NatSoc Libertarian Minarchism

I am conflicted on this score, but I have seen data which suggests it may be true. At the very least we would need strong ideological vetting for any potential emigrees, to ensure support for the model itself (something we lost in 1965). I personally favor a 30yr moratorium on ALL immigration to allow for full assimilation of current populations and a thorough national discussion about how to run such a system once immigration is re-opened (if it is at all).

The US Constitution was forged to benefit the merchant jews (because freemasonry was jewish) because they were sick and tired of their jewries to be limited by the Goverment, to protect their private property. The US constitution is not a good example of honest libertarianism. If you said that libertarianism was created solely to the benefit of the jew, I would agree.
Plus that would only result in the US where the concept of white tribalism is long gone due to their active mongrelization (with mongrelization i refer to white on white mongrelization because there are diferent tribes of whites, thats why Europe has diferent countries)

relevant twitter.com/hbdchick/status/1040031468213424129

An aristocratic form of minarchism, where private property is respected and democracy is abolish. Pretty close to Propertarianism

Attached: nap-ivp-open-borders-testimonialism-small-states-free-riding-destruction-strong-12487902.png (500x430, 84K)

NatSoc/Libertarianism doesn't work. NatSocs want authoritarianism, libertarians want liberty/freedom. Conflict will break out the moment a common enemy is defeated.

I big disagreement is the economic system, many libertarian are in favor of some level of authority

Attached: 1482876358129.jpg (1604x766, 203K)

This is why I specifically propose a split between internal and external dealings: NatSoc at the Federal level for external, Libertarian freedom within National boundaries. This is, of course, a simplistic and "easier said than done" proposition. Thus, the attempt to spur discussion on such specifics as may be necessary to make it work.

Checked
Also its a great ideal, strikes at the very essence of Jow Forums, old Jow Forums

You seem to suggest that the concept of Private Property itself is some manner of Jewish "trick" to exploit the goyim, and that this was the genesis of the US Constitution. Am I misrepresenting your assertion?

I'm not only suggesting, but also stating the truth. Jews, being foreing to the community they were inserted in, they had lots of reasons to become "libertarian" since they were outcasts from the ethinaclly coese community they were inserted in, which makes them not to "share" for the benefit of the kingdom and the people. So they had a lot for becoming "For freedom" to protect their jewish assets. Thus they formed the US, a massive conglomerate of companies where they could explot the goyim as they wanted and even have direct impact in the goverment. It is like this today, it was like this in the begining.
Don't forget the fact that the US flag is a ripoff of the Indies Comapnies, 100% jewish controlled. Mainly Sephardis from the Neatherlands.
"Freedom" is synonyim for "no laws for Jews"

Attached: george-washington-freemason.jpg (386x461, 126K)

In my mind, this formulation attends to the inherent need for a federal government firmly rooted in Nationalist (protectionist) ideals, while remaining largely hands-off regarding internal matters, maximizing the freedom of citizens to set their own standards and organize their own lives as they see fit on a state and local level. In my opinion, the only valid purpose for any government is to ensure the freedom of the people whom it serves.

>not want to share for the beneift for the kingdom and the people
Because they do not belong to that people and kingdom

I suppose this theory has some rational basis, but I would counter that Libertarian philosophy itself is not explicitly Jewish, nor is the Right of Private Property. It is possible that Jews have exploited some vulnerabilities in this mode, but they do that with every system, as is their nature. If Jews band together for common interest, so should you. Thisis the essence of a Social Solution vs Government Power. It is far better we all enjoy freedom than we surrender our liberty to tyrants under false promises of protection, for the Jews will infiltrate and subvert this authority as well, leading to even worse consequences. Far better we decentralize such power, and put it in the hands of the people to the highest possible extent.

That being said, I am perfectly comfortable with the NatSoc feds explicitly and specifically banning Jews from immigrating to America, if they deem this population to be inimical to freedom and social order.

>Theory
Its not a theory. It is a fact. This was what actually happen. And I will state it again: Libertarianism is only possible in a mongrelized state since no one has the sense of belonging to a racial community and everyone is different (Brazil, US, all south america, and Portugal).
We may also note that economy isn't a God, because if you go to fight your survival economically at first, you will be always in the hand of the jews because:
>they controll international banking waging war with "Liberalist" ideals for the goyim (Human Rights, muh freedom, etc etc)
>they control the companies and also the goyim comanies sincet he goyim have ALL of THEIR money in Banks (indirect controll)
>Stock Markets are a (((Liberalist))) invention with the (((FREE))) Market - a market that regulates itself (???)
>etc etc...
I also must also note that libertarianism is a very low-pill. Plus, i state it again, only mongrels and other species as such would defend this since they genetically DON'T BELONG in any racially pure comunity. Since mongrels, due to random racemix results, are all diferent they can only sew for themselves.
And with this I will state that there is no "FREEDOM" you will always be a "slave" of your genes and your mind is programmed to think this way.

>defend this
libertarianism - liberalism for goyim

>socialism
no

Attached: socialisms is a mind virus.jpg (600x392, 97K)

By any chance OP did you a stranger on the internet whose name started with a K, tell you about the holocaust and how impossible it is? Asking for a friend.

You can't mix libertarian ideology with natsoc you fucking autist

Real libertarianism wouldn't govern the borders at all. Only kill militaries that invade them.

Have a bump

You seem to have a very narrow interpretation of Libertarianism and a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between social power and governmental power. There is no reason a Libertarian government necessarily precludes social cohesion, it simply doesn't mandate it from the top down under a centralized authority. (Granting the government such authority almost never tuns out well, as those in power tend to seek their own ends rather than the benefit of the governed.) Freedom means the ability to form your own self-selected social networks. If this means social policies of racial exclusivity to you, feel free to do so. I would not choose to do so, but I would also not seek to stop you. Specifically in America, the notion of an ethnostate is a non-starter. We must shift our focus to ensuring ideological purity and common bonds of belief in Constitutional principles.

I am well aware of factual inaccuracies in the "official" historical record.

Excellent.

Nonsense. There is nothing inherent to Libertarian thought which precludes National Borders any more than it would preclude the borders on your Private Property. This is a distortion which has sadly gained popularity among those who form the Libertarian Party in America, but which is not a central tenet of Libertarianism itself.

That being said, there is the possibility that National Borders may cease to be a necessity if every other nation of the world adopts Libertarian principles (just as there is no need to prevent crossing state borders within America being that we all function under a shared ideology). However, this is a conditional goal, and likely many hundreds of years before such conditions exist and we could consider abolishing travel restrictions of this kind on and global scale.

So you'd have one semi-elected authoritarian leader whose main function is to deal with the leaders of other countries in economic exchanges, and (presumably) organize national defense policy? By saying it is based on a NS model, I would assume 1) no term limits, 2) ability to organize federal agencies in whatever manner he wishes, and staff them with whomever he wishes, 3) his main goal is to preserve the people of his nation (ie race), and allow them to prosper. So, a racially-motivated king? But, this king would have limited power in regards to how localities organized their own activities. Perhaps ideally, so long as a local organization or action didn't interfere with either the well-being of the race, or hinder federal-level activities, it would be allowed.

Two questions, OP: What are your thoughts on implementing a guild system? What would be your ideal monetary policy?

Excellent explanation! This leader would also hold power to govern the economic activity of private corporations in so far as it relates to international trade. This means the ability to absolutely forbid such trade if, for example, these companies sought to outsource production to exploit low-wage slave labor workers in foreign nations at the expense of their fellow countrymen.

I see current labor unions as a form of "guild" system. I think this might need some public discussion to sort out the proper limits on such collective power. As for monetary policy, I favor an almost completely hands-off approach, and allowing things like crypto-currencies to arise. It seems high time we audit (and abolish) the Federal Reserve.

Labor unions are similar to guilds, insofar as they are responsible (in some cases, especially the trades) for educating new employees in their trade (ie apprenticeship). However, in their current form, they mostly exist as a means of bargaining for gibs from the federal government, which is not the original intent of guilds. Basically, they should replace schooling almost entirely (expect for basic grade school), and should create social groups and identities surrounding whichever form of work they do in order to properly initiate new members.
In regards to monetary policy, if there are several currencies, merchants would easily be able to refuse to accept certain ones if they so wished. ie, you could have a situation where you recieve your wages in x currency, but the local food market only accepts y currency. I suppose you could have currency exchanges to mitigate this issue, but exchange rates would still need to be based on something. What do you think of a labor backed currency imposed at the federal level (ie federal workers would be paid in this currency, and it would be an acceptable method of payment at any non-personal location of sale), with allowances for localities to barter amongst themselves in whatever additional form(s) they wish? (Similar to the situation now with federal reserve notes, except they would be backed by labor activities rather than nothing, and the government would not have regulative powers over alternative currencies)

Libertarian rights for whites, socialism and concentration camps for shitskins/kikes/stupid whites (for their own money of course)