Libertarian with closed borders/nationalism

Does this political philosophy exist? If so what is it called?

Other urls found in this thread:

lewrockwell.com/1970/01/hans-hermann-hoppe/on-free-immigration-and-forced-integration/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Libertarian Nationalism maybe? Just making things up.

Trump did this to you, didn't he?

It's just called Libertarianism. Libertarians disagree with each other about a lot of things. It doesn't need its own label.

It does. It's called incoherent, hypocritical, retarded, autistic bullshit.

When a philosophy becomes a *.ism file, it ceases to be compatible with the libertarian system. This includes Libertarianism, strangely.

Its called being a real american

Non dogmatic libertarianism with a small l

I don't see what's so hypocritical about it. Libertarians want to maximize liberty without sacrificing order. Allowing millions of socialists into your country is the absolute worst way to go about that.

If anything, I challenge the notion that open borders libertarians are libertarian at all.

the only word you needed was "retarded." libertarians think "hypocritical" is a buzzword

it's just nationalism.

The particulars of economic policy don't matter much as long as the basic tenets of nationalism are satisfied.

For some reason burger Sup Forumsacks are still tied to calling themselves libertarians. The fact is, you should be nationalist first, then you can be a socialist, libertarian, conservative, or even socially progressive within that nationalist context.

Point is, nationalism isn't an ideology or philosophy, it's a tested theory.

>Allowing millions of socialists into your country
>I challenge the notion that open borders libertarians are libertarian at all

3/10. Too obvious to me. Someone else may fall for it.

...

I always called myself a nationalist-libertarian. Basically, all the freedoms for us, and fuck everyone else if they try to fuck with that.

Americanism

Whatever it is, 'true' Libertarians will decry it as not truly Libertarian and won't support it because open borders means cheap labor for them.

>Libertarianism
>le everything fixes itself ideology
how it's possible for non-retards to be over 20 and still believe in these fairy tales of le invisible hand and the rest is beyond me

libertarians are 100% for closed borders

This is the real truth, the freedom libertarians care about are for citizens, not refugees from failed states that are just going to try to reinstitute those policies here

I think the key word is "incoherent"

I don't know but it's what America was supposed to be.

Read Hans-Herman Hoppe

For example:
lewrockwell.com/1970/01/hans-hermann-hoppe/on-free-immigration-and-forced-integration/

Lol this board is fucking retarded.

Hans-Herman Hoppe is a retard.

>"My right not to live near you trumps your right to live anywhere someone will sell to you!"

>libertarians are 100% for closed borders
>Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgment.[1][2]

You're fucking idiots.
By disallowing spics and "refugees" into your country, you restrict people's freedom and liberties, so you suddenly decide WHAT'S BEST FOR OTHERS, and this is against libertarianism.
So either you are a centrist or an idiot who doesn't know what he believes in.

You are too fucking stupid, too fucking poor and too fucking Soviet minded to get how the market works.

that's a lot of assumptions there тoвapищ

we don't have responsibility for "people" that are not citizens of our nation

they are from sovereign nations that control their own future, if they would like to afford their citizens the same liberty that we would like to offer ours, they can take responsibility and fight for it

>be american
>don't know what your talking about
>have to learn what right-libertarianism is from a Russian

KEK

Ad hominem.

Not an argument.

non-suicidal Libertarianism

>history
>learning

>i don't like them so they can't come
that's not individualism mate, you are putting interest of society ahead of interests of individuals ("refugees" and spcis)
congratulations, you're NOT a libertarian

i.e. non-libertarianism

No. This is bullshit. I'm not even a libertarian, but this is complete nonsense. It assumes libertarians must logically or ethically care about the well being of people who are not their own. Which in turns assumes libertarianism is innately egalitarian. Neither is true.

Spics may be human beings and "people" but they are not our people. They are racially distinct and they possess attributes that are utterly incompatible with a libertarian society. Utterly. A rational libertarian MUST reject them.

>It assumes libertarians must logically or ethically care about the well being of people who are not their own

No it assumes libertarians are for the free movement commodities, among them, labor, that is, people.

>be american
>don't know what capitalism is

the rights in the constitution are not granted by the american government to every human on the planet, they are granted to american citizens by god at birth; the constitution only guarantees that the state will not infringe on those rights

Libertarianism is not anarchy, or at least it doesn't have to be, despite some who want it that way.
Freedom and equality for everyone IN the country, everyone else can fuck off.

It's necessary because libertarianism presupposes a very high degree of homogeneity.
Almost every single libertarian idea can be run aground with, "yeah, you're mature enough to handle that. Do you honestly think that Xhilquantraevious or Dawnytello are mature enough to handle that?"

It's called "libertarian". Anyone that thinks they can keep their freedoms when they allow a bunch of foreigners to come in and vote them away is retarded.
If my country was as shit as yours I'd be pro-open borders too user.

>Xhilquantraevious

Again, wrong. This is new age, 20th century "libertarianism" that bears no logical weight, and never did. Spics destroy society. It's what you do. It's your genetic destiny. A libertarian is under no obligation to put at risk his own liberty and that of his people to maintain what you view as a logical consistency based on egalitarian assumptions that are neither correct or necessary for liberty to thrive. Your race poses an inherent risk by merely existing within better societies, to those societies. In this regard, your people are no different than convicted murderers or rapists. And nobody would challenge the idea that libertarians would be right in restricting the movement of murderers, and denying access to them by the market, correct? So why is a race of degenerates any different?

Your only possible response will be a defense of a race of people, not an argument on the nature of liberty.

Name a single libertarian principal that gives you the right to prevent me from selling land to someone from another country for whatever price I want.

Go ahead. The free market doesn't stop working when we draw invisible lines.

>Your race poses an inherent risk by merely existing

I agree. White people are the scum of the Earth. We've done a lot of damage.

BTW, you're not a libertarian m8

>Name a single libertarian principal

restricted property title.

when you bought "your" land, you didn't buy the mineral rights, you didn't buy the infinitely tall column of atmosphere above it, you didn't buy exclusive use of all RF spectrum in that space, etc.

if the property title you bought had a covenant on it that restricted who it could be sold to, then you do not have the right to sell what you don't own.

readditarianism
suburbarianism
cringetarianism

this is only evidence that you're too intellectually bankrupt and lazy to actually read any bastiat or adam smith or formative libertarian / capitalist literature

Paleoconservatism, look it up

you can buy the land, and even make money from it, but you can't come here

Libertarian-Nationalism

>using a short summary from wikipedia for a political ideology
Kill yourself user.
Libertarianism is limiting government to it's basic functions.
National defense is a basic function

In other words, people from the past can make agreements that people from the future are required to follow.

So we live in a libertarian country right now! After all, the states all unanimously consented to the current government! If you don't like the laws, don't live in a country with these covenants!

You're a moron. What ever happened to "I didn't sign shit"

I already said I wasn't a libertarian. I am a white nationalist. Or pro-"dark enlightenment" to use an even gayer term.

Spics ruin. One need only watch them for a little while to see this. Liberty does not require any thinking white man to embrace the chaos they represent.

BTW, you're not white, m8.

You can be a minimalist libertarian [aka Night-watchman state] and support closed borders.

The same way an individual has the right to decide who comes into his house is the same was a group of individuals gets to decide who steps foot on their land. Expand that group to tax paying citizens and land to country and there you go.

Of course this only works with minimalist who still allow for the existence of a state. If you are an anarchist then borders are meaningless anyway.

people are labor. Labor is a commodity to be bought and sold. Capitalism requires the free circulation of commodities.

If you're against it, fine. But that's an anti-capitalist position. Even if you're Adam Smith.

>be a monkey
>know more about politics and economics than Americans
>feelsgoodman

there's one way to be consistent

you have to be in favor of open borders *ONLY* when a country has free markets and an unrestricted right to bear arms

your opposition to open borders must be specifically because welfare and other social programs and subsidies distort the incentives for immigrants to enter the country, and because the government is restricting citizens' rights to protect themselves.

here's an example of a similar dynamic:

I am against gun control AND stop-and-frisk. but in New York City, the gun laws are fucking retarded. I have no expectation that it will change anytime soon. and only because gun control is there to stay, I believe police should frisk citizens to limit the harm caused by gun control. I would prefer neither, but if we have one evil, we must have the other.

And what about all the individuals who DO consent to letting immigrants in? Fuck their rights, right?

Enjoy your tyranny.

You can use that logic to justify anything.

For instance, you could say you are in favor of free markets, but since the market won't totally become 100% free tomorrow, you are in favor of more regulations to help control certain distortions.

You could say you are against taxes, but became government debt still exists, you're in favor of raising taxes until it gets paid off.

>If so what is it called?
Warsaw Ghetto

...

Not an argument.

jesus people, you can't understand that by restricting more and more freedoms you are walking farther and farther away from libertarianism towards a more controlled state
>i don't like brown people, they can't come
>i don't like niggers and spics, they can't com
>i don't like socialists and commies, they can't come
>i don't like people who want to let all those subhumans in

>b-but i want freedom and liberty for everyone i swear guise

you're all fucking centrists, simple as that, stop making up fancy special snowflake ideologies

>In other words, people from the past can make agreements that people from the future are required to follow.


who forced you to buy the property that had a restrictive covenant on it?

if the covenant/restriction was put into place AFTER you purchased, then I'd oppose that.

if it was part of the contract you signed upon purchase, again, you didn't buy an unrestricted title - you bought a restricted title.

PS: the states did not unanimously consent to the current government.

Anyway, stop thinking in terms of current government.

let's say that I buy 20 acres. I parcel it out into 20 lots. I place a perpetual covenant on each lot that says it may never be sold to or occupied by a jew, and that I or the designee of my perpetual legal trust is the sole determinant of who is or isn't a jew.

you can choose to buy or not buy one of my lots.

But if you do, you will have signed my agreement. you may not later violate that agreement by selling to a jew.

if you have a problem with this, you don't believe in contracts.

being a dumbass

>be in favor of freedom, except for things you don't like
>call other people names
>think they're making an argument

Amricans...

American nationalism.

Every nation has its own unique brand of nationalism, all of which together are called Pan-European Nationalism or Empiricism.

Did you not read the part about MINIMALIST.

Yes from a moral point of view the existence of the government will always be immoral because the government must initiate force against someone to get things done. That what governments do. If you believe that is wrong that makes you an anarchist libertarian. I was talking about that branch of libertarianism.
I specifically mentioned minimalist who allow for government force to exist as long as it is as small as possible.

>Empiricism
wot

>what is it called?
Fascism.

No seriously. Once you accept the moral necessity of the State limiting one kind of freedom, a chain of analogous logical dominoes falls, and fascism becomes defensible. Once fascism becomes defensible, on the premises of necessity, the same necessity implies other state powers are probably also necessary.

Sorry. Libertarianism isn't a pragmatic ideology. It's actually quite absolutist. You can't mix and match.

The freedoms of whom? Spics? People that want to steal my liberty by bringing spics into our political infrastructure?

No, I am simply not willing to ignore realities in this world. Your entire position is based on a non-realistic fantasy and I won't have it. It holds no logical structure.

Spics are not just "people." They are other people, and when you strip away all of the flourish, there is nothing inherent in liberty that says individuals must be allowed to introduce chaos and destruction into a political infrastructure that free men have devised to maximize their liberty. It is destabilizing and it is anti-liberty inherently. Because of the reality of the people we're discussing.

Why Mexicans and not water buffalos? What about snakes, do they have freedom of movement? Why not, because they're reptiles? And Mexicans are also something else, are they not?

If you want to re-litigate the Enlightenment, we can, but that needs to happen before your asinine premise is accepted.

libertarians support open boarders. they are faggots. they dont understand that drugs are bad and they dont get why you cant just walk into your neighbors yard and claim it as your own. what are these "boundaries" you speak of

Not an argument

why do you have such a hard time understanding that you can be fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and nationalist at the same time? You can still be socially liberal within an enforced border.

Libertarian =! Globalist Utilitarian

Went through half of the thread and NOBODY has suggested paleoconservatism? What is the matter with you people?

Private property has very strict boundaries that I have the right to defend to the death.

>Who forced you to buy the property that had taxes on it?

>If you don't want to pay taxes, live somewhere else!

Fuck off. Google the word "consideration" before you start talking about contracts.

Its called being a Libertarian.

Ron Paul who popularized the libertarian movement wanted to strengthen the border security and crack down on illegal immigration.

Its the new age libertarians who equate libertarianism with ancap globalism. Like the Sup Forums meme with people being retarded, except they are genuinely retarded and not just trolling like i assumed they were because i had too much faith in human intelligence or something.

I honestly think its just that the globalists have taken over the libertarian movement after it became the

Good, this user gets it.

Read up on paleoconservatism and don't come back until you do

>everyone
Citizens you dumb shit.
Libertarianism =/= ancap.
Libertarianism is about thinking ahead and not being autistically idealistic.
f you start importing every nigger socialist and commie you won't have any freedom.
Yes, that's called understanding reality and compromise and not being batshit retarded.
They don't have that right.

Nationalist-libertarian is better, paleoconservative sounds like you want to conserve jurrasic park or someshit to most people.

After it became the popular hipster alternative political ideology i was going to say.

>Confusing anarchism with liberatarianism

i don't understand how libertarianism has to be open border. I thought in a libertarian society such matters are decided democratically, it can go either way. The reason is that people outside this country aren't fucking citizens obviously so it is not their land. Just like a liberatarian isn't forced to let people into his fucking house. I don't get it

>Fuck off. Google the word "consideration" before you start talking about contracts.

Ok.

Literally, this text appears in the WP article for consideration:

Further, if A signs a contract with B such that A will not repaint his own house in any other color than white, and B will pay A $500 per year to keep this deal up, there is also consideration. Although A did not promise to affirmatively do anything, A did promise not to do something that he was allowed to do, and so A did pass consideration. A's consideration to B is the forbearance in painting his own house in a color other than white, and B's consideration to A is $500 per year

Sounds like I can give you a piece of property, so long as you agree to give me some cash, and to NOT ever sell it to people I don't like.

This. People call themselves libertarians but only want libertarianism when everyone acts like upper middle class WASPs.

It's communism-tier tbqh.

>all these "libertarians" itt who are in fact centrists but still think they are libertarian

...

Liberatarianism can be an ideology reached from different ideals. One being liberalism and the other conservatism.

Those that reach liberatarianism from a conservative stand point want to preserve their society and believe that it's inhabitants have a right to their culture and way of life.

The liberalist standpoint believes in a relativist world where just because a culture is different doesn't mean it's better or worse. Therefore they don't believe that multiculturalism will negatively effect a nation.

You are 100% correct sir. This is classical libertarianism or minimalism.

However, in ancap libertarianism borders technically don't even exist cause there is no government. Everything is privately owned. So you can decide who has access to your property but the neighbor can let in whoever the fuck he wants.

>preserve their society

>"There's no society, only individuals"

You even Libertarian, m8?

That's irrelevant to this issue of whether government or people have the right to close borders to their land. The land is owned by American citizens, and can therefore democratically decide whether to open the borders or not. There is democracy in libertarian society, however the democratic part cannot infringe on the rights of citizens

The right to restrict somebody entering the land belongs to land owner, not state.
I.e. all landowners who agree are free to erect wall around collectively their properties. But they cannot restrict other owners, who want to allow immigrants onto theit own property.

Sup Forums libertarians are just try to have their cake and eat it to.

Mainstream libertarianism i.e. Reason, the Pauls, the Cato Institute, the Institute of Public Affairs (in Aus) are all in favour of at least large scale immigration, if not open borders of some form.

Normally when confronted with this, the Sup Forums libertarian will cite Hans Herman Hoppe. Yeah he agrees with you (to some extent), but he is just one scholar. A lot of other libertarians think he's full of shit.

The attempt to balance nationalism and cultural preservation with full adherence to the logic of the free market have produced this niche contradictory ideology.

Contradiction

>still pushing the "libertarianism = anarcho capitalism" nonsense
Just stop posting already.

And those individuals created a political infrastructure to maximize their liberties. And spics jeopardize that by their very nature. Not some of them, all of them. They are a distinct race that is empirically incompatible with our race. Oil and water. Liberty cannot be maximized when two or more races are in conflict in the same political infrastructure, particularly when one of those races is intellectually and physically inferior, like spics are to whites. This is a way to kill liberty, not to enhance it. You can Jew-talk around it, but that is always the end result. And that's reality. Liberty, derived through reason, does not require us to dispense of our reason to afford comfort to your weird, illogical, anti-fact presumptions.

So eventually the country be be patches of non-White and patches of hardcore racists who won't join the other owners in hiring them.

>The land is owned by American citizens

Nope. Individual pieces of land are rightfully owned by individual Americans, and they can rent them for anyone the choose and hire anyone they choose and if you want to prevent that you're a fascist.