This triggers the lolbertarians

This triggers the lolbertarians

Other urls found in this thread:

zerothposition.com/2016/07/22/an-overview-of-autistic-libertarianism/
youtube.com/watch?v=ViN7rzPuXq8
youtube.com/watch?v=j2F0nb9fzZE
twitter.com/AnonBabble

zerothposition.com/2016/07/22/an-overview-of-autistic-libertarianism/

libertarian hate thread

...

If you were an actual Nazi, I wouldn't care. They had pretty low taxes and a highly privatized economy, comfy enough for me.

Where's Praceteom? He can explain to us how it's irrational to perceive a threat if someone puts a gun to your head and threatens to kill you.

...

I'm triggered by sidewalks and federal reserve notes. I also hate equality. Equality is achieved in a jail. Screw democracy to. You dont have a say over me.

Getting triggered would violate the NAP

...

Funny how they say "remove commies" but are ((("libertarian")))
Removal violates the NAP

explain to me how this is strawman

...

(((Libertarians))) fear the strong

False equivalency

Pic related.
In ancapland, if there were a McCop™ service, their job would be to enforce NAP and punish those who violate it. It follows that the rapist would be shot regardless of his payment plan.

Mind if I join the party too?

...

Actually libertarian socialists trigger me more. At least you know that a highly regulated economy requires a decrease in freedom.

>proud Sup Forumsers
>anonymous thread literally last sanctuary of free thought where you wont get lynched nowadays for speaking your fascist minds
>still manage to argue that we need more authoritarianism
>autism train rolls on until theres mandatory safespaces and hate speech laws
>"muh fuhrer"

...

...

Fuck, we have an autismo over hereo
Fucking newfag autismo

...

...

...

Ehem, Make way for the master race.

bless u :)

But what stops the McCop service from just becoming the private military of the richest people?

...

"pliz control my life"
"jk , not mine, i just want to control other people"

authoritarians are similar to communists
"no i wont be a worker/slave, i will be a card carrying party member"

Communists are coffee drinking, slam poetry hipsters who want to be card carrying party members instead of factory workers, you are right but Nationalists/Fascists are more than happy with serving in the frontlines for the Fatherland fighting against marxists and anarchists. That is the difference my dude.

how is that different from what you have right now?

It triggered the niggers too just to have something to pretend to be all outraged about so they could get on TV and tell everyone how horrible their lives are all the while knowing they're doing as little as possible themselves to better their terrible situations.

well aslong as you want to sell yourself, i don't have a problem with it, be a factory worker

people who dislike it will vote with their feet, like in communist countries

and then it will be up to history to see if nazis will destory themselves (again) by being agressive

the main challange will be to unite people under one authoritarian rule

like the repeated democracies which failed.


what?
anyway, nazism only took place for a small amount of time and was very prosperous for Germany while it took place. Also don't we all 'sell ourselves' to some degree as we work for whatever? We simply have an united goal. A brotherhood so to say. Unity among our ranks. Not to mention virtually no corruption, unlike communism.

any spesific examples?

it was prosperous, but even communism survived for longer, and it too was prosperous in a short period of time, but the fact that they selv destruct is a rather worrying one, either its agression or people voting with their feet

sure we do sell ouerselves, but in anarchy, or democracy, we have choice, along as they allow for that , that ins't a problem, its about the fact that everyone has to work for a "leader", and i don't think people in power simply ignore their own benifits, so the corruption part is false, as nazism never needed to pretend it was something else then authoritariansim at its fullest, communism was only "corrupt" because they pretended to be something else. The pain and suffering are similar in both systems tho
political opponents killed and put in jail, "traitors" being killed ect. Just because they dislike the system put up, why can't all the nazis just sell themselves, and leave those who don't be?? Because defience is against the rules. And who would want to live in a society like that? Where you could be thrown in jail for saying things?

Isn't that why you guys hate the SJW lmao?
They too want unity, and a goal
do you think you will be able to choose between dictators in your system too? What makes you think that?

The irony is that of course everyone wants to be king, and everyone wants their rules to be forced upon others, but they would never want the same happen to them

I prefer that if i live in a community, the community is essentialy the ones who decides, and if i dislike it, i move to another community rather then force my oopinion onto everyone else

SJW and alt-right have too much incommon for me to take what you say too seriously

You must go one step above national socialism.

Oy

>only 91.9%
gtfo ancap cuck, maybe you also make independent decisions?

>tfw the only country where people are raised to have realistic views on society

>Fuck personal freedom, I want the government controlling literally every aspect of my life and basically making me into a slave who works for the benefit of people I've never met

Authoritarians are the biggest cucks imaginable.

Do any research

Also, can't take me serious but you're on Sup Forums and despite not caring about others ideologies you still join threads focusing on your distastes. but ok.

>the community is essentialy the ones who decides
Not even anarchism gives a shit about that, they care about just being away from a hierarchy but alright. you can think what you want I guess.

>isn't that why you guys hate the sjw
Can they achieve unity or a goal? No, every SJW and/or feminist has a different ideology and cannot work together while fascists can work together with even libertarians or other groups of people. Even for a while with communists before they literally liquidated finland which was kinda fucked up.
Also goals are different between the two factions. Good job for realizing that.

>SJW and alt-right have too much in common
why are you even talking then?

Freedom cannot manifest without an authority to enforce it.

based

"do any research"
>cherrypicking

well unlike most people, i think its important to challange my views, i would love to hear a good argument

anarchism means no ruler, not no rules
libertarianism ins't anarchy
"do some research"

>facism disagree on basic ideological factors such as who is white
>agree on everything
as if, beating people to submission is hardly agreement

as i explained earlier, as an individual and anti-authoritarian, i love being challanged, that ins't a thing for comfy "choose my decisions for me"

Freedom can't exist when full authority is in place, retard. Being forced to do shit against your will for the sake of your country isn't freedom.

Freedom is a myth

Are you implying you're more free than the average German?

If I told the policeman I didn't believe the Holocaust happened I wouldn't be arrested like you.

>#woke

women here can walk around without getting raped by Ahmed
>but what about Tyrone
she can carry a gun for that

You're not even guaranteed paid vacation. Your state refuses even the most basic steps to protect your liberty from corporations.

> This triggers the lolbertarians
Your economic axis does, the rest is irrelevant.
t. libertarian

I'm allowed to talk shit about Muslims in public without getting arrested or raped. I'd say I'm pretty free.

But can you get dental care without having a job?

Freedom doesnt function without morality and discipline. Since morality and discipline has been abolished during the last 100 years, an authoritarian regime has to reinstate it before we can enjoy freedom.

Patrician tier

>Your state refuses even the most basic steps to protect your liberty from corporations.

Your state refuses even the most basic steps to protect your liberty from its own pathological altruism.

No, but I'll work and make money so I can afford dental care. Fuck off with your socialist bullshit.

Why is democracy inherently flawed? Are you familiar with the allegory of the sweetshop owner? On the topic: youtube.com/watch?v=ViN7rzPuXq8
As for anarchy, a free market capitalist cannot have a nation exist in any way, shape, or form that perverts markets (by, say, creating subsidies or taxing wealth at arbitrary rates). Therefore, the state must be abolished as "state capitalism" is an oxymoron.
As a consequence, there can be no national borders as there is no state to ensure them. And you're living pipe dreams if you think an anarchist state can be ethnically cohesive: the goal of capitalism is globalism, or an absolute global free market without any restrictions perverting it. This will lead to some consequences for ethnic cohesion. Follow up on "Bowling alone": youtube.com/watch?v=j2F0nb9fzZE
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2017/01/19/the-flaws-of-meritocratic-immigration/

America's migration problems are far worse than anything in Europe. Once again, the soft (or nonexistent) state regulations and omnipotent corporations you defend cause the very problems that make you believe leftists are after your freedom. Your country is disintegrating because it lacks regulation. It lacks a social agenda.

Libertarians (just yet another term for the Jew) are more pro-immigration than any socialist I've ever met, and I've met a few.

either the modern concept of "liberalism" is completely bastardised or this test is bullshit

Also does anybody else have the other political test recently posted?

looks like the standard political compass but with another vertical dimension

>muh corporate boogeyman
>implying Mexicans are worse than Muslims
enjoy being apart of the Caliphate m8. I look Hispanic enough that I can blend in with them so I have no worries here

>I look Hispanic enough that I can blend in with them

point proven

I'm only pro-immigration if the migrants are willing to assimilate into our culture, which is pretty much never unless they're migrating from a European or Anglo country. Which is why I oppose Latin American and especially Muslim immigration.

I pretty much got the same results

A society that does not require a class of uneducated slaves and thus won't encourage immigration is objectively better. I'm glad the refugee crisis happened. It pushed the economic consciousness of my people back into the right (left) direction. Capital has to serve the people.

I mean "tradition" and "science" appear to be competing for space on the same axis, so yeah. Also, this test doesn't take into account demographics either. I.e. There are certain libshit policies I would gladly go along with if essentially everyone around me was white.

my comment wasn't about capitalism, as i don't care for it, didn't you get the picture i posted?
anarchism isn't compatable with capitalism

As for democracy, yes it has its falws, i won't argue against that, but i don't see a better system out there, and even if so the choice of authoritarian government is to be accepted, which system should we use to come to this conclusion? either we choose as society, or the authoritarians take power.
If you are for the second, why the hell are you against the SJW`? they are simply doing the same,
or if its about physical power, why are you against chaotic anarchy?

there is no way to be consistant in authoritarianism, while democracy is consistant in being able to destroy itself

freedom means people being able to do scary things, and a community means many people deciding to live together. Which means one has to take opinions into account

im not entirely sure how authoritarians can be against anything, as they will just have to agree with whatever authority tells them, so they go the other path of choosing a spesific ideology, like communism or nazism, but then one must ask, how should we come to this decision? If you want a society with power struggels other then argumentativ, then good luck finding a better system.

the SJW and the alt-right should just get over with it, and start killing eachother

>anarchism isn't compatable with capitalism
It isn't compatible because it is necessary. You cannot have a state interfering with the free market, plain and simple.
>but i don't see a better system out there
Feudalism can have the same argument applied to it. Frankly, alternatives have been presented and the same point you made can be applied to them, too.
>or the authoritarians take power.
Yes. And?
>If you are for the second, why the hell are you against the SJW`? they are simply doing the same,
Why do you oppose left-libertarians? They are doing the same as you are. Yeah, false equivalency to play fence-sitter for brownie points: not really a great argument/arguing in good faith (especially when you ask for "debate"). Stop denying context and analyze what is actually being asserted by both sides. Vast degrees of separation. All people who use governments to achieve end-results are not equivalent and it's pretty lazy to assume their end-goals are the same (why are you opposed, you want the same thing don't you?).
>there is no way to be consistant in authoritarianism
Communists aren't people. Throw them from helicopters. Quite consistent.
>freedom means people being able to do scary things
Okay. Communists who deny your freedom from bodily harm/theft are, in turn, violating your "freedom". Extending their own moral framework to themselves is to be expected.
>as they will just have to agree with whatever authority tells them
The image you have is of some police state where the people hate the leader and want him dead at all times. Not every government is Stalin's iron fist regime.
>the SJW and the alt-right should just get over with it, and start killing eachother
Trying.

>doesn't realize hes talking to an anarchist /AKA left wing

you pretty much seem to agree with a violent approach, so i don't see what is to be gained in this argument anyways

and then you say this
>The image you have is of some police state where the people hate the leader and want him dead at all times. Not every government is Stalin's iron fist regime

how are you supposed to make the people not hate it? Its almost as one has to use a system where one can make sure the majority has to agree.. hmm


this all sounds quite inconsistant

>>doesn't realize hes talking to an anarchist /AKA left wing
No. I don't know your ideology.
>you pretty much seem to agree with a violent approach, so i don't see what is to be gained in this argument anyways
cool.
how are you supposed to make the people not hate it? Its almost as one has to use a system where one can make sure the majority has to agree.. hmm


this all sounds quite inconsistant

You assume they hate it to begin with. A state free from moral decay, one with ethnic cohesion: wow, people sure seem to hate it. Again, read up on the links I initially provided. You glossed over them entirely, as you did not even respond to them (despite their assertions being the bedrock for my claim arguing in defence of 'x').
Democracy is where the majority agree? On the same thing, no less. The illusion of choice and the sweetshop owner will lull you into a deep sleep while you think your utopia will last as the whole of the third world comes into your nation because you allowed women and niggers to vote.

like i said, democracy has its flaws, just like freedom

but if you know what you support you are consistant, and as an anarchist, i don't have problems with it. I also have no problems with the SJW and alt-right killing eachother, as they don't seem to care for words

im simply asking for you to explain a contradicting position

you have explaiend some contradictory statements: social cohesion without democracy, violent control, authoritarian/ but a spesific type, lets hope your leader never changes his mind and locks you up for degenerecy

>like i said, democracy has its flaws, just like freedom
Not really building your point. Like I said, it's a weak argument. "Well, yeah I'm not attempting to refute your point or present a counter, but what other choice do we have!"
>I also have no problems with the SJW and alt-right killing eachother, as they don't seem to care for words
Great. Anarchists are next.
>im simply asking for you to explain a contradicting position
Copy that.
>you have explaiend some contradictory statements: social cohesion without democracy, violent control, authoritarian/ but a spesific type, lets hope your leader never changes his mind and locks you up for degenerecy
Why would this "leader" do such a thing. The Third Reich didn't suddenly change up shop and elect Jews as citizens en masse. What kind of backwards logic is this. And if such a glaring dichotomy ever becomes as apparent as you want it to be, don't think that revolution is off the table. I still support the second Amendment. Allowing indolence into your society, however, will always leave room for subversion. A strong state with clear goals (which I have elaborated on, yet you still refuse to address directly beyond "well, what if he doesn't want to follow the goals the leader himself set forth") is the most logical solution.
Similarly, all it takes is the sweetshop owner to be persuaded by differing interests to corrupt your system entirely.

the point is
>its flawed but atleast its not contradictory
the others systems are contradictory

seems to me like your putting too much trust into a system with one leader

a plurality is weaker then one auhtoritarian
>. I still support the second Amendment.
aslong as you are not the leader, no one cares

see the problem?

it seems to me like your assuming things rather then listening to what i say, my point isn't "what choice do we have"
but rather, there is no other choice, even your system has to either go for violence, or arguments, and you are contradicting yourself on what you want.

While i put my faith in the hands of the public, each individual person might have its flaws, and thats for them to deal with, society is built on flawed people, therfor they should use a system where everyone has a say in what way they want to destroy the country.

authoritarianism is a wierd combination of being scared enough of the consiquences of democracy, while being totally in line with the consiquences of kingship

Its a position where you contradictingly discared a stable system with flaws, in favor of an unstable one, or one where you are forced into stability out of violence