Redpill me on the differences of Authoritarian Right and Libertarian Right

fascism is good

Attached: 1518252199240.png (1024x786, 808K)

I am aware its borderline fascism, its in response to decades of failed policies and actions undertaken by the Libertarians, who usually just fall into line with noecons during elections, and who are fine with corporations moving their wealth to foreign nations where it cannot help middle America. Voting on policy over identity has had an abysmal track record as well, any right wing party is going to consist of white men, and partially women. Civic nationalism cant continue as demographics continually are shifting towards a larger welfare state, with more socialism, a problem which both Republicans and Libertarians have done little to combat, much less cpnseve as their name suggests.

Correction: I'm the same guy who tries to convince people to be interested in the ideas of Jeffersonianism. Ancap =/= Jeffersonian Democracy, otherwise who would collect the land value tax to make sure banks and industries don't control America?

>Want's a army
Why? So neo-cons can abuse that army by invading other countries. Besides we will still have nukes and militias to defend this country.

I don't mind the name. I just dislike the idea of a country not having an armed force so it can at least defend itself. At least that's what I got out of your post

That seem good user, although we still have militias that defend country, we have second amendment rights that give us the ability to buy a attack drones, and the police which I believe is our form of militia.

Oh and nukes.

Perhaps a reserves-esque force? Its probably more similar to the old meaning of militia than what a simple armed citizenry is, as well as being more capable than what constitutes a militia nowadays.

I will make sure nobody intervenes when a gang shows up to your churrascu and decides to turn your family into sopa de uma delicia.

ew nazbols

Authority isn't an ideology, its a tool.
Lolbertards are perfectly fine with authority so long as it isn't the state.

Libertarians see "the state" as an all encompassing evil. They think government is inherently bad, but necessary, so it needs to be deprived of power and kept in check though some means.
I used to think like this when I was politically unread. The reality of the matter is that human beings are not wired to form voluntary collectives, market commerce is not an adequate vehicle to maintain a functioning society in the presence of unchecked corporate power. Throughout all of human history we have lived in groups with strong hierarchy, strong definitive leadership, strong rules passed down to the majority. A functional homogeneous government is direct evolution of the tribal hierarchy that all humans lived under. To say our successful survival strategy is an inherent evil is nonsensical dogma. Lolbertards have subscribed to a fedora tier religion that they're eternally devout to.

Most Libertarians aren't even remotely right either. This is a huge misnomer. They're just leftist faggots who love degeneracy and don't want to pay taxes. Most of these Lolberts and AnCap dipshits don't even know the origins of the left v right dichotomy.

Both are putrid shit

True

In the US you can not be "authoritarian right" unless the only authority you refer to is the Constitution.

The neo-conservitives and neo liberals are both on the same team.

The true "liberal" these days is a Jeffersonian outlook.... we believe in strong individuality and independence while also encouraging the community and the environment around us.

The closest modern name would be Libertarian but that party is becoming full of crpyto socialists who inject lies and false controversy into every topic.

We are Agrarian Philosopher Farmers and we are Americas only Hope

Attached: 1494971824476.jpg (357x480, 33K)

Here's all you need to know:

Libertarian) You believe in people enough to give them autonomy

Authoritarian) You don't believe in people enough to give them autonomy

Protip - You're fucked either way, since giving power to fallible people to control fallible people is fallible.

>market commerce is not an adequate vehicle to maintain a functioning society in the presence of unchecked corporate power.
Fucking assholes like you are always shitting up these conversations with your faggot communist nonsense.

in a real Libertarian society Corporations would no be people.

Europe thrived for a thousand years off a basic market economy, supply and demand... sure they had monarchs but you still needed skilled workers and freedom to make mistakes.

youtu.be/QnR3bNBna3Q

You shouldn't "pick a side". You should choose to vote for whomever you want based on your personal values.

Attached: 1529027803411m.jpg (1024x646, 131K)

Throughout all of human history we have lived in groups with strong hierarchy, strong definitive leadership, strong rules passed down to the majority

>with strong hierarchy
I'k actually ok with this. But why leave the strong power in the hands of a bureaucrat, or a dictator that made a coup-d'état, or an elections-professional politician? Why not leave it to a successfull businessman, a religious leader that leads crowds, a philospher that writes best-sellers and convinces people...

>Strong rules passed down to the majority
When you say that you mean "mass indoctrination" or just "executing dissidents thay don't follow the majority consensus?

Its a response to finally seeing the state for what it is, an institution of force. This ar first glance, makes you a Libertarian as it normally should. It is only after gaining the wisdom that all of life is based upon force, and the use thereof in certain situations, is not only how the state operates, but the free markets and voluntary exchanges as well. Only after you reconcile with the fact that force is a neccessity to create a society, and to assure those individials the privileges of that society (in the form of rights) that you discard Libertarianism in favor of another choice. In your case its Fascism, in my case its a toss-up between that and Burkean classical conservatism.

>everything I don't like is communism!
Go back to Faceberg, Boomer.

Europe thrived for thousands of years under kings, authoritarian regimes comprised of nationalistic peoples who put their own people above all others. That is how and why they survived.
All commerce in virtually every kingdom ever was either taxed, or both taxed and strictly regulated. The markets were regulated for what was seen as the common good of the people at the time, and that is what stops a culture and nation from degrading.

Watcha mean by "personal values"? If I am a centre-right guy that dislikes bureaucrats and oves billionaire entrepeneurs should I have voted for Trump in 2016?

I meant:

"Watcha mean by "personal values"? If I am a centre-left guy that dislikes bureaucrats and loves billionaire entrepeneurs should I have voted for Trump in 2016?"

I'm done with "muh freedbumbz." Ban dating apps, ban everyone under the age of twenty one from social media, ban porn, but I'm more open minded when it comes to drugs. If you want to shoot up heroin in your basement on the weekends on your own dime, fine. But I'm no longer a libertarian really.

There's this point at which you realize most people don't know what they want, and need guidance, direction, and discipline from a benevolent state/ruling class. I'm in favor of some Salazar/Franco conservative authoritarianism. I no longer see freedoms and more stuff as ends in themselves. Those days are long gone.

This.

If you've ever walked down Bourbon Street in New Orleans, you aren't a libertarian.

>Corporations wouldnt be people
Until they surpassed the small government in power and legislated thst they were. Modern US is the end result of your ideology
>Why not leave it to _____ as opposed to ______
Arent they functionally different? A philosopher isnt necessarily a good leader, a man of action is. A business man is good for business, but isnt the GDP over a strong nation what we currently have? As for the religious leader one thats basically is a politician, except his area of expertise is metaphysical or supernatural as opposed to the concrete and pragmatic, but nonetheless they are quite similar.

The authoritarian right wants to stop foreign trade, immigration, and race-mixing. the libertarian right likes those things.

The word your looking for is paternalism, which was similar to what we had before. Modern libertarians would view it as too draconian though.

The only ways to counter the social decline that drives our extreme political opinions is Christian theocracy or reactionary conservatism that barebacks fascist ideals.
You need an aggressive stance to strike back at the marxist progressives and trotsky neocons.
Libertarians don't have any bite to them.

Attached: 1503254748606.png (923x128, 23K)

authoritarian right - bootlickers and zionists
libertarian right - jew enabling cucks

Attached: gang.png (451x362, 102K)

Democracy has led to those very same ills that you have presumptive fears about.
You think that some more truly right wing governmental structure may lead to bad outcomes, or come with high costs, but this is true of every government. You can criticize all power with the same lens, you can even apply it to the inverse. You could claim that a pure AnCap society is evil because it lets unfit people fail and die. These sort of presumptive fears are of no value.

Look at what has been done in the past 100 years in the name of Democracy. America voluntarily gave up sovereign control over its own money in the name of Democracy. America destroyed its own cultural and genetic makeup through intentionally destructive immigration policy. All in the name of Democracy.

Why on earth should any living breathing man tolerate something as provably terrible as Democracy?

This. And you don't necessarily have to strongly identify with any one side. It's not a fucking game. It's not a sport so many of these geriatric fucks and retards liken it to.

>Seizing means of production and establishing "muh worker state"
>Protecting traditions and cultural values
Pick one and only one.

Except for Jeffersonian Democracy... It describes the hatred of jewish control industries and banks..

Would you please give me some example for your "man of action" figure?

Also, the thing is that these guys work their way throguh. If a businessman is bad at enterprising, he will lose money and power, even if he inherits those. If a religion leader doesn't convince sketics and keeps his faithful, his religion will diminish, even if we are talking about religions with little to none structure. If the philosopher doesn't convince and works for spreading his ideas, he won't influence anybody. These people have talent.

Don't get me wrong, politicians also have to go a long way sometimes before reaching influence and power, but one they lead the public administration (that's what politics is all about), how do you kick 'em out? You can't just walk off the temple, stop buying his products or sharing his ideas on Fb. He will sit there, living on your taxes. And if he is a dictator, he won't leave until he is taken down or dies.

>Thesis
>Antithesis
Synthesis

Strasserists were ousted by the NSDAP

sadly this

I am not defending a puere AnCap society.

>Why on earth should any living breathing man tolerate something as provably terrible as Democracy?
Cuz I don't wanna be prosecuted because I don't follow the State's religion, or because I speak out against the local oligarch. That's authoritarianism.

Instead of wasting your time here and asking a bunch of retards for their opinions, you should just read books on the topics and choose the ideology or parts of each that you like.

Strasserists were actual national socialists.
Hitler was a fucking traitor to Europe and the white race as well as the workers.

Speak out against letting 5 year old kids have sex changes and you'll be persecuted in America.
Say you think marriages is only between a man and woman and you'll be persecuted in America.
Say you don't support the sexualization of children by the drag community and you'll be persecuted in America.
State the simple fact that Jews are majorly over represented in media and finance and you'll be persecuted in America.
You can lose your job for having opinions that go against the mainstream narrative. They can make you an unemployable pariah.

This is all under a "free" Democratic Republic.

What exactly do you think you'd have to fear if a legitimate right wing regime were in power? You already live in the hell you fear, but you're so familiar with it that you no longer see it as hell, and you fear your own salvation.

Lack of Democracy is not necessarily Tyranny and that lie which you've been conditioned to believe is one of the most subversive.

Why post in this thread if you don't have the confidence and knowledge to assert your ideas as being correct.
Why post on Jow Forums at all if you don't want to take part in the ideological fight club and culture of ideas.

Think Constitutional Militia. Each home is armed to teeth with a standardized cartidge and rifle. No conscription just a duty to respond and defend your livelihood.

But would any of these other figures do any different once you give them power? The point is that a politician is given power for being able to balance his responsibilites, be accountable, and be the best conduit for the desires and dreams of his people. His talent is making hard decisions and amassing support from his constituents, the same as the businessman and his investors or the Pastor and his flock, or the philosopher and hus disciples. All these men are seeking power just as the politican, the businessman seeks his power in wealth and resources, the Pastor (like the politician) in his people and faith, and the philosopher in his knowledge.

>What is the middle ground fallacy

>sure they had monarchs but...
Great argument, retard.

>nationalistic peoples who put their own people above all others
Eh, not really. There's a transcendent element which you're ignoring.

Which is? I am curious.

Aight

You can't just lean on civilians that are armed by law. Sounds hard to make true, and still unsafe if so. An standard militia/army/armed police is necessary.

Those are examples of lack of free speech, which I don't support.

> You already live in the hell you fear, but you're so familiar with it that you no longer see it as hell, and you fear your own salvation.

I know, and I don't like it. But my salvation won't come with more authoritarianism, whethever it's left ot right leaning. It will come with real implimentation of civil liberties. You are literally saying "Come on, you are halway hell, push a little further", but I don't want to go that way. I never said that, I never said the current state of things is optimal.

What element is that? If you dont mind me asking.

That lack of free speech is the end result of enabling the easily influenced masses to direct the flow of cultural waters. Democracy is inherently open to subversion and that will never ever change no matter what. Being a Republic didn't protect America from the tyranny of the masses at all.
People can take away your entire livelihood over night simply by calling you a racist, and there is nothing that this system will ever do to reverse it.

Authority itself is never the issue, it always the people who wield it, and what they wield it for. Individual liberty is an empty value, there is no greater goal to it. Liberate the common man and he becomes an aimless hedonist. Take the peasants and create from them an electorate body and you will simply create a class of people who vote for redistribution and endlessly increasing welfare. Society needs direction, it needs clear goals to move in the direction of prosperity. That comes from Fascists who have the courage to protect culture, protect tradition, and direct the market for the common good to prevent subversive forces from destroying it.

What we're experiencing now is the end result of Democracy. Try it a thousand times and this will be the outcome a thousand times. Even your conditioning to fear the solution is part of the cancer that is Democracy. A lifetime of rhetoric has completely programmed you.

Reminder thst this goal must be open to some level of interpretation for the common man, lest it becomes an indtitution of moral busy-bodies that are no different from the communists.

So bc of all the university SJW, BLM anti-white faggots are fucking Western society we must turn to Fascism. Is that your thought?

>I am aware its borderline fascism, its in response to decades of failed policies and actions undertaken by the Libertarians

Attached: Lol_what_is_this_I_don't_even.jpg (259x194, 11K)

libertarian right is basically the best option, you have your guns, you can ignore degenerates and freely mock them, no big government, or government at all to block you from whatever or regulate your businesses

This isn't a problem of useful idiots like the millennial SJWs and BLM. These groups first sprouted in the 60s. Communists have already succeeded in their long march through our institutions. It began in the early 1900s.
This is America, a free Democratic Republic, losing every single facet of our culture, losing all of our sovereignty, losing all of our founding values, while not a single thing has been done to correct it. And why would it ever be corrected? Literally half of America now openly applauds the decline as "progress."

Where is the organized action to protect our core culture? Even when it came to protecting historic American monuments it wasn't nomie Republicans who turned out in the streets, it was Nationalists. It was Fascists. It was supporters of NatSoc in the same vein as Commander Rockwell. The few Lolbertarian traitors who turned up carrying firearms tried to intimidate and fight the Nationalists. Thats what you get from them, thats all you'll ever get, because they're ideologically flawed and incapable of seeing the truth of these issues.

Fascists love America. We love what this country was actually founded for because we love our own people. We don't have meaningless dogma about principles which have no bearing on lived reality.

Authoritarian is the solution to our current problems so that our descendents can live in a libertarian-right society that isn't held back by millions of (((parasites)))

>middle ground fallacy
The middle ground fallacy consists of a compromise.
There is no compromise. Nazbol is not a compromise, it is revolutionary, unlike both communism and fascism which have both been tried (and failed) many times.
Both communism and fascism are now compromised.

What we have currently is the result of "leave it alone" libertarian principles thst the country was founded on, the people voted for more government, a welfare state, and to let immigrants in, all under the nose of the Libertarians, who continued to lose. If taking the tenents of fascism means securing the values thwt are being actively eroded, then Ill take fascism over "what is aleppo" or the Pauls, who have only succeeded in being meme candidates with no backbone.
>Middle ground fallacy is compromise
>There is no compromise with Nazbol
>Nazbol is fascism and communism compromised
This is the power of Nazbol?

So you'd rather be scared of Armored thugs over nigger thugs?

Faggot you just replaced the costume

Redpill me on X Threads are NOT Allow
SAGE this /b/tier thread!

Allowed*

no