Current year

>current year
>still an authoritarian
What's the matter, cant think for yourself?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Tunisia
ifr.org/robots-create-jobs/
forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2015/03/01/why-robots-will-be-the-biggest-job-creators-in-history/&refURL=http://www.forbes.com/&referrer=http://www.forbes.com/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918–19
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

I'm happy a lot of Sup Forums users are just now realizing the pros of the Venus Project while Jews try to keep it from succeeding

but...w-without a strong leader...nobody will stop me s-sucking dicks !!

The Libertarian party is slowly killing libertarianism

>What's the matter, cant think for yourself?

If you are such a smart individual why haven't you claimed some land unclaimed by any authoritarian states and set up shop over there but instead remain in cuckistan?

As long as you're mixing ethnonationalism and libertarianism, I'm perfectly happy with that.

there was a belgian poster who imagined this type of society
looked pretty /comfy/

>letting people do what they wan't won't lead to degeneracy
>you wanting to stop degeneracy means that secretly you are one

It's like I am arguing with the left.

Reminder to any ancap that will use the NAP as an argument. That we had anarchies driven by profit before, stuff like the berber tribes, barbary pirates and such. Places that took centuries to stop slavery, requiring the intervention of "authoritarian" states to end it.

Why haven't you?

Because I am not a lolbetarian, I don't see the state as a boogey man.

>What is freedom of association and dissociation

>barbary pirates
stealing is againts the NAP
also merchants during this times used private security (privateers)for protecting themselves againts pirates,all the state did was legalise it.

>stealing is againts the NAP

It wasn't just stealing m8, some slave trade was done without any raiding invovled.

And again, the NAP sure did a good job of stopping them from stealing.

>also merchants during this times used private security (privateers)for protecting themselves againts pirates,all the state did was legalise it.

USA as well as UK invaded the lands of the barbary pirates, in the barbary wars to stop them from doing that, which was done because private security was not enough.

>barbary wars
the pirates were backed by the Ottomans
without their support,private security would be enough and Jefferson wouldn't need to invade Tripoli

>the pirates were backed by the Ottomans

After the War was declared. Not before.

Well you are a romanian gypsys so i'd imagine you love to be cucked and fed gibs.

buying their slaves is enough for backing their immoral actions,without demand there wouldn't be supply

An assumption is not an argument. I find the effects of welfare, the little thing we get as appalling on the populous. But they are a relatively new thing in Romanian history, and nothing to do with authoritarianism, but with socialism and bad guvernaments.

>buying their slaves is enough for backing their immoral actions,without demand there wouldn't be supply

They themselves(berbers and barbary pirates) also kept slaves. And we have evidence of slaves and serfs in places with little or no guberment going as far back as antiquity.

i still don't understand fascists and commies
They advocate for censorship of free speech and journalism (unless it agrees with them, see the hypocrisy?)
They advocate the banning of guns
They advocate mass surveillance
They advocate for a stronger police state

that's basically saying " i'm a brainless drone so government please fuck me in the ass without lube until i bleed to death"

>degeneracy
buzzword
it's not the government's job to stop people from committing "degeneracy" or whatever the fuck you call it, it's religion's job
so unless you want to live in an ISIS-like theology you can get the fuck out

and nation states profited from the trade
and the pirates established their own tribal gov because of coercion

>buzzword

You calling a term a buzzword is not an argument.

>it's not the government's job to stop people from committing "degeneracy" or whatever the fuck you call it, it's religion's job

The governments job is to protect a nation and it's people from threats, internal or external. Religion's job is to highlight what degeneracy is and in some cases recommend action.

And allowing societal degeneration to plague the population is a state not doing it's job. Especially since the best way to fight societal degeneration is via taboos which require extreme events or law enforcements for them to occur.

>They advocate for censorship of free speech and journalism (unless it agrees with them, see the hypocrisy?)

For example the Legionaries didn't care about censorship
>They advocate the banning of guns
They advocated people keep arms and train with them
>They advocate mass surveillance
They only wanted to ensure the public was informed
>They advocate for a stronger police state
They hated the police, as they were a corrupt tool of the king.

>and nation states profited from the trade

So did the pirates m8. And may I remind you Britain, a state was the first to outlaw slavery.

it doesn't mean private organisation would make it legal
slavery is againts the natural law

The problem is is that there are a bunch of retards that assert that immigration laws violate the NAP

>it doesn't mean private organisation would make it legal

What would there be to stop it?

>slavery is againts the natural law

This is why it has existed for as long as we have recorded history?

...

>Legionaries
what? we're talking about all authoritarian countries whether commie or fascist (USSR,NK,nazi germany,fascist italy,fascist chile)

and guess what? they only managed to assert their shitty laws using censorship, disarming the public, surveillance, etc etc

>The governments job is to protect a nation and it's people from threats, internal or external. Religion's job is to highlight what degeneracy is and in some cases recommend action.
PHYISCAL threats such ass law breakers and invading armies, that's what the government's supposed to protect you from
>And allowing societal degeneration to plague the population is a state not doing it's job. Especially since the best way to fight societal degeneration is via taboos which require extreme events or law enforcements for them to occur.
no it's not
i live in a muslim country
religion does it's job, we have no faggots or trannies promiscuity, yet the government is secular and doesn't give a flying fuck about morality

you don't need a government to enforce "morality" (and morality is subjective, by the way so your point is null from the start)

>what would there be to stop it ?
boycott ostracism etc...
>this is why it has existed for as long as we have recorded history
the idea of natural law is what inspired people to ban slavery,the problem is that government existence is incoherent with natural law

>and guess what? they only managed to assert their shitty laws using censorship, disarming the public, surveillance, etc etc

Not everywhere m8, not even in the nations you mentioned do all the things you say apply. For example gun ownership in nazi germany was not only legal, but common, same in italy. I don't know shit about Chile.

>what?

Legionaries were a Romanian Fascist Movement that took power for a short year before being pushed out by the military.

>PHYISCAL threats such ass law breakers and invading armies, that's what the government's supposed to protect you from

What about conspirators, or separatists?

>religion does it's job, we have no faggots or trannies promiscuity, yet the government is secular and doesn't give a flying fuck about morality
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Tunisia
>Cross-dressing is not expressly illegal, although transgender people, along with gay people, are oftentimes accused of violating Article 226 of the national penal code which outlaws "outrages against public decency
>Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman in Tunisia. Same-sex marriage, or the more limited civil unions, are not legally recognized in Tunisia.


It seems to me the state is getting involved somewhat.

>you don't need a government to enforce "morality" (and morality is subjective, by the way so your point is null from the start)

In some cases you do, especially if there are active attempts by foreign or internal actors. Though there are also indirect means of reinforcing them by attacking the actors directly, though if they already succeeded it as I said requires extreme situations or force.

Moral subjectivity is another sign of societal decay. But even going along with that premise one can see some moral systems are superior to others.

And I live in a Orthodox Christian nation m8, and though older generations look down on faggotry and other moral degeneration the young don't for many reasons.

>boycott ostracism etc...

And that has worked so well for 90% of recorded history.

>the idea of natural law is what inspired people to ban slavery,the problem is that government existence is incoherent with natural law

There is no natural law m8, nor are there inate rights or some other BS. A law, or right only exists if it's enforced or guaranteed by a sufficient force.

Good luck living by yourself when automatisation outcompetes you and everyone u know loses their income

nu/pol/ is full of authortarian loving bootlicking statist faggots who need big strong men to tell them what to do and to fuck their gf's. they probably wear cock cages and chokers too. it's why they are so into calling ppl cuckolds. classic projection

embargo don't count?
>There is no natural law
k,now try to explain to me why murder,rape or robbery is bad

automatisation create jobs retard

>embargo don't count?

Again, it has worked so well in the past?

>k,now try to explain to me why murder,rape or robbery is bad

Because the moral system I find superior calls them bad, and I find said system superior do to it's more positive effects on society over other systems.

For example in some cultures and in times in the past rape was defined as deflouring a girl before marriage, and not marrying her. Also up until not too long ago marital rape was not even a legal term.

For murder I can use human sacrifices as to why some moral systems didn't see them as bad.

b..but..

>if robots could do everything humans can there'd be even more jobs
???

Also sometimes I wish we went back to less politically correct libertarianism.

so because of subjective point of view
k

>Not everywhere m8, not even in the nations you mentioned do all the things you say apply. For example gun ownership in nazi germany was not only legal, but common, same in italy. I don't know shit about Chile.
read >What about conspirators, or separatists?
that means lawbreakers, you dumbass

>>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Tunisia
Like i said, secular government you dumbass, just because it's decriminalized doesn't mean it's socially acceptable, government =/= society, thanks for proving my point that religion does it's job well

>Moral subjectivity is another sign of societal decay
Morals are subjective since day 1 you dumb gypsy

you're just a buttmad statist

>so because of subjective point of view

Because any non subjective point of view requires me to invoke god, and I would rather not spend the rest of the thread arguing over that.

Also even if I involve god and a moral absolute, which I personally agree with it doesn't change the fact that people adhere to different moral standards even if they are false.

And with my examples give you can see culture also affects those standards.

we'll always have the 19th century mate

Being of a certain ethnicity ain't a choice homie

>read

That /k/ post is irrelevant m8. Since Germans owned guns, tons of them. There were multiple manufacturing companies making civilian guns. The Nazi government even gifted guns to civilians.

Do you think maybe they didn't want to fight the gestapo as it meant them no harm?

>Like i said, secular government you dumbass, just because it's decriminalized doesn't mean it's socially acceptable, government =/= society, thanks for proving my point that religion does it's job well

In other nations it's not just decriminalized it's also encouraged by law, shit like Gay marriage.
>Morals are subjective since day 1 you dumb gypsy

If morals are subjective then how does the NAP work?

>you're just a buttmad statist

You are the one flinging insults m8.

Nationalist, socially consetvative, economically centrist autocracy is the only way.

because
1:who create the robots ?
2:who repair the robots? find me a robot that never break
3:ifr.org/robots-create-jobs/
forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2015/03/01/why-robots-will-be-the-biggest-job-creators-in-history/&refURL=http://www.forbes.com/&referrer=http://www.forbes.com/

No they didn't own, and only a few people owned hunting bolt actions, that's why the polish and jewish militias couldn't find any guns to steal from civilians/buy from the underground market

>Do you think maybe they didn't want to fight the gestapo as it meant them no harm?
The gestapo raided a shitton of innocent people and called them communist collaborators (even though they weren't), that's more than a reason to fight them

>In other nations it's not just decriminalized it's also encouraged by law, shit like Gay marriage.
So? i thought you were talking about tunisia here.

>If morals are subjective then how does the NAP work?
did i ever mention the NAP or defend it? i don't even believe in ancap crap

let me show one thing that don't invoke god
reason
and what created reason
the natural law AKA an objective form of morals

Sounds like the making of a dystopian nightmare. Take your feel good hippy dippy shit and shove it up your ass.

>No they didn't own, and only a few people owned hunting bolt actions, that's why the polish and jewish militias couldn't find any guns to steal from civilians/buy from the underground market

No they did own lots of hunting weapons. In fact do to lack of optics at the start of WW2 Germany bought all the civilian sniper scopes they could since they lacked Sniper rifles, in fact during the Wimar Republic people even owned Machine Guns, and it's not unlikely they kept them after.

>The gestapo raided a shitton of innocent people and called them communist collaborators (even though they weren't), that's more than a reason to fight them

Define a shiton m8?

Another thing during the Wiemar republic each political party had their own militias. How come those commies didn't defend themselves since they could and probably kept the guns.

>

Reason
1
a : a statement offered in explanation or justification
b : a rational ground or motive
c : a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something (such as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact

We could. That's why we impose our will upon those who can't.

>who create the robots? who repair the robots?
The robots

>No they did own lots of hunting weapons
Look i gave you hard facts and you said "no ur just wrong lol"

so let me ask you again:
Explain how the german militia after ww2 struggled to get arms.
Explain how the polish and jewish militias couldn't get any arms to fight the nazi government (they couldn't even get them from civilians because gun ownership was so small)
(ask for the source and i'll give it to you)

>Another thing during the Wiemar republic each political party had their own militias. How come those commies didn't defend themselves since they could and probably kept the guns.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918–19

>Look i gave you hard facts and you said "no ur just wrong lol"

What hard facts m8?

>Explain how the german militia after ww2 struggled to get arms.

Which millitia?

And most likely suspect is the allies taking everything they could.

>Explain how the polish and Jewish militias couldn't get any arms to fight the nazi government

Maybe nobody sold it to them, as it was illegal and Poland was under a different law system.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918–19

Yes that's how it starded.

>so unless you want to live in an ISIS-like theology
They do. They want a Christian-based sharia.

>What hard facts m8?
>Explain how the german militia after ww2 struggled to get arms.
>Explain how the polish and jewish militias couldn't get any arms to fight the nazi government (they couldn't even get them from civilians because gun ownership was so small)
(ask for the source and i'll give it to you)

>Maybe nobody sold it to them, as it was illegal and Poland was under a different law system.
here we go again with your "maybes"
now that implies you have no knowledge, so stop ridiculing your own self

read "fry the brain: the art of guerrilla sniping" by john west, it's a long but skip to the section where it explains how the german militias right after WW2 and jewish militias couldn't get their hands on guns because of how draconian nazi gun laws were

gotta go now

Roads.

>now that implies you have no knowledge, so stop ridiculing your own self

M8 Poland was under a different law system which is correct as it was an occupation law, and it is known that jews were not allowed to own guns. But germans could.

>read "fry the brain: the art of guerrilla sniping" by john west, it's a long but skip to the section where it explains how the german militias right after WW2 and jewish militias couldn't get their hands on guns because of how draconian nazi gun laws were


Right after WW2 All German equipment even civilian guns were seized by the allies.

Maybe bring something from during or even better before war declaration.

who create the robots who repair the robots who create the robots ?

reason created the natural law
I mistyped I wanted to say "what did reason created"
english is hard when you are a frog m8

Robots m8.

That is why we are developing AI. So that the robot learns to build better robots that in term build better robots.

The thing is m8, it didn't as the definition I put says.

Reason is merely justification, motive or comprehension.

Since reason in different people can lead to different results natual law is already beaten.

As I gave before the different definitions of rape in some cultures.

who is programming the AI

>it isn't possible to outsource road construction to privat to private entities

>Since reason in different people can lead to different results natual law is already beaten
yeah the enlightment never existed

Opps fucked up

-to privat

>Venus Project
lel, is this robot communism meme still a thing?

>What's the matter, cant think for yourself?
No.

OTHER PEOPLE can't, and thus must be controlled.

It's self.

We are already developing such AI.

>yeah the enlightment never existed

You do know people disagreed a lot in that time period about anything, it got so bad duels were quite common over squables.

You retard do you want a robot civil rights movement? Because that's what you'll get.

It's also possible to have the government build them.

Your point?

Giving robots rights will lead to the direct overthrowing of humanity

If a robot can say no to a request that doesn't involve harming a human then we are all fucked

>You do know people disagreed a lot in that time period about anything, it got so bad duels were quite common over squables.
and ? only people in power (except frederic the great and other opportunistic kings) and some butthurt philosophers like de Maistre disagreed with it.

>all authoritarians agree
>therfor we must have a leader
>damn im not allowed to watch anime anymore?


"ouer will"
thats the worse part about authoritarians, they don't understand that will is individual, a group has diffrent motivations depending on the person doing the work

>and ? only people in power (except frederic the great and other opportunistic kings) and some butthurt philosophers like de Maistre disagreed with it.

I am talking about disagreement in the movement, if you could even call it that as the enlightenment is a modern term.

like ?

> current year
> still not realising a government isn't a form a self-organisation
> still thinking that if you remove state owned violence, violence will magically disappear, and not be replaced by something much worse

but but my lemon dream is so sweet ;_;
> yeah time to wake up

Those retards don't understand private property has private borders. They will have to be removed, so to speak.

I am too tired since I have been doing an all nighter, so I can't name anything by name or of the top of my head.

But on all fronts from scientifical to political to philosophical there were disagreements. I really wish I could name by name but I am trashed.

Taxation = Theft
You can't refute it

By being a citizen located on the territory of the nation you are in you are agreeing to the services the state provides and you are agreeing to pay for them.

You can avoid it by not being a citizen located in that nation.

> Taxation = Theft

How do you prevent theft without taxation ?

Thank you.

what? are you high? how do you prevent a mugger? carry a bigger peice than them homes!

Good luck keeping refugees out with no state, police or government border patrol.

>current year
>not reaffirming imperium

Special snowflake

there is a just role of government.
>protecting its people
>protecting their rights
for example

The state does not own my land. If you're talking about infrastructure already in place paid by the state then I can voluntarily pay them for just those things if I want to use them.

My gun, and subscription to a private sector police force

How's the goverment treating the swedish people muhammed?

>The state does not own my land. If you're talking about infrastructure already in place paid by the state then I can voluntarily pay them for just those things if I want to use them

No the state doesn't own your land but it guarantees your ownership by preventing other actors from taking over by force.

Considering the state needs liquidations to provide that service, and the fact that nobody is forcing you to stay in your nations territory, you can just back out.

> need protection from one mugger
my gun will protect me !

> need protection from two muggers
more guns it is !

> need protection from fifteen muggers
Let's build a secure neighboorhood. More fences !

> need protection from mugger corporation
Shit why didn't that happen back in the times ???

The point of libertarianism is basically decentralized leadership. In a Libertarian utopia, we're ALL Mike "Zaps the traps" Pence. In this analogy the fags would be welcome to get off our fucking land and if they didn't, we'd physically remove them, so to speak

>guarantees your ownership by preventing other actors from taking over by force

That's my job and I'll pay whoever I want to do it. It is immoral to clean someones dirty car without their consent and then demand payment with a gun.

>My gun, and subscription to a private sector police force


Being this fucking ingenuous and forgetting the private sector police force will rob you anytime they can

>the goverment police force are good guys tho, the dindu nuffin wrong!

Physical removal is the true red pill.

Why would they do that? They'd lose subscriptions to another private police force and go out of business.

This is beside the point that police forces probably wouldn't be subscription based, they'd almost certainly be employees of the area that's being protected, basically armed guards.