Libertarian general

You are actively making yourself to public safety, as such the militia are free to respond to such a threat.

baste

Attached: 4112314.png (691x1248, 1.24M)

Dude England fucking looks like the London in v for vendetta now.

>newfag who never read hoppe
physical removal my friend

Attached: 13728906752.gif (640x406, 365K)

Revolution is the only way to achieve an anarchist society, however, it doesn't have to be violent.

Attached: flat,800x800,070,f.u1.jpg (800x800, 98K)

Either of you read Proudhon or Bakunin?

Attached: do you feel in charge.png (1040x740, 1.06M)

I stepped out of libertarian philosophy and into self medicating with alcohol a few years ago. The last thing I read was the percentage on the wines at the gas station.

oy vey kek.

Oh shit U good now? sorry that happend to you, proudhon was like the original anarchist.

Does that mean I am lawfully obligated to shoot someone who I determine has been awake longer than 20 hours and is driving. Let’s say they crossed the center line, and upon questioning seem withdrawn and are having a hard time comprehending questions asked. Should we charge this person with a felony on 3rd “offense?”

bump/

what's wrong with national socialism

I'm saying if they attack you first, you should take a purely defensible position, no I am not advocating murder.

> kills people.
> disarms the people.
> steals through taxation.

they are the people

also an invading military empire, and then the huge government.

Yeah, okay. Militia is force so I went full force projection when you mentioned militia. How about felony arrest? (Assume we are operating in a situation in which a federal government exists) take away the persons second amendment and right to vote?

They are an elite class, I see statist socialism as bad as capitalism or communism, it puts one class or classes over another, this has been routine throughout history that's why there has never been a successful government, its only until society falls and we are all equal as individuals not as a group can for the cycle to stop.

Hoppe also cited the work of scientist J. Phillipe Rushton to argue that the data are misleading because many modern monarchies are composed of "Negroid" people[citation needed]. According to Hoppe, "since Caucasians have, on the average, a significantly lower degree of time preference than Negroids, any comparison [between African monarchies and Western democracies] would amount to a systematic distortion of the evidence."

hanshoppe.com/

Militia is a force in response to violence, its defense. no, no no violence.

hierarchy and inequality is unavoidable and integral to all in nature, we should accept this instead of fighting it

No, not if we are all individuals separate from one another but still able to trade, acting in our own self-interest.

Yeah I understand, but could driving while intoxicated be considered a violation of the NAP if one is traveling alone and has not caused someone or their property to become a victim? I said prove me wrong, you are strengthening my argument. We may agree, it’s irrelevant tho I’m asking for an argument.

Endless atomisation is a sure way to civilisational, spiritual and cultural death, but I suppose that's what you want

Molecules are made of atoms my friend

dude, just stop.

essentilly if everyone has an equal amount of control in their lives and over themselves, then there is no reason that anyone is special.

I would consider it would be, you are putting yourself out there as a public threat.
No, although I do want a transvaluation of values, i believe everyone should act in mutual aid, instead of corporations , I believe the individual is important because it makes a collective, and each individual should be about themselves, acting in there own interest unless that "interests" is violent in nature, in the case that was to happen the person who is being attacked is free to respond in defense.

stop what nigger?

Attached: 1515568528073s.jpg (125x118, 2K)

we dont even have to act in our own self interest, just not make others by violence act in the interest of the collective, natural progression ensures we act on the collective on some scale even when not forced to and sufficiently differentiated by merit which natural order enforces
>pic related

Attached: intelligent nigger.jpg (396x396, 22K)

So is someone driving sleep deprived, do you consider that a violation of NAP as well? How about texting while driving? Felony on 3rd offense? Loss of ability to protect yourself with arms.. loss of right to vote..

I think you're missing my point, im suggesting Stirner's union of egoists theory.

Yeah thats definately a violation of the nap, all of them
> *trying hard not to laugh*

> loss of right to vote.

My guy, im anarchist, im against democracy, and im for individualistic order.

There also exists the majority (debatable) natural human tendency for empathy and compassion, which when PROPERLY rewarded, as it would be in a healthy society, would incentivize “collective” well being. At least on a “molecular” scale (groups of 300 or less would be best, imo)

Fuck the collective.

I don’t agree. Aggression requires a defined target. Even if only momentarily.

Agreed

its not libertarian then its ancap you fucking retard also V was a revolutionary not a Libertarian

Yeah no dood, youre decisions to drink and drive you are a threat.

Objectivism is autism, expressed as an existential philosophy.
Libertarianism is autism, expressed as a political philosophy.

I do value friends and family though.. simply a human element. You are human, yes? I realize you may not value friends and family but I can get behind a “collective” defined as such. Strength in numbers, trust, and predictable and measured/coordinated response to threat. (Read: militia)

Libertarianism is a revolutionary ideology, and I'm not ancap, im an ego-mutualist.
agreed, but which libertarianism.

The. Your decision to look away from the road for any (ANY) reason is also a threat.

Stirner is a spook

> strength in numbers.

totally agree, but each individual has there own reasons for being there.

yeah, im more for Nietzche, it just so happen they have similar philosophies.

I would argue that the human condition grants more instinctual power to those that are there in defense of the collective, however small that number may be. (Perhaps it’s a nucleus family unit). It sounds esoteric but it’s not. Are you going to have the same motivation to protect the life with your own a mutually beneficial peer as you would that of a sibling or progeny? I think not. Scale this concept

well yeah, your self interest does not exclude how you feel, it's not in your self-interest to see people you care about hurt.

Right but I’m drawing on the power.. let’s just say adrenaline.. granted to you in a situation where you are defending family over, say, a peer. So the motivation you have for being there/acting relevant to the power you have to act/defend. I’m saying a group is more powerful when united by esoteric bonds. Family/patriotism. A group of loosely associated dudes with nothing binding them together but the prospect of power in numbers will not match the force of th same number of patriotic or familiarly tied individuals. Also if you look away from the road, even momentarily, you are a threat according to your argument, regardless how momentary the laps of attention, and should be dealt with similarly to someone who is driving with a .09 BAC, assuming neither has caused harm to person or property... this is my understanding of your argument

I'm not saying a culture shouldn't have culture, I'm saying that this one as we have now, should be molded into an individualistic society.

I agree, and I’m not trying to vomit ad hominem here but why the meme flag. This comment made it a relevant question. You referenced a society but I have no idea the society to which you refer.

The "socialism" part

libertarianism is CIA pro american propaganda

This. Socialism grants power at the expense of individualism. But pragmatically, it still grants the power. So it is certainly something to be wary of. Same with democratic socialism, communism, and any other iteration

>Except for corporations

Where do corporations come from?
How is a company granted legal personhood? Do you know?
Probably not

To what end?

Even tribalism can be socialistic. Depends on the doctrines of the tribe.

youtube.com/watch?v=R5Gppi-O3a8

Necessary libertarian must-watches

socialism is nothing more than the means of production being owned by the workers but can also include market exchange.
cause, its the closest to the anarchist (A), when did I mention a society?
Not true most individualist philosophy derives largely from socialism particularly Proudhon and Stirner.
No, its not libertarianism originates from france, proudhon.

True liberty is to rule the masses and squeze them for your own profit.
prove me wrong. hint: you can't

No, proudhon, stirner etc...

True liberty is having exclusive control over yourself and your actions.

>I'm not saying a culture shouldn't have >culture, I'm saying that this one as we >have now, should be molded into an >individualistic {society}.

So who is “we” and what is “our” “culture”

> government and liberty cant exist.
oh right, yeah i belive we need to halt the constant cycle of power from slave values turning into master values and master values becoming slave, the only way to stop this would be if everyone were an individual, if everyone is allowed to become who they really are, this sort of society has yet to exist. .

Attached: 1442037772027.jpg (567x622, 38K)

Why do all you collectivist faggots have to have to follow any ideology laid out in front of you instead of forming your own? You're all drones.

Attached: 3669277_5_o.jpg (633x950, 62K)

I dont kek.

It's called post leftism.

>libertarian
Sorry, but you have to be 18+ to post on this board, and I think we all know that anyone who actually believes libertarian drivel is between the ages of 14-16.

But what about meritocracy and the inherent stratification of individuals in it. Read “crow killer: the saga of liver-eating Johnson” and you will have my idea of apex individualism, meritocracy and societal structure

That’s just, like, your opinion, man

You just know the water is cold

I still believe people should act with one another, but for their own reasons. the idea is to make greed etc... to be obsolete, at least on an institutional level. I take a very existentialist view of this mass culture is dangerous to the individual, it is capable of things like communist China, or the pinocheian regime in chile.

stupid satanic papal dupes

I also believe people as individuals need to essentially become themselves, their true selves, without any unnesecery abstractions, going against the herd.

Said no Libertarian, ever.

Attached: 1519172805797-pol.jpg (480x531, 25K)

What if that’s all they are, fundamentally. Seriously think anyone with less than 100 iq should lead anything other than a path towards a better and more capable leader?

Kek

The Human, ego . their sense of self, is something that cant possibly limited to one thing.

Its nice to be in good company.

Attached: Hitomi.jpg (1061x1500, 794K)

Yes but that’s a very esoteric view. We can certainly agree no one is “just” a follower, but pragmatically a vast majority unfortunately are just that

i believe its collectivism that caused that, be it capitalist or socialist, which i am a socialist.

Hell yeah, make Hentai girls real again!

This type of risk-taking behavior is where freedom meets responsibility for consequences. It's the principle of "No Harm, No Foul", and the correlary: "If Harm, Then Foul". Almost every behavior includes risk to self or others, no matter the precautions applied, and any behavior can have unintended conequences.

"Something bad MIGHT happen" is not a reasonable excuse to infringe freedom. Something bad might happen at any time, with or without cause. The only appropriate levying of consequences is when harm occurs. No proscription is warranted. Only the application of responsibility for the person who created the consequences through their behavior, and only if such consequences actually occur.

Attached: canvas.png (800x1200, 219K)

Okay, but socialist collectivism’s success is highly dependent on a large scale tribal cohesion. Something which is completely esoteric and yet is pragmatic at the same time. It requires high in-group preference and ideological agreement to succeed m, thus necessitating its adherents subscription to the ultimate distraction away from the self actualization you mentioned earlier. How can one self actualize as an individual and still subscribe to socialism? What about the strata of individuals in a meritocracy? You are not addressing my questions. You need to more thoroughly understand your philosophy of you are going to explain or defend it in the face of even the most modest criticism. I’m being awful patient and staying logical in my pursuit of understanding your argument. You will not get this from many. And You still are failing to make a unified point

C'mon, all the intelligent folk realize that Earth will be a utopia on a regulations are abolished. Dickensian Londan baby here we come!

We certainly agree. I was kind of asking someone to prove my argument wrong so that I might BTFO them, thus solidifying the concept of no harm no foul. Thanks for the concise argument in mine’s favor though

I'm a socialist, however, i am not a utilitarian, i believe what is generally good for the individual is good for everyone, self interest is a virtue not a sin.

You might as well have called this The Shabbos Goyim General