Is libertarianism a cuck ideology?

Is libertarianism a cuck ideology?
youtube.com/watch?v=RihMEpGhOL0

Other urls found in this thread:

openborders.info/libertarians-views-of-immigration/
mises.org/library/end-socialism-and-calculation-debate-revisited
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0042366
reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/2ir3ev/has_anyone_written_a_book_debunking_the_economic/
reason.com/archives/2005/01/21/the-man-who-told-the-truth
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Nationalism is cuck ideology, libertarianism is about individualism, nationalism is about holding your sugar daddy dictator's hand all the time.

Libertarian is the ultimate ideology and is the least cucked

>open borders are OK

Yes.

Cucks enjoy being subject to dominant authority.

/thread

as long as you're the stefan molynoux type who knows to keep the brownies out

Truth, nationalism is the ideology of worthless faggots.

Nationalists think even though they are worthless pieces of shit who never succeeded in any way in their pathetic lives, that they are still innately superior because some rich people happen to live in their country.

Yes. They support letting society turn to degeneracy. They support open borders.

No, it's not a cuck ideology, but it's a bad one because it denies patriotism.

Time to break the lolberg circle jerk.

Since when? There's even a "national libertarianism" branch, but libertarianism by default is about freedom of thought and overall personal freedom, the nationalism is about "you can't do this and that".

>"b-but its Jews man!" argument

No, it's individualist. Despite free markets being best for everyone in society, probably the thing you could most attack libertarians for is being "selfish".

So, you tell me, is it cucked to pursue self-interest and throw off all forms of affronts to freedom or is it really cucked to tie up your entire identity in a race and geographic area where you were born and then crowd around a benevolent dictator with basically socialist policies (except in national interest, you guys!)?

Confirmed as not knowing what the word nationalism means.

Nigga how tf does it deny patriotism?

Of the main 4 schools of economics:
Monetarism (Friedman): Jew
Austrian (all): Jews
Marxism (Karl Marx): (Jew)
Keynesianism (Keyness): non-jew

It's ironic the school of economics that benefits mostly Jews was created by a non Jew. Also remember, are intel·lectuals Jews (not neo-nazis) who have the strongest arguments against the Jewish Mafia, like Bobby Fischer.

This guy gets it.

The man quoted in OP's video and pictured in the OP pic was pretty famously against open borders, so I feel like you aren't standing on shit.

Plus as far as real libertarians go (ancaps) Rockwell and Hoppe are arguably the most influential alive today. Both against open borders.

It's an awkward ideology.
The an Internationalist should be called a cuck, Libertarianism is often a stepping stone on the right wing track.

I think it was designed to make people believe in an end game, but they just made an ideology that is heavily subvertable.

Assuming we heavily deregulate the economy, International Organizations will come in, and hijack our democracy (even more so, than internal corporations have done), and buy most of our useful resources.

It also allows money to be printed by a private individual, and not the Federal Reserve. Which is a private company, with a monopoly on the American currency. Money manipulation tactics have given many groups International power. The Babylonians, Knights Templar, and Jews, all have/had experience in money manipulation. We need to focus on getting a true leader into power, one who can oversee the use of Government in a way that is beneficial for out people, and not in a leftist manner, that simply makes people do counter-productive things, to not feel useless.

As for the design of Libertarianism, I think it was designed, so that people on the path to truth would instantly hate the notion of a strong Government. Allowing leftists to retain the monopoly on Government they're trying to achieve. The belief that right wing is less government, and left wing is more Government, is a dangerous dialectic being forced onto the right wing.

The truth is that only with a strong, caring, and intelligent right-wing Government, can we ever hope to stop issues such as: degeneracy, open immigration, money manipulation, foreign harassment of citizens, and development of large infrastructure.

I do not hate Libertarians, I was once one myself. I merely observe that they do not consider the two paths of larger Government, and forget the fact that a right-wing Government is the only one capable of using both Capitalism and Socialism as tools, for the betterment of society.

A bunch of alt right memesters started as libertarians, and that's where people get this idea that it's some stepping stone. Historically, though, libertarians generally start out conservative and move libertarian and then eventually move anarcho-capitalist.

>The belief that right wing is less government, and left wing is more Government, is a dangerous dialectic being forced onto the right wing.

Personally I just believe it's history. Because historically, that's exactly what it means, genius. Conservatives have always been limited government. They never traditionally even liked warfare because it cost too much money. Fascism is arguably a form of socialism rather than a right wing conclusion.

>forget the fact that a right-wing Government is the only one capable of using both Capitalism and Socialism as tools, for the betterment of society.

The thing is that once the government "uses" capitalism, it ceases to be capitalism. Libertarians have often being economists or people from economics backgrounds for a reason. Because they know how free markets work and they know that just because there's a big business doesn't mean that's "free market capitalism." Government intervenes and you've fucked it up. It's not at all effective. Whether or not you think capitalism works is another story, but claiming you need government to "use" capitalism is legit retarded. And it shows that you were only ever a meme libertarian. You're the kind of retard that makes the whole movement look like a joke.

It's the ultimate redpill.

I have to wonder, are you always the same guy?
It's like there's always this polish libertarian in every thread mentioning libertarianism.

libertarianism is about being a total slave to the jews and dynastic rich.

cuck

Libertarianism allows you to believe in anything that you want including nationalism. Nationalism doesnt allow you to pick certain stances. So, in matter of freedom, Libertarianism is pretty good.

>Australia

Okay, lets do this.

>
Personally I just believe it's history. Because historically, that's exactly what it means, genius. Conservatives have always been limited government. They never traditionally even liked warfare because it cost too much money. Fascism is arguably a form of socialism rather than a right wing conclusion.

Conservatives were originally Monarchists. The furthest right you can go. Republicanism (the lack of a monarchy) something Libertarians support, is leftist.

>The thing is that once the government "uses" capitalism, it ceases to be capitalism. Libertarians have often being economists or people from economics backgrounds for a reason. Because they know how free markets work and they know that just because there's a big business doesn't mean that's "free market capitalism." Government intervenes and you've fucked it up. It's not at all effective. Whether or not you think capitalism works is another story, but claiming you need government to "use" capitalism is legit retarded. And it shows that you were only ever a meme libertarian. You're the kind of retard that makes the whole movement look like a joke.

I'm not suggesting the use of Mercantilism, or Corporatism. Simply a proper taxation that aligns with the laffer curve, and the allocation of income in a way to build infrastructure, protect the nation, and ensure the perpetuation of the people and Government. You seem to be under the belief that you cannot have a free-market and a strong Government. The fact of the matter is that you cannot protect your nation from outside monopolies without Government protectionism, therefore, we have already established a framework where Government is essential. And within a Conservative Government, we can carefully see where Government would be a blessing or a hindrance.

No. It's anti-nationalist

>open the borders

In what way? In what way is a political ideology that advocates limited to no government about being a slave, in any sense but particularly to jews? Because of capitalism? You realise without protectionism and all that other lovely fashy shit that fags like you get excited about, we wouldn't have giant corporations that are immune to shitty business practice and competition? Government feeds the jew banks. Banks that libertarians would have let die.

Not all Libertarian leaders believe in open borders
openborders.info/libertarians-views-of-immigration/
There are a lot of them who do, so probably makes the general view of libertarianism being in favor of muhammeds and others leeching on your resources. But there are libertarians who defend strict control on the borders.

>Historically, though, libertarians generally start out conservative and move libertarian and then eventually move anarcho-capitalist.

That's not the case for all. Some start out meme communist then move libertarian (eg. Thomas Sowell).

You can have open borders and be just fine if you end the welfare state 100% and allow people to properly defend themselves. The cucks are the ones who rely on government for personal protection. Degeneracy starves in a free market.

Around 15-20 years ago the Libertarian movement went from a constitutional conservative movement to a globalist commie retard movement

>Reddit level of understanding what nationalism means

>Conservatives were originally Monarchists.

Our left-right scale refers to economics. Hence why we have quadrants that add authoritarian/libertarian scales.

>You seem to be under the belief that you cannot have a free-market and a strong Government. The fact of the matter is that you cannot protect your nation from outside monopolies without Government protectionism, therefore, we have already established a framework where Government is essential.

Protectionism is trash and also antithetical to free market. It is inefficient as fuck. It is literally about protecting garbage businesses that otherwise would die because of how noncompetitive they are. So you just allocate resources to a wasteful business for what purpose? For a strong nation?

Also what the fuck do you even mean by "outside monopolies"? Monopolies in a free market only occur when a company is large enough that they can produce at a lower cost and subsequently sell at a lower price than their competitors. If someone manages to produce for even less, they can beat them. If that monopoly raises prices too high, someone less efficient will be able to produce and sell at a lower price. Companies can only get so large before they start losing efficiency, but other than that, the only reason they have monopolies is because they have the best or same product at the lowest price. Which is good. No one should have to pay more for a worse product or more for the same product because of some feeling of pride in their country. That's idiotic. It's also just a waste of resources. Citizens have less money for anything else.

You've betrayed your lack of knowledge about free markets by the very words that you use, so I still don't see why I should take seriously anything you have to say about libertarianism. It's obvious you were a shit libertarian.

It's why if I ever describe myself, it is always conservative with libertarian leanings. You can thank jaded liberals that just want weed for turning what amounts to "LEAVE ME ALONE, REEEEEEEEE!" into some pseudo-commie movement.

This guy is totally based.

It is the only redpilled movement. No other movement has entire philosophical and economic treatises written to create its basis. The only reason it doesn't gain ground is that most people are not intelligent enough to understand it and its solution. It is not fashionable and it it is not easily accessible.

For a society to understand libertarianism the average IQ would have to be in the mid teens. Until that happens it will be in the background.

Most of the guys at Mises Institute are good libertarians. People like Rothbard, Rockwell, Hoppe, etc, all are essentially conservative while being full blown anarchists.

I feel like you two just spend too much time on the internet, though. Aside from the lame shit on the internet and the fags that parade through Libertarian Party conventions, most spokesmen are pretty much traditional. The biggest libertarian podcasters and speakers and economists are usually quite conservative, even of the Christian Libertarian bent. The idiots have always been a loud uneducated minority.

Who says open borders are libertarian?
I'll slap that bitch down right now, we want heavily restricted immigration and ONLY for jobs we can't find anyone to do or is being trained to do.

We want a universal basic income.
Basically you can have a social security system or immigration, you can't have both.

Libertarianism is good though a lot of famous libertarian minds use nazis as a boogyman to shit on nationalism when in reality you need to be in a controlled environment for libertarianism to work. a democracy will lead to socialism as the poor masses realize they can vote thier way out of poverty so too will a free society be over run over time by collectivism.
We must embrace a national identity, national boarders and some way of banding together against threats be it a republic or what have you.
Libertarianism is a pipedream
Libertarianism with a dash of nationalism gives you a system close to that the USA had at its inception and it would be nice to return to that.

>Protectionism is trash and also antithetical to free market. It is inefficient as fuck. It is literally about protecting garbage businesses that otherwise would die because of how noncompetitive they are. So you just allocate resources to a wasteful business for what purpose? For a strong nation?

Protectionism as in protecting against foreign companies.

>Also what the fuck do you even mean by "outside monopolies"? Monopolies in a free market only occur when a company is large enough that they can produce at a lower cost and subsequently sell at a lower price than their competitors. If someone manages to produce for even less, they can beat them. If that monopoly raises prices too high, someone less efficient will be able to produce and sell at a lower price. Companies can only get so large before they start losing efficiency, but other than that, the only reason they have monopolies is because they have the best or same product at the lowest price. Which is good. No one should have to pay more for a worse product or more

Outside monopolies, as in companies in foreign nations that have used cronyism to gain a monopoly. They could easily come to the United States, and gain almost complete hegemony over any market, then start racking up prices.
This is protected against, with protectionism. Unless you're talking about every country in the world being Libertarian, which is just the same situation as Communism, where you need to control the entire world, or else other countries just outright beat you.

>You've betrayed your lack of knowledge about free markets by the very words that you use, so I still don't see why I should take seriously anything you have to say about libertarianism. It's obvious you were a shit libertarian.

That's fine. I just mean to inform you, what happens happens, whether or not you are a part of it. Simply remember to question your beliefs.

I think the best coherent explanation of right and left is right = order, left = disorder or reordering.

Private property is orderly and public ownership is disorderly, with a constant struggle for power over property.

Libtardians are 15 year old pseudo-anarchic pussies.

...

That's disingenuous.

Nah, I just need to get the hell out of universities. Though, I do prefer the identifier of "Classical Liberal" over "Libertarian"

Libertarians advocate for something so decentralised that if it were achieved, I don't see how it would lead back to some collective system. Libertarians aren't against communities, but they just want ones with voluntary association.

Yes and shit like Miley Cyrus and similar is product of government intervention.
You dense cunt.

A monopoly that is granted by dictate is not an effective company and would not be able to capture foreign markets.

>nationalism is about you can't do this and that
>Rule of law is bad
>Rule of law isn't a cornerstone of libertarianism
>Having a strong community and national identity is bad
You know how mad you get when people assume libertarianism is anarchy? that's what you are doing with nationalism.
Nationalism doesn't need to be Nazism.

>muh individualism
>muh jewish bootlicker

>libertarianism is about individualism

That's what makes it liberal trash you special snowflake

>To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them. He is proud of a common heritage and loyal to common traditions. But he regards government as a means, an instrumentality, neither a grantor of favors and gifts, nor a master or god to be blindly worshipped and served. He recognizes no national goal except as it is the consensus of the goals that the citizens severally serve. He recognizes no national purpose except as it is the consensus of the purposes for which the citizens severally strive.
>The free man will ask neither what his country can do for him nor what he can do for his country. He will ask rather "What can I and my compatriots do through government" to help us discharge our individual responsibilities, to achieve our several goals and purposes, and above all, to protect our freedom? And he will accompany this question with another: How can we keep the government we create from becoming a Frankenstein that will destroy the very freedom we establish it to protect? Freedom is a rare and delicate plant. Our minds tell us, and history confirms, that the great threat to freedom is the concentration of power. Government is necessary to preserve our freedom, it is an instrument through which we can exercise our freedom; yet by concentrating power in political hands, it is also a threat to freedom.

find a flaw, Sup Forums

Agreed, user, though there definitely needs to be a stronger emphasis on keeping the federal government bound by its restrictions and to stop exploiting any holes.

> libertarianism is about individualism
> falling for the myself jew

There's no individual m8.
Only nature and your volk.

I challenge you to find a Libertarian party that doesn't support some form of open border or close to it immigration policy.

Well, they are all certainly hedonists.

Care to elaborate?
No, I didn't think so.

...

Is it cucked to care about yourself so much that your nation is just dirt with some buildings on it to you?
The cuck is self-absorbed too, he cares about cummies and things being "hot". He doesn't care about progeny, his family line his history or anything long term.
You need a dash of nationalism to keep any system going. If they don't care it will fall into disrepair.

Libertarianism is cool as an idea but once you graduate high school you'll realize that peaceful anarchy is not possible. At least right now. Nationalism is just a step towards smaller organizational units, which is a good thing. There is a sweet spot somewhere between globalism and tribalism that we have to find and the resurgence of nationalism is a step in the right direction.

libertarianism is about holding your sugar daddy corporation's hand all the time

Don't argue seriously with lolbertarians or anfags, you are only legitimizing their "movement" here. Just have fun in this threads

...

>Keynesianism benefits mostly Jews
>The German economic miracle was the result of Keynesian spending

Nice try cuck

>Don't argue seriously with lolbertarians or anfags,
>Implying leftist haven't refused to address an argument nearly 100 years old which has completely and utterly deconstructed their entire ideology
mises.org/library/end-socialism-and-calculation-debate-revisited

Yes, libertarianism is a lie. Every libertarian is too lazy to study his own proposition, every libertarian knows that he is a rhetorical prick, avoiding any serious debate while jumping in easy picks. They have a way to hide facts and avoid effort while expecting everyone to say that they are not crazy. Well, hurray, libertarianism can only be voted by a dumb population, yet it can only work if we are all geniuses, enjoy being the next big retarded thing after communism. Your ideas are fulled by your lack of morals and extrospection, you are an autist lost in ideas unable to look at the world around you nor plan anything due to your a small forehead, that is why you don't like plans and government. You are the fake-right, you are the liberal without a mask, you are the scum of the Earth who opposes good. Farewell

See, with lolbertarianism we could have some zones where being a cuck is illegal (whitopia) and some where being a cuck is mandatory (interracial breeding grounds).

Libertarianism meme thread?

journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0042366

Libertarianism is indeed proved to be the manly and rational ideology.

Here are some links to it

reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/2ir3ev/has_anyone_written_a_book_debunking_the_economic/

Saying that libertarians are for open boarders is like saying all right wingers are for mass 3rd world immigration.
It's patiently false and only sypported by people who are using thier political alignment to subvert.
>Neocons
>Globalists
>Left wing libertarians (impossible btw)

yes

>Every libertarian is too lazy to study his own proposition
Libertarians have questioned everything, from epistemology and metaphysic, all the way to the way history is interpreted. These are all main steam topics in the libertarian movement.

Low IQ Sup Forums lurkers on the other hand, like yourself, keep yourselves busy with whatever fashionable topic is at hand.

>Protectionism as in protecting against foreign companies.

You just close the country off from competition and inevitably give the companies in your country no good reason to innovate because they have nothing to drive them. It's possible you'll have innovation, it's more likely all the other countries on earth will surpass you and you'll have a lower standard of living. If these companies can't handle the pressure of foreign competition, they don't deserve to exist. If they rise to the occasion, the consumers benefit.

>Outside monopolies, as in companies in foreign nations that have used cronyism to gain a monopoly.

That kind of cronyism doesn't mean anything overseas, though. They may have used cronyism in their country to gain an advantage, but without a state enforcing their monopoly, it doesn't really help them in foreign markets because their state can't enforce that monopoly elsewhere.

If you're talking about backing by foreign governments, deep pockets filled with other people's money doesn't necessarily make a good business. Governments are pretty shit at everything they do. I don't see how being in bed with government doesn't weigh them down. If they are in bed with government, it can only be to artificially grow the company, to, as in your protectionism, prop up a company that can't survive on its own. An organisation like that, no matter how big it is (even "too big to fail") in invariably inefficient and a massive drain on resources. Any free market could compete. Not a problem at all.

>That's fine. I just mean to inform you, what happens happens, whether or not you are a part of it. Simply remember to question your beliefs.

I'm almost 30. I've questioned my beliefs many times and I'm pretty secure in them.

I admire what nationalists are aiming for. You have the ideal, you use a series of bad economic policies in service of this ideal. Except you all pretend like the policies are actually good rather than means to ends.

Is libetarianism is to anarcho-capitalism is what socialism is to communism?

>Saying that libertarians are for open boarders
Of course they must be for open borders. Closed borders are a distortion of the free market, and infringe on the NAP principle

Any non-libertarian on Sup Forums doesn't have a clue about what libertarianism is.

So at least try to be useful fucks and post snek memes, thank you.

>The German economic miracle was the result of Keynesian spending
Do you have zero knowledge of what the German economic "miracle" was?
The German government was praised by Keynesians all over the west (before they inevitably had to start invading neighbors to sustain their Keynesianist bubble and they acted like socialist running damage control "t t that'snot what true Keynesianism is) for their massive government debt spending

Libertarians believe in property rights, if you own the land the conditions of entering that land is up to you.

You don't have to have open borders, that's not like a cornerstone of libertarianism. There are variations my friend.

Yeah the thing is that they haven't debunked it.
They've tried but the closest "debunking" was just the injection of capitalist market forces into "socialism" which have still failed historically.
The fact that you have to link to a sad sad Reddit thread and not any reputable journals is just digging the hole further.

reason.com/archives/2005/01/21/the-man-who-told-the-truth

>That kind of cronyism doesn't mean anything overseas, though. They may have used cronyism in their country to gain an advantage, but without a state enforcing their monopoly, it doesn't really help them in foreign markets because their state can't enforce that monopoly elsewhere.
>I don't know what China is

>You just close the country off from competition and inevitably give the companies in your country no good reason to innovate because they have nothing to drive them

Or maybe you just close the country to unfair competition. There will always be a incentive to improve, because even in a protectionist environment, that means shit when exporting. So any company will want to innovate simply to stay competitive in a worldwide scenario.

>If they rise to the occasion, the consumers benefit.

And if they don't?

There's nothing stopping it from becoming collectivist, no internal mechanics unless you are expecting to have laws that protect the libertarian society and prevent people from being ruled by anything other than the small central and smaller local governments.
And now we are seeing why nationalism and libertarianism can coexist

Libertarians are driven by the idea that they would do well in a libertarian world, much like the guy who comes to school dressed as Naruto thinks he could "totally like, kill everyone in here" with a katana.

>open borders needed for a free market
>would lead Marxists operate without restriction
>most of its thinkers have been Jewish
All that anybody needs to know.

Absolutely

Out of curiosity what happens when someone buys all the land around your house/shops/workplace and charges you insane amounts or denies you entry

Pretty much. They are too dumb to know that communism is pretty much the same thing as ancap. They will vigorously defend one, while attacking the other as impraticable, lol.

>Is libertarianism a cuck ideology?
Yes. It has never been anything else. Literally the political ideology of the coward.

>Or maybe you just close the country to unfair competition
>Unfair
Is a meaningless political term that can means absolutely anything which is precisely why it is used.

>and infringe on the NAP principle

No, they don't. Jesus, when will this meme end. The NAP only says you can't initiate violence. Stop making up shit that doesn't even make philosophical sense. If someone attacks me, under the NAP I can shoot them in self-defense. If I can do that, just maybe your dumb fuck interpretation of it relating to open borders is wrong?

You have no idea what nationalism means. It sounds like you're projecting too. Read a book and come back when you turn 18.

What's wrong with having a sugar daddy?

...

>They are too dumb to know that communism is pretty much the same thing as ancap.
Ancom is attacked because outside of the family unit or above around 100 people it absolutely falls apart due to the calculation problem and is then necessitated by force to continue to exist.

Using "market socailism' and trying to rationalize prices for goods without competition is not debunking. It has been almost 100 years and there are still no answers.

Physical removal, and that would never happen anyway.

>Libertarians believe in property rights, if you own the land the conditions of entering that land is up to you.

And who owns the state? Of course open borders are the natural result of a libertarian society. Closed borders == strong state

>Yeah the thing is that they haven't debunked it.

If you refuse to read about authors that tried to debunk, of course "they haven't devunked it"

But i sincerely couldn't care any less.