NatSoc vs Libertarianism

I've always liked the idea of libertarianism, but couldn't ever really identify with it because it seems a bit utopian in design.
I looked up arguments against libertarians, but everything I found online was from the point of view of some pozzed faggot socialist.
What are the arguments against libertarian ideals from the point of view of National Socialism? Vice versa would be interesting as well.

Also, why is ancap the default image when searching for libertarian memes? Does being a libertarian in current year pretty much equal ancap?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
youtube.com/watch?v=M3XYHPAwBzE
youtube.com/watch?v=l2-jH1vFrW8
youtu.be/jcUZrDX5P7A
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

n-nobody?

libertarianism is a dead spin on limited government and free markets, i.e. "conservatism"
"AnCap" is an internet LARPing phenomenon

Arguments against nazism in favor of free markets: basic economics

Agruments against free markets in favor of nazism: edgy memes

does libertarianism account for race/ethnicity?
pic related is kind of my path.
it seems like "basic economics" falls apart when you introduce subhumans.

Bump

ty famalam

Yes, the free market works even with blacks and hispanics. If your two options are nazism and """libertarianism""", libertarianism would flourish as a result of the absence of welfare (socialism)

It sounds like you're trying to pick a group that's compatible with your goal of a homogeneous white country. Is that right?

>It sounds like you're trying to pick a group that's compatible with your goal of a homogeneous white country.
Not exactly.
I was pretty much libertarian before becoming a racist. But after spending a few years in Japan - a more socialist, homogeneous country than America - a lot of my beliefs are being questioned.
I still abhor the concept of socialism, but I see how well a country is run without insane wealth inequality.
I don't NEED a white ethnostate, but it's hard for me to take a political ideology seriously at this point if it doesn't specifically deal with race.
So far, NatSoc is the only ideology I've found willing to have that conversation.

I can't argue with your experiences. I would challenge you on why a disparity in wealth is a bad thing, and point out that free markets and lower taxes produce greater mobility between social classes.

Hitler’s economy was probably more “Libertarian” than that of the United State’s today. Income taxes were lower, industries were privatized, and measures were taken to encourage domestic production. The market became more controlled and restricted with the war however.
At the end of the day whether there’s Socialism, Social Democracy, Libertariansm, or a Corporatist dictatorship race is what matters most.

...

Ancaps make Bernie Sanders look like an expert on economics.

Think about a national-capitalist ethnostate.

I believe the end result would be the closest we can achieve to an ancap social order.

Both are undesirable and destructive systems of government that should be avoided by civilized nations.

You provided criticism, but put forth no alternative.

Shameful display.

>utopian
Letting people succeed and fail on their own terms is not utopian.
Wealth inequality is unavoidable because people are not equal in the first place. If they aren't equal they are not going to be capable of earning the same amount of wealth. You can only try to make it equal through the power of the state and massive wealth redistribution through the use and initiation of force. This just leads to people being discouraged to work hard and succeed.

>put forth no alternative.
He has a picture of Salazar in his post. What do you mean, "no alternative"? Follow Salazar's way.

Thats hardly an alternative when it is actionable by so few nations.

Autarky is a larp, most nations can't do shit without trade partners.

Both aristocracies and monarchy are superior as they possess the better aspects of libertarianism and fascism without the pozzed populism or atomic individualism. Egalitarianism is a lie, thus feudal hierarchy to go with your patriarchy. No more bugman consumer bullshit or gibs, we will build cathedrals on Mars and Crusade across the stars for glory.

Agreed, how about a national-capitalist ethnostate tho?

Same results, without the succession crisis or the occasional mentally-challenged monarch.

The AnCap society would be a utopia with an extreme population purge.

The problem with Japan is that it's over crowded.

...

>why a disparity in wealth is a bad thing
i cant quickly find a good youtube video that sums this up quickly, but I remember seeing that wealth (or income i dont remember) disparity is the most common cause of crime. It's measured with a GINI index
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
Living in Tokyo, the first thing that pissed me off was that peons and geniuses tend to earn about the same (compared to USA). It is very possible however that this is part of why the country is so peaceful.
>free markets and lower taxes produce greater mobility between social classes
i agree 100% with you there

You're probably thinking of poverty, not wealth disparity.

It's why I prefer aristocracy, a decentralized confederation of lords with full ownership over their fiefdoms. Each free to experiment, they will tend towards a laissez faire wu wei economics and tighter ethnic ties than mere nationality as communities owned by barons will exist under them.

Idk, in my hometown everyone is equally miserable and crime is astronomically high. It is also full of niggers.

Where I currently live, wealth inequality is absurdly high, but the last murder was over 30 years ago. Very few niggers, and our police has a team named "municipal death squad".

i'm not sure i understood your last sentence. would you mind explaining it?

funny, but not really an argument

I could get behind this, as long as "nationalist" was tied to an ethnicity. we don't want another "all men are created equal" screw-up

>Autarky
I personally aim for self-sufficience, but it seems clear to me that not everyone can do this.

yes please

you call it a problem. i rather enjoy it. to each their own though.

Sounds great, but would get its shit pushed in by a more centralized and/or militaristic state. As an American, you must be familiar with the concept of "its only yours as long as you can defend it".

Other than Afghanistan, no nation ever managed to defend itself against a more centralized/militarized society with similar tech.

i'm not going to argue with you guys here since I haven't really researched it. you might be right. i think it's Jordan Peterson that i saw promoting this idea. here's a video if you're interested:
youtube.com/watch?v=M3XYHPAwBzE

I"ll be honest with you, I haven"t researched that topic in depth either. I just know too many places where a bunch of whites (or Japanese, we got some colonies here) live in perfect harmony with massive wealth inequality, and too many places where blacks in equal squalor murder each other over who has the biggest dick (literally).

>over who has the biggest dick
holy shit that's hilarious
my feeling is that crime is more closely related to race than any other measure
glad to hear your municipal death squad is keeping you safe

Greece was a decentralized collection of citystates and they held their own against the empires of the time and built up a mighty empire of their own. Rather one of two things happen, it divides against itself as Greece did or one group elevates itself into central power. Military coalitions/alliances are effective.

Eh, they just kill criminals instead of arresting them. Mayor has a policy of "criminals won"t take root in this city". Town 1h from here is full of crime, drugs and niggers. They also have a "human rights supervisor" in each police HQ.

We don't offer utopia and we don't place our faith in human nature by giving a group of people ultimate power over our lives. That's the simple part of it, I prefer to judge people by their character and merit and not arbitrary categories that they might not actually fit into based on their actions.

Inb4 government created corporations are used as a criticism for a stateless free society by NatSocs which reveled in corporatism.

Quit beating around the bush, if you want to be a nazi, then be a nazi. Stop doing the mental gymnastics and either pick a side or choose not not to. This isn't as hard as you're making it out to be.

Also feudal society is built on warrior nobility, a prereq being that one noble can wreak 100 peasants in combat. Knights could do that, gunpowder undid that and advanced weapon delivery systems operated by officers make a restoration to warrior nobility a mere matter of time just as gunpowder didn't spark revolution overnight.

>zero arguments presented
I have no problem with claiming NatSoc, but I want to do my research first.

will there be africans in ancapistan?

That conflict is shrouded in so many misconceptions, propaganda and myths that it'd be hard to discuss that point.

Persia was more decentralized and less militarized than Greece, believe it or not. Each satrap was pretty much an independent kingdom, other than the fact it paid taxes. Each satrap also had its own mini-military, without any standardization whatsoever.

Libertarian Fascism my friends.
Take the time to research what it means before you spout ignorance.
youtube.com/watch?v=l2-jH1vFrW8

First off, when everyone has the same thing, then there's less incentive to steal. If everyone has the same shitty sneakers, you don't have nig nogs killing people for their sneakers because there are no new $1000.

That being said, it isn't really a matter of poverty, but opportunity and the races involved.

Look at any farm community in the US before 1970. You'll find they are all dirt poor. But they also leave their doors, windows, and cars unlocked. Hell, they left the keys in the car, and often in the ignition.

Any of your neighbors who knew where your tractor was could just go take it.

So no real crime actually happens in these communities. Occsionally, someone drinks a bit too much and gets a DUI. Occasionally somone drinks to much and get a bit rowdy. But other than that, they are peaceful communities. How is that possible, being dirt poor but having some members or neighbors that have much higher standard of wealth?

Again, it's not the wealth difference nor the level of poverty that is the cause of crime.

In any city or community in Japan, you can loose your wallet with the equivalence of $100,000. If you go back 1 week later to where you lost it, you can find your wallet, still full of money.

>in Japan, you can loose your wallet, go back 1 week later to where you lost it, you can find your wallet, still full of money
absolutely true

While that might be true of Japan, I posit it is not because of its "wealth equality", but because of the orderly nature of the Japanese people. Name one black place where "wealth equality" has led to the same outcome.

people confuse libertarian with no government. its like people are unable to think outside of extremes in order to keep the status quo on the current shit politics where a group of satanists rule under the facade of two parties.

Thats because ancap is the ultimate conclusion of libertarianism. When you hold liberty and freedom as your highest virtue and value, thats where you end up.

Nazis value ethnic integrity, monarchists value stability and long-term growth, communists value equality. For each virtue and value, there is a corresponding system to "maximize" it.

Minarchism is what you get when you value liberty most, but also see the need for some stability and order.

>seems a bit utopian in design.
But that EVERY political movement out there. Its all about gullibility.

What about nukes tho?

And what about the cost of obtaining and maintaining such weapons systems?

>because it seems a bit utopian in design.
it is
only thing keeping a libertarian society in tact would be a fascist paramilitary killing anyone who tried to change the law
it's a dumb fantasy for literal autists who don't can't relate to other humans or understand how society and government develop over time

>a small government design that in reality resulted in the most successful country in world history is utopian
>but what about this government design that in reality resulted in the worst war in world history that sounds better

Here's a parody of a Disney movie song showing the folly of Libertarianism

youtu.be/jcUZrDX5P7A

It was the "small government" design that escalated it to the worst war in history because nobody loves war more than voters. It's the most corruptible, wasteful form of government there is because no founding document is ironclad enough to stop the plebians from voting away all the luxuries their forefathers killed and died for.

i'm actually enjoying watching this

sir this is great

>i rather enjoy it
You'd enjoy it more with better leverage with your employees, better house market for buyers, etc.

Libertarianism is having laws made and enforced by the communities that must abide by them, not by a distant and corrupt national government. The smaller the government, the freer the people. The only utopian thing about this concept is that national governments currently hold all the power, and that won't be redistributed without catastophe.

>I posit it is not because of its "wealth equality"
i think you're right

i'd gladly watch any short videos that make the argument for the brand of libertarianism you support

my gut says you're right, but i'm looking for more flesh out arguments

>in reality resulted in the most successful country in world history
i'm curious which country it is you're referring to

lol thanks

no satan-kun, you misunderstand. i like the overcrowded, competitive vibe. atm i prefer that to the things you suggested

this sounds good, but it doesn't match what i'm hearing from vocal ancaps

Ignore extremist faggots

I find the natsoc reasons for hating capitalism kinda shoddy at best.

>we are not communist
>so we must be capitalist
>ignore most of our society is still government run, especially the parts fucking up society
>all problems and degeneracy are caused by capitalism

wut?

I always thought the subversion of society requires massive centralized government organizations, which can be taken over and then do evil without any risk of losing it's support or funding because state violence compels people to keep paying the taxes funding it.
Who would voluntarily pay for what the governments of Western Europe are doing right now? a few marxist students who have no money?

Although the Natsoc notion that government etc. should serve the people is obviously preferable to the current mess, but the systems so corrupted now also started out with that goal, so what is to prevent it from going off the rail again? expelling jews etc. would obviously help, but don't kid yourself that there are no unscrupulous white people who would not use the power of taxation to push a nefarious agenda.

As his country and society is utterly destroyed by the Jew and the worship of freedom, he thinks that the only arguments against free markets and in favor of authoritarian governments are edgy memes.

Japan is a true beacon in social harmony, but we can't all be japs mate

>blacks in equal squalor murder each other over who has the biggest dick (literally).

Tell me more brazil about this dick killing trend

How can anarchyball sue someone if there's no govt? Retard newfags you're not intellectual because you learned a few new words.

I've been a libertarian of some form throughout my formative years, and only just came to the conclusion, a few days ago, that no matter what ideology you implement, people are too stupid and/or corrupt, and it will eventually degrade to something undesirable or fail entirely.
I believe that all ideologies are inherently prone to self-destruction, and therefore the only merits of a system is one whose expiration date lies the farthest ahead. Seemingly, at least by my observations, it is the ideologies that are both most in-tune with human nature, and most compatible with the existing culture that survive the longest. It is this reason why I believe libertarianism is the best. That's also why I think free-market capitalism is the best economic structure.