Andrew Napolitano Plays His Hand Against Trump

...

(((Rand))) - born (((Rosenbaum)))
(((Hayek)))
(((Friedman)))
(((Mises)))
(((Rothbard)))
(((Molyneux)))

I will be along side you, in the trenches, executing traitors, arresting Jews, protecting and cultivating the white race.
I will be smiling and meeting along side you, and there is nothing you can do about it.

None of which are Nationalist Libertarians, and a few are anarchists.
Out of that list Milton Friedman is the only one I have any respect for.

...

NAP dont apply to commie, right?
Mental gymnastic, not even once.

Sure, until people know what you are.

Nationalist Libertarianism has nothing to do with anarchism or volntaryism.

Good luck with that. Nearly all the policy that I help pass will be Natsoc with a different justification. And when ever I argue against a policy it will always be on the grounds of what is better to reinvigorate and promote the white race.

nigger explain how borders work in your little faggot utopia

you'll get a slit throat too motherfucker

He consistent though and he's probably voting for Gary Johnson.

Nigger, that's what John Bryant used to be, a white nationalist libertarian. He was still a douchebag with bad arguments but you can be against the collective racial suicide and in favor of a minimal government that leaves most people alone.

You can have a government that protects the borders and controls immigration without also having a government that taxes everything and tries to control the economy.

you're pathetic

and Hayek wasn't jewish. Go back to Thezog.info you clueless moron.

Almost no immigration. Especially no non-whites.
I don't think you even have a grasp what I am.

If you think having 7% taxation instead of 8.5% is subversion then I cannot help you.

He said his grandmother was Jewish.

Congratulations for adopting the jewish point of view. Anyone who still respects jewish rules should just get the fuck out of here.

You're a massive faggot.

no you disingenuous twat, you can't say shit like >nearly all the policy i pass will be natsoc with a different justification
and think you're going to weasel your way out by saying "oh but it's just the tax rate" fuck you.
I know exactly what you are, and it's a complete fucking moron there have been extensive writeups both here and in numerous "alt right" (lol) publications explaining exactly why you faggots holding on to the empty idealism of libertarianism are not only wrong, but can't actually rectify your beliefs with the shifting of the winds.

Now answer my fucking question, explain how borders work in your faggot little utopia with that whole "freedom of movement" bullshit.

I can't believe there are peoples falling for National Lolbergtism

you're just as bad as the faggots who call stef et al. a kike, there's jew blood in there just not a lot. It don't matter though, mischlings of various compositions have proven that when it's time to pick sides they disavow the kike side with haste.

go back to 4cuck, faggot

Come on, at least try to make sense before hamfisting your views to fit in with us. You really can't be both man so choose.

There is no freedom of movement.
Natlib has nothing to do with anarchism.

The NAP is bullying and has nothing to do with natlib

Bullshit* tucking autocorrect

you stupid faggot do you even know what an anarchist is

I have a feeling that you don't know what you are talking about. Just to make sure we are on the right, can you explain to me;

1)What is a Nationalist?

2)What is a Libertarian?

3)How does Nationalist Libetarian even make sense?

Fuck off, paulfag. You are a taint upon the memetic energy of Holla Forums.

Dude, we are using definitions of the word libertarianism.
All ties you connect with the word libertarianism are non-exisistant in nationalist libertarianism, call it "National Socialism 2" if you are so autistic about it.

and lets just end this right here, why don't you recommend some literature you have read on your profound ideology.

But it has been tried.

I have made 2 videos of a three part series about it.
Look up on jewtube, "Building the Nationalist Libertarian ideology"

There's really not a lot of it if all it takes to be called jewish is your mom being jewish based on her mom being jewish based on her mom being jewish, etc. for multiple generations.

That's why the matrilineal bullshit is bullshit + Stefan wasn't raised in a jewish culture so calling him a jew is disingenuous and the moron who called him a jew also called Friedrich Hayek a jew even though it's not true.

vox day is a faggot and so are you why not just embrace natsoc or fascism you craven dog.
also, america was, and still at it's core is, a REPUBLIC.
Read some plato and come back here with that faggoty natlib nonsense.

top fucking kek are you seriously citing yourself?
LOOK AT THIS KIKE-ESQUE MOTHERFUCKER

I don't like rand Paul, and I think Ron is just not what we need right now and would be best at campaigning to end the federal reserve, so that the treasury department could become the minter of US currency.

GTFO you clueless moron

Are you seriously implying that an ideology needs academic support for it to be real?

Because while better, I don't think it is optimal nor feasible for the American people. If Germany and Europe becomes Natsoc and fash then that is wonderful.

no. it's based on blood. blood is race. it's not hard to figure out.
being a jew due to family lineage is a blood taint for sure and disavowing it is the only logical thing to do, but outside of the social scope yes, it very much comes down to genes.
believe me, I know

Better in terms of better than what we have now.

No, what I'm implying is that if you think your ideology holds any merit you're going to have to provide another fount for intellectual study than your thick skull.

Then this just relocates the argument from authority fallacy.
Hitler pioneered National Socialism in the public space. He is often cited. But he cannot cite himself.
This is true of any ideology, people who adhere to a new ideology cannot refer back to previous works because they are the pioneers themselves.

No I'm not, his mother is jewish

it's not a fallacy to ask for commentary and citation on an ideology or viewpoint that exists elsewhere outside of the head of the person presenting it. Where did you get your info, what literature did you read. It's not a difficult request to fulfill.

What literature I read is a very broad citation.
This is a good place to start.

It is also called libertarian nationalism, and quite a few people subscribe to it.
ex-army.blogspot.com/2012/05/what-is-libertarian-nationalist.html

oh get the fuck out of here Kant didn't lead you to "national libertarianism".
What are the primary literature resources you used to formulate your theory here, it's not asking about your fucking academic background or literary interests.
Do you define yourself by a set of remembered empty phrases taken from blogs and videos, or did you do the legwork?

It's blood + culture. Depending on which blood we're talking about it may be more blood than culture but it's not 100%.

If Stefan said her grandmother was jewish + he was obsessed by his jewish ancestry even though he may have less than 1/4 of jewish blood then he could be considered a jew or a crypto but that's not how he is.

youtube.com/watch?v=AmrRa67E1xI

first fucking sentence of that piece get out of here with that tripe

Can't you just watch the videos I did on the subject?

Why shouldn't the people be their nation?

Also that is not even the first sentence.

He hate jews =/= he is not jewish
Are you saying race is a social construct? Is an asian guy born and grew up in US makes him not asian?

you've already shifted towards the blood angle which you hadn't embraced a few posts ago, just stop man. yes, culture is something that can be eschewed, but genetics can not. Greg Johnson(lol) did an interview with Atzmon he put up yesterday on counter currents (lol), who's got the exact response that every mischling should have in the beginning of the interview
Describe your views and how you came to them.

yeah, it's the first sentence of the piece that isn't the preface defining the term you're using that the dude even states has been coined "independently here and there"

can't you just give me some research materials that aren't your videos or blogposts you've seen?

Not defending him but 'a nation for every people' means something completely different from the 'a nation for everybody' interpretation you're giving it.

Huh? You seem to insist it's a 100% about genes even though it's obviously not a 100%. That's all I'm saying.

Not really man. I'm sorry I can't help you. It is a relatively new ideology and any books I post would not be strictly Nationalist Libertarian. I would recommend a lot of Nationalist literature and some classic American lit, like Walden and things by the founding fathers.

When it come to race, IT IS 100% ABOUT GENES YOU FUCK. A weeaboo will never be japanese no matter how much anime they're watching.

The nice thing about the internet is that it keeps the sandwich board crowd off the street corners.

explain it then, because that same article insists upon
balkanization, at this point in time, is the only way to start fixing things in this country because it's the only way to get the various shades of nigger out of the white man's land.

racially you can be a kike and still loathe the actual cultural kikes but that doesn't change your blood.

so what you're telling me is that only your videos and that blogpost helped you…make those videos?

So there is no real definition of the term, you can only cite yourself and you think taking 2 things that are the complete opposite of each other somehow gonna work?

I want to repeat that I'm not defending natlib, it's stupid and unreal. However, 'a nation for every people' means that each people have their own nation.

dude this is from the blog he posted
blase idealism at work

no i understand what you meant, but I'm fairly certain that is not what the author of that article meant at all. race isn't mentioned a single time, the only thing that even comes close is
however, from the context of the piece that seems to be about some blupilled faggotry of "hurr people in the nation are the people of that nation no world gov't hurr".

I think that is just a flaw in our reality, if this was 1930 I could not give you what you are asking for regarding National Socialism.
Also say there was a book written called, "This is Nationalist Libertarianism." I would not defend it as definitive because that is just an argument from authority.
And the only authority that makes right, is might.

I will be really sad if we can't fight the race war together just because I think the American economy needs to be structured differently to the British or German ones.

jews are more complicated because the ashkenazi ones also have european blood not just jewish blood. I shouldn't have to explain that to you because you should know that already.

...

if a nigger and a jew have a child, is the child:
A)a nigger
B)a jew
C) the president
or
D)all of the above

This is why lolbergs are not welcome here

Look, I don't need to defend it just as you don't need to defend natsoc from me. They are both similar enough that I would love either to be in power in America.

no we can't fight the racewar together because you can't come up with a single piece of relevant political literature to help substantiate your ideology whilst simultaneously stating that >"Nearly all the policy that I help pass will be Natsoc with a different justification"

honestly i say they're welcome to be blown the fuck out anytime

Not at all, libertarianism is tied at the hip to the concept of liberal democracy and the enlightenment ideals, where as NatSoc and in a broader sense, the third position is a fundamental rejection of enlightenment political ideas

Just because you toss the word nationalism in there doesn't make them similar, it's like saying NatBols aren't commies because they use the world nationalism

Foxnews is kill. Muh vagina led a successful coup and now everyone is getting "on message" or leaving.

On the bright side, traditional news media is dying and Foxnews being co-opted puts it on the fast track to Hell.

no, you should defend that exact quote because holy shit is it a clusterfuck

All lolbergs really need to put their prejudice aside read the Protocols of Zion if they still think (((Liberté, égalité, fraternité))) are a strong foundation for any nation. Sure the lügenpresse cry's that it's a "conspiracy theory". However, considering it was first published in 1901, how accurate it is at describing the world today and just being a sound elaborate well thought out plan in general, its hard to believe they Kike shill when they cry "OY VEY it's been debunked goyim"
>>>/pdfs/20

You lolberg faggots ought to send this shit to Christ

But you should because you think Nationalism and Libertarianism is compatible enough to form its own ideology which makes no goddamn sense.

(Checked)
He's a cuckchan refugee, filter and report him.

He's been here for a long ass time consistently shilling his youtube videos

Just call it American Nationalism (American Fundamentalism but with more disdain for democracy and equality) because that is what you are really talking about. No need to conflate it with Libertarianism which is just a jewish analytical philosophy based around classical liberalism.

Ashkenazis also have european blood, not only jewish blood. That's why some ashkenazi jews look white and also why some of them have a minority of jewish blood even though they were raised in jewish culture and they behave like jews. I shouldn't have to explain these things to anyone here. It's common knowledge and there's probably good scientific studies on the topic.

clearly i understand that you dense motherfucker, jew+ nonjew= half jew it's real basic

race mixing doesn't erase your jewish genes, it just makes you half of what you are. What are you trying to say here, Ashkemazi jew is not jewish?

I don't. Libertarianism is just wishful thinking .
Nationalism with libertarian(American) sprinkles on top is not a combination.

It is still that same concept. Like I told the other person, call it "National Socialism 2" if he has to.

Ok fine.
Mein Kampf.
Better?
See what I mean yet that you can't have a definitive source of an ideology?

yeah except that's not what it is at all, and i've pointed out several absolutely laughable quotes from the single article you provided that you have been unable or unwilling to explain.
get fucked faggot

you're a fucking fool if you still can't comprehend the concept of providing source material to support your position as a viable one. I guarantee Hitler would call you a faggot for not being able to present your own viewpoint.

Why do I get this dejavu of Atheism+ bullshit from you.

Is this some new subversive tactic to replace real natsoc with a cuck version of natsoc?

and to top this all off
your own "source" refutes you, fool

keep spreading that the bog makes faggots and shills so mad

Except I don't claim it is a source.
I don't believe ideas have a source.

Wait are you asking for statistical data that it will work? Is that what you are asking for?

You are just being confrontational.

Quit your bullshit, you keep saying NatLib is similar to NatSoc that can practically said it can be called NatSoc 2.
Then tell me what is the differences between NatSoc and NatSoc 2 a.k.a National Libertarianism?

Differences in the structure of the economies between America and Europe.
In addition it also holds different historical heroes up as symbols of ancestors.
Those are the two main categories I can think of.
Seriously, I can imagine you getting upset now and claiming that it is just national socialism for America, and yea that is my point the whole time.

oh boo hoo little faggot can't handle argumentation huh?
you provided that shitty blogspot article as source material for learning more about "national libertarianism", and in that very article it makes claims about the "ideology" which you say isn't true. Great literacy there.
you can't even provide a source to cite where you draw ideas from and yet you expect ANYONE to watch your shitty little videos?

what a colossal waste of space, here's a fucking idea for you.

Stefan Molyneux wouldn't have been considered a jew under the Nuremberg Laws of the Third Reich so to call him a jew is either ignorance or dishonesty

No it is just I think we have bigger enemies to tackle then minor economic policy.

I listened and he doesn't get to the race-mixing part until 12:25. I've seen him being promoted here from time to time as a recommended podcast, but I'm guessing that won't happen anymore.

it's degenerate, but is he trying to have a family or is he just fucking this broad.
cantwell is a pretty cool dude, even if he is ancap or whatever the fuck his economic stance is, if he's promoting racemixing that's a travesty but if children aren't resultant there's not much we can do but spit in his direction and hold his feet to the fire if he doesn't want to get rahowed.

under Nuremberg Laws, he isn't a german either.

For all the national libertarians in this thread, don't even both arguing with the NatSocs. They have internalized a false idea that nationalism can only be accompanied by socialism.

The closet I've gotten these spergs to understanding how libertarianism and nationalism don't conflict is by referring to national libertarianism as national minarchism. These people never engaged in libertarian theoretical discussions, therefore they don't understand the clear delineation between libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism. They think that all libertarians are anarcho-capitalists.

By saying minarchism (which is really just short for minarchic libertarianism, which is what everyone means by libertarianism) they seem to at least understand why their
arguments don't work.

A minarchic government doesn't specifically have any restraints on the types of laws it can pass, only that the government have a very limited role, or large roles in very few areas of life.

honestly most people don't. whenever i try to explain anarchy i either fail miserably, or end up describing the USMC basic opreational order.

yeah how about you go ahead and look through the various quotations listed from that piece the natlib faggot that isn't you posted and try explaining them
or better yet, how about YOU provide some literature to help elucidate us upon the validity of your position

top kek m8

wtf I hate trump now

I will give you a chance, Explain how nationalism libertarian are not basing the conception of the state in a completely different way. The libertarian state is for the purpose of enforcing contracts between sovereign individuals. If a sovereign individual on the border wants to let in a foreigner into his house, upon this conception it should be allowed. However, you are making the contention that the individuals on the border have the duty not to let in foreign hordes, in which case a nation isn't a mere group of people artificial aligned through a coincidence of purpose, but rather, there is a duty to something higher. Therefore the state isn't simply a horizontal entity based on the consent of each individual; it's a holistic one. You're just doing patchwork on libertarianism so that it doesn't immediately fall due to nature's law.

in addendum, if your ideology does not hold race and culture as a fundamental component than you are far behind the paradigm. I have seen nothing here or in any of the various other threads lolbergs and you other "enlightened" libertarian esque dipshits have made in years of imageboard posting that acknowledge this crucial element. IF, and that's a real big IF, any of those policies could ever be implemented, it would need to be done in a homogeneous society which doesn't exist anymore in the West.
You can pontificate all you want but your "ideology"offers no avenue to rectifying the problem of zionistic infiltration, manipulation, and controlled culling/displacement of a nation.

Lolberg logic 101, one day you will realize this people only care about their freedom to act in degenerates ways, the whole muh tyranny and power corrupts is just an excuse so they can continue to indulge in hedonistic idiocy.

i'm not sure why you think i don't already know that the majority of my posts here are calling them out for their faggotry

See the problem here? Libertarianism is a self-defeating ideology. It would be nice if it worked, but there's no way to beat the progressives without offering gibs.

The Democrats especially (not saying the Republicans don't) want the draft back (Charlie Rankle d. Harlem NY city) because even though they will be the bad guys voting for it, it will inspire anti-authoritarianism ( more votes Democrat ). The Republicans can play innocent and act like they're only voting for it out of necessity.
How do they pull it off?
1. Allow everyone in the military so there's no way out Tranzies, Homos, Furries
2. Make women sign up for selective service (soon) Equality right.
3. Free College for everybody so there's no incentive to join the military
4. Start a shooting war with long deployments Necessity

Oh god we've gotten a new influx of lolberturdian leftists.

That's a lot of word salad, I don't like going line by line, but I'm going to have to.

I am not claiming that a national libertarian state bases the conception of the state in a different way from other states whatsoever. If you are essentially asking for a mission statement of the purpose of a national libertarian state is, it would be something along the lines that the race and/or ethnicity as defined that live within the borders of said state, or are at a later point allowed entrance while maintaining the race/ethnicity of the original citizenry at creation of the state is viewed as citizens, and those of a different race and/or ethnicity are viewed as non-citizens. The interest of the state is to maximize the safety and security of it's citizens from outside forces, but to take a back seat to it's own citizens when it comes to internal matters.

I assume a libertarian government would supply enforcement of contract law, yes.

No, because anyone of another race/ethnicity would be considered non-citizens. Border security and immigration law is intrinsic to national libertarianism due to definition of nationalism. They would not be allowed entry to live in the nation. I'm sure a nuanced position for travel may be taken, but the equivalent to VISA overstay would be enforced.

No, the individual has no compunction to enforce the law. He does have a compunction to obey the law. A border jumper would be taken care of by a strengthened border security organization, and a citizen who attempted to smuggle a non-citizen into the country or aided such a criminal would be prosecuted.

Yes.

Yes.

No, libertarian nationalism is the application of libertarianism, with the only "exception" (which is not really an exception but is more of genetic truth) that human beings are not equal or interchangeable, and therefore the libertarian state exists not for the benefit of humanity but for the benefit of it's racial group that presides within it's borders. In other words, citizens become the new "humans" and other humans become "non-humans".

My ideology does hold race and culture as a fundamental component.

This is true, and that is why I am willing to work with you on the "Cantwellian" physical removal principle and/or creation of such a state

Jews would not be allowed in a white libertarian nation, so I'm not so sure on how infiltration would work. The same is true for culling and displacement. As far as manipulation goes, I believe that all states are fundamentally always susceptible to manipulation. I'm not sure how NatSocs magically are immune from this either.

you have to go back to wherever you came from

I'm asking how you morons pretend to enforce the law,the legitimacy of the state , and the right to liberty. Law is a social contract , citizenship ,rights are social contracts. Explain on a consistent basis how doing that while maintaining maximum individual freedom is not just simply holistic idiocy.

Libertarians read a little econ, fail to realize it is a value-neutral discipline, and then immediately set out to jump the Is-Ought Gap like Evel Knievel trying to jump the a Grand Canyon on a tricycle. All with predictable results.

who also seem to be unaware of the concept of IDs

Sage for double post.

I will also try to clarify this for you, and I will give you exactly one chance to understand this, because you NatSocs seemingly can't for some reason.

From a pragmatic standpoint, imagine a libertarian country not from a degenerate leftist perspective but from the more common right leaning perspective.

Don't deny me the right to own property by instituting a property tax, that is essentially a rent payment every year.

Don't engage in theft by taxing the rightfully owned income of someone.

As government pays for the roads and the operation of ports, and the overarching security to ensure free trade, a sales tax is fine.

Don't regulate individuals out of certain markets by forcing them to pay for permits, inspections, regulations, etc to start and operate their own business.

Don't tell me what types of weapons I can use to defend myself.

Blah blah blah. You may not like those ideas, but that's the type of society I want you to imagine. Now imagine it's all white. Either because others have been removed, or because this is a new country founded by whites. Now imagine a border wall, and strict border security and immigration law. Now imagine a strong defensive military and nuclear retaliation system. That is what libertarian nationalism is.

Keep in mind, this is a pragmatic assessment. Meaning, I don't want to hear you bitch about how a libertarian country can't do this because it has to allow it's citizens to hire illegal immigrants by the objective philosophical tenants of libertarianism.

Because even if this turns out to be unsustainable by any legitimate and acceptable alteration to "libertarian philosophy", it's what I envision, and want. I guess I can't speak for all libertarian nationalists, but I feel like from what I have read, they want something very similar. The point is, it sure as fuck isn't socialism. I'm not down with state run health care, or state run schools. I don't want state run media, I don't want massive welfare systems. Whatever it is that we want, it isn't socialism and is best reflected by the term libertarianism.

Now, immediately is this attainable? No. We live in what is essentially already a failed socialist state. I would rather lived in a failed national socialist state, that a failed globalist socialist state. If the best we can do in the short term is you guys, I get that. People want their goodies and freebies. So whatever. We can work together for now, but I'm not looking for a Fourth Reich.

man he agreed to your holistic point and doesn't automatically see the flaw there's no point in doing anything other than offering helicopter rides

yeah pragmatic idealism is all fine and dandy but your whole argument is "dude imagine if this" fuck off. You even stating that you will "work together" but don't want the same endgame isn't an alliance, it's a threat. Freedom is a social construct, and is never granted, it's earned.

Cant we just kill all niggers and jews and then worry about all the ideological baggage later?

not when there's cuck faggots in your midst ready to impede and degrade society all over again based on "muh freedoms"

Wont it be lot harder for them to cuck on if the afforementioned are dead ?

I'm voting for Trump, but i know there's a good chance that Andrew Napolitano may be proven right by history.
Will Trump pull an Obama and do the exact opposite of what he promised to do? I hope not, but given the Turd that he nominated for VP i am no longer sure that he won't renege on his campaign promises.

the problem is when 3 years down the line we have to deal with " what do you mean I can't sell my daughter's hymen for cows don't tread on me you fucking statist"

Social contracts do not exist. That said, all states exist based on the existence of a social contract. The only half way viable form of fucking having a society without a state, is in fact anarcho-capitalism, but it obviously doesn't work. I don't think I need to explain why to you.

So, no. I'm not going to flip flop and say that I believe in magical non-existent social contracts made out of fairy dust, but I will say that it seems infeasible to not live under a state. If my choices are 1. Not live
2. Live in a philosophical situation where I am forced to be lorded over by someone based on imaginary pretenses.

Then I'll choose option 2. But I'm sure as hell going to try to mitigate that damage as much as possible. Mainly, by allowing the government to do what it needs to do to fill in the gap that anarcho-capitalism fails to accomplish, and have them fuck off everywhere else.

I have been a libertarian long before I read any econ. The economics simply reinforced my opinions. I've never liked being told what to do, nor have I ever seen the point in most laws. That being said I like roads, don't like niggers, and don't feel like living in a completely free society for a day, only to have some other state conquer me and throw me back into chains.

how could you be a libertarian BEFORE you read anything on economics holy shit are you serious

The people who say the Enlightenment was left liberal are left liberals who want to make up some sort of lineage for their 1960s Jewish ideology.

As autistic our lolberg friends are you are kinda overexaggerating. Besides , such scenarios would be much easier to deal with without kikes and their propaganda that would advertise it as A-OK.

also lets just draw everyone's attention to the fact that these fucking lolbergs posting itt not only have differing opinions on both what libertarian tenets are AND what "national libertarianism" is, but also that they also provide refutations to their "comrades" without even meaning to.

No you illiterate, my point isn't "dude imagine if this" Those statements were meant to form a fucking illustration since you can't seem to comprehend the arguments.

Your argument is the equivalent to picking up a text book, ignoring all the text, only looking at the illustration and saying "dude, this book is just trying to teach me with pictures"

the thing is i'm not exaggerating at all because if you want a real libertarian utopia you can look at liberia where that shit actually happens

Then you are just a moron, listen without the legitimacy of the state a law-abiding society cant exist, You either want part to be of a law-abiding or you dont. The social contract is explaining why would you rather concede individual liberties for social order.

Wot ? Fug…

Its at this point I wish people would just start dumping those retarded AnCap things. At least they're sometimes funny.

But that's a nigger country. Lolbergs arent niggers , they are autists but not niggers.

yeah no, that's EXACTLY what you're fucking doing. In order to craft your argument, you need your audience to imagine something within a context that doesn't exist at all, a "more common right leaning perspective". Might will always make right, yet you faggots think you can control a population by the natural benevolence a society has for each other. Pathetic.

...

You have no idea what the law is. The federal register is a thousand times longer than the bible. You are probably breaking a dozen laws right now withour even realizing it. The average person commits three felonies a day. The only reason you are not federal prison, is because you have not been investigated or audited.
The state imposes laws on us that nobody has ever implicitly or explicitly consented to and is therefore illegitimate. It's one thing to live in a society where the laws consist of god's 10 commandments, it's an entirely different ballgame when you live in a society where you are expected to follow the 100k commandments of leftist bureaucrats at some agency you've never even heard of.

Some people actually read the constitution before they were forced to in a civics class.

Some people actually questioned why the people in charge gave a shit with what you did on your property that didn't effect anyone else. And on the off-chance it did somehow, why the court systems couldn't handle it.

Shit, even as a little kid you learn to look both ways before you cross the street, and wonder why it's illegal to cross anywhere but intersections if you've already determined there aren't any cars coming.

Then you look for a political party that espouses these views, and you find out the Republicans might talk about it, but never do it. Liberals want more laws. Only the constitutionalists and libertarians seem to have any vague connection to you. In short order you figure out that constitutionalists just worship a piece of paper without any underlying ideology, and you become a libertarian. No econ needed. The econ is convincing as well, but quite frankly would bore most people.

Of course that was 10 or 15 years ago. Now I guess you'd become alt-right, because the libertarian figure heads have mostly become cucks who want more niggers, and faggots around. And everything else they talk about is weed.

law-abiding adjective definition: obedient to the laws of society.

Read a fucking book retard, laws of society =/= arbitrary bureaucratic bullshit,

the natural conclusion to this should therefore be the utter eradication of the cancer infesting the halls of bureaucracy and government in this country and the implementation of the constitutional republic this nation was founded as.
Anything a libertarian offers up still won't measure to a Republic, because a republic acknowledges it's constituents as needing a guiding light because the majority of the plebs are intellectual and spiritual mongrels.

i want cuckchan faggots to leave

wouldn't your natural conclusion to seeing the rampant degeneracy prevalent in your watered down "ideology" be to eradicate said degeneracy?
you see the type of people flocking to the altar of lolbergism and choose to remain the definition of cuckoldry.
Also, there's a big difference between "worshiping" the constitution and oh i don't know, looking to the words of the men who made this nation with their blood sweat and toil as a sign for how they envisioned this country to be run.

These are the kind of people that I hate in society
They KNOW shit is fucked up but they are completely blind to the answer because the answer is too mean

What these people will never understand is that there is nothing implicitly bad about the state just like there is nothing implicitly good about the individual

I am not talking about a fictional society, i am talking about the US today.
If you go home from a public beach and there's a stone in your shoe you can be prosecuted in the court federal court system. (No common law there)

Go to a dictionary, read what Common law and Law-abiding means and then comeback. Its a sociological question. This faggot
understand why a legtimate state is important , it benefits from it everyday yet it cant grasp why his whole ideology is kikery based in around delegitimization of the state.

State is not the same as government, A decentralized government with autonomy has no accountability, The legitimacy of the state has a huge role in how accountability works in a society.

That would be fine and dandy if the social contract was real. People concede individual liberties for things all the time. You give up your individual liberties, when you become an employee, husband, or anytime you have a contractual agreement. Of course those contracts actually exist and have your signature.

So my position is that if we are are going to make believe that everyone has signed this non-existent contract with the state, then we should make it as non-imposing as possible to maintain the order necessary to have a society. That includes racial homogeneity, borders, roads, courts, defense, and perhaps a few other details. Government has no business in what, how, why, or when we choose to do business with other citizens. They have no business in what, how, or why we do what we will with our property that we own. Nor does it have any business with what, how,why, or when we choose to to do things concerning with ourselves.

If, in the process of doing these things we actually directly harm others, that is what a court system is for.

Keeping the bad people and others out, while providing some basic infrastructure and services is all that is needed for a society to flourish. Everything else can be quite simply solved by freedom of association to live in further segregated communities based on what further services you want socialized, and what laws you want.

About the only overreach I could see as appropriate would be really oddball weird shit like laws against making your own nuclear weapons and test sites and such that irradiate the world or something. We're so far from a libertarian society that even discussing weird shit like that, and how it should be controlled is kind of pointless.

WOW, it's almost like I addressed this in the first sentence of my post.

Yes, unfortunately I would incur jail-time for eradicating the cucks, so I've instead reformatted my views into what is Libertarian Nationalism which is currently part of the alt-right coalition.

How many cucks have you eradicated so far user?

You can talk about common law and the constitution all day, but your libertarian society doesn't exist anymore. If you are in violation of a federal statute you will be fined or sent to federal prison. The United States (plural) was set up as a decentralized federation of states, but it no longer exists. It does not have the backing of its people (less than 20% approval rating across the board) and its numerous laws only apply to the commoners, the people without political connections who can't afford an army of lawyers and lobbyists.

2
this is an excerpt from a piece your comrade earlier in the thread used as a primer for the ideology. Explain it.

in addition you stupid faggot what makes you think this board and posters here have anything to do with the alt kike

You dont understand, Society itself is a contract , when you live in a community that has any form of hierarchy or authority there is a implicit contract being made,there has been many forms to uphold this contract like theocracy , monarchy , democracy and dictatorship.

faggot if you have less than 100 IQ leave the board.

State is not the same as nation and not the same as government. Tyrannical state can exist and be legitmiate even if doesnt represent the will of the people as long as it holds the power to enforce the law and the social contract that bounds the individuals and the state.

Tyrannical governorship is slighty different and a Nation cant never be tyranical as is just the a body of people that particulary hold no power.

i had honestly forgot what talking to a brick wall was like since the first ex these fucking people man

Because I'm on here every day, and besides the near unanimous consensus that Milo the race mixing homosexual jew is a problem, it is generally well received. Richard Spencer is in it. Jared Taylor is in it. Ramzpaul is in it. Chris Cantwell is in it. Styx is on board. Trump at least accepts the alt-right as an acceptable endorsement.

Pretty much any links to anyone of these people garner positive attention on here. Why are these men held in such high esteem around here if most of us don't appreciate their work faggot? And if most of us appreciate their work, do we not agree with them, at least in a broad sense?

Why don't you ask him asshole?

I don't even know what the hell he means by Social Individualism. Sounds like two conflicting terms to me.

considering this whole fucking discussion started from that faggot and his posts on national lolbergism and you providing your own position on said topic, seems like a fair fucking question

Libertarians always argue for common law, but common law doesn't exist in the US, except a few states like Louisiana.
To make a distinction between state and government in the US also makes no sense, since there's no sector of society that remains untouched by government. The government does not have the backing of its people and is therefore illegitimate, even if it is a libertarian government, but we know that most people do not want liberty anyway.

if you're on here every day and haven't cuaght on to the alt right faggotry you are part of the cancer,all of the people you listed are tools, they aren't voices for nationalists in any way shape or form. I believe you should take your commentary to cuckchan, the breitbart comment sections, or vox day shit because why the absolute fuck would you wander on to this board and spout the shit you're spouting as if you aren't in hostile territory

...

You dont understand he wasnt advocating to libertarianism. I will try to explain briefly so you get a better idea what we are talking about.

-Nation= People
-State is not the same as government and is not inherently bad, its a body or a vehicle that is used to wield political and sociological power
-Government is simply the people who command the state by illegitimate or legitimate ways.

One of the main points of democracy is the fact that it's prevents Tyrannical states from forming but at the same time it allow's perpetual Tyrannical governorship by the group of people who hold the economic/ media and communications/ institutions and academia.

The legitimacy of the state is neccesary to create a law-abiding society and mantain social order, common law and the legtimacy of the state is a key reasosn why the west is civilized.

Libertarianism and many other stateless ideologies look to blame the state for the failure of democracy and the wrong doings of democratic elected governments.

You have my positions on the quote. I don't understand what he is saying. He would have to elaborate on what the hell Social Individualism is. If I had to guess, and try to ram the term through my understanding of libertarian nationalism, I would assume he wants the society of the country to be individualistic in nature, while maintaining a nationalistic immigration policy to keep out those who want to force a collectivist society upon the individualists living in the nation.

Or in other words. Individualism is better for the human condition than collectivism. However teams beat individuals, especially in the political realm. Therefore in order to maintain an individualistic society, one must have a nationalistic aspect that keeps foreign teams out of the society.

There are a few of your hardcore NatSocs that don't like it, but almost everyone else does. Including other NatSocs who understand the importance of moving the Overton Window. NatSoc hasn't done shit in the USA, the Alt-Right has. Even most of your comrades realize that as long as you can keep the Alt-Right from getting co-opted, they are a mechanism by which the ideology of NatSoc has a realistic chance of at least getting it's message out there.

And everyone I mentioned are in fact, some of the best examples of modern nationalists that speak English. Nobody believes your shit in that regard at all.

So basically the the same leftie argument for gun control but against the state?
Guns dont kill people , people kill people.

the minute the alt right term moved from user imageboards to faggots like milo and spencer is the minute it got co-opted already. this board is not alt right, using the mouthpieces of that faggoty movement as examples is not your best course of action. you gotta walk before you can run, sure, but where they are running to faggotry and racemixing aren't considered abhorrent, and that is an absolutely massive problem.

Pretty much.

also, you keep referring to everyone here as if we're all natsoc. We aren't.

While you might not like the fact that I consider myself a libertarian, to the dismay of both of us, race mixing and faggotry have already been normalized throughout the west.

There is no NatSoc movement about to rise and successfully change the constitution or sway the supreme court to go along with banning race mixing or homosexuality.

Your best bet is to ride the alt-right wave, which at least has a sizable undercurrent of anti-race mixing and anti-faggotry. There probably won't be any bans on these things strictly, but the freedom of association angle by which we can at least stop doing business with them and stop being fired for saying mean things about them might come about.

Obviously everyone here isn't NatSoc, they are just the loudest or most numerous. Either way, that's been the culture of the board ever since I started on halfchan back in 2012ish.

More importantly, they are always the ones who have a problem with the term Libertarian Nationalist. I haven't seen many other people from different political ideologies have a problem with it.

your best bet is to stop thinking that what has happened can't be rectified, we are so fucking close to this powderkeg going up and you fags still want to play cozy and by the book.
This country wasn't founded by a ballot, it was founded by bullets. The time will come, much quicker than you think, where we will have to take a stand, and unfortunately that will mean that we can't be nice.

it's a problem because the term itself, let alone the concept, is an oxymoron.

Did you watch the VP debates? Pence is no turd. He is exactly what Trump needs in a VP. Unflinching, restrained, methodical and ruthless. Pence had Kaine looking like a toddler throwing a temper tantrum. Trump is all bluster, might and flash. Pence is quiet, calm and deadly. They compliment each other perfectly.

Literally Whom?

You people are as dumb as a pile of fucking rocks. How many times does somebody have to explain to you how it would work?

You constantly conflate anarcho-capitalism with libertarianism. You constantly refuse to believe that there are libertarians who understand the genetic basis of race, and believe in keeping good stock.

Your arguments are old and tired. The NAP is not strictly obeyed in libertarianism, any arguments regarding free movement and freedom to choose to do X don't work against libertarianism. Your constant pointing out about how cucked the current libertarian party and it's figure heads are isn't a fucking surprise to libertarian nationalists.

All of your complaints fall fucking flat. Any idiot can see that you can have a libertarian nation made up of white people, if one of the few powers you grant to the government is to provide border security and restrict immigration to whites only.

You people are morons, anyone with half a mind can fucking figure this out. Libertarianism is simply the notion that, yes the NAP is ideal, but we can't reach that ideal in reality, so we will allow the creation of a government and give it the powers to create a society as closely resembling a society based on the NAP as possible in reality.

Libertarian Nationalists, simply point out that having a bunch of statist shitskins invade your country, is bad as far as having a country based on the NAP because they don't give a shit about the NAP. So one of the powers we have to give to the government, is to keep these fuckers out.

How you can not contemplate this, is beyond me. I honestly think you NatSocs have an inferiority complex and get irate if anyone else tries to utilize the term nationalism. Even though most political systems can be either nationalist or globalist in nature. It's like it's your little term or something, and nobody else is allowed to use it. You have been so impotent politically that the term nationalism is like your last fucking possession or something, and if anyone else uses nationalism you guys freak out because you think it devalues you somehow.

considering freedom of movement is a concept core to libertarian beliefs, nothing you fucking say will change the fact that you are cherrypicking different topics from different ideologies and piecing them together. Live by the sword, die by the sword, when you hang around faggots guess what, you're a fucking faggot.
You don't belong here go the fuck back to wherever you came from, do you seriously think we haven't heard this drivel before you spineless fucking cuck?

Yeah. It was basically my first encounter with Pence apart from a few articles and wojak shitposting. I agree that his demeanor was almost flawless, but i'm not voting for people based on muh feels. He contradicted Trump on nearly everything, including going to war in the middle east. Fuck Kike Pence tbh.

and you also clearly don't understand the concept of nationalism as an ideology because if you did you wouldn't call yourself a fucking libertarian nationalist.

...

Explain how the state can enforce the law,the legitimacy of the state , and the right to liberty. Law is a social contract , citizenship ,rights are social contracts. Explain on a consistent basis how doing that while maintaining maximum individual freedom is not just simply holistic idiocy.

And again Society itself is a contract , when you live in a community that has any form of hierarchy or authority there is a implicit contract being made,there has been many forms to uphold this contract like theocracy , monarchy , democracy and dictatorship , Choice one.

careful now don't want to cause the lolberg to malfunction with all the thought required there

I always knew this cryptokike faggot would turn.

Nigger the function of the VP pick at this point is to swing undecideds, which is exactly what Pence did, extremely well I might add. You are not voting based on your feels, but hundreds of thousands if not millions of normies are, and that's what counts. Pence doesn't have any pull on policy. He says whatever is needed to influence the dumb masses. It's almost as if you have no grasp on how American elections work.

You are making a fool of yourself.

Show me the contract.

Freedom of movement is a core concept for whatever delineation of people you are applying it to. There is nothing hypocritical about saying you support freedom of movement for your citizens, and drawing the line there.

Much as non-US citizens don't have constitutional rights, non-National Libertopia citizens wouldn't have rights regarding freedom of movement. You are literally turning the definition of Nationalism on it's head. What you are saying is, *Globalist* Libertarianism can't be nationalistic because it supports global free movement. While I keep telling you that National Libertarianism doesn't support global free movement, only free movement of it's citizens. Instead of addressing this point, you just keep ramming your head into the wall insisting that libertarianism must be globalist in nature, for some unknown reason.

Yes, please watch all of my youtube videos, of which I think I posted over 6 million of. Or maybe it was none. I forget.

I cant show you the contract because it's an abstract idea now do it.

Explain how the state can enforce the law,the legitimacy of the state , and the right to liberty. Law is a social contract , citizenship ,rights are social contracts. Explain on a consistent basis how doing that while maintaining maximum individual freedom is not just simply holistic idiocy.
And again Society itself is a contract , when you live in a community that has any form of hierarchy or authority there is a implicit contract being made,there has been many forms to uphold this contract like theocracy , monarchy , democracy and dictatorship , Choice one.

Yeah, it also happens to be one I don't believe in.

then separate yourself from society permanently you fucking fool

Doesnt matter if you beleive in it or not, Liberty is also an abstract idea but all abstract ideas are by definition tautological so long as their axioms are internally consistent.

Now explain how the state can enforce the law,the legitimacy of the state , and the right to liberty. Law is a social contract , citizenship ,rights are social contracts. Explain on a consistent basis how doing that while maintaining maximum individual freedom is not just simply holistic idiocy.
And again Society itself is a contract , when you live in a community that has any form of hierarchy or authority there is a implicit contract being made,there has been many forms to uphold this contract like theocracy , monarchy , democracy and dictatorship , Choice one.

Trump has said a shit load that he thinks the governments first duty is to protect it's citizens.

Cutting half of the government is actually expanding it tbh lads.

Or you could stop pretending that everyone agrees with you and signed an imaginary contract.

Maybe you could come to terms that government is an inherently evil force, that we unfortunately need to put up with.

your faggot comrade was posting his videos earlier. live by the sword, die by the sword.
fresh off of wikipedia, the most normie of all sources.
if you want it to be your citizens you have to define who your citizens are. if you want to say your citizens are only white, well guess what you stupid faggot: you have to get rid of them somehow.
oh right because your "ideology" is so nebulous you can pick and choose what to stand for and when to stand for it whenever it suits you.

I'll reiterate: remove yourself from society if you don't "believe" in the social contract.

I'm not responding to anything if you continue to post the blatant lie that the social contract exists, or that society is a contract in and of itself.

WEW LAD LOOK AT HIM REVEAL HIS TRUE COLORS
never mind don't end yourself, let one of us do it you absolute waste.

Then explain how the axiom of the social contract are not internally consistent.

dude this faggot just said government is an evil force it's fuckin over man

Nobody is ever going to take lolberturdianism seriously when every single one of you is diagnosed as low functioning autists.

WE LAD LOOK AT ME SAY THE SAME SHIT I'VE BEEN SAYING THE WHOLE TIME

Government is shit. That being said it is inevitable because anarcho-capitalism is inherently flawed. So long as it exists, it should be limited as much as possible and only perform the limited number of actions that ancap fails at. Of which I have listed many times. You are not fooling anyone.

The axiom of the social contract is internally inconsistent because the idea of a philosophical contract is a self-contradiction. Nobody wrote it, nobody agreed to it or signed it, nobody can see what it says. It's like discussing the idea of an axiom of an invisible undetectable elephant.

Low
Functioning
Autist

Delusional
Faggot

nothing is inherently evil because the notion of evil is a blatant lie get it through your head that some people don't agree with you :^)

tell me, do you pay bills?

Madisonian ideas didnt stop the Banks of the United States.
They didnt get rid of the sizeable black population that everyone knew we had to get rid of, but no one knew or could stomach the idea of how.
They didnt stop a civil war that killed hundreds of thousands of men and both nations lost their souls in it.
They didnt break apart the monopolies that were crushing the American laborer and farmer for the almighty dollar.

It was non-Madisonian presidents like Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt who could use the awesome powers of state for the good of the people. Then, like Cincinnatus of old, go home and retire from the world once their labors were done.

The average American still has no idea what must be done or what has been done in their name to make such a hands-off system of government possible.

Napo's arguing that the states first duty is to keep its citizens free. While that is possibly true, freedom does not keep niggers or bandits from roaming cities at will. It does not feed the hungry, give work to the able and care to the needy.

His, and many other libertarian responses would be "but the individual can choose to do these things". And that is a good course of action. But for the individual to do this requires a high degree of civic responsibility and sense of duty. This endless spiral of who teaches and instills morality in whom reaches full circle when they will cry "the invisible hand" will fix it.

But anyone who has opened the history books or even taken a hard look around can see this is patently false.

Parents in todays society are too unreliable as a whole to educate their own children. Maybe before the nuclear family was broken, this wasnt the case, but it is now and we live in now.

To return to such a place where average American would barely know the federal government was there, other than the taxes, would require such a cleansing of the bureaucracy that it would take nigh-king levels of authority to do so.

This is the first and greatest fault of the libertarian mindset: they know the forest needs a burning, but are unwilling to trust anyone with the match.

You realize I can just post the same thing right? Because what you just said is the same thing as the thing i ridiculed you for. And in fact I will post it again.
Low
Functioning
Autist

Again , its not a real contract , The social contract is an abstract concept that describes a phenomenon

This social phenomena is the deliberately act of giving up individual freedom for socail order.
You acknowledge this act and you also participate in this act. you even alluded to it here

I Quote the wrong post sorry, it was for

Again , its not a real contract , The social contract is an abstract concept that describes a phenomenon
The phenomenon is the deliberately act of giving up individual freedom for social order.
You acknowledge this act and you also participate in this act. you even alluded to it here

obviously we got btfo man, i mean, government is just evil man no way is it like comprised of individual people or anything no the whole concept is just evil

National libertarianism is what allowed the Jew to pretend they're white and infect the nation

He mentioned how 23 and Me gave him jew. Do they do this with everyone for sympathy purposes? They try to push the out of Africa garbage with it.

Continuing the thought.

Rand and Friedman were not libertarians
Hayek and Molyneux are not even jewish and are hardly controversial figures.
Both Hayek and Mises were constitutional libertarians in the Jeffersonian tradition
Protip: Being a good american is not controversial outside of leftypol.
Rand was also extremely patriotic and pro-american apart from her rampant atheism and was one of the major champions of western civilization, and a leading voice against feminism in the 20th century. She was a male supremacist and would've loved Trump's presidential run.
Rothbard was an Anarchist, but he was also a realist and endorsed presidential candidates like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan.

All of the people you mentioned are highly accomplished and distinguished public figures who made valuable contributions to economics, philosophy & literature. To reduce their life's work to a shitty meme is pathetic.

bumping this thread because the philosophical discussion in it is worth reading for all anons. one of the best constructive (or destructive?) threads i've read on here in a long, long time.

Maybe this is overconfidence, but I'm sure any intelligent white libertarian can be made a national socialist over time.

National Socialism is exactly what you are looking for.

You can't be a full autist so you need to contribute during times of need and you do need to take care of your fellow man, but it's a hell of a lot more preferable to having 50-60% of your income transferred to the (((government))). And guess what else, you get a safe society, medical and scientific research, a booming market place to sell your goods to and no Jewish subversion.

And you even get to keep your guns.

Every time I advocate exactly this on Holla Forums, I get called a kike.

Natsocs want total control of the economy, including intrusive controls on business to ensure that each and every business "is good for the country" with ZERO understanding of the cost and the chilling effect that such vapid regulations have on businesses.

They also tell me that nationalist libertarianism doesn't exist by definition, and when I point to the US prior to 1913, Rhodesia, and Apartheid South Africa as successful examples of such policies they scream at me about definitions.

Or we could not subsidize failures, while having superior safety, medicine, scientific research, and marketplaces because they would all be privatized. Jewish influence could be kept out through strict immigration controls.

And we could keep our guns.

projecting. You fear an economy that can guide itself.

real nationalist libertarianism hasn't been tried yet!