Okay, you got your class of politics for the day, Sup Forums. You're angry, depressed, desperate and you are RIGHT

Okay, you got your class of politics for the day, Sup Forums. You're angry, depressed, desperate and you are RIGHT.

Time to swallow the Yellow Pill: Anarcho-Capitalism / Voluntarism / Libertarianism.

What is NOT Libertarianism?

>open borders when there is a welfare state IS NOT libertarianism, hence why plenty of libertarians supported the orange jew puppet

>bombing muslims and bringing them to your country is NOT libertarianism

>compulsory healthcare program is NOT libertarianism

>weed is NOT libertarianism, the freedom of choice WITH consequences is libertarianism

>wasting 50+ million dollars in military equipment to destroy a single airbase is NOT libertarianism

>bragging about Wallstreet bubbles when you might just be the last republican president is NOT libertarianism

What is libertarianism?

>freedom of speech, responsibility, free market, knowledge of the evils of the government and now certainty that ours is the only right way

How do we achieve it?

>secession is the only way. Government needs to be fragmented into Singapore-like entities who will have no way to finance themselves other than allowing free flow of capital. We must push for the secession of Alaska and Texas as they stand. The state will not preserve western civilization

Anarchocapitalism is too unstable and would likely turn back into a government.

I think small governments, around the size of a local council are probably best.

First, divide the US into individual countries (the states)
Then, dissolve the states into individual city-states
You're basically there, at that point.

That's basically my thought process. I consider myself libertarian, not because of any candidate or the party platforms, but because I haven't met the anarcho-capitalist yet who could convince me that people who will vote for socialism won't form a government to do the same.

All the goods government provides could be better provided by the free market.

Not to mention government gets its money from taxes.

If someone were to create a government then one of two things would happen:

a) They would start taxing people and breaking the NAP, at which point the people would revolt.

or

b) They wouldn't and would have to provide their services on the free market making it just another business. ie: not a government.

>"BUT THEY COULD STILL MAKE LAWS"

Well, that too would break the NAP as well. And when people have their rights taken away they fight back; especially armed people.

I hope I could make you understand my view.

and then we get conquered by a totalitarian government.

I took this pill like seven years ago. Its just a weaker version of red pill, only more piss.

If a corporation starts providing the services of a government, then that would be very appealing to women. When they start saying things like 'we could have prevented this is everyone had to pay us' then I think they'd get support.

Mothers don't really want to drive their children to school in an APC in-case someone has planted a recreational IED at the tolled traffic lights.

You can't make people value the NAP above extreme personal convenience.

Do they, though? the US has more guns than people, and has done nothing but lose rights over the course of its whole existence, and yet: no revolt. Most people are sheep, worst of all are those that imagine themselves as the defenders.

yeah no i don´t want to get fucked even harder by greedy businesses

>never heard of regulatory capture

>implying regulatory isn´t the exact opposite of anarcho

>ancapism
Daily reminder.

I think it's not possible until you have a culture that is commpatible with it. In somewhere like the Southern US, I think it would work. The culture has to promote family, self-reliance, individual responsibility, and hatred of the government. Very few places fit all of those criteria. The US South and probably some other random locations would be the only areas an Anarcho-capitalist society would work. The only thing that may prevent it form working in the US South is the race relations.

why the hell do people romantice the south so much? it´s not like big corporations tried to gain as much influence and land as they could down there as much as everywhere else

and yeah i know the way i wrote that sentence doesn´t sound good

Anarcho-capitalism looks like my vitamin e supplement

My first thought is it looks like my fish oil capsules.

Your country took this approach to drugs
You decriminalized them all
Now you live in a drug-world shit hole
Fuck off

>What is libertarianism?
>freedom of speech, responsibility, free market, knowledge of the evils of the government and now certainty that ours is the only right way
Oh cool it's literally what you already have in most western countries. Neat, then. No need to secede!

>b-but the market's not perfectly laissez-faire!
Still a free market.
>here's a fucked up thing that happened on a college campus! and a stupid hate speech / Holocaust denial law!
You still have a free press & freedom of speech in the vast majority of circumstances, including, notably, the freedom to advocate for those laws to be changed.
>b-but [some anecdote about welfare]
If you think there are problems with welfare then that's more than fair and you can petition your gov't to change it. Doesn't mean that by and large your country doesn't have "responsibility."

You haven't made a good case for taking the objectively pretty good system you already have and fragmenting it into "Singapore-like entities" all of which will be following a mostly untested AnCap model. "The system we have isn't perfect!" OH SHIT LET'S JUST BURN THE WHOLE THING DOWN THEN. God I hate you AnCap sluts.

Freedom of speech is infringed on in most western countries now.

You can literally go to prison for voicing certain facts.

Did you miss where I directly addressed that?

People's rights are almost always being infringed upon in some capacity. That's nothing new. That's why it's cool when you live in a liberal democracy (that's classical liberalism, yes) which provides legitimate avenues by which you can challenge and try to change things and defend your rights, and sometimes even win. No it doesn't work 100% of the time but you're delusional if you think things are bad enough in any western country to just scrap the whole thing and start fresh (which would be enormously more likely to saddle you with an outright dictator, by the by).

(Incidentally it's always hilarious to me when AnCap types bring up Singapore and Hong Kong - it's usually pretty apparent that they've never actually been to either.)

We're being demographically replaced by Muslims and you risk prison for mentioning it. Neither of the two real political parties oppose it, and the only third parties that oppose it are regional and thus cannot even win in the FPTP system. No third party has ever won an election here, so it's effectively a two part system anyway, with a slim chance of a powerless coalition.

So yeah, I guess my country ceasing to exist in a few generations is 'bad enough.

I AGREE with you. Problem is what the OP is suggesting isn't a solution for any of that. It's a great way to accelerate the destruction of your country, though. Great recipe for a period of unrest and upheaval followed by somebody simply taking power, and there's no reason to think they'd be somebody you'd approve of. Looking at historical trends they probably would not be.

Even if we're naively assuming your revolution goes off without a hitch, demographic replacement is not a problem you need anarcho-capitalism, libertarianism or secession to solve. There are other solutions that are a lot less radical than fissuring the country off into libertarian city-states or whatever, less likely to go wrong and easier to convince people to take seriously. For better or for worse what the OP's suggesting will never take place. But as your country in particular has shown the EU, getting people worked up over immigration is not impossible by any means.

The majority already have anti-immigration sentiment, hence why it is both major parties' policy, but they don't enact it. They just say they'll reduce it, but it keeps going up and up, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

Democracy is an utter sham. Look at Trump; pretty much the most anti-establishment candidate who could ever realistically be elected and he's corrupted immediately. There's no point voting for anything because the government will do whatever they want regardless.

I agree, no one has the balls to do anything about this immigration demographic problem. We need action, and it needs to be executed swiftly.