What do you call a political ideology which advocates very open markets and low taxes...

What do you call a political ideology which advocates very open markets and low taxes, but also advocates for NatSoc-tier social policies?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>NatSoc-tier social policies

Paternalism.

i call it the first step of realizing you don't need to fit under a label

I think it's "Holhoaminen" in gook

Awesome?

Holhoaminen is not inherently bad. Actually I believe holhoaminen is the only way to run a society, but only when the holhoaminen works towards a good goal. Holhoaminen is the worst way to do anything, if it's done poorly.

So you agree with me. I kind of guessed many here would

I didn't say it was bad or good I said the answer to your question. What kind of values do you think would emerge if Finland was run as anarchy? acceptance of migrants? high taxes to support welfare?

>What kind of values do you think would emerge if Finland was run as anarchy?

No one can know. The problem is, if there's no government to enforce conservative and nationalist values, the position of enforcing values goes to someone else. An anarchist society is extremely vulnerable for harmful propaganda. In fact, due to that I think an anarchist society would turn into a statist one in no time.

I don't think enforcement is a problem, everyone keeps a version of their own moral code inside them. I see that your fear is that a person's internal moral compass is easy to misdirect. Personally, I dismiss that problem as bad pedigree, morality comes default in healthy people.

gay

unrealistic autism
can't have low taxes and freedoms in a socialist state

>I see that your fear is that a person's internal moral compass is easy to misdirect.

Exactly. And it is, case in point, the West today

>Personally, I dismiss that problem as bad pedigree, morality comes default in healthy people.

I disagree. You can make a person believe in anything, if you teach it to them from a young age. I'm simply advocating for fact-based teaching, with a little "push" on the the nationalism. People living in the Soviet Union were communists. The only Russians who hated communism were those who were in gulags. North Koreans living in North Korea believe in the Juche ideology, and there the ideological teaching goes so far that I doubt even the camp workers hate the government.

Elaborate.

Right!

>very open markets
Why do you consider that a good thing? Do you think fascist Italy and Germany didn't have free markets?

He can't, anarcho-capitalists are literally retarded

Open markets result in economic growth and competition. Governmental institutions don't have competition and are protected by their overlord, thus have no incentive to improve their services. Socialized healthcare is literally the institutional version of a NEET cuck.

>Do you think fascist Italy and Germany didn't have free markets?

I don't know. I've heard and seen conflicting reports. They did spend massively on govt. projects though and it was socialism. Did they have free markets? Elaborate if you know what you're talking about

Government institutions can and do have competition. Depending on what the goal is of the organization they are subject to annual reviews and if they are under performing then funding is cut. If they excel at achieving their organizational goals then the government gives them more funding.

impossible

>They did spend massively on govt. projects
They needed to because of many reasons. Sometimes the government needs to invest or regulate if it working for good interests don't fall for ancap memes.
>and it was socialism
No it wasn't. Pic related. All the actual socialists got purged in the Night of the Long Knives.
>Did they have free markets?
Definitely in fact Italy and Germany did massive privatisation in the 30's. The end goal was an autarky.

>Sometimes the government needs to invest or regulate if it working for good interests don't fall for ancap memes.

Can't stress this enough.

Ancaps are literal retards who think some invisible force will always come to their rescue when things fuck up.
A country where everyone is looking after themselves and only themselves is doomed to fail horribly.

They were still socialist, just not "marxist socialist".

Private ownership of the means of production is utilized for the good of the state. Their surplus is taxed and leveraged for the benefit of the working class as seen in Nazi Germany. That is socialism.

the perfection?

All you need is a culture of shame, if someone acts like a fucking retard they get called out on it. That would give you free markets and low taxes, and a society full of decency

>What do you call a political ideology which advocates very open markets and low taxes, but also advocates for NatSoc-tier social policies?
You call it an autistic fantasy

The State of Nature

All of the communists got purged in the night of the long knives. You're fucking retarded if you think Krupp Steel and the like weren't de facto nationalized even though they stayed private in name. The party made virtually all the decisions for major industry, especially during wartime. They made a profit, yes, but much of the revenue was directed towards the war effort and funding the same social programs that Hitler promised the German volk.

Down Syndrom

The best social policy is no policy. Let evolution take over.

>Evolution

Thats a funny name for jews

Open market is the spurce of all evil,also jews take high advantage of it.Fuck that shit.

>they are subject to annual reviews and if they are under performing then funding is cut. If they excel at achieving their organizational goals then the government gives them more funding.

And who performs the annual reviews? Checks and balances user. Secondly, a free market is still a much, much better way of making sure industries compete.

>Let evolution take over.
Yeah that's the problem. One day someone or a group of powerful people will just create the new policies. I can't see how anarchy is supposed to last longer than maybe a generation.

Capitalist Fascism
have the state support morality and religion but still have muh guns and first amendment

Your post is the definition of down syndrome

>evolution is only evolution when I say so

has it every occurred to you that state policy and forced redistribution of wealth IS an evolutionary adaptation to prevent the working class from getting cucked by international kike bankers?

>Open market is the spurce of all evil

Prove it.

>also jews take high advantage of it

Nope. Jews take advantage of the governments through lobbying and shit like that, and thus get a boost to their industries. Without the corrupt government the Jew is nothing.

unsustainable

Elaborate, and then tell me what is sustainable.

>who performs the annual reviews

Typically unbiased professionals (from outside of the agency they are reviewing) who know what they are doing.

How is the "competition" of the unwashed masses any better? The average person's desires are fickle and can be easily met with cancerous artificial sweeteners and mind numbing television that literally programs them into wanting what these companies are selling.

For true human advancement we need organization beyond what the private sector is able to obtain by fulfilling the desires of it's consumer base.

Look at the soviet union and Nazi Germany.. Even with all of their pitfalls they still managed to make incredible scientific discoveries because they did not let the demand of their working class dictate the focus/aims of the government.

>Without the corrupt government the Jew is nothing.
So are you saying that a government shouldn't exist? Notice the captcha.

It wont if your society consists of a bunch of gibsmedat high time preference faggots. If the productive members of the society secede they will outcompete the one with regulations and lack of private property.
The us didn't win the cold war because they had better policies but because they left their citizens more room and so they could extract more taxes. If you wanted to outcompete the us you would need to be even freer than them. Take this to the extrem and the most competitive society will be the one that does not steal at all from its citizens.

That would be nice

Utopia Combo of Political Sciences.

Fucking based?

>the most competitive society will be the one that does not steal at all from its citizens.
If I was a marxist I could say that in your utopia the ultra-rich capitalist that is at the top is actually only stealing.

Who is getting more cucked the people of Hong Kong or the ones of north Korea? They are protecting them from nothing, they are making it worse.
If protecting ones workers from foreign competition does work why don't we take it a step further? Why don't protect them from competition from a different city or literally everyone else?
Those evil jew bankers sit right behind your politicians.

Sounds like Commander Rockell to me.
There are different types of National Socialism really. This message is made very clear in Murdoch Murdoch, brother brownshirt.

>The us didn't win the cold war because they had better policies but because they left their citizens more room and so they could extract more taxes.

It's exactly the opposite... Reality isn't a game of monopoly, there are many different factors aside from the economic.

Despite having a much much much lower GDP and population than the United States the USSR remained competitive in the military, the development of arms and espionage and these things alone threatened your so called "free market" with ease.

To this day America is threatened by communism because consumerism isn't a robust philosophy designed to conquer.

This is also why bumfuck desert religions thrive. They may not be as liberating or good for mankind as the thousands of alternatives but by their nature they are dominant and therefore will take root and prevail over them.

This is true competition, not the artificial construct of seeing who can get the most pieces of paper by convincing idiots to give it to you through legal means

Well good thing you aren't one. Marxists are right about the fact that there are two classes but the second class is not the capitalist but the one with political power. The ceo has the same rights and power as you do but the politican playes by a different set of rules. That is why we have public and private law.

>The ceo has the same rights and power as you do

>this is what ancaps actually believe

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying

>still compete militarily
Sure if you spend all of your resources into defense.
The us had both big military and rich people

>state
>religion
Nothing wrong with religion, it is voluntary. I am not advocating for consumerism and the reason why the west is threatened by communism is because of the state. He is the one who finances "intellectuals" and creates an oversupply of those thoughts.

Typical burger.
Did you even read my comment?

>Consumerism isn't a philosophy designed to conquer

Then why the fuck is there mcdonalds in Vietnam?

Natsoc has elaborate social programs and it would not be sustainable without high taxes.

saudi arabia is doing fine

>let the jews take over

>did you even read my comment

Yeah, I don't think you understand power dynamics which is typical of ancaps.

It doesn't matter whether power is derived from "legal tender" or political power because they equate to the same thing, the ability to influence the activity of others.

The only reason why CEOs DON'T use the threat of force is because they are subordinate to a government that has the ability to turn their anus inside out using the military/police.

Corporations can lobby the government and utilize it to their advantage.

>b-but that's why government is bad! They use threat of force to prop up companies that would otherwise fail!

WITHOUT the government the result would be the same. These CEOs who want to expand the influence of their company would obtain more and more power even if it is through the use of force. That is the nature of power. It is given to those who have the means to seize it.

National laissez faire capitalism

>implying that they haven't already took over.

Because the government and it's military is powerful enough to turn Vietnam's anus inside out if they don't let American companies operate in their territory which generate revenues for it's military.

A literal nazi

>companies can lobby
Duh, that is also political power.
What are they going to do if there is no government and I don't buy their products? Shoot me (like the government does?)
If a company acts in that way in an ancap society they will soon run out of customers and people who are willing to trade with them...
And if they don't
We will end up.just where we are right now with people getting killed if they refuse to pay for services they did not sign up for

What is the Vietnam war?

So youre saying consumerism is designed to dominate? cause that sounds like domination via consumerism to me

f*ck off

Why the h*ck are you still here

Rockwellian Nazism.

because that's antithetical to socialism brainlet
to answer OPs question, you'd call that a contradiction

Companies that fit your definition cannot exist without a governmental body so it's retarded to treat one as evil and the other as benevolent.

Without a government to enforce the value of the currency they trade in or uphold laws which allow them to operate on an "equal" playing field where other cannot use the threat of force (or else they are imprisoned by force)

This is why anarcho-capitalism is impossible. Threat of force is the ultimate power and always will be.

Even though the mongols weren't an organized governmental power they still were able to fuck over and demand tribute from the relatively highly organized societies that had thriving trade but a lack of military power.

In a scenario where there is no government, it would be in the interests of the power hungry to create a threat to other people's well being and use this to extort them or to eliminate competition.

To say otherwise is delusion. History proves this. Anything that suggests otherwise is utopian

Singapore

What are "social policies"?

No, my argument is that governmental/military power outweighs economic models.

What is compromise? Capitalism had no interest in letting communism take root in Vietnam so it suppressed it using (surprise) the threat of force!

It doesn't matter whether or not we win the war, we made life miserable for the Vietnamese people and they see now that it's better to cooperate with and work within our power structure than to fight against it.

>without government no proper money
What Is gold? Government money is also a big scam because they can print it at no cost and thereby tax everyone indirectly.
Also what do you mean by equal playing field? Is government taxing some and subsidizing others an equal playing field?
And why do you assume there will be a constant undersupply of protection without a government?

What? So you're saying a country either has to be fully socialist or an an-cap society? Socialism and capitalism can co-exist.

Education, foreign policy, and the general set of values the government enforces. Basically everything excluding the management of the economy.

Unsustainable
You can't afford NatSoc levels of intervention, law enforcement and military on low taxes without massive borrowing.

Capitalism does not give a shit, if I remember correctly is was the us government that started the mess (or the French) No government no vietnam war. It was in their own interest to open their markets.
Also they made their own lives miserable. That's what communism does.

Someone please tell me how can a small country like Finland be protectionist?

It can't.

NatSoc-tier social policies do not necessarily mean that we should spend the same amount on those as Germany did. Especially military, I'm not planning on going to war. However, considering how restrictive modern trade is, any country that would "liberate" its economy would see absolutely colossal growth.

I've been toying around with another idea. What if we'd just round up all the non-whites and low-iq whites and make them slaves? Capitalism for the rest of the population. The slaves would uphold the economy pretty well.

Nat-Soc tier social policies are low tier because Adolf Hitler lacked sufficient vision. He wasn't going to build the aristocracy of the future. Instead he wanted to keep raising the Leviathan. Hitler decimated the Aristocracy. That's the big charge that Heidegger and Ernst Junger raise about Faggof Hitler. If Hitler had gotten his way, you would still get the same degeneracy. His high ranking officials were fags (military excluded)

You are correct. We are comparatively protectionist right now, and things are not looking good.

In which way lmao?

t

Comparatively to the West. It's always been like that, we have a culture of goodbrotherclubs in the govt.

I mean Hoppean Ancapism really emphasizes tribalism while being as free market as you can get.
Don't confuse it with Ayn Rand hyper-individualist, live-and-let-live lolbertarianism.

I think the point is that there is an underlying principle of doing "what's best for the state". Don't fall for the "IT WAS SOCIALISM" or "IT WAS CAPITALISM" memes. The economic policies of Nazi Germany were all over the place, as fascists don't have an economic doctrine, aside from "muh usury is bad". And "fuck communism and capitalism".

The most important thing for fascists is preserving the nation, whatever that means at the time. If it means more socialistic policies - that's what happens. If that means lowering taxes and slashing regulations - that's going to happen.

This
14888

Mercantilism

ur a slut