Anarcho-Capitalism vs. National Socialism

The great debate. strawpoll.me/12781001

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=RmtuCzKy83U
youtube.com/watch?v=_r9Z-hTn1r4
mises.org/library/private-production-defence
youtube.com/watch?v=8vMypCinkRk
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Libertarians need to go back to r/the_donald

Can you guys please stop larping and seriously just choose what you believe in?

This can't be happening. I seriously doubt you guys are this divided.

Both the choices are shit is why.

Ancap is only temporarily (pic related).

libertarianism is normie-tier.
Hoppean libertarianism is just fascism-lite and will eventually just result in fascism

fpbp

...

National Capitalist American NEET Party

Libertarianism is the most free and just society known to man

Socialism (both national and international) are stupid and lead to tyrannical death machines destined to fail

What would you call such a philosophy?

>anarcho-capitalism
>working ever
Pick 1

You lean towards nat.soc., except for the freedom of speech/religion part and the decriminalization of drugs part.

When it comes to women nat.soc. promotes traditionalism, but if a woman would qualify for a high position, it would be allowed.

>Socialism
>working ever
Pick 1

Fixed that for you

True freedom can't exist without a state. When there is nothing stopping Jamal from raping your daughter on her way to school, you are not free. Freedom can only exist in a world where Jamal is killed, imprisoned or deported before he has a chance to harm others.

Anarcho-capitalism is not freedom, it will never be freedom, as long as there is no state with the authority and will to remove the elements from society which jeopardize the freedoms of others, freedom can not exist. Freedom is not passive, it must be actively maintained and defended.

None of the above desu.

>nothing stopping Jamal from raping your daughter
The only thing that kills Jamal is a man with a gun. You don't need a state badge to shoot Jamal

Used to be libertarian, am now Nat Soc.
>everybody grows up eventually

youtube.com/watch?v=RmtuCzKy83U

No, but there are tens of millions of Jamals and Pacos and many on this board believe some autistic devotion to a non-aggression principle can effectively deal with this

What is the economic difference between National Socialism an Communism?

NatSoc all the way baby

This has been me for a while and I haven't known what to tell people when asked. It may be stupid, but next time someone asks, I'm gonna say palmtree nationalist because of this image

>inb4 you're fuckin gay
i don't care

No, I'm all for aggression when it's justified. A libertarian society would be free to form a militia. If there were hordes of Jamals raping our women, it seems reasonable to me that a large group of citizens would band up to rope them from trees

no niggers or jews allowed

So it's just communism with out jews and muds?

There is only one answer

THE SUN MUST RISE

it's surprisingly more fluid than you think. Many think fascism is a means to libertarianism, in fact.

Communism is a classless system that abolishes private property.
>the government takes over everything
>you can't open any type of business

National Socialism has different classes and private property.
>the government would nationalize certain key industries and shut down harmful ones.
>you can't open a porn store or a predatory bank

youtube.com/watch?v=_r9Z-hTn1r4

Basically.

It's Communism within a boarder. If you aren't in their protected great nation, you are subhuman and need to be killed or enslaved.

National vs international, it doesn't matter, both are stupid economic systems doomed to fail

no not at all, you replied to a shitty meme answer. White Communism is called Strasserism and it's balls and was violently purged from Germany. NatSoc has private property, free market, entrepreneurs and other things. What makes it different is that it doesn't allow international finance to fuck your country over.

It's almost like extremes never work and the best system is a mixed system.

Government ownership of anything is bad economic policy.

That has to be the edgiest fan-fiction nat-soc flag I have ever seen, they even added a stupid ass filter to the cloth, good shit.

>no captcha
worthless poll

>not being prepared to go off the deep end when the barbarians threaten to batter down your doors and destroy everything you stand for.

>anarcho-anything
Fuck off degenerate. You are literally no better leftist faggots.

>makes a poll
>dont get the result he wants
>s-stop guise

fuck off

Hitler had mobsters in control of all major economic sectors of the country. Socialism is the soft transition into communism

It has a short term benefit, because things can get done faster. However, power corrupts, and eventually it all falls apart

who cares its edgy its a good representation of what i want

Then you've effectively become a state.

>anarchism
Top fucking cuckold. I cant take any of you seriously.

Good shit, I guess eventually you'll have to grow out of it.

Aggression is never justified.
Invaders are aggression and hence it is just to physical remove them.

That isn't a state. It's still a private group. It's free association of people with a goal.

I don't think you understand what a state is. A state is a mandatory, If you don't financially contribute to the state, they put you in jail

perhaps if a better alternative presents itself i realize that for now its just a dream

>McTomahawk™ detected

That's absolute nonsense, you're preaching dogma not stating fact.

Even prominent libertarians (Mises, Friedman, etc) conceded that government is needed to fill certain roles in society.
>would you argue for a private millitary?
>a private police force?
>a private central bank?
>pic related

this

Both of those ideologies suck cock...

We're on the same team for now.

nah you're just the_cuckold is why you can't choose the natsoc

I agree. Go back to your caucus caves, white invaders.

You misunderstood my point. I said aggression is justified when a pack of coon-rapists are invading. It's justified in defense. If someone is aggressive to you, it is completely justifiable to meet their aggression with your own aggression.

Physical Removalism is the synthesis, old news

This is kike d&c

How is that even a debate, let alone a "great" one?
Nazis have absolutely no place in modern society. No one actually support nazis, outside of retarded brainless skinheads and basement-dwelling virgins on the far-right fringes of the internet. Nazis don't even have valid arguments beside muh fuhrer muh race, it's patehtic.

>private police + military
mises.org/library/private-production-defence

>private central banks
would not exist, banks would issue their own notes which would likely have to matched to gold or some other precious resource.

...

>fake shitty country giving a fake shitty response
Wew lad

youtube.com/watch?v=8vMypCinkRk

>not knowing the difference between voluntarily purchasing a service and being forced at gun point to purchase something.

LIBERTARIANISM DIED WHEN RON PAUL LOST THE ELECTION. IT WAS BURIED WHEN THAT FAT FUCK TOOK HIS PANTS OFF AT THE LIBERTARIAN CONVENTION. It can only work in a society of intelligent and responsible people only (ie, whites) so just get onboard with Natsoc or some derivative.

There is nothing the government accomplishes that a private entity could not accomplish better. Banks, Military, Police, Firefighters, all would be much more effective if privately run. Milton Friedman was a minarchist, arguing that a few things should be mandated by government. I think he is wrong, because even those last fringes of government power can be done privately. You think government is the only group with the capability to build a road? Preposterous

Also, McTomahawk? I think you're meme'ing too hard dude

>he thinks he's enlightened
Heh

>pic
First and last image should be switched.

>muh jeebs muh marxism

like clockwork. You dumb nazishits just can't invent anything new except for regurgitating the same 80-year old memes. That's why your "movement" is a joke no one takes seriously.

ancap is better at fighting degeneracy than national socialism and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves and overestimating their knowledge in comparison to the knowledge of all totalled men.

came here to post this

A means to an end

we've done this already

Friedman was the example I was citing for those bullet points, I should have specified. In either case Mises did not argue for complete anarchy, even if he was against public security.

I completely agree to this. I hate the idea of fascism although am perfectly fun with right wing authoritarianism however I accept it's likely to only means to ancap utopia.

Nice try Satan

This

not true. competition works on social situations and works as well as in business hierarchies when there is no safety net or husband-replacing state. natural hierarchy best for mankind flourishes in a stateless society just as efficient business does

Read a book. It's a society with private property and private businesses. The actual socialists Hitler killed (Rohm and Strasser) or forced to go along with his ideology (Goebbels).

Mises graduated further towards anarchism as he got older. The main reason why he was so averse to it initially is because of the association with anarcho-leftist scum. It wasn't really a thing anyone thought about much until Rothbard, and that's when Mises grew warmer towards it

private property*

*prices set by the state, quantity set by the state, profits set by the state, industry funding set by the state

only one solution desu senpai

Socialism works great right?

Point me to one historical example of socialism working.

I'll wait

This is a valid consideration. After a certain length of fascism, it's values would become ingrained allowing for greater degrees of freedom.

>once the degenerates have been removed, degeneracy is less of a threat and therefore less of a concern.

>libertarians
>Donald Trump
are you fucking mental mate?

Anyway sage this D&C shit, I love my nationalist pals

nazis

which book?

I refer you to one of my other comments

>He doesn't know about anarcho-fascism
Kek

There was mild involvement but it was nothing like communism.

Yeah, how well did that one work out? Do you think before you post?

No it isn't. Being told what to make by a central authority is a violation of private property.

While factories owners technically owned their businesses they were not free to produce as they saw fit.

National Socialism is not Marxian Socialism

kek I'm the OP from that thread

great up until the war

Pic related.
>laws is communism!! Any sort of government is communism!

Socialism is Socialism is Socialism. Marx and Hitler differed in international vs national ideas, but economics were identical.

Hitler had commie policies. He was a left winger, even if the mainstream narrative is trying to make him a righty

nothing like communism is not the criteria for a non-escalation to commie economic policy and meme-tier dictators who don't understand anything about the values of the people

a central authority controlled production. this will always lead to failure.
if you want your natsoc shit at least keep it to cultural conservatism rather than memeconomics

anarchism is the synonym of chaos and disorder

NatSoc is the synonym of order and pride

ok but how many people are voting ironically? this poll is bunk people are just voting for the lols. You are not going to get a straight answer from these chuckle-heads.

Neither, but if I had to choose then ancap

>Losing a world war is the same as being a failed state

C'mon Justin...

nice strawman. there's no way to twist this away from the truth, though - a central authority controlling what is to be produced, what price it is to be sold at, how much can be produced and how much the business owners get paid is a recipe for failure essentially as direly as is "regular" socialism. no one man is smarter than the market.

He was destined to fail even without war.

And hardcore nationalist policy makes you a target for all other world powers. If USA became like Nazi germany, the rest of the world would team up against it.

It doesn't work, and history proved it

You do realize that type of control is already widespread today?

Regulations prohibit many business owners from "producing as they see fit" the only difference is the kikes own our government, so these regulations hurt our people and help (((their))) friends instead.

It wasn't a communist inspired economy though. America had a war effort and food rationing too but it wasn't communist.

ebin you just sold me on socialism never heard the "the market is chaos and there's only order under top-down smartTM planning" "argument" before damn good one

You do realize America had similar politics during the war? If it has private property and private business it is capitalist.