/lrg/ - Libertarian Right General - The Goys Are Back in Town Edition

Motto of the day: Privatise net tax recipients.
This thread is dedicated to the discussion of all things libertarian - private system of government, natural law, laissez-faire economy, and sovereignity, as well as organisation, tactics, and long-term strategy.
We encourage debate, so long as all parties recognise that property norms are inherent in each civil exchange between multiple consenting individuals.
Communists explicitly reject property norms and as such will not be respected.
Discord server: /fnmp99D
Pastebin link: pastebin.com/0rkTentN

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Om7rUCY3f_U
youtube.com/watch?v=oHv9NyeS3s0
youtube.com/watch?v=FcQBJPZKR28
youtube.com/watch?v=do5eQ5tEoRk
youtube.com/watch?v=MtvmgfI2zyM
youtube.com/watch?v=0uiJGDShHJg
youtube.com/watch?v=e7KTjr6x9EM
youtube.com/watch?v=hSshmRMGbw0
youtube.com/watch?v=wteWftHSJdo
youtu.be/0XhfnJytYFg
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Frequent misconceptions:
>What is the libertarian stance on open borders?
A full privatisation of all property implies the owners' full right of exlusion or inclusion to their property only, being responsible for the accomodation, as well as legally for the good behaviour of their invitees, which automatically rules out inviting jihadis and other savages with no concepts of property norms into civilised lands in large numbers. As long as a state exists, however, closed borders (forced exclusion) are preferrable to open borders (forced integration), if for no other reason than there being fewer people within the reach of a State to be expropriated by it.
>Is capitalism Jewish/degenerate?
Capitalism is the natural order of things, most commonly used in regard to the economy. It is the lack of restrictions on grounds other than natural law, which must be equally appliable to everyone. Deviation from this model ultimately means higher time preference rates among people, meaning immediate satisfaction is preferred over long-term investment, which in turn leads to less interest in production and more interest in leisure activities, meaning general poverty. This goes to show that socialism, not capitalism, works best for the Jewish interest of turning the gentiles into hedonistic cattle.
>Who would build the roads?
Scarcity of space implies the need for people and goods to move from point A to point B. Generally, this means that roads must be established, as land transport remains one of the most heavily used modes of transportation. There is a market for roads in any society, the state just holds a monopoly over it.
>What is the libertarian position on usury?
The main problem with interest loan provision is the historical monopoly the highly tribalistic Jewish communities have held over it, often due to state intervention (which was comparatively extremely rare in those times).

Recommended reading:
BOOKS
>The Law by Fréderic Bastiat
>Democracy - The God that Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
>Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard
>Theory of Socialism and Capitalism by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
>Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant
ARTICLES
>Open Borders Are an Assault on Private Property by Llewellyn Rockwell - mises.org/library/open-borders-are-assault-private-property
>A Realistic Libertarianism by Hans-Hermann Hoppe - lewrockwell.com/2014/09/hans-hermann-hoppe/smack-down/
>For A New Libertarian by Jeff Deist - mises.org/blog/new-libertarian
>Nations by Consent by Murray Rothbard - mises.org/sites/default/files/11_1_1_0.pdf
>Race! That Murray Book by Murray Rothbard - archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch75.html
>Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature by Murray Rothbard - mises.org/library/egalitarianism-revolt-against-nature-0

Bump

Media:
PODCASTS/VIDEOS
>tomwoods.com - Tom Woods Show
>radicalagenda.com - Radical Agenda / Letters from a Charlottesville Jail / Cantwell & Kessler / LIVE from Seg! (Christopher Cantwell)
>youtube.com/stefbot - Steben Bolynu :DD
>youtube.com/channel/UCR7pD2JAMKUx4LH93YWjaXw - morrakiu.com - Morrakiu
>youtube.com/channel/UCRr7mGBwURyRGM2BRPV3hNQ - Augustus Sol Invictus
ARTICLES
>mises.org - Mises Institute
>lewrockwell.com - Lew Rockwell
>propertyandfreedom.org - Property and Freedom Society

Videos/podcasts:
>What Must Be Done by Hans-Hermann Hoppe - youtube.com/watch?v=d_ybi1MeC3c
>For a New Libertarian by Jeff Deist - youtube.com/watch?v=tsUmV0wNXlc
>Radical Agenda by Christopher Cantwell with Morrakiu - radicalagenda.com/2017/06/07/radical-agenda-ep313-morrakiu/
>The War on Terror by Augustus Sol Invictus - youtube.com/watch?v=wy2O7CPNmqI
>Libertarianism's Ultimate Logical Conclusion by Christopher Cantwell - youtube.com/watch?v=Om7rUCY3f_U
>The Leftist Invasion of Libertarianism by Christopher Cantwell - youtube.com/watch?v=oHv9NyeS3s0
>Attempts To Reach The Left: An Unmitigated Disaster by Christopher Cantwell - youtube.com/watch?v=FcQBJPZKR28
>Individualism and Group Interests by Christopher Cantwell - youtube.com/watch?v=do5eQ5tEoRk
>The Truth About Libertarianism | Immigration and Borders by Christopher Cantwell - youtube.com/watch?v=MtvmgfI2zyM
>In Defence of Capitalism by Christopher Cantwell - youtube.com/watch?v=0uiJGDShHJg

Friendly reminder that the good ol' US of A would have been Ancap if it was a more known ideology back in the 1700's.

Whoopsie, seems like Cantwell's still not done migrating his sites. Here's the fixed link:
>Radical Agenda by Christopher Cantwell with Morrakiu - youtube.com/watch?v=e7KTjr6x9EM
Also, Chris has been out of jail since early December and boy oh boy has he been busy.
Here's some of the podcasts he's made (though you should totally listen to them yourself):
>Cantwell with MacDonald on the JQ
youtube.com/watch?v=hSshmRMGbw0
>Cantwell with Andre Wang Lin (airs every Thursday, tune in, fags)
youtube.com/watch?v=wteWftHSJdo

Here's a map I found a long time ago.

...

youtu.be/0XhfnJytYFg
READ SIEGE.

I'm willing to sacrifice Europe to the damn socialists if it means we get America.
The moment they violate the NAP, though, they're getting wiped off the face of the Earth.

reeee seeej

Reminder: minarchism is code-word for: RETARDED

What is, objectively, the most sound mean of spreading our ethos?
I've been thinking a lot, and as I grow older, my hopes of getting ancapland fade away and give space to some sort of sage mentality.
See, it must be done that we become the norm, not the radicals, ensuring in a sense that, in the strenght of numbers, can we, through the use of either force or cold denial of the rules imposed by the state, could break away from it, social and geographically.

How, my niggas, can we achieve such numbers?

...

THIS

...

Are you guys fans of Gustave de Molinari?

I think Rothbard quoted him a few times, he seems alright.

You become the norm by simply projecting your presence at normies in your area. Most people hate the government, but can't tell why.

bump for freedom, peace and liberty

It didn't really exist back then, though all of its foundations existed. They have since Kant, but it has taken since the 1900s with Rothbard for anyone to fully explore the consequences of individual liberty and property rights derived from natural law.

I'm going to post a fuckton of aesthetics now

...

...

...

...

>Hoppe
>real libertarian
made me lol

...

...

>hoppe
>Not liberty personified

Capitalism is incompatible with nationalism.

...

you're a bitch, go away.

impossible, feelings of nationalism only fade away when the population do not stay the same.
and even in the old united states, some states had wars for various reasons, it was all allowed, and worked fine. It wasn't until the war of northern aggression, and the subsequent stripping of state rights that all interstate wars stopped

he's a crypto-fascist

muh shekels

>a nigga that says "the people (capitalism) should free the state from burdens, not the contrary"

nah...

hm

No, nationalism is incompatible with capitalism, not the other way around.
You don't need a state to have a nation.

someone can't into logic, and the preservation of liberty

Libertarian right,

He's the one who uncompromisingly takes libertarian philosophy to its logical conclusion.

Anyone have a libertarian they want aesthetic made of?

Tucker you nigger I saw you waving an anarcho-communist flag with an obese socialist.

States are not compatible with nationalism. How do you define a nation? By force?
We believe truly in free association, no spics and jews? Your call.

Walter Block, and some of the classical liberals maybe. Also Locke or Bastiat? Herbert Spencer or Wilfredo Pareto could also be worth one if you can find any cool pictures.

Nationalism only works with capitalism.

This. The economic prosperity brought about by capitalism is what makes the nation great

The fundamental issue with libertarians is that they fail to understand the state and power. You are never going to get rid of the state, as any sort of a power vacuum will simply be filled by a new state which might call itself kingdom or corporation, while still being the same. The state merely is the largest local power, and represents the force with which its members can act. Therefore, you shouldn't think that the problem is inherent to the state, but rather to the way the state is organised.

that's just blatantly untrue

The state is just a very big gang, there is no rational argument to suggest power vacuums if you remove cancer.
You replace it with voluntary security and protection.
Like, omagah, have you even read Hoppah?

Minarchism will be a necessary stepping stone on the road to full liberty. You cant just destroy the government overnight.
Freedom of association and freedom of exclusion will mean that if it is really optimal for people to live in ethnically homogeneous communities, they will have the freedom to do so.

I myself hardly care about the specific ethnicity of people i am dealing with and living with, as long as those people are civilised and respect my individual rights. I dont believe in excluding people on the basis of skin colour. but discrimination on the basis of cultural values and competency does exclude the majority of negroes, mestizos, arabs, central asians, etc.

And minarchist believe that you can have small gov forever and ever, they don't talk of further shrinking the gov

The issue is that you asume voluntary power to exist, even though it's an oxymoron. The dominant group, ie. the state will always have power to bend the will of other people, meaning that even if it is originally voluntary, it will eventually become involuntary. You're effectively describing an utopia, which is the exact same as now, with the benefit that somehow states can be voluntary. Kind of similar to saying that I want to have a world where there is water, but that it's impossible to drown. Or in other words, you want to have sometthing without all of its qualities.

Minarchism is an idea thats easier to sell to normies due to it being less radical by nature. Certain views like necessity of having an army to protect your nations borders are very deeply entrenched in peoples minds, which makes it hard to sell full blown libertarianism to normies.

wrong my friend, there is a difference in what we are doing and what has always been done. in every society there was there was 2 things that we find unethical and would not do, if we were to say, get in control of a state tomorrow.
1)no taxation
the biggest part of ancappa, would the removal of all taxation on the people and business. as you know taxation is theft, and the hallmark of an unjust state.
2)the abolishment of the monopoly of violence held by the state
simply the erection of a private law society, the thinking man's solution to the 'monarchy as the only stable form of gov' idea. which means that while the land is privately owned by many small land owners, a few large owners, or one family. the men within the land of these people would be able, while abiding the home rules, if the owner doesn't just take up a position of 'final judge' which was most common historically, be able to practice private law, with their own churches, secular judges, shamans, private insurance agencies or whatever. with the enforcement of these things done by paramilitary branches of said groups, or by the local citizens, failing a sheriff of some kind, which at least in america, does exist in every county.
if you haven't noticed, like true reactionaries, we truly aim to bring back 'ye olde' system of law and order, by bringing the law and thus defense back into the hands of people

true dat, but the difference in minarchist and ancaps, is the belief in taxation;s necessity and the legitimacy of the compulsory nature of the state.
the minarchist and the ancap might SEEM similar, in how they would handle government if they got in tomorrow, but our solutions to the idea of national defense and how to pay for it, differ like night and day, which is why minarchists are retarded

Here's what I came up with for Block. I hope you like it.

Sometimes you just have to be pragmatic and side with people you dont entirely agree for your cause.

But now we get to the heart of the issue. First mistake that you make is that you assume that it's possible to retourn to the old system, yet avoid the results of the old system, namely what happens now. Also you're describing an idealised version of the past. Most societies have had a form of taxation, be it in the form of grain or military service. And also, private law hasn't truly existed either, as the local lord ultimately has had the final word. You couldn't simply say that you disagree with his law, except of course if you were more powerfull, but that just goes to show how some sort of power will always exist. In effect what you're doing is that you describe an ideal and fictional scenario, which hasn't happened, and which only exists in theory. If ancap was implimented irl, then it would quickly turn back into a state.

we side with them sure, if it came to votes and what not.
but we know that they would only get in the way when it came time for ancap reforms like the privatization of law and order, and the reformations to abolish taxation to exchange it with making the gove actually produce something worth paying for, be it citizens paying instead of taxes protection fees for the military making it a competitive service, or perhaps getting it into other goods and services that most people would feel essential; but something voluntary nevertheless

Saved, thanks a lot.

People protesting against privatisation of law and order and abolition of taxation isnt going to be an issue. If basically everything is already privatised, taxes are very low and the government in place is rudimentary at best, nobody is going to protest against the remnants of the government being destroyed, even people who are minarchists now. Minarchists are just people who arent quite ready to accept beliefs, but the closer society actually gets to liberty, the less radical it will appear.

Correct.

you are wrong in saying i'm trying to simply get back to an emulating a mythical version of an old system, i merely mean it will resemble it enough to get us sympathetic with the monarchist crowds and romanboos since that was roughly the system of rome and old school feudalisms, but differs from rome's taxes and use of force to enforce laws on conquered peoples, and non citizens back in the homeland
and how do i know it would not repeat the same mistakes of the old system and lead to greater centralization? because the foundation of society is different. in the old system you had it based around rulers, often with divine mandate' that were basically emulating old rome's taxation and federalized systems to the best of their, often limited, abilities.
we are not trying to recapture the magic of the old days, but we realized that the old days didn't have such rampant problems with democracy/socialism/marxism, and all that's implied with it. and we want to fix our environment to remove such cancers and correct the mistakes that brought us here, without having to resort to a fascism or a system that will only betray its own people for votes and power.
simply a private law society is the correction of the errors of the past ways and resurrection of local cultures and kinship among people. because the only way to have that is to remove what is toxic, namely democracy, and what it leads into, socialism, but without having to resort to repeating the same mistakes by starting back at a feudalism.

I do hope that future minarchists wouldn't try to stop our end goal reforms for gov but the risk nevertheless is that a minarchist still would see the value in keeping the gov around, and unless we have a good ancap presence in the party of minarchist, or are another strong party. we will not see our goals done