I was a libertarian when I came here

>muh fascism
sorry i don't want some megalomaniac to tell me what i want to do, what i have to do, what i need to do or what i must do

Attached: 617.jpg (680x178, 16K)

it's kind of like how anarchists can't see that all that will lead to is feudalism again

I was a conservative when I came here and I left a Libertarian. Psychology is pretty interesting isn't it? The way peoples beliefs evolve over time and what triggers the changes.

Attached: light-and-sound-show-at-supertree-grove-gardens-by-the-bay-singapore-F0M6XG.jpg (1300x956, 318K)

>You killed my beliefs Jow Forums
We didn’t do it. The truth did.

I was also a libertarian but I turned into a national socialist rather quickly. NATSOC is the future.

Libertarianism is just an excuse for being a middle-rung boy, not capable of commanding others.

I'm actually not a fascist. I understand the want/need for fascism but I still prefer a constitutional republic over a dictatorship.

More importantly, you were WHITE when you came here.

Attached: whiterage.jpg (474x488, 52K)

> oversimplification of the world
> anyone who seriously looks at politics
lol pot, kettle.

Attached: hayek-color.jpg (424x512, 40K)

Libertarians are cancer.
Literally.
>be Libertarian skin cell
>supposed to form a healthy skin cell
>"You can't tell me what to do DNA, I'm gonna listen to the free radicals and become what I've always wanted to be, cancer."
>"Man this is great, look how big I am, all these other skin cells joined me and now we're a massive lump. Look at those regressive skin cells around us, can't they see how DNA violating the NAP hurts us? My idea is working WAY better than some centrally planned nonsense based on tradition and prolonging longevity of the whole."
There's only two outcomes.
1) The patient dies of cancer. In this case it'd be the death of the West as a result of atomization and rejection of identity.
2) Chemotherapy cures the patient amidst strife. IE authoritarian collectivism wipes out the cancer.

> Free market alone
So the people themselves are not going to save western civilization? Why not?

I'm still a libertarian, just against immigration. What's wrong with that? Free trade is still fine with me, free stuff from other countries so we can do other shit.

"English" not "Saxon". Get it right, shill.

Libertarianism =/= Egoism

Attached: Anarcho-capitalist-Flag-Egoist-Flag.jpg (282x374, 10K)

youtu.be/2Ws0VfqkhFc?t=45s

Attached: pepe.jpg (110x125, 1K)

Libertarianism just isn't enough to deal with the threats posed to civilisation.
t. Former libertarian

I was a Paleo-libertarian but I denounce the philosophy completely now. I'm a nationalist before anything and that contradicts libertarianism.

>libertarianism says Jews deserve all their money
>libertarianism supports fiat money
uhh

I fail to see the distinction.
If you place your own moral sense of right and wrong above the collective's even if that morality you choose can be self-sacrificing or even good for your particular genetic line, it's still detrimental to the whole in favor of the self. All for the individuals feels, which are usually poorly thought out.

Actually I became more libertarian after I started browsing Jow Forums. After seeing how people are able to so easily laugh off the rights of the individual for how they think the world should be forced into a particular type of box, I think its right to protect personal and economic liberty.

Attached: 1515220401845.gif (500x375, 249K)

See you tomorrow, fren.

Attached: 8771c9bfd90d4bbf766fa8c4a05abe39.jpg (657x527, 48K)

Libertarians have been getting attacked from two opposing groups of politics for hundreds of years.

This is nothing new or unexpected.

I don't mind that people get scared at real world events and have knee-jerk reactions that lead them in a different direction, I'll keep looking for the truth and the right principles to live by.

Attached: The Betrayal of the American Right_Rothbard.jpg (240x362, 18K)

Libertarian -> NatSoc/WhiteNationalist/Fascist pipeline is a real thing
It's because eventually Libertarians realize that the left WILL NOT LEAVE THEM ALONE, no matter what, Liberatianism is a failing ideology when surrounded by commie beans and antifa

Attached: 1530152878203.jpg (882x960, 110K)

Just take libertarianism and apply it to an ethno state.

Libertarianism is a white ideology, and only a white ethnostate could make it work.
Prove me wrong

This, no shit like the Federal Reserve.

libertarianism and egoism are a good basis for enforcing nationalism.

People working together can outperform individuals, with fair rules, people should work together, then you have companies. Companies should set rules for fair cooperation and safeguard against trickery and exploitation, you have countries. Niggers are worthless subhuman savages, jews are hostile and insincere, untrustworthy xenophobes, and then you have a racial federation.

Anyone going into any collective without clearly declared goals for himself and the immediate people he actually cares about is not a man, but a mere tool. But even good, capable, selfish men benefit from nationalism and racism.

Attached: cooperation_hks_experiment.gif (600x400, 763K)

It doesn't last due to the failure of libertarianism.
America was a white ethnostate based on libertarian ideas. Now it's muttland.

Welcome aboard. Don't worry, National Socialists regularly masquerade as libertarians to hide their power level.

National Socialism is third position, neither left nor right.

You are a wizard now.

Attached: wizard_of_pol.jpg (1659x1080, 262K)

> I fail to see the distinction.
The distinction is that one denies society and the need to cooperate or fit in, denies culture and denies groups. The other does not.

> If you place your own moral sense of right and wrong above the collective's
> it's still detrimental to the whole in favor of the self
I don't think respecting an individuals control over their own life is detrimental to the whole or a larger number than the self. I think history shows the opposite with the growth of society, communities, cooperation through trade and the division of labour etc.

> All for the individuals feels, which are usually poorly thought out.
That sounds awfully subjective.
Point is no one can tell me what the collective good is, since only individuals have opinions and can make normative claims, which are by definition subjective. This doesn't mean we shouldn't have common beliefs and culture as benchmarks for interacting together, to the contrary I honestly believe a free society fosters far more group peace and group cooperation by its voluntarism and respect for individual rights, in comparison to collectivist tendencies to divide society by more and more metrics until the infighting creates what the collectivist philosophers wanted all along, conflict, war and blood.

I don't trust these plans these people put forward for governments and they don't address my values.

Attached: quote-ah-you-miserable-creatures-you-who-think-that-you-are-so-great-you-who-judge-humanity-frederic (850x400, 68K)

>we can never go back

Attached: ron paul when this country was great.png (640x426, 664K)

You realized that you can't cooperate with people who frequently eliminate the freedom of others.

> Prove me wrong
"Whites" destroyed Liberty from its concerted white marxists and white facist attacks in the 19th century.

The only thing that matters is that more people embrace the ideas and values and then when it hits a certain threshold or critical mass, steps are taken toward implementation.

It is impossible to create an ethnostate based on anti-individual collectivism, to lead to convincing the majority of the population to flip to supporting liberty and individualism and then slowly wind back the state with its millions upon millions of written pages of laws.

History has proven many times that skin colour isn't required to foster cooperation on mutual interest, only keeping the state away was necessary for it to happen many many times.

Don't get me wrong, I'm agains the anti-white SJW rhetoric but I don't agree with the solutions.

>they don't address my values.
The main value is objective. It is the continued survival of your genetic line. To achieve this end, you must also assure the survival of the culture in which your genetic line partakes.
Free society is a vacuum, and that vacuum is always going to be filled by someone eventually.
I'd prefer that the someone that fills the vacuum have goals that don't include my destruction and the destruction of those like me.
Commies, Jews, the Chinese, etc. Someone's eventually going to work as a group to take over and while individuals will die fighting them, the stupid and the cowardly will roll over.
Then you're gone.
Like I said it's cancer.

wow, believing the whole "nazis were leftists meme." dispite contrary belief Hitler actually lessened laws on owning guns for German citizens. National Socialism wasn't ACTUAL traditionally socialism it was only the the race and had some capitalistic facets. read a book not memes

Attached: 18813416_326554264430167_1798635440001974995_n.jpg (800x599, 28K)

we fixed your beliefs faggot

I agree. I use to be Libritarian too... but then I realized that without western morals/ ideals to hold up our society that ideal is just a pipe dream.

Look around the world. Were does everyone want to live? No.1 are majority European countries. No.2 are Asian. Everywhere else is shit. Why is that? Africa has more help from the west from Asia and yet it's still a shithole. Jesua China is undet communism and they are still a better place to live. Is that because europeans collectively opressed them?

If so, why is it when zembabwe(I don't know to spell that shit) started killing off all of the whites. They went from a pleasant 1rst world country to a 3rd world one overnight. Why are they so much worse off without their so called opressors????

Maybe we haven't been opressing these people. Maybe, just maybe western societies are nice to live in because western culture unique and should be preserved.

I love the idea of freedom but the existence of my people matters more. Modern libertarianism is a Jewish knockoff of classical liberalism. The nation always came first for Jefferson, Aquanis, etc. The non-aggression principle is a suicidal Jewish philosophy. Individualism is the selfish idea that your nation isn't more important than you are.

Attached: 1517939214974.jpg (402x482, 129K)

> Someone's eventually going to work as a group to take over and while individuals will die fighting them
> survival of your genetic line
You're assuming that individualism means atomized individuals alone against various groups and you know that not true, you know that's an oversimplification. As I said we're not Egoists that deny society and there hasn't been more cooperation in history than what freedom brought before it was backstabbed.

Think of this for a bit.
Which society is more unified; the one that divides by dozens of categories until group upon group start fighting (as was by design, the essence of life was the shedding of blood they used to say those collectivst philosophers), that fighting supposedly each group thinks will lead to ultimate cleansing and supremacy of their group, OR a society that protects all of its individuals based on more objective metrics like whether they are committing evil acts or not, as every individual that tries to committ their collectivist violence is opposed by all individuals based on common mutual goals like protection of all individuals from murder and violence? Don't be too quick to assume one way or the other.

>I was a libertarian when I came here
same senpai

A collectivist idealogy doesn't divide and subdivide. Let's take the Nazis for example. They had their identity strengthened by conforming to a group. They had outward enemies.
Now in America we have no identity. We're simply "American" what does that look like? Who can say?
As a result we have all different groups, still maintining collective identities and forming little ghettos and constantly fighting each other while Jews play all sides against each other, which ironically is what you say collectivism does.

There's nothing more ridiculous than the libertarian cuckservative who "just wants to be left alone". It stems from a fundamental misunderstanding about the world. Your mere existence can be interpreted as a form of aggression. Nobody is going to leave you alone.

>hey guys lets make an easilly exploited monopoly on manpower and resources
>W-WHY DO THE JEWS OWN EVERYTHING NOW.

and when all the jews are dead there will still be psychopaths, incompetents and just general bad actors.

trump is not hitler...he is ron pauls revenge...that disregarding phone poll vote shit in 2008, asking if he had electability during the debate in 2012...that was the moment i knew there was indeed an actual establishment and ron paul was not welcome by it.

I was a greenparty environmentalist, Jow Forums changed my life.

Attached: 1457508215395.jpg (894x1024, 182K)

Because you always have to have a rigid authoritarian structure to lead the people. Right wing statism.

At the end of the day these attacks are nothing new, it was hip to be a Libertarian in 2012, since then most have gone elsewhere, now with the refugee crisis, Trump and SJWs the kids coming through see that it's hip to be alt-right. Those trends don't convince me to abandon my values and they certainly aren't persuasive on their own.

You only have to look at a thread about what is/isn't white and you'll see what I'm talking about; Nords vs Slavs vs Meds etc. The list is endless and by definition when you form this characteristic based collective you exclude those that don't fit creating division by definition. Then you have internal divisions that threaten unity with thing like what I first mentioned.

It's no really a disputable claim because the real facists on the board understand and like this.
Wouldn't it be more accurate that you need leaders and goals not necessarily a rigid state to force it? I don't see how that follows.

Same. I've gone full 1776, but it may have only been coincidental to Jow Forums rather than caused by it.

Attached: 1477964905791.jpg (600x600, 82K)

N.A.P is good in a white society but in a society where Jews rule and commit atrocities against you and your bloodline haveing a aggressive reaction to an aggressive action is normal

You were LARPing as a libertarian and you're fucking LARPing now faggot.

Attached: authoritarianism.png (793x794, 273K)

Ron Paul was FINE

>Being libertarian is exactly like being a leftest, your platitudes of more freedom and oversimplification of the world makes them a laughingstock among anyone who seriously looks at politics.
What you call platitudes, we call values. Libertarianism is a value based movement, that initiation of force is immoral, it doesn't oversimplify the world, it just has simple principles.

Most other political systems are orientated around ideology which is typically incoherent and self contradictory at best. And all of the most tyranical (that used the most force) have always ended rapidly. Whether that be the radical left (communism in Russia) or radical right (Nazi Germany)

every libertarian flees oppression and every authoritarian strives to gain power over others. give a libertarian power and to protect his interests he'll become an authoritarian, but keep an authoritarian from gaining power through the system and either become a libertarian or a revolutionist depending on their particular delusion. neither side of the coin is a viable political system because they're both just states of mind dependent on the current power the individual has over others.
The final red pill is that no political system is a good one, but having no means to regulate the masses is worse. Therefor the best solution is to create a system perpetually at war with itself through peaceful means which minimizes physical violence between its citizens. if you have moral citizens less authoritarianism is needed but corrupt citizens need to be forced to behave. In the end all politics is rooted in the degeneracy of people

Nationalist-libertarianism is the way

>he wouldn't have a proprietary ethnic based community with mandatory service to the corporation for full membership privileges
You stupid faggots.

Attached: 1520708638075.png (783x768, 174K)

The truth hurts, son. Feels

That's the goal

Good stuff, have a bump.

Attached: capitalist nationalist people 2.png (1222x795, 458K)

You can only have anarcho-capitalism with white christians mostly.
So we go to nationalism -> monarchy -> natural law aristocracy/private law society

Attached: safe, effective wind power.png (800x600, 231K)

Conservatism and Nazism are not the same thing.

Indeed

I will prefer Fusion when it is ready.

What did you stop conversing when you become a Libertarian?

>ex libertarian
>became Nazi
>didn't read Hoppe

Nazi econ is shit, natsoc is still socialism and like all socialist economic systems will inevitably collapse. Physical removal theory lets you keep your awesome free market and get rid of subhuman invaders as well.

Attached: PicsArt_06-16-04.48.27.jpg (750x360, 55K)

Nah.

Think for yourself. Yes Jow Forums is an anomaly but critical thinking is key

Prussian socialism does not equal Marxist socialism.
Pic related.

Sorry, I meant 'What did you stop conserving?'

Attached: hitler on socialism.jpg (1024x512, 122K)

Oh that makes sense, in general terms I stopped conserving the state but more specifically the value I placed on using it to solve problems and impose my views. That's I guess the umbrella of the change but a lot of little things within that.

Capitalists wouldn't say that at all, only uneducated people would claim that.

Capitalists say that people have a right to private property and that trade must be voluntary, those are the only requirements for a capitalist (moral) economy.

The nationalists say that people can have private property, you get your cut of the profits fairly where fair is vaguely defined somehow. And that while you can have private property you can't really have private property and what you're allowed to own and not own are is some complex vaguely undefined thing. And the economy works for the people because the people are good, except you we'll stick a gun in your face to force you to be compliant, but we love you really, we promise.

Wtf is this incoherent rambling, Can anyone translate?

Attached: 1529721474064.jpg (650x423, 30K)

Libertarianism is nice in theory when you assume everybody in the world will think and act like you do.

Sheeeeeeeit

Central economic planning is central economic planning, just because the guy doing the planning says he cares about you more doesn't change anything, the commies make the same claims. The economic calculation problem still is there.

>Capitalists wouldn't say that at all, only uneducated people would claim that.

I disagree, big capitalists see people working for the economy. We don't work for a better country, we work to keep increasing the GDP.
Capitalism is great but when it starts governing the country, you get Brazil, South Africa. Every foreigner let in is good for the GDP, great for the rich, no thought of the nation or improving the lives of the people. It's materialism.
Materialism while birthrates drop down into nothing, while the culture is commercialized, while human connection is something to be brought and sold.
This is what happens when you sell the government to the merchant class.

A little bit of current affairs. Our government recently sold our electricity plants to China.
Now it doesn't take a genius to see the problem here. But these governing capitalists are totally obvious to what you and I can see.

The rest of libertarian/capitalism theory I agree with for the most part. Only the stupidest people or Marxists will advocate for taking private property away.

Attached: Evola on capitalism.jpg (1024x896, 455K)

The issue is that it doesn’t offer any solution to the current immigration/demographic quagmire. Remove the welfare state, and initiation of force would be needed for all these brown people. As of right now, the globalists have ruined the libertarian dream.

I don't think libertarianism should be scrapped entirely, but there needs to be strong barriers in place to prevent it from leading to women voting and non-white immigration.

He's trying to equate DNA to central planning and libertarians being cancer. The problem with that analogy is that we know central planning is bad, it has literally never worked, it scales to about the size of a large village and then catastrophically collapses.

Funnily enough for the same analogous reason. If you're a proponent of DNA to centrally plan, then what you're building is a fragile system where just one tiny defect in your planning spawns of horrible cancerous tumors which destroy the entire system. This is actually more analogous to central planning being corrupted by evil and self interested people.

The libertarian equivalent would be to allow disparate parts of the system to create and use their own ways of planning whatever they're responsible for and let the bad parts die away and let the good parts thrive, in this analogy libertarianism is basically evolution itself.

no they aren't
you're better off staying libertarian
this board was better when the ron paul fags were present
now most of the good crowd is gone

mayonaise hits the brimstone

only to find out the fucking marshmallow overloaded the reactor cucumber so now i have to plunge the rocket pad until i fucking fuck

The good thing about limited or no government is that universal sufferage is irrelevant, pointless and non existent.

As Bastiat points out, when the state goes from protecting people to being a avenue for the few to plunder the many, the victims seek by peaceful or revolutionary means the reigns of power through sufferage to join in the plundering as an act of response or revenge, thus transforming legal plunder into universal plunder.

Immigration is definitely something to understand and find practical solutions for, I have a few of my own but I get what you're saying, my point is that I just don't see voting as a problem like it is now.

You'd have to understand biology to know what he is saying.
It's a very autistic and terrible analogy.
He is saying that libertarian exists at the expense of the society at large.
He is right in a way, Libertarians would sell their society for cheaper vegetable prices (See Mass Hispanic migration to America and lower labour cost)

You need some central planning to create great works, like Dams, roads, etc.
The type of works that pay off very well in the long run, the type of forward planning absent in the fast paced flow of capital.
Obviously total central planning is far worse in many ways.

youtube.com/watch?v=3aYeUOVgbck

An example of how central planned based on labor (barter) can create massive agricultural feats to feed millions
Note: The bottom levels had private property etc.
(Obvious I am not saying we should do this, I am pointing out how some central planning is good)

Attached: California mexico america.png (731x1077, 1.31M)

Individual capitalists can have personal opinions on whatever they want, and that may influence how they ultimately behave. But as I said, all you require for a capitalistic market is the notion of private property (you get to own the things you create), and voluntary trade (you cannot use force)

People like to assign all these motivations to people who support capitalism, but it's just not relevant to the economic theory at all.

The dumb thing about it all is that in a libertarian and capitalistic society you can have pockets of other economic and social structures, You can run your commune if you like you just cannot force people to stay and contribute. In a free society people would say "fuck that" and leave a commune immediately because we all know people who want communes of any kind are those who contribute the least value to society, the moment you're capable of producing anything worth some value, you want to keep what you produce, and rightly so.

Freedom is the key. In a free system, shit systems die and good systems prevail. That's all libertarianism and capitalism are all about.

I mean studying how markets work and all is cool but the NAP never made any sense to me at all

ron paul fags are still here.
we just realized that most of the population is too stupid to understand why we needed ron.
at least trump is a step in the right direction and the public finally has a taste of something new instead of another lying politician.

What about property and self-ownership out of curiosity? Do they make sense, I mean do you like the ideas?

If you remove the welfare state all those brown people flock straight to the welfare state next door. Mass immigration is only a problem for places that offer up free shit to people by robbing the population and giving it away to degenerates. That can't happen in a libertarian society unless you decide to voluntarily give that money away.

And besides land rights are still a thing in a libertarian society and you're perfectly allowed to kick people off your land if you don't want them there or passing through it. So actually it's perfectly possible to cooperate with neighbors to agree to mutually block the flow of any type of people you like, as long as such arrangements are voluntary.

>You need some central planning to create great works, like Dams, roads, etc.
Not really, there's already private roads and almost certainly private Dams, if you own a piece of land you don't need central planning to put a road across it, you just need to go to a private corporation who build roads and pay them some money. That's all the government do.

Everyone wants peace user.
We really all just want to be left alone to raise a family and live life as a man should without constant interference and aggression from outside.
Unfortunately the liberals and Jews absolutely will not leave us alone, ever. They want to control everything and everyone. They backed us into a corner and gave us no choice.
If we want to live in peace, they have to die.

Attached: 6912C9AB-3E28-4D56-8009-A23E0169061C.jpg (1024x789, 196K)

You're not allowed to initiate aggression against other people, it's super simple. Most kids learn this at play school, don't bite, kick, punch or take other kids toys.