Classical Liberal here, Red Pill me

...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=aAwgIwjhEvI
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Should a tolerant society tolerate the intolerant (to aggression)? If so, how could you enforce laws when someone tries the "it's just what I believe" relativity cop out? If not, welcome to libertarianism, we're still saving up for helicopters.

im actually pretty libertarian, i dont like people blindly defending stuff like radical islam because "its just a different culture!!!11!!!111!!!!". criminals should be punished, and if your ideology includes hurting others, its something we should actively fight against. of course if youre not hurting anyone go ahead, i dont care.

i'm a classical liberal too OP really, but i have to admit that people have pretty much proven to me that they can't function without being controlled.

if you let people do what they want then the system will break down because values keep people in line and working. without them the economy fails, we fall into poverty. we can't upkeep the military to defend ourselves. if the system breaks down, you will be invaded by mud people who want war, end of story (this is already happening, but legally, controlled, by the government. i'm talking about literal invasions and shit, which are only stopped by the US's large nuclear arsenal and military).

the answer? the answer is still classical liberalism, BUT first we have to nuke all of the brown countries and all of the "different folk". we need to create a racially homogenous WHITE world and then we can let our guard down.

call me genocidal or a madman or blah blah blah but otherwise the genocide and madness WILL be committed against you and your family and THAT is the ultimate flaw because other races are simply not as tolerant or well meaning as the whites

My 14 year old corgi just died.

sorry to hear that

the funny thing is, im not entirely opposed to europe being mostly or entirely white, but HOW you intend to make it so is what im worried about.

Libertarianism can only exist in an uncorrupted white ethno state. No kikes, no nigs, and no mudslimes. Socialism must also be fought against.

An authoritarian state is necessary to pave the way for libertarian societies

>if youre not hurting anyone go ahead, i dont care.
I think most Americans would agree with this statement, but most of the ideological disagreements we have come up when we have different definitions of what "not hurting anyone" means

alright, please clarify any issues you may have with what that means, im here to learn

but what i never hear clarified is how you wish to get from point A to B...

Imo physical harm is where the line should be drawn, sorry libshits but the 1st protects me ability to say gas niggers if they don't pick cotton

Zimbabwe

looks like the dog from VA-11

Simply put, a libertarian state can occur as a result of revolution or peaceful reforms or dictatorship thaw. But a cleanwhite nation is still nicer than a shithole regardless.

you're still to ideological, the problem with your brain equation is that you do not factor in human behavior, the good and the bad.
Thus you cannot have a good society with your values.


Ergo be more pragmatic

nah i agree with you there, go ahead and say that as much as you want.

Former libertarian here.

I agree. A small-government model of society can only function unless that society meets two conditions:
1) Culturally homogeneous (shared language, religion, and history)
2) High IQ (Deferred gratification, self-sacrifice for family/community, planning and managing)

The US as it currently stands has neither of these conditions, thus a more authoritarian, non-democratic mode of government is necessary to solve critical issues. A libertarian model worked perfectly circa 1780 in the US, but the present day is a different matter.

I still think libertarianism is the ideal, but not the practical solution to our problems.

you dont even know my values. im asking for YOUR values.

Repatriation worries you?

so basically hell for a few years to avoid a more permanent hell in the long term? am i correct?

>I'm a classical liberal
tf is wrong with you

Classical liberals value free speech and open, honest debate because as John Stuart mill said, "he who understands only his own side of the argument understands little of that."

But today's liberals only use the term as a label. In actuality they are post modernists. Post modernism regards debate not as a method of pursuing truth or changing minds, but instead as expression of power dynamics. That is, if we debate what I'm actually trying to do is dominate you and force you into the oppressed binary. Therefore, the way to defeat an opponent in a debate is to refuse to talk to him, because by merely allowing him to express his ideas, you are validating the binary and his oppression.

Thus today's "liberals"are inherently illiberal in the classical tradition.

But it's actually far worse than that because post modernists reject the foundational principles of enlightenment philosophies like liberalism. For instance, they believe that science and reason are merely power dynamics, too. It's truly insanity. Oh, that's another one. Truth and logos cannot exist, and instead every value is relative.

So anyway, if you're a classical liberal you turn out to have more in common with neo Nazis than with post modernists. Welcome home bruder. Remember, you're here forever.

Consider yourself red pilled.

No.

Search for the kalergi plan and greater Israel to get the ball rolling

>Repatriation
it depends, what about the mixed people who were born here? im one third spanish but mostly white, where would that leave people like me?

Man who cares about the Kalgeri plan. It's no worse than Sykes-Picot or the Balfur declaration. Fucks sake they're on the other side of the world. We should let them just be there all on their own.

a true classical liberal would also be for free trade... something your flag is not

I thought it was clear I wasn't talking about emotional pain, but I guess it wasn't.

No, the idea that popped into my head was ecconomical. Businesses without regulation are allowed to do things that don't immediately cause harm but it could be argued do eventually. I'm thinking about things like fracking, pharmaceutical companies courting doctors to push dangerous prescription drugs- things like that.

A prescription for a fentynal patch or a fracking contract doesn't have the same immediate negative harm on people as someone with a gun coming into your house, but people still die just the same, it just takes longer.

a liberal on twitter called me a nazi so i decided to come here for answers. thanks.

Yeah. That's the problem with forming an ethno state out of a lack of one. Out turns into a purity spiral, and then its like Greeks and Italians aren't white and Irish are the niggers of Europe so even if they're white they don't count, and Catholicism is Semitic, and then you're like fuck what is even left that whiteness means anyway for us to care about an ethno state with it?

Power always rules, everywhere. Classical liberalism depends upon property rights, which are enforced by a state. The gradation between economic activity and government can be subtle or abrupt but the underlying reality remains- the powerful exploit the weak, as a rule. A beneficiary of whatever governmental order is either directly involved in the power struggle or a historical contingency. All other positions will be eliminated by more ruthless methods.

In sum: classical liberalism labors under the delusion of altruistic humanity. In reality history is the interplay of intensely murderous factions because they out compete any other position by definition. All popular notions of state are subject to this analysis.

Equality is a myth. Inequality and hierarchy are inescapable conditions of nature.

if youre a classical liberal you'll look at this and laugh at lolbertarians

OP here, so your argument is that businesses shouldnt be able to do whatever they want? cuz im on board with that for the most part.

Non sequitur and no true Scotsman. You want to talk about the points I made, or make one of your own?

>they're on the other side of the world
There are just as many of them in America as there are in Israel
They have a monopoly on pretty much everything regarding economics and media
The Kalergi plan just tells bluepilled people that the way to exterminate Europeans without physically killing them is racemixing
Why do you use the nat soc flag if you're not opposed to jews?

>Classical Liberal here
nothing wrong with that

Being a nazi is a good thing, watch this video and you will most likely agree with it
youtube.com/watch?v=aAwgIwjhEvI

if what your saying is true why haven't we had more world wars? How did we manage to not blow the world to shit during the cold war?

things on a whole have gotten more altruistic and peaceful as humanity develops

Op here, and we agree there

dont assume my positions

Fellow leaf, it is rare I see someone so close to my ideas in this country. What part of Canada are you from?

classical liberal basically means american constitutionalist, which is what I am. the only amendment that was a mistake was the 19th.

wat
except the state doesn't own you, that man owns that land

Golden horseshoe. You?

ive asked you a few questions i think.. maybe respond to them?

When a man has a full stomach and empty hands he becomes a degenerate. The solution is to put either a hammer or a rifle (in the old days a pitchfork or a spear) in his hands. When a society has no reason to build or fight, foreigners come to tear it down and revive their spirit. In a world with no impoverished foreign hordes, the entire group will become "the beautiful ones" of the mouse utopia experiment and we'll literally fade away.

Classical liberalism was what caused the downfall of Western civ.

Faggots like Voltaire promoting globalism and degeneracy, while they were safe in their mansions, supported by the nationalist, monarchical state. I'd wager Voltaire would hang himself out of shame if he knew how much Muslims are shitting-up France these days.

Your mind is infected with leftism. It will take a laborious process to rid it of its rot but I would start with actually reading history. Primary sources. Don't read modern interpretations. Simply see what men of other times thought, and that will quite likely be enough.

But in a word- we live under global American hegemony, bar Russia and China. Peace is the normal state of a late empire. Who opposes complete domination?

According to most libertarians, land becomes private property when one mixes one's labor with it. And mixing what is yours with what is not yours in order to own the whole thing is considered great sport. But the notion is filled with problems. How much labor does it take to claim land, and how much land can one claim for that labor? And for how long can one make that claim?

According to classical liberals, land belonged to the user for as long as the land was being used, and no longer. But according to libertarians, land belongs to the first user, forever. So, do the oceans belong to the heirs of the first person to take a fish out or put a boat in? Does someone who plows the same field each year own only one field, while someone who plows a different field each year owns dozens of fields? Should the builder of the first transcontinental railroad own the continent? Shouldn't we at least have to pay a toll to cross the tracks? Are there no common rights to the earth at all? To libertarians there are not, but classical liberals recognized that unlimited ownership of land never flowed from use, but from the state

Lol

Right, so they're acting like post modernists, as is typical of their kind. He didn't want a discussion with you. He wanted to oppress you. So he called you a name. And the one he picked is like the nuclear weapon of names they have, because these people also believe that is 1934 and the only way stop the next holocaust is to violently oppose Nazis. They've been asked their entire lives what they would do if they could time travel to assassinate hitler and save the world. Well now they believe there's literally a hitler, so what is it time to do? And everyone to the right of their genderqueer demihuman sociology is actually a nazi. And they're supposed to actually kill Nazis. But if they can't do that they want to at least discredit them and cause them to be unemployable forever.

Would you like to know a secret about your new home? 50% of us got here just like you. They drove us further right with false accusations of racism, Nazism, bigotry, and so forth.

The other half came here to battle le ebul nazis, and wound up be convinced by our arguments.

No you haven't. Do you know how ids work here?

Can't tell if you're a jew or not.

The solution is probably several ethnostates or even autonomous regions of one country, with a large country like the US where they subsume into one culture and identity.

If history hasn't red pilled you on the grotesque expansionary drive of the state and it's continued encroachment on liberty then nothing will.

I actually have the exact same problem. If the alt-right really does suck at doing anything, it's determining for certain who's white and who's not. We can't form a collective if we keep pushing our would-be supporters away for "not being white enough"; but I fear we're already headed down that path. Look at what's happened with people like Tara McCarthy and Mike Enoch.

Also, call me a cuck, but I'm opposed to genocide in all cases, even if it's technically "counter-genocide." And by that I don't mean relocating people, I mean actually killing them en mass.

You're woke as fuck for a leaf.

The system will not survive Islam and its effects it will have

Same thing. Why are you on Sup Forums? That environment is not exactly conducive to reactionart thought

>so your argument is that businesses shouldnt be able to do whatever they want?
Sort of, but not exactly. To use your words:
>criminals should be punished, and if your ideology includes hurting others, its something we should actively fight against.
Again, it comes down to how we define that term of hurting others, which can be a tricky and pernicious issue. What is the line, and where is it? You could argue argue backing out of the Paris Climate agreement falls into that category. Putting commercial success before the longevity of the planet is potentially causing the most harm to human life possible. But it's a harder concept to wrap your head around than someone pouring a drum of poison into the water supply.

OP here, theres a few people who think theyre talking to me, but theyre not and its kinda awkward. anyway, i feel kinda weird reading that, i dont know what to do with that? tell me more is all i gotta say i guess.

Good luck with that. If you don't figure out the purity spiral problem you let the left win every time. It's their favorite tactic.

Aww who are we kidding. You can't solve s problem that big. You can't even clean your room.

Op here, and yeah i can get on board with that. youre thinking similarly to how i am.

my condolences, sucks to loose a pet especially a cat or a dog.

Nuclear weapons and the fact that credible armed force is monopolized under zog. Should the world factionalize further violence would become more common.

Something to help you get repilled is to research just how much of Western society that Jews control.

They control virtually all of media, and most of the banking system - which effectively makes them gods. The Federal Reserve is chaired by multiple Jews who used to be employees of (((Goldman Sachs))), and they control the US money supply. Also, it's an open secret, even among lefty retards, that Jews control Hollywood. Henry Ford warned that Jews were starting to control media back in the early-1900s, but most people ignored him.

Pic related, Jews at CNN.

Sorry bro, have a funny pic of my cardigan corgi

And the fourteenth.

Posting from my phone, so sorry if some words get dropped.

So, one thing you need to understand about the social justice left is that theynever cared about equality. Remember they're post modernists. Their perspective is that everything is a power game, and expressions of oppressed/oppressor binaries. So in their conception, if you're white you are an intrinsic oppressor. And if that's so, then you need to be fought. You will never be one of the "good whites." There will never be a time you're not an oppressor. They will fight you until either they die or you do.

So then it's like, well maybe the thing to do is just ignore politics and not get involved with it. Because there actually are severe consequences for opposing them. They will try to get you fired, expelled, and so forth. And so that's what most people do because most by far are cowards. But what they don't realize is that it's not a choice to act or not act. Not taking a side is siding with the status quo, which supports the social justice left. So not choosing is actually a choice too, and it comes with most of the same consequences. So then it's like you have to balance the trade offs of acting versus not acting. Will you stay classical liberal because that's what you think you have been trained your entire life to view as what's correct? Or will you speak up against social justice and become a "nazi" to them, as they have already accused you of being?

Thing is, I've seen a million guys like you. I know what you're choice will be.

Who gives a shit. This isn't plebbit or imgur, homo.

pic?

sorry to hear that

I am not a leaf user, I am a part of a white male tradition that extends far beyond the very idea of Canada or America into the past.
Islam is a losing religion, it will never conquer anything. It is blatantly pathetic. If it conquers western countries then they are even more pathetic than it. Islam ruined the society the Arabs created, and it will ruin everything it touches because it is weak minded weak hearted bullshit.

Peoople working together is more efficient than people working alone. A collective working towards a single goal will be more effective than a group that simply protects individualism. In the end your classical liberalism will turn into a different type of government as it seeks more power in order to remain competitive or perish as the demand for personal liberties cripples its capacity to defend itself militarily, economicly, and socially from external and internal threats. In an ideal world it would be a very fair very just system, yet life is not built on ideals but simply what survives. So your system ironically ends up failing for the same reasons as communism and other welfare states. Facism marries the best of both, combining the value system of classical liberalism that lets/makes individuals prove their own worth and innovate with the unity of communism that enable grand projects that require the effort of multiple individuals.

People do not work together. A minority of people exploit their lessers. Each acting for their own selfish instinct except where a genuine religious feeling takes over, and then something inexplicable takes over and creates something I dont quite understand.

Bump faggots