Why do you guys prefer authoritarianism over libertarianism?

Why do you guys prefer authoritarianism over libertarianism?

because the latter is just leftism trying to appeal to republicans, and like communism only works on paper

Difference between me and you, is that in your world, your daughter will get blacked, and may even be a feminist.

This. Libertarians got completely infiltrated anyway. It's over OP.

Libertarianism is a self-defeating ideology.

Most people don't have the IQ required for libertarianism to work.
Human nature is tribal and thus always leads to organised authority.
NAP is useless when the nigger can just shoot you and nobody knows

>pol is a single unified identity

As someone who lived through Pinochet, I can very much say none of you faggots would survive authoritarian.

It wasn't just commi's they'd toss in jail or disappear. It was literally anyone who disagreed

all you faggots argue and would never ever accept any leader

Becuase you need authority to teach a nation how to live in freedom and anarchy and to weed out the bad apples from society. Once you can do without authority you stop it

>weed out bad apples from society

Society is the true, there's no control over how many bad apples it'll produce. No matter what dissidents will always exist in society. It's a force of nature that can't be contained.

>As someone who lived through Pinochet
go back to your shithole country

not an argument

women were brainwashed into feminism and multiculturalism so no

not an argument

not an argument

>we need the state to keep us from creating a state!

its precisely because of bad apples existing in the world that we shouldn't allow a position of ultimate power

I prefer Checkthemitarianism

I'm visiting family right now in the states, Chile is pretty much America 2.0 now with our economy. Strongest in South America. Far from a shithole.

yes, and your media will be PURELY free to continue promoting their shit

kyfs you communist kike

>It was literally anyone who disagreed

Why the fuck would I disagree with based Pinochet?

>leftism
>no state

k

>not an argument

It really doesn't matter if it's an argument or not, does it?

You can't create a libertarian utopia by allowing open access to your nation for people who are not and will never be libertarian.

...

>Chile is pretty much America 2.0
you only think that because you beaners turned America into a massive shitpile

He can't say jews, but we all know that's what he means

Would you like soldiers marching into your house and fucking everything up inside looking for communist books because your front door was fucking crooked?

That's just one example of the insanity that was Pinochet. I'm glad Allende died but fuck, I sure as hell wasn't happy having troops search my house just about every weekend.

Because libertarianism will inevitably lead towards authoritharianism.
I believe in compromise.

Stop putting words in my mouth you filthy sephardic cunt.
It's in human nature to default towards a tribal society.

Desperate times call for desperate measures. Leftists need to be purged by any means necessary, or they'll subvert and destroy whatever nation they've embedded themselves in. See: western Europe.

Authoritarianism is the primordial state of human civilization. Without a hierarchical structure of some sort society will continue to degenerate into an empty husk devoid of meaning or purpose at which point authoritarianism will rise again.

Because authoritarianism sounds great in your head because you're the one issuing it.

>women were brainwashed into feminism and multiculturalism so no
Bullshit. Women are as responsible for their choices as anyone. Responsibility is a burden we all carry, not a handicap to those with faculties.

>we need the state to keep us from creating a state!
This is a strawman. The argument was that for most people, libertarianism isn't functional for removing destructive elements which requires investigation to accurately determine innocence and guilt, so you either need a population that is homogenous and civilized, or "have the IQ", or you need to not have niggers who will "shoot you [where] nobody knows", by being very selective, which implies authoritarian overhead and oversight in managing population, or in managing persons.

Honestly, you are an anarchist, not a libertarian. Weak bait.

Pinoče je radio za CIA druže. A čileanska ekonomija je počela da raste tek pošto je predao vlast. Čovjek je bio nepesmeni i korumpirani seljak. Obrazuj se malo van Sup Forumsa jebote.

and they are free to crash and burn, unlike in a statist society where bad service is made impossible to fail

not an argument

libertarian countries do not imply open borders

>libertarian countries do not imply open borders
They can have closed borders, they are just hypocritical.

If they really believed in markets, they would know that market forces don't stop at imaginary lines. No matter what excuse they use, if they close the borders, they are admitting the free market doesn't really work.

you don't like authoritarianism because you're the first to get free helicopter rides

Paleo-libertarianism is the answer.

Socially conservative, economically libertarian.

Cause they're faggots who need other men to decide how they should Piven their life.

BETA
E
T
A

libertarian doesn't mean 0 government, that's anarchism. Any system where people pay a tax deserves the right to reject people. It's the freedom of association at a state level. A country, in a sense, is a business.

Social conservatism implies authoritharianism. That's not libertarianism.

Libertarianism
Authoritarians are permacucked little bitches who wouldn't know how to tie their shoes without big brother constantly breathing down their neck.
>Daily reminder that only a feeble-minded man seeks out others to do his thinking for him

No, in my world, the moment my daughter shows regressive tendencies, she'll have a serious sit-down with me, and if she continues, she gets booted from my house. I am a social traditionalist, for fuck's sake.

...

*live

>au-THOT-itarianism
>ever working
yeah, i guess all those people who rose up against oppressive governments were just an imagination

>1776+240
>he still isn't a Hoppean Libertarian

Society has been subverted from within, authoritarianism is a tool, not the end goal to re-right the nation to its libertarian course.

>disagreeing with the Pinosaur
literally for what reason?

Name one historical and succesful libertarian society.
You're literally a very small minority trying to push your view on majority who don't agree.
How are you gonna create your Hoppean utopia, when 98% of people don't want it?

call Chile a shithole one more time you faggot

Nice graph you got there. It'd be a shame if something were to happen to it.

Not at all, actually. If you educate that kind of thinking in the schools through an ultracapitalist society (which conservatism basically goes hand in hand with anyway) it'll run down to the same thing without any of the forced authority.

...

I don't.

Name a dictatorship that valued freedom.

You're just a beta faggot relying on daddy to protect you and tell you what to do and think.

>If we give absolute power to a small elite, the state will wither away!

You are no different from the commies. As much as I want to see commies thrown from helicopters, statism always leads to more statism.

Fug

The difference is that there are more advantages to libertarianism than some unsubstantiated embetterment of the treatment of workers in your system.

>He thinks it's all the same

Fall into any meat-packing vats recently?

>schools
According to libertarians forced schooling is literally communism.

I don't prefer either, mixed economies are the best.

I'd rather live in a libertarian utopia than a fascist utopia though.

Ideally, an upset worker would be able to leave on request. It's not just the rights of the businesses, it's the rights of the individual coming first.

Roman Empire before Caesar.

Hell even after Caesar they had the glorious tax rate of 0,1%, or about two days if work in the whole year. This money, pure silver btw, was spent on the military which in times of peace was not disbanded, instead sent out to build roads and public roads since it's a hassle to keep changing tax rates.

Mind you though, considering the Roman Empire libertarian is a pretty big fucking stretch. It's the best I could come up with.

We will end up in a statist society anyway if we dont use authoritarian measures to correct the course.

Just a difference between at least trying to change, and opening your butthole up for the total subversion and enslavement.

What kind of fabricated argument is this? I've never heard anything like this.

you can't purge ideologies. You'd have to kill literally everyone who believes in an ideology and that's impossible but Im not sure why I'm wasting my time explaining anything to a fucking serb

Considering the US was also modeled on the Roman Republic in the early days, I'd consider the pre-Civil War United States a successful libertarian society as well.

>socialism
>less worker abuse than anarchy
F A M
A
M

I don't.
However I see that the left is pushing for extreame authoritarianism both via law and culture and they are pointing it at men who look like me.

I can only assume that after they dispose of all the white men they will go after the almost white men.

Therefore I support the hijacking of thier system and the use of the weapons that have been created on the very people who wished to use them on me.

Fuck them.

But I don't support dictatorship?
It's not A or B. Between extreme individualism and extreme collectivism there is a vast space.
However you people are literally pretending that society and state and all that exists in a vaccuum and it just spawned itself one day.

You mean "correcting" free thought?

>Legalized slavery
>Libertarian

You did answer that's guy's post though, both of those societies only allowed a tiny minority to vote, which allowed them to push their views on everyone else.

>The wild west
>Barely any government involvement in the lives of the people living in the Western territories.
>Was literally the the most rapidly growing place in the world
>Literally cowboys
Seema pretty based to me

because freedom is for a people that have self-control, and if you do your best to teach self-control, there are some people that don't want to have self-control, and you can't do anything about that.

not only that, but outside forces can infiltrate a libertarian society and make society shit. example? america during the 40s-70s

>He doesn't think people don't fall into meat vats in his anarchocapitalist and socialist commune, respectively.
>He thinks kek wills people into vats for their poor choice in governemnt
>He doesn't know about the horrible worker death rates in soviet russia due to horrible conditions.

In a libertarian system, unless you're a stupid fag, and sign away your rights, there's no difference in the ability of a huge, authoritarian socialist government to crack down on these companies, and a libertarian one. You're constantly trying to conflate anarchism and libertarianism, and it ain't going to work, hoss.

most cowboys were mexican and black, hope you like them in your society pal :^)

because they fantasize that authoritarians will do their bidding

they're essentially thinking of themselves as dictator, without the hassle of actually being a dictator, just everything they want magically gets done

it never occurs to them that they might get an authoritarian leader that does shit they don't like

We don't.

Being able to exclude people from private property = libertarian
Forcing people to integrate and live in multicultural communities = authoritarian

>3000 people disappeared over 30 years
>only 3000 people ever disagreed
>most of those weren't even communists (even though before Pinochet the whole country was communist)

dont think so Tim

...

It's not a forced argument at all. You can't enforce those things without authority and monopoly on violence.
You would need public schooling for start and from what I know most libertarians oppose that.
Libertarianism is just an idea like communism. Modern states and state authority is a natural product of centuries of social evolution.
And besides other issues, how are you gonna create libertarian society in the first place? Even in America those views are fringe views.

>an upset worker would be able to leave on request
>on request
>request
Yeah, fuck that. I can literally walk out in a libertarian system, and go work for your competitor. Any investment you had in my training will be lost whole value to your worst enemy. The idea of better worker conditions in highly authoritarian systems is totally fucking unsubstantiated. I bet you people think Best Korea is fucking spotless.

>Black's and Mexicans actually holding jobs
Is there anything that wasn't possible in the wild west?

I don't support state media.

I do however, support free media that has government authority that's there to censor degenerate behaviour.

You may keep your kids away from the JewBox, but the rest of the public will continue eating it in.

>Name one historical and succesful libertarian society.
Early USA. Too easy. You name one successful authoritarian society.

>You're literally a very small minority trying to push your view on majority who don't agree. How are you gonna create your Hoppean utopia, when 98% of people don't want it?
I am aware of the fact that freedom-upholding people are in a minority. However, other people's liberties or entitlements don't include my wallet, even though the welfare leeches would love it. If 98% of people want everyone to be ruled by some body of power which does not recognise individual freedom and intra-societal and inter-societal forces, then 98% of "people" will be thrown from helicopters into the Danube 200 feet below. And this is the same with everyone who doesn't recognise freedom - the NAP does not apply to them.

>What is requiring signing a non-compete as term of employment

False dichotomy.

There are only two choices.

Authoritarianism or Authoritarianism.

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- for ever." ~Orwell

The choice is that you can either be the person getting his face stomped by the boot or the person wearing the boot.

I want to crush leftists before they crush us.

This

Because weak people know they wouldn't survive in a libertarian world.

In 'authoritarian' which here means natsoc or some form of fascism, they would get resources from the state (which it takes from others) just for existing. Most likely in the form of a make-work job rather than direct welfare though.

people were thrown in prison for not working, or just by their asshole bosses in soviet russia, and I'm sure it happens today in NK.
an accurate fucking chart.

Lad, that's what helicopters are for.

You guys have a funny way of describing "success"

I wasn't aware "successful" meant "lasting only a few decades"

>barely any government involvement
For a very limited period of time under very specific set of circumstances.
You just see what you want to see.
And in the end state authority was enforced over those regions too. People themselves wanted that.
However as I said societies and states don't exist in a vaccuum. I'm all for freedom but freedom has to guarded and there's no such thing as absolute freedom. Absolute freedom leads to slavery.

>Implying
You can have my liberties when you pry them from my cold dead hands you dirty piece of shit.

Your thoughts are less free now than they were ever before. Authoritarianism is a tool to take back freedom of both action and consequence.

There are no freedoms ever gained that were voted in by a majority. The greatest freedoms of expression, rights to free, fair trial and personal property were first handed down by few visionaries, instead of voted by mob rule.

Freedom takes force at times to enforce it, since mankind in its natural state seems to prefer infintilism over responsibility.

No. It's because YOU fucking cock suckers let your own country become a gay parade.
Look at yourself and tell me, what have you done in the last 20 years for you country?
Nothing. And that's why your country is a massive shitpile.

i don't understand for peoples saying that libertarianism doesn't work, pinochet regime did work

kek, nice

They're both bad.

i'm tired of the words authoritarian and libertarian, because everyone just uses them to support their position

i honestly believe that ANY policy can be considered libertarian or authoritarian, depending on who you talk to. for instance, communists believe that private property is an authoritarian concept.

Yes, because then the power-mongerers in the government descended there and started enforcing their rules. Because it was their land, after all. To prevent this, just destroy any form of government.

>You can have my liberties when you pry them from my cold dead hands

Will do.

HURR DURR HOLOCAUST HAPPENED

>Peopel themselves wanted that.
And look where that got them. Instead of living like free men, they became slaves to the kikes.

>i'm tired of the words authoritarian and libertarian
They're useful terms, fag
>i honestly believe that ANY policy can be considered libertarian or authoritarian
Retard.

I thought libertarianism wasn't anarchism?

Maybe you kids should talk among yourselves and figure out what your beliefs actually are before you come play with the big boys.