Isn't being fiscally conservative/ socially liberal just being a libertarian? What are the issues with libertarianism...

Isn't being fiscally conservative/ socially liberal just being a libertarian? What are the issues with libertarianism? I consider myself a libertarian, but I am also young and impressionable, and I like being proven wrong. Post smuggies while we discuss, I want this thread to be comfy.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=-kcAgVN1wGo
youtube.com/watch?v=uTfNhxt-WXw
youtube.com/watch?v=0Pgnng3bVlc
youtube.com/watch?v=IbGS6jb4WfI
econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=8vMypCinkRk
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

...

If someone is genuinely social liberal, than "fiscally conservative" is a non-sequitur. Press them on what they'd cut, and you'll find that they still want a gibs state, and that they probably want open borders which will let gibs seekers flood in.

so you are a fence sitter.

I only issues I fence sit on are abortion and immigration. I'm apathetic towards each issue until you start getting to the extreme sides of both.
For the 2016 US election, I was in the never Hillary camp, but wasn't excited for Trump because it was obvious to me that he just said anything he felt like to give him an edge in specific situations and that his real policy ideas were mysteries to us.

not entirely sure if that dichotomy really applies anymore.

What is gun control?
Is it something socially liberal or socially conservative?

Libertarianism is incompatible with democracy, as it results in the people coming in having the capability to change the government. Ironically, only a limited autocracy can allow a libertarian style society.

no you're a fence-sitter dealing only with issues presented to you by your politicians and should have lurked before posting. Libertarianism is not coherent and most people who are 'fiscally conservative, socially liberal' like yourself are not real libertarians, but more a kind of 'leave me alone and i'll leave you alone' type. society is not built on that.

Elaborate. What issues should I be more focused on? I only mentioned issues that I would call my self a fence sitter on.

You are someone for whom the status quo mysteriously appeals, and you only notice something is off when you reach an 'extreme' position. This is typical of democratic apathy, especially in the states where you get to pick sides A, B and "don't care". If you were a libertarian like those who have thought very hard on the problem, not their democratic sell-out namesakes, then you would find yourself with many extreme positions, one of which might be that democracy itself is retarded. I know you're young and it's quite a tall order, but you might consider that letting a mob vote on issues is not a good idea, regardless of what your positions are. Anyway my main point is that it seems to me you view 'libertarianism' as a list of positions taken on a list of issues, which is more a democratic attitude than a libertarian one. You'll vote on them (A, B, 'dont care') and then what?

Instead of reurgitating old truths in a different manner, I'll present you with: screencaps!

...

Of course democracies have their problems, but I am pretty solid in my belief that is the best form of government we have so far (as far as a stable society goes). More undemocratic forms of government might be better at making decisions for what is best for everyone, but I think the civil unrest that happens when the populace and the elite disagree too much is too strong. In a democracy everyone feels like they have a voice (even if it is just an illusion), so they are more content with the actions of the government. This feeling of participation is something that I believe is necessary, even if it is just a "feeling". The mob not knowing what is best for itself is why there needs to be safety valves on democracy like how in the US the only thing that is directly democratic is voting for a representative who in turn votes for you rather than voting directly on an issue.

>I am pretty solid in my belief that is the best form of government we have so far
>This feeling of participation is something that I believe is necessary, even if it is just a "feeling".
Sooner or later we're gonna have to agree on whether democracy actually involves people giving their opinions or whether it's just theater. Why do you care what positions you have on issues if your participation is just a 'feeling' ? And then why do you figure representatives and (all hail the) separation of powers are somehow good for this mob? Btw your theory of 'otherwise there will be bloody revolution' is very much falsified by history, but it's part of the myth of your country's founding.

This screencap is perfect, and it says just about everything that needs to be said. Will dump some smuggies to boost comfiness levels.

Reaction in an Age of Decadence:
youtube.com/watch?v=-kcAgVN1wGo

...

...

It's what you say when you're a conservative who's too much of a pussy faggot to admit being a conservative, so you settle for this lukewarm, placating garbage.

...

...

>smuggie with Hoppe
>socially liberal

How fucking retarded do you have to be

Ethnolibertarianism is the final redpill. Choose freedom and prosperity for the White race.

...

...

...

...

Not if your constitution is written properly and your republic is designed properly.

...

>My extreme opinions are valid and horseshoe theory is bullshit because people who disagree with me are just smug.

Oh okay.

I personally know that it is theater. When the congress in the US has a

...

>extreme opinions
W E W
L A D

Then doesn't that mean it's not very important what you think about 'the issues', when all you can do about them is vote and call your representatives, who won't listen? And doesn't this mean that the 'civil unrest' theory is falsified by the last 100 years of your country's history? If democracy is the big lie that keeps the people down, then what is the purpose of this thread? I'm asking not to snark but because it seems silly to argue about gun rights and abortion when your rulers don't care about you.

>Oh okay.
You even added the extra line spacing to complete the redditry.

Unless the constitution cannot be modified, all it takes is importing enough people that desire to change it to kill libertarianism. Do you think it is a coincidence that after America accepted mass immigration from Eastern Europe and Central Europe in the late 19th century that it inoculated a new population much more willing to throw away the limited government roots of this nation and embrace things such as the income tax?

Correct, women should not be allowed to vote. Specifically voting is application of state power and that state power is violently enforced by men, not women. Should policies be enacted that lead to civil war, it will be fought exclusively by men.

Also, that in no way refutes libertarianism, in fact it reinforces it. There was far less government in the early days of America and the family unit was far stronger.

Even if the people didn't have "that mindset" democracy would be invalidated by the mere existence of the mass media.

Lemmings explained:
youtube.com/watch?v=uTfNhxt-WXw

Hence ethnolibertarianism with an ironclad constitution. The "ethno" part means that the immigration policy is limited to those of the same racial and cultural makeup of the polity to ensure ethnic divisions can't take root.

Friend I know all about the leftist/social libertarians that have infiltrated your 'movement', but many of us simply don't believe in all your 'shoulds' surrounding the mythical constitution. Power does not lie in a document and hoppe's 'spontaneous social order' that would prevent democracy's advance are easy to break. The central problem of libertarianism is that it's an engineering theory for government that does not understand sovereignty and power properly, leaving such matters to patchworks, protection agencies and eternal principles of rights, freedom and property. Hell, you can't even have property without a sovereign guaranteeing it! How are you gonna build your ethnostate? Why won't it get taken over? The screencaps posted earlier in this thread try to drive at this point: YES we know what government SHOULD be and what would be nice to live in, but the "ironclad constitution" is made ironclad by what? whom? Who watches the watchers? "The tree of liberty..." etc?

The early days of America were shaped by people who came from massively authoritarian societies and it was pre-Industrial (read: when the Darwinism was still strong). The fact that they didn't dissolve into hedonism instantly once they got off the boats does not prove that libertarianism "strengthens" families by any stretch of the imagination.

Libertarianism only cares about the individual, and that is a major fundamental flaw.

>A community whos members are so self-centered that they will work ONLY for their personal benefit, and not for the common good, will eventually be destroyed by its enemies....and our enemies have been at work, day and night.
youtube.com/watch?v=0Pgnng3bVlc

The civil unrest is softened by the fact that these people are directly elected, it is on the people and the people alone to change who runs the legislature. Who is there to revolt against? the guy that the majority of your community elected in to that position using a direct vote? I don't believe it is a grand conspiracy of the legislatures to keep the voter down, only that they care about re-election (self preservation) over being a direct weapon of the populace. At the very end of the day, it is the fault of the voters. The US system offers deadlock rather than mob justice, which many would argue is intended.

...

>Libertarianism only cares about the individual, and that is a major fundamental flaw.
Individualism and collectivism exist in scales. Most libertarians are not anarchists and so still desire some degree of collectivism. I myself am an ethnolibertarian and believe one of the primary functions of the state should be to preserve the racial homogeneity of the polity. Got news for you bud, but Communism is pure collectivism.

Individualism is not a belief that everyone is, or seeks to be, isolated like an island from others. Individualists recognize the happy fact that each of us continually depends on countless other people—our family, friends, colleagues, and the literally hundreds of millions of strangers around the world whose creativity and efforts result in the goods, services, and ideas that are our prosperity.

The individualist rejects the romantic myth that some people are miraculously transformed by the state into something godlike that can discern and integrate the innumerable bits of knowledge dispersed among millions of human beings.

Vices are not crimes. Unless you are one of those "ban alcohol" types.

OK so you've established that democracy is pretty much theater designed to make the people feel responsible for their government through voting, even though that isn't actually happening. I'm not talking about conspiracy or the evilness of politicians, we can just stick to the nominal democratic republic you have. If the civil unrest is softened and ineffectual, then what is the point of participating in democracy? Do you see what I'm getting at? Because one of the major problems with libertarians is that many of them start with "ok so here's what we need in the constitution" and only worry about who is LEADING after the fact. They'd prefer it if the constitution was leading, but it can't maintain itself.

>YES we know what government SHOULD be and what would be nice to live in, but the "ironclad constitution" is made ironclad by what? whom?
By the people that formed the government. Why does the U.S. still have freedom of speech and the right to bear arms? It's in the Constitution. Of course should the government act outside its constitutional bounds, it is up to the people to correct them. However, what are you proposing? What is your alternative solution to limiting government? Or are you one of those that thinks government should have unlimited power?

>Of course should the government act outside its constitutional bounds, it is up to the people to correct them.
Yeah? How's that been working out? Strangely it seems the revolutions only happen when it's a democratic explosion of liberalism. You want to limit government by forming a sort of contract with the people, and I am "one of those people" who do not think this actually limits government, similar to how purer forms of democracy immediately degenerate into oligarchy. Neither of us wants government with unlimited power but they do, since it is built up from
>the people that formed the government.
The individualist might not believe in the uplifting of the individual through state power, but it doesn't make you a collectivist to similarly mistrust the enlightenment/victorian myth that democracy and a share in government will uplift the people. Maybe I should ask you the same thing I asked OP: do you have power in your democratic republic or is it theater?

>Individualism and collectivism exist in scales.
And anyone who identifies themselves as "libertarian" is too far along on the individualist scale.
>Communism is pure collectivism.
Are you implying that i'm a commie? I'm a national socialist, I despise commies.
>Individualism is not a belief that everyone is, or seeks to be, isolated like an island from others.
Individualists think that they owe nothing to society, and that nobody should ever tell them what to do. They are gravely mistaken.
>Vices are not crimes
No I don't think we should "ban alcohol", but some vices most certainly are crimes (and should continue to be crimes). Prostitution & most drugs spring to mind, and there are several things that have been legalized now that should NOT have been (ie: gay marriage).

youtube.com/watch?v=IbGS6jb4WfI

>Yeah? How's that been working out? Strangely it seems the revolutions only happen when it's a democratic explosion of liberalism. You want to limit government by forming a sort of contract with the people, and I am "one of those people" who do not think this actually limits government, similar to how purer forms of democracy immediately degenerate into oligarchy. Neither of us wants government with unlimited power but they do, since it is built up from
The American Constitution is poorly written to be honest, which is why the government has grown so much. Of course, this was probably on purpose. There are many ways to write a constitution and to think we have "given it our best shot" is a mistake.
>The individualist might not believe in the uplifting of the individual through state power, but it doesn't make you a collectivist to similarly mistrust the enlightenment/victorian myth that democracy and a share in government will uplift the people. Maybe I should ask you the same thing I asked OP: do you have power in your democratic republic or is it theater?
Yes. I can vote, can't be prosecuted for hate speech, and can own firearms. Under any non-democratic system, you are completely dependent upon the whim of the sovereign. Hopefully they are a decent person, if not, you are fucked. Look at the world as it is right now, would you rather live in one of the democracies or in one of the many dictatorships?

I'm afraid we're going to have to disagree about the role the constitution plays in your situation.
> Under any non-democratic system, you are completely dependent upon the whim of the sovereign.
This is just completely absurd, since kings can also implement laws just like your mob can. Your sovereign is either the constitution, the timeless contract that rules you, and/or the mob that votes for representatives that interpret this document, and are supposed to keep the government in check. The same mob that set boston on fire in the first place to achieve all this freedom. You repeat the tired old democracy memes about all dictators being stalin and mao, while glorifying the freedom of mob rule WHILE insisting on the necessity of constitutions and representatives and freedom of speech to limit the insanity of the mob. Hopefully the mob is decent? But the mob is supposed to be above the constitution?

>And anyone who identifies themselves as "libertarian" is too far along on the individualist scale.
Need someone to tell you how to think and behave, huh? That's okay, free will can be burden to some.
>Are you implying that i'm a commie? I'm a national socialist, I despise commies.
National socialism is a better form of extreme collectivism than communism. However, you assume that Dear Leader will always have the best interest of the people in mind. What if you don't want to die in an unnecessary war of conquest?
>Individualists think that they owe nothing to society, and that nobody should ever tell them what to do. They are gravely mistaken.
Wrong. The state would still exist, therefore we would still pay taxes, follow laws, defend the country if under attack, etc.
>No I don't think we should "ban alcohol"
Then you are a hypocrite.
>but some vices most certainly are crimes (and should continue to be crimes). Prostitution & most drugs spring to mind, and there are several things that have been legalized now that should NOT have been (ie: gay marriage).
Prostitution and drug use should not be crimes as there is no victim. Gay marriage is a meaningless term. Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. Gay marriage is an artificial state construct.

>I'm a nat soc I despise commies
Communism has never existed. Communism is the utilitarian objective of socialism.
US(socialist)R
National Socialism

The difference between the USSR and NAZI germany was international vs national communism. Other than that their economic structure was pretty much the same, nationalization of all industries and services and welfare (for the German people in NAZI).

National vs international makes a differences when we're talking about social policies though. As international is about creating a global workforce under the control of a central government, to which this workforce has no culture, no religion, and a lack of emotion (sounds a bit like China). Essentially a workforce of emotionless drones.
The National part in terms of National Socialist Germany is about the promotion of German culture in Hitlers vision and German ideals in Hitlers vision.

Whether either of those are good or bad depends on you.

Also
>individualists think they owe nothing to society
That depends on if my generosity is forced by the government through taxes or if I can start my own private fund to do this when I have the money (which is something I would do If I had money).

>communism is the utilitarian objective of socialism
I meant Utopian apologies

And
>international vs nation communism
I meant socialism.

Demographics. If you import people who do not agree with the constitution, and there are mechanisms to allow the invaders a say in rewriting it, then you are fucked. Open border policies have been purposeful - destroy the republic. Legal immigration used to require civics education and oaths of allegiance. We either close those borders and send some folks home, or we are done here in the US. We will be Brazil 2.0.

Hence, ethnolibertarianism.

>This is just completely absurd, since kings can also implement laws just like your mob can.
The constitution would limit what laws could be implemented. It would have to be designed by the libertarians that formed the government, written in such a way that explicitly says what the government is and is not allowed to do. No room for interpretation. Don't assume that the constitution needs to have a system to allow amendments either.
>Your sovereign is either the constitution, the timeless contract that rules you, and/or the mob that votes for representatives that interpret this document, and are supposed to keep the government in check. The same mob that set boston on fire in the first place to achieve all this freedom. You repeat the tired old democracy memes about all dictators being stalin and mao, while glorifying the freedom of mob rule WHILE insisting on the necessity of constitutions and representatives and freedom of speech to limit the insanity of the mob. Hopefully the mob is decent? But the mob is supposed to be above the constitution?
In a republic, the mob has a non-violent check on the sovereign and representatives. Under monarchy or dictatorship, there is no check except for violence. Monarchists tend to just gloss over all the tyrants that have existed throughout history and even today.

Look dude, the problem here is that
>The constitution would limit what laws could be implemented. It would have to be designed by the libertarians that formed the government, written in such a way that explicitly says what the government is and is not allowed to do. No room for interpretation.
has both never been done and seems quite impossible to actually be done from any theoretical perspective. I understand that you want to immortalize the principles of government in constitutional law, but this is simply not convincing. The libertarians who create and run said government need to be of a single mind and fiercely oppose many outside influences. They can't be the mob themselves, can they? Also
>Monarchists tend to just gloss over all the tyrants that have existed throughout history and even today.
you gloss over the mob tyrannies. And we're still going to have to agree on whether the mob has a "non-violent" check on the sovereign or if the constitution is the highest authority. It simply can not be both ways. You are STARTING from the assumption of a population that knows and agrees on the proper forms of government.

>What are the issues with libertarianism?
Gee how about
-market failure
-information assymetry
-natural monopoly
-no infrastructure
-excessive deregulation is bad
-degeneracy
-cultural collapse
-social progressivism
-NAP is retarded and impossible
-austrian "economics" is bullshit
-libertarians generally dont under stand economics 101 (see ron paul, peter schiff, tom woods etc)

Even minarchism is economically impossible, with reverting back to early 20th century economy, we'd all be farmers or something.

Best bet is Hayekian economicallly finetuned ordoliberalism. Read "Law, legislation, liberty". Anything more libertarian is anti-economics. Rothbard is marx, Mises is Freud.

econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

>has both never been done and seems quite impossible to actually be done from any theoretical perspective.
I disagree. That it has never been done stems from the fact that the idea that men should be free is relatively new. Don't think the U.S. Constitution was the best they could have come up with. It isn't. The libertarians that formed the government would be like any other political group that formed a government in the past.
>I understand that you want to immortalize the principles of government in constitutional law, but this is simply not convincing. The libertarians who create and run said government need to be of a single mind and fiercely oppose many outside influences. They can't be the mob themselves, can they? Also
How would a king take power? Libertarians would probably have to take power the same way, except the leader(s) would write the constitution, form the government, and then hold elections.
>you gloss over the mob tyrannies. And we're still going to have to agree on whether the mob has a "non-violent" check on the sovereign or if the constitution is the highest authority. It simply can not be both ways.
The constitution is the constraint put upon the sovereign/representatives, that when violated, provides a clear signal as to when the sovereign/representatives have committed to tyranny. Voting is a better solution than violent revolution. Violent revolution is the only solution against a tyrannical king or dictator.
>You are STARTING from the assumption of a population that knows and agrees on the proper forms of government.
It can be implemented from the top down by a few libertarians that have taken power. Once in place, the mob would be smart enough to know when the government oversteps its bounds or not, since the delineations would be made explicit.

>Libertarians have never fought for racists or true conservatives.
Incorrect, stopped reading right there.

Yea good goy let your gouverment be fiscally responsible to our banks.

the yellow colour is so ugly, it insults the balance of the flags composition in a way only a degenerate possibly could.

>The constitution is the constraint put upon the sovereign/representatives
You just said that it needs to be created, implemented and maintained by libertarians, not the mob. The libertarian vanguard may draw up the constitution from the eternal principles of rationality, then give up that power to hold elections without any danger to the constitution. Simultaneously, if they government DOES exceed its jurisdiction wrt the constitution, the mob can use violence to fix things. But the mob will not use violence unless the constitution is violated, even though they're not libertarian? Violent revolution is only possible against dictators, not a tyrannical mob or a government of 'libertarians' exceeding their jurisdiction?
>It can be implemented from the top down by a few libertarians that have taken power. Once in place, the mob would be smart enough to know when the government oversteps its bounds or not, since the delineations would be made explicit.
So here we have a libertarian revolution that immediately concedes its power to BOTH the constitution and the mob, which is supposed to keep this constitution through voting and (if need be) 'civil unrest'. So what happens when some part of this mob no longer believes in the ethnostate and votes the libertarians out of office? I simply don't know how to make this any clearer, but you posit a balance of power where both libertarian rulers, the constitution and the mob keep each other exactly the same.

>market failure
?
>information asymmetry
Generally people competing in the market are not retarded when it comes to a deal. And if they are they lose and the market keeps going with a superior business. Sounds like something familiar, like survival of the fittest or in this case, the survival of the most intelligent that has done their market research.
>Nation monopoly
Monopolies that occur are usually facilitated by a government favoring a particular party through regulations and taxation.
>No infrastructure
Private sector builds infrastructure all the time, wtf are you talking about. When a company purchases a property, they need to build infrastructure for that land to operate.
Granted small government is needed to contract companies to build the roads they need, But, if the small government cannot afford to contract for roads, the private company may well do it anyway for transport cost. In this case partnerships can be entered with other companies so that they can both use the road/Infrastructure.
>excessive deregulation is bad
Why?
>degeneracy
That has more to do with social issues rather than the economic system. However, if the education sector was private completely, the schools would have to teach their students the information that would make them the most successful after their schooling career rather than focusing on teaching social issues. Public school is where they teach bullshit like cultural Marxism from a young age because some aspects of todays governments want to nationalise things more and more. Getting young people on board with socialism is how they do this.
>Cultural collapse
Again, this is dependent on education.
>Social Progressivism
That's a socialist idea. Hitler was a progressive. Social(ist) Democrats are claimed to be progressive.
>NAP
What does NAP have to do with the free market?
>Austrian Economics is bullshit
If you say so. Why is it bullshit?
>Economics 101
Lmao. if you so. Again you can't explain why or what?

>Need someone to tell you how to think and behave, huh? That's okay, free will can be burden to some.
Kek, nice strawman Mr.Freewill.

>you assume that Dear Leader will always have the best interest of the people in mind.
If he does not then he should be overthrown, which (if this assessment of his misplaced interest was accurate) would be easily accomplishable by a homogenous society that trusts each other and has been throughly wronged.

> Wrong. The state would still exist, therefore we would still pay taxes, follow laws, defend the country if under attack, etc.
This is fine.

>Then you are a hypocrite.
No i'm not, and please don't cite Vox propaganda. The idea that alcohol is more harmful that heroin or crack is pure insanity. I don't think alcohol should be banned, but I don't really care either way. Alcohol is part of our mainstream culture, that doesn't mean that i support all people becoming alcoholics.

>Prostitution and drug use should not be crimes as there is no victim.
Tell that to the suffering family members, friends & neighbors of prostitutes and drug-addicts. Tell that to every tax payer who ends up footing the bill for their medical costs and their children. Tell that to every child who gets his mind warped by seeing these disgusting people paraded around on TV as though they were heroes. There are plenty of victims for these crimes.

>Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. Gay marriage is an artificial state construct.
Agreed.

>Communism has never existed. USsocialistR
I understand that, I'm not retarded. I said I hate commies (the people who believe in & try to enact that ideology)

>USSR and Nazi Germany were pretty much the same
No they weren't, stop getting your political opinions from Steven crowder and/or boomer kikebook memes

>economic structure was pretty much the same, nationalization of all industries and services
Nope.

>national socialism versus international socialsm
Two wholly different things. International capitalism (neoliberalism/neoconservatism) and International socialism have FAR more in common.

>market failure
As opposed to government failure which results in an increase in funding?
>information assymetry
Only a problem when fraud or negligence has been committed.
>natural monopoly
Government monopoly.
>no infrastructure
A lot of libertarians are okay with government production of infrastructure. However for those that aren't, the private sector would produce the infrastructure that people are willing to pay for.
>excessive deregulation is bad
Only in absence of criminal justice reform which punishes torts properly.
>degeneracy
A meme. Define it. Should we ban alcohol? Gays are 2% of the population. Are they a threat?
>cultural collapse
Only in a multiracial and multicultural society. Hence, why I advocate ethnolibertarianism.
>social progressivism
An egalitarian idea that needs the state to enforce it.
>NAP is retarded and impossible
Maybe but it's a good general rule. Don't aggress against another person or their property.
>austrian "economics" is bullshit
Wrong. Keynesianism is bullshit.
>libertarians generally dont under stand economics 101 (see ron paul, peter schiff, tom woods etc)
Mises shits all over that literal faggot Keynes.

...

...

North Korea is a modern NatSoc state. Authoritarian hereditary dictatorship (technically Monarchy), militarism, ethnonationalism, autarky, mixed markets, traditional roles for women, state enforced culture, no "degeneracy."

You could make an argument for indirect harm in every action ever taken. Are you saying I can't do drugs because it might make a person who voluntarily associates with me displeased? If that was the standard for making laws your society would crumble in 15 minutes. Families and friends can stop associating with me, you could be contractually obliged to not do drugs in certain neighbourhoods, tax-payer funded healthcare is obviously imcompatible with this approach and you can stop funding TV-channels that broadcast things you disagree with. If you cannot prove direct harm to others it is pointless to legislate law against it, and it goes against the very purpose of law because you create conflict rather than resolve it.

>making horse shoe theory about 1 issue only

Sooooooo there were no similarities between Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler?

something tells me you consider both communists and fascists to be 'statist collectivists'.
>You could make an argument for indirect harm in every action ever taken.
This really activates the almonds considering how important the NAP is supposed to be in guiding legislation. Libertarians almost always start out claiming "aggression" is something that is easily recognized and can be 'proven', meaning actual government does not enter into the issue. You view society as a sea of individuals, of
>person who voluntarily associates with me
and then keep a straight face when claiming that borders and common constitutions are important.

>something tells me you consider both communists and fascists to be 'statist collectivists'.

You deserve a smuggie made after you.

How about you argue my points instead of incorrectly comparing it to the words of others? Don't tell me how I view society.

Being a libertarian is depressing because eventually it becomes clear that most people don't actually give a shit about liberty as a principle, most people are totally fine with using the government to punish their ideological enemies and give themselves gibs. Certain demographics that democrats and republicans are trying hard to import into the US in mass numbers appear to almost have a genetic commitment to government corruption and half baked socialism/communism.

Libertarian principles are paid lip service these days (although less frequently so because an increasing number of your fellow countrymen view them as racist, because egalitarianism is racist now), but no one wants to adhere to them in practice. Depending on how purist you are, the viability of libertarianism either died out in the leadup to the civil war or ww1

that's ok then. board is fucking dead.

>something tells me you consider both communists and fascists to be 'statist collectivists'.
I do, but I also would choose fascism over communism any day. However, I believe ethnolibertarianism takes the best from both fascism and libertarianism. Personal and economic freedom combined ethnonationalism. Before you start talking about the NAP, I am not an anarchist.

>are the same
I didn't say they were the same overall.
In terms of economics they had a very similar way of going about it as I said. Nationalise various sectors, centralise control, disperse money rather than allowing the population to gather money themselves.
>nope
?? is that an argument, can you explain your point of view
>National Socialism very international socialism
I clarified why they are different and how they are the same
International capitalism, what I suppose you mean is a free open global market controlled by one small government?
This doesn't work. The only way you can expand your borders to such an extent is to centralise power and ensure everyone thinks the same (propaganda campaigns). A global capitalist system without government would divide into nations along cultural lines anyway without enforcement, as such things have happened in the past.
My point is international capitalism becomes international socialism through more centralised power in order to maintain control.

>ethnolibertarianism

>implying other whites aren't your second worst enemies, right after ((whites))

Fine. Aggression and indirect harm are not the same thing. If 2 people apply for a job and person A gets it, even if it is through merit he has caused indirect harm to person B without being an "aggressor". This has nothing to do with the NAP, not that I even mentioned it.
>borders and common constitutions
How are these incompatible with voluntary association?

No, it's NazBol.
>collective farms, communist imagery & thought-basis for Juche (read:NazBol) ideology, pro-class conflict & division, etc

>You could make an argument for indirect harm in every action ever taken.
Not to the same degree, and that's why things like "being rude" to people on the street should NOT be illegal whereas destroying the lives of everyone who cares about you by becoming a heroin addict SHOULD be. The difference is in the severity, you're creating a strawman that I would seek to outlaw ALL indirect harm, which is insane.

.....literally what? It's an example of horseshoe theory being applied not an overall descriptor of the theory, are you retarded?
>are there no similiarities between Stalin & Hitler
Of course there were, there were similarities between all of the leaders of both sides. That does NOT mean that Nat Soc is "just socialism but on a national level" that's flat-out incorrect.

>ethnolibertarianism
What I'm getting at is that there are few people here, even among natsocs, who would really oppose such a thing, provided a few disagreements about degeneracy and 'freedom' can be settled. The issue that many people have with constitutions and republic, especially non-burgers, is that it appears to them a completely inconsistence and ineffectual weapon against what threatens a state. Freedom is not a goal, it's not a state of being. There is no situation where there are no gods and no masters, because like I said even the precious property needs to be maintained militarily and contractually, for which you need an organization built and supported by like-minded people. Presumably this likemindedness would come from the ethno- part of the ethnonationalism, but it would also need to be enforced among the mob or it could die out. So let me try again: it's not the government principles of ethnolibertarianism that bother people, although 'freedom = good' certainly does, but the strange relationship between the mob, the constitution and the libertarians themselves.

Sorry friend, I know it might sound like a cop-out but it's really tedious to still argue these things here in 2016+2.

The true battle is not between "Capitalism and Socialism" it is between Internationalism and Nationalism.
>International capitalism = Neolib/Neocon-ism
>International socialism = Communism

youtube.com/watch?v=8vMypCinkRk

>Kek, nice strawman Mr.Freewill.
It's true, most fascists relish the thought of being told their place in society without having to make that decision themselves.
>If he does not then he should be overthrown, which (if this assessment of his misplaced interest was accurate) would be easily accomplishable by a homogenous society that trusts each other and has been throughly wronged.
Wouldn't be that easy and just hope you aren't disarmed first.
>No i'm not, and please don't cite Vox propaganda. The idea that alcohol is more harmful that heroin or crack is pure insanity. I don't think alcohol should be banned, but I don't really care either way. Alcohol is part of our mainstream culture, that doesn't mean that i support all people becoming alcoholics.
Haha it isn't propaganda. Alcohol is by far the most dangerous drug when it comes to interpersonal harm.
>Alcohol is part of our mainstream culture, that doesn't mean that i support all people becoming alcoholics.
So you don't support banning alcohol but you also don't support all people becoming alcoholics. That's very libertarian. Pretty much sums up how libertarians view all vice.
>Tell that to the suffering family members, friends & neighbors of prostitutes and drug-addicts. Tell that to every tax payer who ends up footing the bill for their medical costs and their children. Tell that to every child who gets his mind warped by seeing these disgusting people paraded around on TV as though they were heroes. There are plenty of victims for these crimes.
There is only a real crime when someone's person or property has been aggressed upon. Healthcare should be private. Parent's and Jew's fault.

Plan on doing any trading with other countries or are you going to produce everything yourself?

Good video, though. Agree 100%.

Libertarianism has been outed as madness. Only whites care about it so no boarders and not caring about race would cause it to self destruct.

Libertarianism and ethnonationalism are not mutually exclusive. Choose freedom and prosperity for the White race.

How do you plan to purge them out? Purges are bad for business. Slave wages to illegals on the other hand, are great for business. Business not being measured in employment rate or gini index, or wealth equality. You'd be reduced to feudalism within years. Everyone would be an a sword for a guy that owns armies of slaves. There's no need to build roads or care about morals. Restrictive contracts all matter who is giving the contract.

Somalia is a Libertariana paradise.

Horse shoe theory gets criticized for ignoring ideological differences, but it was an observation on how the more extreme both sides get, the more they emulate each other in function (mass killings, secret police, militarization, etc). It probably never would have been made mainstream if the Soviets and Nazis didn't have more in common with each other than they did with democratic "centrist" nations that they also despised.

Think of it like this:

Eric and Billy both brush their teeth, this doesn't matter

Eric likes to play videogames, Billy plays foot ball, this makes them opposites.

Eric and Billy both shot up their school, this makes them similar.

>Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are "extreme" political candidates

Lad... you are a fencesitter among fencesitters if that's your genuine opinion.

Well to be fair. The "battle" goes multiple ways on many fronts. You see thinks in black and white when it's not the case.

International capitalism doesn't work and will result in socialism anyway
International socialism will lead to international socialism through enforcement, perhaps arriving one day at their far-fetched idea of a utopia (=to communism), not before genocide and starvation until the only people left are the people within the centralised government (until they used up the capital existing from prior also and actually have to work for it)
"National" capitalism, This is more, you have a government, they provide security along cultural borders to prevent people entering and destroying your markets, but within the borders low or no regulation exists, companies are allowed to trade outside of the nation and establish subsidiaries elsewhere taking advantage of weaker economies (which also undermine certain countries) and taxes remain for the solve purpose of security.
National Socialism
yeah okay fascism works during work time when you need to defeat a superior or equal adversary and the only way to do it is nationalise your industry. But without war fascism is oppressive even for "non degenerates". You want open markets post or pre war for innovation economically and for scientific reasons. Markets are a huge driver for science. Death does okay until you threaten too many people and they defect to your enemy.

However, if your nation is in prophetical warfare in order to maintain central control, then that is a problem. This is how I personally see National Socialism and Hitler, a bit for control by creating enemies

how? Boarders are a statist thing. You need some level of federal government. If even one person bought land along the baorder and let in wetbacks and fired all his workers and paid them next to nothing, then how do you propose to stop him? Not buy his products? How would you even know when there are no copyrights or limits on what he can mark his food or where he can sell it?

In saying that though. In "national" capitalist government the rallying cry of threat from an evil adversary as worked for the USA in the past, before the US went more big government.

>How do you plan to purge them out? Purges are bad for business. Slave wages to illegals on the other hand, are great for business. Business not being measured in employment rate or gini index, or wealth equality. You'd be reduced to feudalism within years. Everyone would be an a sword for a guy that owns armies of slaves. There's no need to build roads or care about morals. Restrictive contracts all matter who is giving the contract.
With state power, just like everyone else. Also, most libertarians are not anarchists.
>Somalia is a Libertariana paradise.
This meme again... If Somalia is a libertarian paradise than Zimbabwe is a fascist paradise. Fun fact though, Somalia actually improved when it was no longer under a central government.

It's just another version of the freedom-totalitarian / individualist-collectivist axis meme, stupid for the same reasons. How'd the "centrist" nations end up siding with the communists and incinerated the germans? And then end up WINNING over all three? This was not done by pacifist democratic winning of hearts and minds.

>All libertarians are anarchists.

>What are the issues with libertarianism? I
you cant have no government and an absolute free market. you will get fucked over for profit, that's just how humans work

You should really not meme about this because it is an absolutely crucial roadblock to people being sympathetic to libertarians. Forget about people who meme about degeneracy and immigration since it's clear you want none of that, but HOW? Constitutions can only be enforced or 'voluntarily' followed, and do not a state make. Every time an argument gets close to this problem you start snarking about "not being able to handle freedom & responsibility" or accusations involving "statist" and "collectivist" and such.