Reminder

True right Libertarianism is the Final solution, and dude weed LGBTQA lolbergtardians are a cancer that must be removed if we are to ever have a Libertarian social order.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

You can't tread on me if I remove all the socialists first.

>The welfare state promotes the proliferation of intellectually and morally inferior people
Then explain Africa. They don't have a welfare state, but their fertility rates are the highest in the world. Meanwhile American niggers that get welfare have more abortions than babies, and have a fertility rate of around 2 children per woman.

Do you really need a race realism lesson? Africans are generally low iq, high time preference people because Africa without the common rainfall like that of in Europe, settling to have farm communities was impossible, leaving them to be tribalistic Hunter gatherers and nomads.

The retardation of niggers came way before the welfare state, however the welfare state allows them to continue breeding.

Maybe I misunderstood your question. Are your along why Africans are shit before the welfare state or why they have high birthrates?

If it's the latter its because when most children die in the harsh conditions of Africa, the best way to regenerate is to produce many children to up the probability of one or more of them surviving.

Are you asking*

I never understood this justification. This description describes the actual state of things. You get into a country, you buy a house and then you stay.
Seems like open borders to me. I don't see how private property can stop unrestricted immigration

Property owners are the sole dictators of their property, no one is allowed in without his authority.

Capitalism is an unequal system many will not own land, especially living completely on their own. And so a private law society would be that of renters and tenants. It would be a. Government by a single proprietor, similar to a monarch.

The proprietor could have an open borders policy of he wishes, but I'm sure you understand that leads to a destruction of his covenant.

Did any of that make sense to you?

Ok, so one of the assumption of the libertarian social order is that most of the people are not actual owner of their lands but only renters ?

What I meant is that if an immigrant buys a property into one's country, nothing can prevent him from getting into that country because of his property rights. If the property is sold by an estate agency, the people from the covenant won't be able to a control over their immigration policy.
I don't know if i have made myself clear

I believe I understand the scenario you're painting.

Yes it's possible for someone else to buy the land and govern as he sees fit, however the tenants are not powerless to how they choose to live, they are voluntary customers after all. If the new land owner upsets the population they can always end their contact, stop paying rent, or leave. That property owner would either have to replace his tenants with a new customer base, or face collapse.
As a side note, it should be understood that anyone who could but such a property would have to be very wealthy and understand the nature of satisfying his customers.

I personally would opt for a kin centered community and would pay whoever would host that community.


It's also

Sorry for my shit typos, anyway if it's a demographics issue you have you should choose a property governed by someone Loyal to a particular nationalistic and conservative code of ethics. Someone with a good reputation for not being greedy, or selling his people out to a shit proprietor.

seems pretty neoliberal to me, politicians fucking suck

Those "Libertarian" party shitheads are indistinguishable from leftists. Fortunately they'll never win an election.

Also a reminder that Cantwell did nothing wrong.

...

...

But doesn't it bother you that most of the population are renters ? in my mind, property is the key to freedom and if the accession to property is restricted to a certain class of people, freedom is endangered. The relation between renters and owners is not a long term and viable relation imo. hence my suspicions about the well being brought by a society based on renting.

Moreover, this system cannot prevent the building of non-white ethno-centered covenant
in europeans/white nations.
Tha's why (while agreeing on a lot of points about ancap/libertarian ideology) i don't think all problems can be solved throught property rights.

I lost all respect for him after his video where he cries like a fucking baby.
If you want to be political dissident, don't cry when shit happens
start act like a fucking man

All non-brainlet libertarians become fash in the end.

Egalitarianism is a farce, and a revolt against nature. Especially in a property oriented society. Erasing class boundaries is the goal of communism.

As for ethnostates it makes much more sense for non whites to buy property where their own people exist, rather than taking on the daunting task of relocating millions of whites and importing his own kind. What would be the there's no profit to be made, and moreover no incentive to want that particular geographic location. While there is no Hardline "no non whites can buy white land" rule, it is highly disincentivized to do so. I think you'll find that under free association whites will have a Homeland and most likely in Europe and the United States.

Such a common plebian response, under free association societies that model after fascism with no doubt exist.

Lurk more please.

I'm asking why African niggers have higher birth rates than American niggers, despite African niggers not having a welfare state.

Yeah, I answered that in the post.

almost all lolbertarians are closet authoritarians

Right-Wing Libertarians are authoritarian, you can't get what you want unless you remove the problem from society.

>unironically using plebian in a sentence
Why do libertarians always have to act like they're the pinnacle of human thought.

Libertarian degeneracy is only acceptable within a homogeneous society. See Japan, to a certain extent.

No you didn't.

>Africans are generally low iq, high time preference people
So are African Americans.
>If it's the latter its because when most children die in the harsh conditions of Africa, the best way to regenerate is to produce many children to up the probability of one or more of them surviving.
Then by this logic, if the welfare state in American were abolished, wouldn't this cause black people in America to have higher fertility rates, since their lives would get considerably harsher without gibs?

I'm not in the closet, I embrace the nature of property rights.

I think what you are actually looking for is authoritarianism not libertarianism.

I haven't heard of a difference in policy between right libertarians and the libertaran party in general, the difference seems to be mostly disagreement in what the end result is. Seems highly impractical when even the end result is unknown.

Freedom to be removed... What a great principle of freedom

Degeneracy is acceptable no nowhere in a Libertarian social order. Nice non argument tho.

You realize most libertarians grow out of it after they turn 25? There's this awkward stage where they start to wake up to the inherent problems with this ideology and experience cognitive dissonance for a few years... and you get threads like these.

Do you think Rothbard understood the JQ (yes I know he's Jewish), what about Hoppe?

What did he mean by this? I genuinely don't understand. Why is something bad because there are a lot of men and why is something bad because there are a lot of white people involved? Does he walk into a hospital and conclude that you people are way too white and should be ashamed of saving lives as he then goes to enjoy the large black population in the prison system? Is he upset that the gender ratio is not 50/50 or does he just have some kind of issues with men? What would his reaction be to a political movement that is mostly female, let's say feminism?

Have you ever read anything by Kant? People must have the freedom to be immoral otherwise they will not believe they have the choice to moral.

You just said that people would naturally form societies with similar people, so why wouldn't "degenerates" (whatever you mean by that), form their own societies, which could potentially expand? Furthermore, as in trade it's profitable to expand your customer base, these societies would then have a significant influence over other ones.

The difference is how property rights are determined. They are just brainlets who can't into the concept of ownership.

That pic seems kind of LARPy
What's the basis for claiming everyone in civilization will remove communists?

Absolutely, and when they make that immoral choice they will no longer be tolerated.

They reject property rights and are therefore aggressors by definition. Pic related.

Get this based ancap out of jail already. i need my daily dose of radical agenda. fucking kikes.

>Kekistan
Kill yourself.

Thoughts?

What even is libertarian at this point?
It's starting to sound more and more like fascists/NatSocs who are too weak-willed to shoulder the taboo of those labels.

Based on the quotes in this thread they have a very similar concept of property rights than you. Explain how they are different.

I don't know much about Curt, but it seems he's coming to the same conclusion many AnCaps are. We are not about universal freedom or anarchy, but rather property rights. We want people to own things and dictate the usage of those things.

Yeah I've seen that pic. It doesn't answer the question though.
It answers "why all communists would be considered hostile within libertarian thought"

I'm asking why will everyone in civilization uphold libertarian thought, to protect the entire concept of private property rights-- as opposed to simply protecting their own private property.

>We want people to own things and dictate the usage of those things.
What convinces you that will lead to a functioning society?
Also, don't you still impose a higher authority on how they're allowed to use those things?

What I don't like about libertarians is that they all want to do something illegal/highly stigmatized.

I'm just taking my high IQ with me to live my life freely. I don't see the general population escaping out of this circus. Either those at the top of the pyramid really are still pulling the strings and have a plan for China, or they're just having their fun while they can until the Chinese inevitably come in and take over everything they want.

There will be no change so long as people's needs are satisfied (hunger, shelter, comfort).

Naturally, we both claim to be of the same philosophy. They however reject the writings of real right Libertarians like Rothbard and Hoppe. Imo, they don't care about property at all, but would rather have an individual atomized near leftist egalitarian society, which anyone to the right of Karl Marx knows will collapse.

I guess you were right in your first claim. The expected outcomes are different.

They would uphold it by protecting their property individually. No right minded proprietor would tolerate the people trying to seize their property.

That quote is from Hoppe's Democracy, truly a great read. I can't remember what chapter it is but I highly suggest looking up the quote in it's full context. It explains a lot about the nature of a private property society.

But is there any difference in policy?

Yes, absolutely. They want an opening of the central state "open borders", promote libertinism and degeneracy. And all manner of left leaning garbage.

But to be honest, the real reason they have these policies is because they are funded by the (((Cato))) institute, known controlled opposition operated by the open society foundation (Soros). They serve the communists.

This isn't just conspiracy btw, they openly show who funds them. Look at their websites.

LOL. Your brain will finish developing soon. It will make more sense.

>No right minded proprietor would tolerate the people trying to seize their property.
Why would they all be right-minded proprietors?

Because the market has a way of separating idiots from their money.

They will be able to make the immoral choice, people won't like it and therefore not associate with them. I understand it fine.

Not when communists are interfering with it.

hence physical removal of communist elements and actors from society

Duh, which is why they must be physically removed from society.

>Pinochet, an authoritarian dictator

I agree, they "must" be removed.
Now tell me how your society that's organized entirely around individuals, their private property, and their own personal financial interests will achieve this.

The "muh radical individualism" is a meme that has to die. The individual has little authority over collectives. The community that is operated by a proprietor will be more than capable of rejecting Marxists and other degenerates.

Also may I add that it's in your financial and individual interest to have your property stolen by commies or to allow kikes to genocide your race.

Kek
*To NOT have your property stolen.

Also pinochet is an honorary AnCap for his brave defense of property rights. We also bought the right to his images. Every time you post him our federation receives $0.16

We are not centered around the abstract concept of freedom, but rather property rights. These faggots have to go.

>The individual has little authority over collectives.
>The community that is operated by a proprietor

>individual, little authority over collective
>community, operated by a proprietor

Getting mixed signals here, mate.

And yes of course it's not in my interests for my property to be stolen or for my entire race to be killed (which would obviously include myself and my community)

Is it also not in my interests for my competitors' property to be stolen by commies, or for their communities to be (((culturally enriched)))?
This is my point.

>for his brave enforcement of property rights via the state and its monopoly on violence
Surely there's a better name for you to call yourselves than "An"Cap?

Faggot prosecutor shopped for a judge that would deny him bail. They played the fucking Vice piece as evidence.

kek

Are your competitors white? Then it might just be, if not who cares.

As for the AnCap thing I like "propertarian" but that fat bitch Curt Doolittle already nabbed it. I guess I'm some sort of monarchist, with a philosophy derived from (as ironic as it may be) classical liberals without egalitarian elements.

...

...

So the difference is effectively minarchists vs ancaps?

No I think it's more of a left/right divide. We both think certain state policy is better than others.

Rothbard had a good clarification that goes something along the lines of "the error of the left-Libertarian is that as long as there is a state and public property, it should be an inclusive cesspool for anyone at all to abuse, where as we on the right believe as long as the state exists it should act as a responsible market actor."

This isn't a direct quote, but it's close.

...