Libertarians vs. Kikes

Lolbergism is a kike ideology.

That's the biggest issue I have with it. There's no practical examples of it, and the society sounds like a happy dream.

But the free market and small govt arguments are compelling. I'm just trying to resolve between the natsoc and libertarian perspectives.

Killing elites would be deemed self defense so no one would do anything

Libertarian checking in, I think this misunderstanding that pol has is they assume we're all extreme libertarians rather than simply lean libertarian. I am a nationalist libertarian, I don't really care what you do so long as you don't harm others and everything is consented to between parties. I hate big government and the nanny state. But as a Brit I like the concept of the NHS (But wish it was leaner and better managed, and that fat people had a three strikes your own your own rule) and police and fire departments. All pretty common sense stuff.

I think we're adult enough to know what to do and not to do. If I don't wear a seat belt and die horribly that's my business, it shouldn't be illegal.

Anyway, your example is flawed. In times past there was little tax and lords and feudal commoners would go on as normal. With an external threat they'd be called up, sort it out and go back to it. The point is he rules always work if evey one plays fair. If they don't, you gotta boot them. It isn't liberal tier stupidity where they assume everyone is happy and equal. The reality is their open border shit would work if every one was white and western. But they aren't, they don't play by our rules, so shouldn't participate. You are all being too black and white in your interpretation. Go to middle ground, not extremes.

they'd end up getting killed because they can't survive in a culture of honor. Jews require laws(magic) in order to subvert nations. When the US was a culture of honor Jews were weak. They were the backbone of the large concentrated effort to convert the USA into a culture of laws. Just look at Europe, same thing.

When I say libertarian, I mean

that is the extent of my definition.

tbh i dont want a free market i want a fair market. A gov in a natsoc society can be rather small but it needs to be authoritarian (authoritarian=/=totalitarian) so it can maintain a fair market. For more natsoc economics i can recommend Gottfried Feder - The German State On A National And Socialist Foundation
Dont let the "Socialist" part of the title scare you it's no way near of what it sounds like.

As long as they don't have influence over laws, then they won't be able to maintain a monopoly.

The whole point of regulations, inflation, etc. are so corporate executives of large corporations can be lazy about their inventory, sale projections, etc.

If these regulations weren't in place, then they would fail more. They would be forced to cater to the needs of their consumers, in fear that a competitor will do a better job.

The Standard Oil "monopoly" was propped up by tariffs. Even then, there were around a couple hundred oil refineries competing with Rockefeller. When Standard Oil tried predatory tactics, they lost a lot of market share; competitors used to just buy all the cheap oil and then repackage it as their own when S.O. raised their price back up.

Idk, though, maybe people rather be controlled by elites in one form or the other. It's really about the general population being retarded enough to follow policies put forth by elites.

So, you're a Classical Liberal?

Stopped reading there due to retardation. That's not a thing

Don't listen to that user. He's a retarded faggot

Why do you need an authoritarian government rather than a Civic Republican one? This is the real problem we're having: the kikes have convinced us either you're full lolbergtardian or full NatSoc (or commie). This is a bullshit false dichotomy built in order to destroy the very healthy (and very, very American) Republican Tradition

The Libertarian movement, nurtured in part by widespread disgust or disillusionment with the two major parties and in part by its adherents' yen to be associated with an imagined political and intellectual elite, has expanded in recent years. Most new recruits seem to be gathered from that somewhat nebulous group known as Yuppies: television-weaned, city-centered folk under 40 whose major pursuits in life are a full enjoyment of the standard items on man's pleasure menu, as well as rapid job advancement in some high-tech or otherwise glamorous industry, interrupted occasionally by est encounters, visits to the racquetball courts, and libertarian meetings.

Libertarianism fits the spiritual vistas of many Yuppies like their Calvin Kleins fit their bods. It combines comfortable elements from their radical youth with the nervous economic conservatism of their maturity, and all of it is dressed in the flattering garb of profound philosophy.

The high priestess of libertarianism is the late Ayn Rand, a one-time Hollywood screenwriter and the author of long novels dramatizing her philosophy, known as "objectivism." The salient thesis of Randian thought is that the individual human mind is the prime mover of all progress, and anything that would fetter or restrict it is part of a "collectivist" drag back to primitivism.

Government exists – or should – solely to enforce contracts between free individuals, and perhaps to provide for the common defense, although no one is obligated to pay for the defense or to serve in the armed forces. Libertarians in practice strongly oppose drug control, immigration laws, gun-control laws, social-welfare programs, and taxation. They favor unlimited and uncontrolled capitalism in all its forms.

The type of society favored by libertarians seems to be a sort of loosely-contained anarchy: each intelligent, self-seeking, rational mind goes quietly and peacefully about its business, pursuing its own objectives, not disturbing or interfering with the objectives of other free and rational entities. Government, such as it is, will be called upon only to arbitrate contractual disputes.

While any citizen so inclined can ship himself off to boot camp in order to keep the armed forces going, the ultimate defense against "collectivist" oppressors is . . . an elitist strike. Those possessors of the freest, most rational, and most inventive brains simply will refuse to continue to exercise their competence and ingenuity in the service of "collectivists." After their strike causes the lights of civilization to go out, lo, the objectivist heroes will get into harness once more, having demonstrated to the unappreciative herd the errors of its past ways.

da fuck is a "Civic Republican"

Rand manages to impart a certain appeal to these concepts in the pages of her emotional romances. But the entire movement, from its seminal ideas to its political expression, is a trap for deracinated fools. "Objectivism" is a soul-state for urban Americans dominated by a highly personal and economic Weltanschauung. It is not political thinking at all, merely a thinking about politics. It is, at bottom, a poltroonish mirage for those who will not face the grim facts about a world teeming with hostile non-Whites (who would slaughter with glee all elitists "on strike") and an America rapidly sinking into a multiracial quicksand. The libertarian is oblivious to the fact that present racial trends, if permitted to continue, will at the very least put an end to his treasured concepts of unlimited frontiers, endless space, and wild freedoms, those nostalgic mind-sets that abet the growth of puerile nonsense such as libertarianism.

Rand and most of the early objectivists were Jews; thus the preference for an anarchic bourgeois condition and the primacy of economic thinking. The Jewish communist and the Jewish libertarian may seem to be in violent opposition, but with the emphasis on the material and on what is considered to be the "rational," the two are alike, though one may seek the end of "justice" and other that of "freedom." Both are hostile to movements built on national, racial, or cultural instincts.

To a libertarian the "mind" that creates civilization is spread about indiscriminately among all races and peoples. Racial idealism, cultural dynamism – these are invalid concepts that in the "free marketplace of ideas" will find new buyers, say the libertarians. And so it is that Ayn Rand once wrote: "Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism." 1

Those who are attuned to facts, to reality, and whose living, race-based impulses are Western, Faustian, will smile – horselaugh, perhaps – at Rand's transparent stupidity and at the pathetic childishness of her followers. Were it not for a tax-supported police force, and for the tax monies that go into the monthly welfare checks, the impoverished urban non-Whites would rise in the night to murder all objectivist Yuppies faster than one could say, "Who is John Galt?"

Let the libertarians continue to weave their fantastic, gossamer webs. Let them add their bit to the chaotic factionalism of America, this bizarre whirlpool with a hollow death at the nadir. The static rationalist concepts of prissy "objectivists" will drown in the steaming vortex; schemes about going "on strike" against mindlessness will bring one day only a sad, head-shaking smile to those who once held them dear.

Libertarians quack loudly and long about "rational thinking," but in reality their program discourages fact-based thinking on the part of intelligent Whites, a few of whom might otherwise be capable of thinking their way through to a realization of their dire straits. Instead, the libertarian movement offers them only a sugared, gingerbread ideology, which will crumble instantly at the first full-blown, feral blast of the dragon's breath.

I guess it's like a civic nationalist, only even more cucked.

I know the basics on national socialism, and it seems like a system that worked in practice, and has a viable and efficient use. However I am also attracted towards libertarian principles. This is the basis of my internal struggle.

But getting back to the main question, would it be reasonable to assume that in the imaginary libertarian utopia, the population would simply refuse to do business with a coercive force? And this would be on the basis of the population having perfect information, and placing value in the protection of the existing social order, to retaliate against a significantly dangerous power grab.

I guess all of this reiterates how difficult this would be to put into practice

Don't post copypasta in my oc thread

so you're just a cuckservative that doesn't want to be called that?

your ideology promotes selfishness yet you expect everyone will act like saints. you compare your ideology to monarchy in the past yet exclude all the reasons why it worked.

they did not abide by this, they actually cared about other people than themselves. Cuck.

Is this copypasta? Because if it ain't it should be.

Doubt it. There is a rather small minority here on Holla Forums that i feel like have spent the time to truly understand it. Watching tgsnt and reading some screencaps is not knowing the basics of it.

It's copypasta from the great Dr. William Luther Pierce himself.

over9000 hours MSPaint

No wonder why he's called "Pierce". He drilled a new asshole to Rand.

I'm just amazed of all the new terms and -ism:s that keeps popping up these days.

Based Pierce never does a mediocre job.

I figure I will respond as the statist shills seem to be out in full force.

is this example set as if we had a free market tomorrow?

Ok so rich (((people))) set up a shop in a libertarian society

Ok so lets assume that these people had become rich or inherited their money. They are not the only shop in the society and the second their competitors get wind of what they are up to they will increase their price to the point of pricing the group out of the market. Not to mention their competitors will do everything to besmirch the name of the group to increase their own market share.

when the news gets wind of their plans the greater public and owners of large land shares and companies will oppose their goals. Not to mention military technology in a free market would be a very expensive thing to acquire, as there are no large buyers, like states, to incentivise its production. The exposure this group takes on while trying to build armies will expose their plan and people with vested interests will do what they can to stop their plan.

Competition is the only safe guard you need. In a free market everybody is a competitor and has a vested interest in not letting one group monopolize a market.

I used to be a libertarian, then turned to Nat-Soc, but still value private property (That doesn't conflict with Nat-Soc, enhances it, really)
The second I became red-pilled, was when I realised, that even the best economic system can't work, when it doesn't hold nationalist and traditional values, I.E, people don't trust each other and are dishonest, and care only for MONEY, but not the lasting things MONEY BUYS. So we need to first work on our philosophy, and morality, and then figure out what economic system to use.
TL;DR: Get rid of (((them))), then you have a clean slate, and even, if you want, practice libertarianism.

Property was always respected in the Third Realm, the government even assisted in returning German property to German people after it was stolen by jews through economic coercion during the Great Depression.

Not a single German business was nationalized by the NSDAP and German businesses nationalized by the Weimar Republic were re-privatized by the NSDAP.

That is not the argument here.

Anyway, it is easy for you to say, when given a similar scenario in the natsoc state, that 'oh, the authorities would step in and prevent such economic disaster from taking place, maintaining the best interests of society'.

This sounds reasonable

NatSoc always valued private property.

...

holy shit the delusion. libertarians are to anarchists what socialists to communists. truly a lost people.

Didn't they operate a nationalized [war] industry?

No.

We'd get rid of every advantage the government is giving them over their competitors. If they can still maintain their power purely using their own merit, they deserve it.

Even though im not a fascist or very fond of fascism for that matter if i recall correctly mussolini had some good points on libertarianism in his doctrine of fascism

No, they don't. Kikes don't deserve an ounce of power in gentile societies no matter how you think they've "earned" it, they should be expunged altogether.

I know, which was why i wrote that Nat-Soc enhances property, because it protects it. If we want to rally libertarians to our cause, then just let them picture Nat-Soc as libertarianism with realism about modern times. But don't call it Nat-Soc, just let them think about an ideology that feels as strongly about freedom, but also protects you from outside sources, unlike free-market does. They'll figure it out. I know I did.

Individuals have a right to make as much money as they wish, so long as it is obtained through voluntary transactions. This is to be considered universal regardless of whether that individual is one of "us" or "them".

Is the new "I was just pretending"?

tbh if they are still able to subvert white societies in an ideal libertarian environment, then we probably deserve it for being retards.

However by maintaining an incorruptible economic system with limited government power, their options would be extremely limited.

during the war they setup (like most countries do in war time) a system that is kinda like the economical system in a fascist state, were the state and corporations closely collaborates. I cant say for sure that all were privatized but all the major producers were.

That is idiotic. Your race comes before everything else. If an outsider is prospering and drawing wealth out of YOUR race, then you need to put a stop to it, because the outsider is the ENEMY and working against YOUR PEOPLE. Why would you embrace such suicidal lunacy as to decide "well I guess the enemy deserves to win?" Fuck that, you should beat them at all costs and by any means.

An ideal libertarian environment is specifically designed, by kikes, to create a situation where they can subvert and destroy our societies. We would be retards who deserved it if we embraced libertarianism to begin with.

Truly, lolbergtarianism is the thinking man's political ideology

tip tip tip tip tip tip tip tip

Civic Republicanism isn't new, and it has nothing to do with the Republican Party. The fact that you assholes don't know what it is, just shows the state of education today.

The United States was based upon Civic Republican principles, pic related.

Libertarianism is the "new" -ism

Question for National Socialists and Fascists:
How the fuck do you implement your ideals and politics within the bounds of the Constitution?
At least try to brainstorm this.

Ok, so i ask you again what is "Civic Republicanism"? Because if its what the states are based upon it doesnt sound that promising.

It's a really long answer but I'll try to condense it.

In a stateless society, everyone would know of the dangers of a state, and mass accumulations of armaments and troops would be met with economic ostracism, investors would pull out of such a business endeavor, and those people would be blacklisted for the rest of their lives.

But just consider how much it costs to run the US government in a day. Like 10 billion dollars. A state on the scale you're talking about wouldn't be possible in a stateless society, and partly too because there's no tax-base.

Real natsoc wont even work in the US so dont even bother with that.

According to jewoogle anyways

Look up how much of that cost is pure interest to jews. You will be amazed x10.

It is. And it's only a little more promising than it sounds. It works, yet doesn't, like anything we've ever had except having a God Emperor, and probably the best so far besides the aforementioned, for all that it is worth.

And do what? Abandon the country? Never.

Honestly, you don't.
You'd have to create a new constitution, with a new government.
Also, you shouldn't have to.
If the scourge of globalism and those who create it were removed, the US would probably be perfect. If it were populated and governed by people like those who wrote the constitution, there wouldn't be a problem.

Spotted the cuck.

I don't know what you want me to say. Maybe you should just take a little time and read?

plato.stanford.edu/entries/republicanism/

Republicanism has been systematically repressed since (((european 'theory'))) was brought to the US in the 20th Century. You should read up, so you can stop being confused.

nonono i was just pointing out that real natsoc isnt possible in the states ( at least imo). You have to come up with something that fits you.

ty for the link. thats what i wanted

this is a good start

this is an edgy retard

Disagreed. My nation comes before anything else. The nation is the extension of the tribe is the extension of the family is the extension of myself. In order to maintain a nation, it is also important to preserve its racial and cultural identity, and that's where our philosophies converge. Ultimately we all want a better society for our future generations.

The issue I have with is that it assumes Libertarianism to be the sole brainchild of Ayn Rand, whose ramblings, anecdotally, I have never read. It also assumes that Libertarians are impartial in questions pertaining to race, when in fact empirical evidence clearly shows a biological disparity in terms of intelligence and other factors, when one compares one race with another. I don't care what the phony libertarian rhetoric of the leftist liberal kids is, but scientific evidence is on the side of the redpill approach.

You're welcome. There is a really good - and very small - book called "What the anti-federalists were for" which also explains the Republican Tradition well, and its relation to the South

I hope you get stabbed by a bunch of politicians, you pretentious law school faggot.

never a refutation only a dismissal. The more things change the more they stay the same.

Maybe when America balkanizes, we can take a bit of the land and make a NatSoc state.

That's not my point. In fact, I find the Constitution wholy unappealing, and the entire reason why the U.S. is fucked today. I just want already self-described Fascists/National Socialists to explain what their view for America is.

That's why I'm trying to find what policies we can use between Libertarianism and Fascism to take power. We need RWDS, we need degeneracy protected by the 1st Amendment to be overturned, we need freedom of association, we need minorities to get the boot either fiscally or physically so Whites don't go extinct in their own populated lands. But, we also need the 2nd Amendment, freedom of expression, the American way of life, etc. to remain. I'll never give on on America.

Look faggots a libertarian society is possible if we have a culture that places honor above law. We don't and kikes worked to make it this way. You need to understand this. Kikes cannot survive in a honor culture.

give up on*

Why is almost every refutation to anarchism "i can't even"?

Why not? Because the constitution says so? The constitution also says the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED yet numerous gun control laws INFRINGE upon your right to keep and bear arms and so the constitution has already been ignored when lawmakers see fit.

Just because the constitution says something, doesn't mean anything. You can make a law that ignores the constitution just fine. And if the constitution stands in the way of the wellbeing and racial security of the white American people, then it must be overruled.

Isolation with regards to other countries (no more foreign bases, no more nation-building exercises); protectionism for local industry as was practiced for most of America's history. The expulsion of jewry and gradual expulsion of non-white population; the revocation of the 1965 immigration act. The issue of currency changed to a strict government prerogative. The execution of those guilty of Treason - such as politicians who have given aid to America's enemy, Israel.

A lot of that we've done before and more, so I don't see a National Socialism of sorts being impossible here.

Because anarchism is the chiken shit version of freedom.

And who gets the right to vote in this america?

you better watch out or you might cut yourself with that edge….

here: calm down and watch this video. Skinner is absolutely brilliant, and you might even find yourself agreeing with him.

I haven't even read your goddamn constitution. If you knew what NatSoc was you would know too. Read some Rosenberg and Hitler.

This seems to me to have the same problem as your current system has. I'm really sad that you cant read Chamberlain take on all this.

The closest thing to a republic that i could agree on is what Rosenberg proposes in his memoirs.

Won't work in practice? It worked for the first half of our nation's existence.

Well, there's your problem.
And just "it works" isn't good for me. A nation must strive for perfection and new heights. A mediocre "it works" is were the downfall begins.

Bury their heads underground and hope the free market fixes it

because, like communists your ideology has no basis in reality, to argue against its points would require me to presuppose things which would not work in reality and is not in accordance with how humans act. the post presupposes that the whole world is libertarian or completely ignores external forces, ignores sabotage, the nepotism of them, spying and many factors of human reality and thinks its just competition and that people always pick the best option for themselves. You're expecting me to believe self centered people will go to war and die? they would rush to make a deal to keep their assets and sell out everyone else. He already says they would not spend money to develop technology to defend themselves yet they would rush to defend their country? no they would just be cosmopolitans, your solution to them is to become like them? Im for small government but libertarianism is disgusting and a stepping stone for anarchism.

When the feds went west all was lost, you'd cry bitch tears if you saw what the free people managed to do.

This is why lolspergbrarians are complete autists. They literally believe the free market can solve your problems.

I know perfectly well what the white man can do under the right leadership. And that's why i want it back. But individualism and materialism is one of the worst things that has happened.

Degeneracy hurts everyone user.

but user, that's what they want. that's why they don't want any laws. they want a society where child prostitution is not frowned upon (hey the child gets money, nobody gets hurt), where they can be sodomites without reproach. As long as its consensual and it doesn't hurt anyone, am i rite lolbergtarians

Only via government intervention. They aren't really any smarter than you or me. Actually probably a lot less intelligent on average, and merely benefit from nepotism, which we are forbidden to talk about by, you guessed, the government. They can only get as much as they are worth, which isn't much.

Also, libertarian societies allow people to be as racist as they like (remember even Rand was for the repeal of the Civil Rights Act), and since no-one likes Jews outside of brainwashed statists, they would be ostracized, and would actually wind up paying more for anything they did try to buy.

Also, assuming a scenario that isn't ancap, and government still exists, the President has every right to refuse entry into the country for any Jew, even nationals (though I think citizens would have to be allowed in). It would be easy to strip any Jews who are dual citizens of their American citizenship with a "no split loyalty" law.

It didn't "just work". It produced the strongest, most sustained period of economic growth in the history of humanity.

It "just works" the way your body "just works". You don't need a bunch of medical interventions by witch doctors who are always learning on the job (and thus always make the same mistakes). Just as the body heals itself given half a chance, so too will "the free market fix it." The only "interventions" that you need are the removal of old, failed interventions.

maybe you should quit being illiterate and only reading Nazi propaganda, and then your opinion might actually hold some weight.

try watching this:

Nazism/Fascism was a particular historical manifestation due to the geopolitical, technological and material (etc) conditions of the time. Its not really going to teach you much unless you read it in that context

I'm not really arguing the economical aspects of it. Well to some extent i am but anyways.
Libertarianism is inherently "that will work". And we can just look at our current situation to s.

The body has the brain that leads the rest of the body. We have skin to protect the body. And what hasn't the human body achieved when the leader and the follower has a healthy relationship.

Most things i read is either pre-1933 (or very close to that region) or after the war.

Oh man oh man oh man.

Money doesn't exist as anything but a real or perceived representation of goods/services.
So if a bunch of rich kikes moved in and essentially provided a bunch of potential goods/services to a racially aware society how would that be a bad thing?

For example say a kike tries to buy your house.
In a free society the government isn't coercing you to do things no in your interests, so you would only sell your house for an amount which you perceive would be more in your interests than retaining it.
This is where the nationalist/racially aware libertarians really thrive.
Because being racially aware means putting the interests of your progeny ahead of that of other's (since being surrounded by your own race is fare more preferable in the long run) you would use those resources to make a better future for your white children than your present house could have.
So if the kikes try to buy everyone's houses in an area then they just end up holding a bunch of worthless land as the racially aware would use the kike's resources to move to a new location that could make a better future for their kids.

So if you are a cuck with a high time-preference then ya libertarianism is bad since you are going to fuck yourself over with your own self indulgent choices, while the redpilled build an ever better future for their race.

If only that were the case.

That is the case, it's the literal definition of money.
Now if you are stupid then the value you perceive that money can be exchanged for is vastly different than reality, in which case in a libertarian society you will be fucked over and your genes will cease.

Libertarianism has no check against this. That is why Libertarianism will never work, and it is also why the US is a declining failure. America was the closest thing to Libertarianism possible. Whites in an untamed land and we still managed to screw it up.

If Libertarians were less autistic they would simply be ethnic nationalists, especially if they are white. The only way to more liberty is to live in an all white country.

I just explained how the OP's scenario would be handled in a libertarian society.
Libertarians are the most ardent followers of real evolution, hence racism will become ubiquitous in a libertarian society as the cucks will get out-competed for resources in the longterm.

/thread

Any True Libertarian Society would let them in, because they believe that Free Markets fix everything, and the market isn't free if you're forbidding people from participating from it.

Once they get in, they will cheerfully subvert the process, and you won't have any recourse to stop them. This is why Libertarianism is a failed ideology. Not only can it not actually come into being under it's own principles (it must be forced into being by Authoritarians), but it can only survive in a closed system explicitly designed to protect it.

Libertarianism is the ideological equivalent of a fish that dies in any water or environment save it's own aquarium habitat is trying to argue that it is the most robust and successful species.

kek, y dont you go watch some more molyneux videos to keep living in your bubble

...

Completely false, non-libertarianism is what is forced on everyone.
You can have a king or a president in a libertarian society, as long as the people who are under their jurisdiction conscribe to it.
As for the jews or shitskins, the community that lets them in will suffer for it, and every other community will either recognize it and refuse to do it or let them in themselves.
"The right" is fundamentally about inequality. So if a bunch of whites volunteer for their own suffering how is that my business?
My responsibility is to ensure that my progeny and the people I care about are better off, not some cucks.

Then define Libertarianism. You can't just say "it's the opposite of everything bad." That's childish and absurd.

"Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgment.[1][2]"
Essentially it is the absence of the initiation of the use of force.

Not really. You described white flight, which doesn't actually fix anything. You are just a nomadic refugee at that point.

There is nothing wrong with people moving to a better location.

another libertarian doesnt know how the world works. cute.

how did you refute him? how is the current government forced? why would they suffer for it? they would get cheap labor and cheap conscripts for their army with them they would get many advantages like freemasons do currently.

its not, but it's clear that you've never cared about anyone else in your life

This is basically what i hear from most libertarians. It's like hearing people advocating communism.
But to be honest it can be said to anyone advocating any political position but it's extreme for those two ideologies.

So you are just a nomad than? A refugee? That is the Libertarian way to stop aggressive outsiders from completely taking over? Just move yourself like Indians moving their Teepees to be among the buffalo herds? What if there is nowhere else to go?

You know this sounds ridiculous don't you?

Try not paying taxes and you'll find out

You are asking me how would people in a society suffer from a disintegration of the homogeneity of their society?
Have you been on Holla Forums recently?

...

Fuck unbridled epicureanism.

No, the nomad thing is your projection.
I described a person selling his current house to buy a house which he perceives as better.
Erecting and attacking strawmen is not an argument.

Libertarianism isn't anarchy, it's minarchy.

Basic public services like the military still exist, it's just the state that controls them is tiny and its powers are devolved as much as reasonably possible.

You don't need a powerful state for strong cultural/ethnic identities to exist and self enforce themselves.
I'd argue that were it not for big government forcing race mixing/ "diversity" down the throats of white people, white communities would have naturally resisted their own destruction.
People are just naturally too chicken to question the man in uniform.

We don't live in communities though, we're interconnected, for better or worse.

Why can't you autists understand that you don't live on some 19th century farm in the wild west?

How about your strawman? You strawman is a nice beautiful house that can you just pick up at any time after flipping your old ones to jews. WTF do I need Libertarianism to do that for, I can do that right now..

A Libertarian nation may be a completely blank slate. There may be limited resources and land. There may be no building materials for modern houses……Why does your projected fantasy have an unlimited amount of land, with an unlimited number of houses for sale in it? Have you even thought this through?

The reason why the NatSoc on Holla Forums hate libertarianism is because they associate it with anarcho-capitalism.

The key difference between libertarianism and anarcho-anything is that libertarianism is NOT OPPOSED TO STATE POWER or sovereignty. The only thing that libertarians care about is that the state is as small as is necessary.

If it's necessary to repel foreign leeches and internationalists from degrading the society, then a libertarian is perfectly fine from shutting down his borders and slaughtering the bastards.

By invading our society the Jews violate the NAP (non aggression principle) meaning that we can respond with aggression.

The point of a libertarian system is that it is immune to Jews. Jews can only compete with whites one you start bringing market control in, this is why Weimar Germany failed for example, which gave birth to the Frankfurt school and cultural marxism.

Also I just wanted to add,
You started your thread off shitposting, that just wasn't needed.

Westernized SLAV!

This.

It's minarchy, not anarchy.

Big government is why whites were forced to integrate with blacks.
Without big government white businesses would be allowed to only employ whites and there would never have been mixed schooling.

So basically freedom no matter the societal costs? Count me out.

The world has changed. Shit, the biggest threat to most humans isn't even military related anymore.

For example, the worst mistake the West every made in my opinion was to turn its media into bought and sold commodities. It allowed outsiders to gain influence in vast proportion to their stake in the civilization. How does Libertarianism stop that from happening?

Of course we do. The only reason there is such a thing as a country is because of the initiation of force from the state binds us.

The premise of the OP was that jews were going to buy your houses out, and I refuted it.

As people buy up land then the value of land and hence the amount of land needed to buy up land increases. So the money the jews need to buy out the tenth community will be more than that needed than the first community.
Unless jews are some magic well of goods and services eventually buying up more land will become impossible and they will be stuck with a bunch of land that has no one living on it and hence worthless.

As a NatSoc my biggest problem is exactly that's a freaking free for all for the jews and jewish behavior.

How would you do that in practice without being statist though? Sure you can throw out all kikes and shitskins but those aren't the only problems. There are white people who will follow the rules of the market to spread degeneracy and destructive things aswell. How would you go about to stop those? Ban media and movie companies that promote degeneracy? Doesnät seem very free market to me.

No it's because communities go together to get more wealth and quality of life and conquer others, thus incorportating them into a larger nation. Yes it's based on violence, as is everything in life. It's the laws of the nature, not your imaginary laws of "freedom". Libertarians don't have the strength to protect anything.

Nationalism isn't politically exclusive to ideologies.

Some of the worst most disgusting leftist hives of media are state owned you doofus.

The BBC, a body currently considering broadcasting Muslim prayers into every British household, is paid for with tax money.
In a free market the BBC would die. Who the fuck wants to watch Muslim prayers?
But because big government forces you at gunpoint to pay for it, there it is. It exists like a fat bloated turd on the Radio, TV - even movies.
It has a complete monopoly on vast sections of the media in the UK.

Same in Sweden and every other European country where state broadcasting is a thing.

As a Brit, the best thing that could happen to us would be if the BBC were totally privatised and divvied up to the highest bidder.

You didn't refute it in my opinion. You added fantasy to the equation. If someone buys you out there is a real possibility there is no where else to go. You don't even consider that though.

Fair point. IF, and it is a huge IF, there is actually a 10th place to go.

You cannot be that much of an idiot to just make the "all media is state owned" the base assumption. You know that is disingenuous. There are plenty more examples of privately owned media…

The point is there would be media with or without government. There would be media in a Libertarian society. You know it, and I know it.

Good thing the privately owned media in USA is redpilled and honest.

The fuck it isn't. You don't have to believe in socialism to be a fucking nationalist you moron.

You can care about borders and the demographic make-up of your country without wanting massive welfare programs and victimless crime laws.

If there is another word that describes this, that's fine. Call it civic nationalism if you are so autistically inclined. Nobody is going to know what the fuck you are talking about, but that's fine.

What I have described is what most people would refer to as national libertarianism, and that is what it is called in the modern vernaculum. And it is an accurate term. You want libertarianism for your nation, which is a pragmatic approach to the flaw of idealistic libertarianism, which is open borders.

SVT (sweden's bbc) wasn't that bad back in the days. Just because we are witnessing a top-down revolution (imo thanks to muh freedom) doesnt mean the "top" is bad.

This.

It is for all intents and purposes a self correcting problem.

Whites are forced to associate with you, they don't want to.

There is a minority of white whom have taken up their indoctrination and will breed with niggers. While there are plenty whom will sympathize with these baboons, these ppl are sheeps and will instantly follow the flock if it turns into a natsoc situation. These racemixers will always remain a minority, to great dismay of the jews who propagate racemixing everywhere they can and at every opportunity they can, wether through advertising billboards for new clothes, online, youtube, social media and or their holohaux machine hollywood.

The scum who now lives in these white countries, are a fifth colony, they have nothing to do with our culture or our people and do not even wish to integrate. This is a hotbed for civilian war.

Even if you force association, e.g through having the IRS fine your business, you won't force me to hire niggers or woman for that matter. I glady pay the 5200 euro fine to the IRS on top of missing out on all the subsidies for hiring that filthy scum.

Then my competitors who's offices are filled with woman and their workforce more arabified and niggerfied then actual white wonder why i beat them out of the pond every single time on terms of productivity, efficiency and overall growth. It is in fact the bureaucrat with their rules whom have shackled me from beating these companies completely out of the water and destroying their income.

Sure, but you don't have to. That is the point. In libertarianism you do not have to care about things like racial make up. In fact I would argue that a great portion of the current Libertarian population doesn't, and what you are describing is not the norm.

Just more fantasies.

Nationalism implies that you hold the welfare of the people above all, but libertarianism implies that you hold freedom above all. Which is more important? Muh freedumb, or preventing White genocide/upholding the tradition of your ancestors?

You'd get left and right media.
The point is, you could choose.

In the UK newspapers are dominated by private interests.
You have the Express, the Daily Mail and the Telegraph as hard hitting right wing papers.
You have the Mirror, the Guardian and the Independent as hard left wing papers.

The Daily Mail frequently has columnists claiming abortion is a sin and has repeatedly been accused of race baiting because it never shies away from reporting on Muslim Crime.
It's also one of Britain's most popular newspapers.

Why would it be better here to have one big state owned newspaper?
Surely it's good that the free market caters to people's biases rather than the single universal group think the BBC tries to foster.

The topic of this thread is how do Libertarian societies stop themselves from being pozzed in general. None of that gives any explanation on how - at all. It is all simply just moralizing.

Nothing but insults from you guys huh.

So basically you would get what we have now? None of that presents any solutions.

Just to note, I am an ethnic nationalist. I value collective accomplishments and survival as a people, more than individual liberty.

Edgelord here, this guy isn't half bad, but while he defines it, he shies away from the ultimate truth. I agree with pretty much all of his analysis, he is still ivory tower levels of fucked in practice.
It actually brings up the worst problem of discussing the topic "If people like the ones in this room were the only ones, shit wouldn't suck". Well boo-de-fucking-woo, neither are the people in the room not representative of all but they((the lolberg) can't take the fucked-up-for-life leap of pure automation which could make it real.

Freedom isn't just freedom of the individual but freedom of the collective.

Under libertarianism whites as a body would have more freedom to resist their own destruction than they currently do with state sponsored diversity.

In this respect, libertarianism solves white genocide instantly without the need to deport a single black/brown.
Whites naturally stick to their own and prefer their own.
Libertarianism would allow them to do so.
It's as simple as that.

< "You guys".

I respect the tenants of Libertarianism, but I know it isn't possible without a white nation. To create a white nation would require something far more forceful and collective than Libertarianism.

Did you read the rest of the post?

Again this harkens back to the confusion between anarchy and libertarianism.

When anarchists talk about statism, they mean any state power at all. When a libertarian talks about statism, he means an excessive government, keyword highlighted.

If we are in a time of peace, it would be a statist overreach to have troops marching on the streets, or to draft people.

If we are in a time of war and struggling for our very survival, it would be LIBERTARIAN to draft everyone and have troops in the streets.
Because that is the bare minimum state power needed for survival.

Libertarians are free market to the extent where the contract is kept. If a medicine purchased doesn't work or has unadvertised side effects, the contract is broken. If an entertainment medium has unadvertised side effects, the contract is broken.

There would be no way to have a libertarian system if we couldn't trust the media, therefore the media has to offer disclaimers as to their bias and explain negative effects their programming would have.

If Nickelodeon came out and publicly stated they are promoting interracial sex for children, how long do you think Nickelodeon would exist as a media company? And if they don't do this in a libertarian system, they have broken the NAP and are subject to stricter punishments than we have now.

yep

Solutions to which problems?

Jewish special interests can only exist in society's with bloated governments.
If the state lacked the power to force communities to accept immigrants homogeneous communities would naturally resist them.
Because media would exist as a market in near perfect competition rather than the oligopoly that exists right now Jews would be unable to control as much media as they do now.

...

People could kill them before it got that bad. That's one solution.

that's not forced. I participate in the society, if I wanted to leave I'm not restrained, maybe in the USA but not where I live.

you meant where they live? wtf? theydon't need to live in your neighborhood to affect society.

what about all the private institutions that are promoting degeneracy?

only thing that can get to the real issue here. the self obsession, vanity and pride that make libertarians try and rationalize their ideologies.

monarchy still better, libertarianism would cut the bad from government and leave it alone leaving the weeds to grow. Monarchy would pull out the roots and sow seeds.

LIbertarianism is just a bad option and you can not justify your obsession with freedom. there are several things more important like duty, family, responsibility, faith, society

I'm pretty sure exiling or shooting every media personality that engages in propaganda is a significant deterrent.

I'd like to hear the level you're willing to go to though.

Well, look at the past.

In Britain whites hated black immigrants at first. There were race riots and and calls for them to be deported. But the government forced them to accept them.
Had there existed libertarianism the white communities would never have had to accept the blacks because their natural instinct was to resist.

They exist in an oligopoly.
Libertarianism would bring markets closer to perfect competition and so remove the ability of powerful interests to buy up vast sections of the media.

I live in a monarchy.
They've done nothing of the sort.

Those things all exist as natural instincts.
Unless you're a nigger you don't need the state to tell you to protect your family and be a good person. They come naturally to you as they do any normal well adjusted white man.

So just repeat the failures of the United States than? Vacuums will be filled. There was a time when the federal reserve didn't exist. There was a time when the big three media channels didn't exist. It is my opinion that expecting these voids to be left unfilled is wishful thinking if you are a student of history.

You say "the government did it", I say that the lack of an explicitly white government let it happen. There was no mechanism to stop the flood of people… It actually proves the point against Libertarianism. Individual whites do not have the power to stand up to outside powers.

If there existed libertarianism, britain wouldnt have even made it to that point.

I..I I dont ee.. waaat. waaaaaa

Britain is as much of a monarchy as Sweden is. Stop fooling yourself.

That's fascism. Augustus Sol Invictus pls go.
Except nothing would be done about the diversity that is already enacted because of "muh freedom" and "muh tyranny" every time the government tries to do something meaningful.
Freedom of association literally doesn't do a single damn thing to stop White genocide. It just means we can fuck off to a corner if we so please while the rest of the world burns. That is what you want. I want the entire country to have White Genocide stopped once and for all.
Also, there is an underlying connotation to your post that Fascism/National Socialism simply wouldn't be able to do that, and that's insanely naive.

Libertarians say they don't know how to run other peoples' lives.

Statists claim they do know how to run other peoples' lives, and they'll force it on you.

But libertarians are the vain self-obsessed ones?

That's something to worry about decades or even hundreds of years into the future.

The point is that now, the best way to bloodlessly solve ethnic tensions in white countries would be libertarianism.
The initial outburst of freedom to say and do whatever you please would allow blacks to form black communities and whites to form white communities.
Self segregation would naturally mean whites were more prosperous than blacks and without big government there to steal from the white man, blacks would naturally remain primitive, starving and poor.

The British government at the time actually sent out posters to the Caribbean advertising Britain as a land of opportunity and offering homes/jobs to any black immigrants willing to go to Britain.

They could have quite easily stopped it by never deliberately advertising it in the first place.

Ethnic nationalists like me would not force you to do anything other than leave the borders if you didn't want to be involved.

Just because you conduct commerce with someone doesn't mean you are kindred. A community is bound through blood and a sharing of culture and tradition.
Different communities are like different countries, you could have trade and interaction but you are looking out for your own tribe.

If you sell your house without looking into where you would move then your genes dying out would be a good thing.

No shit, hence the "National" part of "National Libertarian" Which is why the term makes sense.

If your argument is:

Then you have no argument.

I generally only see NatSocs try to refute the term National Libertarianism, because it irks them to think that there may in fact be a nationalist movement within the US, but it won't be their flavor.

So with the assumption in mind that you are a natsoc, how reasonable would it sound if I told you that National Socialism was retarded and didn't make sense, because being a socialist doesn't require you to believe in nationalism?

What if I didn't want to leave because I was born there?

Just admit there are no solutions to many of these issues please.

I am not the one saying that Mcedgy…. Your Libertarian buddy is suggesting it.

That would be your only option. Special snowflakes like you have already ruined enough in the Western world.

They can't stop it. That's why libertarianism is dead now. Liberian thought produces Ron Pauls. Someone with the knowledge of the effects of problems, but powerless to stop anything. That's why so many switched to Fascism where you produce Hitlers and Trumps. Libertarian is a stepping stone to other more viable philosophies.

This guy is like a quote machine for showing how bad libertarianism is.

Great point, a lot of libertarians sneak in nationalism through voluntary association.
We just say to liberals that employers will hire minorities to stay competitive since that plays into the liberal idea that diversity is good, but we all know that it's the opposite.
Once you get in contact with reality you realize that equality is a lie and that some groups of people work better than others.

vigilantes

Whites move to whiter areas all the time.
They're just followed by non whites because the government keeps designating more and more social housing in whiter areas to diversify them.

It would stop it in its entirety.
White genocide is the ongoing ethnic replacement of whites everywhere through out-breeding and immigration.
I've already covered immigration, but out-breeding is another one of the follies of big government.
The reason blacks and muslims in particular can have so many children is because they're subsidised by the government.
Were it not for vast state benefits given to muslim families willing to have children they'd never be able to afford even one or two kids given the substandard jobs muslim men work.
The benefits they rake in are doubly harmful to whites because they're taken out of the pockets of affluent whites in the form of exorbitant taxes.

Libertarianism would scrap all of that.
Whites naturally succeed so would always end up at the top of any foodchain/developing better communities than non whites without government interference.
Non white communities would slowly stagnate and decline whilst white ones would excel.
White genocide would be reversed over time.

I think you have it backwards. Libertarians founded the west.

No, They absolutely did not. They may have founded America, but they fucked it up pretty good. America is THE biggest cautionary tale against Libertarianism.

Wanting to live where you were born doesn't make you special, it makes you fucking normal.

The vast majority of people who have ever lived, lived in areas around where they were born. I don't think a desire to do what 99% of humanity has done over human history can qualify you as a "special snowflake"

I think you are confusing libertarianism with anarchism.

If I had to choose between being born in sweden, germany, france or America I'd choose America every time.
Europe is fully cucked and pretty much done.

99% of humanity wasn't as cucked as your average, modern day white. 99% of humanity would laugh at the idea of libertarianism.

user, if you can't compete with a Jew you might as well kill yourself now.

With a weak state, the Jews lose their greatest weapon. Corrupt the government all you want, the impact it will have will be minimal.

...

Same, but I am American, so I am biased. America does have more freedoms, but not by much. America also has the largest spying apparatus and military in the world… But you can buy and own an AR-15… It is a balancing act.

Can you point to how lack of government intervention led to the current state of affairs?

This has nothing to do with the assertion that wanting to live in the same geographical area that you were born and raised somehow makes you a special snowflake.

America is a blip on the timeline compared to European and East Asian countries, peoples and empires.

Don't set yourself up for failure. He's going to explain to you how if Hitler had been in control of the US this whole time, how the jews would have been removed and how good quality Hitler-Approved state sponsored ubermensch would be in charge of all of our entertainment, educational systems, and press.

Yes. There is no way that Disney should have been allowed to be sold, and controlled by Jews, or any foreign entity for that matter. The amount of degeneracy it pumps out is insanity, and has corrupted multiple generations of youth.

That system works. The Chinese are using it to beat the shit out of us right now.

Give me a cause and effect timeline.

They're just followed by non whites because the government keeps designating more and more social housing in whiter areas to diversify them.
I kind of follow your path of logic, but that doesn't answer the minority problem.
Now we're getting somewhere. My main problem with this is that I don't hate the concept of minimal welfare and government programs in general, but it's being abused by non-Whites to replace us. Shouldn't the government try to emphasize pushing our race to it's highest achievements possible, instead of just letting us go at each other in a free society?
I guess Fascism and Libertarianism are similar in that they both have ways to make the strongest thrive. This is why I haven't totally given up on you guys. I'll be lurking the thread to see more criticisms pop up, as I can't think of anymore off the top of my head.

Being that America hasn't had the time to rise and fall, comparing the length of time these other countries have risen and fallen in total is an unfair assessment. I believe the calculated average lifespan of any given society is approximately 250 years. Just look at how much Europe has been cut up over the last 150 years, especially around WWI.

This.

Also to OP. Your question relies on the solidification and maintaining of wealth that the jew manipulate the government for. In a free market this sort of maintaining is almost impossible. Look at the top companies from 1900 to 2000, only four remain. Once you get rid of the kiked government's thumb on the scale, their power is gone. No Ovens needed

As a citizen of canada, a country where you can get fined tens of thousands of dollars for "hate speech", I can tell you that it's a minor tradeoff.

Just look up the founder Walt. When he died it all went to hell. Look at the movies made during his life time (He died in 66) and after. The Poz really started to flow in the mid eighties.I used to have a great graphic showing the various releases and how pozed they were… Basically it went from Bambi to Frozen. There used to be nothing but white characters, now it is hard to find a white main character in their line up, outside of Frozen of course.

Obvious D&C is obvious.

This is the question everyone asks after roads.

I would argue that the US is already hollowed out, and is essentially a paper tiger with a big, vulerable navy. It is full of racial strife, debt, and wastes huge amounts of resources.

This is the fundamental difference between us. The agreement I have with you, is the latter part of your statement. I fear that a libertarian society would slip into a materialistic society if a government is not there to put forth a narrative. However, I do hate the concept of even minimal welfare, because minimal welfare will continue to expand into large welfare. It historically never stops growing, until collapse. If one must have welfare, it should be handled in a competitive federalist manner. Where states that have no control over the currency are free to compete and suffer the consequences of running welfare programs.

It is true that in the US there are no technical "hate speech laws". However, you can still be ostracized, and economically squeezed by large corporations and sects of the government. They can make your life a living hell without directly fining you.

I would agree that we are at the end of the rope, but being at the end of the rope doesn't mean we have fallen off yet. That is not intended to instill any hope. I don't think there is any saving America, but it certainly isn't gone. It's terminally ill laying in the hospital bed counting the seconds go by, but is clinically alive.

What's wrong with that? I wouldn't want to be contributing socially or economically to cucks anyway.
The problem is the state has laws that make it illegal for people to do the opposite, ie discriminate against shitskins/jews/women.

I'm opposed to mostly all welfare because it not only artificially raises the position of non whites in society but also fosters dependency and laziness.
Naturally, white communities will always voluntarily aid their own when in need.
The government doesn't need to exist to act as a safety net.

Furthermore, the principal that races function best when left to their own devices applies to individuals as well.

Sure, it is alive - for now. I argue that whites need to start thinking about what is next. If we don't we will be subjected to whatever our enemies have planned for us.

What is wrong with it? The fact that an explicitly white government should be put in its place so that whites don't have to deal with any of this in the first place?

All you have to do is ban usury.

All you have to do is ban fractional reserve banking, and define it very clearly in law.

That's literally it.

Why isn't anyone pushing for this?

That's fine with me. This stuff is minor details, because Holla Forums libertarians and NatSocs both fundamentally believe in stopping White genocide, reviving traditionalism, and BTFOing degenerates one way or another.

I meant what is wrong with cucks ostracizing non-cucked whites.
Ostracism is natural and if whites were able to do the same then we would out-compete them hard.

Let's be serious for a second. Jew's make up only 2 percent of the united states and that's the country with the second highest number of Jew's. Jew's don't make up the majority of the top 2 percent either. As it stands the tiny percentage of ultra rich Jew's don't really stand together, but if they did then so what? They can buy up a tiny little part of your nation. A second eretz Israel and do whatever they want in it. No skin off your back.

Libertarianism isn't anarchism or even full on laissez faire. So the Jew's take a piece of the pie. I care because?

Your definition, according to you, is to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice and make the decisions of the individual override all other concerns.

Your definition is absurd and fucking stupid. It would not fix anything. In fact, it would make many things worse. You would fix all of the things we have that aren't actually problems while making the actual problems of real concern actively worse.

This is White Flight: Autism Edition.

Society is degenerate and falling to pieces! What do we do, Libertarian Man!

"IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S IN SOCIETY TO BE DEGENERATE, CITIZEN. THEY ARE LIBERATED PERSONS FREE TO REVEL IN THE PRIMACY OF THEIR OWN JUDGEMENT!"

But they're ruining everything! Civilization is collapsing, and nogs and sandniggers are outbreeding us and will take us over culturally and politically!

"JUST MOVE AWAY AND DON'T TALK TO THEM, FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION!"

Libertarian Man, we're the last thousand white people on Earth, and the Communist Muslim hordes are invading are island nation with the intent to take our belongings and supplies by force, what do we do?

"I SUPPOSE IT IS NOW TIME TO FIGHT BACK, SINCE THEY INITIATED CONFLICT FIRST. REGRETTABLE BUT INEVITABLE. GODSPEED, CITIZEN."

No, I mean there's too many of them! We don't stand a chance at all! I'm asking you what to do, since you guided us this far!

"DIE VALIANTLY KNOWING IN THE END THAT YOU TOOK THE HIGH ROAD, AND IS IT NOT BETTER TO DIE ON THE HIGH ROAD THAN TO PERSEVERE ON THE LOW?"

Oh god they are raping my daughter. Somebody help! Liberty Man, you have doomed us!

"DON'T BE ABSURD, CITIZEN. THE FREE MARKET OF IDEAS DOOMED YOU. I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT."

Libertarianism: The Postmodern Cuckservative's Choice.

That is not all you have to do. You still have to deal with the media, and whatever education system exists.

I agree, I just don't think that socialism is the answer. But certainly our current culture where whites are constantly under assault needs to end. I don't care what measures have to be taken to ensure that. But once that is ensured, I'd prefer not to pay for your healthcare or your food… or electricity… or anything of yours really. I'll help pay for roads and a military.

Not if you set restrictions and boundaries to where people can't be on welfare forever, and can only get it in minimal doses, and can only be off work for a short period of time while receiving welfare.
Not anymore.
Yes, it does. If you don't have a safety net, the country won't magically pull itself out of a depression. This is historically true of the United States. God bless Andrew Jackson, but just look at what happened to our economy when he killed the Fed.

I am not necessarily advocating socialism. I advocate Ethnic nationalism. A nation and a government that is explicitly ethnic, or race based.

Muslims aren't that smart.
Wogs aren't either.

Without whites/Jews leading them they're nothing more than a disorganised rabble.

If a handful of Koreans on a rooftop with guns can stave off a horde of dindus so can a few whites.

...

What are your thoughts on American Whites miscegenating enough to artificially create an American race?

How does discrimination pay for itself in the long term if not state implemented? Japan has a section of where none Japs can't shop. Look how wonderful that's been for the Japanese economy. They're just fucking themselves out of the tourist dollar, but you could do like they do. Say that only legal residents can shop in your store, and set a strict language and dress code. When it comes to hiring make them take a performance test. If they do well them why the fuck should you care what color they are? We opened the special forces to woman, how many passed? See the point? You don't have to discriminate to discriminate. Work the system. Be the Jew.

I love how your argument moves from degeneracy, to strictly racial conquest.

NATIONAL LIBERTARIANISM FIXES THIS PROBLEM.

National libertarianism puts up fucking machine guns and flamethrowers on the border, and throws the few that sneak in out of fucking helicopters.

The only way your example makes any sense, is if you replace the nogs with white degenerates. But then your example doesn't make any fucking sense because it ends with an island of 1000 normal people being attacked by millions of faggots and transsexuals which I don't view as realistic at all.

Filtered.

Funny, but absolutely no basis in reality.
Whites as any other race have a strong desire to preserve racial bonds with one another.
Look at all the institutions that are pushing anti-racism the hardest: public schools, universities, public courts, establishment media, etc.
If there was no state then any white peson worth his salt would be weary of nonwhites.
The state naturally wants to disintegrate white racial ties because it wants people to be dependent on it rather than their family, community and race.
If some cucks naturally don't have this trait then it is far better to have them weeded out of white society than to have their sickness be spread to the rest of it.

Like I said here , filtered.

Yes goyim, agree with this user's post!

Many whites have already done that to a certain extent.You are heard pressed to find American whites with less than two European Ethnicities.

It still seems pointless.
Most people have a family/local community they can depend on.
Wider society shouldn't have to involve itself in the woes of local matters except in extreme circumstances.

They do.
Communities often locally help each-other out when in need.

Not all of America is a rural, White, New England-tier community. I think you're generalizing for the entire country's situation & assuming too much, which is your downfall.

The problem with a lot of people is that we recognize the shade of things that we see as good and start adopting it as our beliefs without leaving the cave and seeing what is the cause of the shade.
Racism and pride in your race is good and degeneracy is bad, but why?
It's because that was what our society was prosperous, but what connection is there?
Racial homogenity is good because race is an extension of your family, and people are naturally more drawn and trustworthy of people who are closer of kin to them.
The state wants to undermine the connection that people will have with one another so that they connect and put more faith in the state than with the people around them.

His assertion was that white communities will help those in need. You can't compare modern multicultural American cities in this example. You would have to look exclusively at modern all white communities, which unfortunately only exist in rural areas now.

We don't have enough data to assess if his hypothesis is true in an urban or suburban community made exclusively of whites, because we aren't allowed to have those anymore.

They don't have the hordes of kebabs and dindus that Europe has.

Which vastly decreases their cost of dealing with problems of crime, healthcare, education, inequality and etc.

Really projeciting there, aren't you faggot?

Honestly I'm sick of questions like this, but Holla Forums keeps taking the bait so I have to keep fighting.

The free market solved this 300 years ago with literally zero effort.

These policies were all in place to various degrees in the founding America our founding fathers gave us. We later (later generations) lost the desire to live and survive, let in the jews, and now we are cucked today, like a Germany or Sweden.

any government that requires taxes to function and carry out the tasks you suggest, by definition violates the "NAP". The NAP deals in absolutes, and thus the only system it could ever exist in is absolute anarchy.

Is this seriously your argument? It's okay to cede all ground to them and let them outnumber and outmaneuver us, because of some mythical belief that a hundred white people could fight the entire world in a battle and win?

This is your Libertarian fallback plan? Keep retreating until we have nothing left and are 1% of the planet, and only then decide to do anything?

Are you trying to convince me that you are a cucked ideology? Because it sounds like you are.

I love how your argument to our nation being taken over by unwashed hordes is to set up another, smaller country inside of our own country and build walls to keep them out.

You are running the fuck away. That is your strategy. To run away, dig a hole, and hide in it, hoping the same shit doesn't happen a hundred years from now.

This is a completely unsustainable strategy, and I'm not sure if I find it more disturbing that you thought this up, or that you can't see the problem you run into with this.

Or are you going to try and tell me that it's your grandchildren's problem, and not yours? That would fit with the Lolberg MO.

National Libertarianism doesn't exist. It's an oxymoron. I'm sure you'll try to argue otherwise, and I'll pre-empt your tantrum by asking you to outline the tenants of "National Libertarianism" for us all so we can understand it.

This is a great summary of your entire ideology and philosophy.

Wrong. Whites only get weary of nonwhites when whites are in direct proximity to them. There's a reason states like Ohio are Giga-Cucked. Because they're solid white, they're the most liberal places in the world, because they sincerely believe everyone in the world is exactly like them and have never encountered anything that would contradict that.

The only places that wake whites up to the reality of nonwhites are places where whites and nonwhites mix. You argue that we should just freedom of association them away, except that doesn't work, because places where whites only associate with whites will forget why they do so.

The only way this works is by either genociding nonwhites once and for all to take care of the problem for all future generations, or writing it in stone and outlawing their presence in a nation entirely. Otherwise, the cycle of whites building civilizations, opening them up to outsiders, and ruining them before eventually rebelling will continue endlessly.

The absolute best your ideology offers is a temporary fix.

We want a permanent solution. A final one, if you will.

Please provide my quote saying this, you can't because I never did.

Pragmatically, if your goal is to remove every nonwhite from the USA… it's never going to happen. What we can do is deport the illegals, exile felons, return to white-only immigration and allow freedom of association. We can also move the culture away from the constant assault on white identity, and instead re-enforce it. Realistically it means we can either keep most of our country and have it be all white, or keep all of it and have pockets of minorities.

Yeah, sure. It's only been explained a million times, including at least once in this thread, but here you go for the 1,000,001th time.

It's libertarianism, with border security and demographic control.

I know it's really shocking to have to put 1+1 together. The words "nationalism" and "libertarian" are awfully big.

If it wasn't you, then it was some other lolberg in this thread.

And I like how, even though you disavow saying it, in your very next line you outright admit that you believe that to be the case.

"You'll never remove them all, goy. Best to just pass laws that no Libertarian except myself and three other turbo-autists would call Libertarian, and which no Libertarian on earth would publicly support. Then we'll be living in that real Libertarian paradise that no Libertarians want."

"What's that? You want to make things go back to the way they were? Or make them even better than what they ever were in the past? Can't be done, goy. Best to just move your culture away and be content with only some of the country that belongs to you. Find a nice plot of land and forget the land of your fathers."

It's funny how lolbergs like you are all about property rights, except for defending the biggest property right of them all. There, you say we should let outsiders steal parts of it, and simply content ourselves with what we can save from their grasping hands.

Explain to me again how you aren't just a more pretentious and deluded strain of cuck.

So you're not going to reverse the poz, just freeze it in it's current state.

Also, that's not Libertarianism. No Libertarian anywhere in your entire trainwreck of an ideological tent would support demographic control. If you chemically castrated everyone on welfare, shipped every nigger who committed a felony back to Africa, and made it illegal to issue a marriage license to any white person who wanted to marry a nonwhite or mongrel, every Libertarian on the planet would call you an Authoritarian Fascist.

It's not Libertarianism, and all the autistic pretzel gymnastics in the world can't change that. You're proposing Nazism and relabeling it your old ideology so you don't have to admit how fucking absurd your old ideology is.

(cont)

And to clarify, since I'm starting to realize it may not be obvious to you, in order to implement strong boarders and demographics control, you need a strong government.

This is where you lolbergs always tie yourselves into knots. You always try to argue that our problems can be fixed within the context of your ideology, but doing so will destroy the entire point of your ideology, which is to maximize personal freedom and have a small government.

You can only get what you want, what society needs to have, by restricting the personal freedoms of certain groups and giving the government the power to regulate markets, expel or shut down businesses that exploit the people, and meddle in the "freedoms" people have.

The entire point of Freedom of Association is to associate with whoever you please. So what happens when someone's desire to associate runs counter to the Demographics Control?

The Control has to win out, or else the system is meaningless. But now you're restricting someone's freedom, which you can't do as a Libertarian.

You nickle and dime excuses for all of the problems we have, and eventually find yourself standing completely outside the Libertarian tent entirely and with some other group of people who aren't Libertarians. You're doing it right now, because you're proposing Demographic Control, which is explicitly anti-Libertarian. You're revoking the right to Freedom of Association by refusing to permit certain associations to exist.

I was in the same position you were once. You'll argue and argue that you can defend Jeffersonian Libertarianism in the context of the modern day, and eventually you stop and realize you've thrown out every single thing that Libertarianism stood for, one by one, and what you're left holding is either Paleoconservatism, Traditionalism, or Third Positionism. You'll take baby steps towards trying to solve the problem while still being in concert with Liberty, and one day wake up and realize you're a Fascist.

My trips don't lie

You're attributing you're paranoid delusions to the state. People fought for their rights and won them. What's best for the future would be the best people breeding with each other. Regardless of race. You give those people the most means so they can raise the largest families by simply taking away the safety net and in its place offering free birth control in return for financial support. Instead of tax breaks for having kids you tax the shit out of them. Make having kids so expensive that only the ones clever enough to climb up the ladder can afford to be prolific breeders. If white people are superior in a couple generations they'd be all that remains. Of course you won't do this, because you fear the Jew. You know you're just an inferior being. Stop lying to yourself. Try and find a nice Jewish girl. IQ is predominantly passed on through mtdna. So the mothers intelligence matters more than your own. Breed up.

standard libertarian supposition is that no one will sell to the kikes because people are inhumanly rational and prescient and if the jews try to employ armies they break out a fictitious quote about guns behind every blade of grass

Lolbergs are honorary kikes themselves

We need a decent movie about a libtards path to the red pill.
Take your average "Rapefugees welcome" assclown, have there family raped/murdered after taking one in, then (rather then have them go full nogslayer) have them question the "why" of rapefugees, have them data mine, fact gather/check, after that they notice other strange things, the deeper down the rabbet hole they go, the more they piece together, the more bat shit insane with rage they get. then just finish it off with some stock footage of people burning down rapefugee centers, rioting against there govs, hanging bankers.

That's what I would like to do, but I also loved the rampage films.

Fuggin sage, my dumb ass clicked the wrong thread… I need sleep!

Read Albert J. Nock.

I don't think you understand what libertarianism is. That's not how libertarianism works

In a libertarian society, fiat currencies wouldnt dominate. In very general terms: Therefore you'd see the economy head in a direction twards how the US was a few years ago when we were on the gold standard.

Not completely, but in that direction

The BBC wasn't so bad back in the day.
It's as its made the transition from public service to public entertainment that the shit has seeped in.

I knew their theories were always shit, but c4ss is disgusting. I had no idea until I went a few years without seeing anything they had written. Fucking trannies and privilege and pedo/incest.

Removal is the only option.

kek, almost nothing has changed out here, and the pioneers aren't a bad role model. I have to be responsible for my own self-defense, calling da police isn't an option. In emergencies neighbors who rarely speak once in a year will help each other without a second's hesitation. The one bad apple is quite obvious. When the economy shits most of us hunt or raise food and have practical skills.

Some things aren't as good, but all can be easily traced back to government interference, or the media still slowly poisoning the plebs.

The wild west is breddy gud

That's still us being dominated by jews. Going off the gold standard wasn't the jews taking over the economy it was the jews setting up a parallel economy for themselves that the goys didn't have access to.