Libertarians trying to take credit for alt-right

How went wrong? How far will libertarianism continue too fall?

Other urls found in this thread:

digitalspy.com/movies/suicide-squad/news/a803669/suicide-squad-joker-is-a-baby-killer-hints-jared-leto/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Déjacque
youtube.com/watch?v=-xlmU9LvtAs
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

I wonder the same thing about your grammar

Until it's destroyed by neo-libs and socialsits, replacing the Democratic Party, or until the real libertarians speak the fuck up and call out the retarded socialists and lefties and tell them to fuck off. Libertarianism is a right wing ideology, there's no debating it.

lolbergs get the gas, we know

...

co-opting is the highest form of flattery

I work at hot topic for almost six years now. I drink too Escape from reality. I been selling Jared Leto joker t shirt too high school and college girls all day.

Maybe get some skills you soft brain

The current Libertarian party has been co-opted by progressives. mainly trying to push a metric fuck ton of LGBTQ rights

It's no longer Libertarian.

Most Libertarians and floating around just as independents, supporting Trump, until their party makes a move to get itself back or they move on to a completely new party.

Oh, that's unfortunate.

good, let them muddy the waters

it's an advantage for their to be no agreed upon shorthand or label for to refer to us as

anonymity is our greatest strength

why do you hate freedom you statist? why do you want to invade my bedroom and tread on my snake?

Libertarianism is a trashy ideology based on false premises. It can't "fall" any lower than it already was.

Well, a lot of the alt-right are crypto-lolbergs (why do you think Pinochet is so popular?), but everything they've "accomplished" was by piggy-backing on the real far-right.

Libertarians exposed as disgusting and shameless liars yet again

Did you see that last lolberg thread we had we had a lolberg come out in favor of cheese pizza. Fuck they are so dumb.

The whole Pinochet thing is the helicopter rides, m8.

Someone explain to me why only women love Jared Leto joker?
digitalspy.com/movies/suicide-squad/news/a803669/suicide-squad-joker-is-a-baby-killer-hints-jared-leto/

Why exactly do (you) give a shit about what happens to the term? It doesn't really concern us who tries to take credit for a co-opting attempt.

Libertarianism is autism for gentiles.

It just goes to show how pathetic libertarians are

muh vagina

Should we meme "How went wrong?" alongside JFMSU?

Nope, it's a lolberg/AnCap meme. The helicopters are just why it stuck.

Eh, y'know, as far as reasons go, that's not an awful one.


Same reason dumb women love niggers. Because he shows them who's boss, but has a "kinder" side according to them.

Most of us grew out of the lolberg phase, they can have that cancer.

I swear you lolbersg are worse than the commies.

ancaps have memes?

He's the only movie Joker with a love interest. Depicting a woman being interested in him is enough to convince broads.

I'd rather be buddies with the lolbergs than the fucking socialists


I'm a paleocon shithead, not a lolberg

Libertarians rarely admit they're Libertarian unless they're sure they won't be mocked for it.

Good. Who fucking cares. We're not alt-kike anyway.

Damn, it must feel nice to be that retarded.

i don't know, usually they can't wait to let everyone know about their disability.

And I'm supposed to be retarded?


They do, but usually they wait until there are a couple other Libertarians so they can circlejerk and avoid having to acknowledge their own stupidity.

If by libertarian you mean anti-authoritarian constitutionalists, what's your problem with them?


Why is Holla Forums so triggered by Libertarians again? Not edgy enough for you?

If I was a libertarian, I would tell you. What would I have to hide on an anonymous imageboard, you fucking retard.

Because he's a loose cannon, alpha male, and a complete psychopath

You forgot a couple things
Libertarians are the equivalent of the kid in school who ate glue and then tried to become a stop bullying campaigner.


I don't know, and yet here we are with your closeted Libertarianism.

IGNORE ALL ALT RIGHT THREADS

FILTER ALL ALT RIGHT POSTERS

DO NOT REPLY TO ALT RIGHT THREADS

won't happen again, you can count on that, tiger

On the one hand, people think we are; on the other hand that also doesn't matter. But the fact that people think we are alt-right and that somebody is trying to co-opt it definitely shows that we are influential and powerful, much more powerful than these faggots can imagine.


Libertarians are often characterized as being open-borders for purely economic reasons. They sell the soul of a nation to line their own pockets; in other words they're kikes. Whether or not a particular lolberg happens to be a kike or whether he's even in favor of open borders is irrelevant, and any libertarian who does want closed borders is gonna have to jump ship to paleoconservatism at some point.

Libertarians tend to be open border and they don't care about moral order.

Sure, the economics are good and the pro-constitution points are good, but the immigration, the racial egalitarianism, they just don't sit well with me at least.

Well seeing as how the ideology was invented by kikes, it's no surprise.

Just like every ideology that Holla Forums doesn't agree with.

This guy sounds almost like he's reading off a script. No enthusiasm at all.

I'd be weary of this kike since it's obvious to me that his only purpose is to water shit down with passive beta lolbergs who are 'centrists'.

Spot on, m8.

Instead of focusing on real issues like the economy and immigration, the media is literally whining and crying over pictures of a frog, triple parenthesis, and anime girls in Trump hats.

Any normie listening to this leftist panic has no idea what the FUCK they're talking about. They are being driven towards the right at a faster pace than usual, because the Left looks more and more batshit by the minute.

Because they are border and race cucks.

Libertarians are traditionally not for open borders, I don't care what Gary Johnson says. The founding fathers were not for mass 3rd world immigration.

pure lies, you can't quantify those things in any way whatsoever.

No, it was just influenced by kikes recently. The founding fathers were essentially Libertarian.

Anarchy wasn't invented by kikes despite being supremely retarded.
Neither was democracy despite its obvious flaws.
Not all ideologies are invented by kikes. Just the ones that are quite literally invented by kikes. But I guess you guys can argue "not a kike, just a fucking anarcho communist"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Déjacque

I think I know who the real faggot is, and its not Libertarians.

No, it wasn't the tranny rights, it wasn't open carrying dildos, it wasn't letting violent rapefugees in, no, it was nazi frogs, punctuation being antisemitic, and anime girls that broke the camel's back.

Well, as long as people start backing off from being leftists.

Funny, that, it's almost like kikes haven't contributed a single positive thing to society throughout their history…


Their open-borders policies don't make sense in light of their pro-constitutionalism though. Doesn't the constitution basically say "Protect and enforce the border, fuck shitskins"?


That's not cucking though, it's just blatant faggotry.

All of thiese ((purely coincidental)) lolbertarians meeting all of a sudden on Holla Forums. How odd.

Founding fathers were constitutionalists, aka, PALEOCONS.

Hard to say about borders, but the libertarian party was always about open borders, can't say too much about the founders of the ideology. Rothbard wasn't for open borders, that's for sure, but I don't know about Friedman.

Regardless, libertarians are for racial egalitarianism which is proven to be a false god, and that isn't a lie and you know it that's why you didn't bring it up. Don't pay attention to 75be9a, he's a literal fucking retard.


Yes it does, libertarians don't seem to get that.

paranoia

That's the exact opposite of the truth. Libertarians central ideal is the maximization of liberty, and you cannot have closed borders without disregarding that central tenet.
The founding father were unashamedly fascist. See pic.
Perhaps because it is qualitative and not quantitative you fucking moron?


It's a testament to how far we've fallen that THIS is the point where they've decided enough is enough.

Why don't you go feel the Johnson, cuck.

Oh forgot to add that libertarianism encourages immigration from all countries, not just exclusively white countries which was the founding father's vision for America. It fucks over our country because we import non-whites, even if they're the creme of the crop, but it also fucks over the donor nation because of the phenomenon known as brain drain.

Whoops fucked up there

More like they are trying to stow away in steerage after decades of failure on their end.

Liberty for the citizens of the nation. You forget that without a welfare state these people won't even come here. Maybe you forgot, but in Europe the rapeugees avoid nations without gibs like the plague.


lolno


No

Universal suffrage in action one again, no need to thank us goyim.

If it's not Hitler, it's not worth the time.

That's another thing, universal suffrage is another thing libertarians advocate for, making it easier for idiots to vote, just what we need.

youtube.com/watch?v=-xlmU9LvtAs

Time and time again you're shown that's false. The Welfare state was not the cause of the Ottoman's seigning Constantinople. Even as homeless beggars on our streets their lives are infinitely better than they are in their horrid sand countries. You believe that no man would come to our nations without handouts, which either means you are just as kike-like as I suggested, or that you despise the nation so much you can't fathom why one would want to live there.
Maybe you forgot, but they still come in droves to Italy. Maybe you forgot, but even after being given free food they threw it to the ground and demanded better meals, meals they were never given but still demand to this day. Maybe you forgot, but they still tried to get into Hungary despite the clear policy of no gibs until they were physically prevented from doing so.
Maybe you forgot, but there are interests above the economic you goddamn autist.

Looks like he just rolled shit on to a wall.

I hope he keeps it up, I hope he keeps chipping away at Hillary's support, because that's really who he's hurting.

Also you didn't even glance at the picture you faggot. Are you afraid you might see something you don't like?

No Trump supporter is going to be swayed by that rhetoric, but it WILL win over the #NeverTrumpers who were going to vote for Hillary. He's only stealing her votes.

No, I'm not not reading that gigantic wall of autism.

Classic Libertarian. Plug the ears and shout.

Libertarianism was never going to succeed. Some of the components are literally fantasy shit like no borders etc.

Libertarian Nationalism corrects all those cuck ass components.

This is complete bullshit. Even without the welfare state non-whites want to come to white nations because we have job opportunities and security, which they don't. I don't know where this retarded meme came from, but it has to stop.

I'm interested, what's the difference between paleoconservatism and libertarian nationalism?

The religious component. Libertarian flavor is blind to all religion (who gives a shit).

This retarded meme needs to die.
That is not a fucking thing. It's dry water, it's a big small, it's square circle.

As if the non-white hordes would ever go back to their disgusting homelands if there are still white women to rape. Besides, not even their OWN PEOPLE or governments will die to protect them the same way legions of white cucks will.

No, they wouldn't you dumbass. It's not a meme, the majority of non-whites would not come.

Sure you got that small percentage that will stay for the job opportunities and security as you said, but it's a small percentage, the majority however are here for the gibs.


Well I don't want fucking muzzies and kikes in my country, and everyone who feels the same gives a shit. My question to you is, why don't you give a shit?

Oh look it's this fucking autist again.

Back to pedal your self-contradictory ideology after it's been refuted too many times to count, it seems.

All physics problems require a boundary in order to analyze the system. Libertarian Nationalism works the same way. A LN country is a subsystem in a larger global system. The system as a whole can adopt a nationalist position, the internal system will be corrected form of libertarianism.

"[Libertarianism] runs from ‘left’ advocacy of total anarchy to ‘right’ conservatism. The one common denominator of all libertarians is the support of free trade, the essential prop of international capitalism, Libertarianism is not a viable political philosophy because it is as unworkable as communism, and can only be accurately described as a secular religion. As with the faithful of all religions, hardly two libertarians agree with each other on all doctrinal points."–Willis Carto

Because I'm an engineer, agnostic, systems thinker, etc.

Religion will have no impact on government, so Muslim shit is irrelevant.

Someone needs to send these dumbass libertarians to Stefan Molyneux or Chris Cantwell to set them straight. Libertarian isn't the final boss and Chris Cantwell is right. Likely 90% of those claiming to be "Libertarian" have no fucking idea what it actually means other than Ron Paul and legalized weed.

LN doesn't support any free trade. Trade external to the system crosses the boundary.

Muslims literally wanna kill you though.

Yeah it does when a certain religion votes overwhelmingly in favor for bigger government, retard. Or the fact that Islam IS DIRECTLY CONTRADICTORY TO THE US FUCKING CONSTITUTION. Jesus Christ, are you that dense?

Yea so? A LN society will be armed to the teeth.

I can already tell you're going to be wrong just by the fact you're trying to apply physics to fucking politics and nation-building of all things.
I see. So it works if every single person on the planet agrees to let it work, but it doesn't work because the very specific scenario in which it works is never going to be set up.


See pic in
I think you're autistic buddy.

The anarcho-capitalist libertarian may argue for open borders. Among them, there are of course, the cucks… but there are also those who wish to use freedom of association to create all white neighborhoods.

Ignoring anarcho-capitalists, the libertarian philosophy is not for open borders. There is nothing to even suggest that the philosophy of libertarianism wants open borders or egalitarianism. Granted there is nothing to suggest a pro-white bias either. Which I will concur is a problem, and an even bigger problem is that the Libertarian Party has essentially been hijacked by SJWs.

Hence why the moniker National Libertarian exists. I am still at a loss to understand why there are still people here who can't comprehend how someone could want to live amongst their own people, with a border wall and very specific and limited immigration policies while also wanting low taxes, low levels of regulation, and to keep government out of their lives for the most part.

Beyond that, the idea that libertarianism started the alt-right is absurd. I think certain elements of libertarianism (Stef and Cantwell) have absorbed the pro-white stances that Holla Forums and other more mainstream organizations such as AmRen have been pushing. And that's good, but they certainly didn't start it. Up until the last year, there were plenty of racist libertarians but none with any prominence openly espoused it. They were basically following the GOPs lead with the whole "muh PR" strategy.

To sum it up, any libertarian that tries to claim that libertarianism created the alt-right is a liar and/or a fool. Equally foolish is to try to paint the libertarian philosophy as somehow pro-open borders or anti-white. The confusion is understandable due to the semi-recent shift of the Libertarian Party most certainly being both of those things.

Government will be designed in a way that is strictly enumerated. It will for all intents and purposes, outside its enumerations, powerless.

Who cares what the rest of the planet wants, we're a subsystem. They fuck with us, we obliterate their asses. Leave us alone, we leave them alone.

Pretty simple really.

It MUST be for egalitarianism, else freedom of association is being restricted. The government must make no distinction between any citizens else liberty is being restricted to some where it is not others.
And open borders also have to be the Libertarian position. If company A wants to hire only Mexican workers, any action the government takes to prevent this is going directly against the central tenet of your goddamn philosophy.


Did you not state that the global system would need to adopt it before the subsystem could work? And how are you going to obliterate them with your lack of a military and your lack of any cohesion amongst the populace?

More like the head honchos of the LP invited these retarded lefties in trying to grow the party.

The subsystem is entirely independent. It simply exists on the board as other subsystems.

And also, one of the major components of LN is having a massive military ready to obliterate anything that threatens the nation.

I mean fucking brutally too.

Who is this faggot and why should anyone care what he says?

Which contradicts
You are autistic, and you have no grasp on how the world works.


FTFY

You're a fucking dumbass. I've tried to be fair to your dipshit LN ideology but no longer.

Nobody is going to leave you alone. They will refuse to leave you alone, especially if your country is actually worth a damn, as is the case with the USA. Someone somewhere will try to exert power over you, and telling them to fuck off will solve nothing. Nothing. And if push comes to shove, obliterating them will get their allies on our ass.

As for the muslims, why not just fucking ban them? If they are a problem which will require guns Protip: They are a problem, which will require guns then why not just ban them on that basis? Why even fucking screen them or wait for them to reveal their psychopathy, just fucking ban them from the get go on basis of their religion, their religion largely revolves around things that you LN country would probably ban, and it also revolves around KILLING you, you mouth breathing autist.

He's an enginner, he's confirmed autistic.
I'd actually like to know what proportion of Libertarians are engineers. It seems they're all fucking autistic.

It takes the best parts of Libertarianism with respect to the individual freedom and rights, throws out all the other worthless shit.

And system such a system is relatively passive in nature, the overhead is minimal. Compared to some fantasy bullshit like NatSoc that would require massive enforcement mechanisms for operation, LN is vastly more efficient, I'd even say near optimal.

Keep crying bitch because that's all you can do.

and such a system

...

So it is NOT LIBERTARIANISM.

You cannot keep consistency between 1 fucking post.

You call NatSoc a fantasy system, but at least it's been demonstrated to work in reality.
Your ideas have never been attempted, and never will be because they're fucking stupid.

Libertarian Nationalism != Libertarianism

I already said it wasn't Libertarianism. It's a system composed of the best elements of libertarianism and nationalism.

It sounds like Paleoconservatism, or some of common sense nationalism but based on a market system.

Who gives a shit about spiritual matters that actually bind a society together and makes them become something greater than themselves? Libertarians are just as naive and delusional to humanity as communists. Your materialist worldview will only lead to exactly the type of world we live in today. You are nothing but an autistic liberal.

Ok thought experiment for you.

We go back in time to a period where some specific European country is 100% white. That country proclaims itself NL. It builds the wall, and says "We are only letting white people in."

How in the fuck can a country that is 100% white and only allow white immigration be egalitarian?

What I really think you mean to say is that any NL party that was created today, taking into account the demographics of their nation would be egalitarian.

Clearly a white homeland must exist first. Maybe we buy one, maybe we conquer one, maybe we colonize one, maybe we reconquer one we already rightfully own. Doesn't really matter which option. Natsocs are in the same predicament.


You are talking about Ancaps not libertarianism. Libertarianism makes no philosophical statement about borders. That's where the "National" part fits in.

If they want to hire Mexicans you tell them to fuck off. There is a wall, and they stay on that side of the wall. You try to bring them in and you get physically fucking removed.

Again, the assumption is that they have been removed or are not citizens, nor living within the geographical boundaries. Clearly if we granted the current demographics of any western country full citizenship, then yes, it would work that way. The key is you fix the fucking demographic problem, then institute the libertarianism.

No system of government will work with our current demographic problems. They must be fixed.

*kind of

Where did it work exactly over any extended period of time? Oh that's right, Hitler got his ass obliterated.

At least LN could be implemented realistically with MINIMAL effort. Good luck implementing NatSoc without MASSIVE effort and enforcement.

LN is at least feasible, NatSoc is a fucking pipe dream.

It's too late to fix the demographic problem. Some faggot on here says "let's ban all niggers/beaners/muslims/jews (everyone would agree with jews though)/etc like it's an easy task. They don't even consider whether or not it can implement, enforced, or the costs to do so.

If they want a NatSoc society, they're going to build one from scratch to maintain their purity.

can be implemented

He's saying your branding is retarded you autistic fucking faggot, choose a different moniker because libnat isn't going to attract fucking anybody.
Half of the problem with your garbage ideology is the name. Choose something else no, I'm not going to help you or nobody is ever going to take you seriously, you will never progress in your life, your ideas will die with you, and neither you nor your mind will be mourned.

Then why the fuck use the word "Libertarian" in there?
At least National Socialism has elements of socialism as it is historically known, but there's nothing Libertarian about what you're saying at fucking all.


It's Libertarianism all the same, he's just making guesses on where he thinks that will lead.


Because to only allow white immigration you would need to infringe upon freedom of association, and you would not be fucking Libertarian. You autistic faggots keep forgetting this. If company A wants to import Mexican workers to work in their factory in that 100% white nation, the only way to stop that is to abandon Libertarian principles. You can't be Libertarian and only allow white immigration, since the two are directly fucking contradictory at their core tenets. And when those Mexicans get here, the government can do nothing against them lest is once again violate the central tenets of the ideology it defines itself by.
NatSocs are not in the same predicament. NatSocs have no qualms about using force to establish 100% white demographic makeup. Libertarians can't do such a thing because their ideology doesn't allow it. We face the same problem, but the difference is NatSocs are able to effectively deal with it in the confines of their ideology.

Just because it doesn't explicitly say the word borders, doesn't mean that it has no principles at all you fuckstick.
"If they want to do a thing, we stop being Libertarian. We are Libertarian, except for the part where we have non-Libertarian policy and don't behave as Libertarians". You are THAT fucking autistic.
BUT LIBERTARIANISM DENIES YOU ANY HOPE OF FIXING IT BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IT MEANS.
WHY THE FUCK DO YOU AUTISTIC FAGGOTS USE WORDS WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY MEAN.

Explain those to me and why they are de facto "good"

I am still puzzled at the amateurism of this faggot.

What he thought he could have possibly gained from meeting Al-Sharpton ?

Okay at least you're remotely reasonable. I actually totally agree with you but the scenario you suggest is hardly unlike natsoc to begin with so the distinction barely, barely matters.


Nobody has ever said this shit will happen overnight.


I mean the concept of rights is cool, but honestly they're basically just privileges that we pretend are innate thanks to God/nature/whatever. Rights as outlined in the US constitution (as what libertarianism purports to endorse) seem good to me, we just need a government that can be bothered to fucking enforce them. And in that regard libnat doesn't seem so fucking stupid.


How many blacks even vote? They're less than 15% of the population, correct? I would guess fewer than a third of them vote. He couldn't possibly have gotten more than maybe 300,000 votes from this, and it would have cost him much more than that.

You keep forgetting about the NATIONAL part, I think it's pretty clear that you are the fucking autist.

Think of a National Libertarian like a pro-gun democrat. You can't just say, WAIT A SECOND YOU CAN'T BE PRO-GUN YOU'RE A DEMOCRAT.

That's just you being retarded. The prefix of the term basically describes the set of exceptions. You're basically arguing that National Socialists can't be socialists, because socialism implicitly requires globalism.

Are you getting this yet? National Libertarianism is saying, "Hey we want low taxes, low regulations, few moral laws, and government to be very limited. But just so everyone understands, we are also Nationalist. Meaning that this shit doesn't apply to anyone outside of our country, and we are only letting X type of people into our country."

Well then NatSoc is fucking dead in the water with its branding.

Glass houses and all.

I don't get the fucking infatuation of libertarians and trying to get non-whites in on it.

Yeah, like the niggers and spics actually give a shit about a small government.


You're wrong about rights, rights derive from property not from God or nature.

You forgot

Trump isn't going to deport legal faggots. What's the next step to ban anyone who isn't white?

In all my years here I've never seen a single user come up with a feasible plan to implement NatSoc. They're all talk and full of shit.

Its just basic assumptions about cooperative action; basically having agreed upon rights of person and property is the best way to resolve conflicts within a society.

What a fucking retard you are.
Chinks would still flood into our countries
spics would still flood into our countries
poo-in-loos would still flood into our countries
There's no reason a shitskin would not want to go to a stable society with work opportunities and security. Gibs isn't the only, or biggest reason non-whites come to the West.
I would disagree. No matter how bad we would be without gibs for the, we'd still be better than whatever shithole they come from.

Rights derive by how many men you have willing to die for them.

Like I said, rights derive from property. You can't own property, you don't have rights, simple as that.

If there's a god then everything comes from god, if not then the world makes no sense, but in any case property and the principle of self-ownership is an extension of godless nature, a.k.a. I'm right, so suck it, faggot.


NatSoc had Hitler, so of course the branding is dead thanks to faggots like you. On the other hand, it had Hitler, who was a charismatic savior of Germany who people still practically worship today. Meanwhile I've only ever really seen you mention natlib and nobody has even practiced it in reality to this day…
In any case I'm not a fucking natsoc you autist. You shouldn't make assumptions about anonymous people without the knowledge necessary to make those assumptions.


We absolutely can kick out even the legal ones, in time. Many mexicans can very easily have their citizenship revoked if birthright citizenship is done away with, and Trump has suggested appealing the 1965 Immigration Act which will do wonders for advancing the white cause.

Losers like you sit around and cry because you can't get what you want instantly, you can't see further than your own nose, which is evident from the fact that you contradict your ideology between posts, and you need people to predict the future for you in order to satisfy your autism; meanwhile your ideology which nobody has even attempted is so obviously perfect and requires pretty much no work whatsoever.

Exactly. Rights are not intrinsic at all. That is horseshit. These "national libertarians" (who call themselves libertarians but as points out that's pretty laughable) should just call themselves fucking fascists who like autistic economic thought experiments.

The predicate does not override the succeeding part. National Socialism is still socialism, whereas you're telling me National Libertarianism isn't Libertarianism at all. Why is that? Why use the word if you aren't going to be remotely close to what it entails?

Being a democrat is a party affiliation. Republican and Democrat as ideologies do have definitions, but they differ from that used by the parties. A person can easily be a pro-gun or an anti-gun democrat, because being a democrat has nothing to do with gun rights. So long as one supports democracy and rule of the people they can consider themselves a democrat. It does not make a statement any way on gun rights. Libertarianism however DOES make a statement on freedom of association and government intervention in finance, and that is what you are suggesting you go against.

Socialism does not implicitly require globalism, it's just the easiest way for the kikes to go about it. National Socialism makes no pretense about allowing the people to do whatever they want, or to keeping itself out of economic affairs.
Libertarianism however, even if it is confined solely to the nation, means the government will do nothing to infringe on the freedom of association of its inhabitants, and will stay out of its inhabitants economic dealings. So if one of your citizens wants to hire foreigners, you CANNOT stop them or else you are, as I said before, infringing on both the freedom of association and business rights of one of your own ctiizens, one of your "nationals", and fucking your entire ideology up to high heaven.

Are you getting this yet? National Libertarianism is saying "Hey we want to be Libertarian. Unless you start doing (x), then we're going to be an interventionist, authoritarian government that is the direct opposite of Libertarianism".
You have no platform you stupid dense fucker.

I'll also add, two more points.

1.) I don't really care what the name of what I am describing is. And I don't really care if it violates libertarian principles or whatever.

I want to live around exclusively white people, or at least a vast majority of white people. I'm also down for having free markets and a limited government. Not all that down for socialism.

That description certainly is close to paleo-conservativsm but I'm fairly confident that paleo-cons didn't make a big stink about race. They were all about civic nationalism.

2) The general philosophy of "libertarianism" is too broad and too flexible to really pin it down in terms of what specific policies they would have. It's not like ancaps, where their philosophy is a fully logical extension from the axiom of the NAP.

Some libertarians want public schools, some don't. Some libertarians think the government should support gay marriage, some think the government shouldn't be involved in marriage. Some want to legalize and tax weed, some want to legalize it outright. Some want to spend quite a bit on the military, because they see national defense as a necessary role of government, some want to cut it back to basically citizen run militias to prevent invasion.

And this same flexibility exists when regarding race and borders. Some libertarians are cucks, and SJWs and egalitarians. I don't deny that. The libertarians that you talk to here? No.

Pretty much every libertarian you talk to on here is going to be racist and want strong border security.

Any logical extensions of the NAP is a rough guideline for libertarians who may still pragmatically toss the NAP to the side if necessary. Only ancaps are vulnerable to an attack of being inconsistent to their ideology regarding the NAP.

So I'll admit, it makes any substantive debate about libertarianism difficult. Originalist interpretations of the constitution are probably the closest thing you'll see to an axiom for libertarianism. Attacking the NAP isn't going to cut it for you.

Anti-gun is an explicit part of the democrat platform. So any pro-gun dem would be a retard and not really consistent with the democratic platform.

I'd say that your metaphor is pretty apt.

So we should replace any instance of the word "Jew" with "Libertarian" and we'd have what you're doing right here right now.

Yea good luck with that.

Anti-gun is an explicit part of the democrat platform. So any pro-gun dem would be a retard and not really consistent with the democratic platform.

I'd say that your metaphor is pretty apt.

I've spent the last 6 months laying out a new protocol architecture in my spare time. You don't know shit about people like me. I'll fucking work on something until I'm a fucking corpse to see it through.

It's faggots like you who wait around for some magical leader to appear instead of doing anything. You're a fucking pussy.

Ok well you can deal with your abstractions and I'll deal with reality.

In reality there are democrats who don't vote for more gun control. Whether or not they can actually be democrats isn't even worth my time to argue. They run in democrat primaries, the have a D next to their name, they are referred to by everyone in the world as a democrat, except you.

If you want to say they aren't actually democrats, ok whatever man. Very rarely will you ever find a politician that is in lock step with their party platforms. By your standards we probably have 2-3 republicans and democrats total in our legislature, and everyone else is just a poser or something.

I'm more interested in seeing you respond to

(checked)
I agree that the name of what you're describing isn't relevant. However
Fascism (and paleoconservatism) don't preclude a free market except in the case where a business is genuinely harmful to the nation. Obviously there would have to be very good guidelines for what is harmful to a nation. But even natsoc, for its "socialism" still maintained a fairly free market. Although there was a secret police force, people were fairly free and happy. The utopia didn't fall until Hitler let his country go to war.

Paleocons are somewhat civic, sure, but they sure as fuck don't all like non-whites.

If libertarianism is so broad, the term is ultimately useless and people shouldn't use it to describe entirely conflicting political views. A different name that actually encapsulates what you're asking for is probably necessary for normalfags and for anyone who is approaching the third position but hasn't decided where exactly their political leanings actually lie.


Wow you're good at your job, kudos, so how's the natlib thing going?


I know you literally just said that whether they're demoshits or not isn't worth the time to argue, but I'm interested in the use of the word "more" and what this implies in terms of the No True Scotsman that you're calling a74841 out for.

Do you accept that the democrat platform, in general, is in favor of gun control, regardless of whether or not a particular democrat is voting for more control or not?

Fucked up my post just a bit, there shouldn't be parentheses around and paleoconservatism. Reminder than whenever you edit your post, always remember to edit your edits too.

I'll be ready after the happening to step in.

If you remove intelligences and humor. That's pretty much Jared Leto joker.

But I can't afford college and I am too old. Also I can't enlist and get the G.I Bill because I have autism.

satan quads confirm capeshit is trash.

This is true. Gary Johnson is winning over more former Hillary supporters than Trump supporters.

Jill Stein is also pulling voters from Hillary.

I'm fairly confident that he was referring to the SAME jew flip-flopping and engaging in that shit.

That argument doesn't work if he's talking about two different people. I'm telling you my interpretation. My interpretation isn't changing beyond a natural long term evolution of my beliefs. I'm not gonna claim I didn't say something I said earlier in this thread.

Yes, it does. That's the whole point.


That's what all government actions are retard. You're argument may as well be that all libertarians MUST be ancaps, because any government interference means that they can't be libertarian anymore.

So let's put it this way. I'm going to create a government, and all they do is build roads and have an army. THAT'S IT. Any sane individual, would call that a libertarian government. All the government can do is build roads and raise an army.

Until you come along.


This same logic can be applied to a slightly larger government. Now instead of just roads and military, I also want border security and a racial homogeneous population.


You realize how dumb you sound right? No sane person would look at a country where all their government could do was build roads, have an army, have a border, and control immigration as anything BUT libertarianism.

Oh and they'd also probably say, "Damn those strict immigration policies and that strong border security seem pretty NATIONALISTIC to me."

My libertarian proj got fl00ded with ex-swj tumblertards, they try to offend us welling "libertarians" for we not agree with their "non oppression principle"

I typed "libertarians" but i mean they say "librutarians"

How is that any different than what we have now?

That's Libertarian, sure.
It just can't control its borders at fucking all.
Well I mean Libertarians are the people who keep screaming taxation is theft. I thought Libertarians believed that government would be funded by voluntary donors and if I didn't want to donate I didn't have to? Even if I don't pay tax in your Libertarian society, the fuck are you gonna do about it?

No, pretty sure that would be called Isolationist Minarchy buddy. You do realize Minarchy is a word, right?

You can't seriously be making the accusation that the only things our governments do is build roads and have a military, nor can you honestly pretend to believe that we have a strong immigration policy, a vast white european majority or strong border control…

Come on man.

That being said, I obviously support more government than that simple example.

I'd be fine with what we have if the 10th amendment was actually in force, if the federal government was actually limited to Section 1 Article 8, and if we deported all the illegals, actually defended our borders, returned to pre-1965 immigration act immigration regulations, and brought back segregation.

I could give you some vague ideas regarding tweaks I'd like to make to the constitution to better constrain it or whatever, but I think you get my drift.

If we could get to that point, I'd probably just pick out the state that best suited my tastes, move there, and call it a day.

Women like strong men who beat them. Its why they date niggers.

Sure, it's synonymous with libertarianism in my book, and is equally as vague. I think National Libertarian gets the point across a little bit better to a wider audience. Most people have a vague idea of what libertarianism is, while only politically active people are going to understand what I mean if I refer to my ideas as National Minarchism.

If that helps you get over the hump of why I'm fine with taxation and violating freedom of association or X other right, then go with that.

If libertarianism must = ancap in your mind, then paint me as a minarchist, I don't care.

They are not synonymous.
Libertarianism is about maximizing liberty and freedoms. Freedom is the goal.
Minarchism is about minimizing government intervention and size. Prosperity is the goal.

And they think it's an absolutely cucked ideology represented by Gary Johnson of all fucking people. Congratulations, you got recognition for all the wrong reasons.

You are a Minarchist. You just don't know what words mean. Minarchism is still shitty, but at least that has SOME merit.

Libertarianism is just stoned college kids circle jerking about how the man should let them do drugs

Libertarians separated into authoritarian libertarians and libertarian libertarians. The authoritarian libertarians are private property extremists. They will gladly strip you of your rights - your right to speak (they are proponents of PC language policing), your right to own a gun, they want to probe your anus like the TSA if you step on their property. They envision a completely privately owned society where everyone is controlled under one unified property standard. Not satisfied with that, they will try to impose their views into your own private and public life by threatening your ability to hold a job. For example, if you own a gun they will try to get companies to fire you or refuse to hire you simply for owning one at all, even if you never bring it into work. They are SJWs and are rightly viewed as complete faggot pricks.

The libertarian libertarians want you to still have your rights to yourself even if you are on their property. They will let you speak freely, they will let you bring weapons for your own self defense. They will only fire you if you do not do your job and don't care what you do outside of work.

The libertarian libertarians failed to foresee that feminists and SJWs would get their claws into libertarianism and form a philosophically valid basis for authoritarian libertarianism.

Now they don't know what the fuck to do so the whole thing has fractured.

The act of maximizing liberty requires minimizing government intervention. I would oppose any so-called form of libertarianism that wanted to increase government intervention in the pursuit of maximizing liberty.

As far as the Libertarian Party and the faggot Johnson goes, I'm not a big fan. Never have been. Their pushing for gay marriage and "dude weed" has pissed me off every since I could vote.

I've been for Trump since he announced. I remember pretending to myself that I wanted to give Rand a chance, but it never was really the case.

Well, I'll concede to you that you natsocs aren't so bad. Mostly because after watching some of George Lincoln Rockwell's speeches, I realized that you guys are really shitty socialists, assuming you ascribe to his philosophies.

As far as I can tell, his socialists policies basically amounted to not letting the poor who actually try to support themselves starve, or go homeless.

If that's what you mean by socialist, I'd recommend you drop the suffix of your term and come up with something better as well. You don't have friends on the left. You're friends are on the right. Stop pretending that having economic views that are basically more free-market and right of the GOP makes you a socialist.

natural rights do not exist. This is a leftist meme that needs to die.

...

Let them take it. I know one thing and that is alt right doesn't belong on pol