Doesn't libertarian ideology allow for discrimination? Isn't that all we need? Do we really need to be fuckin nazis? I'm not budging. Libertarianism has always been sufficient. When it's subverted sure its ineffective.. but isn't what the founding fathers put in place sufficient? Nazis fighting commies to me is like watching bums fight ... It's supposed to be inconsequential and funny. And it still is really ... It's just alot of freedom loving people are volunteering to be the bums here. Giving freedom for security ensures neither will exist. What is so hard about this? You're worried about nigs but if you had kept your freedom to discriminate as a business or personal entity or local government and law enforcement you wouldn't have the problem in the first place. You make a pretty inviting bed and leave every door and window open ... And instead of bitching when the beds crowded and smelly, you have allowed yourselves to be required by law to provide fuckin room service. And instead of shutting the windows and doors and not serving them eggs and hallal bacon, you guys think the solution is to genocide? Creature comforts draw creatures. You don't need to be a Nazi to fix that. Don't let them back you into an ideological corner using fear mongering.
Doesn't libertarian ideology allow for discrimination? Isn't that all we need? Do we really need to be fuckin nazis...
Libertarianism would work just fine if it weren't for the fucking Jews
The fathers told you you would need to safe guard this system. Jews have absolutely hurt us. But let's be realistic here ... The Pokemon method of trying to figure out what's super effective against what doesn't work. You don't need to be a Nazi to counter Jews. You just have to maintain your freedom of choice outside vocal ridicule and baiting as well as bribery. You need to be good men. That's literally all. Vanguards of freedom ... Vanquish pc bullshit by maintaining that you don't need to argue. It's your call if you don't want to hire or rent to a fucking moolie.
Nobody wants genocide. Not even hitler wanted genocide. We just want society to be fair and free market. Nepotism and clubbing that jews do is not ok. You can hoard for your family but hoarding for ur religion is tier one faggotry. Jew lawyers vote dem bc they need america to keep its legal maze going so jews with high verbal iq and low everything else iq can continue to charge 1000 bucks an hour for a service which should cost 30 bucks an hour. Jewish law lobbyists are like a cancer recruiting its own blood supply. At the expense of organs which actually do carry their own weight. Lawyers produce nothing of value. The only good lawyers are defense lawyers and lawyers that protect you from the faggot government.
To make something go somewhere else, take it's bed until it finds somewhere it can keep it. You aren't required to say where, you're only required to say not fuckin here. Oldie but a goodie ... "Back the way ya came"
But those are Jews too. Libertarianism is in and of itself an effort to minimize involvement with the legal system. Again I can't stand Jews but I don't need to clap heals and vie for authoritarianism in this country to do it. Never forget, it wasn't long ago that being afraid of the right turning into Nazis was far fetched. It's not anymore. So those who say Jews are mad because this board in particular is unbeatable aren't looking at the bigger picture. That which is too big to beat needs to be provoked to beating itself.
What's with the whore posting , you think you're on ? Get a grip fucking KIKE.
>that fucking slav whore
Why is she everywhere and why is she making my pee-wee so hard everytime? Uncle adolf told me slavs were subhumans.
I know I won't get women in here with bait like that mostly. Drop the fuckin meme flag dude. It's stale anyway but was gay from the gate.
Adolf was wrong about alot of things or he wouldn't be on a farm in Antarctica or whatever the fuck you tell yourself
By nature libertarianism can be subverted. Ideally a fascist society would transition to a libertarian one as degeneracy was purged and society was reformed. It would be like a parent raising a child until they are ready to be sent off into the world.
>farm in antartica
I think you mean interplanetary-laser cannon lunar station
Something something cryogenics space ship in Argentina's airspace.
Libertarianism works great when your "fellow citizen" Ahmed buys a truck and plows through a bunch of you on the sidewalk, outside of a concert for the new popstar that a certain group has been pushing on your children.
>When it's subverted sure its ineffective.. but isn't what the founding fathers put in place sufficient?
But it's been subverted, so no it's no longer sufficient.
>If the answer isn't libertarianism, then you must want to commit a genocide
What the fuck are you talking about? Do you even have a firm grip of what national socialism is?
You need to critically examine your own viewpoints before you go around throwing stones. You're welcome to stay a libertarian, but it doesn't seem to me like you've done the personal inventory on their belief system that many people here have in the last few years, if you don't actually have a firm concept of the beliefs that you ascribe to many people on here. You should at least try to understand the opposing viewpoints as more than 'national socialism = genocide', even if you decide you want to stay a libertarian.
Anjelica is so fucking perfect.
In a certain sense, a libertarian ideology is 100% about discrimination. Every exchange being voluntary, at any moment you are discriminating in who and what you deal with, and a libertarian society being based on the enshrinement of that principle would allow for any individual's discrimination, based on whatever they felt was appropriate to discriminate on.
Ideally communism would work to. Except the world isn't ideal, you have to fight to maintain, and this system allows precisely that. Subversion only works on empty vessels. The people are not of one mind anymore, we act like baby birds trying to mouth and chirp for answers to problems the niggers feeding us are causing in the first place. Really if we all had the common notion that everything is well enough to be left alone it probably would be, ie the 90s. I think we should be able to gentrify the entire country. Literally all we have to do is stop holding ourselves back so the Jews and nogs can play too, we don't need war, we need our hearts set on liberty to think feel love hate and exist the way we know is right regardless of concensus
Fuckin thank you. We don't need to be a Nazi. That's my point. Nazis aren't good. Too much power in one spot is a good way to get shoahed. Shoad? Shoah'd... Whatever
Stop posting erotica on pol
>ywn be a girl and rub your clit with your stockinged feet
No it works great when he's hung in the street right there. Or when he doesn't get the car in the first place because his race has a reputation for grill and headlight negligence. Your Strom font arguments are so basic it's like your pulling out a general issue pocket knife. Libertarianism could easily fix that. And not just any libertarianism, American founding fathers libertarianism.
Also if you idiots want a system put in place that never again needs to be touched then make one, but that system doesn't exist. They all change and need to be maintained. Being subversible is something every system has as it's flaw. How fixable or preventable the subversion is in a given system is what makes that one great. You cannot fix corrupted totalitarianism. Nor communism corrupt.
Meh, it's a libertarian thread... Don't tell me what to do.
You forgot " and get paid to do it." Makes it a little more realistic. Whores are for looking, not beIN.
Libertarianism fails to protect race, religion, culture and the very land we live on. I would rather not have some cooperation of niggers pollute an entire state and make it uninhabitable.
Then discriminate ... It allows for that. So you're wrong really. It doesn't fail to protect those things. It has thus far. It fails to protect your race religion blablabla because YOU failed to protect them. Libertarianism gave you the avenue to do it and youre bitching because the government won't do it for you. You're a lazy whiny bitch. THATS ALL.
"enforcing my opinion of a good society isn't done for me by the government so I can just sit and watch the sun rise and set everyday." You want us to feed and clothe you too? You are why the government was subvertable in the first place you fuckin Sandy vagoo.
>You forgot " and get paid to do it." Makes it a little more realistic. Whores are for looking, not beIN.
Must feel amazing tho.
Probably feels good to get your dick sucked by a goats asshole too. Doesn't mean you should aspire to that shit.
>Tfw I will never fuck a shark.
Restricting citizenship != Nazism
>Trading freedom for security ensures neither
Not necessarily. I feel like statements like that have good intentions behind them, but are a bit poorly (although it does make it catchier) worded. If you don't trade freedom for security when security is actually required, you will also end up with neither: freedom is of little use to the dead. What's actually important is not to trade freedom for PROMISES of security, or for EXCESS security beyond what is required. Remember that wartime policy employed by the allied powers in WW2 would be considered fascist if enacted in peacetime, and yet may have been necessary for the immediate threat faced. It really all boils down to how dangerous/immediate you perceive the threat, and whether the policies have a kind of "timed obsolescence" preventing exploitation (or outright fabrication) of the crisis for political/financial gain.
pol is full of idiots op, they just wanna look like the traditional 90s neonazi of the south which jews invented to make them look bad. They got conditioned out of rational though and dont know what the best ideology is for them.
What war would libertarianism have fought that wasn't on it's own land? And what hindrances would we the people have faced if subjected to said fascism in that time? Restricting immigration=! Nazism but restricting citizenship kind of does. Giving up my freedom to own a weapon does not increase safety. Giving up my freedom to not support a war and keeping my scrap metal and buying as much gas as I fuckin wanted does not affect safety of our people when the war is not on our mainland. It does not increase our safety. There was no invasion here. No threat. What liberty do you suppose I could give to bolster the safety of the country even as it stands right now? Speech? Weapons? Point to one right and say without that we'd be safer. One right in the bill of rights. Please.
>we want freedom but not ingroup bias
>we want free market but not collective bargaining
It's like their fathers tools ... They were all the son ever needed but they fuckin LOVE snap-on because theyre expensive status symbols. When you're an educated Nazi you have sacrificed alot of face for the sake of what you tacitly hold as truth. It grants alot of weight and sanctimony to your own opinion of the way you think. In reality you're just overpaying for tools.
No I just want in group bias to be kosher all over.
And as far as collective bargaining goes that's fuckin fine, bargain away. But I shouldn't have to be fighting ... And losing ... To make my county a right to work county. I should not have to join a union that donates my mandatory dues to liberal candidates if I want to work a given trade. Stop over simplifying shit. Libertarianism still works.
I think my problem with Nazism is that though I agree with the policies, I don't think any govt no matter how pure can stay pure over time. Subversions happen time and again, and compulsory govt is just the weapon that was supplied to subversives to use. Libertarians, minarchists and paleolibertarians don't rail against all governance, they just want small governance with as minimal budget as possible. AnCaps are just an extreme group that think that that concept can be brought further and there's plenty of good debate and discussion there.
I hear time and again that if you don't have a large government, you'll be invaded. This is an equivalence of government to military, which isn't factual mechanically and much less factual than it was in the past. You make it an all-or-nothing proposition, which it isn't, where I either subscribe wholly to a higher class and thrust myself into a lower social class for the benefits of protection or I go it alone, waiting to be invaded. Meanwhile all governments do now are contract out to private companies for military assistance anyways and every branch of the US military exists in a weird liminal "public private" situation. There will always be men who make their living as soldiers and there will always be invaders. Groups of people can agree with one another to hire the first to defend from the second. The only arguments I've heard leveled against this is that people won't know to come together to defend themselves, an idea which I find laughable given the entirety of human history. The other is that "what if someone hires all the militaries" which is up there with "what if someone buys all the lands" or "what if someone acquires all the waters" or "what if someone does XYZ huge endeavor that would inconvenience vast quantities of peoples" which are all occurrences that don't occur in a free market/libertarian society unless someone has already waged war with everyone and conquered them to begin with.
Adding middle men to minutemen was a mistake. Also to your first point the people have no recourse to corruption in a Nazi regime. Infact if they seek a redress of grievances they're likely to be the one being grieved.
>Muh guns
>No invasion here
>Bill of rights
I actually agree with you on pretty much everything here when talking about the US, but the problems we're facing now are global (kind of by definition as it's globalists pushing it) and many of the places affected (particularly those in Europe) are not well positioned for non-interventionism as they have always been, or been proximate to, the major conflict zones. When talking about restricting citizenship, I was actually referring to immigration and the granting of citizenship, not removing it from those who have it (which I agree sets a dangerous precedent). I think the only way something like an ethnostate could be achieved liberally from a multicultural state would be through some kind of secessionist movement, but a strict ethnostate isn't necessarily the end goal (certainly not for me), and economic liberalism can definitely help with the issues caused by new immigration, although there are some nations in which it may already be too late for prevention. Supporting more authoritarian movements in those nations can still help at home, as they will still be fighting a common (global) enemy.
I believe this is somewhat is sync with Jared Taylors ideas.
Let people discriminate and form exclusionary communities/interactions and wind back civil rights legislation which trampled on liberty and most people will be happier.
Listen man no offense but you guys weren't founded on libertarianism I can understand why you might be in a shitty situation however at the same time non-interventionism is a policy pretense in at least one European country who never got fucked with during World War 1 or 2. Switzerland never played that shit and never had a problem because they understand that people plus guns equals defense. You don't need to necessarily play the game of having a massive trained military when you have an entire populace armed to the teeth. As far as a solution for the ethnostate issue freedom of Association is more than enough when taken to an extreme to solve the problem. Couple that with the ability to discriminate on an Institutional level within private business practices and you would not have the issue that we have today. There is a reason that they have instituted affirmative action laws because without them we were fine. Also try to figure out what I said because I'm using voice dictation while I'm driving so deal with it. I'll computer post when I get off work
I've heard of him but I really hate the whole e celebrity thing so I've never really fucked with it. But the only people who wouldn't be happier would be the objective failures of a race or community of like-minded individuals who could no longer blame their failure on those holding them back from shooting themselves in the foot.
>American founding fathers libertarianism is the answer
>restricting citizenship = nazism
The founders were national socialist libertarians. Got it.
>No govt can remain pure
I agree with this, which is why I wouldn't consider myself a nazi/fascist either, I just find some of them (particularly those in Spain/Portugal) interesting as they effectively gave up power without resistance once the people had had enough, in a way few other forms of authoritarianism ever have, viewing them as candidates for a temporary (perhaps some kind of planned obsolescence to the policies) solution to immediate threats, as opposed to a long term ideology to build a civilization on (as communism, more ideological fascism are promoted) .
My biggest issue is with how current governments are incentivized to exploit immigration.
>Govt want more power
>Govt controls immigration policy
>Govt lets in the least compatible migrants
>OhLook.png soaring crime, social tensions, strain on welfare, etc
>Govt is responsible for maintaining order, but now needs more power to do so
>Govt acquires more power
>More powerful govt wants more power
>More powerful govt controls immigration
>More powerful govt lets in even more incompatible migrants
>Rinse and repeat for arbitrary power
The only possible solution i can think of would be some kind of separation of powers (like with executive/legislative/judicial in the US), for immigration, citizenship, etc, but no idea how that would play out.
Fpbp. Jews and women fuck up capitalism.
What are you even replying to?
>I haven't bothered to read the thread, but what are you replying to?
OP, obviously. Specifically,
>Libertarianism could easily fix that. And not just any libertarianism, American founding fathers libertarianism.
>Restricting immigration=! Nazism but restricting citizenship kind of does.
Should also add to this, One issue with libertarian solutions in Europe (although I do believe in their effectiveness) is that in many nations (Uk, France in particular) the idea of American style libertarianism is in many ways less socially acceptable here than more authoritarian nationalism (which is already fringe). Promoting it would be difficult even in the best of times, but it's practically impossible when the current political establishment is so set on mass migration, and the welfare state is the primary impetus for it (along with the solution offered by those same establishment parties). Even if libertarianism is the end goal, an additional more socially acceptable solution to migration is needed before hand, otherwise the political situation here will just remain an establishment progressive left (even the conservative parties fall under this) playing whack-a-mole with the reactionary nationalists it keeps generating.
Information flow is also kind of important. One of the reasons that the backlashes are so tribal and identitarian is that this is what thrives in low information (ie highly censored) environments (You see this with prison gangs and the like too, as these are also low info environments). Libertarianism requires a general societal acceptance of and respect for intellectual principles which are quite difficult to propagate in low information environments (Especially for societies in which these principles have little cultural/historical context).
Ordo ab Chao a bitch fa sho.
But saying let's use snakes to get rid of rats is a pretty dangerous avenue to take on search of a solution that already exists within the system we have in America. The right to discriminate is inherent and god given and covered by the ninth amendment.
Dude I'm the op.
Restricting immigration is not Nazism necessarily and it can easily be done in a libertarian society the likes of which I'm referring to. It just has to be the will of the people. If nobody in country x sells immigrants from country y a house .... Guess fucking what. You have immigration control.
Ok. But why do you equate restricting citizenship with national socialism when that's exactly what our founders did?
>=!
What does this combination of characters mean to you as an individual sweetheart?
Read what you actually wrote again, hun.
>Restricting immigration=! Nazism
...can't be fuckin referring to this because that much stupid isn't possible in one source.
>but restricting citizenship kind of does
As in retroactively taking away the citizenship of someone in an effort to cleanse the state of minorities. Where's the rest of the conversation? Up there in that thread you said I didn't read? That I wrote? Christ alive man thanks for the bumps but I'm driving and looking for valuable conversation. Dickin people down on the internet loses flavor.
>I declare victory and my desire to engage in homosexual intercourse with you!
No bumps were received, strange one. Have fun.