Libertarians and National Socialists

Coz the last thread got archived so fucking quickly

Also some food for thought:
>Impossible Reconciliation
Yea this does seem to be the common stance in both camps so lets break it down a little
>Capitalism that destroys culture, tradition and nationality
Ok let’s looks at the Libertarian Social order for a second. If you would like to collectivise as Traditionalist Identitarians or even as National Socialists - this is totally permissible. So how does one achieve this in a Libertarian Society? Well firstly we have Freedom of Association to help you with that and Property Right (more generally speaking). Imagine for an example a National Socialist locality under a Libertarian Government. You can exclude and include as you please, and this doesn't just apply to race, but also to ideology. Perhaps the privatised NatSoc Locality would have it stated in a contract that to live there, you would have to have total adherence to the National Socialist Ideology. You can make it as strict as you like just so long as its clearly defined in the contract. Perhaps you only allow the use of goods which are created by Goyim, and anything with Jewish creation of roots (whether it be a product, service or ideology) not to be allow on the property. You can preserve your culture, tradition and race as you see fit with Libertarian tools and if you want to expand, you would need to be able to do so in such a way which doesn’t violate the NAP. If you truly believe that you have the truth on your side, which many NatSocs vehemently believe, then in the libertarian social order, your ideas should have to compete with the millions of others. Doing so might even refine the quality of your ideas, your optics etc.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=lyvBeASOZ0Q&
youtube.com/watch?v=-97wUI7hF58
i.4cdn.org/wsg/1518055332520.webm
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Think of it as libertarian competition making National Socialism more Dynamically and Technically Efficient as an idea. Also the idea of an Ethno-Locality or commune or whatever you choose should be considered in regards to Nations being defined by demographics and people rather than geography.
youtube.com/watch?v=lyvBeASOZ0Q&
Related^^
> Far too many of the people are impressionable drones and given the opportunity will merely go with whatever is easiest, slipping into profligacy, hedonism and degenerate practices.
As a bit of a Nieztschean myself (and I’d assume many NatSocs would be a bit too), consider this: The Overman will manifest if he has not been cordled by a paternal state in to shying away from weakness, slave morality, profligacy, hedonism, degeneracy, but he will manifest himself in the face of such things that he will overcome. If these things are removed from existence, what will he overcome. What truly will his will to power be exactly? Also, a point of compromise here, but I thought NatSocs were much more Darwinian? So why no subject yourselves to the“financial and cultural Darwinism” of Lassie-Faire competition?
youtube.com/watch?v=-97wUI7hF58
Related^^
>These ideas are considered by many to be militaristic, authoritarian and damaging to personal freedom. Libertarians would be among them I believe.
They certainly can be and it’s the biggest opposition from Libertarians that there is towards NatSocs. But in all honesty, so long as National Socialism can stay its hand away from Imperialism of sorts

But In truth, neither ideology is entirely perfect. A compromise is definitely in order.
But more importantly, we need to band together on this board without sperging out.

Ancap is completely compatible with every right-wing ideology.

OP is a cocksucking shill

We have a common enemy in Communism. That alone should be enough to unite us for the time being.

libertarians have NEVER agreed with nazis, just more left wing bullshit to paint us as the bad guys

Fascism isn't right wing and should be ridiculed ff the board.

>compatible with every right-wing ideology.
There we go - someone gets it. But even more broadly speaking, Ancap is compatible with some leftwing factions - albiet not many.
I personally would not associate with National Socialists - perhaps I would even have them physically removed from my property, but with the right compromises, they could become compatible with a libertarian social order.
>Common enemy in Communism
Agreed
>more left-wing bullshit to paint us as the bad guys
More specifically, im just talking about uniting the two camps on this board.
Shill
But yea personally I agree that fascist economics are just as ridiculous as Keynesian economics.

>libertarian end game: neo-liberal corporatist police state
Fixed, autismo.

>But yea personally I agree that fascist economics are just as ridiculous as Keynesian economics.
So how is starting with a property-based free market that is then regulated to prevent (literal) psychopathic CEOs from undermining and destroying the future of the nation for their own short-term profit ridiculous?

Libertarians are a joke and promote the International Jew that is killing the west. They would be the type of people to be lower class unable to raise a family and surrounded by shit skins while being content because MUH capitalism MUH freedom.

I just have a problem with the unregulated un touched free market ultra capitalist economies that Libertarians want. It just drives us further towards materialism and forgetting everything and elevating money and status.

If you unironically call yourself a "National Capitalist" you're a fucking cuck and you should kill yourself, faggot.

Libertarians believe in the axioms of free markets. Free market agents tend to strive for more power and resources, becoming monopolies in a certain sense, and will eventually become Totalitarian regimes for the sake of those who decided to follow those who have the most power in the free markets. Libertarianism is in that way just the early version of not yet decided authoritarian and totalitarian system.

Pick the obvious winner ahead of time, join your own ethnic group and its history.

how the fuck does the Libertarian end game result in corporatism? Or a bloody police state? Corporatism would have high levels of market regulation and tariffs lmao. The idea that Libertarianism could degenerate into Corporatism in trying to reach its goals is just a retarded sentiment. Market Liberalisation could not allow for Corporatism.
> how is starting with a property-based free market that is then regulated to prevent (literal) psychopathic CEOs from undermining and destroying the future of the nation for their own short-term profit ridiculous?
That a bit of a nebulous statement but by severely limiting the power of or even eliminating the state t
hese psychopathic CEOs would have nowhere near the ability or means to destroy the nation in the first place. Its through lobbying and bought off politicians and the regulation+taxation that decreases market competition in their industries which keep them in their positions and allows them to do such things.
>Nazbol
Okie
>ANCAPISTAN
that probably a shitpost but ok
>Free market agents tend to strive for more power and resources, becoming monopolies in a certain sense, and will eventually become Totalitarian regimes for the sake of those who decided to follow those who have the most power in the free markets. Libertarianism is in that way just the early version of not yet decided authoritarian and totalitarian system.
NIce Slippery Slope fallacy you got there bud
>join your own ethnic group and its history.
Sure that's easy enough in a libertarian social order. Freedom of association and disassociation.

>that probably a shitpost but ok
Who gives a shit, the overall point is that NatCap is a fucking meme born of millennials who spend no time reading actual books and just making ideologies up to compensate for their laziness. Capitalism is cancer and the worship of it in a national sense is utterly abhorrent. I fucking hate you fags so much.

cant we just be national socialists and then when we kill the kikes we become libertarians?

Do you not see how a system that worships money and status above all will devolve into a dystopia very quickly?

>by severely limiting the power of or even eliminating the state these psychopathic CEOs would have nowhere near the ability or means to destroy the nation in the first place
They should have zero (0) ability to do so in the first place. Hence, the need to regulate them. When an entity is entirely motivated by profit, they will necessarily pay little care or attention to the repercussions of that goal.
>Its through lobbying and bought off politicians and the regulation+taxation that decreases market competition in their industries which keep them in their positions and allows them to do such things.
Even without lobbyists entirely, CEOs who engage in psychpathic behavior will out-compete those who care about the future of the nation. Thus, they should be regulated to prevent them from harming others for their own short-term profit.

>NIce Slippery Slope fallacy
ie - factual reality. Your ideology is as utopian and dogmatic as marxists and almost as harmful.

No because capitalism is totally complacent and encouraging of decadence and plutocracy.

>cant we just be national socialists and then when we kill the kikes we become libertarians
That sounds interesting - engineering a Libertarian Social Order. However, I'd be pretty wary of something like this because its the same relationship Anarchists have with Communists, Leninist and Maoists
>A serving of an appeal to emotion with a Slippery Slope on the side
Kek
>Regulation is necessary
Theres the thing, most regulation and government intervention is the reason why there are monopolies (obviously aside from Natual monopolies). Regulation = higher barriers to entry in the industry. This means lower competition. This is due to increased start-up and running costs for a business. Industry protection through tariffs and subsidies also do this and in all cases, it is a misallocation of resources and produces a diseconomy of scale.
With more market competition, they would have less power over individuals as they would have a smaller market share.
>Libertarianism is utopian
Anarcho-Capitalism can definitely be seen as Utopian from a national defence point of view sure. But from an economic point of view? Not so much
See the original image

Libertarians don't want to be obligated to live in a nation where they have a duty to their fellow man, National Socialists only want people who feel like they have a duty to their fellow man.
The two worldviews are irreconcilable.

Tell me, if you find a group that has control over resources and offers security and a part of their resources for a bit less personal freedom; would you join it, or would you wait till so many people joined it, that they could take your resources without much risk for them?

To expand, imo, Libertarians believe, that more people are drawn to freedom than security, I think it is the other way around. People try to minimize risk, and the cheapest way to do it is socialise risk, which requires for bigger communities coercive strategies. Also, having similar backgrounds and interests rises the cohesiveness of a group. So the most rational thing to do would be to join his own tribe.

But of course, you are free to resist ;^)

...

...

...

...

Alot of Libertarians praise early America but look what happened to america, all due to hyper capitalism and having degenerates and jews elevated because they manipulated the markets and bought our government while everyone else suffers for scraps, kike shills fuck off.

This.
i.4cdn.org/wsg/1518055332520.webm
Marxism is a failed attempt to right the wrongs of Capitalism. If Capitalism was so good, Marxists and Fascists wouldn't have gotten such support in the first place. Depressions, outsourcing, and wretched living conditions are the staples of complete private control. Thus, instead of allowing companies to abuse the markets, they should be made to play civilly. Nestle starving people and companies able to start wars shouldn't even be a possibility.
I'll say what I always say: Capitalists and Communists are retards because they look at the tool, rather than the people using it. There can be good companies, and bad companies, just like there can be good governments and bad governments. To ensure a government isn't abusing is a trifling matter when Hitler Youth type groups can easily train the next generation of leaders.

ding ding ding!

Here it is bigger and in red, user.

>trying to get libertarians to stop worrying and love big government because muh white identity

On the left
>Shit you like

On the right
>Shit I like

>this counts as an argument on Sup Forums

Nice, thanks

sweet

and might i add, sound advice!

Bump for mutual hatred of Communism.

>fires up the helicopters

No problem.

You can't engineer people's vices out of their biology, they will always fall victim to it no matter how much Stefan thinks we should all learn to consume smarter or whatever. At the end of the day, you put too much faith in the masses to give them that much liberty.

Fuck off jew

This

>>A serving of an appeal to emotion
He didn't make an appeal to emotion, and the slippery slope isn't a fallacy when it can be clearly observed happening now
>inb4 not TRUE capitalism

You have yet to make a defense against not allowing psychopathic CEOs won't loot and ruin the nation for their own short-term profits, only that a free market will make competition easier.
>"The free market will(might) fix it(...eventually?)"

Oh hey, that longer post was me

> You can exclude and include as you please

Unfortunately that's not how the world and the power games in it works. Nothing would make me happier than just being left alone, but since there hasn't been a single time on Earth as far as I can tell where that is reasonable: you simply can't think that way.

>and anything with Jewish creation of roots (whether it be a product, service or ideology) not to be allow on the property

It's not about looking out for me. I'm not paranoid of Jews targeting me personally. Take the quote of Bobby Fischer (Chess champion and man with an IQ >180):
>My main interest right now is to expose the Jews. This is a lot bigger than me. They're not just persecuting me. This is not my struggle, I'm not just doing this for myself. This is life and death for the whole world. These god-damned Jews have to be stopped
If Jews would simply leave everyone alone, well there wouldn't be antisemitism anymore, but this is what you may or may not understand: they refuse to leave anything well enough alone. Marxism, multiculturalism, diversity cults, these things all have deep Jewish roots. They will not allow us to exist, the fact that they are actively leading the charge for the things that are physically destroying Europe as of this very second proves that. This goes far beyond just me.

Ancap could literally be any form of government if you really want to get into it. But yeah, you aren't wrong.

or, maybe we put libertarians in the fucking deathcamps with the commies, who are of an equal level of social poison. Fuck liberty, and fuck communism.

Literally take your ethnostate and divide in half, natsocs on one side, ancaps on the other. We import no degeneracy and you leave us alone.

You can use us degenerate addicts as cannon fodder, much like was done in the past and end the end we go our separate ways.

>As a bit of a Nieztschean myself (and I’d assume many NatSocs would be a bit too), consider this: The Overman will manifest if he has not been cordled by a paternal state in to shying away from weakness, slave morality, profligacy, hedonism, degeneracy, but he will manifest himself in the face of such things that he will overcome. If these things are removed from existence, what will he overcome. What truly will his will to power be exactly? Also, a point of compromise here, but I thought NatSocs were much more Darwinian?

The Ubermensch idea is evolution taken to it's ultimate course: Eugenics. Those that cannot come to this conclusion shouldn't be destroyed, but they must ultimately be moulded into something resembling it before the first step towards it can be achieved. Realistically most people are not ubermensch material from a purely psychological perspective. Taking personal responsibility for the future by taking a leap of faith in one's self isn't something that people come to by themselves if they are of above average intelligence or lower. The fact that in every society the masses just go along with whatever is happening (short of them being starved or killed) seems to be my proof of that. But ultimately the country that came closest to the idea of the Ubermensch in practice was the Third Reich. One people forged to one purpose allowed Germany to take on what would be the world's 3 superpowers simultaneously and was almost victorious on two occasions clearly shows this. Germany was strong, but clearly punched above it's weight when fighting the USA, Great Britain and Soviet Union. No libertarian order could achieve this.

Ultimately Eugenics is when evolution and darwinism is taken to it's ultimate end: Intelligence-orchestrated evolutionary processes. That means those with grander ideas of what can and should be directing the growth of humanity. Such things cannot be libertarian and cannot be concluded by the majority of people.

we need capitalism to advance and compete, but in a way that does not hurt the nation. something along the lines of national capitalism. ether way.. humans seem to be the weakest link in any form of government due to how corruptible they are.

>humans seem to be the weakest link in any form of government due to how corruptible they are.
This is the key. As much transparency and oversight as possible and brutal punishments for any form of corruption.

This.
Compromise yields higher quality results than either of the ideologies alone may

>we need capitalism to advance and compete

No. You need markets and market economics. Capitalism might use markets, but it's goal isn't to advance nor compete. Given the opportunity, capitalists would make no advancements and certainly remove all competition and form monopolies if that meant greater profits. One can be pro-market and anti-capitalist.

>but in a way that does not hurt the nation
So ultimately what you're describing sounds a lot like National Socialism, really.

The perfect system is a marriage of both in a type of city state that could also be an ethnostate if the owners so wished. And to make that model accessible and affordable to replicate it over and over again across the world.

but even NatSoc is not immune to corruption. the trait in people that want to seek power is usually the same trait that means they should not be in power.

Your kind of explaining the system in Nazi Germany, Private property and private owner ship of business was allowed but restrictions were put on the markets and production, they sought to help the nation and its people above all else.

The natsocs would always see us as a pock mark on their perfect world, with their ever increasing list of what is degenerate. Seeking to grow at all would make us a threat.

We would see the natsocs as oppressors perpetually removing freedoms that were supposed to be reinstated now that a monolithic population is present. Does it matter that the boot on my throat is black, jewish or white? I won't trade one totalitarian government for another.

That's what Hitler Youth type organizations are for - to educate the masses about corruption, while at the same time training actual leaders. This way, corruption is unlikely because one persons linage won't have permanent control, and commoners can get a chance as long as they are willing and work hard as children. As a last failsafe, citizens also have guns.

>citizens also have guns.
this is a must

So how would the next Fuhrer be appointed? Would he be chosen by a panel of commoners or government officials or the current Fuhrer? And does the Fuhrers power end at death or what?

It is, a big lie and misconception is that Nazi Germany confiscated guns, they did but for Jews and communists.

>Civic nationalism
GAY

A world worth fighting for.

No shit. Contrary to what many Libertarians say, Hitler did not "take the guns". He only took them from Jews, and for an actual good reason.
First Fuhrer wins office in a legitimate democratic way, as Hitler did. Once things become bad enough, people will do it. Not before things get REALLY bad though. Revolution should only ever be tried when you at least have half the population and you can't win through elections for whatever reason.
After that, the current generation of leaders choose the next generation, but only through as the final step in the last process, which can take place every 3 or so years.
Every city sends one of their best representatives for the county, the county for the state, the state for the area (pacific northwest, midwest, etc), then area for the country (the system is different for Europe). This ensures a fair and efficient process where the best and strongest win. The people choosing who move on to the next area is the local government of the area and other areas of the Hitler Youth type organizations, the kind of government moving up in relation to the stage of the process.

National Capitalist/National Capitalism is an oxymoron. Why?
Because you can't consistently hold views that are Capitalist and Nationalist.

Nationalism: Putting the interests of your country, it's people and it's culture and traditions first over other considerations.

Capitalism:A socio-economic system in which economic activity is owned and controlled by private individuals for the primary or sole purpose of generating profits.

Now you should be able to see where I am going with this. You can sometimes reconcile the two, but ultimately you must eventually come to an impasse where you have to choose between them, as they are opposite in that decision. Eventually you will have to choose between putting your country first or accumulating profits first. Example:

You want to start a new industry, you have several options.

a): You construct the industry on home soil and hire workers from your own country
b): You construct the industry on home soil and import foreigners to work the country
or
c): You construct the industry in China or some other place and hire the dirt cheap people there.

With higher wages, more reasonable regulations, etc. the domestic worker will _never_ be the most viable option. And since a capitalist is out primarily for profits, they will choose option b or c every single time, at the expense of their own country and people. A nationalist will choose option a at personal expense.

You cannot be a National-Capitalist, it's ultimately an oxymoron.

Forgot to add, the leaders at the top decide when the next generation is ready, and they can be replaced if needed from other possible people from the process should complications occur or a better candidate be found. The leaders decide when to hand down their position.

>but even NatSoc is not immune to corruption.

Literally nothing is immune to corruption. The free market is inherently the most corrupt thing that has ever existed, but that doesn't stop it from being the most powerful wealth creation tool. I don't hold National Socialism to higher standards in that regard. Human nature will always create shortcomings, but at least National Socialism had a great and shining example of great vision and incorruptible purity. In that sense it seems to be a step ahead of almost everything else.

Which is why I say make the model accessible and affordable to replicate over and over again.
The variations between, political, racial, and religious differences is too numerous to count, make a new model that encompasses them all. Make an ideology that permeates through all of them. The most marketable ideology to exist.

B and C should be illegal due to it being against the nations interests. so it would not be full on capitalism due to nationalism regulating it.
basically what you end up with is some form of NatSoc. I just don't like the word Socialism

i dont have a problem with ancaps so long as they dont have a problem with us setting up Oranias

But by building something that competes will a current model you are fighting it though.

>Can tolerate libertarians
>natsocs shilling against Jordan Peterson every day here

riiiight

I guess. But it's better than trying to change the current system which is fucked beyond all hopes of repair.

>Oranias
what is that? google is just saying some sort of pastry

>I just don't like the word Socialism

Yeah, that seems to be the final hurdle a great many people have, overcoming the negative feelings towards the word that has been corrupted by Marxists for a century. Realistically the future of causes like National Socialism will simply be in renaming and rebranding, as well as tweaked to the modern era. If it was formed into a modern coherent political ideology it would never be called National Socialism anyway, so that whole part is ultimately meaningless.

National capitalism, civic nationalism pick one

libertarianism is incompatible with nationalism, and by placing nationalism in a structure where it is subservient to something (like the NAP) means that ultimately contradictions between nationalism and the dominant ideology will be found, to the detriment of nationalism.

You are a newfag and a retard if you honestly believe that the Fascists and Natsocs won't just gun down every Libertarian, Yellow Bannered Gadsden waving private property owner from here to Azerbaijan the first chance they get.

>Nazi scum shaking hands with an enlightened libertarian

Delete that putrid fucking filth tbqh.

so just replace it with capitalism
it triggers actual commies and sounds like something new

however doing so and making c and b illegal will stretch the system to breaking point, creating shortages and lowering living standards, causing dissatisfaction. It is far better to be done with capitalism as a system than try and stretch it and crop it ineffectively.

lol

Well if you read: you'll see why that's not a reasonable reality.

full on libertarianism is incompatible with anything. most people are not full on librarians though. not to mention pure libertarians would get steamrolled by the first group of people that organized.

So the "Casino" is out ? (;

> libertarians would get steamrolled by the first group of people that organized.
> Libertarians can't organize
Herpa derppp, what do you think we're some kind of Egoists or something?

Hmmmmmm

All you would need to do is have an application in a 'national socialist' society to be 'libertarian', (if those are the terms we're using). You're exempt from taxes, but you have to pay for your own healthcare or education or roads for example. Each year a sort of census comes in the mail to determine how you're choosing to participate in society. It's not hard to figure this out.

Egoism is just ancap without the NAP

That won't resolve common usage of the same resources. Driving on a road, half the people are paying taxes for and the other half are exempt from and have no option of paying for an alternative because the state decided to ring the town with the cunt, but I get what you're saying a lot of free market arguments address the free rider problem but it looks to me like a blend of NatSoc + Ancap for example just exacerbates it where you can still join a NatSoc community in a Libertarian country. So it's an issue of social blobs and decentralization + alternatives I reckon.

so a big baddy comes knocking and your going to just organize and defeat it? if i know anything about humans it is that there reaction times tend to be pretty bad for that sort of thing

...

...and without society and socially constructed and enforced property rights and a whole bunch of other things missing, like culture, justice, social norms, community, ostracism, mutually guaranteed freedom etc.

any form of libertarian thinking is incompatible with nationalism. Nationalism is inherently collectivist and posits that you should give as much as you can to your fellow nationals, and that by many people doing this the quality of life and standard of living will be raised and everyone will benefit. Libertarianism does literally the opposite, and says that the less people that give and share wealth the better society will be

Road tolls, every so long across a road, you either present your NatSoc passport proving you pay taxes, or pay a toll necessary to maintain the roads.
All you need to do, in reality, is take the American concept of freedom and apply it to natsoc society in subtle ways.

As a Libertarian, I can tolerate a NatSoc society as long as they don't force me to join.

Learn at least that lesson from the Communists/Marxists...they won't stop until everyone mutually suffers under their creed.

In a libertarian order, how do you stop the Jews from using their superior verbal I.Q. to seize control of the institutions? How do you stop race mixing?

so what would a person be called that loves their country but also loves freedom?

Nothing that post says is wrong
thats a retarded fucking name but i support all the things listed unironically

>complaining about how awful america turned out
You do know america is a superpower right? It might be infested with niggers atm, but its still the most powerful nation in the world. how do you think it got this way?

No that's not how I would do it at all. I would already be organized against external threats in an efficient way I value, without it having the same aspects as a state and probably doing a better job.

what you call "freedom" is very strange. Because ultimately your "freedom" forces you do either spend your whole life working or go out on to the streets. Your "freedom" my dude, creates a pseudo aristocracy where wealth can buy more wealth and you the rich is as a result, constantly getting richer whilst the ever growing poor continue to suffer. Its a strange form of freedom

>being this much of a dumb nigger ape man
see ya in the copters faggot