This is a thread for the discussion of all ideologies that promote property rights, individual liberty and lassez-faire capitalism. These includes (but is not limited to) anarcho-capitalism, paleolibertarianism, minarchy, objectivism and anti-leftism (i.e. physical removal, so to speak). All others are welcome to learn and debate us. Reminder that this is a right-wing thread, so libertine degenerates ('live and let live' faggotry), open-border advocates and faux-libertarians (e.g. Gary Johnson) are not welcome here - people here recognise that property rights imply discrimination and a return to traditional, conservative values. Although questions are welcome, many are repeated often, so it is recommended you research the basics first. Nobody here is obligated to debate with you, so try to avoid using fallacies in your arguments or creating unrealistic scenarios.
FURTHER READING: >Reference - See i.imgur.com/wCIpgNA.jpg >Torrent - magnet:?xt=urn:btih:8d8ec6ef882dee291f119eb69994797574e5d616&dn=Anarcho-Capitalism%20Books
THREAD THEME: >hoppewave | Hans-Hermann Hoppe | physical removal - youtube.com/watch?v=u-wMmYSG9JQ >Against the State - (Hoppewave Hans Hermann Hoppe) - youtube.com/watch?v=HLaqr3QorCw >I need a Pinochet! - youtube.com/watch?v=zhrYY3ocQ5o >Drop it like it's Hoppe - youtube.com/watch?v=HPKGgo4kGQM
>I agree with Hans-Hermann Hoppe, the elder Murray Rothbard and many other libertarians that libertarianism is a right-wing movement and that our leftist elements are useful idiots at best, and a cancer that can only be cured by one-way helicopter rides at the far more likely worst.
>When every effort analyze our political problems are met with accusations of racism, sexism and homophobia. When every demographic disparity is considered a hate crime and when libertarianism’s core demographic, namely white heterosexual males is systematically emasculated, denigrated and eradicated from the face of the planet, intellectual inquiry, economic stability and prospects for a libertarian society dwindle to zero
>Here’s the truth that almost nobody has the courage to say: The reason why you are surrounded by almost entirely white males at libertarian events is because white males, with very few exceptions are about the only demographic capable of managing a libertarian society. That means in order for a libertarian society to exist, those white males will have to make their women subordinate and non whites will have to be largely if not entirely excluded from that society.
Noah Taylor
>Luckily, libertarianism provides us with the perfect mechanism for doing this in the form of property rights. When we talk about a libertarian society, a true libertarian society absent the state, there is no such thing as public property. We are talking about total privatization of all resources, especially land. At which point discussion about public policy becomes rather pointless. We do not vote who gets to come across borders. The property owners decide unilaterally who they allow in and who they exclude.
Dominic Nguyen
>Sadly we don’t live in a libertarian society and so we do have to take an interest into public policy if we ever wish to find ourselves living in one. For example the discussion of immigration seems to be a big division between the left and right of libertarianism. Regardless of any real or perceived legitimacy of the institution, The united states federal government is rather powerful and controls land masses commonly referred to as borders. For the united states to open those borders to every man woman and child throughout the world, to subsidise their breeding within these borders and to do all of that at our expense is a far greater violation of the non aggression principle than it is to exclude those people from our society. The common misconception of the left-libertarian is that so long as the government controls a resource that resource must be freely available to all. This is foolish, it is precisely why governments are inefficient and destructive mechanisms for organising human society. No such condition could exist in a society based on private property. Who could imagine in a stateless world that all of humanity could simultaneously exploit a resource without completely depleting its value or doing violence to one another in the process, this is what we commonly call the tragedy of the commons. Privatization eliminates this tragic phenomenon but until that privatization occurs it is imperative to our very survival that governments act as good stewards of these resources on behalf of their true owners; the taxpayers. That means a great deal of discrimination and violence done in defense thereof.
>While I think we can all agree as libertarians that war is horrible and should be avoided in every reasonably possible way, it does not mean that we are compelled to leave ourselves defenseless against invasion be it by waves of hungry immigrants or by foreign military just because taxation is theft.
STOP GLOBALISM. ABOLISH CENTRAL BANKING. END THE FED. GAS THE STATE NONE of this helps Zionist control. We challenge power more than any National Socialists think they do.
You can point out Rothbard (pbuh) was a jew, but you can find no link to zionism or bolshevism. I dare you to call the libertarian philosophy a tool of zionism. bring your evidence fag.
Parker Gomez
State enforced "morality" is pure degeneracy.
Asher Fisher
...
Dylan Johnson
...
Sebastian Stewart
...
Evan Brown
...
Noah Barnes
...
Blake Gray
Rothbard and mises are /lrg/ approved, the rest can fuck off.
Brody Ortiz
...
Samuel Ortiz
...
Kevin Flores
...
Juan Hall
...
Isaac Thompson
...
Evan Young
...
Easton Powell
>135392767 >NAZIS MADE-TO-MEASURE FOR ZIONISM
>In 1925, Germany's 500,000 Jews were overwhelmingly indifferent or actively hostile to Zionism. The German Zionist movement had only 9000 members.
>The "Central Union of Germans of the Jewish Faith " represented most German Jews and favored active participation in German life. Its main focus was combating anti-Semitism.
>Zionists, on the other hand, welcomed the Nazis' anti Semitic policies. Like the Nazis, they believed in race-based national character and destiny. Like the Nazis, they believed Jews had no future in Germany.
>The Zionists did not protest Nazi persecution such as the removal of 2000 Jewish scholars and scientists from German universities in 1933. The Nazis rewarded this "restraint" by allowing the Zionists to go about their work unhindered. All other Jewish and anti fascist organizations were disbanded and their leaders imprisoned.
>The Nazis required all Jews to join the Zionist-led "Reich Union" whose goal was emigration. Jews were to be converted to Zionism at any cost. The Zionists were able to publish books and newspapers critical of the Nazis so long as the audience was restricted to Jews.
Aiden Robinson
>The cooperation extended to political and economic spheres. Adolph Eichmann set up agricultural training camps in Austria to prepare young Jews for Kibbutz life. He visited Palestine and conferred with Zionist leaders who confessed their true expansionist goals. There was even talk of a strategic alliance between Nazi Germany and Jewish Palestine. His report is in Himmler's Archives.
>[For more on Zionist-Nazi cooperation, see online Lenni Brenner "Zionism in the Age of Dictators" Also, Lenni Brenner, 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration With the Nazis (2002)]
>The cooperation may have extended to the Jewish Holocaust and explain why most Jews passively accepted their fate. In his book, "The Holocaust Victims Accuse" Rabbi Moshe Shonfeld claims that Zionist- led Jewish Councils ("Judenrats") collaborated with the Nazis and deceived non Zionist Jews. See my "Zionism: Compulsory Suicide for Jews."
>Europe's non-Zionist Jews were worth more dead than alive to Zionists and their financial sponsors. The Holocaust provided a political and moral rationale for the establishment of the Jewish state.
Wyatt Sanchez
Bump
Chase Mitchell
Hoppe on private defense
Juan Phillips
Yet another cringeworthy ancap-teenager circlejerk thread.
Wyatt Bell
Says the edgy fascist-teenager
William Foster
...
Alexander Davis
Why did Ghost get suspended on twitter and why isnt he doing his show anyway? I want to hear him talk about the shit that has been happening.
Ron Paul 2012 is forever.
Justin Moore
Eat shit faggot
Carter Scott
I could never get into that show, sorry m8
Chase Edwards
>being so dumb you think a CIA-installed dictator was an AnCap
Adam Murphy
libertarians are transhumanist scum, the enemy of humanity
alternatively just go live with the nigs who you love so much, they'll do it for you
Kayden Martinez
Hey guys, maltabro here, so yesterday I met and has a nice chat with Hans Herman hoppe, I'm in a conference on economy and at 4 will be hoppes turn, I'll do an ama if people are interested in like 5 hours
Carter Richardson
Damn right.
Landon Lopez
Fuck yeah my man
Justin Hall
There's no argument to be made, you hate humanity, you love mindless slaves. You'd be happy too replace humanity.
Jaxon Hernandez
>There's no argument to be made
Yes, because you have an IQ of 90
Bentley Myers
Exactly my thought... like libs wouldn't be the first to demand rights for "conscious"AI. They would be the first to voice their support. Just like they do withababsolutely everything else.
Jeremiah Nguyen
...
Andrew Flores
So would the free market, if given a chance
Turns out human being aren't the most efficient thing possible
Andrew King
Humans demand other real humans. Only fags like you would mandate such an eradication.
Camden Martinez
The people that get the cranial implants, body modifications, gene therapies will be the most successful in the marketplace. A plain old unmodified human will be nothing more than an obsolete zoo animal.
Ah I see that you are autistic. My condolences to your family.
Cooper Baker
Nah, it'll be more like "hey, check out this anime nerd with an iPhone implanted in his arm" "lol what a fag, now let's go fuck some regular non toaster implanted chicks"
Christian Bell
If you create a libertarian general instead of a libertarian right general, I shall participate.
Josiah Fisher
>The people that get the cranial implants, body modifications, gene therapies >me no question, what is there to lose?
Jaxson Myers
I don't want left libertarians to participate
Robert Brown
Humanity will not long be the epitome of intelligence on this earth. We can create any variety of post-human organisms in a laboratory that far surpass human limitations.
Whoever creates the largest brain will dominate this world. Say goodbye to humanity, everything you care about will be subsumed into the rising transhumanist machine
Automatons are created by Man, not by God. They are property and thus are not entitled to any rights.
Carter Moore
>open borders We're not the ones who passed the Civil Rights Act and other kikery.
Ryan Bennett
...
Chase Gutierrez
>b-but who'd'st'll've build the designated shitting streets?
Ryder Fisher
Kek, poo in loos confirmed for extinction in AnCapistan.
Luis Sanchez
Nah, you just support kikery like that because MUH FREEDOM.
captcha: millstone banks
Jaxon Evans
We literally don't support that shit, we don't believe in an abstract freedom of movement, just as there is no such freedom of speech. What we believe in is property rights.
People do not vote who gets to come across borders, property owners dictate who can and cannot come in.
Have yourself a read of these posts if you don't want to sound like a total retard.
Kevin Garcia
...
Elijah Williams
Also purging of communists is a meme in Ancap. Communists/Muslims/Jews/Non whites every-single one of them are welcome to every right you have you can just say don't walk on my property and that's about it.
Hollywood and the media establishment will continue to exist and push for anti-white things, since they both make plenty of money
Carter Lee
It's not a meme, those incapable of reciprocating such property rights forfeit their own rights. In the case of communists they are aggressors by admission of their own doctrine. What exactly do you think "seize the means of production" means? I'll tell you what it means; theft.
>Inb4 huurrr what if commies are peaceful? They are never peaceful, abolishing property implies the initiation of the use of force.
See
Elijah Bell
...
Nolan Watson
I kekd
Ian Turner
...
Camden Jones
>It's not a meme, those incapable of reciprocating such property rights forfeit their own rights. In the case of communists they are aggressors by admission of their own doctrine. What exactly do you think "seize the means of production" means? I'll tell you what it means; theft. No it is a meme since that's only if they make a overtly aggressive threats with evidence they actually do mean to invade and kill. A commie commune has it's right to existence since the very thing ancap is built on is non aggression. If there was an openly whites only community the black village next door can't just randomly attack them justifying the attack as this white community was a threat
it's a big fucking joke
Josiah Ross
Again your implying that these commies are not violating anyone's rights, theoretically possible as it may be you and I know commies can't simply leave you alone. They are parasites that have to suck resources from the productive. If commies could form a voluntary community and not be a violent parasitic gang then fine. However this has never been the case, as long as the state exists and public policy these cunts make affect us they are using aggression. We have every right to assume threat and subjugate the communists to the extent of our ability.
Aaron Foster
False. Even Rothbard was against the Civil Wrongs Act.
Nathan Parker
>Again your implying that these commies are not violating anyone's rights Correct voicing your opinion in ancap is not aggression unless you count free speech as aggressive in which case it's entirely moral to go kill someone over a twitter post since that could be taken as a threat. But then that brings in the case of microaggressions
> If commies could form a voluntary community and not be a violent parasitic gang then fine There you go ancap is fine with communism like i said removal is all a big meme. Until their lining up at your gates you can't lay a finger on them. Unless that is you want to btfo out of your non aggression ideology and admit that might makes right and people who think differently must be purged in which case you need some kind of funded purging unit with little privacy laws. Or something along those lines
>We have every right to assume threat and subjugate the communists to the extent of our ability. Nope non aggression unless their armed and making regular threats against your commune you "can't" attack them. You have every right to defend yourselves and to be armed, but you don't have the "right" to be overtly aggressive with anyone who disagrees with you on the basis of "they may be a threat". Unless you want to discard the nap your screwed
Bentley Campbell
These idiots don't understand liberty as you and I do. They think freedom means no responsibility or consequences for our actions. They have the same understanding as leftists.
Samuel Richardson
>Freedom of speech We don't believe in freedom of speech, only liberals do. We believe in responsibility for your actions, that includes facing the consequences of making threats.
William Taylor
Yeah exactly. If someone makes a vaguely threatening or directive twitter post that is justification for killing him.
In which case a million other micro-aggressions come up and all of them are a justification for killing. Some guy was angry and spoke too loud to you. Shoot him he was a potential threat. The libertarian community was spreading leaflets around about having a small government back. Invade and kill them since they were a potential threat because they wanted the government back and it was only a matter of time before they got enough support
What part of non aggression pact do you not see?
Kayden Taylor
If you lived in a community where people were killed for making threats you would not threaten people. You would be forced to act rationally and be kind to others. Yes all the aggressive impulsive people should be killed off. They incite the violence. I don't have a problem with that.
Jack Murphy
>If you lived in a community where people were killed for making threats you would not threaten people. You would be forced to act rationally and be kind to others. Yes all the aggressive impulsive people should be killed off. They incite the violence. I don't have a problem with that.
So once again communists who don't make threats are totally fine proving Ancap removal is a meme since communists are allowed to exist. And only the aggressive ones are removed. Unless you do some mental gymnastics and say by simply being a communist your being overtly aggressive enough to justify actually gunning people and children down (even a small dude weed nudist hippie commune) in which case everything from libertarians to theocracies have got to be purged since they threaten the status quo of anarchy
Adrian Diaz
Yes I am telling you, abolishing property is aggression. Abolishing private property is the definition of communism. And so communism is aggression.
The small peaceful hippe communes won't exist, not because I would find it just to kill them, but because they lack the stability to defend their property. They will be too poor to pay others to protect them. It's just a failing model. They will be out competed.
All the shit you're going on about is possible in theory, but it will never happen.
Ryder Wood
You're also forgetting that in a libertarian society, absent the state there is no such thing as public property. All properties will belong to a proprietor who has absolute control of what goes down on his property. That proprietor can remove you just because he doesn't like your face if he wants.
Jason Gomez
Communists are a threat because their ideology stems from takeover of the means of production by any means necessary (especially violence) and forceful redistribution of property in order to abolish private property, hence commies violate the NAP by their very existence. What part of that is so difficult to understand?
Tyler Barnes
Rate
Angel Sullivan
Spekr puts you in Purple by default. Do a normalfag test then I'll rate.
Connor Nelson
Why are objectivists welcome in this thread when most of them are open borders advocates? Why do you link a book by David Friedman, an open borders advocate?
Aaron Smith
>Yes I am telling you, abolishing property is aggression. Abolishing private property is the definition of communism. And so communism is aggression. Wrong people willingly living in a communist commune not making threats is not aggressive. Your going though some mental gymnastics in that case libertarians wishing for the government back have also got to be purged since they threaten your total freedom.
> but because they lack the stability to defend their property. Who's to say this hippie commune doesn't have guns. And surly these roving gangs of bandits you say would remove them would be removed by someone else for being a threat to the local community, since if there really is a mad max tier gang, they would be raiding local roads and isolated towns in which case you wouldn't live anywhere but a city if these bandits really existed. And if not your actually allowing mad max gangs running around your country which is laughable and comparable to Somalia which you guys always say won't happen.
> They will be too poor to pay others to protect them. It's just a failing model. They will be out competed. They have the right to their commune. And if you argue coca cola would just go and purge them for more land you've destroyed your non aggression part of Ancap and proven Might makes Right. Who's going to remove them if they grow their own food and weed? Are you advocating for killing people who disagree with you. Surely the catholic church would have to be removed then, since they swear loyalty to the pope and """""indoctrinate""""" people into following the church and not anarchism just like communism does
Elijah Brooks
Please read all of this I remember you from another thread. You should understand why opening the borders and forcing the taxpayer to subsidies every man woman and child that comes this way if a far greater violation of the non aggression principle than it is to exclude those people.
End the welfare state and abolish civil rights and then we can talk about ending state controlled borders.
William Perez
Opening borders violates nobody's individual rights. The violation of the non-aggression principle occurs when the government taxes you. Someone crossing America's illegitimate national borders is not a violation of the non-aggression principle.
Elijah Powell
Show me the successful, prosperous communist society that could not only compete with capitalist societies, but also did so without compulsion.
Even if they can act peacefully in theory (which has never been shown to be the case) they will never be able to compete with capitalists.
Sure they have a right not to be fucked with if they are truly non aggressive. But they'll fuck themselves, unless you have Brilliant argument for the pragmatic nature of communism.
Jacob Perry
Right the people crossing are not the aggressors, the state is when they force us to subsidies their breeding.
Seriously do read that shit. At very least watch Lew Rockwell's open borders: a libertarian reappraisal and address the argument he makes.
Thomas Collins
Wall of Text : The Board
Hunter Johnson
>Show me the successful, prosperous communist society that could not only compete with capitalist societies, but also did so without compulsion. They don't have to compete they just have to exist. Just like homosexuals simply by them existing they are harming society however their doing it non aggressively
communism doesn't need a state to spread
Robert Bailey
Exactly, the state is the aggressor, not the immigrants. So when you demand tight immigration policy, you're the one demanding violence against innocent people.
Andrew Torres
>white people don't need to compete with the rest of the world they can just exist! It's not like they're becoming a minority and dying off!
You're a fool if you believe that.
Regardless in a private property society proprietors have no obligation to tolerate communism, homosexuality, or anything else they find distasteful.
Cameron Martinez
Opening the borders is an aggression against my property, they take my money, my labor to pay for their welfare, healthcare schools ect ect.
Please watch Lew, you'll understand how opening the borders is a greater aggression than excluding immigrants.
Oliver Myers
Can't blame them, if they have faulty examples pushed forward by the communists.
Brody Parker
Free speech isn't free. You're not free to spread ideas that threaten the natural order, not even on your own property.
Adam Cruz
It's the only thread with actual political discussion.
Jackson Garcia
The borders were drawn by blood in the sand in the south and contracts with Russia and British Canada in the North. As long as there's any public property in a country, that country should only accept the best of the best of other countries' people, not any woman-killing Somalian nigger who just wants gibs. I bet you think LARPen Roads is a reasonable person.
Elijah Gutierrez
>white people don't need to compete with the rest of the world they can just exist! It's not like they're becoming a minority and dying off!
I never said that stop putting words in my mouth you autist. I said in ancap a small self sufficient communist commune doesn't have to compete with coca cola to exist.
How will the Amish exist if they don't have factories?!?
>Regardless in a private property society proprietors have no obligation to tolerate communism, homosexuality, or anything else they find distasteful. They don't have too have them on their property. but all the homosexuals would still very much exist on other peoples propertys. Or have we forgotten that Hollywood Jews with billions of dollars will continue to make films which make millions more.
