What is Holla Forums's opinion of paleoconservatism?

politicaltest.net/en/

SAGE AND REPORT FOR ZERO EFFORT.

better than cuckservatism or lolbergblattsteinowitzatarianism but might me too moderate at this point, considering all the damage that's been done

You could just hide the thread you fucking autist

> "Now you corporations better behave yourselves…. that's not a threat or a command or anything, again the choice is yours to put people before profit."
Nationalist Libertarianism is code word for libertarianism.

What a straw man.
Why wouldn't your fellow Americans support Americans? Do you think Trump only promotes America first because the government forces him to?
Also there is no "bought" politicians. Intentionally acting against the believed best interest of the nation. And as outlined in the constitution is punished by execution.

You know nothing of the ideology and because you don't know it you alert it must not exist.
Away with you cretin! If you cannot synthesize ideas then you are not compatible with the level of political discourse that is standard of Holla Forums.

I've always assumed people who claim national libertarianism can't exist aren't Americans. If you're American you can look to Jefferson's presidency and safely say it exists.

Whites aren't allowed to leave South Africa anymore

Kill yourself.

It's gay. There is only one valid viewpoint on America. That it is not a nation and that secession is the only way to break it. Any talk of "preserving the republic" or "muh Constitution" is for faggots.

Jefferson strikes me more of a paleocon than libertarian

Is it illegal? Perhaps we could smuggle them.

rude

Because they have no incentive to do so. Aren't you libertarians supposed to be good at economics (in your own minds maybe kek) and understand things like incentives? Americans hate each other for the most part.

Then you can look at how the USA quickly became shit because libertarianism gives way to plutocracy with zero resistance. And then you can see how the plutocracy betrays America because there is no incentive for international money power to care about any particular nation.

Kill yourself.

WHAT IS THIS? YOUR FIRST DAY HERE!?
YOU'RE FIRED GOLDBERG

filtered

This is simply the truth, my man. Libertarianism is antithetical to nationalism. Saying "libertarian nationalism" is like saying "Marxist nationalism." They are contradictions that just serve to show you don't fully understand what libertarianism and nationalism even are.

It is essential the proper route towards American Nationalism.

America is not a nation, so "American nationalism" is as much a contradiction as "libertarian nationalism" is.

see this guy

Also it is not anthetical.
Libertarianism is an imperative on means, Nationalism is an imperative on ends.

A means is not anthetical to an ends unless it includes the ends within it as a stated ends to avoid.

Learn basic logic, and stop using euro definitions of words on an english speaking board.

you just went full retard

exactly.
The anti nationalist libertarian people probably translate it into what every euro language as
Authoritarian Pro-German anarchsim.

We don't need Euros influencing American politics anymore than the jews do.

etymonline.com/index.php?term=nation

America is not a nation, by definition. It is a multiracial, multicultural, liberal, financial empire.

Which is does. Borders violate the NAP and property rights, the most foundational axioms of libertarianism. If you cannot sell your property to foreigners, then the government is encroaching on your property rights. Also, defining rights in group terms, which nationalism does by definition, goes against the individual rights espoused by libertarianism.

This is basic libertarian theory. In both types of libertarianism, minarchism and ancap, nationalism is incompatible with the foundational theories.

Sorry I'm late.
Because they're interests are sometimes divided and in opposition to one another. Libertarianism ideology encourages individual freedom to a too wide of a population, so it's each individual's separate interest for their own which sometimes conflicts with the general good of its people - regardless whether it is intentional or not.

Normally these individuals are tied to a collective identity, which I suppose is where your incentive for nationalism comes in. Except how do you reinforce nationalism and cultural identity without the state intervening on that individual's decisions? If you think that people will willingly choose to encourage nationalism using their own resources, without any leading structure to initialize it, you are putting way too much confidence into the people's hand.

In order to reinforce a sense of nationalism you need a authoritative body to educate its people about the pride of its culture and which traditions are best suited for it, and what values should each person practice. Naturally this authoritative body needs to tell its people which ideas have priorities over others, when to sacrifice their own interest for the good of others. And most importantly you need a state with the incentive to put down any groups or individuals who look into subverting these values for their own interests. So as you can see this "laissez-faire" idea doesn't always align with national interest.

Libertarianism is only successful if every individual is informed of their own decisions and every person is competent, that every person can be brought up and molded to be equal to the best and brightest. The reality is they're not, no matter how much you try to educate the general population to be so - your essentially telling sheeps to think for themselves and then go away hoping their decisions are the right one. It's just less effort if the state or a respectable leader inform its citizens the proper values to follow, instead of relying on them to do it for themselves.

It's also just easier to accept that you can't have two of both worlds.

And if you knew what synthesize even means, you will realize that slapping two names together to make a new one isn't synthesizing. It just makes you look like one of those anarchomarxist faggots who like using the term as much.

was directed to

what you cited is the etymology, not the definition you retard.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nation

>a (1) : nationality 5a (2) : a politically organized nationality (3) : a non-Jewish nationality

This all easily defines White America.

If we go by your narrow view of words, Canada, Australia, and even various European states formed by old warring European tribes and Ethnicity's aren't "nations"

Words have meanings. The modern definition is not the correct one because it was changed by civic nationalist modernist Jews like you to reflect their globalist ideologies (libertarianism, communism, etc.)

And all European nations come from the same stock, so they can somewhat expand or limit the definition. Germanic tribes all come from certain root Germanic tribes, which come from Germanic-Celtic tribes, and so on.

What you have in the USA is entirely different. It is a Judeo-nigger-spic multiracial empire.

And, BTW, this is the biggest difference between classical liberalism and the 20th century Jewish ideology known as libertarianism.

Classical liberalism, which is not the same thing as libertarianism despite what Jewish propaganda would have you believe, is somewhat compatible with nationalism (until it quickly degenerates because liberalism is dumb).

so is Europe one nation then? You arbitrarily navigate through broad genetic distinctions (tribes, to ethniticies to races) without being able to find a concrete line to differentiation nations. The modern definition actually makes sense and more concrete then your nonsensical view of the word.

also you conveniently failed to address where I said

which fits even your broad definition along with the modern definition.

paleoconservatism is the only true conservatism

But, conservatism is really just for people who are too pussy to go full out NatSoc

sage
sage for supporting Bush and Christ