This thread is dedicated to the discussion of all things small government, free market, and self-determination and the PHYSICAL REMOVAL of COMMUNIST FAGS from our board of peace. Reminder that this is the Libertarian RIGHT General. Aleppo Johnson-fags, Left-Libertarians, and other Shit-Libs need to fuck off. Voice your complaints to r/libertarian.
We are paleolibertarians, holding conservative and traditional values. We believe the best way to preserve these values is by allowing people to live as they please, allowing the responsible to survive and the stupid and degenerate to fail.
Jacob Campbell
Shame!
Jose Gray
Are paleoconservative and paleolibertarian the same thing?
What do >we think of Pat Buchanon
Brody Bailey
I'd have a beer with him
Robert Parker
/lrg/ seeks to differentiate ourselves from the mainstream libertarians who promote nothing but weed, gay marriage and multiculturalism.
>The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling that nothing is worth war is much worse I agree completely, there can be no pacifism if we are to secure our own freedoms.
Not quite the same, paleolibertarianism is still more anti-state that paleocons. although we do share alot of the same virtues.
Elijah Garcia
Communists are self proclaimed aggressors against private property. Their worldview is incompatible with libertarianism and so they must be subjugated if we are to have a libertarian social order.
Hunter Anderson
ah, I see. I'm pro-state since I think libertarians can't get the job done
Gavin Ramirez
Some say libertarianism equates to liberal "tolerance".
These people are mistaken in thinking we approve of or will even tolerate such destructive lifestyles such as homosexuality, prostitution, pedophilia, polygamy. We see the state as the biggest promoter and protector of these types of lifestyles. In the absence of the state no one will prevent discrimination against these groups or subsidise their breeding. We see libertarianism as a sort of evolutionary eugenics.
Brody Green
Right-Wing populism is a strategy that suits libertarianism well. Cutting taxes/welfare, opposing globalism, and defending family values not only applies consistently to libertarianism and opposes the ruling class., but also appeals to the majority of americans/countrymen.
Gabriel Bailey
We must make clear what we are and what we are not. Many people who call themselves libertarians are really just liberals who are not economically ignorant. We oppose leftist/liberal tolerance, destruction of the family and so on.
Agorism is a joke, sure you can get some tax free trade which is good. It is foolish to believe selling weed will supress the states power.
Carson Rodriguez
...
Aiden Taylor
ANTI-EGALITARIANISM >We began by considering the common view that the egalitarians, despite a modicum of impracticality, have ethics and moral idealism on their side. We end with the conclusion that egalitarians, however intelligent as individuals, deny the very basis of human intelligence and of human reason: the identification of the ontological structure of reality, of the laws of human nature, and the universe. In so doing, the egalitarians are acting as terribly spoiled children, denying the structure of reality on behalf of the rapid materialization of their own absurd fantasies. Not only spoiled but also highly dangerous; for the power of ideas is such that the egalitarians have a fair chance of destroying the very universe that they wish to deny and transcend, and to bring that universe crashing around all of our ears. Since their methodology and their goals deny the very structure of humanity and of the universe, the egalitarians are profoundly antihuman; and, therefore, their ideology and their activities may be set down as profoundly evil as well. Egalitarians do not have ethics on their side unless one can maintain that the destruction of civilization, and even of the human race itself, may be crowned with the laurel wreath of a high and laudable morality.
Sorry I didn't read that wall of text, but I would say so, will they be equal to men in their performance? Probably not.
Jaxson Ortiz
...
Thomas Carter
Yes. But equality of opportunity != equality of outcome. They will have to compete on a true level playing field.
Leo King
>muh freedum Why should I care?
If someone thinks they can create a better world than one in which freedom is absolute, then why wouldn't they? Assuming a better world is simply just one full of more happy people, is this not better, and is freedom not relatively evil in this case? Not believing in human rights doesn't make them void all of a sudden. That wouldn't mean you believe that human rights should be selectively applied, just like most commies.
Elijah Fisher
It's all the same.
All government comes down to "How can I best steal from my neighbor without letting him steal from me?"
Noah Cooper
What a comfy way to spend the Saturday my friend.
Got the Corax conf ticket already, what should I tell Hoppe to write in my copy of Democracy?
Nathaniel Jenkins
>fucking based The catchphrase of Nu-pol. Typical.
Except you can't demonstrate how that's true for the third position and for communism.
Jayden Hill
...
Owen Anderson
fuck off, havok
Jeremiah Walker
>That wouldn't mean you believe that human rights should be selectively applied
And what would happen when you reject to accept their arbitrary limits on your human rights?
Anthony Moore
>reject to accept
Please be all around clearer with your posts.
I don't know whether you are referring to communists or ancaps when you ask this question.
Isaac Edwards
The part of the post I quoted refers to commies.
Jose Sullivan
So I suppose my answer is that they already do. Communists believe that class warfare against porky is justified. They however don't have a concept of a NAP.
Lolspergtarians still need to deal with this contradiction.
Anthony Young
I've dealt with it. See
Evan Moore
So expression of intent is grounds for summary execution...
However you're no better as you express intent against them.
So no moral high ground for you.
Jeremiah Evans
>So no moral high ground for you. LOL, is that the best you can do? Wew, at least you agree that your assertion that the NAP is a contradictory to our removal of commies was false.
This is the all powerful logic of stirnerite homos.
Bentley Hall
What else: "physically remove..."
Michael Gonzalez
Points of discussion: What do we do if degeneracy gets too widespread and the free market doesn't solve it and bring it back to traditionalism? For instance, I don't see nigger communities ever naturally moving back to traditionalism, the environment breeds nigger tier behaviour and it gets spread downwards to the young. So no intervention in this scenario will just lead to more niggery. So there are three parts to my problem: 1) What happens if the free market doesn't revert the culture back to traditionalism? 2) If it doesn't revert the culture back to traditionalism, at what point is state intervention required? 3) If you want to stick to minimal small government and not use state intervention, what other solutions are there?
Jacob Robinson
>Person A wants you to eat whatever you want, he wants chocolate >Person B wants to kill you unless you eat vanilla >Person A defends himself, but somehow according to a dumb stirnerite in pol this defense would make person A just as bad as person B
Easton Fisher
You're right, it's probably not a good argument.
However you still need to declare that declaration of intent is grounds for execution.
>I'm going to smack you in the gabba >*bang* >twas self defense!
>LOL
wew,
I've never really played around with the idea that the NAP has contradictions before so forgive me for being slow moving forward.
Carter Carter
>>Person A defends himself, but somehow according to a dumb stirnerite in pol this defense would make person A just as bad as person B
>Implying person B's declaration of intent is grounds for execution
See, this is why police are handy. They can ARREST people for declaration of intent.
Michael Powell
If you base your entire argument around the disproportionate response to a mild act of aggression, then of course you're going to be right, but the problem is that you're the only one in this thread who spoke about execution.
Jacob Hill
A threat is a threat, you can understand that your friend was joking when he said he was gonna kill you and not kill him, but even so coercion is to violate the terms of non aggression. Defending yourself is up to you. No one is making you kill people for what is seemingly a joke.
Anthony Gutierrez
>but the problem is that you're the only one in this thread who spoke about execution.
Yup... I'm really off the ball tonight.
Hell, I don't even believe you need intent in order to act preemptively. Not sure why I'm arguing this.
Brandon Fisher
I suppose this brings us to the question of to what extent can one flippantly act against other under the pretext that the NAP was violated. Whereas in our organized society we have laws, the NAP is a rather simple concept. Would you support a strictly drafted constitution?
Jeremiah Adams
Contracts. If I'm a libertarian, in a libertarian "frame", and I want to live among people who think like me segregated from people who don't think like me, I would search for a community/private city where communist ideas/democracy is strictly forbidden via contractual obligation.
The response would have to be simply eviction in case of contract breach from the tenant.
Carson Miller
So this would be Hoppean ancap yes?
Robert Russell
>libertarians are anarchists this is your brain on memes
Owen Wright
Correct.
Nathaniel Rodriguez
Don't know enough about your ideology to critique it. I just don't think that you're going to get far with freedom as your god as opposed to happiness. Of course I'd advocate being your own god, however I'd also advocate building a world that you'd like to see. not because it's "free", but because it pleases you.
Would I be correct in saying that Hoppean ancap has a twinge of Troskyist thought in that the revolution needs to be global so that monolithic global powers can't come in and tread on you?
Colton Evans
Obviously no ideology can defeat the entire world's military powers, but no, self defense for an ancap nation is definitely possible
Ian Gonzalez
I, and most libertarians/ancaps in these generals, don't believe only in freedom.
For example, I believe in your freedom to smoke, I will not allow you to smoke in my house though. I believe in your right to be homosexual, I would not want to live in a community where gay pride parade is a thing, I believe in your right to take drugs, I believe in my right to tell my daughter not to do drugs unless she wants to get her teeth kicked in (so to speak).
Happiness is subjective, one person might be happy with a lot of money from immigration, another person might be happy with less money but more racial purity around him. The right of association and dissociation allows us to pursue our personal happiness and that's what I defend.
>Would I be correct in saying that Hoppean ancap has a twinge of Troskyist thought in that the revolution needs to be global so that monolithic global powers can't come in and tread on you?
Not at all, anarcho capitalism does not require global acceptance. Other powers trying to tread on us is a possibility, China trying to wipe us would probably end badly, just like it would end if they tried to wipe Malta today, no amount of state would save us from getting btfo'd with one nuke.
International response against aggression towards countries that just want to commerce and peaceful coexistence is usually uniform though. You could say that we count on that, on people all over the world unifying against China, along with our own defense.
If China started conquering peaceful countries and the rest of the world didn't give a shit, would end badly for everyone, not just ancapistan.
Nolan Lopez
See, Trotsky predicted that if communism was established, the statist capitalists of the world would unite against it.
As for the defense of an ancap state, I find it hard to believe it could be made effective without a full time black army. And a black army can exist because in some forms of anarchy the black army will be entitled to what they need just like the rest of the populace. Defending a communist or anarchist collective would therefore probably be easier than defending an ancap collective, as the ancap collective would probably require individuals to pay capital to the black army. This would of course need to be done voluntarily. Or perhaps in Hoppean ancap, it would be art of the social contract. And even then, would all of the autonomous collectives agree to act in unison during military matters? Would those surrounded by friendly collectives bother to chip in, or instead force their neighbors to defend them through defending themselves? Would there not be a propensity to internal war over these disagreements?
The way I see it, Trotsky's theories apply here just as much. Only with the intriduction of capital as a variable, probably mmore so.
If I had to choose between communism and ancap I'd have to choose communism based on it's propensity to attain longevity.
Hudson Roberts
You would of course believe in their freedom to do what they wish so long as it doesn't infringe on you, though, correct? I don't personally agree as that could well degenerate society.
>Other powers trying to tread on us is a possibility If the state is a tool of oppression exclusively as some of you guys seem to think, then states everywhere would shit themselves. Then again, the rootless international clique will probably run rife in your capitalist hives so you might well be safe.
>f China started conquering peaceful countries and the rest of the world didn't give a shit
The problem is a bunch of countries fabricating reasons to invade you, citing "human rights" and shit like that. You'll never be safe unless you can defend yourself and make friends.
As it turns out, just having discussions with you guys is more educational and thought provoking than just arguing with you.
Aaron Watson
I agree that a lot of statist leaders would like to go to war against against somewhere that threatened democracy, but I doubt the public would be in support, especially not if it was peaceful.
In event of war, ancapistan can put up a good defense. For one, it's decentralised, you can't simply just take the capital and have the rest of the country fall. It'd require extensive bombing (and retaliation would be pretty strong) or other more extreme tactics. Secondly, it's incredibly hard to invade for the same reason, plus everyone should be heavily armed. By this I mean, well just look at 'nam and how the most advanced military in the world lost to a bunch of farmers because they were defending. Third, I'd wager the collective might of every REA in ancapistan would be pretty strong.
Elijah Brooks
>You would of course believe in their freedom to do what they wish so long as it doesn't infringe on you, though, correct? I don't personally agree as that could well degenerate society.
Not necessarily infringe on me, I believe in the right of dissociation. You could be homosexual, what you do in your bed might not infringe on me, but what if my happiness depended on me knowing my neighbors are not degenerates? The market should have the capability of offering me a way to dissociate with homosexuals.
Now this is a complex topic and we could write a lot about it, but out belief is that economic incentives lead to a lower degeneracy and that the state, and the possibility if offers you for enjoying the benefits of living in society without having to be exposed to judgement or discrimination, are the biggest degeneracy enablers we currently have.
Michael Parker
Fighting a war against a heavily armed, heavily decentralized opponent in their own terrain is a nightmare scenario. Doing it against a sworn society of self-defense pacifists with principles of free information and ubiquitous broadcasting adds another layer of nightmare. Any atrocities you use to break the defensive advantage of this society will be known forever.
Jaxson Adams
>but I doubt the public would be in support, especially not if it was peaceful. You underestimate propaganda.
>For one, it's decentralised, you can't simply just take the capital and have the rest of the country fall.
Breaking up the chain of command basically makes the enemy as effective as an ancap defense would start out.
> It'd require extensive bombing (and retaliation would be pretty strong) or other more extreme tactics. Or just take what you want.
>Secondly, it's incredibly hard to invade for the same reason, plus everyone should be heavily armed. Tacticool retards versus an army of professional soldiers...
> By this I mean, well just look at 'nam and how the most advanced military in the world lost to a bunch of farmers because they were defending And because they had a fucking army as well as tanks from the soviets. Also, internal strife in America lost them that war. They were going to win easily. Like, really easily. The kill to death ratio was 20 to 1. The 1 includes south Vietnamese deaths.
>Third, I'd wager the collective might of every REA in ancapistan would be pretty strong.
>Be REA >Big ass army coming >Hey big ass army, wanna not hurt me in exchange for stuff and friendship >okeh
Just one of the ways this can go terribly, terribly wrong.
Adam Cox
This is rather complex. I'm not sure where to go from here, but you definitely make some good arguments.
I'm going to fuck off to bed now cause I don't feel like thinking any harder. Very interesting ideas tho. Something to think of.
Oliver Sanchez
I'd much rather fight a bunch of riff raff than an organized defense. An unorganized defense is slow and unreactive.
Gabriel Roberts
>You underestimate propaganda.
no u
Seriously though, both sides have access to propaganda. Capitalist propaganda has a funny kind of efficiency (HAIL TO THE MARKETING GODS) when it really gets put to the task.
I don't feel like going through your whole post, I just wanted to point that out. Marketing gods... not usually my faves, but there's power there.
Carter Stewart
How can one be a left libertarian. Libertarianism is always on the economic right
Juan Peterson
Left libertarians are basically half-libertarian moderates. "Libertarianism is good, but we've got this huge state now, and we shouldn't dismantle it recklessly before we figure out what all the bits and pieces are doing." They want cautious reforms towards the introduction of a market economy.
Ever played Crisis in the Kremlin?
Wyatt Davis
But Gary Johnson isn't left libertarian then. He's all for free market, dismantling government programs and agencies
Jaxon Harris
A pleasure, feel free to come any other time, we're quite open to exposing our ideas.
Expanding a bit on the topic of economic incentives I mention in and not necessarily as a response to the australian poster.
Imagine that research shows that black people tend to infringe higher costs on healthcare than white people, with the right of discrimination that we libertarians advocate for, one company could use this research and create an insurance only for whites backed by this research piece.
Now, initially this is going to have a negative response from the majority of bleeding heart retards, most people are going to refuse such insurance. But this company doesn't care, they are covering a market niche and they're doing just fine economically.
Suddenly, people in this insurance are saving thousands per year thanks to discrimination against black people. Now, people who initially rejected the idea of discrimination start seeing a reason to purchase this insurance, they are not racists, but they're looking for themselves first.
Eventually other companies see the enormous success of this insurance company and try to emulate it. Perhaps another company decides not to be fully racist, but make some numbers, notice trends, and now they allow black people with college degrees because their crime rates are the same as whites.
What would black people do in this situation?
They would need to adapt, they would need to demonstrate that they can reduce their criminality and be part of society benefits again.
This is how economic incentives deals with degeneracy, described with broad strokes.
Connor Watson
Same goes for homosexuality -> low time preference, STDs -> Higher costs opens the opportunity to discriminate against them and see good results
Drug addicts -> You can see it so easily here
Etc. In the end, degeneracy is expensive, and is only enabled when the costs are forcefully socialized.
Blake Wood
Not racemixing that's pretty cheap
Asher Murphy
Women who engage race mixing are more likely to end up as single mothers and be abused.
Quite expensive.
Carter Adams
Libertarians are degenerates. Authority and fascism is natural. Kill yourselves.
Elijah Wright
Not all of them and anyway in this free market women will have more money available if they work a job
Nolan Allen
But as I post in the example of Black people criminality, all you need is one insurance discriminating race mixers and demonstrating that their costs can be lower than those insurances that don't discriminate race mixers. Which is possible, because race mixers tend to incur higher costs.
Jonathan Green
You're an idiot, probably Jewish too.
Anthony Rodriguez
...
David Barnes
And there will be insurance for race mixers, you would still make a profit. Another example McDonalds or another business in ancap is not about to stop selling burgers to gays nor are insurance companies, if you make a small profit off the race mixers then it will continue.
An Insurance isn't gonna drop all insurance claims for young white men since they crash their cars way more, just make it a little extra then your average white driver but they would have to keep it low because there still is a market for white young men car insurance
Evan Murphy
>And there will be insurance for race mixers
For sure. But it will be more expensive.
Women will have to weigh this factor in before race mixing.
>Another example McDonalds or another business in ancap is not about to stop selling burgers to gays nor are insurance companies
McDonalds probably not, because they have no incentives/way of reducing their costs by discriminating gays.
Healthcare insurances, however, would be able to reduce their costs by discriminating/charging more to gay people.
>just make it a little extra then your average white driver but they would have to keep it low because there still is a market for white young men car insurance
Right, but, again, all you need is one company doing market research and noticing that discriminating X will allow them to offer lower costs to the rest, which will allow them to dominate the market.
Sebastian Myers
>Healthcare insurances, however, would be able to reduce their costs by discriminating/charging more to gay people.
If they make a profit off the gays then they would have more power then someone who discriminates against them, I don't like them but theirs enough of them to make money for a insurance company, you imply they are a negative bank balance
Even if you were correct and several companies all abandon them there will still be several other companies selling relatively cheap insurance for these people because there is still a market, therefore their insurance just comes out a little more expensive but it's still payable and livable with.
Jace Scott
I don't think you're understanding what I'm trying to convey here.
Yes, there will be a market of insurances for gay people, there's money to be made there, I don't imply they are going to have a negative bank balance, I imply that they incur higher costs.
I, repeat, don't claim gays/race mixers/degenerates will be abandoned, only that the costs for their insurances will be higher.
Example:
A company decides to socialize the averages, group of people A costing 100, group of people B costing 50, insurance cost 75.
Another company realizes that by discriminating group of people A they are able to offer group of people B an insurance at the cost of 50.
This second company will dominate the market for people B.
The first company will be forced to charge people A 100 because they cannot reduce their costs by socialization anymore.
Julian Young
I understand that I'm saying that small rise in pricing will not be enough to counteract homosexuals or Race mixers. Say what you want but people do crazy things for love and paying a couple extra dollars or something is worth it to these people.
Sebastian Moore
You would also need to factor in all the single-mother benefits women get in social democrat countries that make life more expensive for married parents and single people.
Income support, housing benefits, tax reduction, all these from the top of my head, all these would not exist in a libertarian order.
Noah Lee
They wouldn't have taxes either though, if they had a job they could support the insurance along with food and other life things so that does nothing to stop race-mixing and homosexuality except in the very poor.
Ian Turner
I'm loving pass users only Sup Forums, it's officially an AnCap board. Socialists BTFO!
Aiden Morales
...
Jaxson Cook
THIS!!! MAN WAS MADE TO LIVE WITH A CAGE ON HIS COCK A COLLAR AROUND HIS NECK AND THE COCK OF THE STATE UP HIS ASS!!!!!
Christian Reed
Exactly, without an authoritative government who would stop me from smoking weed?
John Lopez
Exactly! Without an authoritative government who would stop me from eating too much? O-or tell me what do?!
Nicholas Anderson
Kek that image. You did good friend.
Hunter Hall
You updated the image! Amazing user thanks a lot
Jackson Gonzalez
Clear proof we need a state so I can finally have a father fig- i mean prevent degeneracy!
Thomas Harris
>mfw the most statist people I know have massive daddy issues everytime
Adrian Nguyen
"Physical Removal, so to speak."
Make sure to tell him to search his name on YouTube and search Brent Ancap and Hoppewave
