What is an argument against this?

What is an argument against this?
Honest question from a NatSoc to Libertarians.

Other urls found in this thread:

pastebin.com/wV97RYQT
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Völkisch_equality
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Götz_Aly
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winterhilfswerk
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_food_sharing
youtube.com/watch?v=FaCHBmGWcBc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

It's pure bluepill. The closest type of governance to natural law is paleoconservatism. Free association means that you can choose to not do business with or hire degenerates. No welfare means degenerates need to choose to adapt or die. This creates a social pressure to not be a degenerate. The same goes for niggers, if there is no welfare the ones that can't survive die out, while the ones that can remain. It also means niggers can't get welfare for all their babies. In fact, national socialism is more degenerate because most national socialist systems have their own forms of welfare.

National Socialism is a disgrace to everything this country was founded on. The founders wanted American to be self-reliant white nationalists, but not a one-party dictatorship where every individual is dependent on the state.

Libertarianism can't work without it being guaranteed by a people, a nation.
Ethnic nationalism is the only truth, and to a lesser degree white nationalism can also sort of work but even that is suspect at best.
Either way Ethnic nationalism supercharges evolution and that is good.

Isn't the fact that the U.S turned into what it is now from a non-degenerate society proof that Libertarianism is doomed to fail? NatSoc is capitalist, but with a few minor changes that ensured that things wouldn't stray too far from what the founders wanted.
pastebin.com/wV97RYQT

...

Ethnic nationalism and National Socialism are two separate things. Free association means the right to not do business with non-whites.
>government doesn't approve any business activity unless it passes an arbitrary test created by the people in power
>the founders would be fine with this

>Isn't the fact that the U.S turned into what it is now from a non-degenerate society proof that Libertarianism is doomed to fail?
All of that can be pegged to the welfare state. Welfare always dooms any country that implements it. So tell me, does national socialism provide welfare? If it does, then it is not based on natural law. It may claim to be, but it isn't.

National Socialism is simply a canard, a entire ideology built on lies. It claims to be capitalistic, but demands the right to regulate and control all business activity. It claims to support natural law, yet provides welfare to it's citizens.

>All of that can be pegged to the welfare state.
I don't buy that. If that were true, then the U.S would not have gotten this bad. Libertarians tend to forget that welfare hasn't always existed in the U.S - it was a gradual slide leading to that, all because a Libertarian system was too weak to stop growing Leftistism.
>National Socialism is simply a canard, a entire ideology built on lies. It claims to be capitalistic, but demands the right to regulate and control all business activity.
>demands the right to regulate and control all business activity.
What are you talking about? The only thing the government tells business not to do is harm the nation in NatSoc.
>It claims to support natural law, yet provides welfare to it's citizens.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Völkisch_equality
>Völkisch equality is a concept within Nazism and it was also a legal practice within Nazi Germany and its controlled territories during World War II, which ascribed racial equality of opportunity, equality before the law, and full legal rights to people of German blood or related blood, but deliberately excluded people outside this definition, who were regarded as inferior.
>Thus the Nazis claimed that only the primordial brutality and willpower of the lower orders could save Germany, and thus justified equality of opportunity as a means to create new capable leaders for German society, and to build a new, "natural" hierarchy based on merit.[3]

In all practical implementations of national socialism, the country got itself into wars it couldn't win. This is due to the irrational nature of national socialism.

> too weak to stop growing Leftistism.
National Socialism is leftism. WELFARE IS LEFTISM.

>The Nazis advocated a welfare state for German citizens (able Germans of Aryan racial descent) as a means to provide social justice and eliminate social barriers between the German people.[2] The Nazis provided equal access to education for talented children of workers and peasants.[3] Hitler claimed that equality of opportunity for all racially sound German males was the meaning of the "socialism" of National Socialism.[3]

>The Nazis advocated a welfare state
>The Nazis advocated a welfare state
>The Nazis advocated a welfare state


>The Nazis sought to dismantle what they deemed to be an unnatural hierarchy of the middle class and nobility who had allegedly jealously kept their wealth and titles while failing to justify their hierarchical position through their actions in World War I
This is considered right wing? Redistribution of wealth is right wing? A welfare state is right wing? This is why National Socialism always gets it's people into wars they can't win, because the very basis of the ideology is illogical. You keep whining that libertarianism couldn't stop leftism despite the fact that National Socialism is leftism and has an even worse track record in actually securing the existence of the people it claims to support.

>In all practical implementations of national socialism, the country got itself into wars it couldn't win. This is due to the irrational nature of national socialism.
>got itself into wars it couldn't win
Boycotts by the international community against Germany and mistreatment of ethnic Germans don't qualify as "getting itself into wars". It would be a different story if Germany instigated conflict, but they did not. Hitler did not declare war on France and Britian. Hitler repeatedly offer peace, but England refused. NatSoc literally took the world to stop it.
>National Socialism is leftism
Then it wouldn't have had right wing policies and privatization as outlined in the pastebin.
>The Nazis advocated a welfare state
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Götz_Aly
>During the 12 years of Hitler’s Third Reich, the National Socialists expanded and extended the welfare state to the point where over 17 million German citizens were receiving assistance under the auspices of the National Socialist People's Welfare (NSV) by 1939, an agency that had projected a powerful image of caring and support.

Here's an example of what Hitler wanted to help with his welfare state.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winterhilfswerk
Welfare isn't an inherently bad thing - it's how a government uses it.
Similar to how other animals share the spoils of a kill to their young and weak to ensure they will grow strong, so too can we do the same. Things can happen, and some people may need it. The only people that would be excluded is those who won't work when they are provided an opportunity.
People are able to keep the fruits of their labor, but give just a little to ensure help those truly in need.

Wrong link for the first one
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state

You brush off that America has been in decline before the welfare state with the assertion that it was gradual. The single mother hood rates did not increase until the welfare state, nor marriage rates nor divorce rates nor the unemployment of those not looking for work, nor did the amount of charity Americans gave decrease until the welfare state or the relations between neighbors or the community interaction. All of these things occurred after the welfare state was instituted and that is just a matter of civil society. The US has had declining crime rates for decades as well as a larger economy and higher standard of living. The American experiment was injured under FOR, I'll give you that, but it was no gradual change until the welfare state. Therein lies the death of civil society.

And the increase in leftism during the progressive era was fought back and the socialists were defeated. For a time yes, but it shows that vigilance not the iron fist is needed.

Idiot. There is no prolem with freedom, but with """"freedom"""""" pushed by western govs.

So one day Americans woke up and decided "I want a welfare state?"
They, one day, rose from their beds and declared "I want women to vote!" or "affirmative action is good!" or more recently, "being Gay is not a problem!" That's foolish. You're dealing with the symptoms, not the causes, and without dealing with the causes, the problems will keep coming back. Leftism is what pushed these ideas, and will kill your perfect Libertarian society and you say "they aren't a problem, it's their welfare state"? That's insane. What about the things that lead to that? There will always be people wanting to do Leftist things to society because people will ultimately have different experiences. Why not defend from it?

This shit isn't complicated.
People want a smaller government, but they also want to protect their nation, their people, their heritage, their race.

People are going to push for less government, but when that threatens your people you need to make a compromise.
That one faggot libertarian on Jewtube who is planning on running for president, he promised that the first thing he would do as president would be getting rid of borders. Not welfare, not anti-free speech laws, no, he wants to get rid of borders first.
That is the kind of shit we can't accept.

The American people didn't want it. Intellectuals from on high foisted it upon them

Jewish (((intellectuals)))

Poland was allied with Britain and France, regardless of how justified Hitler thought he was invading Poland, the alliance between those nations was clear and obvious.

>During the 12 years of Hitler’s Third Reich, the National Socialists expanded and extended the welfare state to the point where over 17 million German citizens were receiving assistance under the auspices of the National Socialist People's Welfare (NSV) by 1939, an agency that had projected a powerful image of caring and support.

Read this guy's post You can rationalize a welfare state all you want, but your original post claims National Socialism supports natural law. Welfare is incompatible with natural law.

This is the great farce of national socialism, you on one side talk about a "right wing welfare state" and on the other decry libertarianism as not fighting leftism. Socialism for white people only is still socialism. You can deny being a leftist all you want, but the crux of it is you want redistribution of wealth and a welfare state.

National Socialism never had the time to degenerate because it always failed so quickly, yet you use that as a selling point for the ideology.

They voted it in because Leftism and degeneracy was able to spread from these "intellectuals". That's the whole point. Libertarians have no defense for their own perfect society. They just assume Leftists and communists will disappear. You have no self preservation, only the naive idea that suddenly people won't bother you.
The majority of women have Leftist ideas so what do the Leftists do? Get them the vote. It's all downhill from there.
>Poland was allied with Britain and France, regardless of how justified Hitler thought he was invading Poland, the alliance between those nations was clear and obvious.
This supplements my idea that Libertarians have no self defense mechanism. The fact that you wouldn't be willing to defend people that have the same ideals and heritage as yourself is sickening. What will you do when Commies start gaining power? Wait until they personally harm you or nip it in the bud?
>You can rationalize a welfare state all you want, but your original post claims National Socialism supports natural law. Welfare is incompatible with natural law.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_food_sharing
>This is the great farce of national socialism, you on one side talk about a "right wing welfare state" and on the other decry libertarianism as not fighting leftism. Socialism for white people only is still socialism. You can deny being a leftist all you want, but the crux of it is you want redistribution of wealth and a welfare state.
>but the crux of it is you want redistribution of wealth and a welfare state
Since when do I want redistribution of wealth? That's the definition of a strawman, my friend. I want a welfare state, but only in the sense that people only get this welfare if they genuinely need it.

>National Socialism never had the time to degenerate because it always failed so quickly, yet you use that as a selling point for the ideology.
It's used as a selling point because those that degenerate society (aka Jews and Leftists) are kicked out of the country or discouraged respectively.

I don't wanna be a part of any feminist fascist nation thank you very much.

>fascism
>feminist
Pick one.
Feminism is progressive, Fascism/NatSoc is not.

The quote you provide seems to imply that the nobility and wealthy did nothing to earn their wealth and were a burden on the nation. And that the solution was simply to allow natural market forces to allow redistribute based on merit.

Basically, stop unnaturally propping up the nobility and protecting them from failure. Not simply punicshing everyone who did better than average

There is a big difference.
National Socialists believe in lifting up the individual and making him into the absolute best he can be. This can involve welfare, in the very least in a society of millions some people will just be unlucky.

But they do not believe in equality of outcomes.

Socialism will throw money at everyone doing worse than average because they believe that the outcome must be equal. NatSoc simply believes in helping your fellow man.

Under Socialism, the money goes to those too lazy or unskilled to get jobs. The disabled and stupid. Under NatSoc the money goes to those who have not had an equal opportunity to showoff their ability. The money goes to the people who the government believes can best improve themselves and the nation with it. And then if they fail they can be gases with a clear conscious. If you are forever destitute and unemployed, if you are disabled and unproductive, you are given death not gibmedats. Most likely the welfare of NatSoc would far more equally distributed, and in fact the upper performers would probably get more than some other groups. If a peasant's child can prove he has above average mental ability, NatSoc can give him the opportunity to rocket to the top of society instead of just doing slightly better at farming or coal mining. But just because you are poor, does not mean to get a free meal ticket.

As a Libertarian I see where you are coming from but I disagree.
In a free society the leftists marxists can still spew their bullshit for all they care but we can tell them to fuck off and deconstruct their bullshit with arguments. They won't ruin our schools and our youth. They will remain to exists but they'll be even more fringe then they are now. Most people aren't SJW's but the SJW's have the power. If people were cut off from this political bullshit we'll start to see that most of society isn't like those idiots. Most people are afraid to voice their distaste with current PC-culture because it might cost them their job.
Also if we remove welfare and ridiculous alimony payments society would recover.
You can be a nigger and have nothing to eat and decide to steal some shit and get shot or you can be a nigger and decide to work and make something of yourself. We need to achieve true equality under law and not this bullshit that people are pushing nowadays. You can divorce your husband but now you need to fend for yourself. Why not make it work and not be a slut?

I tend to think authoritarian too at times.
But I try to not be a hypocrite.
If we move further with this leftist globalist nonsense we are either ending up with a revolution and a true libertarian society or with an insane populist taking power cause we just want to push back as hard as we possibly can.

What's your opinion on my point here
and here
about self preservation for Libertarians? Would there be other ways of preventing the current society or worse from repeating besides praying on the goodwill of others? It just doesn't seem reliable to do that, considering that this country started off "deconstructing their bullshit with arguments" and then, over time, that became less common and Leftism was able to spread. Hell, we have a situation now where these people ignore when we destroy them in arguments, I don't see how assuming people will stop pushing Leftism when we beat them in debate is practical.

I forgot to say that while Libertarians are individualistic, in my view ironically the society they want will only be sustainable if everyone thinks the same way.

It is a neverending circle.
People get free.
New generation sees freedom as something that is normal.
Freedom gets diminished through well intended but wrong legislation.
Society becomes more and more oppressive.
People break away from this either by going back to a free society or by fascism.
People don't want to live under a fascist system so they eventually break free from this as well.

If we manage to stop the nanny state in the western world most of it's problems will be solved within 2 generations.

I think everybody should be free to live an individual live but as a society we should strive for unity.

Interesting take on society. I'm not one to believe in cycles but there's definitely truth in that.
I think most people would agree with that, even Fascists.

The difference is that I think unity should come from society itself while fascists want it to come from government.

The only correct political ideology is conservatism with a splash of libertarian. All socialism is decadent at best and evil at worst.

Fascists don't only want unity from government. We want it from society itself as well, we just think government should play a supporting role and nurture the good things in society - family, country, hard work, responsibility, culture, and race while defending these values from that which would harm them.
I guess in the end the difference in thinking between the two is whether people can be trusted to preserve society or not.

>didn't read the thread
(you)

Just keep in mind that all this degeneracy is not a natural result of freedom. Freedom comes with responsibility. The degeneracy you are so worried about is rampant because it is subsidized by wealth transfer from the responsible to the irresponsible (aka degenerate). This is only possible with a state pursuing leftist redistributionist economics. Which Libertarians/Ancaps fiercely oppose.

Would be my response, hope it makes sense.

>natural law
>must be upheld and enforced by man-made codes

You people must be retarded. If the laws were so natural and innate why the fuck do humans not instinctually act on them? Why do they always revert to degeneracy with no outside control? This is why you will never win. Humans are naturally degenerate, as are all animals. All repression and laws to is drive the degeneracy underground and somehow make it worse, look at muslim society for fucks sake.
But by all means continue living in your fantasy world.

Are men inherently born in slavery with no rights?

I would argue that degeneracy will happen if too much freedom is given, as posted earlier in the thread.
>why do they always revert to degeneracy with no outside control
They don't. It's (((outside influences))) that induce degeneracy. (((Who))) promotes these things? (((Who))) brought these ideas to us?
youtube.com/watch?v=FaCHBmGWcBc

It seems like we have a rather similar take on this but you don't trust the people and I don't trust the government.
Interesting.

That pic sums up my feelings

I think it's our interpretation of government. I see a government as comprising of laws, not so much as people, and incorruptible if certain measures are taken to prevent corruption - education, tradition, morality, etc. Would I be right to say that you see government as not just laws, but the people making it up, making it corruptible and prone to self interest rather than the common good?

Depends on your definition of freedom.

I don't consider a state using force to prevent business from discriminating against blue haired other kin freaks "freedom"

The libertarian definition of freedom is not free in the libtard sense where you should just be able to fuck your entire life up and not suffer any consequences cause the state will prevent people from not associating with you and provide you with a cushy safety net.

And the advantage of not having a state push morality onto people is that it can not be corrupted by (((those))) with an uncanny ability to usurp institutional power. The state was allegedly founded to protect it's citizens but now it has been mutated into an organisation subsidizing and even pushing degeneracy as well as trying to genocide its own population through migration policies.

So even if you have a state "guarding" peoples behavior and morality how do you prevent it from being taken over and turned against its own people, considering such an institution only attracts the kind of sick power hungry fanatics that want to impose their will upon other people?

> freedom is not worth keeping cuz the joos
This is inherently degenerate. Giving up everything your ancestors work for and bend over is the essence of degeneracy.
> what is an argument against my bullshit rambling and paranoia
I don't know user, maybe consider killing yourself.

That implies that (((they))) would be allowed in government. Testing for ancestry is a thing nowadays.
Also, freedom for me is that it's anything that isn't harmful to others.
For example, being Gay wouldn't be considered within freedom for me because they are promiscuous and thus spread diseases. Drugs would also not be freedom because they increase crime and harm to others because of this. Anything that doesn't harm others or society is A-OK in my book.

>MLK

fug

kek, didn't even notice that.

You need the Blue to protect the Purple

I think Purple can defend itself.

The response is laughably simple:

>Open boarders will import all of the denizens of the 3rd world
>The 3rd world is the way it is because of the cultural values of it's people
>import the 3rd world to the West and western values are replaced by 3rd world values by a population that is out breeding the libertardians 5:1
>"Libertarianism" dies because no one remembers it. Instead, everyone is practicing South American style Communism/dictatorship/cronyism or Sharia Law.

Checkmate. Libertardians BTFO. Come at me bro. Debate me.

But that picture, that's what Soviet Communists used to say, socialism and totalitarian control now, so that we can build the bright future and Communist utopia later. And then you end up with gulags and societal stagnation of the 70s and 80s.
No Sup Forums, that way lies tyranny.

Libertarianism is as Jewish as Bolshevism. Anarchy is for niggers, you need centralized bureaucracy to remove the niggers. You can't just resort to centralized power to "physically remove" the niggers, then resort to anarchy. The cycle repeats itself.
They are also natural civic nationalists; in their ideal societies, Shlomo running circles around their people is fine because it's the free market. Outsourcing your people's labour to the third-world even more than now. Autarky is the only solution to remain ethnically pure.

hes right and hes wrong.
Freedom is essential, while simultaneously being useless. Without freedom we have no choice without choice we cannot decided upon truth.
Truth is necessary while simultaneously being absent of necessity. without truth you have no information to base opinions. you have no wisdom and you have no knowledge.
truth without freedom is easily corrupted, meanwhile freedom without truth yields an uneducated populace. in order to maintain a healthy upstanding society you need both in abundance, without compromising morality and empathy.
The Red and the Blue of this country are two halves of a whole humanity. without Truth and Morality you have the Democratic party. Without freedom and Empathy yields you the republicans.
the counter argument to this are the liberal and conservative parties. The liberals seek to establish Morality to their party while the Conservatives seek to return freedom into theirs. the main problem is the traits that each party values as its core principles, when in reality NONE of these traits hold any merit if not counterbalanced by the other 3.

Very good point. Libertarians have no solution for "physical removal"

Pick related

Step 1: ban immigration from poor shitholes countries so they stop voting for socialist welfare policies, close borders
Step 2: renew pride in masculinity, intellectual prowess, and natural selection, become a society more amiable to self-sufficiency
Step 3: knock out welfare state completely, country thrives as the parasites die off or leave by the millions. Flat tax across the board with no writeoffs, insurance companies are outlawed to drive prices down and spending up, go back on the gold standard and kill the fed.

I think this is an interesting discussion honestly. I'm glad to see there can be intelligent discourse between NatSocs and Libertarians

you forgot step 1.5: kill all of the subhumans