Does hoppean libertarianism allow for ethnonationalism?

Does hoppean libertarianism allow for ethnonationalism?

Other urls found in this thread:

mises.org/library/private-production-defense
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Bump, I need to know.

Considering the demographics that vote for socialist policies, it'd definitely secure the survival of whites for a long time.

Well you have freedom of association. So if you join/form/create a free territory which has ethnonationalist contracts of course.
Listen to Adam Kokesh if you want Libertarianism with immigration, it doesnt make any sense.
Listen to Christopher Cantwell if you want to hear about ethnonationalism in libertarianism.

Awesome, thanks guys.

...

we need IQnationalism, not ethnonationalism.

In such societies, niggers and sandniggers would go back in an instant, because they would have to work.

Leave me alone you commie freak.
If you can't keep your hands to yourself you should just do the gene pool a favor and off yourself.

????

Libertarianism where you build a sidewalk around my house and shoot me for crossing the threshold is nonsensical "libertarianism".
People need to have some modicum of freedom to travel or else things break down into absurdity very very quickly.

It is nonsensical so its a dumbass argument. If you think people will act retarded like that, you are most likely projecting and will be physically removed, so to speak

Cognitive dissonance forged out of a degradation of principles due to the weathering of other people's absurdity in a poor manner.

You're proposing some mystical magical arbitrary border where people aren't allowed to move across or else you'll attempt to murder them.
Whether you put that arbitrary nonexistent line in one place or another isn't relevant to the fact that you're being absurd.

No where have I proposed a mystical magical border where I will kill people who cross it.
Borders are determined by private property. Nothing mystical and magical about that. And no killing, because I wont be insured if I do.

It doesn't violet the NAP to ban somebody from entering your territory so if white which already do in most countries bought all the property then they could have an ethno state

So you promote 'enthnationalism'... but without the 'nation' part, since - presumably - nations are defined largely by spacial borders within which a nation sustains.

If you could define private property in non-arcane terms we might have a conversation, but one of the largest and most obnoxious problems in all of political and moral philosophy of how property actually sustains. There's a demarcation problem, in that not two souls can ever agree on where property begins and not-property ends.

A nation is nothing more than a collection of people who share culture history and language, usually in a specific geographic area.
I dont necessarily promote ethnonationalism in libertarian societies, I just said it was allowed, which was the question. I certainly think its not a bad idea, and I think it will most likely happen automatically.
As for where the property begins and ends, all this can be included in the contracts.

Okay, so a 'nation' in your sense isn't an important or substantive term at all.
Got it.

>all this can be included in the contracts
So Jim and Bob hike across the world to a spot they never knew about before, and make a contract soley between one another about a house they stumble upon that has been occupied by Kyle and Kyle's ancestors for several trillion years.

It's in the contract that they own the house.
Legitimate? Why or why not?

Yes.

Well they didn't include Kyle in the contract did they so what do you think? Why dont you actually read some Hoppe or something.

And the house was the product of someone elses labour so they had no claim whatsover. Stupid question.

Why do they have to?
My house is also the product of someone else's labor.
So is the Parthenon.
And everything else every stitched together by men.

I hope you like helicopter rides.

Yeah and you pay someone to occupy that house.

I think it's really really funny that you can't even articulate the philosophy you pretend to espouse.

the core component of natsoc, or at least one of them (racial realism), is based in scientific truth, and it can be borrowed and used by other ideologies without the other natsoc variables.

If I have to explain to you what theft is, you dont even have to try to defend yourself before you get thrown out.

I don't pay anyone to occupy my house.
Let's say Joey built my house in the woods, and when I was traveling one day I stumbled upon the house just in time to witness Joey die with no descendents and no will, and have subsequently occupied Joey's former dwelling.
What bearing?

If you can't define property you can't define theft.
And you can't define property.

Do ancaps legitimately want the things they spout or do they just like le helicopter memes

Hoppean "libertarianism" is just creating a shit ton of mini states, meaning that all relationships between households will go about as well as foreign policy goes about today.

Next.

Ethnically white states are the only ones that can offer a high trust and hard working society that will function for libertarians. Any one that knows the truth of biological difference and that follows the libertarian belief must also follow in assuming we need an ethnostate to protect the libertarian values.

Yes, if you have money enough you can build your own "ethnic nation"

Well if you don't believe in property rights then there's no reason not to throw you out of a helicopter

So the man who owns the house dies, and now nobody owns it? Yeah go ahead and live in it. I don't see your issue.

I legitimately want to live in an ancap society

Well if you believe in entitlements to anything in this world there's no reason not to see your brain splattered against a cell wall.

I don't see the point of your remark in the first place.

This is an entirely different situation than the kyle case.

Now I suddenly have to explain what property is?
Goddamnit dude I thought the helicopters were just a meme, but man my control stick starts to itch

Its freedom. If you want to preserve that via helicopter rides go ahead.

It has no bearing either way.
You've been asked to define property since You're unintelligent. It's sad.

I do, but there's a bunch of faggots whose only knowledge of ancap is "why do you want me shot?" And they will have to be physically removed, so to speak.

Kek OK then.

Praise Kek!

You don't need to tell me that someone who doesn't believe in property rights would be violent, I was just making the point that if you don't at least recognize property rights you're basically not even a moral agent and it would be as if you were culling a cow to throw them out of a helicopter.

I'm a pacifist.
I just loathe you violent authoritarian pricks.

I don't believe in rights period. My ethics are obligation based, not rights based. Because rights are absurd.

Property.
You own you.
You own your actions.
You own the consequences of your actions.

Except Hoppean libertarians arent violent authoritarian pricks.
If you dont believe in rights I have no more words for you, you are a lost cause.
Your ethics are obligation based? Who obliges you? That wont turn authoritarian at all.

What does it mean to "own the consequences of my actions".
If I hoist a rock across the ground and drop it in another location, do I own the rock? How long do I continue to own the rock after that? Why that long? Do I need to maintain some proximity to the rock for me to own it? Was what I did sufficient to own the rock? If it was sufficient, was it overly sufficient? Need I have held it more briefly to claim ownership of it? Need I have held it longer?

Where are the philosophical concretes?

checked
F A I L

just calling it like I see it

You're not entitled to anything.
Not even the bullet in the brain I think you should place there, let alone that anyone should treat you any certain way.

The Almighty God.

So we are violent authoritarians because we engage in self-defense? It's not violent to either homestead your property or engage in mutually beneficial exchange for property of which all legitimate property claims are based upon.

It doesn't matter if you want to say your ethics are obligation based rather than rights, you could still have the obligation to not aggress against others, but you conveniently disregard their self-ownership and by extension the ownership over the product of their labor or what they have acquired through voluntary exchange. This way you can forcefully deprive them of that property without violating your silly obligations and you can say that you're still a pacifist despite advocating force against other people. You, no doubt, deserve a helicopter ride.

Read this post and you will see physical removal is absolutely necessary.
I have no desire or ability to live in peace and freedom to live with people who think like you.
Why arent you agreeing with me? Do you really want to live in the same society as me where you can step on my rights all you want and cry when you get shot? And you call me unintelligent?
As for the philosophical concretes, read a fucking book. Or were you obliged to burn them?

You don't engage in self defense by shooting a person when that person walks across a sidewalk you built all the way around the area he was born in.

You made that situation up yourself dumbass, no one implies things like that happen.

>And then he implies Communists are humans!

I have no desire to live with you either.
I'm a proponent of people fucking off being violent degenerate scumbags by themselves before they find themselves burning in hell for all eternity.

Nothing prevents that from happening in your arbitrary bs property framework.

I love how you can't even possibly respond to because you're a shallow, inarticulate, unintelligent nigger.

You made up all the violence in your own head retard. Or you are mixing up memes with real ideals. Which makes you even more retarded.
And if you have no desire to live with me, why care at all about my philosophy?
Why would I explain to you what rights are if you dont believe in them. Why would I have to respect them if you dont even think you have them

Jesus Christ you're fucking stupid.
Like actually, really unintelligent.
Are your parents as dumb as you? Presumably, since you inherited their (likely shit) genes. Or maybe you're just a special mutant retard?

...

Whatever relieves the pain of acknowledging you're actually intellectually incapable of articulating your own "philosophy" coherently.
Just a nigger who only knows how to hoot and throw rocks.

How does this even happen? Did someone homestead a cabin in the middle of a forest and then some retard built a sidewalk around it to trap people inside? Killing someone for walking over your property is not a legitimate use of self-defense and would no be recognized as such in an ancap society. The aggressor may have to reimburse the property owner a small amount if they're that petty, but no one is going to be killed for as simple an offense as crossing another's property.

Sure thing buddy, enjoy getting physically removed because you "don't believe in rights"

hey there young man

can i interest you in some anarcho-fascism?

czechoslovakia split up peacefully though, and they still like each other
probably because they knew when to split up though

>How does this even happen
We'll set up the hypothetical; that way it can be very easily illustrated how absurd, inconcrete, and arbitrary your arcane concept of property relations really is.

We'll say Obongo lives in the forest and nobody ever knew he was there. People build a sidewalk entirely around the area he dwells in.

>Killing someone for walking over your property is not a legitimate use of self-defense and would no be recognized as such in an ancap society
No, I don't think most people would be that unreasonable. But we're talking about *PRINCIPLE* here, not normative reasonability. If I own some property, you would say that sustains in some right of exclusivity to use of that property, correct? And does that not include the sheer right to deny people, entirely, access to my property? I want *philosophical concretes* here.

You set up absurd hypotheticals to show how absurd the ideology is? Thats pretty absurd.

Unless you're saying it's impossible for that to happen, there's nothing absurd about it.
It's entirely possible for someone to live in a forest unbeknownst to people, and for others to construct things around that forest.

What's absurd is what's philosophically bunk, like suggesting property sustains without saying *AT ALL* how property actually sustains.

Underrated. Wiggers are bad as niggers and high-iq nonwhites are not the problem

You already made it perfectly clear you dont believe in property rights so explaining it to you is a severe waste of time. If you really wanted to know you would have found out on your own. You already pretty much volunteered to remove thyself physically so shouting at our border is a waste of time on your end.
We have no obligation to defend our philosophy on your retarded playing field.
>Hurr durr I build a sidewalk if you cross it I can shoot you ancaps btfo.

Yeah, it's totally that you actually can't define how property sustains Totally.
I mean, heh, obviously.

Ok, yes they would have the absolute right to exclusion. Obongo can just trade with the owners of the sidewalk, if he is that much of an ass, because it is in both of their interests that he be allowed to enter and exit his property.

>Ok, yes they would have the absolute right to exclusion
Right. So you would maintain they do - in fact - "have the right" to murde-I mean act in self defense of their property by shooting Obongo the moment he starts to cross the sidewalk.

And you think that's a perfectly acceptable philosophical principle.

Yes, but were the owner of the sidewalk to do that they would likely be have to pay to the heirs of obongo or be ostracized from society.

Holy shit dude, how on earth does your world look like? What do you think actual people are like? Have you ever interacted with one? Seriously read some literature if you really want to know how an anarchistic society can function.
If you pick up the rock you own it. If you create something with the rock you the product of your labour. Repeat into prosperity and freedom.

>Yes, but were the owner of the sidewalk to do that they would likely be have to pay to the heirs of obongo or be ostracized from society
What I'm getting from you is fundamentally just rule by the sword.
You believe in rule by the sword.

>If you pick up the rock you own it
For how long?

No,the initiation of force is still illegitimate. If you're going to tell me that is rule by the sword then every philosophy under the sun is just fundamentally rule by the sword.

>set up retarded scenario with no basis in reality
>scenario gets a possible answer
>false conclusion

Right untill you sell it, destroy it, or decide to not own it anymore

>Right untill you sell it, destroy it, or decide to not own it anymore
So potentially forever. So I drop the rock, come back 70 years later, and I see someone holding it. I shoot them for violating my property without permission.
OK?

Again, you're picking insane scenarios and the lowest form of property. A fucking rock. Why is your first reaction shooting people? Are you projecting? I thought you were a pacifist.
Read this:
mises.org/library/private-production-defense

>No,the initiation of force is still illegitimate
Yet entrapment is perfectly fine apparently.
At what point am I violating someone else's property rights by building property entirely around the place they occupy and threatening to "defend" my property should they cross the threshold? A mile away? Two miles? Half a mile? 400 feet? 200 feet? 5 yards?

You're actually illiterate.
Don't try to speak in English when you very obviously can't converse or read it correctly.

>anarchistic society
wait are you for capitalism or anarchism? pick one

Also don't cite mises when you're a brainless mongrel who doesn't understand even a lick of the works present on that site.

Here, let me explain you why your idea of the world is so out of touch with reality.

In a Hoppean-like ancap world (and Hoppean ancap world is the most likely outcome of anarcho capitalism), covenants would have to offer a certain degree of security in order to have market value.

This would most likely mean that these covenants would have private security, which would probably try to, you know, avoid having people being killed gratuitously in the property they're hired to protect.

Then, your example about walking through someone's property is already covered in law, it's called "easings", and these were born under the concept that someone could build around you and therefore technically violate your rights of surviving, thus why in an ancap world, solutions to cross through areas are a legal obligation in any law-abiding covenant.

You need to ask yourself, what would it require for you to chose to live under a contract in a specific city? Then why can't you fathom that the market is going to offer solutions towards that demand?

Nothing I've said is out of touch with reality.
I'm seeking the philosophical principles involved here. I couldn't give a single shit about this or that pragmatic argument, because I'm not talking on the grounds of pragmatism - I'm talking on the grounds of ethical logical principle, which you don't seem to give a shit about. Likely because you're an idiot.

That's not entrapment, and so long as it's virgin land or you acquired all the property through voluntary means it's no violation of another's property rights. However, your fucking asinine scenario is not going to prove a successful strategy in life because you are still subject to the ire of society who will likely not view you as someone who they want to associate with and will not trade with you or allow you on their property.

Dont make up dumbass scenarios and expect us to have answer to everything. If you want us to make arbitrary rules about ownership that would make us actual dictators.
Anarchist. With a preference for capitalism, but if freedom allows for a better system I'm all for it. I dont want to be forced to anything by anyone.
Be nice dickhead. You have multiple posts with nothing but insults. No wonder you dont respect private property. No one wants to share with you so you just want to violate everyones rights.
What is your philosophy if I may ask? What brought to this thread/board?

This thread makes it very clear why physical removal is a must. I hope you'll be able to understand that one day

"People will shoot you on sight because you're going to be crossing on private property that is somehow laid to be a trap because people are fucked up and criminals and other people love to live surrounded by criminals".

Yes, what you said is fucking out of touch with reality.

>That's not entrapment
So if Obongo sleeps on the forest floor and wakes up surrounded on each side of the 5 square foot space he occupies by a sidewalk I built around him while he was resting, and I stand armed with my weapon ready to defend my property should he try to "violate" it, there's no entrapment. Even as he starves in the the little box of earth, it's not entrapment.

Brilliant philosophy you have going there. Very internally reasonable and consistent. Gratz.

I don't expect you to be able to answer anything at all - you've more than demonstrated your lack of critical thinking.

I'm not saying they will. I'm asking you if you believe they "have the right" to.
And the other guy certainly believes you do, because otherwise he would have to say that property rights did not sustain a right to exclusivity.

Learn English.

It all starts with you not believing in rights. Without rights and moral objectivity there can't be peaceful coexistence with the likes of you.

Nope, not entrapment, but as I have state before, should someone commit Obongo to this fate they are likely to have the same fate in the end as Obongo because society will refuse to trade with him and allow him on their property.

Rights are toxic to human relations. I have moral objectivity in the form of commandments from God, which obligate me to act in certain ways.

What you have is an entitlement complex and a poor grasp of a foreign language.

It doesn't matter what other people do when your philosophical principle is "that's perfectly fine".

That's - bluntly - an absurd philosophy.

You know why I don't take a plane and fly to Syria? Because I appreciate my head above my shoulders.

So, do the soldiers of ISIS have the right to kill you for stepping in their property? The answer is who the fuck cares about rights when you're getting beheaded anyway.

Matter of fact is what we advocate for is contracts, and we understand that most people value security and a society free of daily shootings and beheadings, so in a free market, those communities offering those values would be the ones you visit, just like you would rather visit Denmark instead of spending a summer in Somalia.

Obongo would need to understand that going to Syria (in your example, the place where he gets shot just for crossing a path) has consequences, and should therefore avoid that area at all costs.

Its close to midnight, I have had a busy day a I am not putting my full focus in this thread. So pardon my English.
I think you have a poor grasp of what rights are.
And where did those commandments come from? Are they the 10 commandments? Because those and rights are basically equal.
Can we criticize your perfect ideology now?

You're avoiding the point entirely and talking about irrelevant things I couldn't care less about.

You can't articulate a coherent philosophy, so you hand wave about pragmatic concerns that have nothing to do with root principle.
I couldn't possibly give less of a shit.

You can't explain why rights are relevant when rights are a social construct and will therefore depend on people exclusively and not on philosophy.