What are Ancaps and Liberterians views on race

and white identity?

Other urls found in this thread:

vimeo.com/86857165
vimeo.com/85568469
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

were egalitarian in the sense of race. the market doesn't care about race. also im a former ancap and now im an agorist.
> fuck corporations.

usually they dont care about race, some hoppean ancaps believe in physical removal though. You cannot achieve ancapistan without a few helicopter rides on the way

yeah you can
> synthesis anarchism

Your a Aaaaarrrrgggonist.

no im an agorist.

market will correct itself and put things in order. If blacks are intelelctualy inferior and strong, market will allocate them to the mines in general. Same with women.

Isn't this allready happening tho?

who is the most influential ancap thinker today?

Have you even read any ancap /lit/?
all lives have value. the market does not care about race.

I'm an individualist, but I'd say I'm a race realist.

i think libertarians care more about racial identity probably as a byproduct of nationalism, which ancaps generally lack

i'm no longer ancap, but still hold many ancap-type beliefs. the answer is that we don't really give a shit. my view on it is if non-whites really are inferior or whatever, then the free market would deal with them pretty quickly, with the added bonus that any exceptions (and there will always be exceptions) don't get lynched or gassed or whatever and actually get to contribute to society.

most of the crime committed by negros is because of wealth inequality the market would correct this by putting them to work.

...

>putting shit under glass with no system of air control
nigga literally everything under that glass would be a 200 degrees on a hot day what in the fuck is wrong with retarded designers the sun would obliterate that grass and melt the fucking concrete under that magnifying glass

Race is superficial and irrelevant to almost everything. (except like casting in movies)

Even if you did discover differences in ability in the aggregate between races, it still doesn't justify prejudging an individual member of that race.

Everyone deserves to be judged individually

What's your point exactly? Not like less intelligent people will be able to get jobs that pay as much as intelligent people. What would be bad about black people working instead of committing crime and living on welfare?

Yes, duh. That is what user said. Regardless of specific race, individual skill set will determine role in world -- what a fuckin' novel concept.
In user's example, blacks -who are strong and dumb - will be best suited for physical labor ON AVERAGE.
This is a self-sorting mechanism of voluntary human interactions, also known as the free market.

>most of the crime committed by negros is because of wealth inequality
That's really a chicken or the egg thing, nothing is preventing niggers from working that isn't preventing whites too. It's a cultural problem really with an underpinning of an average iq difference. I believe the IQ gap does not ultimately block good behavior though, it's just exasperates and perpetuates poor culture.

> uses the word nigga unironically
> normie spotted.
REEEEEEEE

I think if you have a problem with race it's obvious that it can't be solved peacefully through the Hegelian dialectic of conflict with in/out groups.

What what I've found capitalism has allowed races to interact and coexist somewhat peacefully in the same way that a culture of religious tolerance has allowed various religions to coexist in the west without needing endless wars. (Islam being the current violent exception that doesn't want this with us which is fair enough fuck those cunts)

I'm not so sure about this race realism pseudo science shit, it seems that there's too many examples in history of various races doing better/worse under different policies and environments, that's not to say people don't have certain genetic dispositions.

The big issue for me is the practicality of an ethno state, I obviously don't trust the state in general so I don't think I'd trust the state in determining who is the right colour/race and removing merit for somewhat subjective traits is just an odd way of thinking to me. It's way too reminiscent of how the Communist Party in various countries worked where people only succeeded due to their party connections not through their own character, so in that way it's a threat meritocracy which I value (individual actions) above tribe.

>the market does not care about race.
but it does care about the genetic effects of race

Nah.You're just a faggot. Those other things don't actually exist.

Maybe its COMPED future glass, ya 'tard.

End welfare and niggers go home or starve. Problem solved. It allows the rare token high IQ black people to stay while all low IQ niggers starve or go back to Africa.

Yeah its definitely a culture problem
> implying there arent smart negros.
> read above.

I'm an ancap by the way

I still don't get your point. So what if there are some blacks that could get a decent job? Is that bad for some reason?

agreed.

no what im saying is that its good.we should have an egalitarian view of this.

Why do you care about my personal beliefs on this topic, as a libertarian it wouldn't matter at all because I can't force my viewpoints on anyone.

...

Freedom of association. If x group of people want to get together and create their own community then no should be allowed to stop them.

Truth and logic, as is the case with everything else

Ow. Ok then. Guess I'm too high for these debates. I'm out.

maybe he wants direction.

exactly. it is a purely individualist system, if the white supremacists are correct and all the other races are inherently worse than whites, then the vast majority of the members of said races will fail *as individuals*, while the few who are on par with whitey will succeed, again, *as individuals*. And if the stormfags are wrong, then it makes no difference, the system will function the same way.

If a certain group or individual of whatever given race wish to establish a community only for their race where they have limited interactions with other races (not doing business with them, not letting them on their property, ect) then they are free to do so as that doesn't beak the NAP.

INHO the races would probably naturally stay separate without state interference or even requiring anyone having any specific policies insisting on it since that seems to be what most people prefer, to have communities of their own ethnicity, the government has just made sure to fuck up minority communities with welfare programs to make them dependent on the white majority and are now enforcing things like affirmative action and protected classes.

Appearance and genealogy are irrelevant. Only actions matter, whether genetically influenced or not.

>Hire several gangs of Chicago niggers as my personnal militia
>control the whole city through violence and fear
>The population is forced into labor camps
>I keep my militia happy with sex slaves and drugs
>Obtain my first recreational nuke in few months
>recreationally nuke my strongest opponent
>repeat
>become the CEO of this part of the world

" First, almost by definition it follows that with the establishment of a
city government interracial, tribal, ethnic, and clannish-familial tensions
will increase because the monopolist, whoever he is, must be of
one ethnic background rather than another; hence, his being the monopolist
will be considered by the ci tizens of other ethnic backgrounds as an
insulting setback, i.e., as an act of arbitrary discrimination against the
people of another race, tribe, or clan. The delicate balance of peaceful
interracial, interethnic, and interfamilial cooperation, achieved through
an intricate system of spatial and functional integration (association)
and separation (segregation), will be upset. Second, this insight leads
directly to the answer as to how a single judge can possibly outmaneuver
all others. In brief, to overcome the resistance by competing judges,
an aspiring monopolist must shore up added support in public opinion.
In an ethnically mixed milieu this typically means playing the U race
card." The prospective monopolist must raise the racial, tribal, or danish
consciousness among citizens of his own race, tribe, dan, etc., and promise,
in return for their support, to be more than an impartial judge in
matters relating to one's own race, tribe, or clan (that is, exactly what
citizens of other ethnic backgrounds are afraid of, i.e., of being treated
with less than impartiality) "

>implying I care what race my McSlaves™ are

Yes, thats what I have meant.
Thanks.

...

I don't care about racial and national identity. Once you adopt group identity, you become susceptible to group think.

...

...

In the absence of a state safety net, people will fall back on the only safety net they have: friends, family, church, tribe.

If some races have competitive advantages over others, they'll be richer than those others. The way to gain that wealth will still be by serving the needs of others. It's just comparative advantage. People with different levels of comparative advantage still gain from trade with each other, even if one of them has an advantage over the other gaining them more.

...

There would probably be more immigration in a libertarian society. Immigration is more tightly restricted around the world than ever. Hoppeans who think that immigration would decrease are delusional.

...

Shut your trap meme-flag impostor.

No, immigrants aren't really invaders. I've never had my property trespassed or stolen by immigrants. I'm more threatened by native-born thugs who work for the government.

not an argument

...

You're the one spamming pages from Hoppe's books instead of presenting an argument.

*his arguments fucking retard

This is Hoppe at his his silliest. Why would an "invitor" be held liable for any crimes by an immigrant? Do I need to write a contract beforehand with an invitor if I want to travel to New York City? Should that invitor be held responsible for any crimes I commit in New York City?

No that's me.
>Hoppeans who think that immigration would decrease are delusional.
This implies you've never read Hoppe.
>Should that invitor be held responsible for any crimes I commit in New York City?
Absolutely, yes.

I suppose you think an explicit contract with an invitor should be prepared any time a person leaves his house.

Why would I think that?

Only nature knows what's best, and nature selects.

I don't believe in coercive authorities like the state using powers to give advantages to certain people over others, but I do believe that advantages and disadvantages naturally exist.

What's the moral difference between travelling to New York City and driving five miles away from my house? Why do you think an invitor liable for any crimes I commit is necessary in the former situation but not the latter?

> all lives have value. the market does not care about race.

1. If the market is composed by a culture of strongly nationalistic individuals exercising their freedom of association, it will.

2. If your genetics put you at a disadvantage, they will be weeded out.

...

>Mixing identiy politics with libertarianism
you fucking idiot they're like oil and water

White ethnostate minarchism with an iron-clad constitution is best.

With the absence of government and government programs, the least competent race's instantly go to the bottom, eventually becoming completely irrelevant. Perhaps only being a minor annoyance like native americans today.

that potatonigger Larpen Rose

People are viewed as raw commodities whose labor can be exploited. Thus abstract things like race and country get in the way of extracting as much surplus value from the working class as possible. Racial lines must be destroyed and blurred.

Where do all the working class sleep in that?

No they are not, people will be inherently biased when it comes to ethno-cultural associations, there will certainly be places where businesses have "Germans need not apply" if the local population dislikes Germans that much.

The market reflects the people, if hiring Japanese turns people away from your businesses then you would't want to hire Japanese people.

in a society where the government doesn't regulate speech, have "anti-discrimination" laws and restrict freedom of association in terms both with property and non-property involved, a biased culture would naturally form which would in turn do the job that borders couldn't do, more efficiently.

> el intelectual mexicANO

>an explicit contract with an invitor should be prepared
You were talking about an explicit contract. In practice, the liability insurance will be built into you private road tolls.
>What's the moral difference between travelling to New York City and driving five miles away from my house? Why do you think an invitor liable for any crimes I commit is necessary in the former situation but not the latter?
No difference, but NYC might not have any reason to accept your endorsement.
If you endorse someone for entry onto another person's private property, and said someone commits a crime, then you're liable for damages.
If you ask your parents to let someone sleep on their couch, and they wouldn't do so without your endorsement, you're responsible when the friend trashes the basement.

...

What do anarchist think will happen if there is no government? Do they not realize people will just form smaller gangs/militias for protection and those will eventually just grow until its really just a new government?

omg I never thought of that

> natives today
> minor annoyances
> flag

Pay up white man, you owe us this land.

> Do they not realize people will just form smaller gangs/militias for protection
Do you not realize people will form new institutions to provide the same services the state used to provide?

Thank you

Like a police force? And if there are multiple different police forces how will that work out?

if the immigrant causes property damage to others the person who vouched for him should be held accountable

Do you really want to know the truth? Or do you just want people to act like little economic dictators telling exactly how society will organize that won't even sway you anyways? Totally up to you what you want to get out of all this.

Why not only the criminal himself? This contradicts libertarian theory. Vouching for somebody without deliberately misleading the person to whom you are vouching doesn't violate the non-aggression principle. Under such a system, everybody would need to have an insurance policy any time they leave their house or invite a person into their property.

>And if there are multiple different police forces how will that work out?
Is there any reason at all for it to work out poorly? Private security isn't uncommon. Private security in South Africa employs three times more people than the entire military and police force, and no "private security warlord" has taken over SA.
On the contrary, they will coordinate and negotiate just like credit card companies coordinate. In practice, there's no reason to bite the hand that feeds.

It seems like Hoppeans are developing this weird theory of invitor/invitees just to rationalize their opposition to immigration.

doesn't Hoppe believe in race realism?

strongly in its favor.

niggers and shitskins can't compete without the government artificially propping them up, so naturally whites rise to the top on average

also itt retards talking about immigration who don't know that you can refuse entry, employment, sale, and service to people who you don't want to associate with. meaning that immigrants can be denied on a private basis

What's your response to my comment here ?

Also what's your real ideology? You're not fooling anyone with that flag.

Irrelevant except for aesthetics, which are ultimately unimportant.

I've been an anarcho-capitalist for at least 10 years. I don't know why you would think otherwise.

>Why not only the criminal himself?
Because in a private property society there is no free immigration, there are only private spaces and immigration works through invitation
>Vouching for somebody
implies contract
>or invite a person into their property
this applies if your immigrant cause damage to other people's property

Yes. And in fact, he invited Jared Taylor to his ancap conference a couple years ago.

vimeo.com/86857165
vimeo.com/85568469

That's a moronic understanding of moral responsibility.
You can't be responsible for any actions that aren't your own as a matter of demonstrable fact. You can only be responsible for what you can control, and you can only control yourself.

>I've been an anarcho-capitalist for at least 10 years.
What was the thing that convinced you? Which author?
>I don't know why you would think otherwise.
Because you have a piss-poor understanding of cause and effect and of basic property rights.
You're setting up strawmen that imply you don't understand what you're talking about.
It's okay if you're a Natsoc. I don't mind them.

>Is there any reason at all for it to work out poorly? Private security isn't uncommon. Private security in South Africa employs three times more people than the entire military and police force, and no "private security warlord" has taken over SA.

Army and police still have the monopoly on violence though, man power alone doesnt mean a lot

If police company 1 wants to arrest someone for something and police company 2 stops them how does that play out? if they enforce different laws

>You can't be responsible for any actions that aren't your own as a matter of demonstrable fact
I can't believe I'm having a conversation with such a retard. This will be my last response.

>If you ask your parents to let someone sleep on their couch, and they wouldn't do so without your endorsement, you're responsible when the friend trashes the basement.
I ask you to refute this. Suppose it wasn't even your parents. Suppose it were your neighbor.

as long as their money is green then it doesnt matter what color their skin is

Just listen to Hoppes latest speech about the alt-right.
In essence: allowing immigration vis a vis infringes on the native peoples property rights since they own all public property and thus the country. All aliens must therefore be physically removed, so to speak.

i need a basal blackman to base my wife hard.

I ask you to refute the obvious you anti-intellectual dipshit.
>You can only be responsible for what you can control, and you can only control yourself