to sustain himself.

And coercion is illegal, no? :^)

>>4880767

>I don't agree so I'll just go (1)

defend your fucking point that libertarianism isn't a dead movement, they peaked with Ron Paul and they don't possess the ability nor the will to actually fight against the left

>>4879886

This is an ironic sentiment considering that Hoppe is an Anarcho-Capitalist, and Ludwig Von Mises was a classical liberal, and so believed more in the state.

>>4880767

>(1)

>hardly two posts into the thread

I really want this to stop. It's good when there's hundreds of posts and someone comes from the blue to dissent, spouting an argument that's already been used, but faggots post it as if it's an argument crushing thing to scroll over the ID

>>4879805

>anti-SJW

I love how popular/mainstream this insult has become.

>>4881585

>That's pretty hard to due without a state

Markets tend towards monopolization naturally, hell the free market and the concept of competition only benefits consumers, corporations are very well aware that they're better off in a monopoly or oligopoly situation and take steps to make sure they get there

>>4879805

The State protects Soros from you putting a bullet into his head by claiming his actions are legitimate. The State is the enemy of the people, never forget that.

>>4880413

>duty must take priority to liberty - the two concepts are oppositional

Who says? In a society with true freedom of association, those who do not live up to the duties assigned will be ostracized to the margins.

Liberty and duty are not "fundamentally opposed". One enforces the other.

>>4881077

Ideology is not an edict of absolute fact. Instead it is a toolbox in order to solve the issues. And human nature is flawed Hobbes is always right.

>>4880945

>You were never a libertarian, otherwise you'd know that you are not forced to live among black people in a libertarian society.

I was a lolbertarian actually. The jews are forcing me to live among black people and mexicans and moslems. They are forcing Europeans to do the same.

Lolbertarianism will do nothing to stop that and nothing to stop the jews. Lolbertarians will lay back and allow jews to control everything. Exactly like they do now.

>>4881585

>They can decide who they hire, and it's their right

And fire. Who's going to enforce any kind of workers' protection law?

>It would only be considered a type of coercion if the person was desperate, but it's not like the company owner ows him shit.

In your lolbertarian utopia there will be jobs everywhere, right? Because on the odd chance that there's not people are going to want to keep their jobs considering that there's no governent that'd take care of them.

>You think like a commie.

No, I think like a national socialist that doesn't want his people dying because they wouldn't suck corporate dick.

>>4881585

>Hard to do without a state

Are you blatantly retarded? All one would have to do for a vertical monopoly is to control the entire production process, from raw materials to selling. For horizontal, just buy out the entirety of one level of production. The mines, the refineries, the manufacturers, or the sellers.

Monopolies are easy once you get the ball rolling. Carnegie, a scottish immigrant, managed to do it for steel.

>Robber barons improved life expectancy

>for themselves and their families only

The workers were working 16 hours or more a day in the dark, breathing foul air and making nickels for their labor.

By supporting that, you support the elites. You will not be a Captain of Industry, drinking Martinis and riding your Yacht down the river. You'll be a working scab, replaceable as soon as someone will do your job cheaper, or your hand gets cut off and they kick you to the street to starve.

>>4881673

Stop that faggotry. Is your entire ideology based on what the Lefty faggots are not?

>>4881693

No. Why do you say so?

>>4881673

>They can only due it with state support

Except they've only ever been stopped by state interference.

>Because otherwise they just get fucked by the market

How.

When somebody buys up all the coal, how does the market materialize more coal?

>>4881706

>that's a /leftypol/ argument

That's what I was talking about. Why not barrow from the left if it makes sense?

>>4881716

>When somebody buys up all the coal, how does the market materialize more coal?

They mine more. And the ones who bought it, sell it.

>>4881723

Like what for example?

>>4880735

>at least half of the big names in the movement, including the person who coined the term, are faggots

>j-just one guy!

The liberty movement is dead in the USA. It won't come back around til we have our civil war.

>>4881752

>>When somebody buys up all the coal, how does the market materialize more coal?

>They mine more. And the ones who bought it, sell it.

You know that there are finite resources on this planet, not infinite?

>>4881670

We do, it's called National Socialism.

>>4881673

>They can only due it with state support.

They can do it by being successful enough. They don't need the state. All they need is luck, time, and money.

A scottish uneducated immigrant managed to make a monopoly. He had no gov't help.

>And they had better lifes(sic) than they had before, working the field/mine and getting the plague.

They got the plauge by the horrid living conditions and constantly being close to others who were sick.

>And made life better.

…for the elite overlords.

>This is a /leftypol/ argument

It's not an argument. Its a statement of how you believe that if we live in a libertarian paradise, that competition will lead everyone to live in luxury, rather than just the CEOs and their families.

Only one man can be the ruler of the corporation. But there's a high need for floor scrubbers.

>>4881792

>You know that there are finite resources on this planet, not infinite?

So?

>>4881776

You can't have a liberty movement for the USA if there's no USA. It makes sense the liberty movement is dead. It will stay dead unless nationalism reasserts itself.

>>4881752

>They mine more

>Earth is literally full of materials guys

>There's no such thing as shortages and scarcity

Lolbertarians, everyone.

>THe ones who bought it, sell it

…at astronomical prices

>>4880735

>at least half of the big names in the movement, including the person who coined the term, are faggots

>j-just one guy!

>>4881806

If they buy and use up all the mines, then there is no more coal to mine. They can then sell it at whatever price they want. Can't afford it? I guess you'll be sleeping cold tonight.

>>4881752

>They mine more

In the Libertarian mind, there's just always more coal. When you pass a man starving in the street, do you just yell "grow some food"?

Libertarians have always been stupid but this takes the cake.

>>4879284

Actually he looks like he is telling libertarians that populism is good.

>>4881847

>In the Libertarian mind, there's just always more coal.

Let's look at the modern era.

In the 1990's people were crying doom and gloom about "peak oil". Civilization would collapse, etc etc.

Then as gas prices rose Tesla Motors came along and started eating everyone's lunch.

Eventually the oil cartels loosened their grip because they saw the end coming and wanted to forestall it.

So while semantically it's not true there will always be more coal, the fact remains that as one item becomes economically untenable another will arise to take its place.

>>4879284

>they are not the 'turn the other cheek' Christians.

kek

From when he starts talking about the alt-right, there should be some funeral music playing in the background.

>>4881888

>You just switch to oil or gas, because if you can't mine more it's useless to still have coal energy.

>just switch to oil or gas

Yeah because that costs nothing to do and can be done on whimsy, right?

Do Libertarians even TRY to understand how the world is, or do they live in a realm of hypotheticals where everything is easy?

>Not like coal will expire in less then like what? 3,000 years?

Go on then faggot, go mine some fucking coal. Right now. Go and mine some and then post a timestamp of it.

>>4881908

>the fact remains that as one item becomes economically untenable another will arise to take its place.

Then switch it to bread.

When somebody buys up all the grain, how does the market materialize more bread?

>>4881908

>Tesla Motors came along and started eating everyone's lunch.

What, no they didn't

They offered a luxury product to a limited set of buyers

The real response to high oil prices was the development of new high efficiency engines and hybrid vehicles

>>4881964

>When somebody buys up all the grain, how does the market materialize more bread?

They'll sell rice. NEXT!

>>4880839

>But we realize, you need a big Government to root out corruption and decay

lol wut?

Ok lets say you mean at the local level. I think that's what you meant. If not, what are you smoking? What if the government at the top level itself is corrupt as it is now? Then your fucked. Fags, jews, women, and gays congregate where there is money and corrupt the halls of government insidiously then openly.

What you need is for citizens to lawfully tar and feather corrupt officials and hang and kill assholes. That isn't natsoc. That is simply good men handling their business.

It's doomed for liberty.

The left wants socialism and censorship, the right also wants socialism and censorship.

Better just sit back and watch the world burn.

>>4881966

>Muh Tesla didn't eat everyone's lunch

Hey Faggot, I work in an office where the average income is around 120k. For a couple years Tesla was utterly destroying the german makers in performance and price point. It took the oil crash and a mad rush to cut 3 seconds off the 0-60 times on most german makes before this dominance was ended.

>new high efficiency engines and hybrid vehicles

You mean the engines that have not been any better than they were in the 1960's because safety regulations keep adding weight to cars?

>>4881986

>When somebody buys up all the grain

>They'll sell rice!

Aside from the fact you ignored my point, what do you think rice is?

>>4879284

>>4879523

>>4879616

Haven't we had this thread multiple times before?

>>4882027

You said bread. They don't make bread out of rice.

Your scenario is becoming increasingly unrealistic.

>>4881792

Resources are finite but human interactions are not. Economics are not zero-sum, which is why Keynesian economics works versus von Mises Jew faggotry.

You can make the finite resources on this planet last a very long time.

>>4882033

It's just the right cannibalizing itself instead of working together.

>>4881888

>The living conditions were only slightly above normal around 1820, when the Industrial Revolution took place

>They increased rapidly during the 1900's when reforms and unions ensured worker safety and minimum wages were put in place

Gee I wonder why quaility of life rose when the state finally did step in and stop the monopolies.

>Yet they don't do it today

do what? Sell it? Coal fell out of use. Or did you mean mine it? Because they do, it's just getting harder and harder to reach because we must dig more and more.

>We switch to oil or gas

What happens when they run out? Or get scarce? Libertarians really do have no sense of future planning, do they?

>If you can't get more it's useless to have coal energy

Good lord it does have a brain.

>Coal will expire in less than what? 3k years

Try a few centuries. India's will only last for 50 years at current rates of use.

>>4881986

Rice is a grain, retard. Not to mention you don't make rice into bread.

>>4882034

Who's gonna sell the rice faggot. Nobody else has grain. You're increasingly resistant to acknowledging the fact that resources are not infinite available and easily attainable. Maybe because Libertarianism requires the grain to "just be there" and Libertarians are just the real life equivalent of "let them eat cake".

>>4882066

If you are serious, when we run out of oil, we switch to nuclear.

>>4882079

You need oil for plastics. We really don't have a replacement for that

>>4882066

On the plus side, through their "if they buy all the grain we just use something else" they've admitted that monopolizing a market in a Libertarian society is THAT easy, despite all their insistence that you can't monopolize because "muh free market".

>>4882067

>let them eat cake

100% this

>>4882079

This one is my fault, I forgot the point he was making.

The real question is what if someone were to buy up all the gas and oil fields, use them, and then have a monopoly on their use.

Same goes for uranium.

>>4882097

Polymer?

>>4882101

No one has even able to prove that monopoly will even form without a state.

Even in nature, pure anarchy, no single creature can HOG all the resources.

>>4882090

If you and I make a trade, did one party lose something?

>>4882099

You are putting up strawman.

Monopoly, even formed, will not be the end all be all, as long as technology continue to advance.

The car monopoly will break when someone invents teleportation.

Daily reminder that libertarian is not a real political ideology. It is just liberals with autism.

>>4882154

And national socialism is not a real political ideology, it's just Hitler's populism.

>>4882125

>If you and I make a trade, did one party lose something?

Everyone wants 5 tons of pure gold. Clearly since the economy is not zero sum everyone can have it. Oh wait, that much gold doesn't exist in refined form on the earth's surface.

>>4879886

>Of course >>>/leftypol/ has been pushing national socialism for years to move /pol/ to the left.

No, they haven't. /leftypol/ doesn't even believe National Socialism is a thing. They filter it to Not Socialism.

You will have to provide proof of your assertion.

>>4882123

>No one has even able to prove that monopoly will even form without a state.

Nobody has been able to prove that Libertarianism works in any meaningful way for a successful and prosperous society, but that hasn't stopped you.

Monopoly will form by owning the system of production vertically. You can't make bread without grain, so the guy owning the grain controls bread. Basic shit.

>>4882139

>Monopoly, even formed, will not be the end all be all, as long as technology continue to advance.

So it went from "You can't make monopolies in Libertarian society!" to "Monopolies aren't even that bad" pretty quickly.

>The car monopoly will break when someone invents teleportation.

Another Libertarian piped-ream. "Whenever something bad is happening, we'll just technology ourselves out of it!". You don't acknowledge that teleportation may never happen, or it may take centuries to occur.

>>4882090

>one party is rich enough to buy ALL the food staples on the planet, and STUPID enough to attempt to withhold this from 7 billion people

So now you're saying your Libertarianism needs to exist in a globalist state, ey?

>>4882198

Wrong reply.

Meant to go to:

>>4880690

>>4882176

Strawman.

You can only trade something you have.

>>4882172

Libertarianism is [classical] Liberalism. What he said is not wrong.

You on the other hand can only argue with reductionism.

>>4882203

>Nobody has been able to prove that Libertarianism works in any meaningful way for a successful and prosperous society, but that hasn't stopped you.

It has worked in the Old West.

>Monopoly will form by owning the system of production vertically. You can't make bread without grain, so the guy owning the grain controls bread. Basic shit.

Bread would mean nothing if people can eat something else.

>>4882203

>So it went from "You can't make monopolies in Libertarian society!" to "Monopolies aren't even that bad" pretty quickly.

So far monopoly has not formed in the single libertarian society that exists, it has always formed within a state, is destroyed by the advance of technology.

>Another Libertarian piped-ream. "Whenever something bad is happening, we'll just technology ourselves out of it!". You don't acknowledge that teleportation may never happen, or it may take centuries to occur.

It's not a pipe dream. The steamboat monopoly did break when people invent something better, and it doesn't take centuries to occur either.

>>4882218

National Socialism is whatever the fuck Hitler wants it to be.

The man has no principles aside from his speeches.

>>4882123

>Without a state

But libertarians admit that the state is necessary, right?

>Even in pure anarchy, no single creature can hog it all

The creature isn't alone. He has his lackeys and friends who he'll share those resources with who will help him hog it all.

>>4882130

>Actually it increased as much from 1820 to 1900 as from 1900 to 1950.

…due to the reforms. I can read graphs, I can also read history.

>The monopolies are not the problem.

Yes they are. If someone gets a monopoly on a resource, he can set the price. Either you reach that price, or you die. It is a problem.

>Not really. Coal is pretty cheap and easy to get.

It is also thoroughly outclassed as an energy source by oil or gas. The US only has a 250 year supply, and that was taken back in 2011.

>You switch.

And so do the corporate powers. You can't keep running forever.

>So is are (sic) grains which you make bread

Flour is used to make bread. That is also not the point. Someone has a monopoly on all grains. How do you get bread? You'd have to pay the enormous price to get it.

What's that? Don't have enough because I only pay you five cents? Too bad. Just for that, I think I'll fire you. Can't have dissenters working for me.

>>4882139

And then they'll build the monopoly on teleportation.

>>4882130

>Coal is cheap and easy to get

Not for long. And not if someone buys all the mines.

>>4882266

>But libertarians admit that the state is necessary, right?

It's necessary, but it should be limited, yes.

>The creature isn't alone. He has his lackeys and friends who he'll share those resources with who will help him hog it all.

Well, considering even the lowly deers get to eat, no, no group of creature manage to hog it all. Extinction only happens when the creatures become worthless.

>>4882266

>And then they'll build the monopoly on teleportation.

Which will break when we invent something better.

>>4882217

>Strawman.

>You can only trade something you have.

Which is why economics IS zero sum. You give up something which someone else receives. You no longer have it. Zero sum.

>>4879284

Libertarians are just autistic leftists.

>>4882302

When you trade, you give something and get something back.

>>4882283

>Not for long. And not if someone buys all the mines.

And if they raise the prices too far people will raise their middle finger and go to vegetable oil, or biomass, or wood, or pretty much anything else that can be burned you fucking autist.

>>4882312

>When you trade, you give something and get something back.

Yes, but you dont have what you gave away, you have something new. It is zero sum. You don't gain what someone traded you AND keep what you had before. This isn't filesharing.

>>4882223

>It has worked in the Old West.

I knew it. It's always "The Old West and Medieval Iceland", ignoring that state involvement in the old west was heavy, and that it wasn't close to Libertarian.

>Bread would mean nothing if people can eat something else.

LITERALLY "LET THEM EAT CAKE".

>>4882242

>So far monopoly has not formed in the single libertarian society that exists

Name a single Libertarian society that exists.

>The steamboat monopoly did break when people invent something better, and it doesn't take centuries to occur either.

So when faced with monopolies, the Libertarian ideal is "dude no just wait for teleportation". The steamboat monopoly did break (funny that Steamboats were monopolized in the supposed Libertarian Old West), but that's a non-point. The argument of "oh well let's just wait for the next technology" is retarded because you have no idea if such a thing is even possible, yet are basing your future around it coming to fruition. When teleportation is shown impossible, what then? Do you continue to wait or do you sob as you remember how you let the market be monopolized?

>>4882299

>Which will break when we invent something better.

So you just nebulously invent your way out of all problems. The "autistic liberals" claim is looking more and more accurate.

>>4882328

>That's the nice part of not being an anarchist, dumb shit.

But Libertarians ARE anarchists. They just don't want people to think they're silly, so they make a small concession they never intend to follow through on. Ask a Libertarian and an anarchist what they desire and they'll give you the same answer.

>>4880703

More like, Bismarck's "socialism" was a brilliant scheme to reduce class war, and blow the commies the fuck out for ages, and it worked perfectly up til WW1. He also brought in anti-socialist laws which slowed their spread. It wasn't enough of cause. Hitler putting them in camps would have been enough, but the war was lost.

The problem with libertarians is that they don't understand the difference between the state working to provide benefits to angry workers and reducing class war, with communists who want to actually abolish private property, and thereby engage in class war to destroy the capitalists. There is a difference between small s socialism and SOCIALISM, and it's not a quantitative one, but a qualitative one centering around property.

Libertarianism is just the flip side coin version of Marxist socialism or communism in that it creates the very tensions that lead to communism. Libertarianism means low wages and high rents, and is class war against the poor, which in turn sends them into the arms of commies who engage in class war against the rich.

Only a third position, where you have a corporatist parliament can actually solve this. Only Fascists have ever provided an answer to this issue comprehensively.

>>4882346

>But Libertarians ARE anarchists

You are just an irrational shill. Bye. Filtered.

>>4882291

And deer are not trying to hog all the resources. But monopolies and their owners are.

>>4882299

Which will reform when that "Something better" is bought out or stolen by the corporation.

>>4882319

And then the monopoly, already powerful as is, will buy that out as well. You think Rockefeller just settled with oil? ==HAH==

>>4882328

>What reforms?

Union reforms, worker safety, minimum wage, food safety requirements, sanitation reforms, other regulations.

>Not historically. Only goverments set the prices in the way the population starves. Like the commies

Only because the corporations didn't have control over the food supplies.

>Or so you say

You're just arguing to argue, aren't you? Eventually you'd just be burning the corpses of those who ran away with you. Then what?

>The state fucks them up

But then that would mean the state has grown more powerful, and then corruption is possible. It wouldn't be a libertarian paradise.

>Implying the gov't would allow that

But they can't interfere with business, now can they? Not in a libertarian paradise

>Yes for long

>250 Years

>Long

So you're willing to damn your great grandchildren's children to profit? Just so you can have the BCC firmly in your ass?

>>4882327

I guess everything is zero sum, considering you will always lose physical doing doing it.

>>4882346

>I knew it. It's always "The Old West and Medieval Iceland", ignoring that state involvement in the old west was heavy, and that it wasn't close to Libertarian.

State regulation in the Old West isn't heavy nor even enforceable, all kind of shit run in the old west.

>LITERALLY "LET THEM EAT CAKE".

You are using the french revolution as an example, when you know full well it's not the corporation that's fault in that grain problem.

>[alt-right] doesn't seek to change [progressives'] minds

They don't ever show any willingness to change their minds no matter what information is presented to them. Why is this so difficult to understand.

>>4882395

>And deer are not trying to hog all the resources. But monopolies and their owners are.

Deer would hog all the resources if they can i.e. no predator.

>Which will reform when that "Something better" is bought out or stolen by the corporation.

Thus the cycle repeats again.

>>4880299

>>libertarian

>>nationalism

>>two conflicting ideologies

Who told you that? The Constitution is not anti-American. If we actually supported and defended the Constitution, then our borders would be secure and Cruz would be immediately disqualified from the presidency.

>>4882392

"Freedom of association" is how you plan to make your safe-space, isn't it?

>>4882414

>State regulation in the Old West isn't heavy nor even enforceable

State regulation in trade was heavy. That's why trains were as they were, and why lawmen roamed as much as they could.

>>4882395

You're operating under the assumption Libertarians understand economics. As we've seen in this thread, they didn't understand the concept of finite resources until it was explained to them.

>>4882428

>If we actually supported and defended the Constitution, then our borders would be secure and Cruz would be immediately disqualified from the presidency.

And the country wouldn't be Libertarian.

>>4882414

>You are using the french revolution as an example, when you know full well it's not the corporation that's fault in that grain problem.

>He doesn't understand the phrase

Autists do have trouble getting metaphors

>>4882425

>Deer would hog if they could

Thank you for proving my point.

>Thus the cycle repeats

Again, thank you.

>>4882346

>The argument of "oh well let's just wait for the next technology" is retarded because you have no idea if such a thing is even possible, yet are basing your future around it coming to fruition.

Technology will advance, that much is true.

I'm not basing on that as the end all be all, but history proves that it's technology that will destroy monopoly.

>>4882438

>The argument of "oh well let's just wait for the next technology" is retarded because you have no idea if such a thing is even possible, yet are basing your future around it coming to fruition.

And the outlaws outnumber lawmen, because the lawmen were ineffective in enforcing the laws.

Regulations mean nothing if no one can enforce them.

>>4882438

I'm also operating under the assumption they understand anything other that "Free Market" and "Breathing." Like history, human nature, psychology, causality, and scarcity.

I really should quit while I'm ahead.

>>4882438

>wouldn't be Libertarian

Libertarians want to enforce the Constitution.

Are you American? I heard the word has a different definition in europe.

>>4882470

> ahead.

Of yourself maybe.

>>4882447

>Autists do have trouble getting metaphors

I understand the phrase fine, but it's not a fine example or phrase to speak about corporation monopoly.

>Thank you for proving my point.

But they couldn't, because there are predators i.e. competition.

>>4880812

> Duty for duty's sake

Duty is responsibility.

Responsibility for responsibility's sake?

Seems like nonsense rhetoric to me, but I suppose its been espoused before.

That said:

Is it truly our duty to bail out banks, do we have any real responsibility there?

No.

Is it truly our duty to die for Israel, to die for someone who is not our kin or ally, not our nation, that has no real relation to us whatsoever?

No.

Is it truly our duty to support Syrians, in a similar state to the Israelis above?

No.

If anything, what you claim to be a legitimate duty, is little more than someone employing the concept of duty in a disingenuous fashion, attempting to claim a responsibility exists where there is none, just as, amongst Communists, the claim will be made that liberties exist within the utopian worker's paradise, which do not.

There is no genuine duty there, no genuine responsibility, only the illusion of such.

One has a duty to their kin, their kind, their nation, their God, themselves.

They have a responsibility to each as each relates to each other.

That some leader claims a responsibility on behalf of the people to X, Y, or Z does not suggest such actually exists, even if action is taken under the flawed assumption that it does - I would argue, perhaps, that duty for duty's sake does not exist, so much as that, duty as a concept can be employed, where no such duty exists, to achieve or justify an end; as can liberty.

But I digress…

Morality derives from duty, not the other way around.

If your society is one whose paramount goal is the abolition of duty, not merely to the state, but as a concept - and libertarianism is exactly that: liberty as its principal objective… maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgment - then there can be no 'decent morals'.

As for 'grassroots leaders', these are valuable in many systems, many which are superior to libertarianism, at the conceptual level.

You hit on a fine point though:

> imposing duty on someone might work but never as well as if they believe in it themselves, and hold themselves accountable to that duty

This is quite true… But, by the same token, it is also true that duty is not something that comes naturally, an appreciation and under of duty must be instilled.

Refer back to the Heinlein piece.

> … you have a cultivated conscience, a most carefully trained one.

> Man has no moral instinct, he is not born with it.

> He is not born with moral sense.

> You were not, I was not - and a puppy has none.

> We acquire moral sense, when we do, through training, experience and hard sweat of the mind.

> … What is 'moral sense'?

> It is an elaboration of the instinct to survive.

> The instinct to survive is human nature itself, and every aspect of our personalities derives from it.

> … But the instinct to survive can be cultivated into motivations more subtle and more complex than blind, brute urge of the individual to stay alive.

> … What you miscalled your 'moral instinct' was the instilling in you by your elders of the truth that survival can have stronger imperatives than that of your own personal survival.

> Survival of your family, for example.

> Of your children, when you have them.

> Of your nation, if you struggle that high up the scale.

> And so on up.

> … The basis of all morality is duty, a concept with the same relation to group that self-interest has to individual.

Any good grassroots leader is an espouser of duty, and thus, by definition, oppositional to the core of libertarian ideology.

And any society founded upon the abolishment of duty, of responsibility to others, founded rather upon the primacy of the individual's freedom from such responsibility, to state or in fact any source, will be, by definition, one without 'decent morals', IMHO at least.

>>4882362

Fascism is getting their shit kicked by both the capitalists and commies, respectively.

Pol aren't too good at economics.

Encourage learning and conserve your energy

>>4882490

To go back to your point, though:

> few people really do in practice compared to compulsory duty but those that do are much more consequential and powerful in exercising the duty than those who are compelled to do so by the state

I agree whole-heartedly, but I would suggest that a society which makes liberty is primary pursuit will neither force compulsory duty, nor have any especially-powerful ability to achieve the goal instilling an appreciation for duty, an understanding of it, amongst those within the confines of that society.

I believe it must be a combination of duty and liberty, but that duty (responsibility) - as opposed to liberty (freedom from responsibility) - must take the priority position; because, though willing espousal of duty and responsibility is preferable to compulsory, compulsory achieves the end and is more-likely, especially if such is the aim, IMHO, to instill a willingness to espouse duty, to shift from a compulsory expression of responsibility/duty to one more consensual.

You bring up some good points though, and I will have to marinate upon them; specifically, WHY do I believe that such a society of (*pseudo-)compulsory nature as regards duty would be more-likely to instill an appreciation for such a concept in those within it.

(*I say pseudo, as I am more in favor of, say, a meritocratic limited democracy, as opposed to full-scale authoritarian dictatorship or the like; such that, to at least some degree, espousal of duty at 'higher levels', at national levels for example, would not be compulsory, per se, but that certain privileges, which many have mistake to be 'rights', might not be provided [political will, for example] but to those who are prepared to espouse duty in a meaningful fashion in this context)

> At the very least many people can be expected to make an honest attempt at fulfilling obligations to family and community absent coercion

Many perhaps, but here's where your generalization breaks down…

> (You don't need the government to force you to provide for and protect your children for example unless you are a nigger)

This is utter falsehood.

Generalization I can take, but this? No, this is a lie upon your tongue.

All that one requires for people to no longer provide for and protect their children is the absense of duty.

That's it.

Morality derives from duty, from responsibility to others, to a higher power if one believes in such, and, especially, to oneself.

You are responsible to yourself, above all others, to espouse a moral nature.

And yet, many people - to use your generalization - do not even espouse such duty in self, let alone to others.

And it is not because 'they are niggers', as you say, necessarily, so much that they have never been taught any concept of duty, of responsibility, or at least, have no internalized such in any meaningful way - which in many cases, to at least some degree, can be blamed on liberalism, on the focus upon individual, upon individual right and free choice, upon many of the tenants libertarianism holds as foundational and, more than that, as paramount.

The very notion of any responsibility to others, to the state, to the kind, to the kin, to the God (of there even being a god), or even to the self, all are and have been under attack by those promoting 'liberty' as the paramount of human societal pursuits, and I simply don't see it.

And what has this liberty brought up?

Degradation of duty, of the very concept of duty, of responsibility to others and the self, and by extension, degradation of morality, for morality is little more than a symptom of the espousal of duty.

If you have no responsibility to anything, if you are truly representative of liberty, you have no foundation upon which to found morals, for you have no responsibility, no duty, nothing to bind you to these others or even to the self (justifying suicide, even, one might argue), nothing extant such that you might be motivated, beyond vague and infirm altruistic assumption (the assumption of altruism as a natural behavior, of the assumption that 'people are mostly/born good'), to care about others or even the self in any meaningful way.

Libertarianism is, to me, very similar to the left-wing hyper-authoritarian regimes which espoused duty upon the people and not upon the leadership, which demonstrated total liberty on behalf of the leadership and total duty on behalf of the populace, and I do not believe this can function, certainly no better than might a society wherein total liberty/absent duty is espoused by all, though I am not necessarily sure which would be liable to function worse.

>>4882469

>And the outlaws outnumber lawmen, because the lawmen were ineffective in enforcing the laws.

Is that why the West was won by lawmen and "city-slickers" won the day in the end?

>>4882478

>Libertarians want to enforce the Constitution.

That isn't what the word means. Anywhere.

Libertarians want open borders, free trade, and for freedom of association. You can't be nationalist Libertarian like you can't be dry water.

>>4882362

Libertarianism means low wages

You fucking retard

Shaking my goddam head

>>4882438

Libertarian, master of economics, apparently do not understand economics, unlike some nazis.

No, everyone understand finite resources, the point is that you can replace said resources with something else.

>>4882506

> and duty to family/community is much more important than any stupid objective traitorous politicians decide to force on us.

Here we can agree, at least in theory - I might argue that both share significant importance, and that one may not necessarily override the other at all times.

For example, if one's family community are seeking to take actions, actions which are harmful to the society but which they personally desire on some questionable basis.

As an example, one might point to the European migrant concern at present, wherein it is likely many individuals may soon find themselves, if they do not already, in a state of division, wherein they must reconcile duty/responsibility to family/immediate community with similar duty/responsibility to nation/society - today it is the sister who struggles with responsibility to family/immediate community and nation/society in the form of a brother or townsfolk who oppose non-white immigration and conceal/aid activists of resistance movements gainst a left-leaning regime, tomorrow it is the brother who struggles with responsibility in the same vein in the form of a sister or townsfolk who conceal/aid illegal migrants or resistance movements against a right-leaning regime.

One might argue there is need for an understanding of a tiered and contextually examined hierarchy of duties - encompassing self-interest, love of family, duty to country, responsibility toward race and hominids at-large, perhaps even duty as espoused in extra-hominid relations, given time - which must be espoused in governance and society, to reconcile this.

Sorry to shitpost at you.

Was a bit heated when I started, so excuse any hostility you might interpret, as there is none meant.

>>4882523

>>4881628

>>duty must take priority to liberty - the two concepts are oppositional

> Who says?

I did.

Also, their definitions.

> Liberty: the quality or state of being free ->free: an absense of restrictions

> Duty: obligation -> responsibility -> state of accountability

You cannot be 'free' and 'responsible' in the same context, the concepts are oppositional at a fundamental level.

One is, in fact, the absence of the other - as contextually appropriate, liberty/freedom is the absence of duty/responsibility, as duty/responsibility is the absence of liberty/freedom.

You cannot be restricted by obligation and espouse absence of restriction.

> In a society with true freedom of association, those who do not live up to the duties assigned will be ostracized to the margins.

In a society with true freedom of association, there is nothing to suggest any duties will be assumed to exist.

If we are a society which prioritizes individual freedom, we cannot - and should not - expect that others will

You speak of a libetarian society in a vaccuum, a society which prioritizes liberty but wherein individuals continue to espouse an assumed responsibility, a restriction of their individual freedoms, on moral grounds, morality itself being in question as a society truly espousing liberty would have no bounds, no restrictions, no inhibition of individual freedoms, upon which morality might be founded.

You might argue such responsibility, espousal of such, simply arises organically, as a function of utility if nothing else, and I question this argument - I do not think that, in a society truly espousing libertarian ideals, there would be, nor should be, any assumption of obligation or its espousal, whether on idealistic or utilitarian grounds.

> Liberty and duty are not "fundamentally opposed".

This is an utter falsehood.

> One enforces the other.

Freedom from responsibility, the absence of restrictive obligations, the societal espousal of such, enforces the espousal of responsibility, the restriction upon freedom of obligation, the societal espousal of such?

Obligation to responsibility, the absence of freedom from restriction, the societal espousal of such, enforces freedom from responsibility, the freedom from obligatory restriction, the societal espousal of such?

Preposterous.

Duty, responsibility, is a restriction.

Libertary, freedom, is the absence of restrictions of this very sort.

Thus, a society espousing either in entirety - be it Marxist Communism with its 'duty for the sake of duty' and embelishment of utterly-absent liberties [and its tiered espousal of such, total liberty for leadership vs total duty for citizen], or Mises' Libertarianism with its 'primacy of individual judgment' and assumption of continued upholding of duties [a highly dubious prospect, which I wager would form similar 'tiered' hierarchies as the Communist Marxist regime produced] - is flawed, IMHO, and a society which espouses both in measure is required, specifically however, one which espoused duty and responsibility as paramount to liberty.

Without duty, we are totally lost.

Without liberty, we are but machines.

We must find our path, and remain as Men.

To achieve this, we must remember our duties, while keeping liberty alive - the two competing concepts must co-exist, though duty must stand the superior.

… How to achieve that, well… That I don't know.

As above, likewise, apologies for shitposting at you - no hostility intended.

You lolbergs are okay; misguided in my opinion, as you'd no doubt say of me, but okay.

>>4882507

>Is that why the West was won by lawmen and "city-slickers" won the day in the end?

The Old west was destroyed by urbanization, a thing with good and bad elements.

>>4879832

>>4881566

>Hoppe is an Anarcho-Capitalist

What kind of Ancap believes in state borders and low immigration?

>>4882517

>Libertarian, master of economics, apparently do not understand economics, unlike some nazis.

Boy you must have sucked off a lot of professors to get that masters. Because clearly you didn't know the content.

>No, everyone understand finite resources, the point is that you can replace said resources with something else.

So we went from "monopolies can't form!" to "monopolies aren't even bad!" to "monopolies don't matter because everything is replaceable!", ignoring the fact that oil is necessary and almost irreplaceable for plastics production.

>>4882537

Another example of "Libertarianism" failing and gradually becoming less Libertarian. And after that period, America experienced its peak.

>>4882456

>Yeah, but even before them the life span rose. It was still much better then before.

…for the factory owners and big businessmen

Libertarians really love to let out those little important details, don't they?

>Are you telling me corporations are more competent then the goverment? Okay. You are not very consistent are you?

No, what I'm saying is that they never tried to control agriculture, or never get around to it.

>What does this even mean?

It means that you'll run out of space to run, and out of resources to use that aren't controlled by the corporations.

>Just an effective police force.

Who'll do what? Kill the strikers before they can get hungry in the first place?

>Why not?

Because then it wouldn't be libertarianism. It'd be a dirty statist society, that allows the big bad gov't to interfere with business.

>Try 3000

Sauce?

Cause here's mine for the US reserves. It's the largest one.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=coal_reserves

>>4882489

The predator is the state. But because the state can't touch the businesses, the deer are free to hoard.

But about the phrase, Let them Eat Cake is used to either say "Let them do what they want" or "Why don't they just eat something more expensive?" when the problem isn't the food shortage, it's their ability to purchase that food.

>>4882560

>Boy you must have sucked off a lot of professors to get that masters. Because clearly you didn't know the content.

And you do? With your "the state will fix everything"?

>So we went from "monopolies can't form!" to "monopolies aren't even bad!" to "monopolies don't matter because everything is replaceable!",

Monopolies have yet to be formed in a libertarian society.

Monopolies have existed in statist society, and some aren't bad.

Monopolies have been replaced when people invent better technology and new resources are discovered.

You are the dude who hog all the wood, thinking he owns the world when somebody else discovers coal.

>>4882580

>The predator is the state. But because the state can't touch the businesses, the deer are free to hoard.

The predator isn't the state because they lack the authority. They exist in competition with the deer.

>But about the phrase, Let them Eat Cake is used to either say "Let them do what they want" or "Why don't they just eat something more expensive?" when the problem isn't the food shortage, it's their ability to purchase that food.

Which is not a problem with the corporation, but the state hogging up prices.

>>4882588

>Monopolies have yet to be formed in a libertarian society.

Except for earlier where you claimed the "Libertarian" Old West had a steamboat monopoly.

>You are the dude who hog all the wood, thinking he owns the world when somebody else discovers coal.

So I use my wood money to buy the coal too. Now I own both resources, and you're still freezing waiting for another guy to invent you out of the mess you refuse to prevent.

And before he's able to do that, you freeze to death.

>>4882517

>You can replace that with something else

Not forever. And not if that resource is already controlled, or becomes controlled soon after its discovery.

>>4882494

>Fascism getting its shit kicked in

From the post responded to

>Only Fascists have ever provided an answer to this issue comprehensively

He didn't even read what he responded to.

>>4882507

>>Libertarians want to enforce the Constitution.

>That isn't what the word means. Anywhere.

Wrong. That is exactly what it means in America. I will ask you again. Are you American?

>Libertarians want open borders

Who told you that? /pol/ Nazis?

Even Ron Paul supports securing the border.

"Ron Paul proposed the following action steps for dealing with illegal immigration:"

"Enforce the laws on the books with more border guards. Allow states and landowners to enforce the law and provide security assistance.

Abolish birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants. [Current U.S. citizens will not be affected. Instead, babies born to illegals after a future cutoff date will no longer gain automatic U.S. citizenship. They will still have citizenship in their parents’ home countries.]

End all federal mandates on the states to provide free education and medical care for illegal immigrants."

>>4880460

This is untrue.

A lot of people were more open to Libertarianism in the past, especially when Ron Paul was running for president.

What happened is people gradually have found how Libertarianism is simply too passive to counter anything that Marxists push forth. A libertarian approach to a problem such as Marxists infiltration is to break down government control of any sort of barriers into any and all spheres of influence. What we've seen happens then, is that Marxists are more than happy to collude to fuck over all of society, consciously or unconsciously, to help further their ideology.

Which is why many of us are no longer fans of Libertarian philosophy. It does absolutely nothing to counter the filth our society has been drenched in by those that loathe everything that made our countries great in the past.

When a Marxist wants to destroy a country you can't simply meet in the middle with them to achieve a consensus, you simply have to cut them off from any influence they had. A consensus with them would simply be destroying your country only in part rather than in full, which still involves your country being slowly destroyed.

>>4882560

>Another example of "Libertarianism" failing and gradually becoming less Libertarian. And after that period, America experienced its peak.

America experienced its peak in the 50s, post-WW2.

After the Old West was WW1 and great depression.

>>4882604

>Except for earlier where you claimed the "Libertarian" Old West had a steamboat monopoly.

Said steamboat monopoly breaks soon after, so the society fixes itself.

>So I use my wood money to buy the coal too. Now I own both resources, and you're still freezing waiting for another guy to invent you out of the mess you refuse to prevent.

I already buy the coal when you are trying to buy all the wood.

>>4882602

Then who is the predator? Who has enough power to challenge the deer/monopolies?

>>4882608

Continued. Here's the link.

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/

>>4882607

>Not forever. And not if that resource is already controlled, or becomes controlled soon after its discovery.

With or without central government, the resources are gonna run out, might rather speed it up so we can find another resources.

>He didn't even read what he responded to.

Fascism didn't do jackshit except falling into debt themselves and resorting to war in order to get out of debt and get more resources.

>>4882580

>…for the factory owners and big businessmen

I showed you the stats. That's just not true.

>No, what I'm saying is that they never tried to control agriculture, or never get around to it.

Who? Goverment or corporations?

>It means that you'll run out of space to run, and out of resources to use that aren't controlled by the corporations.

The goverment won't allow.

>Who'll do what? Kill the strikers before they can get hungry in the first place?

They'll arrest the bosses of those corporations, retard.

>Because then it wouldn't be libertarianism.

Libertarianism =/= Anarcho-Capitalism. Nice strawman faggot.

>Cause here's mine for the US reserves. It's the largest one.

Of current known reserves. They always discover new ones.

>>4882634

Another corporation existing in competition with the deer.

>>4882608

>Wrong. That is exactly what it means in America

Except it is not. That's what Constitutionalism means. Libertarianism was invented by kikes explicitly for the purpose of open borders and ensuring they can own the country through markets.

>Who told you that? /pol/ Nazis?

No, just Libertarian scholars.

>Even Ron Paul supports securing the border.

Then it looks like he's very un-libertarian there.

>>4882614

>America experienced its peak in the 50s, post-WW2.

Which occurred after the Old West, unless you also need me to explain to you that time moves forward linearly.

>>4882633

>Said steamboat monopoly breaks soon after, so the society fixes itself.

So there was no monopoly, but now you admit right there that a monopoly existed under a system you call Libertarian. Are you intentionally doing these mental gymnastics or is it just natural for you?

>I already buy the coal when you are trying to buy all the wood.

With what money faggot? You gave it all to me for wood because it was either that or you freeze. Threat of Death is a good motivator.

>>4882395

>And then the monopoly, already powerful as is, will buy that out as well.

Aww cute! The communist thinks the "coal monopoly" is going to "be rich" when nobody is buying their price-fixed coal due to cheaper competitors!

>>4882580

>be you

>browse circlejerk forum

>encounter disagreement

>shriek factually incorrect nonsense

cause muh feels were triggered

>be snarky and a cunt

>refuse to learn

>>4882665

>>4882665

>Which occurred after the Old West, unless you also need me to explain to you that time moves forward linearly.

There are something that occurs between the Old West and WW2.

The great depression is something that happens after the Old West too, and it's not a nice thing to say about urbanization. WW2 revitalized a lot of american economy due to the profit from selling off weapons and the destroyed Soviet and European economy.

>>4882675

>cheaper competitors!

You seem to not know what "monopoly" means.

Why do Libs seem to know nothing about what words mean.

>>4882665

>So there was no monopoly, but now you admit right there that a monopoly existed under a system you call Libertarian.

A monopoly exists for a brief time, which is then destroyed by a superior invention.

>With what money faggot? You gave it all to me for wood because it was either that or you freeze.

No one ever live in a frozen hellhole, some people don't need wood, they would buy the coal or own the oil before you can buy all of them.

>>4882702

Someone can own all the coal, and they would lose to competitors who sell another resources i.e. oil.

>>4882633

>I already buy the coal

With what? The money you don't have, the money you previously spent buying the wood for outrageous prices?

>>4882645

>Let's just use it all right now and then scramble to find more resources

Holy fucking shit I am laughing

>Fascism didn't do shit

Except raise Germany out of the pits and make it nearly a world power. Germany had to be destroyed because it was about to shift the balance, not because teh ebul nazis

>>4882647

>I just showed you the stats

They only showed the general raise. It never said it was for anyone in particular. If you knew history, then you'd know that it only rose for those in power.

>Who?

Corporations obviously.

>The gov't won't allow

The gov't can only secure national security, ensure private contracts, build roads, and tax in a libertarian society.

>Arrest the bosses of the corps, retard

Pot calling the kettle black. Besides, the corporations can run temporarily without the owners. They'd just bribe their way out of imprisonment anyway. That is assuming this police isn't privately owned by the corporations, given that only they can fund such a force.

>Anarcho-capitalism =/= Libertarianism

>Implying there is a single fucking difference

>They'll always discover new ones

>He's already forgotten about how there AREN'T unlimited resources on earth

Hoo boy here we go again.

>>4882675

>Cheaper compettitors

Who? They've already bought out the competition. That's what monopoly means, that you are the sole provider of that resource.

>>4882708

>A monopoly exists for a brief time

Bam, there we go. You lied. Monopoly existed under a Libertarian system.

>No one ever live in a frozen hellhole, some people don't need wood

Everybody needs wood. You just put the responsibility on others to get it for you. When they can't, suddenly you see that everything wasn't that simple and that monopolizing base resources gives you quite a bit of power.

>>4882721

So if I own all the oil, whose going to compete with me? Coal can't be used to make plastics. Vegetable Oil can't run a space shuttle.

>>4882665

>Except it is not

Strike two!

I will ask you a third and final time. Are you American?

>>Even Ron Paul supports securing the border.

>Then it looks like he's very un-libertarian there.

Says you. Who the fuck are you again? Have you ever even been to America?

>>4882760

>I will ask you a third and final time. Are you American?

Yes. As is Thomas Sowell, as are many Libertarian Scholars, none of which define themselves by that characteristic and instead by the actual definition. Your insistence that "Libertarian means the thing that another words explicitly means" is just your autism flaring up because you don't know words. As most Libertarians don't.

>Says you. Who the fuck are you again?

Somebody who isn't braindead retarded. Which is why I'm not Libertarian.

>>4882744

>With what? The money you don't have, the money you previously spent buying the wood for outrageous prices?

I don't spend all the money on buying all the wood.

In fact, I can live in the southern continent where I don't have to buy wood at all.

>>4882744

>hey only showed the general raise. It never said it was for anyone in particular.

How do statistics work? Hurr durr

>Corporations obviously.

And why did you bring that up?

>The gov't can only secure national security, ensure private contracts, build roads, and tax in a libertarian society.

And that's national security.

>They'd just bribe their way out of imprisonment anyway.

Like they do today? That doesn't really work that way.

>They'll always discover new ones

Until they no longer need coal

>Implying there is a single fucking difference

Shill detected. Filtered. Bye.

>>4880599

Fucking this. /pol/ is only 25% NatSoc and it's the only place where National Socialism is actually discussed. America worked just dandy before the Jewish menace, and the first time National Socialism came about it didn't even accomplish the holocaust everyone blames it for.

>>4882749

>Bam, there we go. You lied. Monopoly existed under a Libertarian system.

Yes, and it was quickly destroyed.

>Everybody needs wood. You just put the responsibility on others to get it for you.

Not everybody needs wood. There, your argument destroyed.

>>4882665

>Libertarianism was invented by kikes

I was exactly right. You were told that by /pol/ Nazis.

>Libertarian scholars

You completely failed to name one. Was it "Anonymous"?

>>4882744

>Except raise Germany out of the pits and make it nearly a world power. Germany had to be destroyed because it was about to shift the balance, not because teh ebul nazis

Germany was destroyed because it attacked Poland.

This kind of bullshit where Nazi Germany was the peaceful state with the perfect economy is hilarious bullshit made up by the nazis on this board.

>>4882749

>So if I own all the oil, whose going to compete with me? Coal can't be used to make plastics. Vegetable Oil can't run a space shuttle.

Nuclear powers.

And in reality, no one has managed to own all the oil.

inb4 da dastardly jews

>>4881096

Misleading image.

I'd put universal healthcare as more important than retirement insurance and unemployment insurance.

Without those two I'd be probably a "modern conservative" as the graph says, though I would not call myself that.

>>4882800

>Yes

Thank you. So when you said in >>4882242

>So far monopoly has not formed in the single libertarian society that exists

You fucking lied.

>Not everybody needs wood.

Do you live in a house?

Then you need wood.

>>4882806

>You were told that by /pol/ Nazis.

Except the first person to coin the term was a literal kike.

>You completely failed to name one.

Thomas Sowell.

Milton Friedman.

Murray Rothbard.

Need I go on? All of them love open borders, all of them want free markets, the constitution is an afterthought to them.

>>4882819

>Nuclear powers.

That doesn't make plastics for ya kiddo.

>>4882685

>me

>Being snarky

>Refuse to learn

>Shrieking incorrect facts

>Not the frogposter

wew lad

>>4882721

Then I just buy up what oil I can and start buying out the competition. Or better yet, the oil guy and me partner up and form a Trust

>>4882785

Then I buy the land the forest you're getting this free wood is on. Then I put guards around to keep freeloaders off.

There is nowhere you can run that a big enough corporation can't fuck you.

>>4882798

>hurr durr

See children, now the Libertarian retreats to name calling.

>How do statistics work?

No, how do graphs work? is the proper question.

You show me evidence that the living standard raised for people other than those in power, and substantially, before the reforms took place, and you'll actually prove something.

>Why do you bring that up?

To prove you wrong.

>National security

How so? he's just creating jobs. He's not trying to destroy the nation, just make a profit. So what if people die and suffer?

>Like they do today?

Absolutely. If you have enough money, you can buy the best lawyers to get you out of anything.

>Until they no longer need coal

No, until they run out of places to find it. As long as people need that cheap resource, they'll hunt for it. It's still good to burn for heat and cooking.

>Filtered

And so comes the final tactic of the libertarian: Putting his fingers in his ears and ignoring reality.