Why are Anarcho Capitalism and Natonal Socialists on this board so similar...

Why are Anarcho Capitalism and Natonal Socialists on this board so similar? They're very different ideologies but it seems like strict libertarians like Molyneaux are somewhat supportive of Hitler. Why is this?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasserism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party
mises.org/sites/default/files/Anatomy of the State_3.pdf
riosmauricio.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Hoppe_Democracy_The_God_That_Failed.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Molyneaux is a hack fraud who says and does things to get more popularity, notoriety, and followers. He isn't motivated by intellectual integrity, and no matter how much he uses terms from a community college's Introduction to Philosophy course

Okay but why do people tend to support National Socialism when they're Hoppean libertarians

I am natsoc and i have nothing in common with capitalist and even less anarchism.

Nazis were anti-capitalistic in theory but in practice used it to their advantage

Not the answer you are looking for but that's just what I do

If we call these people libertarians the word is essentially meaningless, natsoc people and anarcho capitalist people aren't interested in liberty or anything that libertarians have to say

Yes just like fascist, no economic dogma.

Because the differences are merely economic at that point.

There are people on this board who consider themselves: classical liberal, minarchists, libertarian, confederates, anarchists, etc who fully support Hitler's Third Reich. There has to be some political or psychology connection to these. They're on completely opposite sides of the spectrum but fully support that their ideology. I am just wondering why

Both see the evils of creating money with interest attached as creating interest slaves of a society.

Ron Paul taught me that and I recently discovered Hitlers economic advisor thought the same thing

I'd say if right-authoritarianism becomes dominant then classical libs will switch.

Its because they're not actually libertarians. They are fascist who want less government restriction is all. Nobody here really likes democracy and deep in their hearts they now it.

>There are people on this board who consider themselves: classical liberal, minarchists, libertarian, confederates, anarchists
Shills falling for shills

Molyneux is a contrarian weasel.

>Molyneux stated that his mother was born "in Berlin in 1937 to a pretty Jewish clan" and lived there with her family until the Allied fire-bombing of Dresden in 1944.[8]

Every fucking time.

In terms of ideology there is no connection.

Empirically (if you are looking for this type of answer), I would attribute it to the marketing campaign that industrialists and capitalists have had underway since the labor disputes of the late 1800s and early 1900s that tries to lend intellectual legitimacy to capitalism and markets. Libertarianism is what stuck, so now lots of people call themselves libertarians without thinking or talking about liberty

...

...

No one here is seriously ancap, it's just a meme and ancap is a oxymoron if you understand how private property requires a state and capitalism requires private property. Hitler's regime wasn't Socialist, the Nazi party originally was under the Strasser bros but they were purged in the 1934 Night of the Long Knives.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasserism
>Initially, Nazi political strategy focused on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric, although such aspects were later downplayed in order to gain the support of industrial entities, and in the 1930s the party's focus shifted to anti-Semitic and anti-Marxist themes.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party

Private property doesn't require a state

And yes, I am a real ancap

As for OP, the reason we "share" so much is just a recent thing, because we have a common enemy which is democracy and cultural marxism

There is nothing in common. It is just you could create your natsoc Nazi farm inside an ancap society and nobody would bother you as long as everything is voluntary. Just as someone could create their communist farm.

> Private property doesn't require a state

lmfao

Because only whites are interested in libertarianism let alone anarcho capitalism and most have high enough IQ to be Jew wise and race realists too. One just wants to collectivise to stomp enemies and the other just wants to be left alone to smoke weed.

They find common ground in stuff like race realism and historical revision.

I honestly think it is because if so-called libertarians and ancaps had to choose a full statist ideology, they'd chose fascism or national-socialism before communism.

This in fact happened during the Spanish Civil War, most of the right-wing politicians joined Franco for the same reason - not because they liked Franco, but because they prefered Franco to the Communist Republic.

we're all closet natsoc lolerbergs because otherwise you would get lynched before the uprising

>lolerbergs
what a forced stretch

Probably because libertarians can't have the society they want, they may as well have a society that doesn't tolerate a bunch of feelings.

this desu

END FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING NOW

GAS THE BANKERS

>Neetsocs
>Good

>No one here is seriously ancap
Bollocks, there's loads of us. The attraction it's a robust rw ideology, that avoids the issue of being a bootlicking robot statist. Hoppe is the ultimate redpill

Libertards and ancrapitalist are useful idiots that will be gassed.

THey are not at all, I don't know what you're smoking.

Molymeme is no libertarian he goes wherever the wind blows.

Theyre both crazy and delusional.
Nat socs and ancaps both just want to destroy niggers, and think they are invincible enough to do it in their ideologies

Free enterprise is by definition simply the absence of restrictions and regulation on commercial activity.
Capitalism is a powerful economic system as it relies on consensual mutually beneficial transactions at every level of the economy to constantly optimise and eliminate inefficiencies.
Capitalism has created more wealth than any other economic system.
Do not be decieved: Capitalism is ten thousand times the cancer that Marxism could ever be.
Capitalism is a materialistic ideology, and the free market cares for nothing but profit.
Fast food, pornography, cheap plastic chatchkis imported from china: these are what capitalism peddles.
Our air, soil, and water have been poisoned for profit.
It is an egalitarian system that doesn't care if you're white, black, man, woman, aethiest, or gay, so long as you can fork over another shekel for a big mac.
It pushes feminism and mass immigration to lower the value of labor, as dictated by the iron law of suply and demand, because labor is a limited and valuable resource.
No material wealth is worth the destruction of race, culture, and nature.
No material wealth is as valuable as blut und boden.

autism, ever heard of it ?

Ancaps have no ideological opposition to interest

Redpilled libertarians realize they need NatSocs to clean up the filth that 50+ years of Marxism has brought us. They're not willing to do the dirty work themselves, so they view us as an ally.

why bother it's not like autists have children

WTF i love fascism now

NatSoc is based off free enterprise.

>own factory and some land in ancapistan
>import mexicans by the truckload to work for cheap in factories & live in cupboards
>it's not open borders tho

I don't know what AnCaps you are listening to but the ones I listen to advocate real money not debt based fiat currency created by fractional reserve banking.

Its a central theme.

Why should one generations debt be passed onto anyone else unvoluntarily?

>what are private communities and private cities
>what is contractual-based societies
>what is voluntarism

I don't think its one or the other, I think people are a mix and it comes down to idealism vs realism

Libertarians see themselves as realists and national socialism as an impossible ideal, so they choose the more realistic option that is to be left the fuck alone to numb themselves to the state of society by getting stoned

If Sup Forums would drop the hurr weed is degenerate shit there'd be far more overlap

For anyone serious about learning more about rw libertarianism or ancap, pay us a visit in /lrg/ libertarian right general.

Or start here to understand the snekpill

>Rothbard: Anatomy of the State
mises.org/sites/default/files/Anatomy of the State_3.pdf

>Hoppe: Democracy—The God That Failed (2001)
riosmauricio.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Hoppe_Democracy_The_God_That_Failed.pdf

Ancaps dont believe in centralised banking.
That is to say, private banks are legit and can do pretty much what they want unregulated.
If your parents signed away your inheritance money from shit loans well too bad

a bunch of crap that wont work

national socialism is an "empirical"(based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic) system and ancap is an "a priori" (relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge that proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience.) system.

What national socialism does is build a government with extreme power to actively remove from society what they deem "undesirable".
In the sense that they have knowledge about how an object affects society as a whole, for example that mentally deficient people reproducing will hurt the life standard of the society that has to support these people, and act on that knowledge.

On the other hand ancaps or libertarians in general create a passive system with minimal central force. They would argue that only the current size and power of the central government has allowed for the existence of degenerate lifestyles that happen on the cost of the net taxpayer (usually mentally and bodily healthy individuals) and thus oppresses the productive class in society.

What makes them so similar is that they both have almost the same vision for how an ideal society looks like, the only difference is that national socialists want an "active" system and ancaps want a "passive" system.

Most libertarians are closet fascist who are too afraid (from years of brainwashing) to actually take the NatSoc-pill

True, should just convert to neetsoc now which will definitely happen

When it comes to AnCaps and Nat Soc, they see each other as simply a means to an end, no more, no less,and not as actual allies. Think about it, OP. The only time an AnCap type society would even emerge is in a time of political destabilization or post-apocalypse. If every individual group or individual is given the right to govern themselves and go upon the principal of not breaching each other's NAP, wouldn't it be the perfect storm for a National Socialist society to rise out of that? They could easily set up in any region of their choosing, establish some rules that outsiders aren't allowed to violate aka a NAP to all those AnCaps out there, and eventually expand by annexing those who aren't well armed or well connected enough to fend off the National Socialist's expansion.

When you are libertarian you defend the right for people to say and believe in what you want.

Some of the points expressed by the Natsocs are perfectly valid, this it's evident if you remove your prejudices about them.

Virtually everyone who has jumped on the altright/natsoc train in the last 2 years was a former libertarian/ancap myself included. The reasons for this are simple

>freedom of association
this is obvious. Ancaps want people to freely associate and exclude with anyone they want. Natsocs believe that left to our own devices these "associations" would be drawn on racial/ethnic lines.

>nonwhites and their propensity to endlessly ask for gibs

another obvoius point in which libertarians/ancaps and natsocs agree. Both realize that nonwhites only hold back a nation by being parasites. This was one of the main issues that drove me off the deep end.

Why do we as a country have to import people who are a net negative on our economy/state welfare system?

Both ancaps and natsocs want the same thing in the end: to live peacefully with their own people. The problem with ancaps is they are by definition passive (NAP) and will always be trampled by leftists. Natsocs recognize that being passive is why conservatives and Ancaps always lose, and why lefitsm and liberalism have always won.

Surprsingly good answer and I would tend to agree

This doesn't apply to all ancaps though, there are still ancaps like Jeffrey Tucker and Adam Kokesh who are "duud weed lmao" type of dudes

Then you have the redpilled ones like Hoppe which do want almost the same preservation of culture like natsocs want

Neither of our political systems work when Jews, dysgenics, and retarded nonwhites are in the mix.

Many Ancaps also realize that fascism is often a temporary phase to correct a broken body politic/culture, and can easily end in their preferred political system.

Therefore we have a tentative alliance based on logical reasoning.

Yes.
They both hate niggers and jews and want to get rid of them. Thats it

>can do pretty much what they want unregulated
right, because the money is REAL money. Not national debt fiat currency.

I didn't mention inheritance or shit loans. My point is our governments are spending money that doesn't exist. They print it by declaration (fiat) which devalues all currency in circulation. The future generation inherit this devalued currency and find houses and raising a family is unaffordable.

>national socialists want an "active" system and ancaps want a "passive" system.

It's also about not wanting to hand over responsibility to a (presumably) totalitarian state. Force certainly can exist in a libertarian society, but the government is not the sole arbiter of where and when it can be applied, as it is currently.

They're both retards who have no idea what they are talking about.

The real answer is that they both appeal to stupid and uneducated people that think really highly of themselves and can't explain why life constantly humiliates them

I don't like planists at all but I hate commies and natsocs hate them too so at least we have something to talk about

>Private property doesn't require a state
>"durrr hey mister Schlomostein let us sign this contract for you to deliver me some goods"
>Mr. Schlomostein never delivers the goods yet you paid
>"Mr. Schlomo give me my goods"
>"No."
>"O...okay"
>the retarded Swede never got his goods and without a state to enforce the contract there was nothing he could do
>he and his wife starved to death 2 weeks later

Yeah you totally don't need a state! kek

Like i said ancaps have no issue againsy fiat currency.
They believe that having competition between smaller private banks will regulate the issue of notes, as opposed to a "final monopoly issuer" in the case of a federal bank which can issue with impunity

as weird as it sounds, ancap and fascism are essentially the same thing. fascism/reactionaism is when people feel like the government isnt protecting them anymore, so they take protection into their own hands. similar ancap is about wanting to have completely ownership of your own property and who is allowed to use it. In both cases its about the illegitimatcy of the government in charge and how they are just making things worse.

National Socialism is in total opposition to the modern system.

And of course we both really, I mean really, hate fucking commies. Fuck communism.

>nat soc
>not totalitarian
Well not quite, but its firmly authoritarian

>competition between smaller private banks will regulate the issue of notes
with interest or without?

I'd like you guys more if you were more like the left column.

True.

Because NatSoc is essentially a state that enforces Hoppean AnCap ideals (moral, family oriented, non-exploitative etc.)
If we're going to have a state it might as well be one that acts in our interests. At the end of the day the state is a compulsory spending machine. Given the choice I'd rather it spent that money on protecting my interests, unlike quasi-socialist third-worldist liberal democracy or soulless communism.

I agree its reactionary to the status quo, but fundamentally they both hate niggers and jews

> Virtually everyone who has jumped on the altright/natsoc train in the last 2 years

What is that - like 3 people - at best?

Oh there are enforcers all right, they are just not government is all. From the simplest, which is free market forces, (ie no cunt buys from shlomo any more - no artificial monopolies so his competitors put him under), through covenants, up to private defence contractors etc etc

Fair enough

wtf m8

Because liberty is an intrasocial concept that can only be shared and enjoyed among basic equals, and some types of social limits are perfectly natural barriers to the sorts of misconduct that undermine both individual and social health.

Doesnt matter.
If a bank loans without interest it will be more attractive to borrowers but they need to make money in other ways obviously.
Ancap ideology is "let the market sort it out"

lmao, you don't belong here

TOPKEK

Get a room, faggots

Right wing ideologies all favor the same values, Individual, family, society, God. They only differ on the means to attain and improve upon those.

What if I am an Anarcho-National Socialist?

Originally it was. It turned into centrally planned crap once the war started.

The first quote there is badly worded, but if what he is saying is sexual freedom (no faggotry, keep it in the bedroom), no gun restrictions, drugs are a personal choice and responsibility, and defence of private property - that's fine by me

fucking retard

>"let the market sort it out"
right - and the more attractive choice will always be real money with no interest attached. A fiat currency with interest attached can't compete and will surely fail, but you can offer it, I suppose.

Because Ancap is nothing more than private little national socialist properties.

Oh fuck all the way off.

That's not the same as putting someone into debt before they are even born.

They both want to live in similar societies, and both have the exact same ideologies opposing them. They can respect each other.

But I think you mean Libertarians/Hoppean Snake Memers and Natsoc/Fascist/Hard conservatives.

I think a lot of "natsoc" people here are just excited fascists desu.

because the only way to save hummanity is one or the other

Murray Rothbard thought right-wing populism was the key to getting his ideas out later in his life and beyond a few principles economics are a secondary concern in National Socialism. I think you could easily find a middle ground.

Your parents can easily do that to you if they wanted.
Its just not the state ok?

Because ideology is contextual. In certain countries (like the US) national socialism wouldnt work so anarcho capitalism is the best alternative, etc

both have a room for racial realism and generally belive in evolution. egalitarians hate them.

t. the monkey cuckservative

(((Anarcho-Capitalism)))

I have a trap socialist canadian, m8. I love leaf boipucci.

they're fucking dumb

The problem is probably no bank would realistically not have interest on loans.
As far as fiat currency concerned, possibly it would not exist as it is now, but that is easily circumvented by fractional lending anyway.
Its all moot anyway cos ancap is dumb and wouldnt work