No hope? Atlas Shrugged right?

I just came to the realization a libertarian government only works in a society where the majority has actual skills or talent so individuals can support themselves. I always thought that Atlas Shrugged was a shit show waste of a time. I just changed my mind. Rand was right. The only people worth it in society are hard working, free thinking people who have skill or talent or are working on a skill or talent. I know libertarian's will never rule the government or be a popular party... I am also not stupid enough to side with any other party for the sake of siding with something that is popular. What are my political choices?

>Thoughts?

There is no hope. Every system that we use is going to end up screwing somebody.

At least with libertarianism people choose whether or not they want to be screwed

It's the state of nature. You have to act to survive. This is an ultimate truth. If you don't act you die.

This is not a problem with libertarianism, nor capitalism. The problem is with denying it.

Sup Forums has already been through this. Principally, and at heart, we are all libertarians, but experience has shown us that certain groups just cannot exist in a libertarian society and a libertarian society cannot survive with certain populations under it.

So we're more aggressive and authoritarian until we finally have a world occupied by intelligent, conscientious and motivated people only.

But authoritarianism survives by making people dumber, more animal like, by appealing to their emotions or using physical force against them. It cannot be that the end of authoritarianism is a free society.

Never in the history of organized life on planet earth has a power vacuum not immediately been filed by the biggest alpha shithead in the neighborhood. That instinct isn't going away just because you only let The Good Ones in.

Google Kowloon Walled City to find out how 'muh limited government' turns out in real life.

The west has been co-opted and is being consciously subverted by the left in all its countries, so it is hard to fight it without also resorting to illiberal practices. If someone brings a knife to a debate you can't keep talking and hope for the best.

The easier, more obvious solution would be that we enforce libertarian principles: no-one gets any social support and no-one is free from consequence and responsibility. Every man gets his own rewards for his own work and those who aren't up to the challenge get left behind. Pretty soon all the lesser elements of society would dissipate: their birth rates wouldn't be artificially sustained, africa's healthcare and population boom would end, affirmative action and quotas wouldn't corrupt all institutions and media, islam would be totally defeated and other degeneracies like promiscuity would reduce - all just under everyone facing their own consequences.

But as said we can't just do that as there is a conscious and organised effort to undermine western civilization.

>I know libertarian's will never rule
>I know libertarian's
>libertarian's

I can't take you seriously if you can't spell.

>spell
It's incorrect use of punctuation; not incorrect spelling, you uncultured swine.

True, but libertarian societies would always have a very strong police and military presence precisely to maintain and enforce the liberty. The idea is to maximize liberty and any thing that does that is good to go. Under some conceptions you could even have universal healthcare and schooling.

The walled city isn't the best example because it was a small unregulated area in an otherwise heavily policed nation - so it was bound to attract an unreasonable amount of criminals. It suffered a huge immigration burst, which again a libertarian society would just refuse as they need strong borders. Finally the chinese, whether culturally or biologically, are far more prone to group identity and a lack of empathy - they exist for a strong leader to co-opt them, they aren't good candidates.

But the main point is that you need a very strong military and police in a libertarian society.

I wish they made more art in this style these days

I feel a fair balance is libertarianism within a nations borders to support its native people. Right wing ideology should always be in charge of international relations and politics.

This is the only way it had a chance of working. I'd personally prefer an enlightened dictatorship along the lines of Alexander The Great.

>I just came to the realization a libertarian government only works in a society where the majority has actual skills or talent so individuals can support themselves.

No, libertardation doesn't work PERIOD

>At least with libertarianism people choose whether or not they want to be screwed

Kek that's what you libertardians actually believe

>Principally, and at heart, we are all libertarians,

Oh fuck off you DAMNED britbong

Anarchy through fascism.
Fascism to create strong and smart people, anarchy for those people to live in freedom

:^)

You're just suffering from pic related.

It's natural.

best post

What is this, a picture for ants?

>Right wing ideology should always be in charge of international relations and politics.

There are plenty of war-hawking right-wingers, you ninny. We need isolationism, or at LEAST non-interventionism. I'm sick of these retarded, costly, wasteful wars that only benefit the wealthy.

modern government and economic ideas/systems aren't perfect. most of them strive to balance the existing stuff.

the human race is increasing in intelligence and capability at an exponential rate, so eventually the average person will be more intelligent than someone whose job demands a high level of intelligence today.

we are generally better than the past, but we are also generally inferior to the future. all humans actively create the future, so we take part in what will be before it happens.

cant read fucking shit

fucking austrians, why are you guys so weird?

>True, but libertarian societies would always have a very strong police and military presence precisely to maintain and enforce the liberty

>But the main point is that you need a very strong military and police in a libertarian society.

And how do you achieve this without taxation?

Why don't we just make a benevolent monarchy

Duh. You just have little groups of people collect their own resources and leave them to their own devices. They work together, for each other and we just take a little off the top...

And shit we made a culture again! FUCK EVERYTIME I GET ORGANIZED THIS ORGANIZATION GETS IN THE WAY OF MY CHAOS AND ME CHAOS GETS IN THE WAY OF MY ORGANIZATION.

I JUST WANT TO BE A LAZY SLOB AND WORK HARD AND HAVE A BIG HOUSE AND LET EVERYONE ELSE HAVE A BIG HOUSE TOO BUT NOT BIGGER THAN MINE CAUSE MY WIFE WOULD LEAVE ME

>libertarian government

Nice oxymoron. No government or state in a fully libertarian society.

The most state like thing that can happen is a NAP protection agency which spares you to launch a recreational nuclear device in your neighbor yard because his music was too loud.

Because mah freedum

>majority has actual skills or talent so individuals can support themselves

So what do we do with fuckups that form the majority?

Well done you've stumbled upon the ultimate philosophers dilemma.

Life is a gift, so many people waste it. Why should they get to drag us all down. Its not fair.

You're trying to solve the human condition.
literally all attempts to solve the human condition have gone badly.

Just sit tight, find a good woman, don't have kids and live your own selfish life

Taxation for government jobs is antithetical to libertarian ideals. A libertarian government would expect citizens to train as a militia and formally enforce the law among themselves.

...

Only works under a good king. They're possible, but rare and spend most of the time unfucking up the previous kings reign.

Ayn Rand is a pain in the arse because she underestimates the value of a healthy community looking out for each other. It's not a bad thing to help out the poor, the disabled, and the fuckups if you do it on a local level and don't turn such charity into a right or an obligation.

The problem is, politicians have spent the past three or four centuries systematically dismantling local institutions in the name of centralisation. Federal states are nearly totally centralised, churches have ceased to function as meaningful social hubs, self defence has been abandoned in favour of the police, and everywhere in the world, things that were once merely moral duties are becoming legal ones.

Creating a libertarian society would mean reversing the bad decisions we've been making for centuries, reinstating institutions that are long dead, and gradually filling out the framework for a functioning decentralised world. That's a mammoth task that nobody in power could possibly benefit from.

Let me rephrase that. You saying that people aren't good enough for libertarianism is a way to sugarcoat the fact that this political position is unrealistic and unnatural. It has never been implemented even at the smallest scale or time. The only reason you like it is because it's fiction, just like someone likes Harry Potter. The difference is that no sane person considers the prospect of studying in Hoggwards and becoming a wizard.

"What are my political choices"
- To realise that it is pure fiction, to explore and chose some sort of a feasible political philosophy.

Its a stupid mentality to have

If people werent asshole in the first place there would be no need for any system since they would all join together voluntarily

so it would end up in anarco socialist or some shit

in fact all non repressive form of government are anarchism at its core