Suppose Europe establishes a 4th Reich 40 years from now - in order to ensure peace the NAP will have to be enforced and the only warfare that will be allowed between white countries will be ECONOMIC warfare.
Statists BTFO. Doubt they'll recover unless they want white countries fighting amongst each other.
No, the white countries will fight each other, until one group wins. The remaining group will maintain peace through alliance which is a hell of a lot more reliable than a fucking "NAP", as if strong countries give a fuck about that shit.
What is the fucking nap anyway
Non Agression Principle. It's the concept that utilisation of force is immoral.
Non aggression principle. Basically, aggression is wrong
A pro white, peaceful, capitalist NEO-EU should be the goal.
>NEO-EU
No, fuck off, globalism can die in a hole no matter what the banner is.
>Capitalist
Maybe. NatSoc is pretty good to. There needs to be some kind of force keeping society from lapsing back into leftism again.
>A pro white, peaceful, capitalist NEO-EU should be the goal.
How could you make it pro-white?
>the NAP will have to be enforced and the only warfare that will be allowed between white countries will be ECONOMIC warfare.
Isn't "economic warfare" just competition?
We change the dialectic
1) Peace is good
2) Non-white humans are violent
Therefore: We only allow white humans to live in the EU permanently in order to ensure peace.
Not the way libertarians view the economy.
>secretly buy majority of farmland
>refuse to sell food to enemy country
>mass starvation
>purchase land in enemy country
>secede
>recreationally nuke your own patch of dirt
>fallout kills enemy
>buy rights to land near important waterways
>park houseboats to prevent trade
Ancap is hilarious.
>2) Non-white humans are violent
Good luck convincing people of that when the media is owned by a certain group that wants the broad population to believe quite the opposite.
Sure, you could just kill them - in a society that doesn't cripple itself with anarcho-capitalist retardation that is.
Yes. So countries would still compete with each other to create the best or cheapest or most efficient products. Sport would also be another competitive outlet. There shouldn't be a return to the era of one country attacking another with force.
But there are anti-discrimination laws in Europe restricting people's freedom of expression and business decisions. Remove those, give people freedom to say what they want or exclude others from their business premises and people would be less frightened to speak the truth. "Monkey see, monkey do" cuts both ways.
After decades of liberal brainwashing you think that'll happen? Do you see that shit happening in places like the US where there are no restrictions like that?
It takes a lot more effort to disprove a lie than telling it and when the liars have such a vast network in place like they do now, opposing them becomes an impossibility.
You have no solution to this problem.
Decades of brainwashing might be changed by decades of terrorist attacks. The answer to the terror attacks IMHO isn't that Europe should become totalitarian. Instead a simple dialectical change is required along with preserving capitalism.
What a horrible shame if Europe is saved only for it to descend into white on white bloodshed.
>Decades of brainwashing might be changed by decades of terrorist attacks.
How's it working for the US after decades of black on white crime?
>The answer to the terror attacks IMHO isn't that Europe should become totalitarian.
Remove every muslim and there won't be muslim terror.
There, simple. Too bad it's not achievable in your ancap utopia because it'd violate the NAP.
>What a horrible shame if Europe is saved only for it to descend into white on white bloodshed.
Plenty of white traitors around that need to be repurposed as fertilizer.
>imagine a imaginary situation
>you are btfo
Why are ancaps such children?
>Too bad it's not achievable in your ancap utopia because it'd violate the NAP.
Give people and communities greater property rights to exclude Muslims and others they see as undesirable. If Muslims refuse to comply, they can be forcibly removed. Of course, Christiana and ANTIFA communities can do what they want.
>How's it working for the US after decades of black on white crime?
They still have the Civil Rights Act and anti-discrimination laws along with state funded affirmative action programs. Americans are not truly free.
>Plenty of white traitors around that need to be repurposed as fertilizer.
Yes, but I hope there is a long term plan for peace. Capitalism is the best way.
If I haven't done anything to you, and you put a gun to my head and demand I pay you X amount every month you are in the wrong.
Even if you wear a suit, spend time inside a building with letters saying "IRS", and call it tax, it's still wrong because you are initiating force in this example.
So if we apply the NAP consistently we arrive in a stateless society, everything the nation state does is a violation of the NAP.
>Give people and communities greater property rights to exclude Muslims and others they see as undesirable. If Muslims refuse to comply, they can be forcibly removed. Of course, Christiana and ANTIFA communities can do what they want.
And if there are only such communities due to decades of brainwashing you end up with what the US is now. 62% white, numbers sinking. That's not pro-white - and remember when you said that that was the goal?
>They still have the Civil Rights Act and anti-discrimination laws along with state funded affirmative action programs. Americans are not truly free.
Before they had these things, how was it? And if they were free before, how did this things come to be? Could it be that basing your entire society on some freedom pipe dream ends up biting you in the ass because it also includes giving harmful elements freedom?
>Yes, but I hope there is a long term plan for peace. Capitalism is the best way.
It puts the shekel above the people, and I haven't internalized Jewry enough to do that.
>it's wrong
Are you implying that the people who'd put a gun to your head would reconsider because you say "it's wrong"?
The non aggression principle is bad simply because it goes against human nature.
Humans are simply not a non-agressive species.
Isn't that the situation we have right now, though?
White countries are engaging in economic competition and are not attacking one another directly.
I don't understand why Statists are BTFO while they strive for the same results as Ancaps, which is peace and prosperity, be it through opposite means.
lol
fuck
Stop posting this!
>capitalist
>peaceful
Pick one, poor man's 'straya... Pick one and only one.
...
> Spews shit about some NAP
> Posts a flag with a gun on it
You're gonna need better bait than that, sheepshagger.
But that's what separates higher races from lower races. We are non-aggressive DESPITE our lower nature.
Give freedom a chance, brah. Allow a cafe owner in Vienna to ban Muslims. I bet there is at least one. This would send a small, but powerful message. In America, this is forbidden as well. Why is it forbidden? Because freedom was restricted. How did this happen? The Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education started it and corrupted the constitutional. When people compromise on freedom, bad things happen.
A community shouldn't sell their land to the same damn person then.
Disproportionate force. Financial compensation for any proven property damage would suffice.
1871 - 1914
1945 - 2016
Pretty peaceful m8.
It is the situation we have, but it is being rapidly undermined by forcing communities to accept refugees and Islamic populations they don't necessarily want. Give people property rights to exclude them and perhaps they wouldn't come.
Statists have failed to prove they can create sustainable peace and prosperity.
>Give freedom a chance, brah. Allow a cafe owner in Vienna to ban Muslims. I bet there is at least one. This would send a small, but powerful message.
sputniknews.com
What message did this send? What was accomplished by this? Nothing changed, and nothing would change under your system and that means that it can't be pro-white.
>When people compromise on freedom, bad things happen.
Again, how do you deal with the freedom of traitors, cucks, liars?
You can't. And that's why they won and would win again in any system that allows them to do their shit. Why anyone who claims to be pro-white would advocate for such a system is beyond me.
>But that's what separates higher races from lower races. We are non-aggressive DESPITE our lower nature.
Not really, literally the only thing keeping many people in check is the invisible perceived aggression of law and government.
Humans sure, they would and do form groups that they share resources with and get along with, but so do animals.
But just like humans, animals fight other groups over resources, we humans just happened to be smart enough to changethe scale and ways in which it's done.
If there wasn't an overall governor forcing us to get along even economically, you would actually very much see people using wealth and resource monopolies to fuck people over hard.
Its just not in human nature to get along unless a "neutral" party forces them to.
>A community shouldn't sell their land to the same damn person then.
>Their land
Who decides who owns what land? Are we talking Viking times where you get what you can walk around in one day or what?
This is basically Rousseau v Hobbes. White humans have greater empathy and a desire to work together. The evidence for this can be seen in the murder rates per country and the poverty rates. The non-white human majority countries are far more violent and much poorer. This suggests a racial difference that is undeniable.
>2016
Small steps. Just imagine if she could ban non-whites.
>Again, how do you deal with the freedom of traitors, cucks, liars?
This will take time. It won't happen over night. If they no longer have the police to protect them, defend them and enforce their anti-racist views, they will suffer greatly.
Whoever owns the deeds. This is easy for things like houses and recognized private land. But without state interference, it will be in the best interests of communities to decide who owns parks, roads and other public facilities and when community ownership is in their best interests. This can be determined in a democratic fashion and I would imagine community ownership would win out.
>Small steps.
Small steps aren't solving this issue when in a few decades you have a huge voting block of foreigners.
>Just imagine if she could ban non-whites.
Then the same would happen: nothing.
>This will take time. It won't happen over night. If they no longer have the police to protect them, defend them and enforce their anti-racist views, they will suffer greatly.
They'll just have a private security firm protecting them so that no one can violate the NAP against them.
They will never suffer greatly because your ideology wants to prevent them from suffering.
If you want them to suffer at least be intelectually honest and acknowledge that without MAKING them, they won't.
Oh, non whites are for sure more prone to acting on their base instincts, but whites are far from exempt nor are they non-agressive.
>They'll just have a private security firm protecting them so that no one can violate the NAP against them.
That cuts both ways. If they decide to attack a PEGIDA rally, there will be a firefight. If they want to destroy a Nazi business, they will get shot at. If the Nazi era has proved anything, toe to toe, right wingers are better fighters. But when the state intervenes, right wingers suffer.
So if left wingers want to get violent, they will seriously end up risking death. What is the situation today? European police beat up right wingers and right wingers can't fight back.
>Statists BTFO.
But you have a state?
Countries will still exist informally. It's reasonable to expect far closer economic ties within current bordered land areas with close historic, economic, geographic and cultural links.
>If they decide to attack a PEGIDA rally, there will be a firefight.
Why would they attack something that's no threat to them?
>If they want to destroy a Nazi business, they will get shot at.
Why would they destroy something that most likely doesn't even exist because it didn't get a business loan from one of the (((banks)))?
>If the Nazi era has proved anything, toe to toe, right wingers are better fighters. But when the state intervenes, right wingers suffer.
If the Nazi era has proved anything then that you need to get control of tha state to bring forth actual change.
What you're arguing for is having tiny weak and inefficient pockets of white communities that'll be inevitably swallowed by the shitskinned hordes, and that's not pro-white so don't act as if you are.
1871-1914
> Boer wars
> Capitalist exploitation of the Congo by Belgium. and the corresponding genocidal activities,
to name only the most heinous.
1945-2016
> Nicaragua (and assorted interference by US across South America to promote capitalist interests by force and bloodshed)
> Iraq
> Afghanistan (both this and the above are flimsily excused attempts to gain the mesopotamian oil fields)
again, just to name a few.
In conclusion, gtfo beck to >>>/school/
>A community shouldn't sell their land to the same damn person then.
Hold right there, you start cooperating with your neighbors today, then before you know it you wake up in ancom and see your daughter's lemonade stand gunned down by anti-capitalist militia.
Why the fuck there's Ak47 in the pic? It's like the symbol of Authoritarian Socialism not Libertarian Capitalism. It's literally the opposite...
>Up to the community
That will end swimmingly I'm sure. Because democracies just form on their own...
How the fuck is anarcho-communism even a fucking thing?
Anarcho-capitalism is silly but at least could theoretically exist, but the very ideas of communism and anarchism literally conflict majorly.
Fuck why are people so stupid how the fuck do people even pretend to have faith in people as a whole?
>but the very ideas of communism and anarchism literally conflict majorly
I'm not saying most ancoms I've seen aren't retarded, but literally lrn2 bakunin&kropotkin, m8.
A gypsy lecturing people on going back to school, how ironic.
The freedom to own guns. And if someone violates the NAP, to fuck them up.
What if there are people with more guns than you who want your stuff?
>bakunin&kropotkin
Admittedly brief reading shows them to be retards.
Just because someone takes an idea seriously and is themselves not a modern melinnial does not mean the idea is suddenly good or non-conflicting.
Considering communism itself is a bad idea I highly doubt further reading of their thoughts would in any way change my mind as adding another bad idea does not make the idea better nor suddenly actually work.
>Admittedly brief reading shows them to be retards.
I've found "Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution" to be an interesting read, although it doesn't really say much on the topic of politics, other than BTFO the idea that uber-individualism is somehow human nature.
>40 years from now
lol
soon as the recession hits, we're fucked
news.psu.edu
>1c increase due to lack of contrails from plane activity
as soon as industry takes a hit we're fucking dead
google global dimming you unwoke fucks
>BTFO the idea that uber-individualism is somehow human nature.
I can agree with that easily.
the pendulum falls somewhere in the middle of individualism and collectivism if we're talking about the overall human race.
It's why both communism and anarchism ideoligies simply would not work.
People want order to protect them but not to tell them what they can do.
That argument can go ad infinitum. But it's safe to operate on the principle that thieves and psychopaths will only be a small minority of people. Plus, the absence of a police force will require the establishment of mutual assistance with others. That will provide strength.
lol, you guys must be nigger iq
It means the initiation of force is inmoral, not that force is inmoral.
It's not some christcuck bullshit to turn your other chick while you're being coerced
It's not pacifism, it's being civilized with civilized people and civilized with beasts
The only way to counter violence is with greater power
It's completly moral to kill whoever tries to assault you on the context to defend yourself or other people (not beforehand, not after it obv)
It's not an ideology, it's called not being an idiot
>But it's safe to operate on the principle that thieves and psychopaths will only be a small minority of people.
You don't need to be a majority - all you need is target someone smaller than you, and that's very possible.
>Plus, the absence of a police force will require the establishment of mutual assistance with others. That will provide strength.
Bigger groups will swallow smaller ones and eventually we'll end up where we are now.
Your system is not sustainable, why do you support it?
what regulates the states between themselves?
why one don't just conquer the rest who are weak?
why that doens't happen without a world state?
To stop/defend anyone from a current NAP violation
is a diferent thing than arresting and applying justice
statist lack brain to understand anything
Why would anyone in Ancapistan give a fuck about other groups they have no obligations to?
>Bigger groups will swallow smaller ones and eventually we'll end up where we are now.
Not if there is a realization that this is a bad thing. Of course, I only hope this happens. But, we don't allow people like Bill Gates to use their wealth to become Kings, because monarchies are bad and people acknowledge this. All we need is for people to acknowledge that the state is bad.
Why do I support it? I prefer individual freedom.
>NAP will have to be enforced
>enforcing anything without state or similar collectivist authority
Good luck with that m8, you'll need it. Also - 40 years from now there will be no "west", only united emirates of eurabia and greater burgerico.
>Not if there is a realization that this is a bad thing. Of course, I only hope this happens.
What's the point in wasting your time with this unrealistic fantasy? I'd like to wake up one day with godlike powers so that I can make a near Earth but I sure as fuck won't base my policies around that fantasy because that would be pants on head retarded.
>collectivist authority
Communism doesn't work m8. People just pretend it does while the queues for food outside shops get longer.
Fellow Ancap here, ready to throw some commies out of helicopters for the sake of humanity.
because of iq
something a chimp like you can't really visualize
but people smarter than you find smart things to acomplish together, like voluntary association to enforce their common needs
comerce benefits both paries, always
alliance to keep civilized people protected from chimps also benefit both parties
the real world incentives push smart people to make succesful and sustainable choices
all civilized groups always will share their core values and the need to enforce those core values
idiots like you would get shot
Yeah, on the other hand truly individualistic societies comprised of single person living on desert island are thriving.
kick the nonwhites out and embrace Hoppe libertarianism under a monarchy
>individualist society
>pic related
>if I call you names then maybe I'll draw attention away from how unrealistic my lala-land is
How did the US turn out?
No. But I'd be right in demanding reperations and retribution, hurting my robbers would not be initiating force against them. They put the violent standard down first, and I navigate around that.
This would be enforced by social ostracism, check out the concept of DRO's. Dispute Resolution Organisations.
It made a few fatal mistakes, just like every other country with an ideology.
They minimized the cancer of the state.
Why they didn't remove it completely I don't know.
It only grows back, bigger and stronger, feeding on the wealth created by freedom.
The smallest state always turns out the biggest. Like USA.
This sounds a lot like impotent power fantasy, user. You're not some Superman that could just annihilate anyone trying to take from you by force - if you were, you would've done so already.
Wanting a system that would allow for scenarios that require you to be Superman without being Superman sounds pretty dumb.
If I ignore everything else but names i'll get away with it
you're a proud idiot
The NAP will be enforced through social ostracism.
>you're not superman
How about you rebutt my argument instead?
>NAP will have to be enforced
with what pray tell ?
A note: I think everyone here is ignoring humanities amazing ability to corrupt and break any system it tries to implement.
...
>The NAP will be enforced through social ostracism.
This sounds alot like "I-I'll get laid if I defend m'lady's honour!". Most people don't give a shit about their surroundings. Most people don't even have the means to gain information on who to socially ostracize - or do you see the current baddies getting ostracized anywhere in an efficient manner? Go on, tell me how social ostracized Soros and Hillary are and how it hinders them in their endeavors.
It's don't. You showed me a collective of people, most likely blatant gommunists judging by how close they're to each other.
If I see someone shooting at someone why shouldn't I shoot at them for violating the NAP?
And then I shoot back. His mates turn up, my mates turn up, people come to our side, people go to their side, and we have war. What a fantastic society, all so you don't have to pay tax, you selfish entitled little faggot.
so basically the whole NAP falls apart once a wild Putin appears and realises they have the most guns.
...
You would need to know the reason for the shooting. If it looks like someone is defending his property from a drug addict, then you could assume it's legitimate. Otherwise, you have to go on instinct. If you're not sure, best to wait.
America was founded on individual liberty not dogless gommunism.
It's worth a try.
Because you don't know the circumstances and if you shoot simply because he shot, then others would simply do the same to you if they didn't know why you started shooting.
See
>You would need to know the reason for the shooting.
Why? It clearly appears that this person is violating the NAP by shooting at an unsuspecting person.
>Otherwise, you have to go on instinct.
>If you're not sure, best to wait.
So the certainty that the NAP will be defended isn't given, meaning that your entire concept of it falls apart.
Well, tragic but that's the price of not having to pay taxes I guess. Gotta enforce the NAP.
I don't disagree that a good governmental system should be tried.
I simply don't think anarcho-capitalism anything is a good system, and I think systems in general don't take into account humanities power to break and corrupt well enough.
>So the certainty that the NAP will be defended isn't given, meaning that your entire concept of it falls apart.
No one is a psychic. I can't read the mind of the shooter. You have to assess the situation. It's better than seeing someone being shot on the street and you're unarmed because the state bans guns so your only option to to beg the shooter not to kill you next.
no police force so thieves and psychos will be "at a minimum" lol no
look at how disbanding government worked in Iraq, like I said it will be the guys who get the most guns who end up being in charge
You can't really compare Arabs to Europeans in terms of societal conduct.
>No one is a psychic. I can't read the mind of the shooter. You have to assess the situation.
Should I take my time until he guns down his target?
Also, if no one's looking, why shouldn't I kill him for his nice gun?
*Anarcho-anything
Godamned auto correct.
>Well, tragic but that's the price of not having to pay taxes I guess. Gotta enforce the NAP.
And let's not forget all those people who would end up paying to be on another's land to the point of slavery to avoid getting shot on that or another person's land.
But hey, totally better then taxes.
>Also, if no one's looking, why shouldn't I kill him for his nice gun?
NAP. Also, most people think murder is wrong.
So, if you're not sure, you wait for him to finish. You draw a bead on him or point your scope at his head from behind cover, and you ask for an explanation. If it isn't good, then pew pew.
NAP will be defended even if I a guy who is even more nigger than you kills you without leaving a trace and I get away with it.
NAP would still be inforced.
Defending people from agresions and prosecuting criminals are to do things, case by case.
NAP doesn't grant a miracle solution, it grants a moral approach.
You're too nigger to stop making your own implications.
How would you even tell people that NAP is in effect?
If the majority of the population are Muslim, then they'll ignore the NAP and turn it into a caliphate.
>NAP.
Not going to stop me, especially not when I see him violating the NAP.
>Also, most people think murder is wrong.
He clearly doesn't, otherwise why would he target his gun at another human being? I'd be doing society a great service if I kill him.
>So, if you're not sure, you wait for him to finish. You draw a bead on him or point your scope at his head from behind cover, and you ask for an explanation. If it isn't good, then pew pew.
Nice roleplay. Realistically I'd blow his head off and then take his gun and sell it in my used gun store. Nobody would know that I killed him. If someone knew, I'd just claim I was upholding the NAP.
This is what a lot of people would do in ancapistan because it's easy and profiting. And it's also not sustainable which might be the reason for not one single ancap country on this world existing.
>y-you're a nigger
Sorry but namecalling doesn't make people like that disappear and since all you have to oppose them is namecalling you can kinda see how that system's going to be shit.