Freedom or Anti-Degeneracy?

My political views have developed away from the teenager leftist bluepill zone. But I've not been able to confirm my position properly between being conservative and being libertarian.

On the one hand I hate degeneracy and all those who destroy good culture and civilisation with it. On the other hand fuck some authoritarian "pick up that can" government taking away things like gun-rights and suppressing freedom.

Did anybody else on Sup Forums run in to this conundrum? How did you make up your mind and consolidate your position, and what is that position?

Authoritarianism is always wrong in the long run. Sure they can get rid of unwantables, like fags, commies, slavs, muzzies, etc. However eventually the undemocratic and unfree power gets taken over by self-serving bureaucrats.

Libertarian right is the only true solution. The Free Market must be protected. Regulations do not work and taxation is theft.

Tempting, but it means you're aligning yourself with and endorsing the degenerates, surely?

> "pick up that can"

I fucking loved Half-life, it was ingenious the way they did that. It gave context and taught the player a fucking mechanic, god damn I loved that game. But back to topic.

>On the one hand I hate degeneracy and all those who destroy good culture and civilisation with it.

I can't speak for the UK, but in the United States destruction of culture and civilization came about from the United States government taking control of education and then getting subverted by cultural marxism, that's why schools are over-overwhelmingly left. Another thing that adds to the cancer is that we have a welfare state, which entices a whole lot of South Americans and Niggers into coming to this country and voting for left wing politicians (Who inevitably give them more)

Again, I can't talk for the UK but what happened here in the states was pretty much the fault of the government

This
You can't just give the burecrats a kill switch and make them point it at your enemies, they might in turn point it at you. Plus if one side isn't heard almost universally no sides are heard. Look at China and NK, they're TOTAL shitholes because of both of those and nonody in their nations care.

How do you solve the degeneracy problem then? If you don't believe in authoritarianism, you first have to define degeneracy as separate from the freedoms you want and to prove that yours aren't degenerate, and then find a political movement that encompasses that view - because as far as I understand it Libertarianism is generally live and let live, degenerates do as they please, just with a freer market than the hippies.

Define "Degenerate", because back on 8 Sup Forums "degenerate" was just used as a word for things that those faggots just didn't like. So for the purposes of this debate, what is degeneracy?

The biggest dilemma I have when it comes to deciding how I think a state should ideally be run is the existence of other states.

In a world without external threats or competition, a state following classical liberal virtues seems ideal to me; maximum liberty for citizens is the greatest aspiration.

However, we exist in a world of competing nation states struggling for finite resources. That's the monkey wrench when it comes to policy because you can't guarantee the future of your own state without some strong government institutions to combat extern threats.

I'm going to do my best and go with anything that is destructive to the things we associate with civilisation. economic prosperity, safety, technology and culture that takes skill/talent/work.

Smoking might be degeneracy because it leads to early death, broken families, people not working as hard if they're distracted by addiction. Teenage pregnancy too because it results in children being born into a quality of life that is not the maximum their parents were capable of and so are less likely to do well, etc

> with anything that is destructive to the things we associate with civilisation. economic prosperity, safety, technology and culture that takes skill/talent/work.

Okay, I'll take that definition. (Granted I may use it on a broader scale than you might, but hopefully I've got the right idea)

>Smoking might be degeneracy because it leads to early death, broken families, people not working as hard if they're distracted by addiction.

Unfortunately we just have to understand that we don't own the bodies of other people, they do. They might make dumb decisions with their body which can inevitably hurt others emotionally like family and loved ones, but at the end of the day he has right over his body.

But back to the core question... In the next post because I want to bump this thread...

Just a friendly reminder that if you're not in the far, upper right hand corner, you are a 100% confirmed piece of CuckShit.

So how to have a free society without degeneracy? There are some certain ways you can try, you can maintain a more homogeneous nation, which is then practically guaranteed to hold on to the values that helped build up their civilization in the first place without cultural intereference, which is a good way to help solve the cultural problem (without the help of government). One important thing to know about culture though, is that there will always be "degenerate" people that you will look down on such as drunkards, druggies and idiots, that's just a part of every society. We're not all equal, and in a free society such people must be left free to feel the consequences of their decisions.

We can certainly stop such degeneracy as vandalism and thievery which is anti-economic prosperity and safety and technology. That's just part of maintaining a free society.

You could also not import low-IQ migrants... That would help a lot in terms of maintaining a society

Sounds like the way Japan has tried to conduct its affairs. You make some good points.

Degeneracy is the price of freedom, and it's a price I'm willing to pay

I'd ask why does the government need to be involved in curbing degeneracy?

confirmed

also we should give up our guns

If there was true freedom of association we could cut down on degeneracy without the govt

Yeah, if we could still segregate and the welfare state didn't exist life would be pretty nice.

Because the degenerates will just ignore things like social pressure. I don't think they care that society frowns on them. Can't really rely on businesses to do it either because all they care about is keeping customers happy to gain profit, that's why sponsors pull out of backing a person who says something controversial immediately, because they don't want the progressives throwing a hissy fit at them and boycotting their products for sponsoring somebody who says something against degeneracy.

And what happens when that government decides something you do/believe in is degenerate?

Which is the problem this thread is trying to choose between. It's difficult to curb degeneracy and keep freedom, so what's the solution? We've either got to be willing to sacrifice some freedom and become authoritarian or we've got to stay libertarian and accept degenerates as just exercising the same rights we have.

Direct democracy for purging degeneracy.

ie. ramp up "societal pressure" to "lynch mobs"

> Direct democracy

Cancer.

I was using the term metaphorically you absolute moron

The free market is not perfect. It's an amoral system that favors efficiency and surplus no matter where it comes from.

I've thought about it before and really it comes down to a culturally and racially homogeneous society, anything that detracts from this relationship is degenerate, in essence.

My example would be early America through maybe the 50's or so. Capitalist, right wing, gun rights, free speech, etc. Yet it was a white, christian nation with limited immigration from inferior countries. The people trusted each other and were more comfortable and efficient because of this, that's just the human way. Tribalism is a fact that liberals ignore, and that's the answer to striking a balance between cultural degeneracy and authoritarianism.

So say I'm the leader of a country right, and it's completely libertarian, with a free market and gun rights and legalized drugs and the like. Well, I would implement policies that would prevent degeneration of the society through strict immigration and maintaining the culture through some avenue like, say religion. Don't tax the churches, talk about it in speeches, advocate it, but don't press it through authoritarian action. It would work out in the long run as a cultural cornerstone.

That's literally the approach that was taken by your country and look where you have ended up

Face it, authoritarianism is necessary

>everyone should be allowed to rape dogs and kids
that's the society these cucks want

>Again, I can't talk for the UK but what happened here in the states was pretty much the fault of the government

No. It was the fault of the people for not rooting out jew communists when given the chance. For allowing foreign influence to dictate our policies.

But see my friend it is not, because around the 60's or so there was a bill passed by one of the Kennedys I believe that got rid of legislation putting immigration limits and quotas on certain countries. So instead of 100,000 Europeans and 300 Mexicans, the numbers were flipped and hell even Africans were thrown in the mix. The culture and racial makeup was permanently altered, and this was due to the weakness of politicians driven by globalism and cultural marxism. So it DID work for America, until a series of mistakes were made. By the government, (authoritarians) as well. So I would disagree that it is necessary.

Anti degeneracy. For me an antidegenerate society is already a free one. There is no freedom in doing drugs, going to raves, having 20+ sex partners and so on. In a homogeneous, degeneracy free society I'd be the same well-functioning citizen as I am in this society - just happier as I know that there is a bright present and future.

Furthermore I think a very authoritarian government in a degeneracy free society seems implausible. As society destabilizes, so does the grip of the state tighten. Degeneracy causes oppression, as a degenerate society couldn't sustain itself naturally.

>Libertarianism is the same as Aananarcho-capitalism

I struggle in finding any "natural" justifiable moral grounds for violation of ones rights for the personal gains of another person in anyway shape or form. This in of itself is a major basis (if not THE major basis) of libertarianism, in that there is no justification for coercive force against another individual by an individual or group/state.


The issues of degeneracy comes down to what you mean by it. If you mean Sup Forumss complete hatred for gays and such, it holds little to no water. For those who define it as individuals who bring demise to western society, then they can be dismissed there as enemies of the natural ways of things (broadly speaking). Its pretty clear why it gets confusing where to draw the line between degeneracy and freedom.

The only way to have both freedom and no degeneracy is by regressing the technology accessible to the masses. So traditional living is necessary for survival.

Technology ks really the main enabler of degeneracy. Before the 20th century the worst behaviors were kept in check by physical limits.

Ban the internet and you have a country thst is both freer and more privacy and less degenerate.

bump