Libertarianism vs. Fascism Part 5

>why must people who want to allow communists and democrats to lie in the public arena constantly and want to sell off your country to companies who will flood them with 3rd worlders be pitted against those who don't want those things
hmm i wonder

So is the right, if it get it's mind to it.
Mussolini did kill the people who spoke against him, you know?

>strawpoll.me/16583523

Heh. So once the leftist are gassed and cremated, Libertarians and Fascist will duke it out.

mussolini started off as a marxist, and hitler was a literal socialist, i find it hard not to believe theyre simply far leftists with an aversion to degeneracy

Yea, yea.. But you know.. People from the right voted for them.

marxists want to eliminate private property, libertarians want to eliminate commons
reject both of them

Should libtards vs nazicucks replace dems vs reps?

yes i get it but when you look into it neocons are actually trotskyite commies, statism it seems is simply varying degrees of leftism

we should collaborate and we would be the most powerful force in politics, all achievable through hoppean covenents and volutary association, but a large portions of fascists and natsocs are so wrapped up in ideology they cant even see it would be easier to achieve their ideology with us

Jow Forums started as libertarians and natsoc agreeing that white society is under attack and that we're allies against those forces. Which is why there are now masses of threads creating divides between the two camps here.

this, i think we've been divided and conquered lad, feels bad man

>creating divides between the two camps here.
ancaps literally want to sell off the commons of every country on the planet to the highest bidder
there is no form of alliance possible whatsoever

I voted fascism, because I think there should be checks and balances on big business.

Leaving the economy completely unregulated just results in monopolies.

no we fucking dont, we would pay a militia to guard the agreed upon private property border

>fascism
>checks and balances on big business
the same way the mob checks and balances casinos

ah right, and when the rest of the land outside of that border is bought by a pool of neoliberals what happens?

nuke em

Ancaps and libertarians are NOT the same thing, faggot. What's so difficult to understand about that? Stop comppaining about ancaps, I doubt there's even one of them here.

You'd be wrong bucko

national capitalism of course
libertarian domestically
fascistic internationally

this

Attached: images(17).jpg (738x415, 25K)

of course, that's a very sustainable praxis and definitely not the autistic ramblings of a 14 year old, i'm not even going to get into an absurd hypothetical argument about the swathes of incentives that anyone on the supply side would have to ignore to somehow provide nuclear weapons to a private investor
the simple fact is that a rational person will always choose a high trust, low transaction cost polity over the opposite when given the choice
>Libertarians tend to be very bright. But libertarians also test as abnormally insensitive to moral questions. The connection between the two facts is pretty obvious. We libertarians are less concerned with immorality because it’s easy for us to defend against. I don’t take the position that we’re less moral. Only that immorality is less of a challenge for us SO WE DISCOUNT THE TRANSACTION COSTS of immoral activity, whereas everyone else does NOT discount those transaction costs.
>This explains why libertarians are more easily fooled by Rothbardian ethics than conservatives and progressives (socialists). The moral economy is less valuable to us than to conservatives and progressives. We discount the cost of immoral and unethical behavior.

>But if we want to build a polity – the fact is: we’re wrong. Those transaction costs increase as intelligence and general knowledge decrease. And so it’s just not rational for a body of people to adopt Rothbardian ethics. They aren’t moral ENOUGH for suppression of immoral and unethical behavior, and the high transaction costs imposed upon people who must deal with pervasive immoral and unethical behavior.

>Private property is what remains when a polity suppresses all free riding: violence, theft, fraud, cheating, externalizing, privatizing, conspiracy, corruption and extortion. And people will not grant one another private property rights and reduce demand for the state unless suppression of free riding (immoral and unethical behavior) is present FIRST.

what would you do with any foreign enemy?

Name one.

One of what?
In early US Standard Oil got big enouch that it could make deals with train companies to only move their oil and if someone got around this they could sell so cheap (net loss for them) that it wasn't profitable for anyone else to compete and thus the competitors would go out of business and after that Standard Oil would lift the prices back to making big profits

This doesn't make Standard Oil evil or anything in fact the owner was quite charitable, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a monopoly

Attached: 1505666723543.png (1262x2094, 1M)

It's not ok to use violence against peaceful people, and you recognize this in your everyday life.
If you simply violently enforced your stupid, senseless whims whenever you fancied, you'd find yourself dead or miserable incredibly quickly, and rightly so.

>neocons are actually trotskyite commies
what the fuck am i reading

Attached: peradventure.jpg (645x346, 113K)

It's not the emotions that's the matter.
It's the morality. Violence is WRONG. How you feel about violence or whether you fear it more or less has no bearing.

>that flag
Please, kys.

Attached: 1534171801860.jpg (236x236, 12K)

3 choices:
cooperate (do so when it's in your interests)
non-cooperation (when not in your interests)
conquest (when predation, conquest and rule over the other party is more profitable than cooperation)

>Violence is WRONG
Im going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have actually thought through this statement and are a dedicated pacifist who would let someone kill them or the entire world with out fighting back.

"peaceful" is a placeholder for aggression, and as always in the construction of law, the definition of aggression is extremely important

cooperate if its mutually benefitial
leave them alone if they violate the NAP
nuke them if they violate it and/or threaten to spread communism near the border

I am a pacifist.
As I ought to be and as anyone ought to be.

>"peaceful" is a placeholder for aggression
No. If you're not using violence against others, you're peaceful. Peaceful and violent are antonyms, though one can be aggressive without being violent.

still not defining what aggression is (what i can aggress against), or what scope of violence is necessary for the construction and maintenance of a sufficiently high trust polity

you've successfully ignored everything i've said, well done

Don't touch other people or point weapons at them. Otherwise use your fucking head - you and the people around you can make judgments about what is and is not acceptable conduct - if you're wrong in your judgements you're likely to see the quality of your life go down as a consequence, whether that be by censure, ostracization, or something more visceral.

Not really no. At least not in the long term. Libertarians can be allies of convenience for the moment enemy of my enemy and what not so long as they don't get in our way but long term they only destroy themselves and society in the process thanks to their adherence to principles that will only get used against them.

we will get in your way if your way is taxation

So long as we can all agree that the number one priority is securing our racial future then we can get along just fine. The problem comes from tactics though. How do libertarians expect to save the west if they insist on respecting the "rights" of those who would destroy us?

Money is one thing. I'm far more worried about you allowing our enemies to continue to exist and undermine on principle

humanity isn't ready for libertarianism because a minimum of half our species has evolved to be dependent on others for survival
this makes them easy to manipulate into subverting society for more percieved resources or security
>feminism
>sexual liberation
>communism
>civil rights

if humans were something better then libertarianism could work.

how do you propose to make humanity capable of maintaining a libertarian society.

Attached: Communism in Greece.png (1183x331, 37K)

Ancaps need a frontier to colonize otherwise they become degenerate.
That's because without a frontier to homestead ancaps become degenerate.
Whining about ancaps is the wrong way to do it.
Who do you think is the one who colonized hostile native american lands? It was ancaps.

Virtually everyone is dependent on others - your quality of life is dependent on the division of labor/specialization and trade.

How do you propose to "make humanity capable" of maintaining ANY society, since every single fucking association of people on earth has ALWAYS and FOREVER been fucking passing you utter nitwit? Human associations and conventions change - nothing you ever do will ever stop that, ever. You are powerless, just as every damned human on earth is and has always been powerless. Give up.

>How do you propose to "make humanity capable" of maintaining ANY society
fascism
where men and women are forced to compete mentally and physically for breeding rights and self sufficiency is culturally enforced.

They are different tools for different problems. Libertarianism is superior when dealing with homogeneous, high trust populations. Fascism, however, is required to achieve that ethnic homogeneity.

Yeah that always works well.
Fucking utopian mindless drone. Drown in your sub-140 IQ.

>Yeah that always works well.
works better than every libertarian society that has ever existed.

I voted for fascism, Ron Paul is pretty cool though

they have literally nothing to do with each other except we both hate the left
the only reason we're friends is because fascism is on the back foot and benefits from libertarian individualist policies
were fascism in power it would be very different

Niggers, subhumans and degenerates would not survive very long in ancap society. Statists are keeping this filth alive at the expense of taxpayers and the productive.

>Niggers, subhumans and degenerates would not survive very long in ancap society
which is why they would band together and subvert society, manipulating the strong and intelligent into "giving them rights"

Yeah - lots of libertarian societies where people are arbitrarily murdered and imprisoned, and people live in fear of dumb armed goons showing up at their homes. Many such cases!

>dumb armed goons
that's not possible in a fascist state where everyone is forced to compete mentally and physically for breeding rights
because the weak and stupid are culled off.

only the stupid would live in fear of genius armed goons who know how to garden and lift weights showing up to slaughter them.

National Capitalism is the obvious solution.

Attached: flat,800x800,075,f.jpg (800x500, 22K)

Last thread hasn't even reached bump limit. Why are you forcing this?

You should read your own post back to yourself.

You should consider that the weak and stupid will fuck up every society and should be removed from the human gene pool to better the chances of humanity surviving in the future.
you have not provided one argument since we started talking.

Attached: bass.gif (314x240, 1.63M)

>Jaunā konservatīvā partija
>New Conservative Party
>New Conservative
>Neocon

pls no

whoops wrong

What do you want me to argue?
Humanity has lasted millennia without your dystopian dipshitted meme-spewing, and life has gotten immeasurably better for each generation due to capital accumulation and the diminished proportional leeching by state leeches from people's increasing disposable income.
But doom comes tomorrow, surely! Meme-spewer KNOWS the future, and it CAN'T be anything but doom, because he doesn't like _thing_!

>Humanity has lasted millennia without your dystopian dipshitted meme-spewing
no
Humanity lasted millenia as the strong conquered and killed their enemies and has diminished when the weak have manipulated their way into power (that rightfully belongs to the strong and intelligent) to leech the disposable income and security of the capable
Point out a lasting libertarian society.
USA started out as one and quickly became subservient to a ruling class and has been manipulated by the dependent into attacking independence.

No. MOST people have lived peacefully for most of time. It's a minority of marauding violent nitwits that fight and murder when the opportunity presents itself, and most of those people are the ones who died and left nothing to the gene pool.

Most people avoid conflict because it makes their lives worse and they can make the rational connection between violent and aggressive behavior and ostracization/death. A significant minority of dumb or self-important men can't.

THE STATE MUST EXIST TO ENFORCE GODS WILL

Attached: 1491101208846.jpg (1074x526, 62K)

>MOST people have lived peacefully for most of time
Why do you think this when resources in the world are limited?

The fat retarded loud mouthed nigger stands on his non covered porch in the rain at 8am in the morning, yapping his loud nigger mouth aross the neighborhood as if everyone in every home on the block should hear the stupid babbling porch monkey fuckhead at the early hours. Don't get me wrong, the stupid fucking nigger does it at any and every hour of the day. This is what our sick society hath wrought us, the few, the Masters, the white male heterosexual.

Tell him to shut the fuck up next time and if he comes onto your property execute him like a libertarian.

What on EARTH do you think the necessary logical connection between economic scarcity and violent conflict? Most of human history is TRADE. Because one people have one thing but not another, and some other people have the other thing but not the first, so they trade the things they have and don't need for the things other people have and don't need in mutually beneficial exchanges. That's what you do whenever you buy ANYTHING, and it's the same thing EVERYONE does when they do the same.
Scarcity as it has generally existed in human affairs has historically driven peaceful trade relations far more strongly than violent ones, since nothing is more costly than risking death when there are alternative means of acquiring what people want in life.

>What on EARTH do you think the necessary logical connection between economic scarcity and violent conflict?
are you fucking jewish?

No - make the connection. What is the connection between the two? Is it a NECESSARY connection? Because you have a computer monitor, which is scarce. It's a good in a limited quantity. Do I need to fight and kill your in order to acquire a computer monitor myself?

Trade means growth
growth means expansion
expansion means less resources to go around
limited resources means /someone has to die/
/someone has to die/ means war happens
because humans are naturally tribal and band together to ensure their own survival.

Libertarianism is the most kiked ideology.

Made by Nazbol GANG

Lol fascism is even inferior to communism. Why even compare it to libertarianism?

Attached: 396.jpg (680x851, 54K)

No - human trade is not zero-sum. Human PRODUCE things. We turn things that are useless into things that are useFUL. We create value out of the otherwise value-less, and thereby we make more which can be had by ourselves and by others than was there before our work.

Is it magic by which you think to world's population is exponentially higher, and SIMULTANEOUSLY each person on average is exponentially better off than anyone merely two centuries ago? Are you confused by that? It must be a mystery to you given what you're saying.

kek

libretardianism is only good when you are 15 years old, had never worked before and just want "lol freedom"

>human trade is not zero-sum
The fact that resources on earth are limited means that resources are zero sum.
Point to a libertarian society that has survived without war.
ever.

The world's population is WAY higher.
People are WAY more wealthy.

This is because [fill in the blank].

>This is because [fill in the blank].
the strong killed their weak and manipulative oppressors (usa frontiersmen v british "royalty")

Fascism for EU.
Libertarianism for US.

no, it was brutally traditionalist authoritarians who had gotten slightly miffed about the king. everything about who they were, how they were raised, funded, taught, supported, and transported was auth, came from auth and was made possible by auth
every pioneer in his day was more severe than Hitler himself

How does killing people factor into the problem you're facing?

There are MORE people, and they are MORE wealthy, despite you thinking that wealth is zero-sum.
THIS IS BECAUSE _____.

Both are bad, but libertarians are antisocial

>How does killing people factor into the problem you're facing?
Stupider less capable people didn't breed as much
more intelligent more capable people who were better at utilizing their resources bred more because after killing the stupider weaker people they had more resources to work with
USA v Natives

>and life has gotten immeasurably better for each generation due to capital accumulation
>People are WAY more wealthy.
>each person on average is exponentially better off than anyone merely two centuries ago?
Imagine being this much of a shallow materialistic subhuman, jesus fucking christ. And a cuck pacifist too. Fucking kill yourself, there's more to life than money and wealth.

Fuck off, NPC

No no no no. Resources are dangerously limited in your view. So dangerously limited that you incorrectly believe that most of people in most of history have HAD to kill one another en masse in order to not starve because resources were so limited.
There were .00001% of humans not that long ago as there are today, and you say they NEEDED to SLAUGHTER one another in order to preside over life-sustaining resources.
How did the zero-sum resources magically expand? Magic?