Why do libertarians never realize you need violence and oppression to actually get anything done...

Why do libertarians never realize you need violence and oppression to actually get anything done? If you're a libertarian then you can't really be a nationalist or a traditionalist so fuck outta here.
>bro I want to gas the Jews and shit but taxation is theft and gotta respect that NAP
>if we just legalized everything and cut off the gibs (and military spending) then somehow we'd save the white race guys

Libertarians are just pipe-dream anarchists.

>go to store to purchase food
>enter checkout line
>pay for food and wave goodbye to cashier as Ieave

At what point was violence necessary in that interaction?

Libertarianism is about the question how violence should be applied. That is why the NAP is at the very core of the libertarian approach as it constitutes that you should not use aggression against other people's private property.

Read up on Hans-Hermann Hoppe, who was mentored by Rothbard.

He's anti-immigration, anti-homosexuals and anti-federal, instead proposing small, self-governed communities that negotiate their own social contract, deciding on what kind of people they allow and which they don't.

Of course you'll never deal with criminals without violence; no one suggests that.

Btw your thread is quite shitty but maybe it's more than bait and you care about the information.

Violence was necessary to ensure a stable community. Do you think the cops politely ask criminals to stop robbing people?
But you can't just expect the NAP to solve everything. Let's say your country is slowly being filled with a group of unsavory people and you want them out. You can't just kill them or throw them out, because that would mean violating their private property without it being justifiable self-defense. But this goes on for 50 years, and this unsavory population rises up and oppresses and/or kills everyone else. See the meaning in this?

That doesn't really sound libertarian, more like a form of direct democracy. Libertarianism is also incompatible with democracy, because 90% of the time people will vote for more welfare and federal intervention - but in order to stop this, you'd need to oppress these people. So it might even be said that libertarian capitalism is impossible, or at least unrealistic.

>See the meaning in this?

Yes, but you haven't thought it through. You think the formulation "slowly being filled" protects you from me asking you how that did happen. Did Germany for example get slowly filled by pure happenstance? No. The state let foreign people enter and did not fulfill his purpose of protecting the private property of its citizens. What's more the state at some point started to violate the private property of it's citizens by taxes that then were given to foreigners.

So who do you think is the aggressor? In my view it is the state that threw down the gauntlet first.

No, the man is literally anti-democracy.

In his ideal world, people congregate based on common ideas, such as everyone agreeing on the libertarian NAP. So everyone who is against that, and calls for welfare or federal intervention, would not be allowed into the community.

Personally I think segregating people into different countries/communities by their political principles instead of the current random system is the solution to almost every problem we have anyway.

Instead of having 100 countries in each of which there are different shades of left and right fighting each other, just put each shade in their own country so that everyone can see which ideas actually work.

Good point, but let's use a different example. In the case of the United States, blacks were brought over by landowners and a large number of Hispanics were already living in it by the time we fully established our state boundaries. Both of these groups are quite troublesome, but it would require violating the NAP to do anything about it.

>people will vote for more welfare and federal intervention - but in order to stop this, you'd need to oppress these people

That's a question about the hen and the egg then, isn't it? Which came first, the democracy or the people? What is democracy other than the rule of a majority over a minority. Why should I be obliged to follow the degree of what others conspired upon? If you and your friends take a turn in driving duty and decide on it by vote but your friends secretly agree to vote against you, would you then consider to continue this relationship?

Democracy is just a form of disguised tyranny, not by a dictator but mostly by idiots.

>be king
>remove oppression
>economic and social boom occures

lel

(Not him, just butting in)

It's a classic situation in which two groups with different ideas and backgrounds got mangled up with each other and are caught in oppression and violation of the NAP.
The historic solution of this problem has been for the groups to split up and for some of them to settle elsewhere.

Now we don't have the land anymore to do that. But you could declare certain states "all white" and certain states "all black" and certain states "expressively mixed" and everyone can choose what suits them best, and exchange their property in their current state for the same property in their new state.
If people feel oppressed, they leave. If they're happy with things, they stay.

>Both of these groups are quite troublesome, but it would require violating the NAP to do anything about it.

I don't know what to extrapolate from the word troublesome. Going from the NAP you should be able to think the scenario through for yourself. Are you bend on expelling certain ethnicities from your state territory and you wonder if the NAP is restricting you in that regard?

What's to stop me from shooting the cashier and taking everything I want?

Do people where you are from do this regularly?

Reminder that Libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalists are filthy statists.

They still believe in state-enforced claims to property, hence why ( ( ( Rothbard ) ) ) (who wrote the Libertarian Manifesto and coined the term Anarcho-Capitalist) admitted that the movement was not anarchist, as it relies on a pre-determined legal code to be enforced by courts.

pic related: Proudhon (the first proclaimed anarchist), famously said "property is theft" over a century before ( ( ( Rothbard ) ) ) and ( ( ( Nozick ) ) ) said "taxation is theft".

>you need violence and oppression to actually get anything done
You make it sound like something which should be planned.

I'm a libertarian and I realized YEARS ago that the only way to fix our government is with a violent march on DC.

Check in with me in 6 hours when I have accidentally killed myself with 2 gunshot wounds to the back of my head.

>Violence was necessary to ensure a stable community
It's not violence. Think of it as self defense. Think about a community with like minded people who believe in self defense and you have a new guy in town who goes around murdering people. Now you can shoot this motherfucker to maintain the stable community because it is self defense. People who don't like the rules can GTFO because it's voluntary for you to stay.

You misspelled anarchists

>admitted that the movement was not anarchist

What do you mean admitted? Libertarianism was never anarchism, it was a synonym for classical liberalism

>See the meaning in this?
I didn't see the second part. Let me address your concern. If you have a tight knit group of people... then you can collectively drive people out by using ECONOMIC forces. This does not violate the NAP. For example if you have a guy part of this close knit of people who owns a power plant that provides electricity to the towns people then, he can choose to not provide electricity to people that the towns people do not like... Do you see?

Everybody else. Who potentialy would be carrying a gun.

Here in Brazil when sometimes a robber gets disarmed and he is lynched by everybody else. And no law abiding citizen here can carry a gun.

So the obviously conclusion is that initiation of agression is not acceptable by moral standards, all that is left to do is to make unacceptable in every single case (when the gov does it).

>knowing nothing about the history of libertarianism

No, the term "libertarian" for the majority of history has been synonymous with anarcho-communists. It was first used to describe anarchist communist Joseph Déjacque in 1857, and anarchist communist/socialist movements around the world from pre-WW2 (Anarchist Aragon, Revolutionary Catalonia) up until the 1970s.

It is only within the past 50 years that it's usage in the U.S. was redefined by a small group of intellectuals, including Rothbard co-founded the Cato and Mises Institutes, was involved in the founding of the U.S. Libertarian Party, and started a revisionist propaganda campaign. Rothbard, who wrote the "Libertarian Manifesto" and coined the term "Anarcho-Capitalist", thought that subverting these terms (libertarian, anarchism) was a major victory over these historically left-wing movements.

Pic related, and also:

"We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical." - Murray Rothbard in Faith and Freedom

>a community with like-minded individuals
In this day and age wanting such a thing is racist, sexist, xenophobic, and islamophobic

Some burbs are pretty nice tho.
Good community and everyone looks out for each other.

The problem with using powerful government structures to get what you want is that they'll sooner or later come to be in the hands of someone else through either general social change or revolution, and the oppressed will use the power you used against you.

Look at the United States, very recently. President Bush used a lot of federal power to get what he or congress wanted done. This was fine when "a guy on our side" was in office, but then when a democrat Obama came into office conservatives realized they made a big mistake with big government. Now democrats had access to the state which they had themselves inflated to serve their own interests.

The only way to prevent this is a small, de-centralized governmental structure where it is impossible for one group or person to capture control over the entire country's power.

You're right.

Another point would be that refusing someone labor would be an (indirect) act of force against them since you are disabling them from acquiring purchasable goods that are neccessary to live. It would be no different if I purchased all of the land around where you are standing and threatened to shoot you dead if you set foot on my property.

Yet another point is that there is no clear definition of what constitutes ownership. How can anything that wasn't acquired through trade be "owned" legally? Take raw materials, uncharted land, fossil fuels, etc. How does one own these things in a way that doesn't involve taking/defending them forcefully against others who might have a claim for the same material?

What is your point?