Libertarianism =/= Open Borders

For the last goddamned time, libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, etc. is NOT equal to having no borders, standards, morals, culture or the likes. Libertarians DO NOT have to be globalists, immigration shills or Soros puppets. Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party are frauds, it's "modal libertarianism."

Other urls found in this thread:

mises.org/system/tdf/Economics and Ethics of Private Property Studies in Political Economy and Philosophy_3.pdf?file=1&type=document
mises.org/system/tdf/A Short History of Man — Progress and Decline.pdf?file=1&type=document
riosmauricio.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Hoppe_Democracy_The_God_That_Failed.pdf
mises.org/system/tdf/Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, A_4.pdf?file=1&type=document
mises.org/system/tdf/From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy_Hoppe_Text 2014.pdf?file=1&type=document
mises.org/system/tdf/Myth of National Defense, The Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production_3.pdf?file=1&type=document
mises.org/system/tdf/The Private Production of Defense_3.pdf?file=1&type=document
mises.org/system/tdf/Economic Science and the Austrian Method_3.pdf?file=1&type=document
mises.org/system/tdf/What Must Be Done_7.pdf?file=1&type=document
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War
youtube.com/watch?v=6Ak3TwNXA0w
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

I agree with you OP, but you're among intellectual retards here who only see in terms of extremes, they can't recognize the good aspects of an ideology that is not identical to their own.

I can recognize the merits of other ideologies, such as fascism or National Socialism, but anarco-capitalism, Hoppe style, is the only ideology that is both libertarian and strongly anti-degeneracy. You are essentially combining the best of both worlds, and you can't be called a fascist because it's completely voluntary and in accordance to the natural order.

That's not libertarianism. It's more like fascism but with an obsession with giving business, land, and shares owners as much liberty/power as possible.

Real libertarianism is about maximizing both economic and personal freedom while keeping a minimal state to protect property and rights. It's completely degenerate.

>Real libertarianism is about maximizing both economic and personal freedom while keeping a minimal state to protect property and rights.
But a minimal state CAN'T protect those things. That's the problem. Granting propertied and unpropertied people identical sets of rights and having identical expectations of them doesn't make sense if the purpose of those rights is the use of property to induce prosperity. How can the unpropertied masses cope except by expropriating the property of the propertied classes? Maybe they can buy some of the land off of the propertied, but that still won't result in universal land ownership unless we grant that collectivization is desirable, i.e. unless we abandon the principle of liberty upon which our society is founded.
If the degenerate masses seek to expropriate legitimate enterprises for nebulous social causes, a strong state is necessary to put them down. This is where the defense of property and the rights of citizens comes in, not before.

>Real libertarianism is about maximizing both economic and personal freedom while keeping a minimal state to protect property and rights. It's completely degenerate.
You were completely right until the part where you say a state is necessary to achieve this goal. A state is inherently a destroyer of private property, not a protector. Anarcho-capitalism fixes this issue since states are replaced with competing and competitive insurance/protection firms and people are left off to freely trade their property. Why do you call Hoppe's ideology fascist?

HOPPE READING LIST

>The Economics and Ethics of Private Property (1993; 2006 2nd edition)
mises.org/system/tdf/Economics and Ethics of Private Property Studies in Political Economy and Philosophy_3.pdf?file=1&type=document

>A Short History of Man: Progress and Decline (2015)
mises.org/system/tdf/A Short History of Man — Progress and Decline.pdf?file=1&type=document

>Democracy—The God That Failed (2001)
riosmauricio.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Hoppe_Democracy_The_God_That_Failed.pdf

>A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism (1988; 2010 edition)
mises.org/system/tdf/Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, A_4.pdf?file=1&type=document

>From Aristocracy, to Monarchy, to Democracy (2014)
mises.org/system/tdf/From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy_Hoppe_Text 2014.pdf?file=1&type=document

>The Myth of National Defense: Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production (2003)
mises.org/system/tdf/Myth of National Defense, The Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production_3.pdf?file=1&type=document

>The Private Production of Defense (1998; 2006 edition)
mises.org/system/tdf/The Private Production of Defense_3.pdf?file=1&type=document

>Economic Science and the Austrian Method (1995)
mises.org/system/tdf/Economic Science and the Austrian Method_3.pdf?file=1&type=document

>What Must Be Done (2009)
mises.org/system/tdf/What Must Be Done_7.pdf?file=1&type=document

Libertarians don't have to be immigration or globalist shills but they, by do nothing to stop it.

Libertarianism has been dead since Ron Paul lost

A minimal state with enough budget for a police, a legal system, and an army definitely can protect those things. Keep only those branches would massively reduce the budget and you could even run your government entirely without any income tax.

I'm not a libertarian, by the way. I'm just explaining what they believe in.
The state is entirely a protector of private property. In fact, protecting people and property is the reason why states first came to be. It's by organizing a community around warriors that protected people from raiders and other invaders that real, long-term private property was able to happen. This was in the neolithic. States came to engulf the planet because they are the most efficient system. Under anarcho-capitalism you would just end up being invaded eventually, with most of the people greeting them as liberators. Even if, somehow, all the states in the world magically disappeared overnight, anarchism wouldn't last because new ones would just reform and expand. Anarchism requires the permanent consent of the overwhelming majority of the population to work. This will never happen.

>Why do you call Hoppe's ideology fascist?
I didn't. It's extremely different from fascism. But it's also extremely different from libertarianism as well and Hoppe shouldn't seek to steal the name from it. He should have picked a new one. I said that "it's more like fascism" because trying to get society rid of various groups of undesirables has been mostly associated with fascism historically.

So are you arguing for Monarchy/Feudalism or libertarianism?

mkay

>anarco-capitalism, is the only ideology that is both libertarian and strongly anti-degeneracy

>unabridged capitalism
>anti-degeneracy

Not when degeneracy is profitable

/r/libertarian, arguably the largest libertarian population on the net AND the actual libertarian party disagrees with you.

Face it, the modern libertarian movement is cucked

The state cannot be a protector of property because it itself survives off expropriating property through taxation, eminent domain, public property, etc. And it does so whether you like it or not. If you don't, you get thrown in jail. Also, states came to be when multiple aristocratic families decided to monopolize the justice system (preventing peasants from seeking justice services off other aristocratic and noble families) and thus triggered a downhill "devolution" of society, from aristocracy, to monarchy, to democracy (like one of Hoppe's books is titled, essentially). States became larger and larger through the monopolization of justice, police, education (this one especially took the authority off of parents and gave children's education to be molded by state ideologues with state-approved textbooks), and other services.

Also, Hoppe does not want to get rid of undesirables entirely. He says that as long as people are integrated in the free market/division of labor, racial, ethnic, social, and gender tensions tend to be lower because people interact with each other voluntarily. Only when states distort the market through forced separation (Jim Crow laws, for example) or forced integration (Civil Right Act or 1965 Immigration Act, for example) is when people stop being friendly and start killing each other.

Under anarcho-capitalism you can have covenants with strict codes of conduct and rules, including bans on pornography, homosexuality, etc. It's not at all incompatible.

True, but it's up to us to uncuck it.

>forced integration (Civil Right Act or 1965 Immigration Act,

but those only stopped seperation. They didn't force anyone to come in they allowed them in.

Not gonna happen.

You'd be better off joining the constitution party and just forming a sub group who's less religious.

>Under anarcho-capitalism you can have covenants with strict codes of conduct and rules, including bans on pornography, homosexuality, etc. It's not at all incompatible.

you can have that now and modern society is still pro degeneracy. However it doesn't happen and degeneracy still flourishes. My point still stands

A covenant community is the same thing as a state. Libertarianism is an incoherent philosophy.

>a covenant community is a state

Correcto

>The state cannot be a protector of property because it itself survives off expropriating property through taxation, eminent domain, public property, etc. And it does so whether you like it or not. If you don't, you get thrown in jail.
That's often the lesser evil. It's better to pay some taxes and to be protected than to not be protected at all and to be looted and killed by a warlord. Criminals and warlords won't stop existing just because the state did. "But I'll protect myself with my guns". Possible, but it's also possible that the other guys will have an army that can easily roll over you. Strong states prevent that from happening to you, protecting yourself and your property.

>Also, states came to be when multiple aristocratic families decided to monopolize the justice system (preventing peasants from seeking justice services off other aristocratic and noble families) and thus triggered a downhill "devolution" of society, from aristocracy, to monarchy, to democracy (like one of Hoppe's books is titled, essentially). States became larger and larger through the monopolization of justice, police, education (this one especially took the authority off of parents and gave children's education to be molded by state ideologues with state-approved textbooks), and other services.
You're implying that this was somehow bad for peasants, but it wasn't. Common people in general always HATED aristocrats, and this is why kings like Louis XIV were popular, because they curbed the power of the aristocrat tyrants and centralized the state more. The French republic did the same later and had much more support than any aristocrats ever did, admittedly with some opposition (no system is ever 100% popular).

Bumping

>Also, Hoppe does not want to get rid of undesirables entirely. He says that as long as people are integrated in the free market/division of labor, racial, ethnic, social, and gender tensions tend to be lower because people interact with each other voluntarily. Only when states distort the market through forced separation (Jim Crow laws, for example) or forced integration (Civil Right Act or 1965 Immigration Act, for example) is when people stop being friendly and start killing each other.
He's still advocating for repression of those he dislikes. That's not libertarianism. It's using power (presumably state power) to restrict the rights of others.

Is this how far libertarianism has fallen? I remember it being pretty popular on Sup Forums around 2011/2012 but now OP is the only one who supports it and even his argument falls apart after a few posts.

it also doesn't help that OP is hardly responding

Incorrect. Title VII specifically prohibited employer discrimination in terms of sex, race, national origin, political affiliation, etc. from all establishments other than "private clubs." If you look at early 20th century America (and up until the 60s), you had neighborhoods and parts of towns occupied almost exclusively by people of the same creed. And you had signs saying "no blacks, beggars, Irish, etc." This is not possible nowadays because of all the anti-discrimination laws. Also, the 1965 Immigration Act threw out the window all standards for immigration (Europeans, or whites, of good nature) and instead allowed all sorts of peoples to come to America and leech off of the welfare state.

Dumb Pizzanigger

roads

Modern society is pro-degeneracy because the welfare state allows people to be degenerate. It we did not have a welfare state and instead left people's welfare to their own responsibilities (through private charity, diligence, farsightedness, savings) you would see an overtime reduction of welfare leeches (single parents, niggers, etc.). Adding to that, if you got rid of anti-discrimination laws, people would have to learn how to behave properly (in a civilized manner), lest they wanted to be outcast by everyone and from everywhere. Essentially, you would see uncivilized conduct fall (become more expensive) and civilized behavior would be rewarded. That is everything but degenerate.

It's not. A state is a territorial monopolist on taxation and legislation. A covenant is a voluntary property arrangement between people. And people are free to remove themselves from the covenant, unlike with states, where there's no where left to run.

Warlords and wars are state inventions. If someone (or a protection agency gone rogue) tried to disrupt peace and the market, everyone would have enormous incentives to chip in and contribute toward killing said entity. Also, the rogue company's stock value would collapse before they did anything or its paying customers would cut their funding.

Removing people from private property isn't repression, it's property rights. He doesn't say gays or transsexuals should be executed, he simply says property owners should be allowed to exclude anyone they want from their property.

My doggo fell into a hole and was crying for me to go get her. I had to do it before I could reply.

>A minimal state with enough budget for a police, a legal system, and an army definitely can protect those things.
That's liberalism, not libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism.
>Keep only those branches would massively reduce the budget and you could even run your government entirely without any income tax.
I'm sure you've done the math.
>I'm not a libertarian, by the way. I'm just explaining what they believe in.
Maybe you should let an actual libertarian explain it instead.
>The state is entirely a protector of private property
[citation needed]

I agree with all those quotes other than Gary Johnson tbqh

A covenant is the same thing as a state. Covenants have a monopoly on legislation within their property boundaries.

A state is merely an organization that owns property in a sovereign manner.

its not edgy anymore like it was when ron paul was making waves and obongo was going apeshit with the big government antics, the new edgy is ironically supporting the next us president

There is nothing wrong with protecting your marijuana fields with fully automatic rifles.

>A covenant is the same thing as a state
First I've heard of it.

No. A covenant is a private arrangement that has a legislative (decision-making) monopoly within it, but it does not regulate other covenants or involuntary tax the people living in it.

What's stopping Schlomo Hebestein from only hiring imported niggers in his company?

Libertarianism is voluntarism for cucks. "Taxation is theft! Unless it's for something I think is okay!"

Voluntarism remains the only morally consistent political ideology.

>Warlords and wars are state inventions.
Bullshit. I've already explained that states are a reaction to warlords and wars. People have been fighting each other way before states existed, we know this because of archeological record. Hell, even other primates wage war. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War

>If someone (or a protection agency gone rogue) tried to disrupt peace and the market, everyone would have enormous incentives to chip in and contribute toward killing said entity.
Sounds fine in theory, but that's not how the world works. It's like if people in ancient China said that a unification of the land wasn't possible, because as soon as a warlord got too powerful, everyone else would ally against him to preserve balance. It doesn't work that way. People are more likely to join a charismatic, powerful leader than to fight against him. This is especially true when they have a hard life in a shitty era, which your system would invariably lead to by giving all power to powerful people who would exploit them, like in the middle-age.

>Removing people from private property isn't repression, it's property rights. He doesn't say gays or transsexuals should be executed, he simply says property owners should be allowed to exclude anyone they want from their property.
Ok, but what happens to the huge majority of property owners who won't want to exclude anyone? Remember that most people are socially liberal nowadays. And I can promise you they won't suddenly turn into reactionaries just because the state is gone. What then? Degeneracy still exists, and is even promoted since it's good for consumption, which itself is good for business.

>That's liberalism, not libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism.
No, it's completely libertarianism. Many libertarians even advocate for even more state than that. You're probably thinking of minarchism.

>[citation needed]
See all my other posts.

Libertarianism is open borders btu even with open border there would be less immigrant because they wont have gibbs

niggers are horrible workers and the company fails

>It we did not have a welfare state and instead left people's welfare to their own responsibilities

this was also prior to cultural marxism. For this point to hold any weight welfare niggers would have to be the only degenerates, they are not. There is plenty of degeneracy from middle class tumblrites to celebrities

The gibbs are the higher living standard provided by the previously white society.

>You're probably thinking of minarchism.
No, I'm thinking of classical liberalism, from which the other ideologies you've named are offshoots.
>See all my other posts.
The ones where you pull shit out of your ass and present it as peer-reviewed research?
>I've already explained that states are a reaction to warlords and wars
>Only example he posts is non-humans
>Posts a pic of the Warring States period, which happened millennia before the creation of the first joint stock company
>Ok, but what happens to the huge majority of property owners who won't want to exclude anyone?
Why wouldn't they want to exclude anyone? Why would every person on Earth be worthy of their approval and be let into the society they share?

What if I want to stay but refuse to follow the rules of the covenant?

And then you'd still have niggers roaming in your society

PHYSICAL REMOVAL

nobody will take them and they die in a gutter

>gary johnson
>not "what is a """leppo"""?"

saged and reported

Waste of quads.

States profit from war. If a state is funded by taxpayers, then mass murder and genocide of innocent civilian lives is aggravated. The bigger and more expropriating the state is (i.e. a democracy), the greater the incentives will be to destroy its capital stock (infrastructure, material wealth) and kill off its citizens. All major wars in the past hundreds of years have been between states. When peoples evolved from nomadic tribes to stationary, hunter-gatherer types they realized that the division of labor and trade with other tribes was mutually beneficial to them. All-out war is a state invention because states are always trying to compete for subjects (people), and so invading territories and expanding the taxpayer base is always something to look out for. Only recently have states banded together and formed organizations like the EU, because public intellectuals figured out that having massive superstates is better than having many states.

>Ok, but what happens to the huge majority of property owners who won't want to exclude anyone? Remember that most people are socially liberal nowadays. And I can promise you they won't suddenly turn into reactionaries just because the state is gone. What then? Degeneracy still exists, and is even promoted since it's good for consumption, which itself is good for business.
Society would still rearrange itself toward reflecting the many individual ideologies and ways of life there is. You would have neighborhoods more liberal, others less liberal, others exclusively white, black, Muslim, Christian, atheist, etc. The upside is that even people who hate each other and would never want to be neighbors could still trade between them in a free market (and perhaps form social bonds) and still have the benefit of living completely separated from them. There would be as much or as little integration as people wanted.

You get evicted, simple as that. And then you go off and join a covenant that is more suited to you. Or you simply buy a house yourself and join no covenant.

wtf I'm libertarian now

That or they become criminal, or they somehow come to success and breed like a tumor as has been the case with the US and we'd back at where we're at now.

>Be retarded nigger
>Can't buy my way into an all-white AnCap community of non-aggressive propertied individuals
>Try to commit crime
>Get hunted down by various private security agencies because my crimes leave evidence
>Can't bribe the security agents because they're well-paid, and they value the stock they hold in their company above the (few) Bitcoins that I can offer them
>Get shot in the face
>or they somehow come to success
And how would that happen without shysters running banks lending out fiat currency?

And if they become criminals they get appropriate and proportionate punishment for their crimes. And when they get out of jail, good luck finding any employer willing to employ them. They would be physically removed from civilization.

if they commit murder and theft they would be killed for self defense
and they can't breed like tumors because no welfare

Also, for all of you guys who keep posting "wouldn't warlords take over?", see this:

youtube.com/watch?v=6Ak3TwNXA0w

and read "The Myth of National Defense" in the reading list I posted above.

bump

So, you break the NAP. . .

The NAP isn't the non-violence principle, it's the non-aggression principle. Kicking someone who started a brawl out of a bar isn't 'aggression,' it's defense of property. Likewise, removing violent criminals from a territory isn't 'aggression' because those criminals, by definition, initiated the use of force.

Some faggot gets naked at the convention and now you're defending the moral decency of Libertarianism?

>commit crime
>security agencie commit a crime to stop m future crimes
>start of a endless blood revenge
>everone gets killed

top kek

discord . gg / pKN353s

get in nigga

degenerate behavior in long term lead to egalitarianism and welfare
also the NAP don't aplly to commies because they can't be commies and saying that their body belongs to themsleves

If you're in my lawn and I tell you "go" and you refuse to obey, you instantly become an unwanted presence and are aggressing against my property. So I have every right to remove you from my lawn with increasingly escalating use of force.

LP isn't real libertarianism. It was hijacked. See

>flag
>>security agencie commit a crime
How is it a crime?

Link doesn't work Schlomo.

defending private property isn't crime retard

So, how do you decide who the aggressor is?
The aggressor could claim he was in a state of defence, because someone else started a micro aggression.

The same way you do it now. With investigation, witness interrogation and a court system. Are you retarded?

>The aggressor could claim he was in a state of defence, because someone else started a micro aggression.
Anyone can claim anything, but that doesn't make it true.
Do you think your government would believe you if you said you'd never posted on Sup Forums just because you said it?

In the the eyes of the criminals family, the security agency is acting like a criminal, you know kidnapping, murder etc.

Every time a dindu commits a crime, the family tries to defend their tyrone. Tyrones family will hire a ecurity agency to kill the other security agency, becaue they broke the NAP :^)

TL:DR

don't know...you go to the court like every victim and they investigate?

I see buying property as a act of aggression, therefore you broke the NAP and Im allowed to kill you - fuck Im a libertarian now!

not it it's proven to be self-defense
and niggers won't the money anyway

>libertarian society
>court system

Why would I listen to a court of retards? I never gave them authority over myself. Sounds like government and shit.

Who shuts down and protects the borders in the Libertarian country?

no because when you buy something you need the agreement on the both sides
you know how markets work right ?

>not it it's proven to be self-defense

Niggers dont care about your "proof"

top kek

>Premise 1: Minarchism
Such that the state exists, and such that it affords certain rights, privileges, and resources to those that come here by whatever means, until those forcibly extracted and transfered rights, privileges, and resources are stopped, the migration must stop.

>Premise 2: Anarcho Capitalism
The borders and everything in them would be private property, and entrants would be subject to contractual obligations

>Conclusion
It is perfectly within Libertarian philosophy to be restrictive to immigrants

the owner
niggers are violent so the owner will not allow niggers to come in and if they come they will be physically removed

>Anyone can claim anything, but that doesn't make it true.

DING! THat is the reason why NAP doesnt work and will never work. You can easily break it by claiming shit.

I don't give a shit the nigger will be guily and the owner will chill and don't give a shit

I dont agree about your definition of property and see it as a aggression against myself, now you are dead :(

not if it's proven that the NAP was respected

Family of tyrone will kill the owner, now he chills like a dead.

Who is the owner of a country?

it's anarco-capitalism not anarco-childism
if you agree that I buy X then it violate nothing

and the private security will kill Tyrone's family
the king,it doesn't work in a democracy

What if the owners don't feel like it?

he will learn

You cant proof that, because people can claim otherwise.

I could claim, that your hair cut i a aggresion against my religious believes, therefore you broke the NAP and I was allowed to cut of your head. Damn, feels good to be a libertarian.

"agree"

I dont agree that anyone is allowed to buy anything. If you buy something, it a aggression and Im allowed to kill you. You are dead, just lie your ideologie child play.

Who appointed the king, I never gave my consent. So, I can call a security agency and remove him?

And it's precisely because of retards like you that a free society would be an armed society.

then you are killed because your reasoning is retarded,NAP is about protecting private property but everything isn't your private property
the king is a metaphor,you work for the king,you consent,you shut the fuck,it's the law of the owner not the owned

lel, nah

he'll set up some signs and a make nice path for the immigrants to stream through and just make sure they know they need to not fuck up his land and leave as quickly as possible.

much easier than protecting a vast border by yourself.

libertarian = open borders

but if everyone does't allow niggers ?