I am a libertarian: debate me

I am a libertarian: debate me.

Other urls found in this thread:

xenosystems.net/plutocracy/
youtube.com/watch?v=FOAeJXsm5es&t=7051s
youtube.com/watch?v=wZ8fdGOrztI
youtube.com/watch?v=eDj35GyZEHE
soundcloud.com/musonius-rufus/rebel-yell-20161024-142-dr-michael-hill-spooky-conspiracies
xenosystems.net/dark-ancap/
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_theories_of_law
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

...

what do you do when a small group of people becomes more powerful than the government?

...

...

Monarchy is fine; I identify as reactionary.

AnCap is not libertarian. That's like saying Nazis and Soviets were exactly the same

Plutocracy is also fine.

>xenosystems.net/plutocracy/

Monarchy is fine; I identify as reactionary.

What is lolbertarianism then? Is it when you're fiscally conservative and culturally marxist?

In normie parlance: economically and socially libertarian (which implies associative liberties (thus distinguishing it from social Marxism)).

>Nazis and Soviets were exactly the same

They mostly where.

> le language bait and switch

>I can't understand basic legal principals like proportionality

youtube.com/watch?v=FOAeJXsm5es&t=7051s

Adam cuckesh btfo by Monarchist Statist

Explain.

styx here. fuck blumpf and your libertardism and remember to watch my video and to support GAY PRIDE!!
youtube.com/watch?v=wZ8fdGOrztI

(((Adam Cuckfest))) is a left-libertarian crypto-progressive. I am a palaeolibertarian: I despise him and his imbecilic ilk.

...

...

I despise 'The Libertarian Party': I voted for Trump.

>tfw libertarianism is the ultimate moving goalpost because the entire premise is that I don't care what you do on our lawn as long as you stay off my lawn

feels good man

Our rigorous economic and social philosophy is not 'moving a goalpost': you need a new argument.

Dank AF.

Former Rothbardian here...
>Right-libertarianism is the only libertarianism that isn't "dildos n weed bro" covert Marxism
>Right-libertarianism is shrinking within the movement, everything seems to be getting co-opted since Ron Paul retired
>Notice that basically only Europeans have any interest in libertarianism, specifically Anglos.
>Wow, seriously, these ideas literally don't even translate well into languages other than English
>My individualist identity is in fact just a result of my collective identity
>My true, collective identity is being deliberately destroyed
>Avoiding collectivism and abiding by libertarian principles will result in the near-term annihilation of the only populations interested in libertarianism in the first place
>Woops I'm a Nazi now, deport non-whites and gas the Kikes.

Rothbard did the same thing in his later years, even as a Jew. He supported David Duke lol. Collective identity is inescapable, humans are tribal organisms.

There are more nuanced arguments against libertarian economic theory - the failure to value the commons, labor mobility issues with free trade, etc, but I won't bother typing them out unless you're actually interested.

What's the point of the bow-ties you guys are like Bill Nye-tier cringefaggots

To elaborate on Rothbard - he talked on the phone with Michael Hill (head of the League of the South) every week as well, they were good friends. He says Rothbard was redpilled on the Jews (poor guy).

Also there's Hoppe, who is a "libertarian" but advocates executing communists and says excluding homosexuals from communities would be desirable.

Basically right-libertarianism is a brief stopping point on the slippery slope down more open-minded right-wing thought. Ultimately you will come to understand that modern mainstream morality is just as much of a false construction as libertarianism taught you that mainstream "economics" is.

It's a big attempt to square the circle of white ideas without calling them white. It falls apart after a while. Just be white, bro, and don't be sorry - nobody else is sorry for advocating for their own people.

1/2

>>Right-libertarianism is the only libertarianism that isn't "dildos n weed bro" covert Marxism
>>Right-libertarianism is shrinking within the movement, everything seems to be getting co-opted since Ron Paul retired
>>Notice that basically only Europeans have any interest in libertarianism, specifically Anglos.
>>Wow, seriously, these ideas literally don't even translate well into languages other than English
>>My individualist identity is in fact just a result of my collective identity
>>My true, collective identity is being deliberately destroyed
>>Avoiding collectivism and abiding by libertarian principles will result in the near-term annihilation of the only populations interested in libertarianism in the first place
>>Woops I'm a Nazi now, deport non-whites and gas the Kikes.

>Rothbard did the same thing in his later years, even as a Jew. He supported David Duke lol. Collective identity is inescapable, humans are tribal organisms.

This is why right-libertarians become neoreactionaries (like I did): some level of ethnicism is definitely necessary:

>youtube.com/watch?v=eDj35GyZEHE

soundcloud.com/musonius-rufus/rebel-yell-20161024-142-dr-michael-hill-spooky-conspiracies

Link to Michael Hill interview where they talk about Rothbard (may have been in the first part)

...

WTF is this?

>There are more nuanced arguments against libertarian economic theory

Try me.

>the failure to value the commons

Such as?

>labor mobility issues with free trade

I am agnostic on trade since I endorse neocameralism: I envisage a world of competing techno-feudal micro-autocracies each lead by a CEO-monarch who will decide what trade policies are profitable for his or her micro-nation.

I love wearing bow-ties.

The Hoppe pill is infinitely superior to the Rothbard pill.

Anyway, the "what if someone with loads of money just hires everyone and kills everyone else!!!" argument is ridiculous and you know all know it.

>what if the state just... kills everyone? statists btfo

"what if everyone died" isn't an argument, and it never will be.

>Also there's Hoppe, who is a "libertarian" but advocates executing communists and says excluding homosexuals from communities would be desirable.

More accurately: he said communists and democrats would necessarily be suppressed in a libertarian social order since both ideologies entail institutionalized theft. Hoppe was describing covenant communities which decide who is allowed in; his statement was not about homosexuals per say but about how covenant communities --- as a culmination of libertarian politics --- preclude progressive morals of non-discrimination.

>Basically right-libertarianism is a brief stopping point on the slippery slope down more open-minded right-wing thought. Ultimately you will come to understand that modern mainstream morality is just as much of a false construction as libertarianism taught you that mainstream "economics" is.

>It's a big attempt to square the circle of white ideas without calling them white. It falls apart after a while. Just be white, bro, and don't be sorry - nobody else is sorry for advocating for their own people.

Palaeolibertarianism is correct. Period. Nothing in palaeolibertarianism precludes necessary ethno-nationalism (which I agree is needed).

You can be for White identity without discarding libertarian philosophy.

And The Land Pill is best.

>xenosystems.net/dark-ancap/

>>the failure to value the commons
>Such as?
You can't put a price on knowing that your neighbor won't rob you when you're gone. You can't put a price on having an extended family that can care for you in time of need. You can't put a price on being around people who you feel comfortable around and whom you share an identity and culture with. You can't put a price on safe public spaces where people keep an eye on children and watch out for strangers, for free.

All of these things are done for free in a functioning community, but are exorbitantly expensive to replicate in a "diverse" society, if it is even possible to do so at ANY cost. Usually when the commons fails, the state steps in to try to replace it with social programs... Which just contributes to the disintegration.

>I am agnostic on trade since I endorse neocameralism: I envisage a world of competing techno-feudal micro-autocracies each lead by a CEO-monarch who will decide what trade policies are profitable for his or her micro-nation.
Thanks for including this so I know you aren't worth arguing with

>dang we will have to hire some sort of police force to protect us from invaders

potholes

Libertarians are overweight faggot betas in suits with a fetish for non-aggression. They literally worship the ugliest fucking Jewess imaginable (pic related). If you want to make a girl dry up, tell her you're a libertarian. Have fun living a miserable life, faggot.

Yep I agree that Paleoconservatism is about right. While I would like to live in such a society, I'm willing to accept more collectivism and authoritarianism in the short term because it is necessary for our survival.

Fascism actually has a pretty good track record of abdicating power once it is no longer necessary. Look at Pinochet in Chile and Franco in Spain. Right-wing authoritarianism exists as a response to left-wing violence, it fades away once it is no longer necessary. Furthermore, right wing authoritarians are more open-minded on economic and social issues - their goal is preserving law and order. The left, on the other hand, wants the complete overthrow and replacement of everything we currently know about society. It is Jewish anti-Logos.

>You can't put a price on knowing that your neighbor won't rob you when you're gone. You can't put a price on having an extended family that can care for you in time of need. You can't put a price on being around people who you feel comfortable around and whom you share an identity and culture with. You can't put a price on safe public spaces where people keep an eye on children and watch out for strangers, for free.
>All of these things are done for free in a functioning community, but are exorbitantly expensive to replicate in a "diverse" society, if it is even possible to do so at ANY cost. Usually when the commons fails, the state steps in to try to replace it with social programs... Which just contributes to the disintegration.

I am well aware of why ethnic homogeneity is socially desirable and I agree. Putnam's research is indispensable here as is Moldbug's 'hierarchy of political needs'.

The libertarian reactionary solution: freedom of association, neocameralism, and closed borders.

>Thanks for including this so I know you aren't worth arguing with

Not an argument.

Not an argument.

>freedom of association, neocameralism, and closed borders

Yeah, and how do we get there? How do we overcome the global financial order, organized Jewry, and the fact that Marxist ideology won in the cold war?

There's only once answer: jackboots.

>Yep I agree that Paleoconservatism is about right. While I would like to live in such a society, I'm willing to accept more collectivism and authoritarianism in the short term because it is necessary for our survival.

Well, define 'authoritarianism' first. The OP quote is an example of authoritarianism compatible with palaeolibertarianism whereas --- for example --- nationalizing industries and executing gay people is not.

>Fascism actually has a pretty good track record of abdicating power once it is no longer necessary. Look at Pinochet in Chile and Franco in Spain. Right-wing authoritarianism exists as a response to left-wing violence, it fades away once it is no longer necessary. Furthermore, right wing authoritarians are more open-minded on economic and social issues - their goal is preserving law and order. The left, on the other hand, wants the complete overthrow and replacement of everything we currently know about society. It is Jewish anti-Logos.

Fascism does indeed arise because of Bolshevism but it is usually economically socialistic and politically demotic. Fascism is still too Left-Wing: we need monarchy or neo-monarchy.

>Monarchy is fine; I identify as reactionary.

>Said the moron

...

>There's only once answer: jackboots.

I don't mind that; just don't be socially or economically authoritarian: take over, suppress commies, but otherwise leave my liberties alone. Remember, commies self-revoked their rights by advocating violence.

>le hat meme

Not an argument.

Libertarians are incapable of weeding out undesirable elements out of their societies unless the undesirables are breaking law, otherwise libertarians break their own principles. Thus undesirables are allowed to organize and fester.

No argument was intended, just mocking your absurd beliefs.

If you weren't an autist as "libertarians" overwhelmingly tend to be, you would understand this.

>Libertarians are incapable of weeding out undesirable elements out of their societies unless the undesirables are breaking law, otherwise libertarians break their own principles. Thus undesirables are allowed to organize and fester.

What kind of 'undesirables' aren't infringing upon someones' person or property?

See my comment above: commies don't count.

>No argument was intended, just mocking your absurd beliefs.

Then fuck off and let people with above-single-digit IQs discuss politics and philosophy.

Does he realize Rand hated libertarians?

Any kind of goose stepping thugs are capable of eventually taking over your society though. Be it right or left wing, if you think right wing authoritarians will leave your freedoms alone you're as delusional as ancaps thinking their ideology makes sense.

Bump.

Oh please, we both know no serious discussion will occur here, as neither the site's community nor its format allow it.

If you were actually intelligent you would understand this.

The premise is communists don't have rights.

Yes and? I think everybody can agree reds are inhuman, the point is that pinochet & co. will not leave you alone either.

>Oh please, we both know no serious discussion will occur here

It already has.

Well uncle hans did recommend pic related

True.

You have a very low bar for serious discussion. Clearly you have never participated in a formal debate.

Enjoy your pointless thread before it gets archived, I guess.

>the point is that pinochet & co. will not leave you alone either.

But I'm not a communist.

But you're degenerate.

Are you memeing or serious?

This is a problem, I agree. A certain level of authoritarianism is desirable in the short term (ie trump etc) but statists will never freely relinquish power, left or right.

Just make someone like Trump a CEO-monarch of a formalized private government.

They're called authoritarians for a reason m8.
Their way or the firing squad.
You're not keeping your freedoms either way.

because NAP is not a unioversal principle. It's like gay rights. It doesn't have any actual foundation besides feelings and is not universal. magical NAP society will devolve into a feudal society because there is no reason for people not to seek personal power under lolbertarian moral frameworks and any crisis in that society will end all NAP faggotry

For both lolbertarians and ancaps
>How do you stop photons, reflected from someone else break the NAP?
>How do you stop a private government from being formed by megacorporations and taking over?
>What do you do if someone buys all the land around you and leaves you to die inside?
>How do you enforces private property in a police-less society?
>How do you win against a megacorp in a private court if the courts is owned by said megacorp?

>nap
Libertarianism != ancap

It's retarded. When a group of people voluntarily incorporate into a company that's perfectly fine and dandy. When another group of people form a state via social contract or voluntary association or form a sharia system where faggots are hanged through voluntary association then that's somehow unnatural

>because NAP is not a unioversal principle. It's like gay rights. It doesn't have any actual foundation besides feelings and is not universal.

So I can seize your properties and enslave you? If you disagree, then you are affirming The NAP or articulating hypocrisy.

>magical NAP society will devolve into a feudal society because there is no reason for people not to seek personal power under lolbertarian moral frameworks and any crisis in that society will end all NAP faggotry

The pleasure of being a palaeolibertarian neoreactionary is replying: what is wrong with feudalism?

I am not an AnCap.

No you can't because the state has a monopoly on force. You want some kind of Sengoku Jidai type fuckery where multiple corporations have private armies and are competing with each other as if that will solve any problem

So bearing in mind that libertarianism is an extension of classic liberalism, and many 19th and 20th century western govts were classic liberal (including the US in the early years), how did they do? You did of course get private militias, and companies-as-state (eg the east India company), but these were some of the most successful countries.

Meaning all questions, beside the first one, still stand.

take that back or i will kill you all

I am a neocameralist; quasi-neocameral societies like Hong Kong are highly successful.

Stop confusing libertarianism and ancap. The former is minarchist (enough govt for defence of the realm etc) with negative rights. The latter is no government and total capitalism.

...

Threadly reminder

so beautiful

Can't be emphasized enough.

>get private militias, and companies-as-state
Not in the metropolitan they didn't. It was awlays in remote, practically unorganized territories.

>classic liberal
There was never a level of lawlessness comparable to what libertarianism preaches, though. At what point did England and the US have private courts, private police with jurisdictions outside the private property of their employer , a complete lasse faire economy and 100% non-government land? Also, the 21st century is very different from the 19th on so many levels it's not even funny.

> short term fascism leads to long term freedom and prosperity

well jeez oh man just call yourselves fascists.

Btw, it could also lead to the 1000 year reich.

>cherrypicked sensible ("sensible" as in Sup Forums-sensible) quotes
Where is the one about being able to sell your children?

Also, the faggots on the left are the same lolbertarians you'll have to live with in your "utopia", so trying to discredit them is rather counterproductive.

I assume you're talking about rothbards quotes on the ownership of children? Rothbard was completely against positive rights, ie compelled duties, and this did lead to some strange areas. The bit of the quote you never see relates it back to age of majority - when is a child it's own master, free from parents control:

"… the child has his full rights of self-ownership when he demonstrates that he has them in nature – in short, when he leaves or ‘runs away’ from home. Regardless of his age, we must grant to every child the absolute right to run away and to find new foster parents who will voluntarily adopt him, or to try to exist on his own. Parents may try to persuade the runaway child to return, but it is totally impermissible enslavement and an aggression upon his right of self-ownership for them to use force to compel him to return"

...

>we must grant
>absolute right
>totally impermissible
This is all fine and dandy but who will enforce that? The child has zero (0) capital and can't hire a private court or police.

>when he leaves or ‘runs away’ from home
So you can basically lobotomize it in early age and keep it as a slave all its life.
This also makes for a very low-trust disfunctional "society".

lolbergs like Marxists don't recognise the institution of the family and the legal authority of parents.

I'm aware. Just having a theoretical wank.

Start here
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_theories_of_law

>m.