Libertarianism requires a society where everyone feels obliged to follow the laws and can trust one another...

Libertarianism requires a society where everyone feels obliged to follow the laws and can trust one another. Libertarian society is the most free and therefore most happy society possible. To achieve this society, we must purge society of non-thrustworthy elements. Discuss.

>Bulldoze all the niggerhoods
>Gas the kicks
>Deport all the mexicans
>and maybe arrest anyone who's a filthy degenerate tumblrina.

Libertarianism will never happen till we purge our society of degenerate filth. Best just to hide behind your goted communities that keep these fuckers out.

So you're like socialists then, just the other side of the coin? For a socialist society to work, people's individuality and selfishness needs to be purged so the non-selfless need to be removed.

...

What's stopping them from coming back? Also I wouldn't equate freedom with happiness otherwise Somalia would have overtaken Denmark in those silly 'world happiness' surveys you see every few years.

THEN WILL COME PUTIN AND TAKE ALL YOU PROPERTY COSE YOU LOL TARDED SLUTS

Libertarians still want limited government or minarchism. So national defense and borders are a distinct possibility.

I agree. You have a fair point there Pol Pot.

Well for any society to work, trust is required.

That's kinda hypocrite m8

Capitalism and libertarianism are incompatible if your goal is a humane society.

Libertarians are like commies, they ignore basic human emotions and desires.

The means cannot be in direct opposition to ends

Hey Mexico, what are those Cartel controlled towns over there like? I'd imagine they would be very close to functioning Libertarian societies. Can you confirm that the invisible hand of the free market fixes everything?

It's more like, as long as you're not physically hurting anyone, you should be able to do whatever the fuck you want. Don't tread on me and all that jazz.

>LOLbertarianism
>the US Mexico border is left wide open
>the war on drugs is forfeited
>free trade with no tarriffs
>El Chappo and his goons are now free to send in huge 18 wheeler trucks full of drugs into the US and sell it on every street corner with no reprocussions
>all that American money is going down to Mexico with the drug cartels
>cartels now how the money to buy even more government officials
>Mexico becomes even more of a shithole
>the entire population of Mexico moves to the US and votes for the same shitty corrupt government they had in Mexico

LOLbertarianism is basically something that a high school freshman would come up with. It sounds nice in a 3 paragraph essay but it doesn't hold up to even a minor amount of scrutiny.

Libertarianism is against open borders. Only the American Libertarian Party is in favor of it.

>Communism requires a society where everyone feels obliged to follow the laws and can trust one another. Communist society is the most free and therefore most happy society possible. To achieve this society, we must purge society of non-thrustworthy elements.

PINKO TRAITOR DETECTED, CLINTON HIT SQUAD ON THE WAY

WHY DO YOU HATE CAPITALISM, ARE YOU A COMMUNIST?!

I'd imagine oligarchs and multi-nationals in Libertarian societies would be totally against the free movement of un-unionised low paid labour....

Some of my values are what some might consider "Libertarian--" I feel like people should be free to do as they please until it starts affecting other people who want no part of it, and I find the American libertarian party's support of decriminalizing hard drugs to be contradictory to that. If someone gets addicted to meth and then beats someone's skull in to get more drug money, then it's not a victimless crime.

Likewise, LOLbertarians like Gary Johnson supporting illegal immigration and being against a border would make libertarianism impossible since there is nothing to stop people who are against the US constitution from moving here and throwing elections out of balance.

Gary Johnson is basically just a liberal Republican masquerading as an outsider. His real goal is to help Hillary Clinton get elected because he has more in common with her than he does with Donald Trump's base of support. And wether he succeeds or fails at helping Hillary get elected, he will ensure that the American LOLbertarian party will never be taken seriously.

>Literally describing socialism but calling it Libertarianism
>Why a Bitch Gotta Lie.mp3
Oh shit, guys. The Red Army is here to take away your freedom. Don't trust a word this fucktard says.

Well, I don't think they'd give their peons an ability to escape to greener pastures.
In a proper libertarian society, once the company is fully staffed, all emigration will be prohibited and wages to workers will be lowered.
Hello neofeudalism.

>only obligation to follow the law is ones own decision to do so
fucking wrong, government and law exists in libertarian society, it's not anarchy.

And the purging concept is more aligned with communist agendas.

Whether or not drugs should be traded should be decided by the free market, not the State. End the Drug War and you take away the main reason why drug traders are shady, violent scumbags: The illegality of their product.

And Mexican drugs become literally worthless because the main thing giving them stupid high prices compared to cost to manufacture was because of the drug laws. Destroying their business model.
MOST INTELLIGENT DRUG DEALERS ARE IN FAVOR OF HARSHER DRUG LAWS.

user, you've arrived at the true enlightened understanding of Molymeme's descent into NatSoc. He's still and has always been a libertarian, he just realizes that there's work that must be done first to make that happen, some of it a necessary evil clashing with libertarian tenets, but ultimately paving the way for them.

The real redpill: What do you think the Third Reich would have looked like after the nastiness of conquest and the strengthening/consolidation of German peoples had taken place? Eventually it would have normalized to a society resembling ethnically insular libertarianism within closed borders.

A strict father might be hard on his children, but his greatest joy is when, grown and and made strong by his teachings, they don't need him anymore. This has always been the end goal of fascism.

If the drugs throw people into psychotic fits and cause such severe addiction that they will mug and murder to get their next fix, then there is no free market solution to that. The only solution is for the police to crack down on it.

Believe it or not the free market does not have a solution to every problem, which is why I am a conservative and not a Libertarian.

Except the drugs that are most likely to throw people into fits of psychotic rage are currently legal. If people were able to legally acquire safer alternatives like, say, weed, they wouldn't want to touch the synthetic shit that sends them to the hospital and the free market would naturally make those synthetic compounds obsolete. And of course, if someone hurts physically hurts someone without provocation, regardless of the reason, then of course the cops would and should deal with it. That's not an issue that the free market has anything to do with. But at the same time, if the drugs were legal, dealers probably wouldn't be able to get away with selling them for exorbitant prices lest they go out of business, so there you go.

There is no perfect society, there will always be citizens that will screw each other over or the government screwing people over.

What should be focused upon instead is one that is most fair for people and allows them to prosper the most.

Crystal meth and heroin should not be legal, period. I don't care how cheap they get, people's lives get destroyed by them, and I'm not just referring to the people using the drugs. You'd be amazed at how expensive of a drug habit a wealthy person could afford to maintain and still manage to have it ruin the lives of everyone around them.

Yeah, meth and heroin are difficult. At least as far as heroin goes, most people who become addicted to heroin didn't start with heroin. Most of them start with legal opiates like Oxycontin and codeine being prescribed to the by the doctor and then, once the legal opiates are taken away, they're left with an opiate dependency and no way to legally deal with it. I think, rather than locking people up for it, we need to open up licenced clinics staffed by trained medical professionals where addicts can get clean needles so they don't get AIDS and where they can get heroin that isn't diluted with other shit so they don't accidentally kill themselves, and stocked with Narcan so they can be treated immediately if they overdose. They need to be given strictly measured doses that get smaller over time so they can ween themselves off the substance rather than quit cold turkey and die from withdrawal-related side effects. This has actually been tried with some success in, I believe, Switzerland. I don't know that much about meth but it should probably be approached in much the same way. Addiction is a serious medical issue with these substances and it should be treated as such. But throwing people in prison with no options for getting clean and fixing their lives is not a solution.

Libertarianism is only possible in an all-white society.

/thread

Clinics for addicts is a good idea and I am supportive of it. However, it's not a free market solution, and I don't think the free market would be able to find a solution to the addiction problem.

Most people addicted to heroine did start with prescription pain killers. I personally know people who have had heroin problems in the past and it always started when a prescription for a powerful narcotic pain killer like Oxycontin ran out. That stuff is very dangerous and it's alarmingly over-prescribed.

They are national socialists that just don't realize it.

Somalia is the way it is because its a failed socialist state, and its mostly run by warlords outside of the capital. In what way can you equate a society with barely functioning rule of law and institutions with libertarianism?