8f8826 No.11356
Libertarians and Natsocs, /polpol/ style
Dear Libertarians,
Question 1: Is there any operational difference between freedom and happiness? Without the initiation of force, people would naturally use their freedom to achieve happiness, does it then follow that making someone happy is the same as making them free?
Question 2: Should free international trade be legal in a Libertarian society if one of the participant nations does not observe the NAP?
Dear National Socialists:
Question 1: Hitler and many Natsoc economists like Gottfried Feder seemed to observe situations in which a private service becomes redundant or nonproductive (like in a monopoly), by which case the state aught to nationalize the service (Like when Hitler seized the airplane industry). Under what situations, do you think, should a state "take over" private enterprise?
Question 2: Are there any safeguards in a NatSoc society protecting the people from a bad Leader?
Picture unrelated
f6be9a No.11366
>>11356>Are there any safeguards in a NatSoc society protecting the people from a bad LeaderWhen moral, ethic and merit are the core of the ideology, the only chance of this happening would be if the movement were formed by hypocrites and opportunists, so the leader wouldn't be the problem.
The attempts of killing Hitler tell us much, if he had been a bad leader he would be dead.
778242 No.11367
I don't mean to be obtuse when I say this, but is there any reason why you can't have a nat-soc society with a libertarian government?
1aec4c No.11370
>>11356For your first question.
>Differentiate between freedom and happinessWhen I fell out of my libertarian phase, the distinction I found was that there is a difference between your material freedom, such as the freedom to "do" as you please, e.g.: get high, and your spiritual freedom, which was something far more noble.
Now, I questioned my friends: where do your morals come from? One of them said that morality was an excuse for pleasure, or happiness, as a drug addict will tell you that their drugs are good according to the chemical responses of pleasure going off in their brain.
So, I asked him, "Is slavery bad?"
"Of course!" he replied.
I followed, "Then surely slavery to such supposedly pleasurable things as drugs and hedonism, which wrest control of yourself away from your directing mind, is bad, and so these things cannot be good, and hence pleasure is not the source or goal of morality." He had no choice but to concede. The third man, who listened all the while, and who himself was a famed junkie among our social circles, laughed out loud, but agreed nevertheless.
In that way, I found that 'happiness' and 'freedom' are two separate things, so long as 'freedom' was taken to mean a more intangible, spiritual liberty. This, of course, is an idea that cannot be entertained in a libertarian society, as to preserve one's spiritual liberty you must diminish their material freedom.
6c9f1e No.11371
>>11366Good hypocrites and opportunists only reveal themselves after they are in power. "When moral, ethic and merit are the core of the ideology" Most political ideologies pretend to preach them, but only corrupt psychos tend to rise up in politics or have the influence for it.
But he IS dead, anon ;_; He let power corrupt him to the point where he made irresponsible strategic decision.
>>11370>as to preserve one's spiritual liberty you must diminish their material freedom.No anon, you had a nice post. But then you just jumped to this conclusion, why is that?
df5c14 No.11372
>>11356Question to the lolbertarians: What do you propose to do about Racial preservation without the involvement of the state?
Your Saint Friedman claims the "free market" will solve it by removing the welfare state.
What makes you think niggers and chinks won't just immigrate to get out of their polluted shitholes regardless of welfare?
>Friedman: Immigration is a particularly difficult subject. There is no doubt that free and open immigration is the right policy in a libertarian state, but in a welfare state it is a different story: the supply of immigrants will become infinite.Do you actually believe that drivel or do you actually welcome being flooded by manure in human form?
cd9a8c No.11373
>>11372I believe most Libertarians here ignore the immigration side of their ideology.
The libertarian ideology would let degeneracy and shitskins infect a country without much control under the pretext of freedom.
What's stopping a company ran and owned by Mr. Shekelstein from importing thousands of shitskins into his private harbour and letting them work for him? Not much.
6c9f1e No.11374
>>11372Europe didn't get mass immigration before it was state sponsored and supported by the welfare state. Look at Scandinavia and Britain for good examples. Even when there was no need for passports, immigration wasn't a problem.
But a conservative libertarian nation would keep responsible control of the border.
6c9f1e No.11375
>>11373They can still do that today, and it doesn't happen that much.
Also, see below:
>>11374 b570ed No.11377
>Under what situations, do you think, should a state "take over" private enterprise?
Monopolies on goods/services that are essential to the survival of the nation are worth to be at least considered for nationalization.
The armament industry (I'm talking tanks, warships and fighter planes, not rifles for personal use) should certainly be government-run in order to prevent war profiteering.
>Question 2: Are there any safeguards in a NatSoc society protecting the people from a bad Leader?
A well-armed populace, for starters.
Hitler's dictatorship was always thought of as a provisional thing. Check out the pamphlet Nazi-Sozi by Goebbels, it contains some suggestions as to how a NatSoc state might be structured for long-term stability.
cd9a8c No.11378
>>11374Europe is full of immigrants because of Jewish banks/multinational corporations, not the welfare state.
Scandinavia had a fine welfare system in the 60s, but once the Jews/globalists decided they wanted to turn Scandinavia into their next play thing, it went to shit.
Welfare, as long as it's for the native people, is necessary for any white society.
6c9f1e No.11379
>>11377>Monopolies on goods/services that are essential to the survival of the nation are worth to be at least considered for nationalization.The armament industry (I'm talking tanks, warships and fighter planes, not rifles for personal use) should certainly be government-run in order to prevent war profiteering.
Indeed, that is why Russia has a more efficient military production then the US.
>A well-armed populace, for starters.Hitler's dictatorship was always thought of as a provisional thing. Check out the pamphlet Nazi-Sozi by Goebbels, it contains some suggestions as to how a NatSoc state might be structured for long-term stability.
That just sound like lip-service to fool the populace.
>>11378Corporate interests made the welfare state into their plaything, because it was such an easily corrupted middle-man.
b570ed No.11380
>>113743rd Reich had a massive welfare state, yet it wasn't exactly flooded with immigrants.
df5c14 No.11381
>>11374>Europe didn't get mass immigration before it was state sponsored and supported by the welfare state.I don't buy that for a second. If there is a war raging in Africa or the Middle East and some libertarian paradise has open borders they are going to move there.
Look at the amount of refugee camps in countries neighboring Syria, do you think they'd rather live in tents with zero prospects or move to your open border paradise?
1436d4 No.11382
>>11367A libertarian government wouldn't be able of achieving the people's unity
Every attempt on killing the nation's illness would directly conflict with its principles
>>11371So it would be just another false movement waiting to be replaced.
He clearly meant that other people would've jumped aboard and they would've achieved their goal.
>Irresponsible strategic decisionYou're just making assumptions.
There's no ifs, it was what it was.
Doesn't matter who is the one that you judge was the most fit to lead, we would probably be here discussing his mistakes.
And you should also provide sources for your claims.
2f0c68 No.11384
>>11374> Even when there was no need for passports, immigration wasn't a problem.Nigger what? You don't need a passport to get deported. The United Kingdom has had laws on migrants since at least the 13th Century.
Mass migration is prevalent today because it has only been feasible today. If you abolish borders and formal citizenship the boat people will flood in.
12b7ce No.11386
>>11356>Are there any safeguards in a NatSoc society protecting the people from a bad Leader?Yes. They are called guns.
6c9f1e No.11388
>>11382You assume libertarians have strict guidelines they most follow.
>You're just making assumptions.He desregarded his generals, instead following his feels:
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/12009649Just one example. He made ideological instead of pratical decions during the war that lost him the eastern front.
>>11384Feasible because of the welfare state, before that they didn't get mass imigration.
>>11386You made me laugh, as if any Nazi or Fascist goverment ever allowed an armed populace.
Look at Nazi Germany.
24ac97 No.11389
>>11380Yeah, welfare is only bad if you bring parasites in or if the system is easily abusable.
But anyway, I think this would be unfeasible in our current society, since we already let the parasites in and trying to fix this problem without abolishing welfare completely would take too much work.
b570ed No.11391
>>11379>That just sound like lip-service to fool the populaceIt's hard to tell what you're referring to when you quote in such a weird way.
The NS greatly relaxed Germany's gun control laws in March 1938 through the Reichswaffengesetz and generally encouraged public armament, this is historical fact.
2f0c68 No.11392
>>11388No. Feasible because of a awareness and modern transport. Illegals aren't entitled to benefits and yet they try and come. 50 years ago it wasn't possible for Afgahns to slip into Europe hidden on trains and ferries. Today, that option is very real.
Israel for instance doesn't give welfare to its illegal Africans so they turn parks into shanty towns.
Don't get me wrong, I despise socialism and populism in all its kinds but borders exist for a reason. A population should always strive to isolate itself from undesirables detrimental to the public good. In a libertarian world I would expect that the very best of society would settle in private city-states but alas, libertarian utopias are fictional.
12b7ce No.11393
>>11388>You made me laugh, as if any Nazi or Fascist goverment ever allowed an armed populace.>Look at Nazi Germany.How does it feel to be complete lied to by lolbertarians?
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.htmlYou people swallowed so much shit and still had the ball to talk about "propaganda".
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/ c2c055 No.11394
>>11382>A libertarian government wouldn't be able of achieving the people's unity.>Every attempt on killing the nation's illness would directly conflict with its principles.Fair comments and I agree to an extent. But consider this, national socialism (and lets be generous and include all the 'fascist' parties of Europe during the interwar period, the Iron Guard, Rexism and Mussolini's Italy ect). Would they not have flourished under a libertarian government? Because as I'm sure you know, all of these movements were brutally suppressed. Had this not been the case would they not have had a greater positive influence on society?
Or perhaps you're arguing for the fact that if you have a libertarian government, it can't be safe guarded from foreign interests as I believe you are indeed saying. In which case there is much truth to that line of thought.
6c9f1e No.11395
>>11392Britain and Sweden actually subsidise immigrants. Incluiding giving them free healthcare (see latest UKIP AIDS scandals)
6c9f1e No.11396
>>11392Israel kicks them out pretty easily. And they are literally bordering Africa.
1436d4 No.11398
>>11388Isn't libertarianism essentially about individuals freedom? Because that's exactly my point.
Again, only assumptions.
It's easy to make the decisions from the outside.
Maybe it was because of his feels that hey had at least a chance to begin with.
You'll never know. That's the only true.
They could've acted the exactly way you or whoever say it was the best and still lose.
The amount of things that were in play makes it impossible to know.
And I will respond to this in general. I'll not even threat this article in allied newspaper during wartime as irrelevant.
c10635 No.11401
>Under what situations, do you think, should a state "take over" private enterprise?
A monopoly combined with extreme public dissatisfaction to the point where growth is stagnated because of the enterprise's incompetence. Think big US Internet providers.
001def No.11402
>>11356libertarian responding,
1. no freedom equals freedom. happiness equals being able to utilize freedom. if we still use a monetary you would need money to enjoy the freedoms at hand. you need money to enjoy freedoms at hand today as well. but in a true libertarian society i would be quite wealthy because i could do my business legally without fear and advertise to gain a respectable costumer base and move from the underbelly of society (i do things deemed bad by gov. to survive). right now i barely survive in a libertarian society i have the potential to thrive with out fear of moving onto federal radar which is why i don't expand while i have the underworld connections to do so irl and on the www depending on the day (what i do on the www will never be legal)
2 yes
6c9f1e No.11403
>>11393Those articles don't support what you said.
They just mention they didn't need gun control to control the population.
24ac97 No.11404
>>11395Yeah, not only do the shitskins abuse the system, but they are also given plenty of special privileges. That's an obvious recipe for disaster and I'm going to laugh when countries who refuse to cease with these type of policies collapse.
2f0c68 No.11405
>>11395I am British.Almost every day we have people who land in Dover having travelled up to 4000 miles just to settle here. Under your system we would have no right to send them back. Socialism makes the country more attractive, it's true, but they would travel here regardless.
>>11396Nope. Israel pays them to leave. It doesn't deport them without their consent. If they refuse they are imprisoned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_from_Africa_to_Israelhttp://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/09/israel-coerces-sudan-eritrea-migrants-deportation-201495130968214.htmlhttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/31/israel-to-deport-eritrean-and-sudanese-asylum-seekers-to-third-countries 24ac97 No.11407
>>11403
>You made me laugh, as if any Nazi or Fascist goverment ever allowed an armed populace.Stop moving the goalpost, idiot.
6c9f1e No.11408
>>11405>Under your system we would have no right to send them back. Socialism makes the country more attractive, it's true, but they would travel here regardless.Libertarian conservatives are the most anti-imigration in america, try again.
> It doesn't deport them without their consent. If they refuse they are imprisoned.Did you even read what you wrote? Topkek.
They force them out, pure and simple.
6c9f1e No.11409
>>11407I didn't move anything, idiot. Just stated a fact.
12b7ce No.11410
>>11403>>11399>>11403>The 1928 law was subsequently extended in 1938 under the Third Reich (this action being the principal point in support of the contention that the Nazis were advocates of gun control). However, the Nazis were firmly in control of Germany at the time the Weapons Law of 1938 was created. Further, this law was not passed by a legislative body, but was promulgated under the dictatorial power granted Hitler in 1933. Obviously, the Nazis did not need gun control to attain power as they already (in 1938) possessed supreme and unlimited power in Germany. The only feasible argument that gun control favored the Nazis would be that the 1928 law deprived private armies of a means to defeat them. The basic flaw with this argument is that the Nazis did not seize power by force of arms, but through their success at the ballot box (and the political cunning of Hitler himself). Secondary considerations that arise are that gun ownership was not that widespread to begin with, and, even imagining such ubiquity the German people, Jews in particular, were not predisposed to violent resistance to their government.How about you go and eat shit like most lolbertarians now?
This lie has been perpetuated for far too long.
Freedom of speech my ass.
>inb4 muh Jews and CommiesYes lolbertarians will totally allow armed commies and kikes living right next to them.
>>11407 It is obviously a typical lolbertarian lie.
The only one that they keep using along with the Holohoax.
24ac97 No.11411
>>11405
>but they would travel here regardless.Nothing wrong with just visiting the country if that's what you mean.
12b7ce No.11412
>>11409>FACT>MUH FACTThen why did you lie you piece of shit?
1436d4 No.11413
>>11397>>11403>>11409Even the kikepedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_legislation_in_GermanyHitler's partial relaxation of gun control on government workers in Nazi Germany
The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. But under the new law:
Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as was the possession of ammunition."[3]
The legal age at which guns could be purchased was lowered from 20 to 18.[4]
Permits were valid for three years, rather than one year.[4]
The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[3]
Manufacture of arms and ammunition continued to require a permit, with the revision that such permits would no longer be issued to Jews or any company part-owned by Jews. Jews were consequently forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.[3]
Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.
Indeed they had gun control:
For the Jews
Disarming Jews in Nazi Germany
On November 11, 1938, the Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons was promulgated by Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews living in those locations of the right to possess any form of weapons including truncheons, knives, or firearms and ammunition.[5] Some police forces used the pre-existing "trustworthiness" clause to disarm Jews on the basis "the Jewish population 'cannot be regarded as trustworthy'".[3]
6c9f1e No.11414
6c9f1e No.11415
>>11413But why is it mentioned as "Hitler's partial relaxation of gun control on government workers in Nazi Germany".
Was it only for goverment workers?
12b7ce No.11416
>>11414>Hurr durr fair enoughI thought this board has a policy on executing shills?
The lolbertarian lies about "Hurr durr Nazi gun control" has LONG been debunked and yet they repeat in ALL THE FUCKING TIME, no doubt in hope that it will get to someone when the "natzis" werent watching the conversation.
You fucking scum. Typical leftist trash. Same stock from the French Revolution.
001def No.11417
>>11402elaborating on NO.1 so it's not just a criminals paradise. with no permits for construction or building jobs people could higher extra workers and stimulate the economy and do more jobs at a faster rate. bringing more workers into the force getting paid more and more frequently who spend and stimulate the economy. we talk alot about trickle down economics but we really are a trickle up system at this point because all the money workers should get goes to permits taxes fines and insurance osha needs there cut and when all is said and done a million dollar job (without mineral) $100,000 goes to the boss $250,000-$300,000 to the construction team and the rest goes to taxes permits osha fines blueprint filing fees i can go on but it'd take all day. you get the point.
12b7ce No.11418
>>11415No.
It is their little word game.
Banning Commies from owning guns = gun control.
Pure and simple.
And they even said that they lowered the age from 20 to 18.
Does that sound goverment exclusive to you?
1436d4 No.11419
>>11415
>he legal age at which guns could be purchased was lowered from 20 to 18.>Permits were valid for three years, rather than one year.
>Permits–
>The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers,
>exempt from permits>government workes–
It's just Jewish tactic trying to create confusion
24ac97 No.11420
>>11416
>The lolbertarian lies m8, stop blaming only libertarians for this shit. You're acting as much of "shill" as him with your divide and conquering. It's mostly the Republican good goyim who push those lies.
b570ed No.11421
>>11403He posted the complete texts of the laws from both 1928 and 1938 along with English translations and an essay by William Pierce in
>>11356 and the actual historical documents prove that the lolbergtarians are parroting a complete lie.
The only restriction on arms ownership Hitler added was the prhibition of ownership of firearms by Jews in November 1939, after a Jewish terrorist had shot a German diplomat.
12b7ce No.11422
>>11418I also forgot to mention that ALL Germans in the Reich were considered government's workers to some extent.
2f0c68 No.11423
>>11408>Libertarian conservatives are the most anti-imigration in america, try again.They're not libertarians, they're ultra-capitalist paleocons. The Libertarian Party of the United States is a immigration Liberal party. Most libertarians, like Commists and Greens, live under the fantasy that their proposed system will create such an equitable world that nobody will never have to resort to migration.
http://www.lp.org/platform#3.4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_immigration
>Did you even read what you wrote? Topkek.Did you?
>>11411And clearly, that's not what I mean.
b570ed No.11424
>>11419The permits were only relevant to hand guns. Rifles could be bought and sold freely.
6c9f1e No.11426
>>11418It doesn't matter much how it sounds really… Only what it was in practice.
>>11416Being a natsoc you should not insult socialists. Since, as your ideology name states, you are one.
>>11423>They're not libertarians, they're ultra-capitalist paleocons. The Libertarian Party of the United States is a immigration Liberal party. Most libertarians, like Commists and Greens, live under the fantasy that their proposed system will create such an equitable world that nobody will never have to resort to migration.That also sounds like natsoc's to me.
>Did you?If it is: Leave or be arrested, they are forcing them to leave.
12b7ce No.11427
>>11422
>Only what it was in practiceOh yeah, what was in "pratice" then?
>Being a natsoc you should not insult socialists. Since, as your ideology name states, you are one>Complete inability to differ between National Socialism and Karl Marx's entitlement socialism>Bait it anyway>Being on /polpol/>Lied again about "Natzi gun control"Where is mod?
24ac97 No.11428
>>11423
>They're not libertarians, they're ultra-capitalist paleocons.You realize there's a very thin line between those two, right? Read some Hoppe if you don't believe me.
6c9f1e No.11429
>>11427>Oh yeah, what was in "pratice" then?What truly happened, not saying it is false. Just checking if it really was for more than goverment workers.
>Lied again about "Natzi gun control"I was wrong about that gun control. I apologize.
6c9f1e No.11430
>>11428Exactly. A thousand times this.
1436d4 No.11432
>>11424Yes, I'm just pointing the the confusion the Jews try to create
Since government didn't needed permits at all.
But citizens did.
And the text tries to imply that only government workers had a right to own guns.
12b7ce No.11433
>>11429You people seriously need to re check your platform.
The truth made the NSDAP popular in the first place.
Same with libertarians too in the early years when Obama was elected.
Relying on lies and disinfo/misinfo needs serious backing, like the kikes have with the Holohoax. Until all oppositions are crushed, using misinformation will only smother your movement, because it is easier for you to be picked upon.
2f0c68 No.11434
>>11426>That also sounds like natsoc's to me.Perhaps but I'm not talking about Nazis. Libertarianism supports the free movement of labour.
>If it is: Leave or be arrested, they are forcing them to leave.One scenario is a human rights' offence, the other is not. Australia does the same thing.
>>11428In policy, often. In philosophy, no.
6c9f1e No.11435
>>11434Unless you are a conservative libertarian like:
>>11428
>One scenario is a human rights' offence, the other is not. Australia does the same thing.It is still a way to force to leave.
24ac97 No.11438
>>11434The only difference is that paleos are a bit more authoritarian in some things. There's a huge overlap in everything else.
1436d4 No.11439
The highlights of the 1938 German Weapons Law (which in its entirety fills 12 pages of the Reichsgesetzblatt with legalese), especially as it applied to ordinary citizens rather than manufacturers or dealers, follow:
Handguns may be sold or purchased only on submission of a Weapons Acquisition Permit (Waffenerwerbschein), which must be used within one year from the date of issue. Muzzle-loading handguns are exempted from the permit requirement.
Holders of a permit to carry weapons (Waffenschein) or of a hunting license do not need a Weapons Acquisition Permit in order to acquire a handgun.
A hunting license authorizes its bearer to carry hunting weapons and handguns.
Firearms and ammunition, as well as swords and knives, may not be sold to minors under the age of 18 years.
Whoever carries a firearm outside of his dwelling, his place of employment, his place of business, or his fenced property must have on his person a Weapons Permit (Waffenschein). A permit is not required, however, for carrying a firearm for use at a police-approved shooting range.
A permit to acquire a handgun or to carry firearms may only be issued to persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a permit. In particular, a permit may not be issued to:
persons under the age of 18 years;
legally incompetent or mentally retarded persons;
Gypsies or vagabonds;
persons under mandatory police supervision (i.e., on parole) or otherwise temporarily without civil rights;
persons convicted of treason or high treason or known to be engaged in activities hostile to the state;
persons who for assault, trespass, a breach of the peace, resistance to authority, a criminal offense or misdemeanor, or a hunting or fishing violation, were legally sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than two weeks, if three years have not passed since the term of imprisonment.
The manufacture, sale, carrying, possession, and import of the following are prohibited:
"trick" firearms, designed so as to conceal their function (e.g., cane guns and belt-buckle pistols);
any firearm equipped with a silencer and any rifle equipped with a spotlight;
cartridges with .22 caliber, hollow-point bullets.
2f0c68 No.11440
>>11435Let's see Hoppe talk about immigration then.
When I think Libertarian I think Mises, Rothbard, Friedman, Nozick, Rand, not Krautburger.
>>11438And have you ever considered why?
24ac97 No.11441
0839cb No.11442
>>11372I believe libertarianism is an excellent solution to free a country from it's corrupt leaders.
I also believe that on the international scale, the best solution is a "live and let live" philosophy (see : Switzerland, early US).
When it comes to immigration, I think Switzerland has the right answer. people are free to chose, trought referendees, the immigration policy of their country, and the immigration policy of their canton.
The current immigration policy of Switzerland is that no one can get in if they don't have a job inside, and non-europeans can't get in if someone else in Switzerland can do their job.
12b7ce No.11444
>>11439Thanks for the wrap up.
Also:
>"trick" firearms, designed so as to conceal their function (e.g., cane guns and belt-buckle pistols);
>any firearm equipped with a silencer and any rifle equipped with a spotlight;
>cartridges with .22 caliber, hollow-point bullets.Hitler sure knew whats up. These are the real "evil" weapons, if weapons are ever "evil".
Really unsure on the silencer part though.
2f0c68 No.11447
>>11441You should have given the link to the original essay, not a blogger's rebuttal.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/hans-hermann-hoppe/on-free-immigration-and-forced-integration/
>3>free immigrationLike your guy says, he's conflated free movement with the right to settle on private property (theft).
>4>taxes create states and states necessitate bordersYou tax the incomers. Taxation therefore becomes an act of naturalisation.
>5He's making the same mistake he did in 3.
>6>7Perfect, but this is not an argument against free movement but rather a critique of democracy and popular government.
I understand now. Hoppe is indeed a
libertarian, he's just not an especially bright one. This is explains the incongruence of his ideas. He's a sheep among goats.
1436d4 No.11448
>>11394They were suppressed because its own creation was as a form of reaction against those other parties/ideologies and their effects on the society.
They surely had positive influence on society otherwise they wouldn't have achieved nothing.
Both foreign and domestic threats.
How would a libertarian government act against individuals or groups that were perverting the nation, if its exactly principle is to defend all individuals/economic freedom.
1aec4c No.11449
>>11371>No anon, you had a nice post. But then you just jumped to this conclusion, why is that?It's implied, mate. To ennoble your soul I must prevent you from doing things that would result on the contrary; I must limit your freedom for the common good. It seems a semantic difference and the knee-jerk reaction for many a classical liberal is dismissal, so let me give you an example to clear the air.
Should we allow a common right to the freedom of speech? Conventionally, yes. We have been raised or otherwise fed to believe that in order to maintain and preserve the truth in society, we must maintain and preserve the voices of people we disagree with. Dissent is the engine of democracy, after all. Silence the people and you encroach on their rights, on their (material) freedom, and you begin the path to tyranny! Or so the rhetoric would have you think.
It seems a plain and incontestable fact that to maintain a stable society, or quest for the truth, you must allow each side of a discussion to be heard. But what if one is wrong? What if, through simple reasoning, we arrive at an unshakeable truth of reality that cannot under any circumstances be disproved, simply because it is right? Well, we allow freedom of speech because it's only democratic and free! And what if you present the opposing view, despite it being a blatant lie? What if you garner the means to manipulate the people's minds? Mass media? What if you let slip propaganda against the truth, and this is allowed because of simple 'freedoms'? You can see that this series of events leads to a simple consequence, and that is a divergence from the truth and from the true liberty of the people, under the guise of material freedoms. This is the reason that Socrates was against freedom of speech, I presume, and it is the primary reason that I am.
Now, I understand that simply outlawing particular thoughts or ideas reeks of tyranny, so obviously you would still prop up these falsehoods, in the same way that history or science students study the misconceptions of the past, but never would you allow it to form bastard ideas in the people's mind.
778242 No.11450
>>11448This is the issue.
The government which governs least is best.
But under these circumstances it is the peoples responsibility to deal with subversive elements themselves.
6c9f1e No.11452
>>11449No it is not implied. My soul can only be ennobled if I, myself, make the noble choice. Without any agency in taking the noble choice I am not taking a noble choice, just being forced to do something. Virtue requires agency.
It seems you want to limit my freedom for your good, for your feelings, not the common good.
But the problem today is that we don't have free speech, that is why you need to come on 8chan to express your opinions, anon. We have false free-speech.
If you silence a side, it can go both ways. If you don't allow freedoms you may actually favour your enemies, because they have more means than you, and they probably will get the upper hand in the censoring.
Why do you say Socrates was against free speech?
You have some noisy rethoric anon, you talk as if science and history aren't fields controled by the ones you most oppose.
1436d4 No.11455
>>11450But you see, Fascism preaches about the continuous struggle, not the class struggle, but the life one, and that every citizen should look himself as a soldier for his nation, and it's against the dogmas of democracy and pacifism.
What ideology would make it hard for you, the people, to stand up against tyranny?
1aec4c No.11458
>>11452>No it is not implied. My soul can only be ennobled if I, myself, make the noble choice. Without any agency in taking the noble choice I am not taking a noble choice, just being forced to do something. Virtue requires agency.The carrot and the stick.
You can't force someone to make a good, or noble, choice. Impossible, it defeats the nature of choice. You can, however, encourage and teach him to make a good choice, and discourage, condition against, or limit his choices to prevent him from making bad ones. In this way, you direct him like a mouse through a maze towards the noble choice. He finds it on his own, but you save him the time and effort required to navigate the empty spaces of the maze. This is how you raise children, and this is how you raise men, and this is how you run a state.
>It seems you want to limit my freedom for your good, for your feelings, not the common good.It seems that way, yes, but give me a chance.
>If you silence a side, it can go both ways. If you don't allow freedoms you may actually favour your enemies, because they have more means than you, and they probably will get the upper hand in the censoring.If I silence a side, am I not the one with the power and the means?
>Why do you say Socrates was against free speech?I think I read it in a book of Plato's dialogues a few months ago, or maybe another book early last year. It was just flair on my prose, intellectual wanking, really.
6c9f1e No.11459
>>11458>The carrot and the stick.>You can't force someone to make a good, or noble, choice. Impossible, it defeats the nature of choice. You can, however, encourage and teach him to make a good choice, and discourage, condition against, or limit his choices to prevent him from making bad ones. In this way, you direct him like a mouse through a maze towards the noble choice. He finds it on his own, but you save him the time and effort required to navigate the empty spaces of the maze. This is how you raise children, and this is how you raise men, and this is how you run a state.Libertarian conservatives such as myself fully agree with that.
>If I silence a side, am I not the one with the power and the means?Oh, so you are talking using the assumption that it would be applied after your favoured ideology reigned supreme. I think the main problem would be on how it would achieve that, and about it would probably get corrupted in the meanwhile.
778242 No.11462
>>11455>What ideology would make it hard for you, the people, to stand up against tyranny?I'll have to think about that one. For I can't decide if it's only the ideologies held by those who openly want to destroy us, or the ideologies of those who don't care to protect us.
0839cb No.11464
>>11444No he didn't. .22 is the most popular leisure cartridge, and has always been very cheap, there is no reason to ban it.
>silencerSupressors were originally designed in order to allow shooters to keep their hearing intact while shooting. It doesn't make a firearm silent, it only quiets it down to a non-dangerous level for your ears. Banning suppressors is, along with full-auto ban, the universal first step of incremental gun control.
>trick firearmsThose have always been the least practical guns ever. They serve no purpose aside from collection, their ban is a step in incremental gun control.
In fact, Hitler was nothing special gun-wise. Typical statist, as was most of eu back then (and still now).
1aec4c No.11465
>>11459>Libertarian conservatives such as myself fully agree with that.Label yourself however you want, I only care for your view.
>Oh, so you are talking using the assumption that it would be applied after your favoured ideology reigned supreme. I think the main problem would be on how it would achieve that, and about it would probably get corrupted in the meanwhile.Well see, in the far right, you wait for a collapse or some other moment of political opportunity. You develop a tightly-knit (shadow? only necessary in case of emergency) group with clear objectives to garner complete and total control and hand it over to the best man for the job. You then institute some kind of philosopher's kingdom, fascism, monarchy, moral dictatorship… Whichever flavour you like, you institute a moral and spiritual state, run it for its course, wait for the inevitable collapse, and let the new breeds play the game all over again. Sounds simple in theory, but in practice, obtaining power is anything but that.
You must play the game by the means of how power is obtained in the current regime. Currently, at the very least, power is synonymous with money, networking, business, time (i.e.: free time, see: wage slave), et cetera. Wealth, resources, and their efficient use, will give you power. You must work within the decentralised power centres (democracy, the internet, and so on) to develop or exploit your own centralised bastions of power. You then use these to muscle out your competition and declare yourself the ruler. I won't get too nitty gritty with specifics because that is, in effect, a plan to usurp the powers that be, which these days means going against an increasingly consolidated, globalised forces, which is a pain in the ass to accomplish. Hell, the Nazis tried against a weaker form of this and failed about eighty years ago, so it would take some Herculean effort to do it today.
I'll frequent this board til it dies, and I'll go to bed now, it's half past midnight here. Good talk anon, I loved it.
1436d4 No.11466
>>11464You're just missing the most important points.
He loosened the previous law.
And people like you argument is:
>See, this is gun control.So, he relaxed the law in order to increment gun control?
And,
This was Europe almost 100 years ago.
Today is virtually impossible to own any gun in Europe.
And let's not talk about Britain.
And I don't even know if they even allowed it in the past.
6c9f1e No.11470
>>11465>Well see, in the far right, you wait for a collapse or some other moment of political opportunity. You develop a tightly-knit (shadow? only necessary in case of emergency) group with clear objectives to garner complete and total control and hand it over to the best man for the job. You then institute some kind of philosopher's kingdom, fascism, monarchy, moral dictatorship… Whichever flavour you like, you institute a moral and spiritual state, run it for its course, wait for the inevitable collapse, and let the new breeds play the game all over again. Sounds simple in theory, but in practice, obtaining power is anything but that.
>You must play the game by the means of how power is obtained in the current regime. Currently, at the very least, power is synonymous with money, networking, business, time (i.e.: free time, see: wage slave), et cetera. Wealth, resources, and their efficient use, will give you power. You must work within the decentralised power centres (democracy, the internet, and so on) to develop or exploit your own centralised bastions of power. You then use these to muscle out your competition and declare yourself the ruler. I won't get too nitty gritty with specifics because that is, in effect, a plan to usurp the powers that be, which these days means going against an increasingly consolidated, globalised forces, which is a pain in the ass to accomplish. Hell, the Nazis tried against a weaker form of this and failed about eighty years ago, so it would take some Herculean effort to do it today.
>I'll frequent this board til it dies, and I'll go to bed now, it's half past midnight here. Good talk anon, I loved it.Good night anon, I enjoyed the talk too.
But, regarding your point, although I like it wouldn't the shadow group turn into a competing force before it needs to fullfil it's purpose?
What if the shadow group itself is the one being corrupted?
I generally have the idea that: the less people you need to rely on the better. The more things you are dependent on, the more things that can go wrong. It's is easier to plan for fewer variables, and easier to adapt if it is a smaller theoretical "enviroment".
About creating a worldwide "salvation" movement… We could start here on /polpol/, you could argue we already have.
The /pol/ ideas have spread immensely in the last few years. If we continue to reach more people with our refreshing dialog, they who are desperate for solutions will slowly see we always have different, and more effecient, answers to the mainstream.
12b7ce No.11471
>>11464.22 is the most popular nigger rounds to be used.
It is weak enough to be made for cast metal guns, which have proven to be the most popular guns for thugs and "assassins" (read: desperate people looking for a bux).
>Supressors were originally designed in order to allow shooters to keep their hearing intact while shooting. It doesn't make a firearm silent, it only quiets it down to a non-dangerous level for your ears. Banning suppressors is, along with full-auto ban, the universal first step of incremental gun control.No shit?
>Those have always been the least practical guns ever. They serve no purpose aside from collection, their ban is a step in incremental gun control.No shit?
>In fact, Hitler was nothing special gun-wise. Typical statist, as was most of eu back then (and still now).Thats why the non "statist" Weimar Republic banned ALL guns right?
Looks like we have another typical butthurt Lolbertarian here.
Lets see if any "non-statist" can repeal EVERY SINGLE gun laws at the same time. Especially in wartime.
Tard.
81e111 No.11745
>>11356Whether or not the ideologies are compatible vis a vis mixed neighborhoods and societies is not a question that needs asking. They can live on friendly terms as neighbors for a number of reasons and if you've had enough of these conversations you know only the shills claim otherwise and the never engage debate on why anyway.
Libertarians value making prosperity and living profitable and harmonious lives free from doublethink politicians.
Natsocs value harmonious family lives makin prosperity for the people and the nation possible.
Both are diametrically opposed to most modern governments that talk about the extensive liberties of democracy while respecting no rights to liberty.
1aec4c No.11758
>>11470>What if the shadow group itself is the one being corrupted?Given enough time, that's a given; what goes up must come down. The goal is to ensure that it rises in the first place. Longevity is assured only by the vigilance of the people, which itself is assured only by vigilant leaders and masters.
>I generally have the idea that: the less people you need to rely on the better. The more things you are dependent on, the more things that can go wrong. It's is easier to plan for fewer variables, and easier to adapt if it is a smaller theoretical "enviroment". You've inadvertently made the case for supporting a hierarchical rule. A fervent natsoc would bring up the concept of the fuhrerprinzip in this exact scenario.
>About creating a worldwide "salvation" movement… We could start here on /polpol/, you could argue we already have.>The /pol/ ideas have spread immensely in the last few years. If we continue to reach more people with our refreshing dialog, they who are desperate for solutions will slowly see we always have different, and more effecient, answers to the mainstream.Well, so long as it remains a decentralised amalgamation of thought, and one that can be easily subverted, thanks to the nature of an imageboard and internet discussion, any kind of success in that movement will never be realised. We're more like Irish monks after the fall of Rome.
f1e65c No.11914
>>11758>Given enough time, that's a given; what goes up must come down. The goal is to ensure that it rises in the first place. Longevity is assured only by the vigilance of the people, which itself is assured only by vigilant leaders and masters.But how is a shadow group subjected to vigilance without it no longer being a shadow group?
>You've inadvertently made the case for supporting a hierarchical rule. A fervent natsoc would bring up the concept of the fuhrerprinzip in this exact scenario.I think you mean a kind of federal/feudal system, with each vassal running their own vassals. Federations with local autonomy tend to be nice for libertarian states, due to increased autonomy at the smaller scale.
>Well, so long as it remains a decentralised amalgamation of thought, and one that can be easily subverted, thanks to the nature of an imageboard and internet discussion, any kind of success in that movement will never be realised. We're more like Irish monks after the fall of Rome.Decentralized is easier to infiltrate, but harder to take down. Remember, the Irish monks succeeded in their mission.
1aec4c No.11932
>>11914>But how is a shadow group subjected to vigilance without it no longer being a shadow group?By vigilance I mean discipline and alertness to, or awareness of, danger. This doesn't require overt action, so the nature of the shadow group isn't revealed.
>I think you mean a kind of federal/feudal system, with each vassal running their own vassals. Federations with local autonomy tend to be nice for libertarian states, due to increased autonomy at the smaller scale.You see it as autonomy from the ground up, I see it as autonomy from the top down. The former decays via cellular automata, or systemic corruption, and the latter by greed, lust, or another sin on the part of the ruler, that is, personal corruption. I wouldn't mind discussing the talking points of each to see which is the better.
>Decentralized is easier to infiltrate, but harder to take down. Remember, the Irish monks succeeded in their mission.Remember that information preserved is only worth preserving if it is to be used: indecipherable history, while a point of interest for many the archaeologist and seeker of ancient doctrines, is moot so long as we can't understand it, either by circumstance, choice, or force. Do you think that the knowledge of the past is being put to good use in the present? I do not. A decentralised force can certainly sustain itself for longer, but what you provide in quantity, you sacrifice in quality. I think that you will find that this tradeoff is a long-standing flaw of American thought, even if it has come to the fore as a bastardised form of itself in living memory.
6bdfa6 No.11942
>>11388Actually its the opposite, Hitler's generals were responsible for the direct approach to into the Soviet Union. His original plan was to encircle the Union and recruit various Slavs and take the Soviet supply lines to cut off Stalin and bleed him dry. But then Hitler go ill and his generals revised it to a direct approach behind his back.
f1e65c No.11948
>>11932>By vigilance I mean discipline and alertness to, or awareness of, danger. This doesn't require overt action, so the nature of the shadow group isn't revealed.You still haven't explained how to seriously safe guard the shadow group. It actually seems like a liability.
> but what you provide in quantity, you sacrifice in quality. I think that you will find that this tradeoff is a long-standing flaw of American thought, even if it has come to the fore as a bastardised form of itself in living memory.The problem is that they stopped being decentralized and now they are a decaying cesspit of a corrupt central goverment.
0839cb No.12081
>>11471>.22 is the most popular nigger roundno, you're stupid. Niggers use 9mm, because it's the main caliber hi-point uses for their firearms. It has been used in "assassin weapons", and has a lot of use in popular culture, but it's criminal use is nothing but a pretext to ban it.
The Weimar republic was statist as fuck. It's gun laws were a direct demand of the WW1 winners, that wanted to confiscate every firearm in Germany before milking it's money.
What I say is that many natsocs will try to paint Hitler as an hero, and many pro-gun natsocs will consider him to be very pro-gun. Which is false, gun wise, he is just like most politicians from that time
>Rifles gud>Peestolz bad>Control on what I don't likeThis is how gun control started everywhere.
6863f1 No.12095
>>12081Are you being serious or what?
Look at your reply
>The Weimar republic was statist as fuck. It's gun laws were a direct demand of the WW1 winners, that wanted to confiscate every firearm in Germany before milking it's money.So, after Hitler came to power, those restrictions were relaxed or eliminated.
As this guy replied to you.>>11466
And you, conveniently, didn't replied back, instead you kept going on your irrelevant discussion about
>cartridges with .22 caliber, hollow-point bullets.Again, you conveniently, let the HOLLOW-point bullets aside.
As is many states of the US hollow-point bullets are also illegal.
It seems that you are the one here trying at any cost to put Hitler's regime in a bad light.
And I wouldn't care if at least you had some strong points to back your claims, but it seems that they are just based on your feelings.
6863f1 No.12097
fddd33 No.12099
>>12095Hollow-points are illegal for self-defense in NJ but I don't think in any other states.
6863f1 No.12105
>>12099Yeah, you're probably.
But that doesn't change the fact that he 'forgets to mention that the law only applied to .22 HP bullets
12b7ce No.12106
>>12081> Niggers use 9mm>HipointsA person who doesnt know about cast metal guns, which are the cheapest shits out there, should be having conversations about which are niggers guns.
Also:
You still havent answered how Hitler didnt loose up gun control.
He did.
12b7ce No.12111
1aec4c No.12159
>>11948>You still haven't explained how to seriously safe guard the shadow group. It actually seems like a liability.I'm not writing a 25 point plan on how to create and maintain an underground movement, I'm saying that that's what is necessary. If it seems like a risk, or a sacrifice, that's because it is.
>The problem is that they stopped being decentralized and now they are a decaying cesspit of a corrupt central goverment.I was referring to consumerism, but you're right. Despite that, a return to some federation of independent states would never redeem it, even if it were feasible.
cce0b5 No.12209
>>11367You can. You are permitted to govern yourself within a libertarian government. Hell you can even have a commune.
15d08c No.12214
>>11356>Under what situations, do you think, should a state "take over" private enterprise?Whenever nationalization of an enterprise would help to benefit the People, such as nationalizing banks to help thwart the powers of international finance. Or nationalizing road construction for large-scale projects.
>Are there any safeguards in a NatSoc society protecting the people from a bad Leader?Pretty much what
>>11366 said.
Plus, people would be encouraged to own firearms in a National Socialist society, much like they were in Nazi Germany. So they wouldn't be entirely defenseless.
0839cb No.12269
>>12095I guess i'll just repeat my conclusion
>Many natsocs will try to paint Hitler as an hero, and many pro-gun natsocs will consider him to be very pro-gun. Which is false, gun wise, he is just like most politicians from that timeOf course he repealed the batshit insane legislation, but he could have done far better than just conforming to the eu.
As for the hollow point thing, the formulation is unclear. I understood that it was all .22 and all hollow-points that were banned, while you believe it was only hollow point .22s .
Which doesn't change the fact that banning either was stupid.
a98ca0 No.12330
>>11356>Under what situations, do you think, should a state "take over" private enterprise?Well I believe that the public utilities should always be owned by the local government. If privatized then it should be taken back. Government should also have a part in all natural resources taken from their land with the power to veto decisions and the profits turned back to the people.
For corporations when they create a monopoly that does not allow for fair competition.
>Are there any safeguards in a NatSoc society protecting the people from a bad Leader?The problem with dictatorship is that it contains no checks and balances, although sometimes they do get assassinated. The leader must fear for his life in this role and keep the people happy.
The problem with people is that they don't know what they want and will vote for whoever promises them utopia with usually less than 50% voting. Hitler knew what was best for his people and he was right because in less than 2 years he pulled them from the depression and made them a wealthy nation, but even he didn't not receive a large majority vote. With over 30 different parties running in Germany (most communist) the people were confused and lost. By seizing control it gave him the ability to fix the nation…something no other party would allow.
Look at todays politicians. Most of them are ex-lawyers or some other manipulative background. The moment their elected into office their first priority is their future. What deals they can cut and what friends they can make because they know they will be out of power soon. They screw the people for a buck and no one can stop them. There are no arrests, no charges and any wrongdoings are investigated by their own people who never find fault.
What checks and balances do we have for todays government? None because the people don't care. Governments allow banks and corporations to rape our countries in the name of progress, yet the examples of Germany prove that even a corrupt people will adapt and change for the better. It also proves that world governments will not allow it.