Brian Caplan goes full cuckertarian: Immigration is a human right

I posted the entire thing. No need for an archive.

The problem with his post is that when Muhammad goes and lives in his house, Muhammad starts raping, pillaging, using the emergency room, and terrorizing people. Bryan wants to impose costs on society by using the commons for personal profit. That is why Bryan should be hanged as an aggressor and exploiter against the commons.

The final solution is to hold a gun to the cuck's heads to force them to house randomly picked male rapeugees in their home,and force them to pay for every last expense.

The more rapeugees the more cucks suffer.

Hawaii wants to block trump? Let's turn that state into the world's largest refugee camp. All we got to do is end birth right citizenship.

I personally know three people who stopped associating with libertarian orgs/libertarianism due this spergy ass and his relentless open borders shilling. It says a lot that a mediocre economist like Caplan continues to be prominent voice in libertarian circles.

The guy isn't a Zionist, he's a full retard true believer who thinks Israel should open it's borders and the solution to societal conflict lies in thouroughly atomizing society so no group can become truly dominant.

Wait so I have the right to imprison guilty people? Brb, going to go full Fritzl on some nogs

There's not much to say when libertarianism has its roots with a few "jewish intellectuals" and economists. It's the rights hyper individualism where people are supposed to group up to basically accomplish separation.

The whole thing is fucking bizarre and I've tried understanding Christopher Cantwell's uncucked version and it just sounds retarded. Even he admits the closest we had was the original founding of the nation and if that still led us here then what does that say for libertarianism as an idea? Without some centralized authority it'll be only a matter of time before someone groups up and takes ownership over others and we wind right back up here.

How about we just, ya know, remove the fucking jews and foreigners from our tribe and give back to them a spiritual purpose again? It's the best we can fucking do and they just want to complicate things with their muh rights and muh capitalism.

You're not wrong buddy, this is the best explanation of it I've found.

The jacked up part about this is that he's pretty much exactly right up until this point.

But it is not a surprise, nor is it news, that Neocons and Shitlibs don't believe in Freedom of Association. An individual is not obligated to permit strange people he doesn't know or approve of to move into his house and set up shop there at his expense, and to force him to accept them would be a criminal and tyrannical act. The same is true on a national level when governments are involved.

He tees up a rational that would completely shit on his own argument if carried out to it's logical conclusion, which is why he abandons it after the first two paragraphs to start making emotional appeals about how sad the brown people are.

Happiness is not a human right, not even in America. You have a right to 'pursue' happiness, not 'be happy.' There's an important difference.

To believe in Freedom of Association is to accept that forced integration was wrong and that there was nothing morally or ethically objectionable to segregation. That's why the Neocons conveniently forget to bring that up anytime they talk about American Values or The Founding Fathers.

Funny how that works.

I have no clue who this kike is or why you are pushing him here.

Ok

Everybody who isnt a complete idiot sees his isnt a natural conclusion born out of logic, its agenda orientated winding and kvetching thats tries to appear logic.

Lolbergs would be so much better if not for their stance on immigration.

Really wish someone would beat this cunt to death with a copy of Democracy: The God That Failed. Hoppe has specifically addressed this argument, it doesn't work even if you accept libertarian moral premises. The only reason forced integration can have the superficial appearance of being "free immigration" is that the state owns a substantial amount of property and crushes freedom of association even on property it doesn't own.

Yeah, no, the guy is absolutely right. Immigration is a human right.

But it does not supercede the rights of a nation to exist. And as long as this rule was followed, working immigrants became part of the workforce and gave their fair share of taxes. And since every nation in the west up until the 80's/90's enforced this rule, even if immigrants were percentually speaking a higher burden on taxpayer money because of welfare, they would be a minority, and as such, could be managed much easier than today.

Germany for germans, england for the english, USA for the north americans, and so forth. If you wanna join, you'll be scanned to make sure you're worth the hassle; if you are, welcome, we wish you to integrate with our culture as soon as possible.

But then came the tide of islam…

There are no human rights you dumb ape. It's an arbitrary list of bullshit created by philosophers.

Founding fathers never believed in freedom of association either. They believed in white supremacy.

You're such a dumb goy, why don't you check your privilege and join (((Amnesty International)))?

If you can't understand nuance, then you're an useless autist.

Yep, immigration and trade. But that's what the jew does, he creates something appealing in most ways and laces it with poison that will kill you slowly.

...

Literally fucking who?

That's what happens when you lose the economic argument, you go to the moral argument and then you call your opponent a Sinner. Caplan is a clown, he was never going to change his mind on immigration no matter what the facts are because his support for open borders and mass immigration was a typical jewish attitude wrapped in economic arguments. But now he has to resort to the moral argument because he knows nobody buys the economic argument anymore.

Just look at that smug low T cuckface

"Rights" are a fiction. Behaviours can be compared to ideal standards e.g. NAP or UPB. If a behaviour violates a principle, then it is immoral in that system. Most statist systems are internally inconsistent or fail basic standards of reasonableness.

Still:

No one has the right to restrict your movements outside of their property.

The US government claims all land within the borders of the US as its sovereign territory

Ergo, it has the right to restrict movement across and within those borders

Libcucks need to end welfare before they end borders.

It`s just trash lefty-cucks, don`t paint us helicopter pilots as the bad guys. Actual libertarians don`t like the jewish plague or the nigger infestation, but don`t want to force whites to follow their votes (decuckcracy) or to have to give them gibs (taxation, incluiding security)

they're always talking about imaginary rights (invented by themselves), but never about duties..

The lolbergs you find on say, youtube are bluepilled as fuck.

The "free market" deal only works when the population is composed by a single ethnic group (europeans are both civilized and close enough culture wise), but so do welfare, public education, healthcare and fucking everything in an ethnostate, except for communism which lacks the jews to push it and also has no reason to exist at all.

The main problem with everything is when you add jews that disguise themselves as natives in order to undermine a nation, as soon as possible they will attempt to mobilize or rally lots of weaker elements (workers, women, children) against the fewer stronger individuals keeping the country safe. Don't get me wrong, invaders that start claiming that their life is worth the same as a citizen's life and begin screaming "MUH HUMAN RIGHTS" in order to cross the border and go get a free dentist appointment are as much of a threat but only one comes before the other; always kill a traitor before an enemy, for those will open the gates.

I don't mind Hoppeans, but it's clear you're not what people think of when people use the word "Libertarian". Come up with a different word, or just use "Hoppism", "Hoppist". It's like when Strasserites try to reclaim "National Socialism". It's pointless if you're always going to have to clarify that you're not THAT kind of national socialist, ergo why they just call themselves Strasserists, or Strasserites.

It's like I'm reading the Talmud

wew lad

Kill your self you autistic lolberg. Libertarianism is nothing but Jewish controlled opposition, with a philosophy designed to look like it's against them. It goes entirely against the idea of a nation, and the idea of a unified people, only in your fantasies does libertarianism stand against the Jews.

Says you and fellow autistic lolbergs. Again, completely arbitrary. But it definitely is not "universally preferable" and anyone who believes that is retarded.

Another arbitrary declaration.

If they can do it, then they can do it. Rights don't exist. Might makes right.

>>>/trs/

False. None of it works.

Interfering in the market can only be justified to preserve the nation, not to run the nation.

Libertarian has become the word to use for someone who supports free markets. If someone was to call themselves a "Hoppist", people would then ask them "what the hell is that?" and so you'd have to explain it anyway.

For most of America's history, anti-immigration sentiment always came from the more market orientated people. The Old-Right were the most stringent opponents of immigration.

The idea that support for cutting taxes, cutting regulations, and cutting government spending and services goes hand in hand with supporting immigration and egalitarianism is not based in historical fact. Obviously so when you look at the Republican party and the Democrat party. The more pro immigration the Republican party has become over the decades, the more pro "mixed" economy it has become. It's as if support for free-markets and support for immigration are inversely related.

The open border libertarians are the ones who stole the Old-right's philosophy and inverted their stance on immigration.

vdare.com/articles/an-old-right-libertarian-lion-vs-the-great-immigration

Libertarianism doesn't work because the position is incapable of viewing broader social causes or impacts. Every libertarian argument fundamentally hinges on simplistic examples that never involve more than 3 people.

The old right also was not "market oriented" you dumb twat. The narrative of "libertarian America" is ahistorical nonsense. America was never libertarian, and libertarianism was invented by Jews in the 20th century.

Interfering in the market does not need to be justified. The market is a creation of the state, and the state must have control over it.

He's not very good at logic, or at least analogies.

And if an individual invades property, he's a trespasser and the property's owners can remove them.

The first immigration bill in US history was in 1790 and limited immigration to Whites of good moral character. Not surprisingly lolbergs are full of shit.

It most certainly was. Cutting taxes, cutting regulations, lowering spending, opposition to monetary policy, opposition to foreign wars, EXTREME opposition to the New Deal? Is that not market orientated?

There have always been competing parties and philosophies in America, that says nothing about the Old-Right. The Old-Right never had a dictatorship over politics, so the politics of America do not represent the Old-Right.

Depends on your goals. You can not expect good results results from price controls, barriers to entry etc.

It's about as much of a human right as a complete stranger coming over to my place, raiding my fridge, stealing my shit, and then walking out.

If English is your first language, then I pity the people who have to wipe your retarded ass.

That argument only works when the government owns all the land.
Libertarians are retarded, because they think the government is evil, so we need the government to restrain the evil behaviours of governments.
At least communists consistently fully believe in the state.

immigration may be something people should be allowed to do, but a country you want to immigrate to should be allowed to not let you immigrate there
and when would that be the case?

This is what autistic libertardians actually believe.

False. Old right was not laissez faire you dumb ape. Learn history.

IMMIGRATION IS A PRIVILEGE

And yes, you can expect to good results from these, depending on how they are implemented. Europe did fine off it for hundreds of years before Jews invented "the free market." America did very well with it until Jews implemented laissez faire and the ahistorical narrative that America was founded as some laissez faire bourgeois paradise.

It was not Laissez faire as in it did not support completely removing the government? Neither did Ron Paul. But a general philosophy of cutting taxes, cutting spending and cutting regulation is the philosophy of a market orientated people.

I read a lot about history. Have you read Garet Garret's critiques of the New Deal?

I thought this was proven to be bullshit right out of the gate when you look at the amount of welfare illegals take in.
Also fuck the economy, it's a tool of Gentile slavery in its current form.

You can not. Europe has suffered constant problems from price controls and barriers to entry. The problems with Obamacare and the health care industry in general are all predictable problems of price floors and restricted supply. America did better before these were introduced.

Old right did not support that.

What is your source for the Old-Right's beliefs? Who are some Old-Right authors you've read?

They are only problems if you see them as problems. But what you see as problems depends on what you believe the economy exists to accomplish. Price controls are good for certain ends.

The problem with lolbertardians is that you equate economic efficiency with moral good. National socialists do not commit this fallacy (because we aren't autistic Judaized subhumans like you).

Common knowledge of history.

I haven't read any. But it is historical fact that they did not support laissez faire and was not "market oriented." Old right supported tariffs, subsidies, market intervention of all sort, etc.

But that's completely stupid. No matter what system you use something will eventually dominate all others.

Some Old-Right authors supported tariffs.

Reasons varied such as it being a way to get industry started, it being a national security issue to not rely on foreigners for certain industries, or for the reason Ron Paul supported them - tariffs are a better source of revenue than income tax. It takes less effort, time and cost to enforce and collect. If you're going to have a government you need at least some revenue, and tariffs and excise duties were the most efficient way to provide that revenue.

Now I believe the "etc." statement of your post is just made up. Tariffs is where it ends. The unifying facto amongst the Old-Right was their extreme opposition to the New Deal.

Libertarianism doesn't work. Libertarianism is so easy to subvert in a democracy it's insane.
Sure, the redneck working on his farm minding his own business within his local community can be left alone, the pornographers, drug dealers and fetishists that wanna push their shit everywhere need to go.
And owning land or raw resources are pretty arbritrary things since it's made by nobody, no ancap rule can competently decide who owns them.

Although I support borders, the reality is that blacks, browns, poor people rarely have the money to buy private property to move into a white or upperclass neighborhood, and are discriminated against even if they do.

Racial integration in the USA has been the result of welfare, public housing and anti-discrimination laws.

What the market has led to is the reverse: gentrification - urban blacks and browns getting pushed out into the wilderness.

Not much more needs to be said.

I still find it bizarre as an adult when thinking about how the US government literally forced white schools at gunpoint and bayonet to accept black people.

Brown vs board case happened in 1954, legally ending segregation by threat of violence. The part I find funny is that leftists and liberals think Trump wants to return to a 50's era US, which they see as racist, but do the actions of the US government then strike anyone as white supremacist in nature?

Who benefits from forced integration?

And just to add on, I could how see how something like libertarianism could spring from an event like this, with people being unrepresented by their government, and working through the markets instead.

Malcolm X seemed to have a more grim, but accurate view of the situation then MLK ever did, at least publicly. If he ever wanted diversity, he wanted it to be voluntary, genuine, and honest, unlike the artificial and repressed utopia MLK preached about.

You don't need to like someone to understand what they say.

same old shit.

it still is unfathomable to me that people stood by and let that happen

Well obviously, to a certain degree. Franklin was not only a white supremecist, but he out-and-out believed that Anglo-Saxons were the explicit Master Race, and did not want, in his words, the 'swarthy and untrustworthy' Germans and Nords, who were not 'truly' white, coming into America and ruining it for actual white people.

But within the contextual frame of what constitutes the people who are allowed to be in the expressly white (by their terms) America, they did believe in the Freedom of Association. It was one of the founding principles of the nation.

The entire reason the Protestant pilgrims came to America to begin with was precisely because they were NOT permitted to discriminate in England, where drunkards, leches, whores, pimps, prostitues, homosexuals, and degenerates were all either tolerated or sometimes even encouraged. The Church of England in their day refused to take a hard stance against the swamp of degeneracy that oozed forth from the cities into the countryside, due to a combination of politics, self-interest, and the machinations of the already throughly Jewish Bank of Englad.

They came to America because they desired the right to discriminate. They were not being discriminated against, as the kosher preschool narrative would spin the story. They were the ones who sought to discriminate.

The right to discriminate against people you do not like and wish to be seperate from is a foundational principle of the United States of America. Jews and niggers have fought against this for over a century, because they know that they cannot compete if forced to try and make it "on their own" as the Anglo Contractualism would say.

All politics in America and abroad in Europe have been in the last few decades is whether or not the world has a "right to access" white people.

That is what this fundamentally comes down to, and Freedom of Association is one of the biggest obstacles in the path of Globalism as a result of that, because it is such a simple and succinct argument. I do not have to argue for spiritualism, defend Christian societial norms, presuppose nationalist sentiment, or even bring race or culture into the debate. I could do all of those things, and we should be doing all of those things on all fronts, but at it's simplest, the brown masses are trying to argue that we do not have the right to ourselves, that we do not own our own bodies and works and spaces, and that they themselves have some magical right to have 24/7 access to white people and the things we do and make.

And they don't. The very idea is absurd, even within a realm where we suppose that 'human rights' exist in the first place. One does not have to challenge the Asshole-Worshipping Postmodern Temple of Atheistic Materialism to defend their own existence. One merely has to ask what the hell they are doing in your house.

This is I suspect why Libertarianism is still as popular as it is with the political underground, in spite of being very literal cancer to a society. Because it gives people an outlet to tell niggers to get the fuck off their lawn without risking the explicit racial condemnation of our Judeo-Bolshevik overlords.

It lets you be racist and push for segregation without being accusable of racism on a rational level, because you are 'technically' egalitarian.

To the eternal normie, who always seeks the path of least resistence, Libertarianism is the obvious choice, since it permits discrimination while dodging the death-chant of 'racist.'

Which is why it is so important that we continually push racism into the public consciousness and signal boost racist things whenever we can.

Libertarianism dies when Average Joe finally believes he is 'safe' to be racist. At that point, the intellectual charade Libertarianism provides is no longer needed.

the irony
read the first 1/3 of A Short History of Man

Libertarianism assumes that everyone in the world is secretly a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, and need to merely exist in a society with rules that cater to that hidden nature for their true virtue to spring forth fully-formed from their souls, like Athena from the head of Zeus.

A Libertarian society can exist, in an ethno-state of Christian Anglo-Saxons.

But much like Democracy itself, it will only last for as long as it takes somebody to figure out that they can pop the soap bubble by pricking it.

Once somebody breaks the unspoken social contracts of Libertarianism, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

Once people realize that the path of least resistence in a Democracy is to create an in-group and attempt to legally pillage the commons by voting such thefts into law, the entire system enters a downward death spiral from which the only possible conclusions are the death of the nation or the death of the Democracy.

Libertarianism only works if it is somehow conveniently surrounded geographically by hardline White Nationalists who throw Communists and brown people out of helicopters and bog degenerates.

Or in other words, it exists if some vast and functionally omnipotent external force provides life support to explicitly promote that existence without being resrained by the ethical or political limitations of Libertarianism as an ideology.

An ideal that requires an explicit one-way parent-child relationship with a benevolent overlord or functional equivalent is a failure of an ideology. Healthy organisms don't need life support to survive.

Libertarianism is the ideological equal to a man encased in an iron lung, and is equally as long-term viable.

Fuck no it isn't. Society is a contract between men that they will give up certain freedoms for protections. I can walk away from any contract I haven't signed, but I can't force others to sign a contract with me. If the group of contract signers wishes to exclude someone from the deal, then they are morally okay to do it. We don't need to justify closing our borders or show that we have a "right" to do so, but there it is regardless. Why we want to close our borders anyone immigrating is a subhuman piece of shit is our own business, and it plays no factor in the morality of us telling the world to fuck off.

Implying

Poor Merkel, getting called a Privileged nazi :^)

He doesn't have the moral argument either, see

So…make one?

You can't in a world with kikes that can brand anything as a death cult and send a cleanup crew.

The minute you even try to do something such as insignificant as living in a private, white-only neighborhood you'll have a jew trying to buy land there just so he can practice usury by renting it to someone else at insane prices or funneling nigs into it to lower the land value. Should you restrict access to ownership he'll scream racism and send both media, mobs and state after you; if you try to outbid it at an auction you will soon find him making a phone call to his banker cousing which will forward him a few hundre thousand as fucking up whites is priceless. In the event that you do win an auction against a kike you'll end up like a monopoly player who got into too many lost bid wars and he'll just continue unopposed with INFINITE JEWISH MONEY.

Such horrors shall continue as long as the Jews exist.

tl;dr WE REALLY HAVE TO GAS THE KIKES

There is more truth to this post than any other post on this board.

How?

This is a real and serious question.

If you are a Libertarian. And if you accept and understand that Libertarianism is a desire to create a societial structure that caters to WASP culture and society.

How do you propose to create Libertarianism, in a world filled with niggers and Jews?

How do Libertarians justify banning pornography? Or limiting the freedoms of Communists? Or forbidding the practice of non-Christian religions?

The reality that Libertarians refuse to accept or admit to, is that the only way to create the ideal Libertarian society is to not be Libertarian at all. You must aggressively defend Traditional values and explicitly attack and assault those who do not share these views.

Or in other words, true Libertarianism can only exist if the conditions for it's existence are initially created by Fascists and National Socialists.

But if that is the case, then why should either of the latter tolerate the former?

The answer, of course, is that they have no reason to. Libertarianism is not an ideology. It is a retreat, a falling back. An intellectual cowardice. Driven from the ideas of the entirely reasonable position of Blood and Soil, instead the Libertarian attempts to enact an artificial filter of 'actions' and 'behaviors' to remove nonwhite elements without being explicitly nonwhite, so that he might avoid being called 'racist' by his contemporaries.

A Libertarian is a man who advocates throwing other whites to death and ruin simply so he can avoid being called a hurtful name by Communists.

To call a Libertarian contemptable or a traitor does an insulting disservice to traitors everywhere.

Read Hoppe. It is entirely reasonable for a community in a libertarian world to make membership conditional on race or religion.
You make admittance to your property conditional on being a Christian and not being a Communist. If you own the whole community, you're done, you've got everything you need. If you don't, you can make contracts with your neighbors to do the same thing, with a provision that none of them will sell their property to anyone who doesn't agree to the contract.

This is fucking disgusting. Freedom my ass. You deserve it for ww2 though.

Does anyone have that cap where the poster asks "who wins, who dies, and why?" I feel it is relevant to this thread.

For all the efforty you have spent arguing against a position, you do know rightwing libertarianism is opposed to democracy, don't you? That Hoppe calls democracy a variant of communism?

Read Hoppe or shut the fuck up. If you want to complain about left-libertarians, closet commies, no one here will disagree with you, but it has no more bearing on us than a 90s neocon has to do with natsoc

Where did you get this shit from

a nigger

That's not being a Libertarian anymore, though.

That's just Monarchy with the labels scrapped off. Autocracy and Libertarianism don't fit together. The existence of one destroys the other. If a single person acquires a monopoly on community property and uses that power to enforce their own standards onto the world, that is a Monarchy, and not Libertarianism.

I have read Hoppe. And like all the rest of the 'mainstream' Libertarians, I believe that he as not a real Libertarian. It's just about the only thing I agree with contemporary Libertarians on.

Hoppe was a crypto-Monarchist who advocated for the leaveraging of monopolies by a natural Aristocracy to enforce high commonweal standards onto a society. Comparing Hoppe to actual Libertarianism, which has always touted liberty and personal freedom first and foremost, is like comparing an apple to a fish.

If you believe in personal freedom and liberty but feel it should be tempered with duty and an active pursuit of becoming The Fettered, then you are a Paleoconservative or a Traditionalist.

If you believe in using monopolies to exert benevolent but direct control over society and hedge out dangerous competing elements that threaten the commonwealth, then you are a Monarchist.

Hoppe was a lot of things. A Libertarian was not one of them. He advocated for a radical Conservative revolution and couched his arguments in the spiritually bankrupt Libertarian terms of materialism and commerce. But he was not a Libertarian and the ideas he peddled were not Libertarian in nature, no matter what he believed himself to be.

This is more disingenuous then a rationalwiki article. What book(s) are you pretending you read?