Good evening, Sup Forums: I am a LIBERTARIAN: DEBATE ME

Good evening, Sup Forums: I am a LIBERTARIAN: DEBATE ME.

Other urls found in this thread:

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

I don't feel like it

Why aren't you a libertarian fascist yet?

Rand Paul 2020

Droompa loompa
Drompfhly doo
I only got one scoop why'd you get two?
Droompa loompa
Dromphly dee dee
Release your damn tax returns you have until three.

What are the flaws in libertarianism?

Beside being completely delusional?

Do you believe all the transgender stuff is ok?

I basically am; I desire a career in economics and my (((SPLC))) label will probably be 'White supremacist for corporate dictatorship'.

You have to be over 18 to post here

When will the LP become a legitimately viable party and not just a meme?

There are no flaws in LIBERTARIANISM (properly conceived); however, many LIBERTARIANS erroneously disregard race and endorse open borders; I obviously vociferously denounce and disavow such imbeciles. 14; hail Hoppe!

How so?

When The LP embraces White identity.

Maybe not for children.

I like arguing so why not, I used to be a libertarian/ancap before I began reading some fascist writing and realized libertarianism is a dead, utopian ideology that would A: never actually be implemented in a democratic system, and B: completely unsustainable, its the natural order of the state to grow in power, even in you somehow implemented a libertarian system of government it would not remain so for any more than a few generations.
My main problem with libertarianism is the elevation of the "free market" to a position where its transcended being simply the most efficient way of distributing resources to the position of a secular God, reigning supreme, and even becoming a moral arbiter, ie as long as the activity is a consensual market driven exchange/activity it is not immoral. also the hyperindividualism that is associated with libertarianism is not only destructive but it goes against man's tribal nature.


I realize my initial arguments are quite vague, but so is "debate me" hopefully my comments will at least be a starting point.

I am.

Bump for interest.

NazBol gang here. Why are you a puppet to Jewish capitalists?

Should business owners be allowed to refuse service to someone based on race, sexuality, etc?

>I realize my initial arguments are quite vague
>its the natural order of the state to grow in power
you're still an ancap but you dont even realize it. short bitcoin if you are so sure you are not

that poster hinges on the belief that surplus theft has been proven to exist
it has not, and fuck off with your reddit space screengrabs

Roads?

> Captialism is usury. It's defining belief is return on interest
Wrong. Capitalism is "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."

Start's off with a straw man. The rest is just nonsensical strawmanny BS.

Yes

>I like arguing so why not, I used to be a libertarian/ancap before I began reading some fascist writing and realized libertarianism is a dead, utopian ideology that would A: never actually be implemented in a democratic system, and B: completely unsustainable, its the natural order of the state to grow in power, even in you somehow implemented a libertarian system of government it would not remain so for any more than a few generations.

I would also consider myself a neoreactionary: we have considered such critiques of libertarianism; we found a solution:

>xenosystems.net/tag/neocameralism/

>My main problem with libertarianism is the elevation of the "free market" to a position where its transcended being simply the most efficient way of distributing resources to the position of a secular God, reigning supreme, and even becoming a moral arbiter, ie as long as the activity is a consensual market driven exchange/activity it is not immoral.

Strawman: we only believe such actions --- insofar as it does not impose upon another's person or property or breach a contractual obligation --- should not be illegal; however, unlike The Left we do not believe one should nihilistically suspend all moral judgment and accompanying discrimination just because an action is consensual. Slut shaming is perfectly compatible with libertarianism.

The hyper-individualism some libertarians espouse is indeed problematical: libertarianism needs an ethno-racial context.

Capitalism can't be Jewish if all Jews are dead.

Short dismissals like these are sign the person is a socialist of sorts who can't face the objective facts and figures in favor of capitalism. He's a waste of time to debate with since his arguments are obviously emotional, and if can muster a response it is some cliche argument that has been dealt with before.

See

Private but communally owned.

How do you feel about immigration? Legal and illegal

Absolutely.

Markets don't equal morality.

Argument over.

See

I endorse ethno-nationalism; I believe in immigration restriction on an ethno-racial basis.

Strawman: we only believe such actions --- insofar as it does not impose upon another's person or property or breach a contractual obligation --- should not be illegal; however, unlike The Left we do not believe one should nihilistically suspend all moral judgment and accompanying discrimination just because an action is consensual. Slut shaming is perfectly compatible with libertarianism.

Bump.

Are you a Christian (what kind) or an atheist?

who killed Jesus? what about Pepe?

is pedophilia okay in my basement on my own property. Also supposed girl would be from my own sperm, therefore my property.

Probably Das Juden.

OP is an atheist so he wouldn't mind

No because children cannot consent so fucking them violates NAP.

What does that mean? They can't consent? What's the age of consent and how do you arrive at it?

>those Hitler digits

Baloney - your arguments are selfishly myopic just like atheism.

E.g. drugs: legalise them all, let people get duped by big business into taking things positively correlated with psychiatric problems for no positive gains. The market cannot rule on the immorality of this.

Free movement: benefits rich libertarians who want 'the market' to provide cheap labour, fails everybody else in society.

Big business and advertising: any large company can buy favourable media coverage, positive research but this doesn't equal morality (think harmful medical drugs, monsanto, sweets).

Prostitution and obscenity: there's more to this than a market and if your market is bigger than those of the people who live in a whore area their right not to be infringed by whoredom gets ignored.

I also don't think anyone ever should be denied emergency life saving treatment ever, but this doesn't chime with the market.

Markets don't equal morality.

Ok, how about importing adult virgins from Vietnam for sex - it's a market after all.

Depends on which system; for an AnCap system, private insurers would converge on a commonsense number; for a neocameral system, what ever number is deemed most acceptable for attracting potential customers (residents).

I guess you saw the request for such an image the other day too?

The NAP is a strategically inferior position which cedes the element of surprise to your enemies.

It won't work because people are kinda wack

What about in the case of immoral (By traditional standards of morality) and predatory lending by banks/usury? It may be legal, and not violate the non-aggression principal but that does not make it right, and there is no incentive not to exploit a desperate individual given the chance in an individualistic libertarian society with no regulation where the profit motive reigns supreme.

Furthermore there is no consideration for the well being of society, only individual enrichment, there is no incentive to care for ones fellow man other than the potential of being sued in some way for damages, in a fascist system your people are considered your extended family, and should be cared for and the poor not left to struggle to feed themselves on the streets, that being said nobody gets a free lunch, you earn welfare through public works such as the autobon in germany.
Just because there is a market for something, doesnt mean it should be supplied, certain things that are degenerate, and destructive to society should not be legal, ie the countless degenerate sex industry that thrived in pre-fascist Germany.

What of health care for those who cant afford it, I dont believe in complete socialised health care due to inefficiency, but the state should pay for health savings accounts which would be used to pay for private care.
Also you dont get to throw communists out of helicopters in a libertarian system because that would violate the NAP.

>E.g. drugs: legalise them all, let people get duped by big business into taking things positively correlated with psychiatric problems for no positive gains. The market cannot rule on the immorality of this.

Degenerates reap what they sow: how cares? The war on drugs was been an enormous and expensive failure.

>Big business and advertising: any large company can buy favourable media coverage, positive research but this doesn't equal morality (think harmful medical drugs, monsanto, sweets).

False advertising is fraud and violates NAP.

>Prostitution and obscenity: there's more to this than a market and if your market is bigger than those of the people who live in a whore area their right not to be infringed by whoredom gets ignored.

No such right exists.

>I also don't think anyone ever should be denied emergency life saving treatment ever,

Why?

And I do not support open borders. Pic related:

How do you reconcile this?

Only in an authoritarian ethnocratic polity.

The OP seems to atheist which means morality is relative to him (in this case he subordinates it to 'the market') which in reality means he doesn't believe in morality, but he'll never have the balls to concede this.

People with IQs of 140+ come out of Ivy League marketing schools to work for corporations like Coca-Cola. At Coca-Cola these highly intelligent people research and design methods of persuasion that are packed into 30 second ads that appeal to the bestial natures of people with IQs

'Morality' is a very broad subject: can you ask more specific questions about it?

ROADS
O
A
D
S

Religion is not the sole source of morality.
There are objectively right moral principles that can be arrived at by pure logic.

Nobody is stealing or harming anyone in your example.

>muh degeneracy
It's called freedom of association

...

Freedom of association isnt an argument, nor have you addressed why the harm these industries do to society should not be addressed

...

There is no such thing as society.

And of course it's an argument. I don't associate with degenerates therefore they do not concern me. They only concern me the moment a state exist to coerce me into association, for example via taxes or via enforcing some arbitrary 'common good' to improve 'society'

>What about in the case of immoral (By traditional standards of morality) and predatory lending by banks/usury? It may be legal, and not violate the non-aggression principal but that does not make it right, and there is no incentive not to exploit a desperate individual given the chance in an individualistic libertarian society with no regulation where the profit motive reigns supreme.

There is nothing wrong with charging interest on a loan and 'exploitation' is a Marxian meme. Socialized and fractional reserve banking is immoral (in such a way that The NAP is breached) however and should be banned.

>Furthermore there is no consideration for the well being of society, only individual enrichment, there is no incentive to care for ones fellow man other than the potential of being sued in some way for damages, in a fascist system your people are considered your extended family, and should be cared for and the poor not left to struggle to feed themselves on the streets, that being said nobody gets a free lunch, you earn welfare through public works such as the autobon in germany.

I'm a social Darwinian: competition builds social competence; communalism is degenerative.

>Just because there is a market for something, doesnt mean it should be supplied, certain things that are degenerate, and destructive to society should not be legal, ie the countless degenerate sex industry that thrived in pre-fascist Germany.

Don't like it don't buy it.

>What of health care for those who cant afford it, I dont believe in complete socialised health care due to inefficiency, but the state should pay for health savings accounts which would be used to pay for private care.

Why should my pecuniary holdings be plundered so? The community is responsible for such actions on a voluntary basis.

>Also you dont get to throw communists out of helicopters in a libertarian system because that would violate the NAP.

They are making violent threats though.

>Nobody is stealing or harming anyone in your example.

If I tell a child or retard that it will make them happy to give me $10, is the child/retard being harmed? Is that not stealing?

Also, are you really implying that you would prefer fascism and the consequential wars that follow it over a bunch of trannies and trannie industries that in no way concern you personally?

Private but owned communally.

On drugs: thanks for proving my point on morality.

SOCIETY cares as do the families of those affected.

On drugs: who says the advertising is false? Unsellable lifestyle interventions beat drugs in most conditions (by numbers affected), but you're allowing advertising of drugs over this. Ditto for unhealthy branded foods, transfats, smoking.

On prostitution: yes it does. Somebody on my street buys a house, turns it into a brothel, does well financially, buys up many other houses etc.

The market has ruled in his favour and violates my 'right' not to live amongst obscenity.

In favour of buying virgins? What about kidneys? What does the market have to say about about a poor indian in india selling both kidneys to a rich indian in the west?

Markets don't equal morality.

Well is it making them happy?
Children and retards are not able to make objective decisions tho so this sounds more like coercion.

'Society' isn't a victim; it cannot sue or stand in a court of law. A criminal offence needs a person or group of people who have been harmed in a real way, plundered from, or defrauded.

Life saving: because it's immoral.

Open borders are a key logical tenet of libertarianism. You can't deny it without acknowledging a fallacy in your ideology.

That flag is the biggest contradiction I've ever seen in my life.

As a former lolbergtardion now fash.... It's beautiful

Is there any limit to the free market in your ideal libertarian paradise?

>The market has ruled in his favour and violates my 'right' not to live amongst obscenity.

Such a right only exists in the sense that someone cannot prevent you from moving away from X. You do not have a right to receive X at a location of your choice.

Organs are a huge blackmarket. Why not be able to legally sell your kidney for an agreed upon sum? What's the problem?

>Children and retards are not able to make objective decisions

Is anyone? Are people with

>SOCIETY cares as do the families of those affected.

Fuck 'society'; you can't jail people for smoking a plant. Maybe those families should have raised better kids.

>On drugs: who says the advertising is false? Unsellable lifestyle interventions beat drugs in most conditions (by numbers affected), but you're allowing advertising of drugs over this. Ditto for unhealthy branded foods, transfats, smoking.

Or you could mind your own business, faggot.

>The market has ruled in his favour and violates my 'right' not to live amongst obscenity.

How is that a right?

>What does the market have to say about about a poor indian in india selling both kidneys to a rich indian in the west?

What's wrong with that?

Read Hoppe.

No.

There again, further evidence of the selfish ignorance of libertarianism. Society is what allows children/young adults to live without being hassled by drug dealers that libertarianism would allow because of the market.

I'm also sure you acknowledge that yoy can't have genuine free markets in everything right (eg roads, energy)?

Exactly: a big pimp (properly contracting his whores) trumps my ability to not have my family live amongst prostitution.

Organs: as I said what does the market say about poor Ahmed selling his life through both kidneys to rich Ahmed in US?

NOTHING.

If you support any regulations (besides fraud), you're anti libertarian.

Sees flag,you are to dumb to live ya foking nigger faggot.

is that jew kushner ?

Why would communal road owners allow drug peddlers on their property?

What business would allow drug peddlers on its premises?

Such people would likely be physically removed.

And drugs won't be legal for minors.

>asphalt
>not even once
Its almost like they want them to be temporary so they can keep charging the tax payers

>Exactly: a big pimp (properly contracting his whores) trumps my ability to not have my family live amongst prostitution.

You could move.

>Organs: as I said what does the market say about poor Ahmed selling his life through both kidneys to rich Ahmed in US?

Again: what is wrong with a free market in organs?

Btw little Ahmed in my kidneys donation example is only little because he's poor, not age wise. He's fully aware selling both kidneys kills him, but knows it'll feed manjula and his family of 56 for the rest of their lives.

Yes
Adults can make their own decisions

Nick Land.

Good for Ahmed.

You've legalised drugs! And lets say public roads around transportation hubs.

Forget minors, above 16= adult for consent purposes.

It is his decision to make. He is only harming himself. You could argue that it would be morally wrong because survival is a moral imperative, but it is trumped by his ability to choose, and if he values the survival of his family over his own, it's objectively a moral decision.

So who owns those roads?

You've allowed a trade in human life which is beyond abhorrent.

Creating a market for death crosses moral boundaries that libertarianism cannot condemn.

Why would drug dealers exist if drugs were legalised?
I mean yes, there would be drug dealers. Working in drug stores or at Amazon or wherever else you can buy literally any legal good.
When was the last time someone whispered to you in a dark alley to sell you vegetables?

Have you read any fascist writing or does your understanding of it end at its pejorative modern definition? you react to it like pavlov's dogs, trained to respond to something you don't understand.

charging interest and usury/predatory lending are two different things.

When it comes to your social Darwinism, there is still a hierarchy in fascism based on merit where the most competent rise to the top and accumulate more resources, there is still competition in a fascist system, but there seems to be a fundamental disconnect, or disagreement here, Fascists see it as immoral not to help your people when in need, everyone in some way can contribute to the state/society in some form or another.

once again when it comes to your dont like it dont buy it response there seems to be a fundamental disconnect, a fascist cares deeply about the moral character of his nation and does not want degeneracy or destructive to spread through society, just a private market actor say one who owns a Hoppe-esc covenant community would not want his streets filled with repulsive degeneracy or destructive influences that slowly have an effect on the breaking down of culture and social cohesion.

I think the main disconnect is that of individualism vs tribalism. the individual does not care about something if it does not effect him, the tribalism cares about the well being of the tribe and its members.

That marker already exists. Go to the wrong areas in Africa or south America and you come home without your organs.

Thanks: so yes libertarianism favours the rich bully boys over moral decency (perhaps I can't afford to move).

It's a crap ideology if taken to its logical extremes.

niggers

>You've allowed a trade in human life which is beyond abhorrent.

Why? And organ sales don't axiomatically imply death.

Ahh the joys of moral relativism.

In the real world it is just amorality.

Google 'liverpool care pathway' in your free time to see how euthanasia became prevalent in Britain after this pathway was allowed for only people imminently dying of cancer.

>Exploitation is a meme
Jesus Christ, I knew you guys were retarded, but this...