Tell me why libertarian nationalism is wrong
>Free markets
>No income tax
>No welfare
>No shitskins
>Volunteerism
>No war
>Legal drugs/prostitution/gambling
>Sell your fucking kidney if you want
>States rights
>Strong military
>Energy independent
A healthy white society with little government involvement, what's wrong with this?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
cnet.com
en.wikipedia.org
theatlantic.com
twitter.com
Because you have to trade and defend yourself against and with other nations that do not and will not follow your ideology.
Also how the fuck do you have the industry to create lethal weapons on par with China and Russia with no taxes? How do you have this magic "no war" ? How do you keep the other countries from not free trading? PS you do not. We are feeling the effects of that right now. It's fucking stupid. Your ideas are stupid.
>No shitskins
How do you propose this?
>No war
Again, what's the plan big guy?
For those 2 aspects alone.
>No shitskins
>le ebin "if there is no welfare then niggers/spics/nonwhites will just disappear" meme
They don't have to follow the ideology so long as they're outside our borders.
>strong military
nationalism means a nationalist economy, should've mentioned
fuck globalism
Not him, but the shitskin part solves itself with no welfare, and maybe strong immigration control.
I assume the "no war" part comes from a lack of military intervention in other countries. In other words, the military force would be purely defensive.
>but the shitskin part solves itself with no welfare
There is no evidence to support this claim.
>bring troops home
>put them on border patrol
>build wall
>impose hard tariffs
that'd be how I do it
I said no income tax not no taxes. Government will get their money
Because humans do not self regulate. The fact the world is shit should make this obvious but I guess you are a super human. Oh wait in you are on Sup Forums waiting your life.
1)Due to how humans tend to group up, there will always be war, be it between small degenerate, pre history/post apocalyptic tribes, or massive militaries.
2) There will always be shitskins, unless you decide to somehow manage to kill off a few million of them by yourself. Otherwise, not many people will join your cause
3) What you seem to be promoting is some sort of pseudo anarchy lite (TM), consisting of some weird system of people feeling an urge to volunteer, but at the same time forcing your country to have a strong military WHILE still somehow not ever having war.
You got some faults in that belief m8
>No shitskins
I'm not sure you understand how high the wall has to be to enable this m8. Especially without some sort of organized effort to build it, eh?
>Strong military
And this. Who is paying, how is the money collected?
This guy gets it. Nationalist foreign policy, conservative fiscal policy, libertarian domestic policy. It's the best way tbqhfamalamsenpaitachi.
That seems equivalent to admitting that no welfare = no minorities, which means voting conservative really is inherently against the interest of minorities.
What I mean is: I thought it was generally believed that lack of welfare means minorities will try harder and be forced to get jobs, no more entitlement nation, etc., but it sounds like you're saying lack of welfare = the end of minorities.
I guess that makes sense if they all emigrate in protest of policy, but I have a hard time being convinced by this.
So no MORE shitskins than we already have?
Literally nothing.
It's the saviour of the white race.
Post evidence that contradicts it.
It's win-win either way. Either all shitskins leave/die or they become productive.
>or they become productive
Then they're still shitskins. Just..productive shitskins.
Ok just understanding.
you are trolling with this picture right?
you arent that fucking dense right?
I don't know, but lets not kid ourselves. If you're a shitskin, what would you choose: an European country, where there is a strong welfare state, and people can't own guns, or libertarian America, where there is no welfare, and even babies have Glocks?
I'm actually OK with hard working immigrants that come to work and not fuck around or leech. I'm descended from them, and you too probably.
You're absolutely right. We could end unemployment just by making everything here in America. Imagine how rich everyone would be if we did that.
#maga
the only shitskin is the colectivist's skin
Isn't this just paleoconservatism?
just deport them, this is all hypothetical anyway. It'd take decades to actually be able to move towards this structure of a country given the current climate
>on Sup Forums
>making fun of people on Sup Forums
it's the weekend and I'm chilling after a 60 hour work week
bringing troops home will do a lot for organized border patrol
If a shitskin can survive in an anarcho capitalistic society with no welfare, I don't consider them bad anyway. Deport them or let them die off/rot in jail if they can't
Public goods and services are needed to keep public goods (roads, infrastructure, etc) low cost
If you disagree go buy your own B2 bomber
I don't know what paleoconservatism is, but it's essentially the roots of what made America great. Little government and nationalist economy
>No shitskins
Sounds great but niggers always find a way to fuck things up.
Once they become productive they're free of the shitskin mentality. Well, mostly.
libertarians are retards that think public goods and services are worthless
they never tried living in a country with public goods/service monopolies like Mexico.
>the roots of what made America great
yep, pretty much.
>Paleoconservatism (sometimes shortened to paleocon) is a conservative political philosophy found primarily in the United States stressing tradition, limited government and civil society, along with religious, regional, national and Western identity
I'm having trouble following....public services are needed for public services? Yes I agree...what I disagree with is that government can only build the roads.
It's illogical to think UPS/Fedex and all the stores that rely on people driving to get there will all collectively sit on their ass as the roads aren't built. I think most fellow PA residents can agree that ANYTHING is better than 95/76
Essentially yeah that's what I'm talking about. I disagree with morality laws though
>Paleoconservatives in the 21st century often highlight their points of disagreement with neoconservatives, especially regarding issues such as military interventionism, illegal immigration and high rates of legal immigration, as well as multiculturalism, affirmative action, trade blocs, trade unions, and foreign aid.[1] They also criticize social welfare and social democracy, which some refer to as the "therapeutic managerial state",[3] the "welfare-warfare state"[4] or "polite totalitarianism".[5] They identify themselves as the legitimate heirs to the American conservative tradition.[6]
Find a flaw.
MAGA
Niggers in America survived for more than a hundred years without welfare after slavery was abolished. Were it not for abortion they would be a much larger portion of the American population. Same thing happened with the Irish.
>Either all shitskins leave/die
Already disproven. See above. Also please learn some history since you obviously know nothing about the economic conditions of the past.
>they become productive
And permanently change the character of the country to which they have emigrated, potentially changing its culture so drastically that the entire thing eventually falls apart. Oh and lets ignore the fact that they make things harder for the natives that are already living in that country. But who cares right? After all, GDP is the only thing that ever matters.
Your post is confusing.
I don't think a libertarian country would have a monopoly of public goods.
A public good is a product that one individual can consume without reducing its availability to another individual and from which no one is excluded.
Once you make a public good controlled by a private monopoly you let them charge monopoly rates for it.
All public goods and services need to be owned at a municipal.local government level at least to ensure monopolies over public goods aren't created like the ones in Mexico
cnet.com
I'm pretty sure libertarians believe public goods need to exist like all logical humans. Public services can mostly be handled by the private sector in a healthy free market though
>I don't think a libertarian country would have a monopoly of public goods.
Private control over public goods and services creates a monopoly
see:
cnet.com
>. Public services can mostly be handled by the private sector
That creates private monopolies
cnet.com
I know what a public good is, nobody is advocating for privatized oxygen
I'll see you halfway that local governments do a better job than states/feds with handling public services. I just think some of the services can be provided by the market
>Public services can mostly be handled by the private sector in a healthy free market though
and how would you make sure this free market is healthy? or that the needs are even met. or that the companies even obey the rule of law?
the state must always be the biggest dog around but that doesnt mean it has to do everything.
>provided by the market
That's how you create monopolies that charge monopoly rates.
Private ownership of private goods/services =no monopoly so it's fine
Private ownership of public goods/services=monopoly
It's that simple. The government needs to provide certain services. Don't pretend that the founders of the US were against having an army, court system, or public infrastructure.
They just existed in a preindustrial time when very little local government spending was required because 90% of the country lived on farms.
No, state regulation is what creates monopolies. Even your article states it, kek.
When a private company owns the public infrastructure in an area they have a natural "land monopoly"
There's no way around that fact.
en.wikipedia.org
It's not like you can just "build another identical road or sewer system or electric grid" to compete that's now how reality works.
I think they bought out subsidies to require that monopoly. It'll be ended soon enough anyway. Not that Mexico is a free market or healthy at all anyway
you're right, I have loads of electric companies to choose from since it's controlled by the public sector
Best policy to kick something like this off would be to make anybody who wants to vote sign up for a draft. This would give the weakest members of society no voice and would strengthen a nation in a very short period of time.
>bought out subsidies to require that monopoly
The nature of owning public infrastructure is an unassailable monopoly.
there is "no" means of completion in a system where a company owns public goods and services therefore your are actually advocating for a system that goes against the free market if you want private ownership of public goods and services.
no competition=no free market
>electric companies
There's a difference between private electric company power generation and the public utilities transmitting electricity on the electric grid
surely you understand that, just like it's the city or municipal government running the water supply.
Sure, they have the monopoly over the provision of the good "road that goes from A to B and occupies this space". But no true monopolies exist because you always have substitutes, and the higher the price the "monopollist" charges, the less clear is the barrier separating a certain good from its substitutes. Thus, the "monopolist" that owns the road that goes from A to B might actually be competing against other forms of travel, like trains, boats, air travel, or why not other roads. These other forms of travel from A to B would have an easier time to flourish under a free market.
We must not forget also that if this infrastructure good was owned by the state, it would have a bureaucracy to administer it (and state bureaucracies have a tendency to grow), it would be financed by the immoral taxation, and it would not have a rational way of allocating resources, leading to scarcity (where do you have traffic congestion, in public roads, or in private roads? What is traffic congestion if not an excess demand for the good?)
*no means of competition
>The shitskins trying to be kicked out will cause war
How do you know this idea would incorporate any of this well? It doesn't look like what you stated will occur if libertarian nationalism took control.
The skits him part might create a race war though.
>Thus, the "monopolist" that owns the road that goes from A to B might actually be competing against other forms of travel, like trains, boats, air travel, or why not other roads.
That's ridiculous seeing as the only real means of travel in a city is by road which requires using said roads that are now (in your libertarian "paradise") all owned by private monodies.
There's a reason why private ownership of things like boats, airplanes, etc is fine while something like a monopoly on all the streets in a city would be a disaster.
see what the jewish hedge funds have done in Chicago when they bought up if you disagree. Rates have gone up 5x after privatization of parking spaces.
>Post evidence that contradicts it.
Africa.
>immoral taxation,
It's also immoral forcing your children to live in a shithole ruled by private monopolies that extort them for using roads/water/electricity and other public goods that should be provided by the government.
The thing is, you're looking at the current picture without analyzing how the situation came to be.
It was the city (the state) that granted this monopoly to this single private company. Maybe it should have granted smaller areas to more companies, but the situation was fucked from the start since we had this whole city full of state-owned roads and streets. Would a libertarian country have arrived at this situation in the first place? Is this really the fault of the free market?
I believe not (please notice I said believe, reality might be different). In fact, I think that a libertarian country, starting from unowned land, would have arrived to a different infrastructure configuration. I think it would not be so damn concentrated in the first place.
bump
>tell me why a contradictory ideology is wrong
You can't have your cake and eat it too, you faggot.