Why has he succeeded precisely where so many others have failed?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=8CM_--di7L8
youtube.com/watch?v=CBY0bZWKehQ
youtube.com/watch?v=C7XJIioZEgQ
mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over
youtu.be/A9u47J26O20
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Not an argument.

He's not an idiot

He eats during his broadcasts. I can't hang wif dat

Because he's the greatest philosopher that ever lived.

Because he is jewish and as we all know jewish people are smarter and superior when compared to everyone else.

NOT

Soon we will be over 9000 boys. KEK WILLS IT.

>Anti-spanking = Statist Indoctrination

Not an argument

Howard Stern plz

Not an argument

He's succeeded because he only argues in an echo chamber.
He lost every debate against anyone who isn't a completely brain-dead moron.

Libertarianism is nihilism, morally bankrupt, intellectually and philosophically bankrupt.

It's leftist anarchism spun for right-wingers and you idiots swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

Best way to organize society and/or the economy, in order:
1) National Socialism.
2) State Capitalism
3) Well-Regulated Capitalism

Not an argument.
You don't understand libertarianism if you think it is nihilistic.

Not an argument to you too.
>You don't understand libertarianism if you think it is nihilistic.
Then it's just wishful thinking.
Unregulated capitalism just leads to wealth and power being concentrated. They will develop their own system (probably extremely oppressive). There will no enclave of functional lolbertarianism (whatever this may be) strong enough to resist their influence and they would fall soon enough (it wouldn't even have to be violent).

>You don't understand libertarianism if you think it is nihilistic.
Prove your words

He hasn't though, he's only succeeded at getting a lot of views from posting controversial stuff, like tons of youtubers have.

Not one argument or citation in the thread

>1) National Socialism
Have we seen working natsoc in long term scenario?

>Not an argument.
Quit parroting that, you morons, it is not an argument.

>You don't understand libertarianism if you think it is nihilistic.
Not an argument. You just said I don't understand X, you didn't prove the my statement is false.

Libertarianism is nihilistic because it holds all views, all values, all behaviors and all actions as equal, only differing in their desirability to the market. If a behavior, for exmaple. is harmful then it doesn't matter. It is the worship of the free market mechanism, which is a means for an end, that, under libertarianism has become the end in itself. The free market is a tool for higher goals: optimal outcomes. If and where this tool does not lead to optimal outcomes, the alternative method or tool that does should be adopted instead.
Libertarianism worships the free market tool ALWAYS and in all cases, regardless of the outcome or consequences. Where the free market leads to sub-optimal or even horrific outcomes, those cases are swept under the rug or ignored by the libertarian dogmatists. Libertarianism is free market fundamentalism.

Morality does not derive from the NAP (Non-Aggression Principle). Morality derives from maximizing strength, not just physical strength, but strength in all things: strength, intelligence, health, beauty, excellence. Morality derives from the link between cause and consequence. Morality seeks to increase the behaviors that lead to the consequences of strength, intelligence, etc. and reduce those behaviors that lead to the opposite consequences.

Wisdom is the comprehensive understanding of the complex link between a cause and its chronologically distant negative or positive consequences. Once this link between a behavior and its long-term consequences is established, it is then distilled into simplified codes of conduct in the form of "X is bad" or "Y is good". X and Y being bad and good behavior respectively. Morality is created by wisdom.

work until their leader get killed by marxist

>mfw 1 dollar donation

youtube.com/watch?v=8CM_--di7L8

Because he is intense and overly serious with no shame which is rare

youtube.com/watch?v=CBY0bZWKehQ

It ascribes a constant and universal moral principle for individual action.

Admittedly it's an incomplete and faulty set of morals, but that's basically because it's the most honest attempt to make an atheistic or secular morality that isn't a subjectivist joke of a thing.

You made the claim the burden of proof is on you dummy
Go back to high school debate class

ONE
FEHCKING
DOLLUH

>youtube.com/watch?v=C7XJIioZEgQ

No it doesn't. You can't fathom how hard it would be to acquire vast amounts of wealth without the state helping you.

Regulation make its harder for smaller and emerging business not big corporations.

>You made the claim the burden of proof is on you dummy
Show where he didn't back his point.

There is no need, I think.
It worked EXTREMELY well: in a few short years it yanked Germany from not just the abyss of the Great Depression... you see, Germany had it far worse than all the other Western countries wallowing in the Great Depression indefinitely. Germany was, in addition, afflicted with the horribly unfair and damaging Treaty of Versailles.

Yet STILL, National Socialist policies yanked it from utter destitution and destruction to be THE richest country in the whole of Europe.

And when National Socialism ended, it did not collapse under its own weight, but was defeated from the outside. And it took ALL the world powers aligned against it to be able to defeat it. Nazi soldiers were outnumbered by Allied soldiers 97:1. Now consider that Germany is a tiny state with not a lot of natural resources, and still it was able to kick everybody's ass before it went down. Imagine what National Socialism would in a country like Russia or the US with tons of natural resources and a big population. Or better yet: if Nazism was applied in a united White Empire spanning all of Russia, Europe, North American and Australia.

BTW, those world powers that united against National Socialism? They did so because it was so economically successful that it threatened them.

doesnt he just broadcast for the whole day without stopping basically? seems like a chill way to philosophise. Stefan is a based pontificator

How interesting that you quoted my second comment where I did back my claim, and not my first comment where I merely stated my claim.

Spotted the dogmatist. Go fuck yourself, free market fundamentalist. Your libertarian brain is literally capable of only one thought. I won't be wasting any more time on you.

He holds all the arguments.

>It worked EXTREMELY well: in a few short years it yanked Germany from not just the abyss of the Great Depression
We can say the same about USSR after double disaster of WWI and the Civil War. It took more time but it was achieved despite previously agrarian country, politicking in the higher ranks and efforts of one well-known Georgian marxist.

wow Lebanon I forgot how festive your flag is

Great post. It amazes me that there are still lelbertarians on Sup Forums after all the redpilling they've been exposed to and the mass conversion of so many of that group to the alt-right.

Thanks Taleb. When are you gonna dump Bernie for Trump?

You spouted your opinions to back it up
Not an argument

>seems like a chill way to philosophise.
I agree. No argument to be made.

He's a white nation warrior now.

No thanks!

This. A short time span gives no indication of long term performance.

By that measure clearly communism is superior because it not only defeated National Socialism, but went on to increase its power and influence in the decades after.

Real world performance is the only test that matters and national socialism and communism have failed. Socialism of all forms is a disaster and is what is currently dragging down the west. State influence in the market (a foundation of socialism) leads to corporatism and disruption of the natural processes.

>Libertarianism is nihilistic because it holds all views, all values, all behaviors and all actions as equal

No it doesn't. Libertarian prohibits behaviour such as rape, theft and murder.

> The free market is a tool for higher goals: optimal outcomes. If and where this tool does not lead to optimal outcomes, the alternative method or tool that does should be adopted instead.

What you think is optimal is an opinion. You cannot measure utility in a objective manner.


>Morality does not derive from the NAP (Non-Aggression Principle).

The NAP is principle not something morality is derived form. Morality requires an ethical framework. The point of the NAP is it a proposed rule that everyone can obey at the same time and equally applies to everyone.
It makes no claim on what is good except not initiation force of anyone. The initiation of force cannot be universal.

Not really. USSR Communism finally collapsed under its own weight in the late 80's / early 90's.

But long before that, it had already demonstrated its horrible outcomes:
the Civil War in which it was created was extremely bloody. Whereas Nazism got to power via elections. This is not necessarily inherenet to the ideology but still...
Under Stalinism, tens of millions of Russians were murdered by their own regime. Compare this with Nazism where the regime did not murder their own people, ethnic Germans.
Other horrible outcomes include famines such as the Holodomor in which about 10 million citizens starved to death.
The problem with authoritarian systems is they are, like democracies actually, only as good as the leader. If the leader is a psychopath who thinks killing millions of his own people is a "statistic", then it's bad. If, however, an ideology is based on rabid ethno-patriotism and putting a patriot in power and as supreme leader, then it's good.

I personally don't think an ideology has any moral ~obligation~ to people who are not its citizens, but when an ideology kills tens of millions of its own, upstanding, industrious citizens, it's severely fucked up.

Said the starsy and spangly dude :P

>he's entertaining
>he has a good voice and manner of speaking
>he's got crazy eyes
>he knows a shit ton (I mean god damn)
>he talks about hot topics (Islam and socialism) or things that are controversial (single mothers and, well, Islam)

He's cute too.

>he knows a shit ton (I mean god damn)
>t. High School Sophomore

>Implying Ukrainians are Russian

Fuck off naziboo faggot. Your mental gymnastics won't change history. The fact is that fascism and socialism are cancer and doomed to fail. Real world performance shows this to be the case consistently.

>No it doesn't. Libertarian prohibits behaviour such as rape, theft and murder.
Oh how nice of it to get the basics right.
It simultaneously recognizes that the market, just as Adam Smith recognized, does not take care of all aspects of all human existence, and then moves the line between market-based organization of society and morals-based organization of society way into morals-based territory. And stops just short of the absolute basics, if that.
One of the reasons morality was instituted in the first place is because people, left to their devices, would not behave in a way to avoid bad outcomes in the long-term. Morality is primarily concerned with long-term consequences of behaviors.

>Theft
Interesting you should mention that. Since libertarians think taxation is theft. How is this different from a private corporation, who owns all the roads in an area (and thus can deny you commuting to work), and puts toll gates on them?

But let's consider an example of a behavior that libertarians believe should be left to the market: homosexuality and gay marriage. These behaviors lead to very harmful long-term consequences, incl. sky-rocketing STD and AIDS rates, decreasing heterosexual marriage rates, etc. Yet the consequences of an action are of no concern to the nihilism of libertarianism.

>What you think is optimal is an opinion.
An outcome can be compared to another and found better or worse. And yes, it can be measured objectively.

>You cannot measure utility
Consequentialism != utilitarianism. It has to do with the link between an action and its consequences.

>Thanks Taleb.
Taleb is in Afghanistan. I'm a Maronite Christian.

>When are you gonna dump Bernie for Trump?
I never supported Bernie and I always supported Trump.

>Implying Ukrainians are Russian
They were equal citizens of the USSR.

>Real world performance shows this to be the case consistently.
>If five dumb as fuck, failing-their-classes bullies beat the shit of a Straight-A student, it means he's not very good academically and the five dumb bullies are better than him academically.
Oh, alright then.

>Not an argument
>Not an argument
not an argument

lol!

>lol

>youtube star
>success

u wot, his wife is a REAL psychologist she's probably paying all the bills desu

I'm just messing with you because you're the first Lebanese flag I've seen on here and Taleb is the only person from your country I know. He supports Bernie for some stupid reason even though he should know better.

Please do continue destroying the nitpick loving lelbertarian though. It's amusing.

>but went on to increase its power and influence in the decades after.
Long before it defeated Nazism militarily, it inflicted horrors on its own people. So even in the short term, it had demonstrated massive problems.

>national socialism and communism have failed
>State influence in the market (a foundation of socialism) leads to corporatism and disruption of the natural processes.
And who has succeeded? US Capitalism? There isn't just one, monolithic, US capitalism. There's two: Well-Regulated Capitalism and NHB Capitalism (No Holds Barred). Every time NHB capitalism was instituted in the US or elsewhere, it has lead to massive economic damage. And the US was only prosperous and stable when it instituted Well-Regulated Capitalism and international protectionism: from the New Deal to Reagan.

Examples of NHB Capitalism / opposite of "state influence" doing economic harm:
-Great Depression
-80's S&L boom and bust
-1997 Asian financial crisis
-2008 Financial Crisis
-1990's Russia

>disruption of the natural processes.
The natural inclination of capitalism and the free market is the concentration of wealth and the shrinking of the middle class. After Reagan's "reforms", the middle class began shrinking. In the 1990's, the Russian middle class went extinct. Under State Capitalism in Russia since 2000 and China since 1978, the middle classes have been expanding.

You're a pretty interesting poster. Articulate, intelligent and NatSoc. Also a Christian, but your definition of morality reminds me of Nietzsche. I think Germany could use more people like you as legal immigrants instead of the lowest of the low that trampled over our borders to be leeches. Are people in Lebanon generally highly educated and red pilled? I recognized Lebanon posters on here, or maybe it was just you, who could contribute more than just one phrase posting.

>One of the reasons morality was instituted in the first place is because people, left to their devices, would not behave in a way to avoid bad outcomes in the long-term. Morality is primarily concerned with long-term consequences of behaviors.

Morality does not need to instituted at all. Bad behaviour is costly and ostracism works wonders. Without the state subsiding dysgenic behaviour people would be forced to sort out their own behaviour.

I am not the type of libertarian who thinks that all cultural outlooks can equally generate a libertarian society. There would be a common morality one that realises that individual freedom means individual responsibilities for one's own action.


>How is this different from a private corporation, who owns all the roads in an area (and thus can deny you commuting to work), and puts toll gates on them?

Again you can't fathom how this would work. Do you know how much it would cost to hire security forces to constantly patrols all roads in an area.
This is a very common objection that warlords of such would take over.
mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over

>homosexuality and gay marriage. These behaviors lead to very harmful long-term consequences

Some communties may have no problem others may ban faggots from entering.
It is up to personal preference. However such destructive behaviour would be costly and would likely be reduced compared to where the state protects people from the consequences of their actions.

>An outcome can be compared to another and found better or worse. And yes, it can be measured objectively.

Whether you think it is better or worse is not objective.

>USSR Communism finally collapsed under its own weight in the late 80's / early 90's.
>If, however, an ideology is based on rabid ethno-patriotism and putting a patriot in power and as supreme leader, then it's good.
Natsoc didn't live long enough to collapse under its own weight and transform into something else.
>the Civil War in which it was created was extremely bloody
Ruling class of Russian Empire exhausted all other methods of progress. And it was bloody because of many sides fighting against each other: monarchists, bolsheviks, anarchists, demsocs and many minor factions and local warlords. This mess is a fault of previous government and tzarist regime supported by Western powers. My family fought for Reds, obviously.
>Under Stalinism, tens of millions of Russians were murdered by their own regime
>include famines such as the Holodomor in which about 10 million citizens starved to death
Numbers are exaggerated in Western sources.
>only as good as the leader
This is true for USSR as well. Stalin became its leader only in 30s after years of intrigues and politicking. Unfortunately, it was period of its greatest challenge.

youtu.be/A9u47J26O20
Lol look at his sad face throughout this video. Stefan Molyjew wants his foreskin back

>Also a Christian
>reminds me of Nietzsche
I was raised Christian by my family, but I became atheist. I don't mention this unless people inquire about it.

>I think Germany could use more people like you
Thank you. And I could use a potentially powerful (if it awoke, that is) nation like Germany, instead of wasting my wisdom and intellect on a tiny weak country like Lebanon.

>generally highly educated
Yes, virtually every Christian here is a college graduate.

>red pilled
Nope. I'm the only red-pilled Lebanese I know IRL. People here are completely sold on the consumerism and animalistic status-mongering pioneered by the Jew Edward Bernays. They are red-pilled neither in terms of NatSoc / fascism, nor in terms of women / "gay rights". They have blue-pill, traditionalist opposition to homosexuality, that is rapidly fading :(

Succeeded with what exactly? He's an echo chamber.

His ideas aren't going to change anything. Even he is realizing now that his ancap non violence rubbish was naive.

>(You
>Bad behaviour is costly
And the vicious always find a way to pass the high costs of their vice onto the virtuous. e.g. gay marriage is subsidizing homosexuality by heterosexuals. Gluttony subsidized by the healthy by the obese and of-healthy-weight paying the same health insurance premium. Same for promiscuous women paying the same as married women, married men and/or single men.

>ostracism works wonders
PC uses ostracism, doesn't mean it's moral. It's nightmarish. You couldn't tell morality if it were staring you in the face. This is what the nihilism of libertarianism has done to you.

>people would be forced to sort out their own behaviour.
No, people would disproportionately and increasingly act according to their savage, primitive instincts, and they would optimize for short-term benefit/pleasure as opposed to long-term benefit, which is the domain of morality. And the state is not the only one who implements morality.

BTW, libertarianism ALWAYS almost instantly degenerates into crony capitalism.

>hire security forces to constantly patrols all roads in an area.
It's their roads and/or their land. Are you saying that people would trespass onto their PRIVATE PROPERTY and they can't do anything about it and should just accept it? Private property is literally the only and last thing libertarianism believes in and claims would be working under it. If it can't make that work, it is completely broken.

And no, it is easy to keep them from using your roads. Build a fence around your land, build gates. It's all automated and costs pennies.

One of the major reasons why libertarianism doesn't work is people cheat. So you're admitting consumers would cheat, but corporations wouldn't.

Ever heard of cartels and oligopolies? Corporations who got big enough and get together and decide not to compete with each other and divide their territories and don't compete on each other's territories?

>It is up to personal preference.
The harmful consequences of a behavior are not up to personal preference. STDs, AIDS are objectively harmful and bad.

>would likely be reduced
No, it wouldn't. People wouldn't even detect the harmful consequences because they are so long-term and gradual. By the time any appreciable or noticeable amount of damage has accumulated, the damage would have been done and decades would have passed from the start of the behavior and people wouldn't be able to link the negative consequences to the original behavior that caused it.

In a free marketplace of ideas, it is not the best, wisest or most beneficial in the long-term ideas that win out. It is those that most closely dovetail with our instincts, that offer the most pleasure, that exploit the blind spots and weaknesses in our psyche.

>Whether you think it is better or worse is not objective.
Economic prosperity is easily measured. A broader middle class is better. A greater percentage of people who are healthy and less incidence of disease is better. We are late enough in history that we have enough evidence to prove that Racial homogeneity is better than "diversity", etc.

Welcome to free donate radio, please donate to support me. You can support me with your donation. Donate please to support me. Don't argue, donate.

Did I say you can donate to support my show?

Here you go man, you're awesome.
>one dollar donated