Statists need to leave

Statists need to leave.

Who else here understands that the ideal government exists solely to ensure that contracts are upheld?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=S31VLG8Qi78
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

yes

>lolbertarian rag tag banditry

>statist cuck

>ideal government exists solely to ensure that contracts are upheld
Not even that. contract enforcement is still a service like any other and as such can be provided for by the free market.

Do you agree with Stefan Molyneuxs retarded ideology?

According to him everyone who likes the state at all 'wants him dead', he talks about it in his Joe Rogan interview holy shit he comes across as a self righteous dick head.

Like, yes I would want you in jail/dead if you committed a crime like being a pedo, yes i would want someone to lock you up. He just hates sharing a small amount of money involuntarily, I say its the contract you pay for living in a functioning society.

Stefan is a anarchist but he answer how his ideal anarchist state would fend off invaders, he's smart but he's got a fucking dildo up his ass when it comes to ideology. Like holy shit he's like a communist of the right. Fuck off.

'Steer a path between two extremes' - Aristotle

But for real the guys is an ass hole, I would never want to spent time with him irl, even if I agree with some of what he says.

More so that any engineered system is usually best by being as minimal as possible, the contemporary argument is that libertarianism works best with a high intelligence, high moral fortitude population. The issue is the lower standard the people, the more likely authoritarianism is needed to achieve any sort of order.

Therefore it's usually best to aid this development by funding education and creating a culture that appreciates a diversity of ideas, or really any pro intellectual culture. This can be used to make intelligence even selective.

The ideal goal is a human so well refined that laws aren't really necessary or at least ceremonial.

This is left wing libertarianism. Unfortunately it necessitates the funding of public services conducive to the goal of a naturally better people, this means health, schooling and of course a means to enforce contracts.

anything the government touches somehow crumbles and becomes incompetent
think about that shit

Don't have the meme photo on my phone but I was placed top right, where you would place Monarchy/Tradisionalism

Praise the king

>Monarchy/Traditionalism
please larp harder

There is no larping, africa country

then you're genuinely retarded

Why?
Having a king that knows how to rule his country is good.
It's better to have one person with assistans running a country instead of changing the leadership every 4th year.
The '' feminist'' government isn't good and when they are replaced the new parties running the country will need to change everything up then it will go on like that.
One ruler is better than multiple parties switching

>have a single ruler
>ruler is insane/degenerate/ect
>RIP country

Take a look at Germany, Russia, and France and see how well monarchy works out you cuck.

No, no libertarians are literally silenced by major parties due to what it implies. It's self destructive popular politics, as opposed to real politics which is about functionality, as it gives you fewer opportunities to bribe the electorate with policies. Libertarians will never receive funding, they will never be given platforms, they will never be accepted in a two party preferential system. There is a real conspiracy against libertarians. Milo was a libertarian. They shut him down and even created fake news to paint him as the instigator of a riot.

Stefan Molyneux is right in the cross fire too. Actually, they've found me as well, and I'm just a meek chantard.. hehe

Actually quite libertarian, just in the wrong way, the closer a feudal system clusters power into one person, the less real authority it can exert.

The issue is, if a monarch had real power, 6 would use it in a right wing fashion and become a tyrant, 3 would use it in a left wing fashion and corrupt their own state, 1 would actually be decent and monarchists will never shut the fuck up about it for as long as their ridiculous idolatrous patriotism persists.

True libertarianism must be a choice, it has to be mutual and voluntary. For instance, a libertarian society cannot exist without wide spread casual charity.

> libertarianism works best with a high intelligence, high moral fortitude population
>The issue is the lower standard the people, the more likely authoritarianism is needed to achieve any sort of order.

demonstrably false, see every authoritarian government ever, also every government ever.

Your position is predicated, as with that of every other statist, that the institution of government is somehow incorruptible and immune from the influence of the greed and stupidity of "lesser" people.

I'm sure you imagine a libertarian/anarchist world to be full Mad Max, with rampaging warlords fighting for territory.

And sure, that is a potential problem but nobody who's anti-state has ever said otherwise.

The difference is in a stateless society, the warlords don't have the magic of "government" to hide their privations and the "social contract" to silence anyone who looks behind the curtain.

hit and miss

if your monarch is retarded then your country is dead (and there's no one to stop him)

plus civil wars and feud to monarch would increase 999999%

moreover if your monarch's heir is totally stupid, what would you do?

Take a look at old school Sweden
Gustav II Adolf and those. They made Sweden great.
But I agree if the ruler is corrupt and has high levels of autism it won't work.
Therefor you need to be careful when electing.

>6 would use it in a right wing fashion and become a tyrant, 3 would use it in a left wing fashion and corrupt their own state, 1 would actually be decent and monarchists will never shut the fuck up about it for as long as their ridiculous idolatrous patriotism persists.

That is why you don't elect the corrupt ones.
If they end up being corrupt and ruin your country you overthrow and make a new election.

Having little to no state, government is pretty fucking stupid. Ancap isn't good

Fucking statist gtfo

private arbitration is the way to go

Government is criminal in nature

SeeYou remove the king and elect a new one.

OP is a statist

Aspies need to get laid and leave this site .

>implying you can remove a batshit insane/corrupt king without having a civil war
neh

>demonstrably false, see every authoritarian government ever, also every government ever.
Sorry friendo, criminality correlates with intelligence despite our mainstream media memeing that sociopaths are invariably intelligent.

>Your position is predicated, as with that of every other statist, that the institution of government is somehow incorruptible and immune from the influence of the greed and stupidity of "lesser" people.
Absolutely not, I want a smaller government precisely because it's harder to corrupt. Fewer people to watch and fewer powers to abuse. Libertarianism is exactly the idea that power corrupts.

And yes, stupid people are more likely to think they either can get away with it or think they actually need it.

>I'm sure you imagine a libertarian/anarchist world to be full Mad Max, with rampaging warlords fighting for territory.
Yeah I'm Australian, hahaha.

>The difference is in a stateless society, the warlords don't have the magic of "government" to hide their privations and the "social contract" to silence anyone who looks behind the curtain.
And of course a completely stateless society is completely unfeasible, why end on the anarchist strawman? You were doing so well too...

The fact is an intelligent person understands the categorical imperative (or any derivative like the social contract), sometimes they don't like it, but there are other arguments for secular morality that are almost indefinitely the most boring arguments ever even if they come from the most brilliant philosophers.

Fuck.

If you're dumb, please just be religious, you're easier to deal with. Smart people have to be atheist, it's no fun any other way.

youtube.com/watch?v=S31VLG8Qi78

EVERY SANE PERSON LEANS TOWARDS LIBERTARIAN ECONOMICS.

It is the system that will provide the most prosperity to most amount of people at the same time. Which makes it the best by default.

FREEDOM.

Mercenaries are a bad idea.

>ideal government
>exists

This thread is a violation of the NAP. ICBM has been launched.

A batshit insane/corrupt king would't have much support.
Don't think many people would fight for him

Except that's not true.

Checkmate statists! Now GTFO

hurr durr what is 'to be a citizen'

>Libertarians will never receive funding, they will never be given platforms
>Being this fucking stupid.
Shouldn't Libertarians fund themselves?

anyone thinks this horse-shit is a meaningful indicator SHOULD BE EXECUTED.

>phoneposter

Vomiting rn

Ha! Sorry Robbie, your disguise isn't working.

Hello? We're right here...

Smartphones are the natural end state of the free market.

Your magical social contract doesn't exist

The Swede was talking about an ACTUAL monarch with ACTUAL power.

Your monarchs are impotent figureheads that exist to evoke nostalgia and attract tourism dollars.

It's not feasible to expect anyone besides someone good at getting money to be able to fund a real campaign and business men aren't always good politicians. In Trumps case, he's literally some guy given supposedly the top position (lol executive power) who will probably implement some simple, functional shit that's just too politically incorrect.

Like identifying Islam as a core component in Islamic terrorism. Personally I believe the others are foreign conservativism and identity politics.

>Sorry friendo, criminality correlates with intelligence despite our mainstream media memeing that sociopaths are invariably intelligent.
got nothing to do with the point but whatever

>Absolutely not, I want a smaller government precisely because it's harder to corrupt. Fewer people to watch and fewer powers to abuse. Libertarianism is exactly the idea that power corrupts.
Good man, you'll hit anarchism in a few years yet.

>And of course a completely stateless society is completely unfeasible
This is just the last bit you've got to wrap your brain around.

You're basing this position on another incorrect assumption: that anarchists are against the structure of government rather than just the supposed necessity of coercion to maintaining civil society.

It's entirely possible and more likely than not that most people will organize themselves into social units that function almost exactly as they do today. The only important differences would be that membership must necessarily be voluntary, and that something the size of the US federal government would be nearly impossible.

history proves that as long as soldiers get their wages they'll fight for a king

compare public education to private education
do the same for healthcare

Good point. But now we have the internet and surviving isn't as hard as back then.
People will know what is right for their country

in theory; where the metal meets the meat, shit gets a little more complicated

>got nothing to do with the point but whatever
But it's my point...

>Good man, you'll hit anarchism in a few years
About when you can give me a good argument as to why I shouldn't hold you down and pleasure myself with your butthole in such a society, without laws doesn't might make right? If there's no state, not even a moral system passed culturally, you can justify horrific shit.

This is what you're arguing against as an anarchist.

>the supposed necessity of coercion to maintaining civil society.
Stuff that's historically run best by a central authority, isn't that cool? I'm sorry, I won't listen to arguments about privatising the police, I've heard the only good one.

>The only important differences would be that membership must necessarily be voluntary,
There we run into the problem of human and how only intelligence has been capable of solving it.

You want anarchy? Give me your daughters' wombs.

You're the statist here. Get on my fucking level.

>compare public education to private education
>do the same for healthcare
Having public education doesn't stop a private option from existing. Also if private education is superior, then why is it on the decline? If you get rid of public education, private education will get worse and less people will be able to afford to go to school.

Edgy.

>People will know what is right for their country
no.

in the US, 65 million people voted for hillary, a corrupt lying warmonger
and the rest voted for an incompetent retard

if that was a monarchy, we would've been stuck with one of these two for at least 40 years, see how catastrophic that sounds?

people are barely handling themselves under a democracy, let alone a monarchy where people rule for a lifetime

if people "know what is right for their country", why isn't sweden voting out the politicians who let the criminal migrants in?

Same with health care. We need a public option.

>then why is it on the decline
it's not. in fact more and more people are going to private schools and private clinics because they realized the retardation of common core and incompetence of public healthcare
just visit your local hospital and then visit a clinic, you'll see the difference
>private education will get worse and less people will be able to afford to go to school.
no it will get cheaper because of competition

Hm true. Can't argue against that..

We are voting out the Red-greens.
They have a very low approval rating and will not win the next election if they keep this shit up

Fuck. brb killing myself

>it's not.
It is, at least here in the united states.

>In fact more and more people are going to private schools and private clinics because they realized the retardation of common core and incompetence of public healthcare
just visit your local hospital and then visit a clinic, you'll see the difference.
Which is a good thing because now they can cut back on funding for the public option. When this happens the public option has to become competitive to not lose it's funding which makes the public option better. This happened here in the United States with a post office whenever Fedex became a thing.

>no it will get cheaper because of competition
Only if there is a public option to compete with. If you completely privatize school there are a lot of poorer people who will not be able to attend. Prices on average may drop a little for private schools the quality will degrade because they will have to make cheaper and cheaper schools so that working class families and families in poverty can afford to attend. This private institutions will end up being worse for more people then public schools are now because they will have to become cheaper and cheaper so more people can afford them. If you want to cut funding for public schools then you should create or invest into a private school that will compete against it. People who can afford the private option will take it making the public option cheaper to fund.

We need public options and we need to subsides private options for health care and education so that they can compete with one another.

I apologize for the grammar being fucked up in that post because I keep editing it. What I am pretty much saying is that we need to have a public option and subsidize private options who are willing to compete with it. Let the free market make the public option better.

less talking... more lisa ann pictures.

kthanxbye

Only as replies. Debate if you want to masturbate.

>But it's my point...
Well that point is irrelevant to the conversation. Whether or not an authoritarian state is necessary to keep criminality in check has nothing to do with what factors impact its frequency.

>not even a moral system
Now you're putting words in the mouth of anarchists, AND falsely conflating morality with the existence of a state.

Weren't you just saying dumb people should be religious? Because claiming that morality only exists because of the threat of intervention by a higher being is right out of the standard religion playbook.

Anarchists have a moral code based on the NAP, and at it's core it's simple enough for a retard to grasp: don't fuck with someone else's shit, or they'll shoot you.

>Stuff that's historically run best by a central authority, isn't that cool?
You mean stuff that's only ever been run by government monopoly, so how can you claim it's the "best" way when we have no evidence to the contrary, but every time government begins to exert monopoly power in a previously free market, price and quality of output goes to shit?

>You want anarchy? Give me your daughters' wombs.
You can try, but I hope you like being gut-shot and fed to my hogs. Even if you kill me and kidnap my daughters you can still expect the local DRO to come knocking.

...

>Debate if you want to masturbate.

Everything you said is wrong.

Post a 39 part reply, refuting my position....

GO! (plz to include images)

Stop posting pictures for ants

>Anarchists have a moral code based on the NAP, and at it's core it's simple enough for a retard to grasp: don't fuck with someone else's shit, or they'll shoot you.
So what do you do when another country invades you so that they can colonize you?

>Stop posting pictures for ants

Hear, Hear!

The quality of "Discussion" should be kept at maximum resolution and image size.

Basically this.
And the contracts do include the constitution and common goals (as in preserving habitat and species)

>He's click on the pictures.
Good goy.

Honestly, I'm saying it's difficult to get people to behave without intelligence or force or fear, which is always from force.

Religion is difficult way to get people to behave. How it works is beyond me.

>Anarchists have a moral code based on the NAP
Which you need intelligence to understand.

>every time government begins to exert monopoly power in a previously free market, price and quality of output goes to shit?
Kind of like that private fire brigade or that time the local city councils offered to pool money for a railway line, how are those "rights enforcement agencies" coming along? I hope they're still not selling drugs..

I'm here on earth, buddy.

>You can try, but I hope you like being gut-shot and fed to my hogs.
Fear and force.

I've made my point, anyone who gets it and is capable of making a real counterpoint is part of the reason it works.

I was like you. But then I've understood that communists and other degenerates should be physically removed from the libertarian social order, preferrably by the helicopter rides.

>preferrably by the helicopter rides.

As long as said rides are carried out by private organizations, and only because the commies violated the NAP.

...

>Implying I won't shot down your helicopter with my state owned soviet tank.

*click*
*save*

Great discussion, user....

Excellent points about.... whatever you were arguing.

Please, tell me more.

in order of scale to "country" size:

shoot them>call the DRO to shoot them>request help from larger communities/DROs

And before you start whining about how I plan to pay for all that- remember this isn't that twisted perception of reality where morality only exists when there's a god or government to smite sinners. Charity too will still exist without the state, and in this case the definition of "charity" can include shooting a bunch of bandits. Knowing most ancaps, they'd probably form roving bandit-hunting bands on the weekends for fun.

>Fear and force.
You're basically right. Except again, that government isn't a necessary vector for either of these things.

But you're apparently just talking out your ass at this point, because I literally point out that the core of the NAP is exactly that- fear of force and your only "counterpoint" is claiming, in the middle of saying stupid people only understand fear of force, that they're incapable of understanding it. Hey, maybe they won't! It'll be tragic for them and their loved ones when someone shoots them in self defense, but at the end of the day the world will move on.

Misfired on the quote meant for the second half of

user, I'm still waiting to hear your latest argument.

pls no let me down.

How's that """non""" aggression principle working out for you?

nice job falsely conflating concepts again.

This time you seem to be confusing "aggression" with "use of force," aggression referring to the initiation of force, thus not including force used in defense either of oneself or others.

don't hold out on me, man!

I have no more words, you literally said power and fear are at the core of the non AGGRESSION principle. Please, please argue that using power to cause fear isn't aggression.

Show everyone how dumb someone pretending to be an anarchist is.

>Only if there is a public option to compete with
no, clinics and schools will compete with each other

and the price will drop alot because they want as much clients as possible

You must be a special kind of stupid if you can't figure out how there might be a vast moral divide between a thief being afraid an armed victim will retaliate and an unarmed victim being afraid a thief will harm them.

BRAAAAAAAPPPPPPP

Don't sully this.

>tfw authoritarian but only when I like the government

>>tfw authoritarian but only when I like the government

Stephen Colbert?

Colbert was secretly an Aussie all this time? It finally makes sense!

>Statists need to leave

What all Pro-Hitler people here

*about

Did Hitler believe in abolishing the state?

>Colbert was secretly an Aussie all this time? It finally makes sense!

Nah, his shitposts are weak.

I define myself as an esoteric techno-fascist

...

>filename
Literally the entire red quadrant is cucktown too bro. You want someone bigger, stronger, and better than you to take your life and do with it as he will. Your only consolation is that by being left of center you're not an economic cuckold either.

You are weak!

...