Anyone else following the lolbertarian national convention?

It's cute when they fail at pretending to be a serious option. They actually did have a chance to hit 5% nationally this year, and it's a shame that they're squandering their opportunity

(((feldman)))

...

No, it lolbergtardian

lol = laughable
berg = jewish
tard = autistic

learn to meme, faggot

...

What an awkward fuck.

...

He was accused of murdering his neighbor in Belise

To be fair, he was infringing on his right to murder someone.

And they wonder why nobody takes Libertarians seriously. What the shit guys? You used to actually be decent and intellectual and more or less tolerant of our views. They've now become the less radical hippies in the 21st century.

He did a lot of crazy stuff

This was back in his compound days I'm assuming.
When he was terrorising that town to try and kill the cartels he was convinced had taken over and keeping his own private teenage prostitute?

ONE OF US

...

Ian=Faggot name

Right now I just tell people I'm a "conservative" When do you think it'll be ok to say Nationalist? I'd be OK with Republican when Trump wins actually.

There's libertarian and Libertarian.

libertarians are the actual, intellectual side, the Austrian School styled economist.

Libertarians are fucking nuts.

...

Abstraction goes straight over this sheboon's head. Can't say I'm surprised, though.

Didn't he also think the Belize government was trying to assassinate him?

Today you fucking coward piece of shit

One is jewish the other retarded

say civic republican or little-r republican. they won't know what to think

It's Belize, they probably were over some petty bullshit.

Bingo.

Ah

My mistake I mistook you for the crazy ones. You are the guys who think it is okay to starve children to death because it doesn't violate the NPA, and they can't force you to feed them. It's that right, Rothbard?

Add Adam Kikesh

Reminder that lolbertarians are Jews who want free reign to fuck over white people. It has the same end goal as communism: fucked over white people

I never said they weren't fucking insane, theyre just the intellectual side.

Libertarians are fucking pathetic

Gary Johnson is sick and tired of hearing about Hillary's emails.

You're right. I've got nothing.

On an unrelated note, is McAfee a fun crazy guy who can bant or just crazy?

I used to be one too, well, a "Ron Paul libertarian." I'm glad those days are over.

(checked)
Well I lost respect for Johnson.

Watch his youtube videos, he's all bantz

It's the flagrant idea that economics are the end all be all. I can't understand why any libertarian could ever hate Macroeconomics besides the whole Keynesian model. It's basically every libertarians wet dream.

I've never seen such stuttering from such a straightforward, easy question. Pathetic.

I'll have to check out his channel.

I guess this means we don't have to worry about them taking a couple % of Republican votes?

what about paleoconservatives?

Here's more of the interview, I don't have 100% of it though.

Based as fuck. Paleo masterrace.

Poor Pat. He has had a hard life.

Jesus Christ, he's lower energy than Jeb and sleepy black man put together.

To think I was hoping he might get on Trump's cabinet.

Maybe he's trying to make the libertarians look stupid so Gary Johnson will steal less votes from Trump. Maybe he is a secret Trump supporter, or at least knows that his party has no real chance and Trump is better than Clinton. If I were in his position, evenif I were a diehard libertarian, I might also sacrifice my dignity and torpedo any chance of Gary Johnson spoiling the election. This man might be a hero.

He's a tough motherfucker though, so I wouldn't feel too bad for him. He's called out the Jew and the Zioninsts, along with triggering neocons and lefties.

Holy shit my sides

based Pat is based.

Every time you say this a white child is aborted.

If only it had been the naked guy in the OP.

Pat's recent article is pretty good:
townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/2016/05/27/the-great-white-hope-n2169456
archive.is/Ujit6

Shitty old endangered dinosaurs eating a fad diet.

That would explain the Iron Cross.

All of his articles are must read. True patriot.

I giggled

I don't understand. These people are embarrassing where's Ron Paul

Johnson is a shit public speaker.

He's such a sucessful, powerful, fit as fuck, rich, interesting guy.

And yet he's a cuck who can't even express his cucked opinions.

Dude, just come be Nationalist Libertarian.

Funny but absolute disaster of a man.

Typical right wing boomer

fucking nice.

I don't think Trump is the Great White Hope, but I do believe he is the beginning of something new - maybe the Last White Hope. We very much need to press our advantage now, while we still have numbers. I don't want a world in the future where my children/cousins etc have to live like Jews, parasites in a foreign land. Fuck, I don't want a world where the indigenous peoples of europe are displaced. We have to organize from the ground up. For a lot of us, myself included, that is going to require doing something very uncomfortable - leaving our apartments and keyboard warrioring for the so-called real world. I hope we can do it.

Nothing will make any difference until we get white birth rates into the limelight and discussion turns to how to fix it. If we were outbreeding the spics we'd not even need a wall, they would.

No such thing. GTFO
>>>/retard/

He's back in Murrica? I would have thought he'd get immediately partyv&

What do you mean by "nationalist"?

checked. I know. As an American, there are three things you can't deny about ol' Pat, even if you disagree with him: He's smart, he's not a liar, and he's on your side.

akjewally, Hispanic birth rates are declining along with white birth rates, though whites are a little more "advanced." And, there is some new evidence that past a certain threshold in wealth, birth rates go back up (birth rates are also still fairly high among the religious). I'm not too worried in that respect; I'm more worried for Europe. If the US revitalizes itself and tells the rest of the world to fuck off, it'll be great. We should be suppressing birth rates all around the world. wtf? why are we letting them breed? fuck them!

WALLS BUT NOT ROADS

All I'm hearing here is an exceedingly poorly spoken cuckold.

shit. forgot graph. I know some spics and niggers are included in the N. America category, but i think at least this shows that S. and Latin America are slowing in growth as well

He was running for president

Glenn Beck and Mark Levin will set these guys straight. They have been talking Libertarian nonsense for weeks now. Ironic, a bunch of free market, free association, lolbertarians will be co-opted by neocons due to their non resistance and pathological obsession with fairness.

Prepare you collective anus for a kosher poz pill, libertarians.

I thought he was doing it all remotely.
Did he died?

Can someone tell me why in the christ are we going to have 3BN more Africans on the planet within 80 years? Their economic situation is only getting worse.

No, he dropped. Johnson is the lolberg candidate.

There is absolutely no definition of nationalism that is philosophically compatible with lolbergtardianism, so fuck off. I've already had this conversation with you. You are talking about either Market Socialism (possibly OrdoLiberalism) or Civic Republicanism. Both (or all three) of these reject the basic foundations of lolbergtardianism.
QED

Foreign aid causes them to breed even more.

Checked for truth.

NO ROADS JUST WALLS
ROAD WRECKING DEMOLITION SQUADS
RAISE WALLS DOGMATICALLY SQUADS

...

Where does nationalism conflict with libertarianism?
No, you haven't.

shm fam

I thought by now we would have been able to recognize the incestuous interplay of the private road wrecking demolition lobby and the corrupt puppets in power. Looks like I was wrong. We are going to have to bring in a whole lot more jews to make this Nationalist Libertarian thing work out.

Well different user here but you know right that Libertarianism can't even begin to work unless we purge a huge chunk of the population before hand

He wouldn't want to be called a sexist. Got to be careful of what you say about a womyn.

...

Truly horrifying.

...

Oh, definitely. I'm not being argumentative as a raging Libertarian with an agenda/stiffie, I'm just curious what the proper definition of nationalism is that makes it incompatible with NAP leanings.
I do, however, think that the population purging would take care of itself, since the population that needs to be purged is largely incapable of self-sustaining, and that's the problem.

I personally oscillate between ancap, fascist, and wondering what even matters

This makes me angry.

...

I've had it with the dude who posts his retarded podcast every week, and with several others.

Well, it depends on which "libertarian" so-called "philosophy" you're talking about. First, I'd like to point out that "libertarianism" is Cold War kike propaganda/ideology that was there to subvert whites/republicans (civic republicanism). The US Founders were Republicans, by and large, not lolbertardians. Second, they conflict at the ontological level or at a systemic level, depending on how you look at it. So, ontologically, to make it simple, is the problem of collective v individual. At the systemic level, is the problem of the free flow of the factors of production, particularly capital. Nationalist systems say you're not allowed to do whatever with your money that you want.

A possible third philosophical reason they conflict is because Marxism and Lolbergtardianism believe economics (trade) comes first where Civic Republicans (and fascists) believe community/ideas comes first and Ordoliberals (and fascists) believe the State comes first. (and usually in Civic Republicanism the State is synonymous with the Community because of the emphasis on civic virtue and participation)

I hope that makes sense, and I hope we can put this "National Libertarianism" (and all libertarianism for that matter) to rest where it belongs: in the fucking trash.

Yeah, and I checked. Pretty much all that growth in Africa from the first graph is in SubSaharan Africa. N. Africa has rates of growth comparable to N America

Look Libertarianism can't work with all the Negros and Spics in America, in order for it to even work a little you need a group of people with a great work ethic and that's something Tyrone and Paco don't have

The West German economic system?

Trying to discuss politics with people who only think in terms of *.ism files… Tropisms, orgasms, spasms, etc. The sort of impulsive, unconscious, reactionary, or otherwise involuntary reflexes have become the basis for all the political ideals. That is why libertarians are never as popular as they should be.

I was speaking more about the thinkers who inspired it and their assumptions, but yes, it is a German invention. How it was applied by Social Democrats in the post-war period is beyond the scope of what I'm speaking about.

Don't worry, you'll grow up sometime after you get out of your teens. Just keep reading.

He's that Gonna Bend the Knee to Islam Libertarian

It's fascinating how nu-republicans and libertarians are so repulsed toward anything remotely collective that they cannot bring themselves to believe in any ethnic solidarity

i agree. they also have to realize (Charles Taylor wrote a good article about this) that its not just a single axis, as well. I think the way Taylor puts it is that there is the Collectivism-Individualism axis and the Communitarian-Atomism axis. And I can't remember exactly how he explains it, but basically one is sort of ontological (there is not such thing as an individual, only collectivities) and the other is most social, sort of like how Aristotle says that a man who lives outside of society is no man at all; he is either a beast or a god.

He had really good 2x2 where he put different thinkers in the boxes, but IIRC the last time I tried to find the article I couldn't find it on my HDD

anyway, people have to realize that's because, basically, both of those groups actually derive from Marxism, or at least share a bunch of central assumptions with Marxism, even if they disagree on a lot.

Germany's post-war economic system was the social market economy, a mixed economic system that combined the free market with limited social welfare programs, pensions, social security, etc. It made germany the economic powerhouse that it is today, fastest growing economy in europe, strongest courency, lowest unemployment rate, highest amount of savings, etc.
This economic system died with the rise of the EU bureaucracy and the adoption of the EURO. Germany, like most other EU member states is now a heavily regulated, almost socialist colony of the EU that will collapse if it doesn't change course within the next decade.

(checked)
Doesn't sound too bad, actually. Of course, it also helps that during that time Germany was German instead of being invaded by Turks, Somalis, and Kurds. I've looked at a bit of ORDOliberalism and it doesn't sound too bad. I even thought about running for office when I got older and use that system for my home state.

I'd like to read more on that.
I haven't gotten this impression at all. They believe in individual freedom and distinguish between positive vs negative rights as the justification for all personal and intrapersonal actions. They think about human motivation a lot and that's why the terminology gets real clinical and marketty. It definitely attracts some cringe demographics, but everything does.
That makes sense regarding libertarianism vs fascism. I just don't take it that Nationalism implies Fascism.

Putting your nation first and even believing in ethnic solidarity doesn't seem to me to be incompatible with individual liberties and the NAP.

I hope I don't seem like bait or anything, I'm really not. I understand if you're irritated because you have this conversation all the time, though. Thanks for sticking around and explaining your thoughts.

NYT article covering convention from today.

Libertarians See Chance Amid Discontent Over Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton

archive.is/iXa0V

Pics related.

Not true at all tbh.
They only say no violence.
You have fallen for liberal propaganda

Seems to me libertarianism probably has the most well read people on average compared to conservatives / liberals.
Especially I think learning more about economics would convert a lot of people toward libertarianism. Your arrogance is unwarranted if reading more will only turn people away from you as they learn Holla Forums is embarrassingly bad on economics

There are a lot of ways libertarianism is the best system for a diverse society.
Government systems would actually be worse in a diverse society because everybody wants taxes to spent on different things and in different ways

...

Look with less Laws the Chimps have more reason to chimp out

they'll all die when we eliminate welfare and stop prosecuting people from defending their property with guns

Me mam and I were just talking about this and she came out with
So I started laughing at her

Then I remembered I have this really weird habit of making fun of something she says for being stupid and having it turn around and happen anyways.

Libertarian Nationalism will purge these Libertarian Globalists.

I wouldn't expect them to die. They'll get jobs at low pay and have less single mothers. They'd be arrested less and pay less taxes.
I'd expect them to become productive citizens just like everyone else a decade or two down the line

Or almost like everyone else
I won't be too strong

This guy is a total fucking joke. He won't even criticize the banks for their role in the 2008 housing crisis.

uh…. well, you'll have to go back aways… Well, you can look up the Mont Perelin Society, where they all met together and said "hey we need to start creating propaganda so the commies don't win" But, what they aren't really honest about is their attack on republicanism, esp bc by that time it was almost dead (it was attacked first by the socialists/communists and corporatists)

why not just read about (civic) republicanism in the early Republic and the Populist movement, so you can see how different the two are? I can link you to a bunch of books. Read this article and watch this video when you get a chance. Basically, lolbergtardians lie and censor in order to make it seem like they and only they have a monopoly on "liberty" – that's bullshit.

For a quick overview of how Skinner's Republicanism (NeoRoman Republicanism – which is a bit different, possibly, from the Founders' Republicanism) differs from Negative Liberty, see this article, section 1
plato.stanford.edu/entries/republicanism/

The vid goes over it in much greater detail, giving a whole history of the idea of liberty.

Bullshit. That's rhetoric. They are, after all, a fucking propaganda machine/ideology.

They believe, by and large, in homo oeconomicus, which is basically just what I said. look it up. but, like i said, it depends on which lolbergtardian you are speaking of. Hoppe is nuts. But Mises and Rothbard (and Friedman) definitely do believe in homo oeconomicus (read: greedy jew) as either the positive or normative (usually both) standard-bearer of "humanity"

You aren't listening: its incompatible with the ontological presuppositions and/or systematic consequences of lolbergtardianism. Civic Republicanism is how you blend community/nation with individual freedom.

Lolbergtardianism is inherently internationalist is what I'm saying. Corporate entities can exist (maybe), but not Nation-States. Nationalism completely violates, for lolbergtardians, the fundamental principle(s) of autonomy, free trade, free movement of capital and/or individualism.

The two can exist as a political settlement, but then you're outside the bounds of lolbergtardianism and into the bounds of the other two/three I mentioned. I think you're on the right track, you haven't dug enough yet. that's why you flip back and forth between fascism and lolbergtardianism which is really silly, no offense

OY VEY I'M THAT BUILD-THE-WALL LIBERTARIAN

This is the kinda stuff that puts off people who can't think, and that's a chunky part of the population. It doesn't matter how solid your arguments are, if you whip out your dick and piss on the podium, nobody will take you seriously. People like this make sheeple think libertarianism is a totally unstable lifestyle.

Yeah this is why everyone thinks you're retarded

Bullshit. They are hiding presuppositions from you. see:

You are using the word "liberal" incorrectly you fucking retard, so who, then, has fallen for propaganda?!?

Fuck you, kid. I'm probably 12-15 years older than you and am about to have a PhD

With the recent rise in libertarians, I think it might time to start the Libertarian Nationalist party to redpill people about the flaws in libertarianism.

This is the funniest thread Holla Forums has had in a while. I'm dying here. Can't believe I ever took these guys seriously.

Libertarians are fucking retarded. I guarantee every single person at that convention is anti borders.

Population expands to fill the space afforded by resources. In this case western medicine and food aid are creating an unsustainable perfect storm, like a rat infestation on a grain ship: boom, overshoot, then catastrophic crash.

This is pleasing to Malthus.

Holy shit this was a great convention

I don't think most of them have thought it through, libertarian nationalism is not something they've heard of, yet.

There is no contradiction at all between libertarianism and thinking in a group. The only presupposition is that aggression is wrong.

I meant that the liberal leftist media puts out the meme that libertarians are self centered.

Your gay phD doesn't mean you can't be arrogant

Anti government borders tbh

Thinking / being in a group

...

Watching the video now. Gonna be an informative hour.

It seems that you're saying that Libertarianism's leaders and popular figures are all greedy jews who define its core philosophy despite my anecdotal encounters with libertarians who don't believe those things, which I can accept.

I suppose I'll have more info after the video.
The article has already given me a couple of new terms I've been looking for (like second-order desires).

None taken. I was expecting worse than "silly".

Brace yourself:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McAfee#Legal_issues
Yes, it's real. It's all real.

There is if you didn't choose that group (ie. free association) and if it is a State (ie. an organization that has a monopoly on the use of violence in a certain territory.)

also, see here:

It's the freedom to trade. It's about the definition of freedom/liberty you fucking dimwit. Look at my citation.

I also want to say that you are not going to go very far. This user is smart. They will achieve much more, much more quickly than you bc they came into the conversation believing that it is at least a possibility that this person knows more than me on this subject, and asks questions. I can also tell user is reading bc of how much time it takes user to reply. user will learn quickly and go far. You, on the other hand, are a retarded faggot. I hope your daddy is rich.
I'm being arrogant toward you bc I taught University for 5 years - I've graded literally thousands of essay tests - and I can tell by someone's writing how smart they are and whether they know what they are talking about. I can usually even tell their gender and age. also, this info is part-and-parcel of my dissertation

Yeah. It is my belief that almost all people that call themselves libertarians are, in fact, some form of republican. When you really, really dig a libertarianism, it comes down to the greed-jew-as-the-best-human philosophy, to put it in vulgar terms

Great! I'll probably still be around, so come back and tell me what you think. I've watched it like 3 or 4 times since it came out in '09 or whatever it was. Skinner is really fucking smart.

Was that a furfag at 1:47?

Why would Jews support a system that has no centralized banks and decreases their control over people through government?

So you have to believe in violence to care about involuntary groups? Since when?

It's true libertarians don't generally identify themselves with militant violent gangs, but the original point that libertarians are self centered and don't care about any groups is way off base.

They care about their definition. I don't see that caring about a different definition from you must mean your belief is bullshit.

Why should I think you know better when you're saying things that don't make sense and calling it lolbertardianism? And also boasting about your gay phD to seem like some cool guy

I am completely unfamiliar with little-r republicanism as something that's actively practiced and not just talked about in history classes. I often hear people say little-l libertarian. Maybe it's because most people investigating a third party are at least a bit more politically informed than the majority.
I think if more people knew about the republicanism talked about in the article you linked me, there would be a lot of converts from within my circles.
I will.

Can you tell my gender and age?

Libertarianism is the idea of giving all control of a nation to money aka banks, aka kikes.

Other than implying, Jews, especially these particular ones, have a good amount of accumulated wealth. They don't need (or don't think they need) (quasi-)Governmental agencies to help them out. Also, jews always lie: they're ethnocentric. They have their State (Israel) they can buy the American government with their shekels etc etc. When lolbergtardianism was invented, they were worried about (post-Stalinist purge) USSR, and the growth of the US Welfare State. It was tactical: attack the State at all cost and save your shekels from the goyim. I hope that made sense.

Look, man, you're not reading the citations I've given and you're only arguing against one little portion of what I've said. Go back and read Section 1 of the citation I gave (and why not give the vid a look-see) and look at the totality of my argument. You are not attacking the crux of my argument, but some of the (possibly) weaker corollaries.

Okay, then, we are having a different conversation altogether. What is your argument again. also I wasn't boasting; that's why I put it in spoiler, and I want to point out that it is really, really bad form to quote someone's spoiler openly like that, you fucking asshole

I think this is correct. The closest to what I linked you is probably Pat Buchanan or paleoconservatism more generally.

No, bc it has been a number of years since I've taught, and like I said you have a unique level of maturity. Also, its easier to tell in an essay. other user is just a fuckwit, so that was an easy identifier. But, fuck it, I'll guess: Almost without a doubt, male - doesn't sound like a female writing style at all, certainly not at college level. I'm guessing early twenties, but mature for your age, like I said. In late college, or just graduated (which would make you closer to mid-20s) You have a slightly midwest feel to you (maybe upper), but that's probably just bc you're right-wing, so don't quote me on that. How did I do?

this

Sounds like complete bullshit just to attack libertarianism. While I'm libertarian nationalist myself, this notion that Jews would support libertarianism over some socialist ideology is ludicrous.

How many people here think Jews prefer libertarianism to socialism?

Irrelevant. NOT. AN. ARGUMENT
molyfag.jpg

doesn't exist for the reasons I listed

WernerSombart - The Jews and Modern Capitalism.pdf
MeinKampf.pdf

see:

FTFY

It looks like someone is sucking his dick behind the balcony and he is trying to shake it off.

I almost went into business with Peterson. He is NOT a libertarian. He's just another powerhungry politician looking for donation money that he's going to keep 90% and intentionally lose the race.

Christopher Cantwell on Radical agenda is libetarian and now alt right nationalist.

His stance is simple. People invading your country is dangerous to you, so NAP can go fuck it's self when dealing with Muslim immigrants. They may not be attacking you "now" but they are attacking you in a slow burn kind of way. As such he is defending his property and his safety by removing kebab before kebab get enough numbers to remove him.

There is nothing in libertarianism that is against nationalism. Also a lot of libertarians have left the movement because social justice has taken over. They saw the danger the left represents and are moving towards 1488.

Either way check out Radical agenda. It's interesting.

Sounds pretty Libertarian to me.

But he can't be both at the same time. His change to alt-right nationalism means he is no longer Libertarian.

It's dangerous to you, but it's not an act of aggression. Tornadoes are also dangerous but they don't violate the NAP. What you're saying is that for Libertarian Nationalism to be a thing you must nebulously redefine what aggression is so that all non-aggressive but harmful actions still fall under the banner of aggression.
There very much is. Libertarianism is individualism epitomized, and you cannot be a nationalist while simultaneously decrying any decision made above the individual. You may say Muslims invading your home is dangerous to you, but you can't do shit when your leftie neighbor invites Ahmed and his 20 kids to live with them. You're going to end up just as cucked, but you're going to have the illusion of a strong nation while doing it.

Cantwell and more recently Molyneux are pandering to the alt right since it has a larger demographic population than Ancaps. Their strategy is to gain alt-right viewership and when the election season is over to slowly shift their viewpoint back to Ancap.

I'm and Ancap and that's what i'm seeing. Cantwell probably believes in what he's saying more than Stef though. Not to say that either doesn't believe in what they are saying–they do. They just aren't using as much Ancap retoric due to the current political climate, so they reframe their arguments more in an alt-right bent.

Libertarians can self-segregate. In fact its the only form of segregation that works. Cultural War only aggravates the already strained relations between races. Voluntary self-segregation through community covenants preventing the sale of property to those of another race is the ONLY way to end the disease of multiculturalism.

Except for all the periods of recorded history where segregation was implemented and served its purpose.
So "let's not fight because then niggers won't like us"? What a pussy attitude.

So go back to tribes instead of civilizations.

OP this event is a distraction to get people to focus on and pay attention to the fact that there is a Libertarian Party, get them attention, and give the news a reason to show everyone an alternative to Trump/Hillary.

This is GOPe on their final straw. They are trying to bring a bunch of Republican senators, put them on Gary Johnson's ticket, and hopefully pry enough votes off of Trump to get Hillary in. Just wait you are going to hear all the cucks come out singing the praises of Gary Johnson.

Except it didn't serve it's purpose, because it is no longer implemented. Like all other government policy it is ephemeral, only existing as a temporary patch on top of a plethora of other temporary patches. If you want a permanent solution you need to get government out of the picture, since all states are inherently meta-stable social structures. Where-as a polycentric society is provably indefinite.

You're "arguement" is that it's a pussy attitude? Really?
It is economically the most rational choice. War has always been a net-loss for both sides. Sure there are some individual winners, but only in the aristocratic classes.

Caving to your fear-based animalistic instincts is far more of a pussy attitude IMO.

You think we aren't still tribal? You underestimate our ingrained biological behavior. Sure, we may be far more closely connected these days, but we're still very much tribal.

Jews are a tribe, Holla Forums is a tribe, Ancaps are a tribe. We may not be geographically tribal, but we certainly are still tribal.

It certainly exists, I am one. Your "reasons" and opinion are irrelevant.

What's with that tattoo though? Are we being psyopped again?

/watcha doin rabbi

Your cognitive dissonance is very relevant. :^)

But, believe what you want, retard. If you don't want to educate yourself, that's your loss

COCAINE MOTHERFUCKER

You're the one who refuses to acknowledge libertarian nationalism works beautifully, it solves the inherent deficiencies in libertarianism and incorporates the best of nationalism.

LN is going to happen and there's nothing you can do about it.

Don't know if its still up, but McAfee takes 4-Fluoroamphetamine which is essentially methamphetamine with slightly less neurotoxic side effects.
I know this from a friend who personally knows McAfee, and he also briefly wrote about it in an interview. usesthis.com/interviews/john.mcafee/

As you can see he's pretty batshit, but that's why he's make a good president.

So every government program is meaningless as soon as it ends. You're a retard. That's the equivalent of saying "the war didn't serve its purpose, since we're no longer at war".
So you want anarchy then? Since you say all government action is inherently pointless and ineffective, why do you call yourself Libertarian and not anarchist? Unless of course you're a moron who is well aware of the necessity of governance and the benefits it provides, but chooses to ignore it anyway unless it suits him to acknowledge it.

Yes, and other countries and cultures will take advantage of your pussy attitude because for some reason no other culture is as willing to sacrifice everything they've worked for a s Libertarians tend to be.
And politically, one of the stupidest things I've ever fucking heard. A policy of non-confrontation does NOT work on the international scale. It barely works domestically.
Now I know I'm talking to a retard, you can't even understand the necessity and nature of war and conflict.
I think we became something greater. I think we became a civilization. Sad that you're willing to throw that all away.

Wow so you really are autistic. I was just hanging shit on you earlier but it turned out to be on the money.
I'll do what any sane man does in your presence: Walk all over you and do better in spite of you as you run away.

again, believe what you want, retard.

WRONG! I'm telling you its incoherent. But, your skills at math apparently haven't transferred over to logic proper (even though math is a branch of logic).

There's no such thing. I don't disagree, necessarily, with your politics (of which you haven't told me much), but with your incoherent use of terms. If you truly understood what nationalism meant, what libertarianism meant, and the relevant alternatives, you simply wouldn't use that terminology because it is incoherent (and I strongly suspect your world-view in general is incoherent, but that's not unusual). But, again, stay ignorant: not my problem, faggot. :^)

What I'm really disappointed about is that this is a real opportunity for you to learn something, even if you disagree, but you've wasted it by being an arrogant faggot. Your loss, asshole

There is a local #nevertrump radio talkshow host that started shilling for the lolbertarians as a viable option to Trump and Hillery.
I just sent him some links to this shit show. I can't fucking wait to call in Tuesday.

You think I'm "autistic" because of my education, you should come find out how "autistic" I am about my firearms ;)

Actually I was quite adept at proofs and I'm an absolute beast when it comes to digital logic. Logic is my bitch across the table, from math to engineering.

That being said, there is incoherency in the terms, libertarian nationalism works fantastically. I've spent years studying mathematics where a single wrong word in a proof invalidates the entire proof, and yet you think you understand how words are defined on my level? That's absolutely hilarious because it only shows you know literally nothing of what mathematical proofs actually entail.

Libertarian Nationalism is the future, deal with it.

I lol'd.

is no+

Before I begin my rebuttal I should say it is clear to me you have no idea what position you are actually arguing against. You should educate yourself on Austrian Economics and Anarcho-Capitalist theory before writing your next failure at an argument.
If you don't even know what I am talking about, then all you are actually doing is building up strawmen and tearing them down.

Most are meaningless (or more likely meaningful in the negative sense) as soon as they start. But even getting a policy that has some benefit at all is like playing roulette with your entire bet on a single number.
This is due to what is economically known as the "Economic calculation problem" unless you have a mechanism which can transmit information of people's values uncorrupted by central authority, then you can never truly know what the people of your nation want. Nothing other than a price mechanism can convey this information, so unless you privatize the choice of social organization by making it a per-individual basis, you will never have the full picture, and any "program" you implement is as good as a random bet.

So you are saying you want segregation to be temporary because wars are temporary?

I'm an Anarcho-Capitalist. The founding ideological thinkers of libertarianism as a philosophy and as a political party were also ancaps. Only starting in the mid-'90s did the viewpoint of the party shift from Anarcho-Capitalism to Minarchism instead. But whenever a philosophy is diluted throughout a population, a degradation of intellectual rigor occurs. I use the term Libertarian in the original sense, as a synonym for Anarcho-Capitalism.

Certain things the government provides are definite boons to society.
It's a fallacy to assume that only government can provide them. Many people though lighthouses were solely public good. But that was found to be inherently false. independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=757
And for anything claimed to be solely public good, it can be proven that there are ways to privatize them, and simultaneously get more value from them.

And how exactly would another race/culture "take advantage" of a community that voluntarily self-segregated? If a dindu tries to squat on land that the white owners refuse to sell to him, they can rightfully defend their land by blowing his fucking brains out.

non-aggression DOES NOT mean pacifism. Let me try to get it through the shitstain you call a brain. Aggression. Never. Works. It only serves as a temporary patch to create temporary solution, but it's collateral effects cause much more loss than any gain perceived.
Defense works, on a non-state scale due to the fact that there are no states to conquer. If you can topple a flag and kill a President or Congress, then you can take over a country.
If each man is his own state, then you must kill every last man. That is far too expensive, and usually defeats the purpose of any aggressive action. Even when all you want is natural resources, who do think is forced to extract the resources after a war is won? The people who were conquered. Once a nation has had a culture of statelessness they will forever be guerrillas fighting for that culture again, and you can not have a state, without the will of the people under it.

We certainly aren't the prehistoric tribes. But we are still tribal. Our modern tribes generate hierarchy on demand, when a leader is needed the right person will step up at the right time, instead of being some lifetime chief tan.
Also we no longer have to stick with the same tribe for life, we can choose which tribes we belong to, and even belong to many at once. But in the end, they are still tribes and follow the same general social dynamics

God damn you're worse than the socialists. At least they're willing to define their stance as "public ownership of the means of production", but no matter what you fucking talk to a Libertarian about as soon as it becomes clear he's wrong he just screams "you just don't understand Libertarianism". Maybe I don't understand because you don't understand yourself? You claim to be an individualist and a nationalist, you claim not to be an anarchist but also decry all functions of government, you claim nobody else knows what your stance is but then are never able to define your stance without resorting to nebulous, wishy-washy hollow words to avoid ever being caught when defending your house of cards.

You are a failure through and through: Never once has your ideology ever been close to baring any fruit, and yet you still scream from the hills that you could accomplish wonders if only you didn't have to deal with the pesky "other": I've got news for you buddy, you're more than welcome to start your anarchist paradise right here and now in your own home. But you don't, because you know it is and always will be infinitely inferior to those who will kick your shit in for being such a tremendous moron.

Well, that's simply not true. And, rambling on drunkenly about mathematics, is not really proving anything.

Perhaps you should go back here and actually read the arguments, and check the citation(s), and then argue from there. Right now, you're just being a total flamer

Jesus christ Africa. Get your shit together before we fix it for you. And I mean permanently.

We don't need 4 billion of first pic related. We need more pic related 2 and 3.

Plenty of people understand the stance. You clearly aren't one of them. Sorry that you don't have the intellectual capacity to understand it.

I'll explain my viewpoint in the most generalized and reductionist terms to anyone else reading who might have the IQ necissary to understand it.

The state is a geographical monopoly on violent force.
Any monopoly on violent force must also be aggressive, otherwise there would be competition.
Since aggressive violent force distorts property rights, one can never know what people in a nation actually want, due to the calculation problem.
Anarcho-capitalism fixes this problem by creating competing government-corporations in the same geographical area culminating into a polycentric legal system where law is determined by the price system of the market, which is the ONLY way to truely convey the will of the people.

I base my position on my view of the world, that doesn't require the opinions of others. From a systems perspective, libertarian nationalism works. Maybe sometime soon I'll push to create the Libertarian Nationalist Party.

...

Real libertarians don't believe they change the system from within. Only those still disillusioned with the idea of a "benevolent state"

I want to like the lolbertarians, I really do. We need a strong Nationalist Libertarianism movement.

That must be why the majority of the thread is mocking you and your ilk, right? I understand your stance fine, and yet it's retarded. You refuse to accept this, and in your warped mind the only way anybody could possibly disagree with you is if they don't understand you. You lack the fundamental capacity for discourse.

Sure.
Sure.
Demonstrably false, but I'll go on the next one since it's infinitely more retarded.
So now instead of a monopoly on violent force, there are hundreds of smaller, equally as aggressive entities, all of which have the same exact desire as the government you claim to hate, but which now need to use more aggression to ensure they are validated. You seriously think that having one single entity controlling the area will be negative, but multiple factions vying for control of the same areas will (against their own interests) forgoe agression (despite your statement that "it never works", that seems to be contradicted by all of recorded history) and choose to be content with less power.
You also believe that these groups will not form a government in the long term, which is what always occurs. It's almost as if when you splinter the country into these sb-units, eventually many sub-units will come together with each other or against others, and that eventually we won't be left with essentially a parliamentary system.
But hey, I guess the fact that every single anarchist system that has ever been attempted has formed either a feudal system, been taken by a warlord or been taken over by stronger outside forces just means you didn't try hard enough, right?
What's to stomp my country fucking over yours and enslaving the populace?

okay, you have a marketable name, but not much more than that, because you're ideationally incoherent. But, good luck.

All we have to do is stop feeding them

this is like those highschool speech competitions

cringe

In retrospective, this sketch was far too kind.

I fucking lost it at Badass McAfee. The way they guy stutters and shakes his head when he says it. Pure gold.

This is good! This kind of dumb ass behavior very likely will attract the kind of dumb ass University schmuck voting Sanders! Soak up those Dem votes, Libertarians! Make these little retards feel like real rebels for voting Libertarian! Then Trump sweeps the general!

important survey

poal.me/mztn2u

I dislike Asians, but she's not bad.

I agree.

Demonstrate it then.
Except of course you can't because, the problem of economic calculation can only be solved by a price mechanism. Since only an individual can know for the themselves they truly want in the moment.

They are highly unlikely to be aggressive because the incentives have changed. They can lose customers, and getting into a fight with another DRO(Dispute Resolution Organization, which is the ancap term for private government), their customers separate customer bases which generally have neutral feelings towards each-other, and likely have some amount of economic relationships can no longer safely do business with each other. So obviously they will search for a different service provider, and the DROs will lose whatever business they had.
If a DRO backstabs another, then they will no longer trust each other in future dealings, and their previous contractual agreements will be voided once again making it lose value to the customers, and subsequently bankrupting them.
So the economic incentives force DROs to make contractual compromises over policy:
For example if one supports the death penalty and the other does not, the one which supports the death penalty may calculate via the price mechanism provided by customers that if they paid off the DRO which does not support the death penalty some amount of money and the Anti-death DRO would then agree to a price where they would still make a profit from their customers.
The cost of two DROs not coming to a compromise would mean the failure of both, due to what I described earlier, so whatever solution provides the most collective value to customers would be the one acted upon.
Thereby using price which is the only accurate way to signal the desires of the people to generate a law system.

Actually pretty much every cartel fails. Check out Stef's video debunking this amongst other myths
youtube.com/watch?v=nOBD6v8g1F4

We basically just need libertarians that want libertarianism for us only. Libertarians now are controlled by no-borders types. I don't give a fuck about liberties for people in Mexico.

...

A lot of libertarians are have a delusional "save the whole world" mentality. But that's because the primary efforts of the libertarian party have gone towards converting socialists, rather than nationalists, because socialists are further from libertarianism than state-nationalism.

So socialists-turned-libertarians have co-opted libertarianism and seem to think it will be an all inclusive club when the state is destroyed, but the intellectual elite in the movement know that it most definitely turn to nationalism. They don't care though, since it will turn to nationalism no matter how hard the left-libertarians try to otherwise change it, because that's how human nature works.

my fucking grammar tonight is atrocious. I need to quit drinking.

Yeah, it's not a difficult concept to wrap your head around. I'm not engaging in the other stuff in this thread, because it's all over the place.

Boils down to this: Government, leave me the fuck alone, and keep out insurgents that seek to do us harm.

That's my problem with them. I'm a mix between a Libertarian, a Nationalist, and a Conservative. So naturally when I found out about the mainstream Libertarian belief on borders and immigration, I had to abandon them as a possibility. Hell, before Trump I didn't even have a dog in this race. Styx (if you know who he is), seems to have the right idea though. He lives in a state where him voting Repub is redundant in the general, so he's voting Libertarian to get them on the card or something in 4 years (I forget how that goes). So as the party evolves, maybe by the time it's viable and can contend with the two party system, it can actually be a decent party. As for implementing Nationalistic ideals into the party, I don't know. If the Libertarian party adopted Nationalistic ideals, I'd be a hardcore Libertarian and I'd proudly announce it. A small but effective government protecting our interests in foreign affairs; non-interventionist; focus on border security etc. It'd be amazing. But I doubt it'd happen. Too many stuck-in-their-way old boomer schmucks at the head of it, I'm sure. Unless young voters from the Repub and Dem parties start looking for a new party and try to impart their ideals on the Libertarian party. I have to imagine Nationalism is far more popular among young voters. And then the opposite as well–Marxism.

this

you have to make a decision. this is rhetorical political bullshit

oh lord

Say you're a racist.

Well there's the fact that Greek Democracy solved this entire problem, but you have then re-phrased the problem to ensure it cannot be solved.
The problem of economic caluclation as you put it cannot be solved, as it values these views but does nothing to put them forth or into any kind of application.

So again, your goal is to create a peoples with absolutely no allegiances to one another who begrudgingly live together purely out of circumstance. These "customers" are citizens, so what holds the citizens together as a peoples? What if the business decides to try and attract more Muslim customers and forgoes you?
The fact that this doesn't currently happen discredits this line of thinking. And I know you'll try to say it doesn't due to government because EVERYTHING to you is the fault of government, but again recorded history begs to differ.
Except it would not, it would mean they would be forced into conflict. And one would triumph over the other, absorbing its customer-base. Why in your imaginary world you envision that conflict is not only undesirable but actually impossible, baffles me.
You don't generate law, you generate a begrudging set of tribes all vying for control of the market, and whom will be willing to fight to obtain it. You leave out conflict through this entire piece as if it's simple not a factor you even consider.

Except when they don't, and when they transition into government. You know, like I said. The entire arab world is a good example.

Why would it bother to keep out insurgents if you want to be left alone? If you wanna be left alone you'll fucking fight alone buddy.

I didn't know we here in the US deemed "Nationalist" a bad thing. I openly say I'm one, and I'll say it to anyone. Who the fuck thinks Nationalism is bad, aside form maybe some dumb University Marxists? This isn't Europe. That whole Nazi shit doesn't have the same effect here. Or maybe I'm just socially unaware. Who the fuck knows… All I know is I'd say it without hesitation to anyone the same as I'd say "I'm straight" or "I like iced tea." I didn't know anyone thought poorly of it.

Impressive, it's almost like a symphony of logical fallacies.

Classic Libertarian. Yell that it's a logical fallacy without any substance to add.

You want the government to leave you alone? Sure, then it will. And when Ahmed and his buddies arrive on shore with guns blazing, the government will remember that you wanted to be left alone.
As I said: Why would they bother to fucking help you? You can scream fallacy all you like but it won't make the point any less valid. You can't want to be left alone but also protected by the very people you told to piss off.

You know what's funny?

your posts to literally everyone else reading them

Is someone being euphoric?

He's sounding more reasonable than you as a lurker, tbh.

So your argument is essentially that image of the guy on the bike as it falls over.

What's so hard to grasp about having a government that respects the personal freedoms of citizens, as well as private enterprise, while having a strict focus on border security, among other things? Fuck, you don't need to call it "Libertarianism" or "National Libertarianism" you pedantic schmuck. Borrowing different ideals from different ideologies, and making them work together, for the betterment of your specific nation with its specific set of problems is how you advance. The US will never be your little NATSOC paradise. We need a political ideology specifically crafted to suit our needs, that adheres to our traditional values. Nationalism and Libertarianism both hold ideals that can be combined to create a unique ideology that can benefit the nation.

maybe he wants the government to leave white people alone you jew-ridden marxist piece of shit or are you to dumb to grasp that?

Wasn't my argument (another logical fallacy). But yes, government would be enumerated with the duty to defend the nation (hence nationalism) from all enemies foreign and domestic.

You're still confusing libertarians with libertarian nationalists. LNs would have a government with such an enumerated power, libertarians would not.

Sounds to me like you're describing paleoconservatism.

...

I've designed thousands of circuits/PCBs in my time, using hundreds of thousands of different components, and yet these people seem to think taking components from different ideologies and compiling them into a new framework is somehow magic and therefore impossible.

I think they just don't like that libertarian nationalism offers people an alternative to national socialism.

I've heard that thrown around a few times now, but never looked into it. I've heard Trump described as a Paleoconservative. This may be the ideology I'm looking for. We'll see…

conservatism is rooted in religion, libertarianism is rooted in liberty, this difference is sufficient for a stratification of terminology.

Just read it up on wiki.Trump's policies are pretty close to palecon minus all the religious fluff.

...

Nothing's hard to grasp about that concept, it's just such a broad and nebulous phrase that even Fascism can achieve that goal.
Trump's getting us on the way there buddy. People have seen the failure of Libertarianism and they want a strong government working for it's citizens, not a lack of government entirely.
Libertarianism holds very little good. It's a kike-ideology designed to subvert nations, not make them prosperous.

And then when, as I fucking said, Ahmed arrives on the beach and starts shooting up innocent whites? Do you still want the government to leave those whites alone? Do you want the government to allow white people to die to avoid interfering with the an-cap dream?

Then it needs to have authority, and that authority needs to be backed by force.
FTFY
If you ask a Libertarian nationalist to describe their position, they'll always describe a thoroughly un-libertarian or un-nationalist idea.

This isn't a fucking computer you fuckwit, this is a country. This is why you autists always fail, because you don't understand man.

but Muh Principle of Non-Aggression

Do you honestly think direct democracy via property owners is a viable solution to political problems? Property ownership democracy IS NOT nationalism, it is aristocracy, and the property owners have less allegiance to their own race than ever before.

No I clarified what I meant because I foresaw the potential for you to misinterpret it. And it can be solved via a pure market approach to societal organization.

The true desires of human nature, which I believe to be fundamentally good, and fundamentally nationalistic/multi-tribalistic will be put into application.

This is where your true colors are shown by the way. Deep down you believe that whites can not come together as a nation on their own, and instead must be forced into being a nation.
I on the otherhand actually believe whites to be superior to other races, and I believe if our economic incentives were not distorted by states, multiculturalism would disintegrate voluntarily, via the natural tribalistic nature of humanity.
How did you draw this conclusion? People will have allegiances to those whom they have economic relationships with. Those who value their race and their culture will prefer economic relationships with those who they can trust more, which would be their race and culture.

I don't see a culturally western/white business making that decision, because a western society has an ingroup high-trust preference. Muslim customers would be inherently more expensive to deal with because of the cultural differences.

Actually it DOES currently happen just not with DROs. Economists call it the discipline of constant dealings which essentially mean if you know your going to have future business with someone, then being an asshole to them is going to hurt your profits.

Not at all. I blame a lot of our problems on inherently flawed biology which is mal-adapted to the modern environment. Humans are far from perfect, but they would be much closer without government.

Say you're in a large city with many companies that deliver food to you, and one of those companies went and murdered all the executives of another and then started delivering food you didn't want. Wouldn't you just find a different food delivery company rather than sticking with the one that had the literally hostile takeover?

Conflict is always an option, the system I propose just makes sure its the least likely chosen option.

The arab world in modern years was thoroughly co-opted by the Jewish-Socialist controlled Wahhabi branch which only rose to power due to western governments creating them and stamping out competing branches of the state/religion.
If you mean instead the ancient caliphates, then I would disagree as well because many times they split over many different controversies.

Goddamn it, won't anyone listen to me? This is called republicanism. Pat Buchanan is a paleo, and he wrote a book: Republic not an Empire.

Pat doesn't give a fuck about hard times. Pat takes hard times an whips its ass.

He weathered the tempest and now he lives to see America Made Great Again.

He has witnessed the death of the movement that killed his political aspirations.

He is witnessing the last days of a broken neo-liberal attempt at empire.

He is at hand for the unraveling of the globalist system.

Pat does not give a fuck about hard times because hard times are paying your dues on the path to victory.

This thread is just more proof that lolbergs are autistic children.

Ad-hominim/name-calling is a definite sign that you subconsciously know you are wrong but don't want to put in the effort to educate yourself correctly.

I don't blame you, you evolved not to waste glucose, and changing your world-view takes a huge amount of it, to reconfigure neural pathways in the brain.

I was thinking the honey badger might be a good mascot for Libertarian Nationalism, since a honey badger would fuck up a porcupine.

From what I've read their debate this year was nothing more than a bunch of anarchists pretending they don't want power and pussy vs Gary Johnson.

Libertarians are nothing more than faggot hipsters looking for pussy nowadays. When guys like Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Wayne Allen Root were the face of libertarianism they at least had class and morals.

They're no better than hedonistic Marxists at this point.

Or you could very well warrant a diagnosis of autism. The verboseness of your insults make you sound more and more like an angry Chris-chan

I never said I wasn't autistic. I technically have high-functioning Asperger's.

Who I am, doesn't change the logical truth of my arguments.
1+1=2, no matter who's finger's types it.

Holy fedora, batman.

knew it
typical lolberg

That's autism. You have confirmed our suspicions

You caught me.
But you still haven't proven me wrong :^)

Yea, but I still tested a few sigma above the 99th percentile in linguistic intelligence and spacial reasoning.

And that's all the bragging I will do for now, in a vain attempt to increase my ethos again.

No, but it's a solution to the problem you posed. The real solution is Fascism, but you framed the question to avoid such an answer.
Property owners have vested interest in the betterment of the nation. Would you give women and degenerates equal say in your nation, or would you actually like to see it succeed?
What you have done is posed the question so that the answer you don't want to hear isn't possible. You've essentially asked "Name a whole number between 4 and 7 that isn't 5", so that 5 can never be given as a valid answer. Never mind that it's still the criteria you want to actually know, you're artificially restricting the conversation so that you and only you can be correct.
This is why you fail. Man is flawed, and his desires are flawed. Prosperity only comes when man puts aside his desires to work on his needs and his betterment.
Nationalism and mutli-tribalism are opposite things you dipshit. You can't stand as a nation if you are hundreds of disconnected, non-cohesive tribes.
I believe that when whites come together on their own they form government, as they did in Greece. And Rome. And England. And America. And Australia. And all white civilizations since the dawn of time.
And you will fail due to subversion, manipulation and greed. The eternal Jew strikes you as he does everyone else but you think yourself better than to fight back. You think you can overcome him with apathy rather than iron. And people like yourself are why society has degenerated to this state.
So when the Jew ends up supplying your people with degenerate media, they will then pledge allegiance to him. When the Jew provides them with instant gratification and indulgence, they pledge allegiance to him. Duty and responsibility are harder than indulgence and degeneracy, and so you will find your society destroyed because you did not protect it.
You also seem to be operating under the assumption that resources are infinite, and that no monopoly can ever be formed. The people will have no choice but to have an economic relationship with the Jew to have bread when he schemes to control the grain.
So you haven't been looking at business for the past 20 years? You don't see it because you ignore it. Absolut, Target, phone companies, internet providers, liquor manufacturers, video game companies, the formerly white hollywood, all subverted and made to do the deed of the Jew. Do they not exist, or do you make the choice not to look? I think you know.

And? Companies are willing to increase cost to push an agenda. This is another reason you lolbergs fail, because you think all action is purely economic. Target is losing money for their transgender bathroom views, but they continue anyway. This is not an economic reason, this is a political reason. Businesses are more than willing to increase cost to themselves if they are able to influence the populace to hold views their shareholders and executives want them to hold.
Not when they're forced to deal with you. It's all well and good for you to say that, but an asshole who controls the grain is still needed by the bakers. The bakers may not like him, but they're at his mercy.
The exact opposite is true. Humans come closer to perfection through striving to become part of a greater whole than they do as begrudging individuals. If Humans would be greater without government, why do anarchist societies fail to compete with governments every single time they are tried? Why have they never seen a single success story?
And what of when those smaller than the largest are pushed out, until a food delivery monopoly is formed? Companies take resources to start, resources not everyone has. So when one man monopolizes resources, you're shit out of luck. And also, how do I know about this murder? You assume people are infinitely aware of what goes on in every facet of their society, but consumers have limited information. And that limited information severely hampers things, since a company has no obligation to be transparent.
But it doesn't. If Timmy won't give me apples, I'll take his apples. You say I should compromise with Timmy, but if I can easily take his apples and share none, I come out better off for it.
Conflict is going to be an extremely likely option, since you seem to think "compromise" is eternal. There is such a thing as an impasse, where no compromise can be made. Conflict is the only resolution. And these impasses will become increasingly common with so many different tribes and companies all vying for control.
I do in act mean the ancient caliphates, and they demonstrate that in the absence of government, government forms.

Let me clue you in buddy, he didn't make an Ad Hom.
Do you know what an Ad Hom is? An Ad Hom is attacking somebody instead of their argument. He did no such thing.
He said you are autistic. Insulting, not Ad Hom.
I say you are wrong, and also autistic. Insulting, but no Ad Hom.
To Ad Hom would be to say you are wrong due to your autism, which nobody is saying.
Learn terms before you spout them.

See, this is why no one takes you seriously.

Pro-Tip: Don't engage someone who calls you a "fucking retard". They're not interested in a discussion.

Mark my words, the neocohens and Conservativism Inc. will use the LP (who actually has ballot access) to split the vote this year in hopes of undermining Trump. The whole Renegade Party shit will be quietly buried and only brought up again should the populist-nationalist takeover of the Republican Party continue.

Okay then, let me re-phrase it.
When me and my buddies come around to your house and fuck your day up?

Sure, that's a more reasonable scenario.

Libertarians are not opposed to having police.

Well I looked it up. I do like a lot of what Paleoconservatism stands for. Seems like it could work well for the US. Explains why I like Trump. Protectionism; anti-Multiculturalism; preference toward Euro immigration; non-interventionism etc. Good stuff. Hopefully the Republican party becomes a more Paleoconservative party with Trump as President. Enough of the fucking Neocons…

The guy I posed that question too was demanding the government leave him alone.
I was simply bringing up the fact that as soon as a problem arises, he will hypocritically call upon the government for aid.

THAT MUSLIM LIBERTARIAN
THAT JEW LIBERTARIAN

[/spoiler]Honestly i liked McAfee, especially his ideology about every individual responsible for himself, and the fact that government has no right to take away your privacy, but too bad he doesn't seem to be fitting with those autistic cringy scum. Good thing Johnson won and John won't be associated with those degenerates.[/spoiler]

Well, fuck my /spoiler.

Well, this hinges on the definition of "government aid". Libertarians are not anarchists; they generally want a government that can use force to arbitrate disputes.

I 'framed' it in the way that I see the world. Not as any sophistic attempt to prove myself right by compromising the rationality of my arguement

I don't need to give them any say, because I believe that non-degenerate white males will be inherently more economically productive.
Women have the inherent value of being the gatekeepers to sexual reproduction and have much less incentive to be economically productive, and instead their biology creates a cultural incentive to marry-up to the most productive men, which in turn creates a feedback loop causing men to be more productive and less degenerate.
Property owners have a vested interest in their property. Not any national ties. If their property increased or improved via the aggressive enslavement of other men in their culture then they will do so if they have the power.
Anarcho-capitalism prevents them from having such power as described via my earlier posts.

No I am giving an objective definition of what it means to want something.
Humans have what economists call a marginal utility, which is an ever changing list of things you desire in the present. You always have and always will do whatever you currently desire in the present. You currently seem to desire having this debate here more than any other action you could possibly do right now, otherwise you would be doing some other action which is in your range of possible affordances.
This is what the economy is. At every moment it is the collection and interaction of every human's momentary subjective valuations. There is no better means to enable the functionality of this collective algorithm than free market capitalism, as nothing else can truly describe the momentary valuations of all individuals.

You can only say for yourself what is flawed, any claimed knowledge of other flaws is inherently subjective.
Saying people are ultimately good was a very poor choice of words to convey my meaning. Instead I should rephrase it using your terminology:
Prosperity can only come when a man focus's on his own needs, because when he is self-serving he is actually serving others by working in the economy. You can only accomplish your own personal desires by working with and for other's and serving their desires, because of the nature of trade:
Say I am a store owner and you are a customer. You want to buy a coke more than you want to keep your $1.20, and I want your $1.20 more I want my coke. Then obviously we will both be better off by being selfish and trading with each-other. Prosperity comes from serving our personal desires.

They are different I agree. But far closer to being the same than opposite.
Say you are in a tribe of physicists while simultaneously being in a tribe of your local all-white community.
Being in more than one tribe does not necissitate multiculturalism, you can be in many tribes which share similar cultural values, but have slightly different focus's.
It's only human nature to join tribes which share your values, and if your white and western, then you will join tribes also containing white-western members.

Who ever said they are disconnected? They share economic bonds which is the strongest social bond which exists. Cohesivity depends on the level of abstraction you want to view it at, which is ultimately arbitrary. But the culturally accepted vision of a white western world is exactly what you would be seeing.

CONT.

Shit I lost some of the replies to quotes between the last on and this next one.
Sorry i'm not going to write them again since i'm going to bed.
tl;dr was that its the fault of central banks which could never exist without the state

Resources are essentially infinite. Technology has admittedly stagnated since around the '70s, because the central banking cancer had finally reached its peak. Now we are on the steady decline and have been for the past 40 years. It's known as the austrian business cycle, as applied to government. It can only occur due to central banking.
Without the business cycle technology would be able to exponentially progress, of which the consequences are impossible to directly predict, but the general trend is to asymptotic post-scarcity.

Once again I know this a weaker argument, but since you are using specific real world examples, I must reciprocate with real world explanations. All the globalization that you see today is directly related to government or its branches such as central banking.
Foreign immigration to western societies is possible because there are laws preventing self-segregation, and state funded/central bank funded incentives in place which make immigration an economically good choice for these aliens.
These trends will disappear and even reverse if america or another western nation goes polycentric.

Just because I say something is "economic" doesn't mean i'm talking about money. I mean instead the subjective values of an individual or collection of individuals. My semantics are different than what you are used to and I apologize for the misunderstanding. But, agenda is economic, however the agendas being pushed are due to perverse incentives produced by mal-investment from the business cycle and a co-opted culture being supported by government welfare.
Eliminate these two factors and the portion of the population which makes this agenda an economically good choice will disappear. Shareholders/Executives only hold such views because they are Jewish and use the government to gain exclusive control in a specific market. Or they are non-jewish and economically swayed instead by the artificial culture created by state intervention.

Except in a free market, no one person ever controls all the grain. Monopolies can't be created without aggressive force.

You will never become part of the whole because "the whole" is an abstract idea which exist in your individualistic mind. See my above reply to the other user on this issue.

You would be the type of person to ask the Wright Brothers "If humans were meant to fly, then why have they never flown before? Why has there never been a single success story?"
The free market IS TECHNOLOGY. It's Social Technology. It needs to be adopted just like any other technology, and for it to be adopted a MVP needs to be created which I believe will happen in the next 50 years.

Except that's a strawman. Did you even read the original arguement? You can't just take the apples because he's got a lot of customers dependent on the contractual relationships between you and Timmy which would be voided if you break the rules. In the end you would both fail if you were a DRO and attacked another DRO.

Just because a meteorite strikes a cathedral and kills all the priests, doesn't suddenly make a town full of atheists.
I never implied that anarcho-capitalism is the pure absence of government, It is a poly-centric system of many micro-governments competing in the same geographical area. So that none never gain a geographic monopoly.

Come on. We all know that autism is just another way to slander eachother here. I've been on chans since '07 don't try to be pedantic.

Does this person realize nobody is reading his wall of autism?

Only people who want to conserve their glucose :^) which I expect will be most of you because your prefrontal cortices are too underdeveloped to sway your mammalian instincts.

I'm mainly posting for the 20% that will have a prefrontal cortex developed enough to care about more things than coming up with the next le epic maymay

If he had've been in the race earlier, I would've shilled for McAfee.

What a fucking all around joke Libertarians are.

Wow just wow.

Underrated.

You need to put down the thesaurus and stop trying to sound like an insufferable cunt.

If you're over 18 and still acting this way, you may have a psychological condition. Seek professional help.

I only act like an insufferable cunt in reciprocation to other insufferable cunts.

Does my vocabulary trigger you? If you can be offended that much by the words I use, then you deserve to be triggered.

I made a gif of it

Underrated post.

I'll take Vermin instead thanks lel.

RACIST

Will Trump ever be able to recover from this?

The problem is frankly obvious, you are attempting to apply a 'Rational' ideology to a species that is entirely irration even without the questions of ethnicity. Once you throw in the ethnicity question and calculate for the deracination of europeans compared to… every other group, you have a sick and diseased society which a logical system can 'never' even hope to address, you misunderstand the market is not one that behaves as you choose it and your ideological product is frankly not being bought all that much, it's ironic, those who call for "free markets everywhere" are the last to admit the "free market of ideas" has decided their ideology is… less than ideal given current settings. And if you are a left libertarian or advocate open borders I kindly ask that you >>>/reddit/ if not then good chatting.

So you can't debate him.

Cool.

AnCaps still can't believe there are outside interests that may work against their own. Nationalism came about partially because defending shared interests is a collective responsibility.

This radical individualism you espouse is part of what killed the west.

This effeminate virtue signalling faggot representing less than 1% of the electorate wants to challenge Trump?

Libertarians are all economic dunning-kruger types. The economics GOD Steve Keen should rape their wives and sell their children into slavery, figuratively of course. Seriously though, these dumbasses would allow state economies to subsidize their exports and drive our vital industries into insolvency. Then these libertarians would somehow rationalize selling little white girls into (legalized) prostitution in China in exchange for manufactured goods, not capital equipment because the Chinese aren't fucking retards that assist in building up their competitors economy. They have no moral grounding and would shameless encourage their sons and daughters to fuck chinamen for a pittance in exchange for trade goods. These people are soulless.

If only he didnt race mix.

You sound a lot like me. I justify my cognitive dissonance by telling myself that I'm an ancap politically, but a traditionalist personally. I won't object to gays being n a relationship, but the function of marriage is meant between a man and a woman, for example.

...

That's far more radical than even what most Democrats are saying.

Libertarian damage control in 3…2…1…

See the problem with this is that it is gonna give kikes more power. They currently hold most resources and power and therefore will be the higher DRO forcing smaller DRO's to compromise or go bankrupt or if not bankrupt get assassinated ( yes this happens you know and more likely than you think it can, the momment the cost of an assassin is less than the cost that the enemy DRO substracts with you from competition things are gonna get ugly )

rofl

...

amfirstbooks.com/IntroPages/NonToolbarTopics/Reconciling_Libertarianism_and_Nationalism/

plato.stanford.edu/entries/republicanism/

what we need is American Fundamentalism.

Was too. But I anderstood that you cant have small goverment and small state. Those are cancer, and cancer will grow out from one cell. Now I'm anarchocapitalist.

But people will always want a state because that's how humans function. There is always a tribe, there is always leaders of that tribe. It's why it's a cycle and it will keep repeating.

Living in self governed communities or alone from land without muh social contract is better then living in totalitarian state where you are robbed to keep caste of burocrats, that will bribe loosers with your money to vote for them.

Won't work. Too much of their voting base has fled

What's the good of autism if your spelling is less than perfect?

He didn't murder anyone.

His american neighbor in belize got murdered likely due to Xenophobia.

McAfee's dogs got poisoned and some other shit happened, so he fled for his life.

His house also burned down on "suspicious circumstances" after the police seized it, so you can see why he never went back to talk to them.

I'm beginning to trust the memes that libertarians are liberals with autism.

rothbard and friedman look really similar. must be the kike genes showing

Now that's what I call ad hom

This thread makes me miss the libertarians. Nazi shitposting is fun and all, but autistic libertarian arguments and blogposts were always the counterbalance to it. The perfect yin and yang.

Their convention appears to have hit the same level of autism that an "alien enthusiast" conference has.

pic related, you horsefucker

Did he say that half the population of New Mexico is illegal immigrants?

Thank god for Trump, otherwise it would have been Yeb vs. Hillary and these 1%'er geniuses.

The Libertarians are just previous school of thought conservatism, who in turn was seen progressive by the previous generation of conservatives.

In short, conservatives are losers, who constantly compromises their own positions and opinions and in turn changes their whole ideology after what the left is pushing, pushing the conservatives further to the left by each compromise.

You're a little off there.

Libertarians deserve all of their failure and ridicule for putting up a stuttering cuck like Johnson.

You assume everyone who agrees with the libertarian ideology is on the same page as the mainstream US libertarian political group.

You may as well discard any right-wing opinion because the mainstream US republican party is so cucked.

I'm the guy who wrote the four part post he quoted.

Your very first refuge is to tell yourself (and all of us) that anyone who disagrees with you is simply too stupid to understand your point of view, because it simply is not possible to understand what you are saying but disagree with it.

You are a moron. It takes a truly tiny mind to believe that only what it sees is what there is to see. We understand your point just fine. You're just demonstratably wrong.

I'll break this down for you using your own words.

Untrue. Citizens also have a capacity to defend themselves. The state possesses a hedgemony on violence, not a monopoly. Learn your terminology.

There will always be competetion even in the face of what you consider to be a monopoly (but is actually a hedgemony) on violent force. Drug cartels for one. Organized crime networks such as the Triads or the Jewish Mafia are another.

Even in the face of enormous militaries and nuclear arsenals, they continue to wage shadow warfare just beneath the surface of the world's facade, flagrantly violating laws and doing whatever they please.

You are correct insofar as the statement that the state will always, for instance, have a monopoly on aircraft carriers. But they do not have a monopoly on violence, nor is a large military necessarily a violent one.

Nothing the Triads or the Jewish Mafia does in their direct affairs distorts property rights in any significant way, and even if some of their operations do, it is certainly not a foregone conclusion that they all do, or even that most of them do.

This is always the crippling weakness of any Libertarian or Anarchist. None of you ever have an answer to organized crime. Total individualism is a system that only works as long as no two unscrupulous people realize they can get more by breaking the rules if they work together and split the haul. Once collectivist crime is introduced or reinvented, the individualist system collapses, because collectivist crime requires collectivist law to defeat it.

Do you actually live in a fairy land where you really believe what the average man on the street wants is unknowable?

This is where your argument just completely disintegrates. The only people idiotic enough to believe that "what the people want" is "unknowable" are the ivory tower dwellers in the media and doner class, who have huffed their own fumes for so long they sincerely don't believe it stinks anymore.

Which works right up until the owners of those corporations decide to collude with one another to loot the system.

You are staring the Globalist RINO-DINO conglomerate in the face, you are looking directly at it, and yet you still spew this drivel that multiple groups that oppose one another will naturally compete instead of simply fusing together behind closed doors into a single superforce that merely puts on the facade of competetion and rivalry to fool the populace.

You've already got your polycentric system. It's called the political process of the United States of America, and it is utterly infested with Jews, Marxists, and traitors who have all collectively realized that they can subvert the whole house and rob it blind if they put up a circus to distract the people.

This is the end result of what you propose. This, all around you. The only difference is that you're setting us up to die fifty years further down the line instead of hundreds, because your shiny new civil framework comes pre-lubed and with it's asscheeks naturally parted.