National Socialism Versus Libertarianism General

ITT: We continue our primordial debate. NatSocs and libertarians can debate each ITT and hopefully engage in constructive discourse. Personally, I would consider myself a palaeolibertarian neoreactionary (Techno-Commercialist wing).

Other urls found in this thread:

xenosystems.net/tag/neocameralism/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

I'm a centrist

Why tho

Made some OC for you guys

Well, I wouldn't really say centrist.

Let's just say I pose as a "centrist" to take advantage of either side when it is favorable to my own liking.

So for example, if I was poor I'd support socialism, if I was rich I'd support capitalism, if I was oppressed, I would support libertarianism, fascism if I was the oppressor, etc.

Tbh I used to be a paleoconservative/libertarian but I just don't see how a society like that can exist without Jewish Corruption and Diversity taking over. It could work but it would have to be like the 1920's where they banned shitskins kikes and other undesirables and only let in Nords and Anglo's. However even then the society was turning very degenerate and women were given the right to vote simply for republicans to get more votes for a reelection. We know how bad giving them the vote was (pic related)

As far as economics goes I think libertarians have the right idea half way. National Socialism is ultimately a philosophy that can be applied to any sort of economic system. However, the type of domestic productionism produced great growth for the German people overall.

Ebin

Also the only libertarian president America ever had had the right idea pretty much on foreign policy, taxes, and government spending for the most part. His deregulation of the stock market made shit go haywire though. So we need regulation, maybe not so much as the National socialists had with required vacations (even though those were only for corporations iirc).

>Tbh I used to be a paleoconservative/libertarian but I just don't see how a society like that can exist without Jewish Corruption and Diversity taking over. It could work but it would have to be like the 1920's where they banned shitskins kikes and other undesirables and only let in Nords and Anglo's.

I broadly concur: sustainable free polities require ethnic hegemony wherein Jews have no political power. Coolidge should be our hero: only racialist libertarianism is possible.

>However even then the society was turning very degenerate and women were given the right to vote simply for republicans to get more votes for a reelection. We know how bad giving them the vote was (pic related)

I oppose all democracy: we should replace it with neocameralism.

>As far as economics goes I think libertarians have the right idea half way.

What --- specifically --- do you believe we get wrong?

...

If only: in my experience NatSocs hate us.

we all got along before stormfront started shilling here years ago

U're the ones calling us statist pigs, communists etc...

And you called as lolspergs, degenerates, and Jewish shills.

Forgot the pic

>Coolidge should be our hero: only racialist libertarianism is possible.

Okay we agree there

>I oppose all democracy: we should replace it with neocameralism.

Can you explain what neocameralism is? Jewgle doesn't give me anything and I'm a fucking autstic asshole

>What --- specifically --- do you believe we get wrong?

Well here's my problem. I spport the libertarian Idea of letting people, especially the middle and lower classes being able to work less ofr the government and more for them selves, but here's the other thing. Since we are assuming it would be racial libertarianism it wouldn't be seeing necessarily everyone as an individual, I think that there should be some sort of saftey net in a society for white families, and programs to help white families raise children. I guess I just disagree when it comes to the rich and taxes. I think it should be sort of like the 50's where they had high tax rates but big investment loopholes into their own workers, where they would raise wagers and set up more businesses to avoid the high tax. I just think that sort of spending can't be incentivized without any force

I don't hate libertarians, just disagree with them. A fuckton of NatSocs, especially on infinity chan are former libertarians

OP is a foggot from /leftypol/

What if the child consents tho ?

Both are fucking faggots that must get the fuck out of Sup Forums and take the /leftypol/ shills with them.

>Forgot the pic

The demographic growth of minorities caused by Hart-Celler (and compounded by dysgenic breeding incentivized by welfare) has also increased statism.

>Can you explain what neocameralism is? Jewgle doesn't give me anything and I'm a fucking autstic asshole

Core NeoCam resource:

>xenosystems.net/tag/neocameralism/

Basically, a sovereign corporation governs a micro-state; micro-states compete.

>I think that there should be some sort of saftey net in a society for white families, and programs to help white families raise children.

Does this avoid dysgenics though?

Will post more later.

>I guess I just disagree when it comes to the rich and taxes. I think it should be sort of like the 50's where they had high tax rates but big investment loopholes into their own workers, where they would raise wagers and set up more businesses to avoid the high tax. I just think that sort of spending can't be incentivized without any force

Lots of ideas:

(I): What incentive is there to invest without profit?

(II): Are high tax rates like that moral in a society that is already homogeneous?

(III): Wouldn't this be a disincentive for working hard and building a business if government is confiscating most profits?

(IV): Wouldn't it also artificially reduce consumption?

Children can't concent tho

It's been a debate that has raged since /n/
Lurk the fuck moar.

THIS IS THE VERY CLOSEST THING THAT MADE SENSE

I LOVE IT

Both parties are essentially (racially-universalized) fascists. What passes for Rightism in democracy is false opposition which utilizes inconsequential social issues to disguise its radical submission to progressivism. The Cathedral is what is really in power.

>(I): What incentive is there to invest without profit?

None unless its charity really, but they would certainly reinvest to avoid the high tax rate. They did so in the 50's and I see no reason to why they wouldn't do it again really, but then again i'm autistic

>(II): Are high tax rates like that moral in a society that is already homogeneous?

I don't see how they would be immoral. The high tax rate would only be put upon the corporations and very high income earners. It's part of the sacrifice to further the growth of the Nation overall desu

>(III): Wouldn't this be a disincentive for working hard and building a business if government is confiscating most profits?

Not if the business is already built, there may have been a misunderstanding with what i said originally. As referring to domestic productionism, the Nazis valued small family owned businesses, they cut taxes immensely for them and cut many regulations to allow them to thrive, along with making sure corporations wouldn't take advantage of them in areas where small business employed many people.


>(IV): Wouldn't it also artificially reduce consumption?

I wouldn't see how, but please explain

My problem with National Socialism is the fact that it has a single point of failure, the state.
How would you find the "right" dictator?
It seems to me that the (((enemy))) would not let that happen again.

In the end though, these two sides differences don't matter too much if everyone is white.

>None unless its charity really, but they would certainly reinvest to avoid the high tax rate. They did so in the 50's and I see no reason to why they wouldn't do it again really, but then again i'm autistic

It seems counter-productive since capital is roundabout production. Taxation of capital is reducing future production and mis-allocating it towards arbitrary politico-bureaucratic ends which are fundamentally unresponsive to market signals (distributed computation) thus creating malinvestment.

>I don't see how they would be immoral. The high tax rate would only be put upon the corporations and very high income earners. It's part of the sacrifice to further the growth of the Nation overall desu

(I): If you defered immediate consumption into future production and had half of your profits confiscated, could you see at least some immorality in punishing long-sightedness and frugality?

(II): Where is the money going that is more important than what market computation already allocated it for? What incentive does government have to make good investments sans neocameralism?

>Not if the business is already built, there may have been a misunderstanding with what i said originally. As referring to domestic productionism, the Nazis valued small family owned businesses, they cut taxes immensely for them and cut many regulations to allow them to thrive, along with making sure corporations wouldn't take advantage of them in areas where small business employed many people.

So you would want a bracketed corporate tax? While we are on that subject, what would be your tax policy? I would favor a flat national sales tax.

>I wouldn't see how, but please explain

Some profit becomes capital (future production) whilst some is utilized for consumption; less profit, less consumption.

>My problem with National Socialism is the fact that it has a single point of failure, the state.
How would you find the "right" dictator?
It seems to me that the (((enemy))) would not let that happen again.

True.

>In the end though, these two sides differences don't matter too much if everyone is white.

North Korea proves even high-IQ homogeneous countries are destroyed by socialism.

I have browsed/pol/ since 2013.

National Socialism and fascism seemed to work well enough in Europe, but I don't know.
I do know that America was so much better when we were mostly white.

It kinda was boycotted by every country.
Ancapism with niggers isn't better (see somaliland)

>National Socialism and fascism seemed to work well enough in Europe

Then why did Hitler invade other countries so he could pay back his enormous debts? You can't build an economy on perpetual conquest.

>I do know that America was so much better when we were mostly white

I agree and I'm not even White. (((Hart-Celler))) was such a hugh mistake.

>It kinda was boycotted by every country

Same excuse commies use for Venezuela.

>Ancapism with niggers isn't better (see somaliland)

Communist warlords are not anarcho-capitalist (not that I'm disputing your broader point).

Infinitiy pol hates libertarians.

Good posts everyone. I plan on becoming an economist so I relish any opportunity to exercise my encyclopedic Austrianism. Great and challenging questions.