(((Libertarianism)))

(((Libertarianism)))

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States)
twitter.com/CatoInstitute/status/880713024650305540
cbsnews.com/news/culture-etched-onto-our-dna-more-than-previously-known-research-says/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

bump

...

>libertarians offer support only to other libertarians and progressives
>progressives
Wrong.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States)
>the LP is more culturally liberal than Democrats
You poison yourselves.

>This includes favoring minimally regulated markets, a less powerful federal government, strong civil liberties (including LGBT rights), (the party supports same-sex marriage), the liberalization of drug laws, separation of church and state, open immigration, non-interventionism and neutrality in diplomatic relations, free trade and free movement to all foreign countries, and a more representative republic.[48] The party's position on abortion is that government should stay out of the matter and leave it to the individual, but recognizes that some libertarians' opinions on this issue are different.[49] Ron Paul, one of the former Presidential nominees of the Libertarian Party, is strictly pro-life, but believes that that is an issue that should be left to the states and not enforced federally. Meanwhile, Gary Johnson, the party's 2012 and 2016 presidential candidate, is pro-choice.

>They don't care about morals
Wrong. Not wanting the state to impose morality =/= not caring about morals, dipshit
>They don't care about community
I don't know where the hell you guys get this shit from. Communities are very compatible with libertarianism, and we're not all individualists. Do you honestly believe that within a libertarian society people would just dissociate themselves from everyone else?
>They don't care about art
How does not wanting the state to dictate what music can or cannot be listened to not caring about art? Fuck off with your bullshit

>strong civil liberties (including LGBT rights)
We don't support any rights beyond your right to life, liberty, and property. You can thank the state for bullshit anti-discrimination laws and so forth

None of these people are true libertarians. There should be no laws regarding LGBT rights and drugs. Meaning that if the majority of people do not approve of your activities and feel it is harming society, you better be able to defend yourself because you're on your own.

>its not that we dont care about morals its that we disagree with legislating morality.

Actually when you push libertarians hard enough, you'll see that they do. Even the CATO institute released this recently:
twitter.com/CatoInstitute/status/880713024650305540

>It is not enough to be passively "not racist" — libertarians must be actively anti-racism.

And Gary Johnson supported the whole "gay cakes" drama. Their morals usually just happen to be one of selfishness and greed, or aligned with leftists. Ayn (((Rand))) even said any system based on altruist morality are "socialism".

>ts that we care about our own community
No, that's what NatSoc does. Libertarians think the concept of "community" is "collectivist" and needs to be destroyed, and should be replaced by pure individualism and nothing else. Caring about your race, culture, nation is "collectivist" and should be discouraged, this is what a lot of libertarians think.

>culture is self creating. every society has and will create culture because humans crave it.
Nope, culture doesn't come out of thin air. It needs the right conditions, minds, people and values behind it to flourish.

cbsnews.com/news/culture-etched-onto-our-dna-more-than-previously-known-research-says/
>Culture etched on our DNA more than previously known, research suggests

>natsoc is the same "i know whats good for you" bullshit that keeps failing over and over again
Except libertarianism is exactly like that, except instead of letting people who actually care about their culture, race, community, etc. do it, you're letting megacorps, banks, and the mass media (that are all owned by the same people and never have your well-being in mind) do it

Libertarians are completely bluepilled about the JQ or race question, and they think letting huge powerful entities that often have more power than the state and will take any opportunity to curtail your freedom (see: TPP) do whatever they want is somehow "freedom"

>2016
lol.
what you want, is something called freedom of DISassociation
unfortunately, people are too retarded to understand when you have an overarching entity (the state) whatever freedoms of disassociation you think you have are only temporary
read the american constitution. It very clearly says white male. but because it gave other powers to the state, we lost all that glorious freedom of disassociation
so save your bitcoin because someday you are going to hear about a whites only ancap HOA

>degeneracy is supported and protected by the state
Libertarians actually believe this. The banks, private organizations, support degeneracy. In a Libertarian paradise, people could freely promote hard drugs and pornography as much as they want. Governments can enforce good laws, and thus there can be good governments. Your Libertarian society only works if everyone has their best interests for you, something that is not the case. The fact that Jews and unethical people exist now is testament to that.
No true scotsman fallacy.

>whites only
>ancap
lmao good luck with that

>Even the CATO institute
>And Gary Johnson
>No, that's what NatSoc does.
if you get to call gary johnson and some fag at CATO the leaders of libertarian thought, then I get to call angela merkel the current leader of the nazis
the nazis made mistakes, that you need to learn from, if you want your next iteration of white ethnostate, dont teach your people to love a power structure that becomes angela merkel

everything is temporary and there is always duality. a libertarian society is much more likely to be taken over by an authoritarian

>hans herman hoppe is jewish
you arent from around these parts, are you kike

are authoritarians bad or something?

All National Socialists support a welfare state which is degenerate by design.

Not a fallacy. More like no normie would ever support an essentially lawless society that darwinizes deviants, thus a real libertarian would never gain traction in politics. So the prominent lolberg figures are just libertarian-lites. Gary Johnson being an example of a huge faggot pretending to be libertarian.

The only mistakes the nazis made were some military strategic ones.
That, and incarcerating the jews, instead of gassing them.

>dont teach your people to love a power structure that becomes angela merkel
>hitler's germany directly and naturally led to (((merkel)))
Holy shit I didn't know ancaps were actually this stupid. I mean I went through an ancap stage, but that's pathetic.

Wrong, nigger.

>Actually when you push libertarians hard enough, you'll see that they do. Even the CATO institute released this recently:
Libertarians aren't the same person you thick cunt.

>And Gary Johnson supported the whole "gay cakes" drama. Their morals usually just happen to be one of selfishness and greed, or aligned with leftists. Ayn (((Rand))) even said any system based on altruist morality are "socialism".
Gary Johnson isn't a true libertarian because of that, and we're not all objectivists

>No, that's what NatSoc does. Libertarians think the concept of "community" is "collectivist" and needs to be destroyed, and should be replaced by pure individualism and nothing else. Caring about your race, culture, nation is "collectivist" and should be discouraged, this is what a lot of libertarians think.
Communities are natural. In a libertarian society there would be plenty of communities, and the libertarians who disagree with them will just live alone. Fuck retard, the defining characteristic of libertarians is disdain toward the state, not communities

>Nope, culture doesn't come out of thin air. It needs the right conditions, minds, people and values behind it to flourish.
Excellent post, dipshit. If culture is etched into our DNA doesn't that mean that they'll form WITHOUT A FUCKING STATE?

>Except libertarianism is exactly like that, except instead of letting people who actually care about their culture, race, community, etc. do it, you're letting megacorps, banks, and the mass media
Corporations and media don't force shit on us like the state does

>Libertarians are completely bluepilled about the JQ or race question
Funny how its the state thats bringing in all these niggers and mudslimes. Not all of us are anarchists


, and they think letting huge powerful entities that often have more power than the state
Stopped reading right there. Big corporations only have power because of the state

Bravo for the excellent post, natsoc tard

>supports a welfare state
>claims to be right-wing

>if you get to call gary johnson and some fag at CATO the leaders of libertarian thought, then I get to call angela merkel the current leader of the nazis
>Gary Johnson
>Libertarian Party
Correct
>Angela Merkel
>National Socialist Party
Incorrect
Your Libertarian ethno-state will fail, look at what happened to the U.S. Small government turned large because dumb fucks like you didn't make sure their government was strong enough to resist change 100 years ago. There are loopholes in small governments to make them bigger. The Confederates would have collapsed as well, they had too many niggers.

National Socialism puts too much faith in one single leader that could end up starting a war he can't win. Tell me, how do you solve this inherent problem of totalitarianism?

What is a real Libertarian then? How would you defend yourselves from outside threats? From inside ones? No two Libertarians can agree on this, because they all have different definitions and ideas on how things can be prevented, or on how much or little government would be allowed. You can't agree on when people violate the NAP, you can't agree on what rights would be allowed, you can't agree anything. You aren't united, and it makes you weak because of it. The more you squabble among yourselves, the weaker you are, and the stronger the enemy becomes.
Or, perhaps there no true Libertarians then? What makes your opinion worth more than the "fake" Libertarians'?

>Big corporations only have power because of the state
Yes goyim! By reducing the power of the state you can destroy the evil corporations!

nigger you're wrong, lazy kikes got camp'd

>Yes goyim! By reducing the power of the state you can destroy the evil corporations!
Epic argument

Education. France and Britain declared war on Germany, not the other way around. If people know the threat of the Jews, then they are less likely to weaken themselves over such a small thing as territory. Churchill rejected peace offering after peace offering made by the Germans. If Mosley had gained power, and thus people were educated better, WW2 would have had a different outcome.

Everyday I grow to hate NatSocs even more, you're just like the jews. No matter how many times I prove you wrong, you fucking niggers repeat the same fucking bullshit. A welfare state cannot be right wing, no matter how many times you claim it is.
The same bullshit yet again. Hitler invaded Poland who Britain promised to protect. He started a war he couldn't win, how does National Socialism deal with this problem?

Most people who label themselves as such aren't really libertarians. They're just rebellious of society telling them what to do. They'll never tell you that, but press them on a certain issue and they'll get emotional about it because its the reason why they withdrew from the mainstream. It is much the same as Sup Forumss general view on atheism.

Most atheists are liberal shits who promote degeneracy and giant government, not because they're smart or really want to be free, but because they have an ego issue and a resentment for authority figures in their past who told them to believe in god. You can prove this yourself by asking an atheist if he or she wants freedom, and will accept the personal responsibility that comes with it. Outline it for them, such as learning survival skills, paying their own way, keeping themselves in healthy condition. You'll find that most of them will recoil in horror at such a proposition.

My point being that your (and mosts') perception of libertarianism is based on those who espoused it, but didn't live it. They were posers. Literal fakes.

>The same bullshit yet again. Hitler invaded Poland who Britain promised to protect. He started a war he couldn't win, how does National Socialism deal with this problem?
Just like they protected the Czechs right? And the Austrians? Hitler invaded Poland because the Poles were killing ethnic Germans there.

(((poles))) were killing ethnic germans

>an authoritarian bashing on libertarians
It's like the most autistic kid in school picking on the second most autistic kid in school

I can make anybody hate capitalism, and not because it doesn't work, but because of what it entails: "I am a free market capitalist and my business wants the cheapest labour, who are you to be a statist and impose state borders, arbitrarily restricting the access to cheap Mexican labour! They out-compete you, deal with it, who cares if America becomes a little bit more brown."

well yeah, gotta keep them divided
when they combined forces and elected trump, bohemian grove was NOT happy I will tell you that much

and what about a business that says "no mexicans or other browns allowed"
is it the free market that makes that illegal?

And to answer your questions about defense, there would need to be an agreement between parties that individualism would be temporarily given up if an outside threat attempted to intrude on the community. It would be expected of all citizens that they would have some sort of weapon to repel invaders, because self defense is part of being a successful individual.

Inside threats would neutralize themselves, as a strong individualist culture would prevent the instigator from gaining support.

>And to answer your questions about defense, there would need to be an agreement between parties that individualism would be temporarily given up if an outside threat attempted to intrude on the community. It would be expected of all citizens that they would have some sort of weapon to repel invaders, because self defense is part of being a successful individual.
No thanks, I just feel like looting your house while you're away.

How many businesses will opt to hire whites when they know they can outsource to China or import spics for 1/10th the cost?
Yeah, I am with you on that: I also hate modern governments. I am for purging them and replacing them with a state that executes Marxists and "brown people".

Then you've violated the collective NAP and no one's gonna help you if I decide to murder your ass in retaliation. Also I would have a family living in that house, so if my wife didn't shoot you, my sons or daughters would.

>Hitler invaded Poland because the Poles were killing ethnic Germans there.
So you can't answer the question. All of your excuses blame outside forces. You have no answer, but you lack the capability to admit it. You have taken the phrase "Hitler did nothing wrong" and adhere to it as if it's some sort of commandment that all National Socialists must follow.

...

...

...

...

Is freedom really worth the price of your family being in danger? In an individualist society, only profits matter in the long run. You can spout all about how culture, race, and order will be enforced, but will it really? If times are tough, can you really say that? With drugs everywhere, it's just as likely that your family picks those up and dies to them, for example. You can't control what other people do, and that's the flaw with you're assumption. You assume the rest of the people in your collective will also fight alongside you against an outside force. Can you guarantee that? It's possible that others don't have the best interest of the community at heart. It is an individualistic society, after all. The post below is an excellent example of this. Apparently, to him, defending his people isn't a casus belli good enough.
>You have taken the phrase "Hitler did nothing wrong" and adhere to it as if it's some sort of commandment that all National Socialists must follow.
Incorrect, he did some things wrong, but defending your people isn't wrong at all. He should have tried to get Europe to fight the communists over all else, for example. Also, I've stated an answer to the question, what are you talking about? An outside influence is a perfectly acceptable reason.