/pol/ - Politically Incorrect

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-i-am-not-libertarian.html

Lurk

>>5444127

All the smart lolbergtarians woke up and realized "oh goddammit, lolbergtarianism isn total shit isn't it?" and moved on to an ideology that doesn't suck dick.

Meanwhile, the stupid lolbergtarians remained stupid.

That's about it.

There was a thread a few days ago with titled,"What Redpilled You" and this was my reply, and a reply to someone else who was displeased with my dismissal of libertarianism.

> I was born into the redpill, moulded by it!

I was raised in a semi-traditional and conservative household. My father was (now retired) a law enforcement officer in a very "diverse" city, and he openly and bluntly gave me and my siblings life lessons on the criminality of minorities. Let me tell you, the human brain's sole purpose is pattern recognition, especially in social settings, and law enforcement (especially investigators and detectives, and military) are thoroughly trained in recognizing patterns, filing reliable reports, and making sound judgement calls. Law enforcement, especially in "diverse" areas, even minority officers, are almost completely redpilled on race.

My father would always tell us, "If you see a black person walking around when its under 50 degrees, they are up to no good." and, "If you see a group of black kids and only one of them has a bike, the others are on their way with him to steal more bikes."

In 2008 I had to do a report on a presidential candidate and then debate their positions on issues in front of a class. For example, research Obama's or McCain's positions and then debate as if you held his positions. I was a bit of the teacher's pet in this class and decided to choose a less well known candidate: Ron Paul. Reading Ron Paul's books and his book recommendations (Mises, Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, Locke, etc.) lead me to a fascination with colonial/revolutionary American history (I grew up in New England) and the philosophy of enlightenment-era classical liberalism. Within weeks I was a libertarian and by 2009 I was an An-cap. I found Alex Jones documentaries and Stefan Molyneux youtube channel. Voted for Ron Paul in 2012.

I am no longer libertarian or an-cap, although I do still empathize and value their inputs on ethics and economics, even if I no longer agree. I was an An-cap from 2009-2015 and have since realized that libertarianism can only work if it is particularized and not universalized. In short: libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism (or pretty much any political ideology, hell, maybe even a race-realist white nationalist/progressivism) can only work in a 90%+ homogeneous White society. What is funny is that I was An-cap for anti-semitic reasons. I used to think that "the free market is the only way that working- and middle-class goyim can free ourselves from the ZOG stranglehold on our lives."

The biggest redpill I have come to as of late, leaning more towards "classical" conservatism, aristocracy, monarchism, fascism, natsoc, and white nationalism/separatism is that:

Free Market Capitalism is not necessarily right-wing, just because Communism is necessarily left-wing.

I think my path is pretty typical. I've seen plenty of people on here and on other alt-right and far-right websites say that their journey of political socialization has brought them from basic bitch neoconservatism -> paleoconservatism -> libertarianism/ancap -> Classical conservatism -> other flavors of "far-right"

For the record I am now 24, moved to a 90% white area, and on my way to marriage and children. Thanks, /pol/!

Someone replied to >>5444165 and was displeased at my dismissal of libertarianism. So I wrote back to him the following post, but I did not garner any further replies. Id like to have a dialogue with current libertarians about these critiques.

I never said that "anarchism is the worst possible thing," but that it would require a high-trust 90% white homogenous society to work. And in my opinion, it is an unreasonable expectation on the inhabitants (citizens?) of this Ancapistan to keep it that way without the use of force. An idealized libertarian or ancap society would be extremely wealthy and prosperous, I concede. But then the leechers and the parasites will come in to suck the teet and exploit these productive people. How can you reasonably expect that none of the inhabitants will sell out their neighborhood to make some money? Same thing that is going on now with open-borders libertarians. Follow the NAP and you will cuck for people who don't give a fuck about your nation's values or autistic devotion to liberty and just want a piece of the pie. [Sidenote: If i had not become redpilled before this year, open-borders libertarians would have driven me to the far-right.]

The state has a legitimate role in curbing degeneracy. Things that are bad for the wellbeing of society that are not necessarily acts of physical bodily harm or violate private property rights. Mass immigration, gay "marriage," or recreational drug use, for example. Blacks and Mexicans voluntarily moving in to neighborhoods, lowering property values, white flight, ghettoization of suburbs: these things do not violate the NAP (although exasperated by the state) and will happen without the state. They can, however, be prevented by state action.

Molyneux tends to harp on societal norms being enforced by social ostracization. Sounds good if you live in a homogenous society where everyone shares your norms. Sounds terrible once Jews brainwash enough people that society sees it as a moral good to kick out all the evil racist misogynistic anti-semitic christians. It puts too much power in the hands of the peasants, the commoners, the plebs. Social norms, in order to be both stable and effective, need to be written in stone. They cannot be up for debate or change with the times, or else after a few generations in Ancapistan you will ostracized for not being CURRENT YEAR enough, and banished to live in the wilderness or something.

With absolutely no State restraints on the common man, Ancapistan will eventually succumb to the Marxist dialectic. Even if Molyneux's Ancapistan starts out as the absolute 100% ideal, there are no forces stopping the nation from drifting away from the interests (ethnic, religious, ideological, etc.) of the founding stock, and many financial incentives to. Almost the entirety of the north american continent was libertarian or anarchic just 200 or so years ago, and without a strong state to paradoxically keep it that way the State has grown in size, strength, and complexity. So much livelihood and so many lives wasted in the process.

>>5444132

I am well versed in Moldbug. Don't see his name or blog too much on /pol/ these days. He is a heeb, after all. That being said, his crypto-calvinist hypothesis of progressivism is half-correct. Enlightenment-era WASPS set up progressive democratic political structures wrapped in universalist philosophies, allowing easy infiltration of jews. Moldbug misses out on the second part, not surprisingly seeing as he is jewish. Moldbug is "critical theory" for conservatives.

I do enjoy his thoughts on neocameralism and formalism, and his revisionist 18th-19th century american history. I, myself, would like to see a return to 13th Century political structures propped up by 21st+ Century technology. Star Trek meets LOTR.

I'm basically minarchist I guess, but I can't come to terms with no government at all. Shit doesn't make sense tbh. We need a unified police and defense force and it's nice having public schools and some welfare to keep the potentially violent low IQ castes somewhat in line, though they should both undoubtedly have their funding slashed substantially.

>>5444229

> Personally, I align with the techno-commercialist faction of NRx - I came to it through Land's cyberphilosophy and only backtracked to Moldbug.

i.e. I'm a cuck to crypto-leftist accelerationists and 30 years ago would have been part of the Heaven's Gate UFO apocalyptic cult.

>>5444233

Does the government have a role in curbing behaviors that are not necessarily "violent" or "aggressive" in the legal sense? Things that erode society in a non-violent way, i.e., degeneracy.

drug use, hookup culture, gay marriage, porn, other miscellaneous social ills that jews use to atomize and de-stabilize society?

>>5444249

Why would you post this?

What possible good could come from just randomly shitting on some guy about a point tangential to the main point of the thread?

What does your post gain from its heavy use of buzzwords?

Why should I or anyone else not conclude that you are, if not a shill, at least a completely useless person insofar as this thread is concerned?

>>5444165

Similar to me, but I was raised by a hippy single mother which red pilled me in it's own way, warning me of the dangers of women.

Currently I lean towards supporting a Greek-ish style democratic system. Something like only 30+ year old men who actually pay a net + of taxes are allowed to vote. I'm pretty sure that would eliminate our deficit and SJW problems in government within a decade.

>>5444263

cause he is a bandwagon jumping faggot and probably an impressionable teenager

he would have taken the drugs 30 years ago to ride the comet to the alien planet with his cult buddies cause he can't see through lies

it's not my problem you faggots didn't browse the old /duck/ board with the wealth of info on land

also

>buzzwords in response to an nrx and moldbug post

ayylmao

>>5444264

I think a democratic republic with a limited franchise is a good step in the right direction, but how does such a system account for those in power who will gain from an expanded franchise?

How do you keep the franchise limited? America up until the 1820s had a very limited franchise to 21+ White Male Landowners, then it was opened under the SJWs of the day, the "white egalitarians."

The first election post-expanded franchise did bring us Andrew Jackson, but since then it has expanded to women, blacks, 18 year olds. Even non-citizens can vote now in some places like california. How can you prevent that?

>All the smart lolbergtarians woke up and realized "oh goddammit, lolbergtarianism isn total shit isn't it?" and moved on

"It's [current year]! My political philosophy is the only one that sensible people can entertain in [current year]."

I remain a minarchist libertarian.

>>5444288

> How can you prevent that?

A rabidly tribal ethnic state. That is the only way.

Control of the media would have to be unconditional. WASPS fucked up when they treated their media like a commodity, rather than a source of power. You don't run media to make money, you run it to control the culture, and thus politics.

>>5444340

i.e do not sell media to outsider, in this case Jews, and you do not allow outsiders to start up media in any form…..

No OP. I live in europe in my own native country with my own ethnic people. Why would I settle with being just libertarian when i can be a fullblown white nationalist? Makes no sense to me to settle with less.

Altough I understand that you americans might not have the same possibilities considering you are new africa and all.

>>5444382

Specifically, a hierarchy that operates with a certain degree of harmony.

>>5444143

>Meanwhile, the stupid lolbergtarians remained stupid.

A lot of them ended up supporting Bernie.

>>5444356

>I live in europe

>i can be a fullblown white nationalist

Why would you be a white nationalist when you could be simply a nationalist?

>an-caps

literally a self-negating cuck ideology

capitalism cant survive without the state

I know that Ayn Rand was a major kike but I love Objectivism at the same time. But I'm more of a nationalist.

[vulnerability to subversion intensifies]

It tended to fuse with nationalist and traditionalist tendencies to become something more akin to Paleoconservatism/Constitutionalism/"American" Nationalism. Thats where I roughly stand.

>>5444458

> I was always driven by two arguments: the practical/economic, and the moral (being the NAP). Whenever one failed, I could go to the other.

Yes, this resonates with me.

A realization I came to is that free markets and capitalism should be used as a tool, a means to an end, and not as a free-for-all end unto itself. The end, of course, is to further the interests of the nation and her people.

Free markets can be extremely efficient at producing wealth and innovating technologies. Im also against a totalitarian economy where the government controls every aspect of all businesses and enterprise.

I advocate a 3-tier mixed system of economic production:

1) Nationalized/Heavily regulated tier- this would include things pertinent to national security and the welfare of the nation and her people. Things like the military industrial complex, energy production, some raw materials and commodities like precious metals, oil, lumber, the media, maybe some basic agriculture production. These industries would have to be set up in such a way as to be productive, efficient, and profitable, with consequences for corruption and failed business strategies. (Cant infinitely run in a deficit like current govt programs.) Large swatches of land set aside as national parks or historic areas.

2) Free-Market tier- This would generally be everything else, generally luxury goods and consumer products. Your TVs, your clothing, a majority of food production, etc. Things that the government really doesnt have a role in producing.

3). Abolition tier: Things that are illegal and/or banned. CP, drugs, subversive materials, other degenerate shit. Maybe even certain types of music or art.

This is only a general outline, and im sure there will be disagreement about what should go under each column. But the big picture is the outline of 3 main sectors of the productive economy.

>>5444566

>The economy is a tool, a means to an end, not an end on itself

Spot on.

>>5444622

> free markets and capitalism should be used as a tool, a means to an end, and not as a free-for-all end unto itself. The end, of course, is to further the interests of the nation and her people.

>>5444449

it did for thousands of years

>>5444127

>Are there any libertarians or an-caps on /pol/?

We are here, we just don't bother engaging the NEET-Socs on this.

Libertarian and AnCap discussion is over on >>>/liberty/

>>5444728

Thanks. I'll probably post over there in the future. (in good faith, i promise.)

>>5444735

Just a heads up, its a pretty slow board but has decent discussion.

>>5444739

a discussion in a place full of individuals that agree with you is a hugbox and benefits noone

Conflict of ideologies in a peaceful setting is beneficial it allows persons to affirm their beliefs and for the blissfully ignorant to be made aware of problems, it may also prod fence sitters into taking a side

>>5444127

Still libertarian. But certain cultures and ideology are innately against our liberty. Like jewish, zionists, marxist, socialist, muslims, and neocons.

They need to be removed. Liberty will constantly be under threat with these faggots in America.

>>5444684

Ancap is not contrary to nationalism.

>Are there any libertarians or an-caps on /pol/?

This place is infested with them.

>>5444566

Very nicely put, anon.

>>5445563

why not?

>>5444127

>>5445456

Yes, this. I'm sort of a Marxist's evil twin. If it's even possible to have the Founding Fathers' libertarian society someday, it will first require a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie to cleanse Western culture of the globalist Left . Can't make an omelot without giving a few lefties free helicopter rides.

==P H Y S I C A L L Y R E M O V E

H

Y

S

I

C

A

L

L

Y

R

E

M

O

V

E==

>>5444127

>Can anyone add to rebuttals of libertarianism from the far-right, other than "lolburgtarian" or other one-liners.

I used to defend Libertarians, until I realized how deeply hypocritical they all are.

You claim to believe in total freedom of speech, but you'll shush and shame white nationalists and race realists while giving a platform and paying rapt attention to communists, niggers, hipsters, and feminists.

If you stood for real freedom of expression, I might get along with you better, but you don't. Most dyed in the wool Libertarians are just neo-progressives who want classical conservative economics but don't want to give up their pozzed lifestyle or cannot bring themselves to condemn hedonism.

Once you learn more about society and how the world actually works, you will come to understand that these things go hand in hand. You cannot have "conservative economics, progressive society." One informs the other. One leads to the other. A conservative society will end up having conservative politics and financial strategies one way or the other. The reverse is also true.

Libertarianism could work if the world was solid white. It isn't. Europeans and Anglos are outnumbered by the brown hordes on a global scale by a massive margin, and we are becoming slowly outnumbered even within the context of our own countries.

Free Trade is a joke and a mistake. Traditionalism and Protectionism are the ways to go. All immigration needs to be halted immediately, and any fifth columns or pockets of alien cultures need to be deported back to their origin countries. Private national banking needs to be abolished, and the banks need to be Nationalized so as to prevent any sort of privatized cabal of money lenders from ever rising again.

Usury should be outlawed. Libertarians don't have the capacity to do this. They would call it "too authoritarian." They acknowledge what needs to change, but shrink away from actually doing what needs to be done.

You think a KKK rally is white, go look at a Libertarian meetup sometime. Take a good, long look at that crowd. Not one black. Not one hispanic. No arabs, jews, or other semites. Not even any of the so-called "based asians."

Just white people. Anglos and Europeans are the ONLY ones who want to "play fair." Everyone else is out for themselves, and they're taking advantage of the west's pathological altruism to eat us alive.

You'll become a Paleoconservative or Fascist eventually. It's just a matter of time.

We will change the world the Patrick Buchanan way, and if they deny us that, we will change it the Adolf Hitler way.

Those who make peaceful change impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.

I would consider myself a libertarian nationalist. There are many things that would be better off moving naturally without government interference, but there are situations such as migrant warfare and trade imbalances that are suitable for government interference.

If people were ideal enough to function in any society of choice, I would choose anarchism. Or socialism. I figure it would be about the same difference at that point.

>>5444127

>other than "lolburgtarian"

Why would we and why should we?

This shit has been being pushed on /pol/ for the better part of the nomination season since Trump started and has been pushed on anyone not firmly a /leftycuck/ since mid gamergoyte.

Libertarianism and any flavor of nationalism are completely ideologically opposed. They can not exist together. Libertarianism if further left than even socialism.

Also if you look at history at all, any nation / government that even look at libertarianism ended up failing horribly and killing millions of civilians.

>>5444127

Oh. I forgot.

REPORT + HIDE + SAGE

shit

>>5445566

Wtf 3 dubs in a row

>>5446036

*People memespew, the mods enforce bias and it's caused people to leave in a minor exodus that is

Because it's largely impossible to hold a conversation here if you don't already agree

I know there used to be a fair number of Libertarian posters here, but I haven't seen many for probably 6 months or so.

Are these 'libertarian' threads Divide and conquer tactics?

>>5444127

OP how did you find this board?

I'm paleoconservative, but I sympathize with the libertarian movement. It's a very broad iseology that translates to preserving Liberty and freedom, although many on this board seem to reason that libertarians want total anarchy, I'd respond that many libertarians just want limited government and more constitution.

>>5445748

>>5445748

So you're sad that libertarians didn't specifically endorse your enture world view even though they fought for the right for you to express it?

Free trade works if you have an ewuivalebt tariff policy to offaet government aubsidies so that places luke cgina can't use governmebt funds to ryn foreign competition out of business

As for provressive degeneracy, 2 points

1 - progressivism is a problem only because it is forced on people by the government. On its own it is a failjnv strategy and without the ability to leach the people adopting said strategy will die off or change

2 - progressive and consservative societies cycle one after the other as a reaction to the other. It is a cycle and it will repeat. The damage from it can again be mitigated by a lack of centralized authority so that degeneracy cannot be mandated

>>5446157

*Equivalent tariff policy

My phone isn't the best platform for this

>>5446157

>>5446173

Who give a fuck about expressions when actual rights and communities are being eroded and the survival of own people is at stake?

This is where all of you "intellectuals" lost the fighting men.

>>5446036

The only reason you don't see lolbertarians much anymore is because we've grown up. Only an idiot would look at the current state of the world and think that individualism will do anything but sink us further.

>>5444566

Libertarianism is rule utilitarianism

To say that the ideology has a particular metaphysical antagonism to spirituality is nonsense - it is simply the best method of ensuring the efficient allocation of resources

Whatever else it is that you're reading into it has no basis in its principles

>>5446252

Can you explain how that will happen or should I accept it because that's a meme?

>>5446232

>doggy dog world

….

You do know that it's "Dog-eat-dog world" right?

>>5446252

>>5446252

Not to mention that you confuse individual liberty with self centered personal philosophy

There is less stopping you from organizing as you will in a libertarian society than in the one we live in, so explain yourself

>>5446268

Our societies are filled to the brim with selfish people, libertarianism would only be an extension.

>>5446268

Nobody gives a shit if you dont even acknowledge the basics.

Now go and be "free".

>>>/k/

>>>/leftypol/

>>>/int/

Yes Im using meme because if you refuse to acknowledge the need of doing more than just increasing wealth, all of this is meaningless.

Pissoff.

>>5446272

Duh a nation is more than just resources, libertarianism leaves that to its owb devices. If people care about their culture it will thrive, if they don"t it will die

Cultrual memes will compete and some will win and some will lose

And that's good because they're certainly not all equally good

>>5446279

>being this new

Here I thought newfags were a diamond dozen.

>>5446281

Organizing what?

>>5446287

So you need the fovernment to support a particular set of memes because on their own they would die out?

For a nationalist you think your nation is very weak

>>5446297

An all white town with gated fences and an armoury

>>5446297

but I'm not new…..

>>5446286

>>5446286

See

>>5446281

>>5446305

White flight is the last thing I want. You give an inch and they will take a mile.

>>5446237

So your argument is that we shouldn't care about rights because our rights are under attack?

>>5446313

Placing individual liberties over the prosperity of your race/people isn't self centered?

>>5446319

Who said there are no rights under Fascism/Nat Soc? Just because you don't have free reign does not mean you are a slave.

>>5446101

I'm an oldfag from 4chan circa 2005/2006. Migrated to 8chan some time in early 2014. I can guarantee you that I am not D+C nor am I "muh PR" nor concern troll.

Im on the far-right looking to discuss why libertarians should not be libertarians anymore. A critique of libertarianism and ancapism from the right. I am here in good faith.

>>5446326

I didn't say that, in fact I didn't talk about your ideology at all

You made the argument that we shouldn't care about rights because our rights are under attack, I just want to see if you stand by that

>>5446101

I'm an oldfag from 4chan circa 2005/2006. Migrated to 8chan some time in early 2014. I can guarantee you that I am not D+C nor am I "muh PR" nor concern troll.

Im on the far-right looking to discuss why libertarians should not be libertarians anymore. A critique of libertarianism and ancapism from the right. I am here in good faith

>>5446315

White flight is the result of government eddling

It started when the government used housing programs to ship niggers into the hearts of cities - turning them from wonders of civilization to concrete jungles

Niggers would never be able to afford that property if they weren't being given free housing

>>5446375

He never said rights aren't important. What he said is to stop focusing solely on individual rights, when society as a whole is collapsing.

>>5446381

Niggers are a fraction of the cause.

>>5446394

Society as a whole is collap[sing because the government has forced deenerate progressive ideology onto everyone

If this central authority did not have the power to do so then it would simply be a matter of individuals becoming degenerate and they would fail without the government to prop them up

>Niggers are a fraction of the cause

Yes, government is the main cause because they ship them in to places they couldn't otherwise be, but spics are part of it too

>>5446394

Also, I bet white flight isn't nearly as bad in states where you can open/concealed carry

Texans don't have to fear chimpouts

So again the government ruins that for everyone

Libertarianism doesn't protect my people from being genocided. Only ethnic nationalism and race war will save Europa.

I bet it's not that different in America. European Americans are being filled with self hate and your muh freedumbs allow kikes to control your mind.

>>5446412

>Society as a whole is collap[sing because the government has forced deenerate progressive ideology onto everyone

I'm sure that without any authorities looking out for fraud and malice the Jews will put their hands up and walk away.

>>5446421

Once again thinking only about yourself. Having a gun doesn't make you invincible when walking amongst hoards every day.

>>5446451

>European Americans

you mean white americans right? theres no such thing as a european american

>>5446454

Those authorities are predominately infiltrated and run by jews

It's called regulatory capture

Business has every incentive in the world to buy out politicians and regulators to get favorable policy passed

Without that government body to subvert you can't be forced to pay into a scam - then it's a matter of personal intelligence and good old stereotypes to remind people that with jews you lose

Hell, the jews first became wealthy by convincing Charlemagne to outlaw usury for everyone but them

>>5444671

>anarcho-capitalist societies excised for thousands of years

where?

>>5446468

hordes which are there because the government shipped them in. End welfare and you end the problem

>>5446451

>Libertarianism doesn't protect my people from being genocided

It does a hell of a better than authoritarianism considering that it's governments actively shipping in shitskins and welfare programs offering them gibsmedats which created the problem in the first place

>>5446501

*hell of a better job

>>5446479

It only takes a few from the masses to seize control. A few avoiding the mental poisoning will only last for so long.

>>5446482

not anarcho-capitalist but free trade without state control has

capitalism is the natural order of mercantilism, wherever you have merchants you have a capitalist society but state regulations have either been lax, controlled either by the church the merchants guilds or sometimes the state but mercantile capitalism without state controls has existed before successfully

>>5446488

preaching to the choir dude

>>5446507

To seize control of what?

You're assuming that there is an existing powerful regulatory mechanism to seize

>>5446501

Europe had only authoritarian kingdoms for centuries. Only after bringing this "democracy" and Jewish "free press" have we been invaded by shitskins. This has nothing to do with past European traditions.

Yes, I agree the current marxist EU is a communist oligarchy but even it was brought by Jewish lobby and sort of democratic decisions.

>>5446483

>>5446501

You fail to understand how the welfare state came to be. If we had a Nationalist government we wouldn't wouldn't have this problem in the first place. Remember that this current government was bred from libertarianism.

>>5446520

Control of your country.

>>5446522

>>5446529

>Remember that this current government was bred from libertarianism.

Can you offer any evidence of that whatsoever?

>If we had a Nationalist government we wouldn't wouldn't have this problem

Can you offer any evidence for any of your unbacked assertions?

>>5446543

didn't mean to tag

>>5446522

>>5446534

But what does that mean in a country with a minarchist government?

What exactly are they seizing control of?

>>5446554

the shekels obviously

its always to get the shekels

>>5446522

In those days the technology didn't exist to allow poor people to travel large distances

>>5446543

>Can you offer any evidence of that whatsoever?

Who are the forefathers?

>Can you offer any evidence for any of your unbacked assertions?

What is a nationalist government?

>>5446562

So you believe that jews will outcompete you?

Jews gained there power through the subversion of government institutions, when it comes to innovation they have no advantage over Europeans- indeed their gift is in low cunning and little else, look at their art for instance

>>5446554

What did it mean to take land from the Indians who delegated from huts?

>>5446574

>Who are the forefathers

MEn that bred a system f governance which has weathered the storm of progressivism far better than any other western country. But point taken, certainly reform needs to be made. The government has grown beyond intended bounds and new limitations need to be defined

>What is a nationalist government?

What all of Europe had until very recently

1. Libertarian ethics is based on libertarian economics

2. Libertarian economics is flawed in its assumptions of discontinuity of preferences and instead bases itself on 18th century classical economics and incorrect assumptions of human behavior.

Most of Mises' and Rothbard's correct observations/criticisms have been noted and absorbed into orthodox economics for decades. Hayek was more of a political intellectual rather than an economist "Austrian school" is a very shaky term that doesn't really mean anything.

It is also based on the social contract which was torn apart by Burke hundreds of years ago. We have to consider not just the consent of the living parties in this contract but also the consent of the dead and the unborn.

Libertarian "is an extraordinary example of how, starting with a mistake, a remorseless logician can end up in bedlam"

>>5446578

So in this analogy the progressive left is the United States of America and everyone else is low tech indians?

>>5446508

>wherever you have (((merchants))) you have a capitalist society

how can property rights exist without the state? let's say there is no state, and you claim to own a piece of land. what reason does anyone have to respect your claim?

>>5446576

so whats your solution? destroy those instutions?

>>5446595

Europe was mainly homogenous up until democracy was introduced. I am not advocating for democracy.

>>5446599

>discontinuity of preferences

What is that?

>It is also based on the social contract

Libertarians are vocally in opposition to the idea of the social contract

Illegal immigration and migration is the most pressing issue in the western world at this time. Nationalism in the US and much of Europe/Scandinavia is on the rise by necessity.

>>5446606

The libertarians are the Indians and the Europeans are everyone else.

>>5446622

Again, the technology didn't exist to transport poor people large distances so the fact that we didn't see immigration is less based on policy than possibility

>>5446629

So you're not really making a point you're just saying "Imma fug you up nigga"

Go be a nigger somewhere else

>>5446617

none unless you hire guards

I really don't get what your going for I know how feudal societies operated, and the empires that came later

I'm literally not getting your argument explain yourself in less vague terms what are you advocating?

>>5446631

You're purposefully neglecting the fact that free immigration as we see today wasn't common then. Loosening of immigration limits is only a recent thing.

>>5446618

Certain ones

We need limited environmental protection, court systems enforcing NAP, an army and a limited police presence

This can be kept in check by limiting voting to land owning white males and making it impossible to change this aspect of the constitution

>>5446641

You can close your eyes but the world is cruel. Just because you want to be left alone does not mean that others will abide. There will always be strong groups who will want to take from the weak.

>>5446652

depends what you mean there son, free immigration was common to a certain point, a constant stream of small numbers of travelers and foreigners is common for hubs like capital cities or trading hubs but not so for rural areas

dispossessed peoples are a different story as is colonists

>>5446652

It wasn't possible then

I fully acknowledge that it wasn't common

The question is why it was not common, you imply that it was because we had good kings that cared deeply about their people despite most oligarchs being largely amoral beyond appearances and I say that the reason we didn't see it because the technology didn't exist so it was literally impossible

As a mosttly freemarket leaning guy i can say this. I have read a bunch of libertarian ideology, I know the people and the movementt.

Like many others I went from libertarian in 2008/2010 to a more racial/nationalistic/free-market kind of deal.

I put my people first. I put the market and liberties second. Even though a free people who is armed is also a secure people like in switzerland (they weathered two world wars and it wasn't just the terrain).

The racial question and open borders ae shit that true lolburgtardians will never understand and will never get why they are important.

tl;dr If it smells like cultural marxism, it is cultural marxism and relativistic morals etc. Kill it with fire.

>>5446662

And the weak have an incentive to band together - and the other strong people have an incentive to help their trade partners and workers. Libertarianism is not based on the assumption that people are fundamentally good, but that people are fundamentally bastards and so can't be trusted to not act like bastards when given great authority

Not to mention that I'm not arguing for anarcho capitalism

>>5446662

And the weak have an incentive to band together - and the other strong people have an incentive to help their trade partners and workers. Libertarianism is not based on the assumption that people are fundamentally good, but that people are fundamentally bastards and so can't be trusted to not act like bastards when given great authority

Not to mention that I'm not arguing for anarcho capitalism

Literally any system will work as long as its a 100% white country.

Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Libertarianism, Democracy.

However, in a country full of shitskins who don't want or care about freedom, Libertarianism is a recipe for disaster.

Only a virtuous society could function under that and when you have muds and Jews, it just isn't going to work.

>>5446686

>The racial question and open borders ae shit that true lolburgtardians will never understand and will never get why they are important.

Only if you're defining "true" libertarian as a person that necessarily holds those views - otherwise absolutely not

>>5446678

>What are boats and trains

All kings and queens werent perfect, but most knew that importing people from different cultures wouldn't lead to good things.

>>5446709

That's way too simplified

Literally every major civilization that we've ever had has collapsed - most of which have been all but entirely white. The problem is not so simple that any solution can solve it so long as the factor of race is controlled

>>5446695

I'm sure 50 guys with rifles are going to stop a team of tanks from barreling the town down.

>>5446737

Roman Empire

>brought down by jews

Alexanders Empire

>brought down by infighting

Mongolian Empire

>brought down by jews

British Empire

>brought down by jews

I'm seeing a pattern here are you?

>>5446728

Boats are expensive, slow moving, dangerous and have limited cargo capacity

Britain, the most heavily tracked country didn't have signifigant rail lines or passenger counts until 1900

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

>>5446650

>none unless you hire guards

interesting. i was expecting some nonsense about muh inalienable natural right to muh private property, but you seem to be arguing that might makes right. if you can defend a piece of land, it's yours. if someone else can take it from you, it's theirs. wouldn't call that capitalism tho…

>>5446753

Your claim was that it wasn't possible, not that it was difficult.

>>5446753

no before that a system of canals were constructed and used

>>5446762

well I'm not arguing property I'm arguing about trade

supply and demand, moving resources from one area to another for profit that sort of thing

might always makes right look at the modern world, public schools and religious institutions instill and indoctrinate children from a young age to follow societies rules while a highly trained and specially armed militia force tracks down dissidents and rule breakers and punishes them for offending a system of laws written up by ruling body whatever that may be which in the current age is a collection of socially distant persons loosely attempting to follow the agendas their groups claim to follow while actually working towards the interests of a select group of rich merchants

>>5446751

Yes, that centralized governments get subverted

Jews are a problem, but they're only a problem because we're susceptible to their strategies and so are centralized governments

Once we get rid of all the jews we still will not have gotten rid of the efficaciousness of their strategy and sooner or later another group will adopt it

>>5446763

My claim was that mass immigration wasn't possible, which it wasn't - I certainly never made the argument that no one could travel large distances

>>5446812

de-centralized governments are susceptible to it as well, if you're a supporter of confederacy look at what happened to the satrapy system of Antiochus Soter the 1st, similar idea didn't turn out so good

>>5444261

Yes, but locally and never through coercion and force.

The federal government should not be taking my money and using it to make people live a certain way.

However if members of your local community vollunteer to instruct and inform citizens and children about moral behaviour, I see this as a positive thing. It is the job of church, parents, and respected individuals to encourage a positive lifestyle.

>>5446768

Even rarer and more expensive

>>5446831

Did they ensure individual property, weapons, speech and trade rights?

>>5446625

Rothbardian economists don't believe we can understand preferences in a quantifiable or mathematical way. They also largely don't believe in market equilibrium funnily enough. It's very easy to mistake neo-classical economics for libertarian economics. They're stuck in the past, the mathematics available to us now is making it more possible to model Complex Adaptive Systems like the economy. Economics is a science, microeconomic experiments are repeatable and can be disproved. It's a very technical mathematical subject and is not just a spook or philosophy as the libertarians like to believe. Your second point depends again on what flavor of Libertarian you are.

Most of them believe broadly that two consenting individuals should be allowed to do what they like, and that an individual should do what they like so long as they don't violate the NAP. The problem with this is that they are not the only parties, they must consider posterity and previous generations. Many of those that came before died to protect this state, we are born with a duty to the state that ensured our existence.

Libertarianism is just a cry of "please leave me alone" and is not a serious ideology that should be seriously considered.

>>5446709

You are wrong. Firstly you do not specify what "will work" means. If "will work" excludes degrees then you have failed to see the point of economics which is to create an optimal system. In politics too there are degrees of success. If you are speaking in economic terms, we can demonstrate examples of the German, French, and Greek economies over time, systems that have failed, and those that have worked. England post-enclosure movement was different from England pre-enclosure movement, likewise, Europe was transformed by the industrial revolution. If none of these systems are better that the last, and are instead "systems that work" how do you explain the explosion of wealth under some systems and the collapse of it in others?

Lastly I want to make the point that some political systems cause decay. Communism caused material decay in Eastern Europe, while Western Liberalism has caused spiritual and moral decay. You have failed to consider that some ideologies adopted by whites will lead to their countries being non-white. You are assuming that white countries are immortal and cannot fail under any system. Many in the West believe this about Western Liberalism, "the migrants will become enlightened like us!". You and they are like those schizophrenics that jump off skyscrapers because they think they are immortal gods.

>>5446751

If you simplify the decline and fall of the greatest Empires in history into "the Jews" you are a moron. I would advice you to study these things first. Jews are a problem but they did not cause the collapse of every civilization because /pol/ told you so. Even Empires no where near Jews collapsed for the same reasons as Western Empires.

>>5444264

The true genius of Greek society was pastoralism.

>>5446844

Yes, each satrapy was a kingdom, within a kingdom, regular citizens could be armed and the state was multi-religious, citizens could own property and land free of the state and free trade for all, if you could get some wagons to India and back full of spices you could sell that fo big bucks

and it failed, big time, a lack of centralization caused civil war that tore the empire apart

>>5446823

Mass immigration in the same numbers as today wasn't possible but it could certainly be done then in their own way.

>>5446846

>Roman Empire

>made weak over time, Judea bled the romans of gold and fighting men, Christianity caused civil war and led to a schism of east and west

>Mongolian Empire

>Berke Khan of the Golden Horde converted to Islam and betrayed his cousin Hulagu after Hulagu was retreating from a defeat against muslim Mamluks in Egypt, this caused civil war amongst the mongols

>Britain

>Rothschilds and Sassoons etcetera

Im not just blaming jews i blame semites in general

>>5446803

>well I'm not arguing property

i'd say the fundamental difference between capitalism and socialism is whether ownership of the means of production is private or communal. you can't have capitalism without private property rights. you can't have private property rights without a state.

>>5446869

Can you link me to some information about that?

I'm looking it up but I'm not finding anything

>>5446878

The expense of organizing such a thing would have ruled out its use

>>5446908

I meant property as in land not personal goods

>>5446956

Seleucid Empire is what you're looking for, Hellenized Persia ruled by a Greek noble caste

>>5446908

Again not getting what you're on about, I'm not thinking in terms of private property and collectivism. collectivism doesn't work

>>5446846

>the mathematics available to us now is making it more possible to model Complex Adaptive Systems like the economy

I don't believe that for a second. YOu would need both the processing power to account for every interaction that is occuring and the ability to gather that information. What you're describing is not possible with current technology and could only be implemented through the introduction of an all seeing surrveilance state

And if such a thing could and did exist then it would itself be predictable and so firms would buy their own economic modeling programs, predict what the government program would do then front run it - which not only would cost the government tons of money, it would also introduce new information not previously accounted for

>they must consider posterity and previous generations

If you don't care about your ancestors and nation then the law will not make you - in fact laws making it necessary to pretend to or face jail; will only cause the populace to grow in contempt of the very thing you wish to protect

>Libertarianism is just a cry of "please leave me alone" and is not a serious ideology that should be seriously considered.

Nice meme

>>5447025

To expand on that. If you're a lolberg and there are still ancaps in your state's LP EC. You have an obligation to join the party structure and purge them.

Libertarianism in America has received some setbacks because they too believe in the open borders myth. I like to call my set of beliefs "national libertarianism." In reality, though, my beliefs simply align with the American Republican party pre-conservatism. Or perhaps the Know-Nothing party.

I have considered fascism but the idea of the "organic state" is to me just as attainable as the Communist "classless society." I am not convinced that we could provide the means for everyone to figure out what they're "naturally best" at which is required for an organic state to work. However I do agree with the pursuit of truth at all costs. Freedom of speech fosters that truth, as long as you don't let a certain ethnoreligious clique control the means of communication.

In the end, I think the Founders knew this would happen someday – turmoil and conflict on this level. That's why we have the Second Amendment and that's why Jefferson said that the Tree of Liberty must occasionally be watered with the blood of men. I don't really have that much of a problem with a theoretical cycle of "long bout of prosperity, shorter period of decline followed by an uprising, followed by prosperity again." I see Trump and the potential violent conflict this summer and fall as that uprising. If Trump is blocked by shenanigans, the uprising will take some other, probably less accomodating form. I like the foundation of America and I like living in a (classically) liberal society. Besides that, our nation has been at the top of the pack economically for a very long time – I don't think it should be changed from where it was about 100 years ago policy-wise.

>>5446992

i'm not getting what you're not getting. if private property rights depend on the the state, and capitalism depends on private property rights, then you can't have capitalism without the state. that is what we're discussing, right?

>collectivism doesn't work

unlike capitalism, collectivism has excised for thousands of years.

>>5447199

how? private property has existed for thousands of years, you move to empty land claim it, build a home on it, farm it and when someone comes later to try and take your shit without something in return you kill them

property rights dont rely on the state they rely on protection, either martial or legal which in the modern day is provided by the state but in the past could be purely martial and rely on noone but someone with the means to provide for martial protection

>>5447154

The libertarian fault was in a misordering of plans

You can have largely open borders - if yu don't have welfare and an ammendment that allows immigrants children to become citizens. I would also add that immigration should be equitably restricted in relation to what access foreign countries allow to our citizens

Instead they focused on open borders and made no mention of ending welfare - both of which they did for obvious political reasons

>>5447044

This.

I'm personally an AnCap of the Rothbardian school but, as it's so often forgotten, those like him were the Old Right before the GOP transformed into the monster it is now.

>opening the borders might increase economic wealth

Libertarianism =/= open borders, only a minority of cucked left libertarians like Walter Block support open borders, and the mass immigration you see today in Europe and America is actually forced integration against the will of private property owners, in a libertarian/ancap society, borders would be determined by the boundaries of private property, and migration would only happen with the consent of those it affects, so besides a few retards inviting rapefugees onto their homes and land and getting predictably killed, mass immigration and demographic replacement would not be a concern.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/11/lew-rockwell/open-borders-assault-private-property/

>>5447283

The Libertarian, ironically, is too trusting of those in government to allow free votes via social programs to be eliminated should they concede to open borders.

This is one of main reasons I can't stand left-leaning libertarians.

>>5447454

To be fair, Block wants to privatize everything before such open borders would even take place as >>5447283 explained. Everything else, I agree with 100%

>>5444127

>Lolbertarians

They were the ones who sold the entire board out to /intl/, ruining it forever.

No thanks.

>>5447251

>property rights dont rely on the state they rely on protection

it's not really a right, then. rights need to be consistently enforced. saying you have the right to whatever you can force other people to go along with is kind of meaningless.

>>5447608

doesn't matter if its meaningless its the truth, those with power can govern the powerless but primarily they rule them, own them, use them

the concept of rights is an illusion created by society

>>5446036

What made the US great was it was a vast continent that was almost unpopulated with a huge amount of natural resources. A nation the size of the US is going to be more successful then a nation with the size and resources of estonia.

Ancap reporting in

Because believing that

>The state will serve the people. I swear this time it's for reals you guys. Now it's my ideology that's in place, so NOW it will work, and it will be totes legit.

Is stupid, and a waste of time

>>5447675

>the concept of rights is an illusion created by society

i'm not disagreeing with you on that. but that's not what most capitalists will tell you. what you're describing sounds closer to feudalism to me.

>>5447845

it is and it is not, it is the natural order which no matter how far it is perverted or disguised with countless rules and regulations and customs it will never truly be rendered moot or civilized

what do you believe in? what political philosophy governs your views?

From politics all I see are numerous paths to the same end, the only real political thought I can see myself allying with is either Ethnic Nationalism or Romantic Nationalism but even then that is only because of common elements

capitalist vs communist is a modern invention and don't forget that, its little more than an argument between a corrupt reality and an Utopian fantasy that can never be realized for it is just that, a fantasy

>>5447473

Expanding on

>>5447937

What I mean is that politicians are forced to compete for votes along the spectrum of acceptable political opinion known as the "overton window", the process outlined in the pic shows how overtime mass distributed and free communication will shift this window towards the true - thus forcing politicians, though whores, to support and campaign for worthy ideals because increasingly to not do so wll be beyond the pale

I'm fairly positive that anyone who believes in the basic tenets of libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism never went through high school history.

They're retarded for very much the same reason marxists are retarded - their theories have been tried and tried and have failed spectacularly every time. All you really need to know about truly unfettered capitalism you can learn from studying America during the industrial revolution and the living conditions of the common man/worker of the time.

>>5447925

>what do you believe in? what political philosophy governs your views?

i'm an anarchist at heart*, but leaning more towards collectivism. i was just reading about viking age iceland, which i often see used as an example of an ancap society, but it doesn't sound like it to me:

>Through copoperation among their members, hreppar organised and controlled summer grazing lands, organised communal labour, and provided an immediate local forum for settling disputes. Crucially, they provided fire and livestock insurance for local farmers. . . [They also] saw to the feeding and housing of local orphans, and administered poor relief to people who were recognised as inhabitants of their area. People who could not provide for themselves were assigned to member farms, which took turns in providing for them.

sounds nice tho.

* it's the system we deserve, but not the one we need right now.

>>5448119

>it's the system we deserve, but not the one we need right now.

its also a mono-ethnic mono-religious society of closely knit families and their thrall slaves

impossible to achieve these days without removing all semitic influence, all the foreigners, reviving the concepts of slavery and debt bondage and drastically reducing the population

all in all impossible to achieve unless you have a vial of mutant flu virus lying around you'd be willing to release in a densely populated area

>>5448186

i think most people on /pol/ want:

>mono-ethnic mono-religious society

>closely knit families

>to remove all semitic influence

>to remove all the foreigners

i don't see why we would need slavery, or why we would have to reduce the population. things like factories can also be organized communally.

Because Human beings are not rational actors. The entirety of libertarianism is falsified when you realize this.

>>5444781

This

If you disagree, speak up faggots. Don't be a gigantic pussy and claim moral highground by "Not engaging". It makes you look like an elitist snob who is in denial.

If you get btfo then learn from it. If you still believe what you do, search for the reason you're grasping what you believe in. If you cannot find one, there is no shame in it, that just means you get the opportunity to evolve intellectually as a person.

Or you know, you can make a hugbox. Just. Like. /leftypol/.

>>5444127

we are on >>>/liberty/

p.s. dont waste your time baiting reichfags. nothing will come of it

if you want to redpill people on ancap go to cuckchan or reddit

>>5448325

slaves solve a lot of problems, sexual frustration, cheap menial workforce, in the modern setting organs? kek

factories organized communally end with complacency and whatever regarding factories again a new invention that will soon be without human hands as they'll be replaced by machines

you'd need to kill a huge amount of the population if you wanted to go back to small communal peaceful most likely agrarian based societies like the ones the

marxists/communists want

>>5448364

I checked out /leftypol/ recently, that place is a total hugbox, it was like this place except without shills or differing opinions or new information, its just a few hundred people producing terrible may mays and all nodding and agreeing with one another

>>5444165

>libertarianism can only work if it is particularized and not universalized. In short: libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism .. can only work in a 90%+ homogeneous White society

I would interchange 'in' with 'with'

or explicitly, I agree that it will fail for most societies

remember tho, one of the major things ancap does is find the ideal size of a society. wich means it will secularize and subdivide into as many smaller societies as optimal.

and I assume most of these will be homogenous, at least culturally.

basically ancap is the way for us to escape all the negatives of multiculturalism, democracy and general mental disability. by way of secularizing into a working society.

>What is funny is that I was An-cap for anti-semitic reasons. I used to think that "the free market is the only way that working- and middle-class goyim can free ourselves from the ZOG stranglehold on our lives

two points

1. the way to free ourselves from zionist leeches is crypto anarchism

any government or instituion can be subverted or killed. a 100% trustless, decentralized system cannot.

2. the (on /pol/) hard truth is that some jews (yes a minority) do goods things.

the problem is they have no ethics or moral for doing their business. i.e. they will abusive anything thats abuseable.

now what should we do about that?

we could do

- nothing

- remove all jews wich would cost us the benefits. these are pretty signifacant. (yes I know the drawbacks huge). also would stir anger. remember they control the entire west. see nazi germany. did not end well.

- take away or annule all exploits. ancap + crypto anarchism + some tech revolutions will do that for economic aspects. for social I would go with segregation from degeneracy and corrupt culture (ancap) + some form of religion

>>5444165

>>5444177

also read hoppe

especially the part on 'hoppean federation'

basically its a realistic take on how to form a larger ancap society (=federation) in todays political climate.

>>5448417

The funny thing is, the huge majority of leftists who are untalented entitled fucks would be totally satisfied if we put them into a modernized slave class. After reading Nietzsche, I think that having a slave class might do a lot of good for society in general, as long as we don't mistreat the slaves. The big issue is, how do you allow mobility out of the slave class (if at all) and what is the criteria for being a slave?

I don't see that much difference in slave labor and working for a command economy like Communism. Everything is provided to you and you're forced to work. Sounds like slavery. Therefore I think it would be a good thing for everyone involved if whiny leftists were just enslaved.

>>5448795

who should be enslaved? unskilled migrants and the unemployed, unskilled and unwilling to get a job

to leave the slave class, buy your freedom and your citizenry at a costly lump sum or earn it through decades of service

for unskilled migrants 30 years of continuous service without problem, personal bondage or to the state eithers fine

for the unemployed that aren't willing to work? until they choose to find work, welfare should not be free it should be in return for service to the state or to a contributing citizen

if you're that concerned for muh hooman rights you can have slaves and their masters visited by social workers increasing that aea of jobs as well

>>5448572

Libertarianism is sort of supposed to be a call back to Founding principles of government, or so I had thought. However it's set back by a few modernizations as I mentioned in my first post. Maybe I am wrong, but the way I reconcile libertarian principles with civic duty is simply that I am grateful for a nation that upholds those principles. Assuming that we actually return to those principles at some point, the United States is the best nation in the world with the best set of individual freedoms, and as an individual (and individualist) I love my nation, admire its history and its Founders, and I would rather be dead than Red. Simply put, I'm patriotic because I really believe it's the best nation, so I wouldn't hesitate to do civic duty. Of course, as we inch closer to Marxism, I am hesitating more. But a guy like Trump ignites that passion again.

That's why it's important to keep immigrants from flooding the nation. They haven't yet acquired that appreciation, or may not even support those principles to start. They have to be assimilated.

>>5448945

forgot to add, native citizens should be exempt from all types of slavery unless they prove themselves to be worthless dregs on society

>>5448980

>>5448945

That sounds pretty decent, primarily because you're always earning what you get, and a time requirement like indentured servitude does a decent job at ensuring the person assimilates at least a little bit.

>>5448945

And as soon as the government you imagine goes the way of evry government that has ever existed it's going to be jews owning goy slaves

>>5449002

On what basis can you possibly have such faith i government?

>>5449054

with modern day science you put a clause into the law, stating that no citizen can become a slave unless they have a genetic percentage below the legal limit

ergo unless you're at a certain percentage of native ethnic you can be enslaved if you're over that limit you cant be a slave

make it so that law cannot be changed ever, a core precept to ensure your own race never becomes a plaything for jews only mixed race half-breeds and foreigners like the jews themselves

The penalty for enslaving a native citizen should always be death regardless of social or financial status

>>5449002

The Romans never granted citizenship to a foreigner unless they served 25 years in the auxillae and look how long they lasted

we've had uncontrolled immigration for a few decades and look at the chaos its causing

>>5444127

SJWs were a huge redpill for me and libertarianism. Some people use liberty to lomit the liberty of others, and those people deserve neither liberty or freedom.

>>5449140

You're describing anarcho capitalism, I'm not an ancap

It's my fault for describing the anracho capitalist response to aggression

But Yes a standing army is an unfortunate necessity with the way the world is - just as you need a court system and limited police force

>>5449151

They use the government to limit liberty

Private institutions that use their power to enforce progressivism will have it bite them now that the culture is turning right

>>5449085

Supposing you could design it so that it would not backfire on yourself

Through slavery you will breed sentimentaliy for the slaves and over time have the state associated with opression of the innocent - since the slaves will have done nothing to earn their position it will, regardless of starting sentiment, come to be seen as immoral -beacause it is

When that happens you will have a new generation of hippies

Better to make indentured servants of criminals (thus also avoiding costly prisons). The wages for menial work would be lower anyway without minimum wage so it wouldn't be a problem

>>5446219

4th picture, Hitler got power in a democracy, but not a republic, Lenin got power by violent means and therefore it's irrelevant what the political system before was (it was not a republic) and Robespierre can be argued either way.

Otherwise good argument.

you can still hold a lot of /pol/ type values while remaining in some ways a libertarian

for instance, the civil liberties of the right to bear arms, while it seems to be a very leftist point of view to want guns banned, it would take a true fascist to deny their people that freedom.

same is true for freedom of speech

there are other values of libertarians which fit very well with the right.

such as pro choice

imagine if you will your daughter was raped by some dirty nigger. and worse still, fell pregnant to it, pro choice allows that problem to be solved now, rather than later by some cop's gun as the little halfbreed inevitably does a trayvon

As for the standard desires from the far right for Christianity, marriage and reproduction

i think, fuck that noise.

i'm quite content living with the white woman i've been living with for 10 years, i don't need some piece of paper blessed by some pedophile priest to validate my relationship.

christianity is just another religion, religion is the cause of so many problem, those IS sandniggers are religious extremists, kikes are the same just sneakier, without religion we wouldn't have these issues.

the sandniggers would be less inclined to blow themselves and everyone else up if they knew for certain there wasn't a harem of 6 year old girls waiting for them on the other side.

as for having children, they're nothing more than an annoying financial black hole, i have no interest in them, my family line has already been continued by my older siblings having kids, this is no longer my responsibility and i am glad of it.

the puritans on here that talk about not drinking, not doing drugs etc.

absolute horse shit, my body, i will put in it whatever i wish.

and that's about where our differences end.

pro-trump, anti-islam, anti-kike,

but as much as i value free speech,

i cant help but despise those mentally ill transfaggot tumblrcunts,

when i see niggers making speeches at university campuses calling for white genocide, i wish we were more successful in wiping them out.

and third wave feminists should go over the wall.

so it's a conflicted existence in many ways,

the only real ideology i'm capable of following is my own, but /pol/ fits better with these ideas than any other place

>>5451063

>>5451077

>>5451091

>>5451103

It's so nice to see an actual essay about something and not a simple shitpost, like what i'm doing right now unintentionally.

>>5444127

I'm libertarian.

Just moved to /politics/ because I got sick of this hugbox.

>>5444127

Libertarianism is weak on borders and immigration. Their suicidal devotion to "small government" means they're powerless to stop invidious kikes like George Soros from bankrolling NGO's that push for open borders and mass immigration, and once they fill a nation with shitskins all of the libertarian purists will be rendered irrelevant because there's a million new shitskins who are going to vote for big government and lavish welfare.

Libertarians are their own worst enemy because they allow themselves to get fucked over by anyone as long as it isn't "big government". Only a strong, nationalist government that cares about its people can defend against the globalist kikes who exploit democracy to implode nations from within.

>>5452046

A sage isn't a downvote, nimrod.

Enjoy your shitstorm of /leftypol/ rejects, Breitbart worshippers, and "it's about ethics in journalism" reddit niggers. When you inevitably come back, try being less of a faggot, and you might learn something.

>>5444127

Also, "you're side" is everything I hate just with a different flavour of shit.

If I wanted to have the genetic makeup of my children dictated to me by a government official in a suit I'd move to North Korea.

The only libertarians "you" will ever win over are kids in relapse.

>>5452049

Bad immigrants are bad immigrants because big government provides for them.

The only reason any of them ever bother coming to Europe is because they know the state will give them free education, free healthcare, a minimum wage, child benefit, council housing and so much more.

If none of that existed not only would they be unable to have as many children as they do now but they'd also either leave or just stop coming altogether because life in Europe without employment would be just as shit and harrowing as life in Bangladesh.

>>5452087

I'm fine with that.

I find Anarcho communists tend to be far more agreeable than neo nazis anyway.

Thread is pretty long

Is this a Lolberg vs. Ancrap thread?

>>5452142

You're not talking to a Nazi right now, dumbfuck, which you would know if you knew anything about Buchanan or bothered to read anything I said.

/politics/ is the board for people too delicate to suffer not living in a safe space. If you're whining is anything to go by, you'll fit right in.

>>5452338

D&C + muh feels from both parts

>>5452537

All these shills who think sage is a downboat. I assume this is the wage of having to unban all IPs to stop the community of running out of IPs?

Just sage all threads with one line replies of questionable capitalization and punctuation?

>>5452710

sage

A word originating from the popular Japanese forum website 2chan. Sage (pronounced "sah-geh") - from the Japanese word "sageru", refers to replying to a post using the word "sage" in the email field in order to increase the number of replies without age-ing (or bumping) the post.

>This can be used as a courtesy, allowing one to quietly add comments that may not be interesting enough to warrant pushing the thread to the top.

It can also be used as a way to show displeasure with the post being replied to.

The more you know

>>5452875

Confirmed newfag. You're terrible at trying to fit in.

>>5448795

Nietzsche's reference was Classical Antiquity. In Ancient Greece being a slave could put you in a position of prestige and authority over a free Hellene if you were the trusted lieutenant of a powerful master. Slaves were accountants, and teachers, and bodyguards and various other positions unsuited to members of the Hellenic oligarchy (which was just an aristocracy by another name). Except for war, as there were slave soldiers as well, and warfare was the preeminent 'trade' of the aristocratic classes.

Being freed from slavery could be a downgrade in privilege and prestige. Slaves weren't on the bottom of the social heirarchy and certainly often had better education

The slavery of the New World was almost certainly based on Spartan slavery which had an ethnic element (the Spartans were Dorean invaders and the Helots were the indigenous population) and was only sustainable for the Spartans due to their relative fanaticism. "The Dorean Invasion" is an event that had the kind of transformative effect on on Greece that the Soviet Union did on Eastern Europe. Macedon was a Dorean City-State as well. Without something comparable to the fanatical Spartiate to enforce it, New World slavery was doomed to failure. Athenian slavery and much of the slavery of the Classical world was much closer to serfdom where the slaves and masters were both locals, the masters had martial might and the slaves gathered around them to share in the prosperity and safety that this martial might afforded and worked specifically to foster the continuation of this system and arrangement.

We have something akin to slavery now but with the masters not having any liability or responsibility toward the slaves, and the slaves working to foster this system under false pretenses unaware that they are working to foster the system, thinking they are working for their self-improvement and upward mobility which is largely an illusion because they aren't competing for an amount of wealth that can ever afford any real clout and your wealth and power a predicated on the upholding of a system wherein the people who wield real power must remain at the top to ensure stability so that you can continue to rake in fake-wealth (which still buys real luxury).

The problem that NRx has is that they conceive of themselves as the Masters and obsess over how best to control and use the jackbooted thugs. The reality is that they should be working to restore the jackbooted thugs to power instead of being the paid henchmen of oligarchs whose only power is access to lots of currency that has value predicated on a particular political status quo. NRx people are slaves looking for masters, but are on the whole a clique of aspergerian nebbishes who are themselves deeply invested in this status quo wherein people who wield non-ephemeral power need to be subjugated and controlled by the people who are afraid of these kinds of people. Nietzsche wrote about this as well, except in the content of decadent aristocracy which sets up bulwarks against their dispossesion so the weak may rule over the strong. NRx jumps the gun straight from 1st generation aristocrats that are warrior heroes to being fully decadent poofters wielding power via highly abstracted, non-sustainable philosophical notions. You don't return to the status quo ante without reforming the social structures which puts bloody-minded Aryan warriors back on top over faggy Jews.

Hoppean ancap here. I haven't seen a single reason to consider NatSoc a better ideology. I just don't bother debating about that on /pol/. They just call me a kike and threaten to ban me, so it's not worth the trouble.

>>5444127

People group up to form mafias. Despite Ron Paul's best efforts, he could not get rid of the FED. We are in a bit of a hurry, so we have to try Donald.

Also, accepting Fascism / Natsoc / Monarchy as an ideology means that you've understood something vital. Something beyond the facade of modernism.

>>5454496

> Obviously this is shit, as it allows those among us who are completely cucked to make bad decisions that fuck over the entire population

How would it fuck over the entire population in an ancap society. Please elaborate.

> which cannot be allowed.

I agree.

>>5454496

>Ancap has absolutely no way to define (via borders) a Nation, and does not recognize the requirements for preserving a genetically distinct and superior civilization in a world among savages who have no capability for higher thinking, and who are willing to outright murder you to take what they want.

Are you familiar with the Rothbardian concept of "nation by consent"?

>>5449735

>Through slavery you will breed sentimentaliy for the slaves

slavery existed in a humane form for 3500 years, then christcukery came along and suddenly the slave that believes in Christ is no longer a slave but your brother

sentimentality is bred through propaganda and morality both of which can be altered

it is not oppression it is a system of work and reward, loyalty is rewarded and disloyalty is punished

indentured servants of dangerous individuals? i doubt many persons would allow a female child poisoner to babysit their children, but that sounds no different from convict labour

Libertarian as my voting party, mainly for the state level voting. I was NPA before this.

>>5454534

I may have made that more confusing than it should have been.

I wasn't saying that private property would be shit, I was pointing out that the overall situation where all property is private and there is no central government (ancap) allows for those individuals to do whatever they want with that property without limits.

> corporations or wealthy individuals in [country] buying property and housing refugees, literally flooding the country.

The above could be justified for cheap labor. A very small number of individuals could completely shift the dynamics of the labor market, giving us the same H1B / illegal immigrant problem we have now where standards of living are being artificially driven down by an excess in the supply of labor services.

If government regulations weren't in place currently to control the inflow of H1B and Immigrants simply by providing them agreeable accommodation and training, then there would be absolutely no way for a white native to begin a career.

Civilization building is much more complex than AnCaps care to comprehend.

>>5454543

Yes, and Murray was a Jew who (oddly) had no concept of "Nation by Blood."

>>5454496

>Obviously this is shit, as it allows those among us who are completely cucked to make bad decisions that fuck over the entire population, which cannot be allowed. The non-aggression today of allowing mormons to adopt nigger babies instead of having more white babies, is tomorrows aggression in a classroom when Jamal chimps out and bites a kids face off.

In an ancap society only Mormon cucks would send their children to that kind of school.

>>5454549

People that are not autistic LARPers have empathy, so the majority of humanity

>>5454611

enjoy your broken society, empathy for strangers

besides you seem to have an atypical view on slavery pushed by hollywood jews

I'm talking a system of slavery like a mixture between the Egyptian type and the Roman type, technical slavery, it would nothing like how niggers were treated in america 200 years ago

>>5454624

You have a very heavily romanticized view of antiquity

>>5454604

> in my ancap paradise we would be free from propaganda that turns normal people into absolute cucks.

> there would be absolutely no regulation on television and media companies

Marxists would quickly overthrow your country, install a Government, and re-educate you about how dumb you are for not loving them for it.

It's really naive for you to continue believing that apathetic bluepills would stand much of a chance, and that nationalist redpills wouldn't be overwhelmed by the number of marxist sjws everywhere.

Smells like /intl/ again now that VPNs are back…

>>5454588

>allows for those individuals to do whatever they want with that property without limits.

My point is, it shouldn't affect other people's property at all.

> The above could be justified for cheap labor. A very small number of individuals could completely shift the dynamics of the labor market, giving us the same H1B / illegal immigrant problem we have now where standards of living are being artificially driven down by an excess in the supply of labor services.

That's the economic nationalist argument. I simply don't believe it's true. But let's assume for a moment it is. You can have a covenant against foreign trade and labor visas.

> Yes, and Murray was a Jew who (oddly) had no concept of "Nation by Blood."

Consent to associate would usually be based on blood ties.

>>5454631

explain your views don't just call me a liar/fantasist

>>5454632

Covenant against Marxist propaganda.

>>5454645

YOu've all but outright said that being a slave was great - that they had great education, rights, high status and all of that

perhaps a vanishingly small minority did, most were worked to death locked away from the sun as galley rowers, gladiatorial bait, rape slaves or general laborers

At this point there is little to argue about. If you believe it acceptable to to enslave those that have committed no crime against you then I will fight against you as I would fight against a kike - because at heart you are the same

>>5454658

The debate is ultimately about land ownership. You wouldn't give a fuck about racemixers doing that as long as they stay out of your country, right? You care when they do it in your country because then the only peaceful solution would be to partition the country, and then your racially pure country becomes smaller.

>>5454658

>Rights don't exist

>We have a right

Pick one

>>5454639

>You can have a covenant against foreign trade and labor visas.

This doesn't solve the problem of miscegenation. Forming a special group doesn't stop niggers from being niggers around you. It's exactly what happens with white flight. Niggers fuck like rabbits and have children when they're what… 11? Even in Africa they can't stop themselves long enough to solve problems pertaining to how they ought to better organize their society.

They should not be permitted anywhere near whites. The burden they place on the land and on neighboring communities is too great.

Again, you have no defense.

>>5454639

>Consent to associate would usually be based on blood ties.

* you hope.

>>5454688

I never said rights don't exist.

>>5454711

So we have a right to exist a free people, but persons don't have rights to be free in themselves?

>>5454680

>outright said that being a slave was great - that they had great education, rights, high status and all of that

not me fag I never said anything like that

>general labourers

no different from convict labour or work for the dole, unskilled migrants and the unemployed and unwilling to get a job, if they're going to recieve basic pay for doing tnothing they should at least have to work for it

>gladiotoral bait

death row inmates

>galley rowers

not needed anymore

>rape slaves

up to you, could be death row inmates again or a shortened method of gaining citizenship for foreigners

>enslave those that have committed no crime against you

enslave the worthless, the criminal, the shitskin illiterate peasants that come to my land for gibsmedat and treat the natives like meat, they should have the iron collars fastened around their necks

>>5454680

jews trying to make all goys slaves for eternity is not the same as a state monitored system of indentured servitude and debt bondage

>>5454732

That's literally what they're doing

>>5454683

I don't believe it is about land ownership, actually. Whoever conquers and occupies land, owns that land. No moral philosophy about rights will change that. Europe is being conquered and occupied right now slowly with an influx of niggers and arabs… soon europeans will not own Europe. They will have been driven off of it and out of existence.

Again you have no defense.

>>5454742

look up the Roman system of slavery and how the Egyptians actually provided for their slaves before you argue you obviously know nothing about them

>>5454788

You mean they maintained their equipment and weren't Disney cartoon villains?

How magnanimous

>>5454800

Importing labor is only a problem because the government forces us to pay for welfare and uses public schooling to indocrtinate children that they're the exact same as us - the rest of your argument doesn't even relate to the issue at hand as I am indeed aware that you have to eat food to not die

And yes, prohibitions on dangerous behavior is what all law is, the question is what actions are dangerous

>>5454534

>How would it fuck over the entire population in an ancap society. Please elaborate.

Ancap society only works, in so far as it works at all (it doesn't), when all participants cooperate.

You would be flooded with subhumans who refuse to cooperate and your society would fall apart. Mr. Shekelstein would import millions of them and buy land to house them on until they reach critical mass and bixnood your society to death.

>>5454893

STD's are a self solving problem

Chimp outs aren't a problem when you ahve robust self defense laws and gun laws

Nigger culture is for niggers, if white people sucumb to it then they're niggers too

As for freedom, my mistake was assuming that you had any basis for caring about a people besides genetics - which without relation to some form of aesthetics or morality has no value in itself - my mistake was assuming a coherent ideology on your behalf

>Clash of civilizations

That's what we've been talking about from the get go, how best to deal not only with different cultures but the varied and destructive tendencies of individuals as well

I'm going to bed

Former libertarian here

Our society comes from our culture which comes from our race.

Nationalist libertarianism would work provided you had a northern european population and next to no immigration. Of course a northern european society with no or very little immigration can make any political system work.

>>5449735

>Through slavery you will breed sentimentaliy for the slaves

That's only a problem if you treat them like people, on some level.

The Caliphs avoided it by gelding and castrating all African slaves they took. They never allowed a breeding population of them to take root in their civilization. They rationalized it as a safety measure, a pacification technique to "tame" them and make them less violent, and that they did not need a breeding population, since they could always simply go and acquire more.

I'm not condoning the idea, merely pointing out that it can be done.

>>5454631

>You have a very heavily romanticized view of antiquity

He doesn't. Economic slavery was not necessarily a degrading state of being, and it's existence served a valuable purpose in society; i.e. the eradication of debt.

To conflate the economic slavery of the classical world with the caste based slavery of India, Africa, and Islam is to show a distinct lack of understanding on the subject itself, as well as societies throughout the ages.

>>5454951

Slavery is bad for the same reason animal abuse is bad, only sociopaths or people of weak character would desire either. Give your enemies merciful and swift deaths, keep your lands purged.

>>5454961

That's an argument against caste based slavery. Not an argument against indentured servitude, which is economic slavery.

Caste based slavery is a permanent state of being. It is a social status. You are taken into it by force or born into it, you live in it, and you will die in it, and should you have any children, they will inherit the status as well. It is slavery as a caste system.

Indentured servitude is a temporary state of being. It is an economic status. You enter into it voluntarily (or sometimes not, depending upon the circumstances), and you work while in the status with the express intention of your labor going towards paying off a debt. When the debt is paid, or whomever your debt is owed to is satisfied with your work, you are released, and all of your debts are considered absolved. It existed within society as a means of eradicating debt that could not feasibly be paid off any other way or in a reasonable amount of time, because the classical world understood that debt was bad and keeping people in debt was not only morally wrong, but would ultimately destroy the economic system. It was a tool for debt removal, and there were legal rules pertaining to it. Such slaves cannot be abused, as there are legal repercussions for doing so, and since they often work within a household as a servant or houseman, it is within the holder of the debt's interests to keep them healthy, reasonably content, and even to educate and train them on how to do their allotted job better.

You call it a sociopaths act, but if I were to make an offer to your average college graduate, who is saturated up to their ears with debt, that they could come work for me with no pay, that their room and board would be provided for, that they would receive on the job training and experience, and in five years they would be let go with all of their debts considered paid in full, and with the job experience provided from working for me on their record, as well as a possible written letter of recommendation if they did a good enough job, how many do you think would take me up on that offer?

To most, I would argue even the majority, it would seem like a dream opportunity. They would leap at the chance to work for five years, or even ten years, in a respectable position and walk away with extensive job experience, training, and be totally debt free.

And that is why indentured servitude used to exist. For exactly that reason.

For you to fail to make the appropriate distinction between the different types of slavery and servitude is to show a fundamental ignorance of your own history and the reason why certain societies practiced certain things.

>>5454961

>anon talks about indentured servitude

>hurr purge your enemies

Is there something wrong with your eyes?

>>5451077

> But to do so is foul, disgusting, altogether too barbaric, downright fascist, and worst of all, that most wicked of Libertarian sins

no

speaking for ancap, absolute authority is desired, and a very fundamental thing

people keep thinking that the no rule thing means there cant be any laws or governent or other instituions

in fact we just want those instituions to be voluntary, and generally smaller

because that allows for competetion, innovation, betterment. instead of weapons protected monopolies plagued by stagnation and inefficiency.

>>5455186

That was addressed to libertarians, not ancaps.

And ancaps can't want laws but claim that the institutions upholding the law "should be voluntary."

Laws are not upheld by volunteers. They cannot be upheld by volunteers. The more people there are watching something happen, the less likely any one person is to stand up and act. This is the Bystander Effect.

Ancaps like to believe that the Bystander Effect will magically disappear if the pool of people involved gets large enough.

It won't. The dispersal of responsibility will be magnitudes greater when it is spread across all of society as a voluntary action.

Voluntary law enforcement means voluntary laws. A voluntary law is a suggestion. Society doesn't run on suggestions. I can suggest to a nigger that he stop robbing me, but if he doesn't care and no one is forced to punish him for having done so, no one will.

What you propose is lawlessness with a pretty bow.

>>5455255

you volunatiry agree to the laws in place on a property when you enter it

see vid

bonus

private defense

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2IbjhV00as

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKCGcU7NMaE

commercial evil for profit healthcare

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4Y8vGuBkrk

and finally, fully voluntary cities

http://www.independent.org/store/book.asp?id=17

(theres a sequel, dealing with roads etc)

>>5455255

>>5455351

>That was addressed to libertarians, not ancaps.

yes i would agree with that

I think derugulating some stuff, specifically technology is a very good thing

and so long as you can around crony 'privatezation' handing off more stuff is also very good. e.g. public schools and universities should be gone. and the FDA.

and then theres a lot of laws that also need to go. like in many states you can just open a clinic. you first have to 'proof' it is 'necessary'. (I wonder who could be behind this)

beyond things like that, its true that its a bad idea to have a large state wich dictates peoples life choice. whatever they are. guns vs no guns. fags vs no fags. monoethnic vs highly multiethnic vs curated multiethnic. many laws vs no laws. communism if they want - but only for those who agree to it.

wich is isnt something 'libertarianism' delivers.

that would be ancap.

>>5455403

>public schools and universities should be gone

Oh, so you're the type who wants serfs.

Kike.

>>5455486

>public schools teach anything worthwhile

>public schools dont severly detrimentally influence peoples character

>public schools arent an instiution of indoctrination regarding histry and politics

I would make some joke about hurr durr Im 12.

but whenI was 12 I wasnt this retarded.

Holy shit this thread smells of matza.

>>5449676

Well, how would your snowflake brand of libertarianism be different?

I'm not asking to be a dick, I genuinely want to know.

>>5451714

>fascism

>banning guns

Trashed.jpg

>>5449735

>Better to make indentured a criminal

But what if the criminality laws broaden? Who decides who is a criminal? Can that be changed willy nilly like most modern laws? Can that be hijacked to serve a (((special interest)))?

Slavery is communism. It has no place in an all white society.

>>5451063

>>5451077

>>5451091

>>5451103

WOW

Someone cap this.

>>5452142

>I find the people who want to make me either enslaved or dead more agreeable than the people who want me to stand up for myself and my family.

…I don't even have a reaction face for how retarded this is. You fucked up rabbi.

>>5454919

>STDs are a self solving problem

Then why do they continue to proliferate? Perhaps because we live in a libertarian society where people are driven by base instincs to rut like animals?

>>5448977

>That's why it's important to keep immigrants from flooding the nation. They haven't yet acquired that appreciation, or may not even support those principles to start. They have to be assimilated.

Why are they even needed in the first place? There is no reason (aside from the usual kikery) to let any non-tourists into your country.

the paradox is libertarianism is that it only works in a society that is mostly or all white. (if NYC was all white for example, crime would drop over 90%). So you're faced with the weird task of wanting to limit government control but still trying to keep the populace a certain ethnicity

>>5456571

If my family were non white would you still want me to stand up for myself?

Or would your state step in and tell me who I can and can't love?

>>5454704

> Forming a special group doesn't stop niggers from being niggers around you.

Building a wall and keeping them out does. That's why I say I'm a *Hoppean* ancap.

> * you hope.

So you want to force leftie whites to stay in your country?

>>5448527

The only thing by Hoppe I have read is "Democracy, the God That Failed." I read it as I was transitioning out of an-cap and into reactionary thought.

>>5454914

>Ancap society only works, in so far as it works at all (it doesn't), when all participants cooperate.

Ancap society is much more resilient to dishonest, manipulative and potentially criminal members than any other society ever devised.

> You would be flooded with subhumans who refuse to cooperate and your society would fall apart.

They can't flood a land they don't own.

>>5449140

What you describe is a fair criticism of popular positions among certain ancaps. As an ancap, let me tell you, you are right, they are retarded, but no, ancap does not prevent a modern military.

In your example, first of all, any nation caught by surprise by a hostile enemy is doomed, so we have to assume the commie militaristic neighbor's plans are known in advance. Let's say an expert brings up the issue, he comes up with a situation report, a plan and a budget. Everyone is interested in addressing the problem, and the wealthier individuals have the most to lose. What exactly would prevent such an army and military-industrial complex to be developed?

> but due to there being no FDA, there are addictives in the food, no one can resist that burger flavored coffee.

HAHA, you've got to be kidding me. The FDA is a mafia to keep small players at bay, nothing more. There's a huge market for unreasonably healthy food, gyms and so on. People would lead much healthier diets if they could get the fair deductions in their health insurance from doing that. Currently that's not the case.

>>5446762

>might makes right

Might doesn't make right, might just makes.

>>5444127

Pure libertarianism doesn't protect our borders. If you can adhere to a modified form of libertarianism that preserves nations by keeping their borders well-protected, you're all right in my book. Hell, for all the so-called "fascists" on /pol/, we're pretty quick to call tyranny when the government tries to pass stricter gun control or surveillance or copyright laws. Probably because we used to be majority libertarian and all the former lolbergs still hold on to a lot of their freedom-loving ideals.

>>5457626

Sure I would. I want you to stand up and love your own people. If you don't, you're a traitor to your blood and your ancestors.

I think you greatly misunderstand who we are here.

>>5460344

Copyright laws don't serve the government. They are an extension of private interests.

Putting hoops in place to acquire guns is acceptable, as long as they remain unreasonable. If the stricture is so considerable that it dissuades people who would otherwise acquire them for self defense purposes, then it is too much.

We would not have as great a need for private gun ownership if America was 95% white, with the leftovers being Asians and Natives. We mostly need guns because niggers and spics exist.

Additionally, fascism is not necessarily for or against the private ownership of weapons. Rome did not restrict it's citizens from owning daggers, swords, or truncheons.

Surveillance laws are a whole different can of worms. Surveillance should be pointed outwards, not inwards. If immigration was sufficiently strict, or simply unallowed, then there would be little to no need to expend massive amounts of resources towards watching your own people for crime or terrorism.

We need little surveillance because, as it has been stated before, the hivemind is self-correcting on issues such as morality, ethics, and politics, so long as a sufficiently large number of minds participate in it, and we are actually anonymous, and thus protected from being persecuted by presenting unpopular ideas.

Anonymity and open political discourse will lead to a self-correcting golden age of civilization, IF it can be maintained and preserved. Political affiliation is not relevant on the issue.

>>5462252

*as long as they are not unreasonable

Capitalist fascist, I believe in promoting and shifting focus on the family above government welfare status, because it promotes a stronger more capable populace.

I'm protectionist over libertarian and support use of force against those who work against the interest of the nation, citizen or corporation.

Basically, create an environment where people can succeed on their own, do not give welfare incentive to tear apart families, and violently remove anyone who would try to destroy that environment be it out of spite or personal gain.

>>5452142

>If I wanted to have the genetic makeup of my children dictated to me by a government official in a suit I'd move to North Korea.

Oh, you can have all the shit colored children you want. Just don't count on them living a long happy life the way things are going.

>>5460115

At this point, we're arguing theory, but I'll bite.

>An expert

Who? In this society how would this person be trained in large army warfare? How would he make his living? How would he even get his foot into the door of these mega corps to convince them to stop seeking profits and assemble an army to defend not just themselves, but their business rivals?

What happens if one of the wealthiest individuals decides to get cheap? Hell, what happens if many of the wealthiest individuals get cheap?

>"Someone else will foot the bill, they have to! It's our survival after all!"

You think they would all pony up for their own survival? What if the wealthiest made the same assumption that you just did? That "everyone will pony up, so I can just throw in some token help."

And where would they get the infantry? Volunteers? Modern Armies are populated by low income individuals. Most of them bought the "be all you can be" line and went in to get a scholarship. But under a corporate army, what would be stopping these people, who no longer have the benefit of civic indoctrination, from simply banding together, buying a fleet of coach buses, and saying "Yo homes! Smell ya later!", and making for the border of the moderate republic not far away? What makes them loyal to starbucks? What makes them loyal to the lowest wage possible thanks to the oligopoly fixing wages?

I'm not sure what I would describe myself as. Not a natsoc anymore it has some good ideas and bad ideas and I don't aim to argue about it.

I guess if I had to label myself I would say a libertarian republican. I just fucking love freedom. Even though the Third Reich was free there was literally nothing stopping Hitler from going full on authoritarian oppressor other than his own love for his people.

I don't fucking know anymore you see the shit I have and you just lose track of what's right and wrong.

>>5462510

My man.

>>5463833

Actually, Oswald Mosley and Joseph Goebbels talked about this - every five years every citizen got a slip and they either simply said Yes or No to the current leader. If no, the people elected a new leader. If yes, wait another five years.

>>5463087

What you realized there was the evil of people who care only about living an endlessly hedonistic lifestyle. Caring only about themselves and their rights to do whatever they want, they've forgotten their duty to their people. They only care about new freedoms as a vehicle to experience new pleasures, never admitting the damage they're doing by shirking their duty. It's an easy trap to fall into though, because who would choose duty and temperance over ease and pleasure?

>>5463833

Just call it what it is. Paleo-conservatism. That's what most libertarians really are, just way old school repub.

The reason they put adjectives in front of libertarian is that people like to feel like special snowflakes. I don't mean that in a bad way, just a fact. People like to feel different and special.

I consider myself to be a Libertarian, but I'm totally pro Trump. I believe we currently need to take action to get someone into the White House who will kick the kikes out. The only way you can protect liberty is to overthrow the government now and again.

I personally believe the government should be very limited in power, and generally leave people alone. However, this requires that the people have the right attitude. If liberty means immorality and cultural suicide, then something has to be done.

I believe a strong country is one made of intelligent nationalists who have a love for their nation and respect for themselves. In a strong nation, the government acts to serve the people. Individuality is emphasised, and the nation is more a collection of strong individuals than a collective of drones.

That's what I believe anyway. One nation under God, not under the them of rich kikes like George Soros.

>>5464038

Well just calling yourself a libertarian is kinda stupid. Far to few rules, muh roads ect… but there is no term for a right freedom based ideology to my knowledge, so I feel the need to explain myself further due to libertarianism being hijacked by what is essentially anarchists.

>>5464182

No, you described yourself as a paleo-conservative. That's what I'm saying. Many libertarians think they need to put a word in front of it to differentiate themselves, but in reality it's just paleo-conservatism.

I want my guns, I want to be able to say what I want, I want to approve where my taxes go, I want to have a nice tomato garden and a nice fence around my property, and lastly, no bitch nigger gonna tells me what to do.

Paleo-Conservatism. It's everything your fathers father wanted in his life.

>>5463664

> Who? In this society how would this person be trained in large army warfare? How would he make his living? How would he even get his foot into the door of these mega corps to convince them to stop seeking profits and assemble an army to defend not just themselves, but their business rivals?

See what you are doing here. You are comparing military experience and technology developed along milennia of statist conflicts with a pristine, naive ancap society who never knew a war. It's not a fair comparison. A statist society with no known enemies would be just as unprepared for war as an ancap society in the same situation.

In practice, realistically an ancap society would know about these issues from the start. The military personnel, experience and technology will come inherited from its immediate non-ancap past.

As for defending business rivals, they all have a common interest in not being invaded by a ruthless commie dictator, so they will all contribute. Those who insist on leeching from other's defense spending while they can afford to contribute will be frowned upon and ostracized, losing business market share and social circles. In fact, they can be removed from the protection treaty and even expelled from the community, depending on the details of the community covenant.

> You think they would all pony up for their own survival? What if the wealthiest made the same assumption that you just did? That "everyone will pony up, so I can just throw in some token help."

The terms of the collective action would be fixed by a contract/pact before anyone pays.

Alternatively, a military company will figure out the shape and size of this market and offer protection against foreign enemies to individuals for a fee.

Interesting fact: even if the threat horizon is decades, even centuries, in the future, you can make it profitable right now, as long there's an overlap in human generations (as there always is). For instance, if you predict that in 100 years a powerful enemy will attack, and he can only be stopped with a military-industrial complex that takes 90 years to build, you can create the corresponding company and sell stock profitably right now. That's because the value of this company's stock is expected to rise as the deadline approaches, which means that if you buy stock now and sell it, say, 10 years later, you make a profit, even if you never see the project finished.

> And where would they get the infantry? Volunteers?

Whatever works best. Today's american soldiers are in many cases personnel from private military contractors (despectively described as "mercenaries" by the left, which is inaccurate).

> But under a corporate army, what would be stopping these people, who no longer have the benefit of civic indoctrination

Why not? There's nothing in anarcho-capitalism against patriotic propaganda. If it works, do it. Just call it "freedom" rather than "anarcho-capitalism".

> What makes them loyal to starbucks?

They are loyal to freedom and to their community, not to starbucks.

> What makes them loyal to the lowest wage possible thanks to the oligopoly fixing wages?

LOL, no such thing.

>>5463880

But then the leader has five years to purge all potential "no" voters.

>>5464182

How about paleolibertarian?

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

Libertarians are right on:

Economics - dont even try to argue this, free market has produced only successses, and socialism has produced only losers

Social welfare - turns people into handout seeking losers

Freedoms - muh guns, muh free speech, my privacy, etc

Foreign policy - no need to go into iraq, kosovo, libya, etc. Hillary basically created isis in syria by supporting the rebels

Wrong on:

Unregulated immigration - you cant have this with a welfare state because it just turns into Sweden yes.

Okay on:

Vice policy - drugs, while degenerate do more harm than good being illegal, see alcohol prohibition. If prostitution were legal, feminism would be dealt a death blow. Why would a man risk divorce rape, cuckolding, etc for a fat angry american woman thay only fucks him once every other month? If prostitutes were legal women would have to compete and offer things like homemaking, cooking and of course good sex in order to keep their men from running off to prostitutes.

Healthcare - privatized is most efficient since there's incentive to take care of your health. If you're going to do handouts, voucher systems are the best way to go.

pol mostly hates them because of immigration, but no gibs = no immigration

This a good thread.