Le NatSoc/AnCap Friendship Meme

Give me a quick rundown on this meme. Why the fuck would Authoritarian Collectivists work together with Right Libertarians? I'm genuinely at a lost.

Also why the only ones pushing this are (mostly) NatSocs?

Other urls found in this thread:

wiki.mises.org/wiki/Argumentation_ethics
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Mostly a common enemy in Marxism

Enemy of my enemy =/= friend
Dog and cats don't work together to kill squirrels.

Mostly out of convenience.

The globalists are the bigger threat.

>Also why the only ones pushing this are (mostly) NatSocs?
Because Libertarians are cucks and only Anarcho-Capitalists really follow their ethics to the last consequences. A lot of Libertarians also support open borders.

Both sides know they can't coexist. This is not an ideological friendship, but a merely strategical one.

None of us think it's wrong to use force against communists.

National Socialism is still socialism. One day we'll remove them too.

Maybe they want to destroy libertarianism.

physical removal and living space are necessary before we can have the luxury of playing around with fighting over ideology

People who believe the Ancap meme were tricked by Jews who want to pay less in taxes.

So you want to pay more taxes?

A libertarian order is the outcome of a traditionalist homogeneous society. Many libertarians and ancaps agree that a dictatorship may be necessary to achieve this goal.

this

also it's a board culture thing, Sup Forums was libertarian before it got flooded with neetsocs

ron paul 2012

Not a dictatorship. Only in appearances maybe.

Someone will have to lead a resistance to oust the statists and secure people's private property from the dirty hands of the state.

AnCap, in practice, would essentially be millions of tiny monarchies.

Why shouldn't some of those thousand Liechtensteins be natsoc?

If our government is a forced social contract, it is still a contract. We pay into it with our taxes, and receive benefits. Immigrants move in and receive benefits without having paid into the system, and thus are stealing benefits thus violating the non-aggression principle. It's the difference between inviting somebody into your house, and people barging in and setting up camp in your living room, eating your food and shitting all over the lawn.

AnCaps and libertarians should both be anti-open-borders.

Because if you respect people's private property, you can't be NatSoc.

We have a common enemy.
That said, I myself do not understand why we'd work with one group of socialists to defeat another. The enemy of my enemy isn't always my friend.

THIS IS A SHILL SLIDE THREAD
DO NOT POST IN DIVIDE AND CONQUER SHILL THREADS

National Socialism isn't taken seriously in modern society, and likely never will be. Marxism, on the other hand, is not only accepted, but seems to have completely taken over universities.

We need to work on uncucking the Libertarian Party.

Seems to me like you don't respect the natsoc's private property enough to allow them to collectivise said private property. Why's that?

taxes = services unless you are a retarded americlap who lets his government spend half the budget on war.

Can someone post the ancap to nazi meme?

...

The free market also provides services but Walmart can't toss me in jail for not doing business with them, whereas the government can jail me for not paying taxes, even if I don't use the government's services. It all boils down to the ethics of coercion.

Here ya go m8

I think Hitler was quite clear that national socialism was intrinsically different the Marxist socialism in the idea that private property and individual rights of the national citizen come first over the rights of aliens to the country. What anfags and libs always forget in their philosophy is the JQ. Considering the Natsoc philosophy has been tried and true despite its shortcomings the libtard/anfag ideals leave out physical and material truths. Their ideologies don’t account for central banking nor offer a viable solution to do away with central banking.

Trickle-down economics is a straw-man that socialists use to attack capitalism, and no such system actually exists. The way it is SUPPPOSED to work is that if rich get richer, they put their money in competing banks which lowers interest rates, increasing lending to small businesses and such. What breaks the cycle is a central bank manually setting interest rates and lending money to certain groups. This is further compounded by fractional reserve banking that multiplies the money supply without increasing value. guess which group of people invented both of those things?

But user, the State is the main tool that Jews use. Why the hell you think they want one world government?

Why have a "voluntary" dictatorship to enforce rules that the community all agrees on. We have freedom of association and property rights for that exact reason; people who don't follow the law within a community will be expelled from said community by said community. You don't need a middle man.

Capitalism is a vehicle and the Jews are at the wheel. Do you really that capitalism would be as "evil" as it is now if honest white people were in control of central banks, wall street, the media and entertainment?

Get the foreign insidious money changers out of capitalism. that is the goal

Because you will be natsoc after you give up on NAP because niggers exist

We can call it national capitalism this time
It don't matter

The social contract is a spook. People are never given the option to break contract and stop receiving those "benefits".

>AnCaps and libertarians should both be anti-open-borders.
In theory, we should. The right of free association implies the right of free exclusion and the right of free discrimination. The government controls the roads and public spaces, and if the borders are open, you cannot choose to not associate with immigrants.

In a place where private property is respected, there's no such thing as "freedom of movement". Attempting to install such "right" would instead get us freedom of trespassing, a crime. Immigrants must come through invitation and contract. They must pay fully for the services they utilize, just like everybody else. The movement of people from one geographic space to another would depend entirely on the permission from the people who live there.

Inside your own private property, you can. The problem is that you can never be fully NatSoc without, at some point, committing a crime against other people's private property. Your regime would be NatSoc in appearances only.

Saying that you will "collectivize your own stuff" is just stupid. Collectivism implies the utter disrespect for people's property.

I do not have a right to refuse those services. I never asked for them. I do not have a right to take reparations from the state in case it fails to deliver me such services.

Please explain why do you feel like you're entitled to the fruits of my labor, but I'm not entitled to yours.

>Inside your own private property, you can. The problem is that you can never be fully NatSoc without, at some point, committing a crime against other people's private property.
How would a group of natsocs collectivising their private property into a natsoc society commit a crime against other people's private property, user?

it wouldn't. I think his argument is essentially that that's not what the word collectivize means

but there's nothing wrong with a commune if 100% of the participation is voluntary

>private property and individual rights of the national citizen come first over the rights of aliens to the country.
Private property is private property. It does not have a "nationality" variable. Private property is a characteristic of humans. If it's human, then it has private property. There's no way around this. It's proof is a priori and value-free:

wiki.mises.org/wiki/Argumentation_ethics

Here you are coming up with excuses to further the myth that National Socialism somehow respected people's private property.

>“In Nazi Germany,” Mises tells us, the property owners “were called shop managers or Betriebsführer. The government tells these seeming entrepreneurs what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. The government decrees at what wages labourers should work, and to whom and under what terms the capitalists should entrust their funds. Market exchange is but a sham. As all prices, wages and interest rates are fixed by the authority, they are prices, wages and interest rates in appearance only; in fact they are merely quantitative terms in the authoritarian orders determining each citizen’s income, consumption and standard of living. The authority, not the consumers, directs production. The central board of production management is supreme; all citizens are nothing else but civil servants. This is socialism with the outward appearance of capitalism. Some labels of the capitalistic market economy are retained, but they signify here something entirely different from what they mean in the market economy.”

>Their ideologies don’t account for central banking nor offer a viable solution to do away with central banking.
Central baking only exists because the state exists. It's a monopoly just like any other. Do you really think AnCaps never address such huge problem, perhaps one of the main tools the state uses to perpetuate itself?

Don't be so coy. It's the same reason why Communists, while it's theoretically possible for them to form a commune within their private property, it would never happen realistically. Why would a group that believes that private property doesn't exist be respectful to other's private property. NatSocs would never play by Ancap logic, otherwise they'd be NatSocs only in appearance.

Pretty much what said.

The whole concept of "living space" and the NSDAP's 25-point plan pretty much insist that expansion must be done at all costs. This includes expansion through contract or homesteading, but it also includes force and coercion against innocent people.

Unless you have some weird form of National Socialism that doesn't involve National Socialism.

The main difference is that National Socialism is prescriptive, it gives you a list of "dos", unlike AnCap, which is negative, it gives you a list of "don'ts"

This has several ethical implications.

>it would never happen realistically
there have been many communes

Your point?

There have been many idiots in the past too.

Doesn't really say anything.

What happens with communes are one of three things: either they fail miserably and people either die or fuck off, or they start to covet the neighboring territories to make up for their inefficiencies and are destroyed in their perpetual war, or the people rise and reform their commune into something closer to a market-oriented solution.

>something that has happened many times could never happen realistically
ok

Anarcho-Capitalism basics: the state.

What is the state? The state is a group of people who hold themselves as the final arbiter in all decisions made in a specific territory, through the monopoly of the services of security and justice, financed by the means of compulsory payments made by the people who live in said territory.

I guess by your definition, you could realistically open up a shop where everything is sold at production value.

ok, but let's keep this in the context of the original question. The short answer to the question
>How would a group of natsocs collectivising their private property into a natsoc society commit a crime against other people's private property?
is that that, in and of itself, isn't a crime nor a violation of the NAP

Reread my post and try again.

cognitive dissonance

Already answered. Collectivization implies violating people's private property.

Don't let Newspeak fool you. Sharing or pooling is not collectivization.

I'm Ancap and I don't have a problem with them as long as they stay within their borders, buying territory instead of annexing it. Eventually their economy will look so bad in comparison that their state will collapse.

Honestly Natsocs are just economically retarded Hoppeans. Most of them on pol aren't even really socialists. Most of them are actually ethnically sensible paleoconservatives.

so then my first post was correct, and you and the other poster were working with different definitions of the word

it doesn't matter how many times I reread it, it still contains the same error

Are you one of those idiots who think "socialism is sharing"?

>A libertarian order is the outcome of a traditionalist homogeneous society. Many libertarians and ancaps agree that a dictatorship may be necessary to achieve this goal.
That would be me.

if 100% of the participants are voluntary it basically is

that's why it's handy to expand on what you actually mean when discussing it

it's not really helpful to pretend someone means something than what they actually do when you're responding to their question

>Collectivization implies violating people's private property.
You don't understand Hoppe. You can have totally voluntary collectives, and in fact it's the most natural thing in the world. In the absence of the state, the ties of family, friends, and church are allowed to be strong.

Because the AnCaps that associate with fascists/NatSocs have a shared interest in the preservation of their race that sits at the crux of their whole ideology, they just have different ideas about implementation. Sure, there will be splitting over this implementation in the future but at the present time they are both accomplishing the same goal of trying to make people more race aware.

>I think Hitler was quite clear that national socialism was intrinsically different the Marxist socialism in the idea that private property and individual rights of the national citizen come first over the rights of aliens to the country. What anfags and libs always forget in their philosophy is the JQ. Considering the Natsoc philosophy has been tried and true despite its shortcomings the libtard/anfag ideals leave out physical and material truths. Their ideologies don’t account for central banking nor offer a viable solution to do away with central banking.
Well said. Hence the glide-path from anti-Fed Ron Paulism to NatSoc among some.

>Because the AnCaps that associate with fascists/NatSocs have a shared interest in the preservation of their race that sits at the crux of their whole ideology, they just have different ideas about implementation. Sure, there will be splitting over this implementation in the future but at the present time they are both accomplishing the same goal of trying to make people more race aware.
Yes.

It's spread by teenagers who don't really get either ideology yet.

AnCAPS want Fallout newvegas to be real life.

>if 100% of the participants are voluntary it basically is
This requires basically a pure democracy, where everything is decided in open votes and the option to opt of of any decision is allowed. This seems to me to be an impossible this to get working and sustain itself long-term and large-scale. I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong.

There's no such thing as socialism without collectivization. The entire point of socialism is to to break away from and "fix" classical liberalism's class struggle between proprietors and wage earners. Their relation was natural but not harmonious. Red ideologies step in to attempt to make them harmonious. One pivotal point of this was the relativize property rights. This is why stupid things such as "personal property" were invented, to patch the big hole in their theory, this patch being necessary to convince people they wouldn't strip you naked.

If you do really mean people simply combining their properties and voluntarily contributing to a fund to be used for the general well-being of the participants, then you're talking about a simple pool of resources. You are not talking about collectivization, unless you're purposely breaking away from the word's original meaning to the original socialists.

I doubt Hoppe used the term "collectives" to describe something analogous to what they tried to do in the Soviet Union with the kulaks. Also, I believe he used the term "covenant" instead.

If a German citizen no longer wanted to pay taxes and was comfortable in not receiving any state-given benefits, would NatSoc respect his private property and leave him alone?

For some reason, I think not. Their respect for private property rights is entirely bogus and only when convenient.

Yes, one enables lazy fuckers who enjoy running around conventions in underwear and the other enables men who fight world wars against communism.

>lazy fuckers
Because wanting to be left alone and for people to take responsibility for their actions is very "lazy", unlike NatSoc, which will pamper your ass with all sorts of government benefits paid for by putting guns to people's heads and demanding GIBS ME DAT.

>fuckers who enjoy running around conventions in underwear
Anarcho-Capitalists have a special disdain for Libertarians, specially the ones who are into political parties.

The fact that you mixed up the two shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. If I were to ask you why would AnCaps have a reason to dislike Libertarians, you'd be in a pickle. Where is the white man's intelligence and humility before knowledge?

>I doubt Hoppe used the term "collectives" to describe something analogous to what they tried to do in the Soviet Union with the kulaks. Also, I believe he used the term "covenant" instead.
I agree, and you're right about his use of the term "collective".

I think my point stands though. People forming tribes is very natural, and the existence of the state dampens tribal tendencies. You can have non-aggressive "collectives" enforced by sanctions, boycotts, or limited titles.

Stop kidding yourself, you're both retarded brothers from the same individualistic womb.
Both idiots who don't know what civilization is or how it works.

they're pretty different

libertarians believe in democracy and the rule of law

I know enough to tell you that no civilization can be built to depend on crime for survival.

The real world is not an Europa Universalis IV game. You don't get to create new countryballs based on entirely subjective criteria.

I'm sorry to break it to you, but Plato was wrong.

Also, since you don't believe in private property, I'd like to invite you to show all of us how is it possible to argue - be it through speech, hand gestures, or via the internet - without utilizing your very self-ownership in the process.

We can wait.

...

>I know enough to tell you that no civilization can be built to depend on crime for survival.
So, you don't know.

>Also, since you don't believe in private property
Oh boy, meme thinking is here.

Explain how private property is not a thing.

DO IT.

Don't waste your time, user. They will get the helicopter soon enough.

throwing people out of helicopters violates the NAP

Why do people keep confusing Classical Liberalism, Libertarianism and Anarcho-Capitalism?

I mean, how hard is it to open up a fucking book?

>oh, it's those free market people, right? aren't they like, all the same thing?

>throwing innocent people out of helicopters violates the NAP
fixed

It is a thing ya dumb bitch. A man's sweat ought to give him his just rewards that nobody else should be able to touch unless it concerns the safety of his nation.

>helicopter rides from anarchists
Lmao.

National Socialism is superior to Libertarianism.
There is no need for NatSocs to tolerate an undeserving ideology and its uneducated subscribers.

>why do people keep confusing one joke for another?
Gee, I don't know.

you don't raise your pets right

>20 posts

>A man's sweat ought to give him his just rewards that nobody else should be able to touch unless it concerns the safety of his nation.
>private property exists, until I say it doesn't
k

Show some humility, admit you haven't the slightest about what the fuck private property means and open yourself to the opportunity to learn something new and correct previous misconceptions.

that's how conversations work

The great leader decides to ban anime, citing its subversive foreign culture.

Uh oh...

Here we go with this meme.
Ethics is not a guideline; it's a relationship. It only works when both parties are willing ethically.

>uneducated
NatSocs are the ones to talk.

*willing to act ethically

If you use the fruits of your sweat to produce threats to your own nation, you're getting the boot. Plain and simple, this isn't even a fascist concept but leave it to the meme ideology to figure this out.

And the leader would be correct in doing so if it meant revitalizing his nation's own cultural heritage. Anime fever is merely the result of one's search for values elsewhere after one's society goes apathetic.
Does the idea of a man with the balls to take action on behalf of his people trigger you so much?

This. I don't mind NatSocs as long as they stay in their borders and let us practice laissez-faire in peace. Any enemy of communism is a friend as long as they don't back-stab afterwards.

Are you so brain-dead that you can't even make decisions on your own without the help of someone else? Statists, mentally speaking, have the mentality of obedient slaves, and should be treated as such.

Who decides what's a threat to the nation or not?

What if, in a hostile or rival nation, one of their citizens is working to threaten that nation? Would you ignore, help him, or rat him out to your rival nation?

I hope your principles don't have geographic variables to them. That would be an ethical and philosophical aberration.

Also
>implying you'd delete all of your anime just because a cop told you to
lel

You'd be getting the bullet so fast should your ideology come to power.

>have the mentality of obedient slaves
Obedient child slaves, actually.

High time preference and all...

We both hate commies

>as long as they don't back-stab afterwards.
did you study ww2?

so which of these actions would earn a person a helicopter ride?

>1) participating in violent marxist revolution
>2) attempting to appropriate the means of production
>3) voting for a communist party in an election
>4) being a member of a voluntary commune in a libertarian society
>5) spreading communist propaganda on the internet

You make the error that you assume National Socialists to be driven by material prosperity. NS is not designed to make maximize the GDP of a nation and the wealth of huge business owners. What is central to the NS ideology is the Folk.

Not an argument bucko.

The leader, who happens to be, ideally speaking, the most suited to make such decisions.

That would depend on whether your own leader decides to be interventionist or not.
Ethics are for the most part just a spook, the end justifies the means in this universe.

None of them.

Ancaps will never actually accomplish anything.
It's just not an ideology for people like that.

Not at all. Think about clubs, corporations or societies, it's a voluntary association with a hierachy all the members adhere to. You don't need democracy at all.

1, 2 and 3.

Only those are actual crimes.

3 is a crime because you don't wait until the lion's claws touches you for you to shoot him. You don't wait for the nigger to pull the trigger before you can defend yourself. Voting for communists is an open declaration that, given the chance, you would expropriate people, and an open declaration that you have the means to do so.

So you're not totally against a totalitarian communist dictatorship then, in the molds of Joseph Stalin?

Which ends are legitimate or not, and how can we intersubjectively confirm them?

Ancaps should all read some NRx literature, a good starting point is Moldbug's "An Open Letter to Progressives".

Neither will Nazis :^)

Unless you consider the death of dozens of millions of white people in one of the bloodiest wars ever an "accomplishment"

What is it about?