Libertarianism or National Socialism

Which of these two systems is the best one and why.

Libertarianism gives us a free market, real capitalism, small government, very few regulations, freedom. These are wonderful things, but this 'freedom' is not only for the white man. Libertarianism won't stop the mass-immigration as far as I know, nor will it stop marxist scum from acting degenerate.

National Socialism on the other hand allows less freedoms but for the white man still enough, there are regulations and a sort of socialist system I know, the socialist part is rather culturally, not economically and thus no real free laissez-faire market. BUT, it does secure the borders and the future of the (ethnic) population. It eradicates degeneracy and 'lifts up' the people to their maximal capacity

Of course this is different from country to country. I doubt the USA will ever see a NatSoc government in the future and I think the mainland of Europa is more pro monarchal/fascist/natsoc than libertarianist systems. Holla Forums's thoughts?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

You can't say which system is better unless you look at the people who will be occupying that system, where they will be living, what their materials resources will be, and what their neighbors are like.

Debating the merits of systems in a vacuum is sophomoric.

Grow up to Burkean conservatism

>>>/liberty/

To be honest, as long as there's no kikes involved I think white people could make pretty much any system of government work.

That said, National Socialism re-engages racial pride and militarizes us, and gives us a base of anger to take back our countries and our planet. ANCAP might work after 50 years of National Socialism, and after all the niggers and kikes are dead, but we need a shared, collectivized, Herculeuan effort on the part of every white man and we need it for the next 50 years.

Perhaps our grandchildren will enjoy the freest of free markets but we will not, there is too much work to do.

I am pro militant collectivist society, ruled by aristocracy/monarch, sort of like Sparta. But such system is barely implementable here (in Flanders, north Belgium).

Libertarianism operates under the premise that one should not be forced to do anything correct? Voluntary cooperation?

Alright, I can get behind that to a degree, but how do you have a libertarian society when people are so prone to impulse and poor personal behavior?

Why can't we do to Libertarianism what Hitler did to Socialism?
Take away it's Jewish roots and make it favor the native race.
Why can't we just make a "National Libertarianism"?
All the freedoms and markets of Libertarianism, but with the strict borders and pro-white agendas of NS.
I always felt "freedom" was the inherent default for an American society. Facism and NatSoc is a good model, but those are for the European peoples. America requires it's own structure.

Lmao are you like twelve

Bamp.

Only newfags don't understand what this thread is for. It should be stickied actually, since we have some TRS scum to remove.

Read Sparta and it's Law by Eduardo Velasco, it kept the 'Spartan race' pure and strong even when the rest of Greece became more multicultural and degenerate. It is the very foundation of our indo-European existance. Germanic tribes were somewhat similar, and from many Latin manuscrips we know that the Romans looked down on 'those barbarians'. Yet it were those 'Barbarians' who were able to conquer the WRE, mainly because they kept their body fit and their minds sharp, while the Romans became lazy, degenerate and mulitcultural

National Socialism the best system. Even for non-whites, nationalism socialism would still be a better choice for them, providing they willfully stay in their countries and wont fucking invade countries. Islamic nations and National Socialism would be great allies,but not in bed together. Libertarian capitalism allows kikes like soros, rothschild, murdoch to become a monopoly on sectors which is fucking disgusting. these monopolies are controlling people minds (media/education). in national socialism, this shit is out the fucking window, kikery is out, usury is out, degeneracy is out, misc-generation is out. Hitler should've won. This world is fucking disgusting.

Capitalism is globalism, as that is the best way to maximize profits. If I tell you that you can make millions if you join me and my company, then you will surely agree, for that is the best way to uplift the peoples spirits and the standard of living, correct? Well, the result of capitalism being used as a goal (as opposed to a tool) has resulted in those 'businesses' to become degenerate in nature, like the porn industry or subverted journalism. There is a reason the purple square in the political compass is just a stereotypical Jew, that is their wet dream (swindling goys endlessly). It actively acts as a disincentive for ethnocentric heterosexual monogamy (open borders, subversion is marketed to the new masses, and females replace males in the workplace/gender roles). NatSoc is diametrically opposed to this subversion, but does not destroy private property rights, just regulates them for what is best for the people. It takes men of greatness to rule with that amount of power; truly, it is a once in a century kind of thing, which is why, for the time being, it is best to avoid bigger government, as I don't trust them to have the best interests of the ethnic population. It establishes a hierarchy based off of ethnic background/the nation's people, that is its true goal, to preserve that, no matter what. And that means regulating the market, which does not make it absolutely free. And, of course, it is opposed to Marxist mass egalitarianism/equality of outcome. The system is globalist to its core (workers of the world: unite). Go on any Communist death toll book review and read the comments, you have some mongs sucking off Mao, which drive you to Capitalism, as it did with me (red scare and whatnot), but that is a false judgement. The free market IS globalism, it allows the Soros types to prosper (as long as there's revenue, who cares). NatSoc strikes the balance.

TRS are the lolbergtarians. This thread was probably started by them. They still can't wrap their stupid fucking heads around the fact that Uncle Adolf is our only way out of this mess.

But they just want eternal "cummies" and degeneracy so they can rot for all I care.

Romans fell when they started cucking for Christ

I agree with your economic quibbles with Libertarianism/Capitalism.
I just have a huge hardon for muh freedom, regardless of whether you believe you're ever going to exercise that freedom or not.
I'd never use drugs, but I'd like to have the comfort in knowing I'm free to decide if I wanted to or not and that I was trusted as an individual to make my own choice.
I feel like large unbound swathes of freedom is only viable in a mostly homogeneous society (particularly whites).

No such thing

What does that even mean? Are you one those who can't see that no matter how much you go on about muh cronyism muh corporatism, it is still capitalism and it is nothing new, the state has been protecting the interests of industrialists since forever, unless you want to conveniently deny it wasn't capitalism back then either.


Again, no such thing. I'm sure you're aware of the fact that the more radical element of the NSDAP, at least economically (Starsser and his followers) were purged because industrialists in Germany were worried they might actually seek to implement socialism? By default, Hitler protected free enterprise.

Strasser*

This is true. There exists no totally unregulated market.

However, there is a critical distinction between a centrally planned and a decentralized market.

An example of a centrally planned market is on in which all goods are collected by a single agency and distributed by the same agency. This is Bernie's America:

A decentralized economy is "free" in the sense that goods are produced and consumed, not as a central intelligence demands, but as individual producers and consumers see fit.

Partially because the real men were turned into soft cucks, partially because the administration/emperor was corrupt and lazy, thinking they were unconquerable


I am not a libertarian myself


I know about Strasser and the protection of free enterprise, but in fact the government did nationalize some factories and banks, if I am correct?

I hate to sound like Holla Forums but Bernie is a SocDem, at least he's running as a SocDem now, i very much believe he was a socialist in his younger years but even so he ran under a SocDem platform. He isn't even for central planning, he is for gibs, i.e. social welfare, which technically isn't socialism.

The ability to nationalize was there and made clear however they did not seek out to do so unless it went against the well being of the state and people by default


>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

...

I like your idea. I think "National Libertarianism" you suggest is pretty close to the night-watchman state model, where state only funcion is to provide military and police. So something like "National Minarchism" might be more accurate.

Hitler did to Prussian Socialism,
Prussian Socialism existed before Marxist Socialism

Giving the individual the freedom of drug use, is like giving a suicidal a gun and crossing your fingers nothing bad will happen. Legalizing drug use is legalizing drug abuse. It's as simple as that. Legalizing narcotics will drop the production rate of any country instantly, and will degenerate the country, because it will leave its youth stupid and lenient to most issues of their time. Booze and cigarettes are a debatable drug, but I personally think booze and cigs shouldn't be legal. Hell, most "food" nowadays is poisonous, including water.

It's a murky area. Consider his higher education financing plan.

Depending on how accreditation would work under his plan, he could fully subsidize a certain kind of good and remove (through accreditation regulations) competing goods from the market. Such would be a rather sophisticated, layered kind of central planning, but one that looks much more like socialism than mere social welfare.

paleoconservatism is better than both tbh fam

Get out.

Libertarianism but make an exception for rich cunts who try to manipulate the system against everyone else. Freedom is an intrinsic good and should be enjoyed by as many people as possible.

Corperativist Fascism, Integralism and National Syndicalism should be added. Lolbergertarians (at least the mainstream ones) have been just as subversive as liberals and communists. Also Libertarianism does not have controls in place to prevent Jewish/communist/liberal subversion. In a world with only whites it might work.

why?

You don't belong here. Either lurk moar, or get the fuck out.

You say "lurk moar" when someone doesn't fit board culture. Having an ideological disagreement is not necessarily inconsistent with this board's culture, and asking for a argument is certainly part of this board's culture.

You look like the newnigger here, faggot, not the other guy.

You are very correct. The Third Alternative solves the issues of capitalism and socialism, both ideologies have an end goal of globalism, by giving the state the tools do what ever is best for the national interest.

Another user pointed out that we don't know which system is best for what group of people, and I agree. Partly. A better way to think about it is that for some nations they will be heavily collectivized farming for others there might be less but they instead have heavily collectivized mining and oil industries.

It will vary depending on what best suits the needs of the nation and the state is fully empowered to govern effectively.

I find most of my positions on American politics and what America should be (not the world) fit under paleoconservatism as well, so I'd like to see a thought out argument for why your ideology (presumably NatSoc) is better than paleoconservatism. Like another user said, I feel that America must always preserve certain freedumbs that NatSoc seems to disregard. I'm open to hear what you have to say though, I'm not clinging onto any particular ideology.

NatSoc is the only way to actual liberty, user. Rights are protected not done away with.

You're retarded. In the modern day any monarchism is gonna be the USSRx10 thanks to all the spy tech in existence. Utter a single word against the tyrant and you'll get vaporized by a drone in the following hour.

Agree, however I just want to mention that the best thing for a nation is to be fully (or as much as possible) self sustainable. The more dependent you are on others, the less free is the Volk (but of course few nations have all the resources, maybe we should colonize again, a slice of the African pie for every European country)

The same could be said about a fascist/natsoc state in the modern world. Even in our current 'democracies' there are insane amounts of espionage.
The USSR was a bureaucracy, if they fucked up who would you as a civilian try to target? The system is more than one man. In a monarchy, if the monarch fucks up badly, he's head will be rolling soon. It's like a check and balances: the king has enormous amounts of power but also a lot of responsibiliy, everything that goes wrong will be blamed on him. (But then again, most kings are trained from birth to be monarchs, and the usually have a sense of patriotism since the pretty much own the country)