So I have observed that Sup Forums and other alt-rightists like denigrating libertarianism most repetitiously...

So I have observed that Sup Forums and other alt-rightists like denigrating libertarianism most repetitiously. My inquiry is why: what problem does Sup Forums have with libertarianism? I would consider myself palaeolibertarian and I welcome intelligent criticism.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=lmGqG3grTrg
libertarianright.org/
youtube.com/watch?v=9PbbiAMhEKY
youtube.com/watch?v=jh9OzjECfaY
newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian-police-department
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

You the same Brazilian from the tax thread last weekend? I heard some good arguments, but the fact is that Ancapistan will never come, at least not in America. There are simpler and more feasible solutions to our problems.

6/8 of the mises founders were inbred rats, the whole idea of Jewish lolbertarianism is to open the borders. It's the American path to judeo-communism.

Libertarianism is a natural outcome of Jewish induced nihilism and naivety. History proves that utopian dreams can be achieved and that great things happen when people submit to their natural desire to obey and carefully execute well managed grand plans. Hitler was a dreamer and was called a dreamer regularly by his opponents, watch him respond to it.

youtube.com/watch?v=lmGqG3grTrg

no

This is the long and short of it. I really like libertarianism, particularly Hoppe, as an intellectual circlejerk, but good luck implementing any sort of libertarian policy in the US short of a civil war/revolution/balkanization.

>what problem does Sup Forums have with libertarianism
I've spent too much time with libertarians and tried to go through the mental gymnastics required to keep up the liberal appearance that's so important to libertarians.

Once you drop all the tolerance and open borders crap from libertarianism you find that you're on the road to nationalism.

OP's question is best answered with the Cantwell vs. Kokesh debate

File no longee exists

Libertarian ideals like open borders and economic deregulatiin have failed us, it was pretty cool in 2011 or so but it's now an outdated and flawed ideology

Right-wing libertarianism is basically corporate fascism.

these nazis want gibsmedats

Mises, who strongly influenced right-wing libertarianism, actually admired fascism.

This all you really need to know, OP.
The merits of a libertarian society should only be debated after Western civilization's future is secured. Mises apparently understood this.

>implying people can't decide to collectively use their children as collateral for loans

You can't refute this

Only works in a society that is absent of minorities or predominately white. It's a nice meme though.

I think some things like highways, roads and infrastructure is best left to be constructed by the US Gov rather than be maintained by corporations which will fine me for driving.

Also I don't trust the Free Market to not pollute the air and dump waste into National Parks and animal habitats.

I looked up paleolibertarianism, so this question might help you get the Sup Forums perspective: do you think Brazil will ever be a libertarian society?

libertarians are weighed down by their ideology and can't get elected

Sup Forums was always libertarian before the_donald/newfags swarmed it. Ron Paul has always been Sup Forums's guy

Only left libertarians are for the no border shit and some ancaps are for private borders.

How can you be ancap and not believe in private borders?

Right-"libertarianism" is not a thing. There is a reason why we have lib-left vs auth-right everywhere in the world. Right-leaning economic ideologies like capitalism (and, on the far right, slave-ownership) are considered and categorized as right-wing because they promote hierarchy, and that goes hand in hand with the traditionalism Republicans promote.

When you combine left-leaning social policy with right-leaning economic policy it just seems weird and out of place. In most of the world, when people say "libertarianism", they mean "anarchism" (with left-wing economic systems).

Nobody takes your ideology seriously because it's not legitimate. Even the main guy representing it in America (where it was born) is widely considered a joke. He used to support the death penalty - the ultimate anti-libertarian idea, which strongly suggests that he doesn't really have a coherent system and mostly doesn't know what he's talking about.

You could say that ancapism is ancomism for rich people, and Stalinism and Maoism (which are associated with the radical left even though they combine anti-authoritarian egalitarian economic policy with extremely authoritarian social policy) is just fascism for poir people.

To summarize:
-Libertarian Left: true leftists
-Authoritarian Right: true rightists
-Libertarian Right: confused leftists
-Authoritarian Left: confused rightists.

Your ideology is as totalitarian as Stalinism when put in practice and the only reason why it exists is because Americans have this retarded idea of equating capitalism with liberty - what I presume is a consequence of old anti-communist propaganda.

Capitalism is the only ethical and efficient economic ideology. We can always disagree over whether full privatisation would ever exist, but we'll always be working toward the same goal of a free society.

why do you confuse our liking of specific people to there ideology? we liked trump what does that much us now neocons? how about rand paul? we were all for rand paul until trump came along. see the thing is you can't see the bigger picture behind what old/pol/ liked. Now we have a bunch of nu/pol/ faggots crying over some old nigger getting shot and people actually saying that "humans rights violations" actually fucking matter. I've seen the genius level reddit arguments to why that old nigger mattered it is fucking astounding how fucking new they are. I also witnessed this sort of shit at different times relating to what some news media says. A lot of them come here and actually still believe the media is telling the truth. I'm getting really tired of this shit too. Sup Forums used to be fun as fuck but now its just getting fucking tired reading the same fucking garbage comments x1000 times because these tards can't even fucking lurk before posting.

Capitalism is fuccking dog shit you'll have some greedy kikes trying to fuck whites out of jobs by hiring non-whites for cheap labor. We need a natsoc government to look after the good of the people. Not just let huge corporations like Google to control everything and destroying competition because they see them as a threat. Libertarianism is a fucking pipe dream that will never fucking work ESPECIALLY in a multicultural society.

Third position is the best stop all this bullshit left vs right shit that kikes have used for centuries to cause infighting while they go on with them fucking you over.

libertarianism is a uniquely american idea

it's too pussy to be anarchist
too angry to be fascist

Hoppean libertarianism is acceptable, but you have to specifically mention that you're a Hoppean libertarian or else you're just a fag

>There is a reason why we have lib-left vs auth-right everywhere in the world

Appeal to nature, fallacy

>(and, on the far right, slave-ownership)

Another fallacy.

>When you combine left-leaning social policy with right-leaning economic policy it just seems weird and out of place

"It seems weird", the quality of leftypol arguments, holy shit.

>Even the main guy representing it in America (where it was born) is widely considered a joke.

Fallacy of association

>He used to support the death penalty - the ultimate anti-libertarian idea, which strongly suggests that he doesn't really have a coherent system and mostly doesn't know what he's talking about.

"Doesn't know what he's talking about"

wtf im a plinko now.

Seriously, if all your IQ is good for is not shitting your pants when you walk, at least have the decency of keeping your mouth shut. Literally 6 paragraphs of pure fallacies and non-arguments.

"Look after the good of the people"

And what does this entail, exactly? 8 years of giving the government power to fuck up the other side, believing that the other side won't have access to that power to fuck you up in an equivalent way?

You're idealistic hacks and your ideology is not sustainable.

The only social construct that has lasted thousands of years is private property.

It's a fuckin meme and every non retarded human should be able to instantly recognise why so.
Humans in general are greedy, backstabbing, crooked and evil.
While it may be true, that most democratic governments in the world are corrupted and rotten, they all still more or less do their part in protecting the citizens from exploitation and slavery.

>Inb4 but i could be a slave owner

No you fuckin piece of shit.
In a libertarian society money rulez everything. Some may say "but it already does" and thats kinda true. But a libertarian society is only possible on a small scale and with somehow selected members.
Libertarians are like hippies. Delusional and unable to even consider the possibilities of abuse and exploitation in their system, cause there is no way to prevent or eliminate said problems without stopping to be libertarian.

>We need a natsoc government to look after the good of the people
That can exist in a libertarian society. You simply gain ownership of land and create contracts between citizens and a state. An actual social contract. The government is stopping you from doing this because the government relies on you to exist. If other governments emerge voluntarily, current governments will be outcompeted and become obsolete. If your national socialist theory of government truly is superior then it will simply thrive in spite of the inferior democratic governments of today.

Your solution to government fucking with people is to have government fuck people more.
Fucking genius ain't ya?

Libertarianism doesn't impinge on people being anything other than self-interested.

That you think there's anything utopian about libertarian philosophy is fairly hilarious.

Capitalism is the best economic system but this freedumbs is pure degeneracy.

sshh don't tell people we're not the same person

Anarchism falls under libertarianism.
Libertarian is an umbrella term - it's why both John Stossel and Murray Rothbard can be rightfully considered libertarian.

libertarianright.org/

>Humans in general are greedy, backstabbing, crooked and evil.

So let's give them the absolute power of democracy! What could go wrong?

They are doing their part? Look at France, debating itself between far right and far left, let's be honest here, social democracy leads to extreme polarization and war eventually, you cannot give half of the country the power to fuck over the other half of the country, cause at first moderates will try to rule for everyone equally, but this is quickly distorted (left always pushing for more, usually, and cuckservatives not opposing).

What should people not have liberty to do that you think libertarians disagree with you about, exactly?

>why can't you stop fighting and start loving each other and mother nature?
t. Delusional hippy

>Why can't you act in accordance to the NAP?
>Also, why do i have to pay for roads? REEEE
t. Librarytarion

Because libertarians are materialist faggots that focus on profits to the point of ignoring or forgetting about culture.

Plus they're always faggots just playing it safe.

Paying taxes to pay for public schools, roads etc.

It is a 13 years old mentality

>public schools
You mean those utterly worthless drone factories that waste a significant portion of people's lives while forcing them into company with the refuse that are other people's children?
Nah - I'm not interested in paying for other people to do that, and I'm even less interested in other people being *FORCED* to pay for that.

Can someone fix that rare hoppe to have trigger discipline? I can't save it in good conscience

The low quality of public schools in the US do not make this kind of critique valid.
Look at Scandinavia or the better parts of central Europe and your argument loses all of its meaning.
You may have to better your system, but this doesn't make the concept worse than others.

OP asked "what problem does Sup Forums have with libertarianism?" and I said what problem I have with it. Shortly, it claims to promote liberty while being in favor of allowing extremely totalitarian power structures to form. What I point out is not any kind of appeal to anything; it's an explanation that OP asked for. Slave ownership is on the edge of the right as viewed on the very popular political compass because it's the ultimate hierarchy-promoting ideology. This is not an accusation; it's a simple observation.

The "appeal to nature" fallacy means trying to claim that something should be a certain way because it already is - which I am not doing. I used observed and well-established phenomena (the fact that people who promote right-wing economic policy which is characterized by hierarchy also tend to promote authoritarianism and government interference in personal lives) to help explain other, slightly less well-understood phenomena (why right-libertarianism is not a thing pretty much anywhere, and why you see left-lib parties always pitted against auth-right parties in two-party systems).

Put simply, there don't seem to be any serious people who actually promote right-libertarianism, just like there (no longer) seem to be any serious people who promote authoritarian leftism (and when there were any, they were almost indistinguishable from fascists).

This strongly suggests that capitalism and anti-authoritarianism are inherently incompatible, which is a conclusion that one may very easily reach after seeing that people who support such an ideology mainly do so to seem edgy and "above the political spectrum".

Capitalism and liberty are inherently incompatible, and pointing out the fact that almost all people who are socially authoritarian support capitalism strongly implies that it's not about freedom, but about who loves or hates hierarchy.

All public schools in every country are utterly disgusting failures.
Exorbitant amounts of time are utterly wasted by students in what amounts to over a decade of daycare. The vast majority of things students "learn" end up being utterly worthless to them. It's devastatingly *EVIL*.

What happens if leftists infiltrate the school system (like in every western country) and start teaching students to rebel against the social order? You want to pay these people who wish to undermine the system with other people's money?

so it's a shittier version of fascism? congrats

brazilian libertarians are the worst dumb people that I know

Large amount of the people who are in these threads who act like Nazis are actually shills. It's not that Pol actually hates Libertarians it's just that these shills make it look that way.

A fairly intelligent child that grows up in Finland probably ends up with much more general knowledge (history, politics, arts, geography etc.) And specific knowledge about the fields they are interested in (mathematics, languages, economics etc.) Than any spoiled brat that was sent to some elite private school in Burgerland.
This difference even grows, when not you take some ordinary child from a family not that well off.
Imagine some 5+ siblings in rural Alabama being homeschooled by their mildly educated and intelligent mother.

I agree, that public schools are far from perfect and have a lot of downsides, but theyre a comprise, a universal solution and that's never ideal.
I'm pretty sure if I'd homeschool my kids they'd end up far more educated and mature than other kids, probably even some adults, with far less time spent on boring stuff they'd forget within half a year anyways.
For the vast majority homeschooling is no option cause they have jobs to do and money to earn, while private schools are overrated and overpriced meme tier education facilities.

...

>totalitarian power structures to form

There is nothing totalitarian in voluntary association, your theory bullshit about hierarchy being oppressive is not sustained the moment you want to impose absolutist democracy and opposition against free association, which is way more oppressive than any voluntary interaction.

>This is not an accusation; it's a simple observation.

And it is wrong. Far right promotes freedom of association, thing is, you're attempting to re-define slavery by removing the most intrinsic elements of its definition, which are violence and coercion.

>Put simply, there don't seem to be any serious people who actually promote right-libertarianism

There are multiple, we're just a small minority, but so are people who think hierarchy is oppressive yet that doesn't stop you from spouting it on internet. See, the difference is that I'd actually allow you to test your society as long as you didn't force it on anyone.

>This strongly suggests that capitalism and anti-authoritarianism are inherently incompatible

This is an obvious circular argument, you've redefined things in the way it fits your conclusion. You could have said before 1700 non slavery societies can't exist because of observation of human nature and it would be the same kind of argument. The skepticism due to a heavy influx of the status quo.

>Capitalism and liberty are inherently incompatible, and pointing out the fact that almost all people who are socially authoritarian support capitalism

Fallacy of association again. Capitalism doesn't support authoritarianism, people support authoritarianism in all sides of the spectrum, there's multiple examples today of socialist societies where freedoms are not respected.

In fact, there's more reason for the left to be authoritarian as you advocate for extreme externalization, which obviously needs some control the moment you want to form a functioning society. All of the authoritarianism today is rooted by collectivist ideas

General knowledge isn't beneficial to most people. It's actually a massive waste of people's time and patience to be sat still and made to switch from unhelpful topic to unhelpful topic in which very little in the way of substantive and relevant information is actually gone over.
People need literacy and some basic critical thinking (which need not be taught formally in the first place) and then whatever it is they do or don't want to pursue should be fostered. Instead you *forcefully compel* people to learn a whole bunch of shit they're uninterested in and which they actually grow a disdain of learning (since you physically force them with violence to comply) that wastes everyone's time, energy, and resources.

*NOTHING* about public schooling is beneficial. There are private schools in the ghettos and slums of the poorest places on earth, so saying "wah then people who don't have money will never learn anything" is a fucking *LIE* of an excuse.

I don't understand why libertarians hate democracies so much? What is wrong with a system of government that represent the people's interests?

youtube.com/watch?v=9PbbiAMhEKY
youtube.com/watch?v=jh9OzjECfaY

>General knowledge

What makes a society wealthy and prosperous is not general knowledge but applied knowledge.

This is why Asia is taking over the world while eurocucks are becoming more and more irrelevant.

Because the guy tens of thousands of people voted for while tens of thousands of others didn't vote for does not represent even a tiny minority of those people who even voted for them, let alone the vast majority of others who abstained from voting altogether.

It's insanity. Represent your own interests - don't foist your worldview on other people.

Because there is no such thing as "people's interests". I have mine, you have yours.

Also it allows hypocrisy. You might vote to let thousands of immigrants in, while you're living in a glass tower in the opposite side of the country knowing that these people will never go near you.

Democracy is a problem but centralized democracy is a fucking cancer.

Libertarians, while there are many intelligent people among their ranks, function the same way as any fringe ideology does. True liberals, communists, libertarians can create ideal(istic) models, but like the dreamers they are, cannot factor the other people in. Most people are not intelligent and self-conscius enough to fit into these ideologoes. That's why you cannot remove a form of government from a civilised society. There are many functions that a mass of people needs which cannot be fulfilled by private entities without handing them too much power. And no, creating a full-blown anarchist capitalistic society won't be able to solve its own problems due to lack of stability without a solid framework of some sort, be it muh NAP or not.

Someone post the "I put a quarter in the gun" story please?

I know there was a picture of the whole thing for easy access but here's this:

newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian-police-department

I really don't think there's anything particularly idealistic about refraining from stealing people's property or from demanding they live their lives the way you want them to or else you'll threaten violence against them, which is all libertarianism at its core amounts to.

An this is what I was implying. This society could only work in a very high trust, high intelligence environment. Which is rarely the case anywhere.

>Democracy has nothing to do with freedom. Democracy is a soft variant of communism, and rarely in the history of ideas has it been taken for anything else.

Freedom is unattainable. Much in life is biologically predetermined. End story.

The framework you talk about is built with time.

Eventually different law enforcing companies find an optimal law frame that attracts clients and this one is extended all over.

You see, the good thing about anarcho capitalism is that you would chose the law that fits you, the amount of liberties you're willing to renounce in order to feel safe, while in democracy you vote with other people's liberties, in the market you vote with yours.

The problem with ancap, like a lot have brought up here, is the border issue. Sure, you could say we could privately maintain borders, but at the end of the day a strong state will always conquer a loosely unified set of people. This is why authoritarianism developed as the predominant (and eventually only) form of government.

I think though that libertarianism is a very good thing as far as social policy is concerned. Government ought to be relatively weak as far as how much governance they have over the individual.

The ideal system in my mind would be a very very strong central state that enforces strict border laws and imposes some small regulations on business, like antitrust laws. It should also enforce some very simple human rights. Other than that, this government should leave governance to small communities. The problem is this system seems to be impossible, because if you have a strong central state that can strictly and effectively enforce borders, the amount of power granted to it to do so is bound to corrupt it.

Because I don't see how it can feasibly remain nationalist in the modern era, it seems to me to lead inevitably to globalism.

Ancapitalism is cancer. Communism is the best but you degenerate fucks can't understand that

No - I don't have to trust you.
You don't have to trust me.
You just need to recognize what's in your self-interest, which is generally refraining from activities which make people loathe you. Some people won't get this, but the vast majority of people do. It's why people nevertheless manage to live decently long lifespans even in places around the world in which there's no organized state presence at all.

libertarianism is exactly the opposite of globalism it is inheritly secessionist and anti-unionist. you're thinking of communism.

Libertarian society does not work because we have Muslims and niggers. Hence fashy world view is re quire to remove negroes and sand nigger from society

He thinks trade means globalism. Because he's a dipshit.

>Lolbertarians

That's a poor analysis.

You're talking about eras where capitalization didn't scale as quickly as it does now. A wrong decision by a government can tank a prosperous economy in a matter of years just like good economic policy can bring a country out of the dumpster in a couple of decades.

You're also talking about a time where escaping an authoritarian government was impossible, nowadays you can cross the world for pocket change in a matter of hours.

There's a reason the Berlin wall was built, because authoritarian regimes don't work if everyone runs away to prosper somewhere else.

Authoritarian countries cannot compete against free market ones nowadays, by the time you're willing to invade you will be facing a society that is fully armed and with way more economic interest than yours. Gold wins wars, and nobody has more gold than capitalist societies.

Ever since a few centuries ago, we went from thinking the only way to prosper was to pillage to thinking that the best way to prosper was through commerce, we now know economy is not zero sum.

The problem with most Libertarians is that to create their ideal they need to do away with a great number of people. Some choose to simply ignore them, to let nature take its course and enact their required eugenic policy for them. Some, even fewer, will openly admit to the fact and are comfortable in suggesting their removal. The vast majority however are too "liberal" to accept either and choose denial - they'll argue voluntary charity will take care of them or that "the market" will provide for them.

This might work when there's enough space available, and you are able to divide the country to zones. Voting with others' liberties is what ensures the unity of the states in the current system, and while one might argue that a gradual transformation could create the ultimately decentralised state, but in the end it would turn out another Somalia or Afghanistan.

And how would you solve the localisation problem? Say, I don't want to leave my ancestral lands to join Gunthumpistan, but my plot falls into Libcuckistan. Becoming an enclave would only lead to tensions, but if it's my right to join whatever framework I'd like to while holding on to my property is my unalienable right. Eventually, I'll be forced to join a different framework or leave my property, oh hullo, luberteys.

Nobody needs to be removed. People aren't willing to be murdered and die because some people aren't paying their taxes or abiding by jaywalking laws. If a single whole town of people stopped paying taxes tomorrow, nothing would happen to them.

>far right and far left
Nonsense, democracy is inherently centrist. They're only relatively so. How do you think a democratic system can allow a far right ideology, one of absolute inequality and hierarchy, to exist? It can't.

I've never heard someone claim that before. I've never met someone quite so oblivious.

>I'm even less interested in other people being *FORCED* to pay for that
Every Libertarian claims to be more interested in others than themselves. It's very dishonest.

>utterly worthless to them
By that I assume you mean it doesn't provide them with a fatter paycheck, no?

That's not the case at all. I'm a radical Christian zealot. I'm willing to be a martyr at any given moment. I'm being very honest in saying I care far more about sins committed by others against others than I care about sins committed against myself which I couldn't care less about.

>everyone who disagrees with me is a shill
Good lad, that's how to create your Libertarian utopia. A good start at least, you only need to get angry and start "dealing" with them.

No, I mean as in worthless to them. That fourth grader who spent hours upon hours learning that Lincoln was a good nice President had no value added to their own life at all except insofar as they cared about what was being said. And what was being said - for the vast majority of people - is not worth their listening had they any other option.

...

>inbred rats
Chill the fuck out mate. Go and shill your plebian ideology somewhere else

We are defining "authoritarian" differently. Every first world government that exists today leans authoritarian on the political spectrum, which suggests the success of capitalism you refer to may only be possible under such conditions.

If the US did not have a strong central government to support its military, would the capitalist powerhouse that is America even exist today?

This is why I think a state is necessary, purely for border enforcement. I tend to think some small market regulation is also necessary but this is debatable.

>I really don't think there's anything particularly idealistic about refraining from stealing people's property
Doesn't the very existence, prominence and support for the political ideologies you consider to be practicing violent theft prove otherwise?

No - success happens in direct spite of government interference. You can talk about any given activity of government and demonstrate deadweight loss that comes about from it.

No - it just shows how little people ever think. Which is unsurprising given they've grown up in little bubble worlds of propaganda their whole lives.
But that is rapidly changing. Very rapidly.

t.communist general spainfag.

Is the military deadweight though? The military industrial complex fuels a significant portion of the US economy. Also, even if the US economy is successful without the military, who's to say an authoritarian capitalist state won't just mow us over for resources once we are incapable of efficiently defending our borders?

Who are you calling altright, fucking faggot? Did you not notice that the libertarian party became a bunch of dude lol weed bro morons who are the cost thing you have to any PR? The left has become antifa and the right has become a bigger loving catholoc pedo jew. I meam, face it. All tgese ideologies exist on paper somewhere, but not among the behavioral sink that is the modern American.

RWDS doesn't mesh well with the ideals of liberty. the founding fathers would be disappointed, american anons.

>radical Christian zealot
You're not helping your case.

daily reminder

>is the military deadweight though
Absolutely. Without *ANY* shadow of a doubt. Exorbitant sums of money are spent on things that result in little value to anyone because the military isn't cost-concerned. If you took all the ridiculous loads of money that went through the military and instead left it in the hands of the people who its taken from via taxes, it would be spent in ways that *ARE* valuable to people. What value is there to the taxpayer on a trillion dollar F22 program? It's actually morally preposterous that people never can muster up the outrage that is due to such an absurdity.

I absolutely am. I couldn't care less what regard you have for any faith - it necessarily pales in comparison to my own derision for atheism.

Fair enough, but what about my second point?