What is the best political ideology?

What is the best political ideology?

idk

I like your pic.

National Socialism

Which is not Fascism btw

I would say your image is pretty accurate. The "best" political ideologies lie outside the mainstream i.e. fascism or libertarianism. Mainstream ideologies are just two flavours of the same shit, and needless to say communism, anarchism, Islamism, and all other related ideologies are pure garbage.

Great pic OP.

I think the best way to describe it is all NatSocs are Fascist, but not all Fascists are NatSoc.

>inb4 democratic national socialism

Explain the differences

>libertarianism
>tyranny js okay, so long as it's a Jewish oligarchy that's doing it!

Libertarianism

Freedom above all

Libertarianism

There is no "best political ideology"

>Bible tappers in pitiful-tier

underrated desu

They have been holding back the right wing's progress for quite a while now

>Implying america is a democracy and not a libertarian republic

Theology

AM I BEING DETAINED?
AM I FREE TO GO?

Weird how conservative in america means loving the bible and hating gays whereas in the rest of the world it just means having smart economic policy

Meritocracy and a bit of Objectivism by Ayn Rand

National Socialists are not fascists

Fascist put the State above all else, National Socialist put their people, their race, above all else

>a libertarian republic
not while half the country are gun grabbing liberals

And alternative way to look at it is that political ideology is inherently bad and government and political movements should be pragmatic.

I think this also has merit, I wouldn't want a government that places ideology ahead of common sense or current events.

So there has to be some balance there.

Libertarianism FTW. I'm voting for them. They aren't perfect but holy hell, consider the alternatives.

libertarianism, except for the open borders policy.
i wish there was something like national libertarianism.

Used to be, we're far more authoritarian now, which has been caused by people on both sides abusing the government to get their way.

>implying the Libertarian party is in any way libertarian

We need the Paul family back

Libertarianism is the most retarded political ideology there is. It cannot even exist in reality due to the conflation rpbolem.

>fascism is best to bring back a nation on its feet after collapse
Post-WWII Germany was not fascist

Too much freedom is often a bad thing.

>National Socialists are not fascists

>implying both aren't inherently nationalistic

A Nation and a State aren't that different, when you get a Nation-state there is no difference.

NatSoc is Fascist by its nationalist and corporatist nature.

I'm more of a Fascist than a NatSoc, but it's true.

>national libertarianism.
THERE'S NO SUCH THINGS AS NATIONS BUT IF THERE WERE, OURS WOULD BE THE BEST, ALSO WE NEED TO STRENGTHEN OUR NON EXISTENT BORDERS

And it didn't get back on it's feet for another 45 years, your point?

Nah rand paul is a statist

three strawmans in one post. try agian, this time without logical fallacies.

Because companies force you to buy there products, right?

And who, pray tell, comprises the state?

Thankfully it's moving in the right direction lately

Try supporting an ideology that isn't a fucking oxymoron

>Fascist put the State above all else, National Socialist put their people, their race, above all else.

user you got it backwards.

National Socialism values the state.
Fascism values people and race + states above all else.

National Socialism can turn into Fascism.

The Weimar Republic was pretty fucked in 1932

It's called absolute monarchy bucko

National libertarianism.

Liberterianism is bullshit, but fascism is awesome, yeah.

Liberterianism would promote the growth of neoliberalism thereby destroying communal stability faster than anything else.

Hurr durr facism so amazing

You faggots realize you would be the first people weeded out
Not to mention fascistic economy would all international trade would be blocked and the entire government would be promoting the interests of successful businessmen while destroying small business and working class, essentially forcing you to always stay in a constant state of poverty with no means to rise above

>libertariansim
WHO
WILL
BUILD
THE
ROOOOOOOOOOOADS


You faggots need to think on a higher plane

Monarchism is the way to go

Ehh?
The fact that half of them are gun grabbing (and yet we still have gun rights) illustrates the point that it's not a democracy
It's more authoritarian, but the governmental system definitely is that of a republic and not a democracy. We have natural rights.

As long as that is true, it's a libertarian republic.

There's probably an ideology that supports personal freedoms for its people and at the same time supports strong borders and law and order. Dunno if its feasible in reality but its a thing.

I feel sorry for America, the democrats are malicious, and a lot of republicans are legit retarded and hugely in bed with oil and natural gas and other corporations

Ancap here but I'll gladly support any right wing movement that advocates the physical removal of leftists for the short term. The whole enemy of my enemy..

Why do you have Fachism and libertarian in the same grouping? They are polar opposites.

i don't think you understand the concept. what i mean with national libertarianism is that everyone in your country should live absolutely free, while nobody is getting into your country. other countries can do what they want to do in their own country.

Ancap

Fuck kings and queens. 1776 best year of my fucking life.

Because they are the two best

>pray tell

It's funny how the idiot who made this pic doesn't understand that his criticism of anarchism applies perfectly to libertarianism. There can only be voluntary taxation under libertarianism.

To illustrate: There is a murderer loose in libertarian town. One citizen of libertarian town, Roger, suggests to hire the Liberty Protection Agency to catch the murderer because the average citizen has other shit to do. But since everybody in town benefits from the murderer being caught, he wants the others to also shoulder the costs. Many soon realize that they can be free riders. Everybody who pays the money is at a disadvantage compared to those who pay. Hence, the costs for those who shoulder the costs will be much higher. Fewer and fewer people will be willing to pay for the agency since they don't want to belong to the dumb guys who pay to protect everybody else. So they either force the others to pay as well (no longer libertarian society) or they stop paying (every man for himself = basically anarchism now).

Whatever Singapore is

>The fact that half of them are gun grabbing (and yet we still have gun rights) illustrates the point that it's not a democracy
That's not particularly true, it's not direct democracy, it's representative democracy. You could have more than half of all americans want to ban all guns, but someone still has to write the bill, pass it through the house and the senate and get the president to sign off on it, and not have it challenged in the supreme court as unconstitutional.

Basically, as long as the representatives don't want something it won't happen, even if the people want it. Conversely the representatives could want something the people don't want (see TPP) and make it happen because they have the legislative power.

I started this comment disagreeing with you, but now that I've written it I realise that you're actually right.

>who will build the roads
wow you really have balls for using that weak non-argument again even tho it has been refuted for years now on Sup Forums.

Not while the supreme court has the end all be all power to eliminate those rights, the supreme court is almost a dictatorship. As soon as they repeal the 2nd amendment the dominoes will fall

>le libertarianism is anarchy may may
You could at least make the effort of googling the meaning of the word "libertarianism".

Not a fucking argument.

>he thinks libertarian = stateless

>libertarian and anarchist are the same thing

Kys

I don't understand why someone would think that the two best systems would be one of authoritarian rule and the other one of libertarian freedom. It seems really strange. I don't get this. There is such a huge difference between the two. Care to explain your thoughts behind the two choices. I want to understand Sup Forums's fascination with Fachism.

The point is that West Germany got prosperous after WWII
Compare it to GDR, it fits the description of a fascist state according to the OP's image really well

>live absolutely free

That's not libertarianism, honey.

Libertarianism = maximum negative rights

Libertarianism =/= absolute freedom.

You can have a libertarian society where nobody is effectively free to do even basic shit.

>while nobody is getting into your country

Whose country? If I own land Y, then I am the absolute sovereign of Y under libertarianism. Nobody can tell me what the fuck I can do with land Y. So I can absolutely allow foreigners to live on it. And whoever owns the roads leading to my land can also decide for himself whether or not he wants to allow foreigners to use it. There is no "our country" under libertarianism. The country becomes a patchwork of land owned by different people and those people decide who can and cannot get on it.

Strasserism.

Anarcho capitalism=/=libertarianism leaf

A state can be comprised of many different peoples. Mussolini thought race was a distraction. National Socialism is solely taking care of the volk above even the state.

I don't need goolge like you, honey. I read the primary literature and even wrote a 50 page paper about it. Libertarianism = self ownership principles + all theorems derived from it.

Libertarian = only a state the doesn't violate the SOP. Forced taxation violates the SOP.

Strawman. A government that doesn't violate the SOP is compatible with libertarianism. However, such a "government" cannot force anybody to pay taxes.

Oh what do you know, the only way to make fascism good is by not saying anything about what fascism is.

Well a state doesn't have to be fascist to get back on it's feet obviously. And west Germany had 'help' from america.

I don't really agree that fascism is that good for recovering countries, not in the modern age.

The dems are in the pocket of the same interests the republicans are. The only difference between the two is what levels of faggotry and taxes you want at any given moment.

>fascistic economy would all international trade would be blocked

dropped. this guy knows nothing about fascism.

you really don't understand libertarianism, libertarians want to preserve as much freedom as possible for its citizens, and it does not mean there is no state or no border. you're confused with ancap.

Libertarians and fascist agree on no points. Fascists don't believe in personal rights. Instead the individual is given responsibilities and rewarded by the government based on their ability to handle said responsibilities. If they are unable to fulfill the responsibilities they are given simpler tasks or executed for their inability to contribute. In libertarianism you can pretty much do whatever you want as long as you don't violate property rights or the nap.

Anarcho capitalism is an offshoot of libertarianism. 99% of the ancap memes apply perfectly to it.

They'll do what they used to do in Viking societies. They'll declare the dude outlaw, which means that he is beyond the protection of any law. Anyone who wants to can step up and shoot him in the face, with no legal consequences whatsoever.

this.

With time, libertarians will degenerate in anarchy.

>honey

>I started this comment disagreeing with you, but now that I've written it I realise that you're actually right.
Admirably reasonable.

>Not while the supreme court has the end all be all power to eliminate those rights, the supreme court is almost a dictatorship. As soon as they repeal the 2nd amendment the dominoes will fall

Yea, dominoes will fall because it's illegal for the supreme court to take away our rights. That's exceeding their governmental authority and we won't stand for it.

A lot of those ancap memes rely on slavery to point out the ridiculousness of anarcho-capitalism, which doesn't make sense as individuals have the right to self ownership according to libertarians and anarcho-capitalist.

>fascism and monarchy are incompatible

found the retard

So? What's your point? People can disagree and those two are valid ideologies even if they are worlds apart.

That's why they are on opposing sides on the pic.

>Fascism values people and race

You might want to read more about the fascism. Mussolini was originally against the racial policies/ideas of the Third Reich.

National Socialism: The State is a means of serving the People
Fascism: The People are a means of serving the State

Not all nationalism is the same and nationalism doesn't equal fascism

Centre right is objectively the best.

The libertarian is saying he agrees on some points in the picture.

If you honestly believe most of these ancap memes apply to libertarianism, then you don't even know what it is.

again, guess who composes the state

>libertarianism god tier

>fascism
>become independent from outside forces

No you don't understand it. Read the fucking literature instead of blog entries or watching youtube videos.

>ibertarians want to preserve as much freedom as possible for its citizens

Absolutely wrong. Libertarians don't care at all about effective freedom.

In fact, slave contracts ought to be legal under libertarianism.

Libertarianism simply means that people initially fully own their own bodies and have all the rights implied by this. They have zero rights to be provided with any opportunities by others. If you are an infant and your parents don't want to feed you, tough luck. You wills tarve unless somebody else comes along and voluntarily takes care of you. Libertarians don't say: "Oh we must make sure that this citizen grows up and is enabled to enjoy various freedoms."

>you're confused with ancap.

Ancap is just an offshoot of libertarianism. It's basically the same except that ancaps say that they don't want to voluntarily pay taxes for a government that protects their rights but instead voluntarily pay private protection agencies that protect their rights. That's literally the only difference.

>and it does not mean there is no state or no border.

If I own land that borders another country, then I get to decide who is allowed to get on it and who doesn't. If I want to let foreigners onto my land, I can.

From a Nazbol perspective

Moderate national populism.

Open borders are OK if you don't hand out welfare cheques

They don't know who the dude is. They only know that there is a murderer on the loose.

Why should anybody go hunt him for free?

Gadsden flag thread?

Why not monarcho-fascism?

Fascism is Communism with a nationalist tint. The State controls all, the individual nothing. Men's lives are nothing but scraps of paper to be filed and used by bureaucrats.

The Führer decides to wage a senseless and brutal war in Russia? You die for it.

The Führer decides that the Fatherland needs more coal? You mine it.

The Führer decides that your specific brand of ideology isn't right? You disappear.

Fascism is an ideology for those unable or unwilling to shape their own destinies in a liberal democracy. They desire a strongman to take care of them and tell them what to do, an existence much like that of a cat or dog.

The only ideology definable as "god-tier" is classical liberalism in all its flavors.

Would be the stankiest dankiest of them all desu

Is it possible to be a fascist libertarian?

Libertarian/Ancap by far.

Nothing beats the freedom to pursue a multitude of alternatives to find the best solution to a complex social problem.

Freedom is coming, people are already getting quite socially libertarian (even though the liberals are regressing to authoritarian) and economically ideas like; Uber, Netflix, Bitcoin, Pokemon GO, Spotify are already showing people the benefits of free'er markets that they can't resist.

And since you initially fully own yourself, you can sell yourself. Therefore, slave contracts must be legal under libertarianism. It makes perfect sense.

Libertarian philosophers, most notably Robert Nozick, agree. Nozick doesn't deny that humans can be owned by others under libertarianism. Raising the question of "whether a free system will allow [an individual] to sell himself into slavery", he responds "I believe that it would."

Source: Robert Nozick (1974): Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers, p. 331.