I believe in libertarian values but know that they cannot be supported long term without authoritarian control...

I showed my friend yesterday the leaked internal Google vid. His response was, well its inevitable and that we should accept it. I am really shocked at the common man sometimes.

The system required to maintain freedom is one that stifles it. Libertarian values are therefore incompatible with a sustained society.

Authoritarian anarchies are inherently collectivistic or tyrannical, there isn't really any middle ground. Every single argument I've had with so-called Anarcho-communists over the years have resulted in the same outcome: The anarcho-communist admits that the difference between the anarchist "collective" and a state that they claim to oppose, is entirely semantic. The "collective" is a state in all but name. And so finally we come to Anarcho-capitalism, which once again is actually entirely unsustainable. Anarchy of the sort that AnCaps want simply cannot exist. Anarchy of the non-collectivist sort cannot exist because it is a transitional stage(or lack thereof) of affairs between one state-actor that has a monopoly on violence, and another.

The reality is that there is no such thing as a state that protects freedom for everyone, it will always take freedom and political power from some and give it to others. Democracy for instance isn't rule by the people, but rather rule by whoever has the most money (elections in the US are won by the candidate that has the most election funding 98% of the time). And yet a the same time there is no such thing as a lack of a state, as it is either becoming a state or is a state in all but name.

The choice you have to make is simple: what government do I want? One that supports my subjective values or one that does not. I believe in market-economics, protection of tradition and culture, opposition to degeneracy, sovereignty of the people (ethnic group) and a system that harmonizes the individual and the collective, so I am a Fascist/Ultranationalist that aligns mostly with National Socialism. You should find the time of state that supports your values, because the state will always shit on somebody, and you have to choose who.

Avoid Utopian ideology. "Freedom" is actually utopian.

Attached: 1496298030330.jpg (674x900, 136K)

National Libertarianism
No minorities.
No govt overreach.
No roads.
No problem.

Unironically this

Well the only way to do this is have a constitution enforced by an entity that does nothing but manhandle the government when it deviates

A Constitutional Republic....

If you sell people the freedom from the Matrix, which is slime food and fighting for your life against the machine, oh, why should he want that flavour of freedom.
People still want their globally sourced products and a good lifestyle, just with less corruptions, slaverly and putting poison waste in the sea.
As we have seen with something stupid simple like the sourcing of materials for a stupid mobile antenna, you end up either paying 5$ more or talking to warlords enslaving people to work in mines.
Theoretical freedom is a nice thing. But most want a tanglibe freedom. If all land is owned, the only freedom available is either have swimming plattforms or leaving the planet.
Libertarians who own land even propose this, because thats the consequence of this kind of thinking.

The government could be an Incorporated and owns their own land. And then strategically make contracts with everybody for roads and stuff.
There is no need for an absolutist view of things. There can be a socialistic state where the people volunteer to be socialistic in nature, just because those group think this will work.

>libertarianism
>socialism
Either you only know what one of those means or you know what neither of those means

Isn't it a fatalistic view that the state needs to shit on someone? If you want to live in a society where you take care of the true downtrodden, than you need a way to finance them (usually with taxes). The only other option would be to kill everybody off that has some issues and can not provide from themselves.
This is nice talk, but at the end, nobody would ever agree to this.

The point of libertarianism is to reduce the government to the bare minimum required to keep the state safe from outsiders, and the people safe from each other.,

Other than that, businesses, organisations, etc., are free to manage their property, businesses, land, trading areas, residential areas, etc., as they like.

The healthy free market competition means that the most efficient ways of running a place quickly become apparent.

A segregated cinema, or bar, for instance, may do surprisingly well, while an area of the city that permits openly carrying weapons may prove surprisingly safe, etc.

In short, the authoritarianism of the government is replaced by a free market of businesses, land owners, etc., with differing degrees and approaches of authoritarianism, with the best solution coming out on top.

>I believe in libertarian values
>but know that they cannot be supported long term without authoritarian control

Attached: 0e6.jpg (500x328, 42K)

>Isn't it a fatalistic view that the state needs to shit on someone?
Perhaps, but that doesn't make it less true. The reality of this world is that there is limited resources and never enough to go around, meaning someone gets a raw deal, maybe it's the hardworking or the rich in Marxists countries, maybe it's the native working class population in Western countries getting the shaft for immigrants, maybe it's the middle class supporting a cumbersome state apparatus. In the end there is always someone getting stepped on when the resources are dealt out.

We don't have it like it, but whether or not we like something that cannot be changed is irrelevant.

>The point of libertarianism is
The point of libertarianism is a class struggle between corporations and the bureaucracy.
Everything else is ideology.

It's time to join the Hoppe club, brother.

Attached: hans-herman-hoppe.jpg (888x1178, 74K)

Why is it you are incapable of understanding the difference between values and government structure? Are you familiar with the concept of authoritarian control increase the freedoms people enjoy? Are you close-minded to new ideas or just a retard?

Attached: CACD6151-FFC0-44C5-B8F5-5F7ED5DCBB7D.jpg (1024x1024, 178K)

Not a one of your words makes any sense at all.

"Struggle" is not a point.

Point is a goal, and the goal of libertarianism is to eliminate the massively inefficient, lumbering, antiquated monolithic nanny state government, and replace it with a self correcting, ever more efficient, network of entities competing in the free market for people's time and capital, thus replacing the inefficiency of the state with the efficiency of free market capitalism.

The other primary benefit is it means people are free to act and behave how they like, as long as its on their land, meaning new ideas, ways of living, ways of behaving, "laws" (as set by local landowners), can all be tried, tested, disproved, or validated rapidly and easily, leading to a rapid improvement of everyone's quality of life.

Localism, tends to lead to libertarianism through competition between localities to attract people and capital.

Libertarianism is objectively stupid. It was created by a jew and I will never understand why everybody gravitates toward only jewish socio-political ideologies.

I was always an unironc fascist who merely pretended to be libertarian back in the day when being fascist was socially unacceptable. I saw libertarianism as something that could be used as a means to an end with the end being de facto fascism but there is no point anymore now that everybody is a fascist

A system like that would only work on people constantly wanting it to work like that, and would as such devolve into communism. What if everyone agreed your business was illegitimate and your trades no good for no reason but to dismantle you for their own interests? It is the same as democracy, where the people soon vote themselves a worthless economy the second they find out they can give themselves all the money.
It all trickles down into crap. Governments are unnatural and as such operate unnaturally, where either they deceive the people into making it work or force them into it. You can either have authoritarianism or total anarchy, everything inbetween will always eventually fall into either gravity well or be pulled apart by the two until the only thing that exists is one of the two as a political singularity that is inescapable.
An immortal future where we are slaves forever or a future with no life whatsoever.

Attached: DeWzOsKWAAERspX.jpg (598x733, 97K)

How would it devolve into communism?

Businesses with "free reign" are about the least likely to be communistic ever?

What would make their business legitimate? Eventually everyone would run an enterprise and it would be in their personal best interest to hold blockages in trade against other companies so they could reap the benefits of that company's collapse.

Under Nat Soc, almost all businesses remand independent, this is not the point of Nat Soc, Nat Soc is not communism.

Anarcho-Fascism

What? Do you really misunderstand free market capitalism that badly?

No, the opposite is true, it is cooperation that builds successful businesses. Antagonistic competition only happens at the top of markets usually, as already powerful corporations compete for the number one spot in the market.

Have people ever operated like this? It's the same idealism that fuels communism. They'll destroy themselves if it means they can get some small greed and feeling of power before the final moments.

It's not idealistic in the slightest, its merely letting the government do only what its slightly competent at (military + law enforcement), while letting the population and businesses sort out the rest (and efficiency is something that capitalist businesses have demonstrated extreme aptitude for).

Thats true freedom. And it is what, roughly, the founding fathers (mostly) would have expected, since the idea of a total nanny state was unheard of at the time.

If it's not idealistic then why isn't it so?

A constitutional republic but don't change the rules about only men voting and only whites being citizens this time.

Mostly inertia and self serving institutions and individuals who do not want their institutions to be overturned.

Libertarianism is against the existence of corporations you retarded commie. That word doesn't mean "really rich businesses". They're legal entities.

Keep licking your own asshole. The fact that the experiment has never been ran is proof that you don't have a damn clue whether it would work or not.
>inb4 but muh thought experuhments

Why do intellectually weak faggots always like to use disgusting imagery to make their points?

Could it be because liberals and other braindead fags don't have the correct mental wiring for disgust?

tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02699930802110007

Attached: 3245754559.jpg (1884x1454, 176K)

>comparing any wartime economy to any peacetime economy

Attached: surprise.gif (220x258, 195K)

ETHNO-NATIONAL CLASSICAL LIBERTARIANISM

Monarchy and/or aristocracy. Such rulers are more likely to be conducive to freedom than any elected leader.