I'm a right-wing libertarian. Change my views

What's the embedded file?

I do not believe in statism, only the government protecting people from foreign invasions, criminals, and structure fires.

I didn't. You should read that again.

Attached: Education and Journalism.jpg (3024x2083, 1.46M)

fuck, forgot to remove my picture. Anyway no, I was purposefully speaking of immigration as a whole, not illegal immigration.

Police, firemen, and schools were around before Karl Marx retard.

Right wing literally means capitalist, not isolationist

Roads

>I believe in the government
Yes you fucking are a statist. There is literally no justification for government.

>Right wing literally means capitalist
no it doesn't

Just start killing Jews.

That doesn't nessecairly make you a statist. I believe in a free market. Quit picking at an invalid point

>"In political science, statism is the belief that the state should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree"
>"Statism can take many forms from minarchism to totalitarianism. Minarchists prefer a minimal state such as a night-watchman state to protect people from aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud with military, police and courts.[5] Some may also include fire departments, prisons and other functions.[5] The welfare state and other moderate levels of statism also exist on the scale of statism.[6][7] Totalitarians prefer a maximum, all-encompassing state.[8][9]"
Shut the fuck up you uneducated piece of shit

Your conception of socio-economics of market are childish and belong to kindergarten. I'd rather read RFCs of dead protocols which at least still stay logically coherent rather than your incoherent blabber.

You believe in a more powerful state than he does. From his perspective, you are a statist.

yeah thoese r cool too but if they take over a year for the government to fix then private companies can purchase and repair it because say the govt shuts down a lane to repair, and takes a long time, that will hurt the economy near the place that the road repair is occurring because less people would want to travel through a nearly 'chokepoint' like road.

Why do you believe in public schooling?

No it fucking doesn't

This. "economic left" and "economic right" is a hook-nosed distraction of populist realpolitik.

In purely theoretical sense, right is always quite socialist given strong focus on solidarity within identity/nation.

Oh you're already at the private roads stage. You'll be ancap in 2 months. 6 months tops. You're not worth my time arguing with, just save this post and laugh at yourself when you find yourself calling for abolishing the state in favor of capitalism in a few months.

The problem with mass immigration is that it provides the enemies of the nation with a HUGE backdoor with which to invade the nation and conquer it from within.

We’ve had quite a few wars with Mexico in the past. You know, that country that keeps flooding us with their drugs and criminals?

Thats not a coincidence.

The only sensible immigration is that which is tightly controlled, and which prioritizes immigration from nations that are similar to our own. To do otherwise is to let your own doom in through the front door.

How are you going to maintain a libertarian society while importing millions of people who have lived under cycling caudillos for two-three centuries? Who mostly vote against libertarian policies?

Does your average Paco or Pajeet really give a damn about John Locke? Will those among his population entering politics honor him and his ideals?

Can a disunited culture sustain liberty?

People should be educated in order to make a more productive society. Yes, yes that is socialism. But it's such a priority for economic gain that I think it should be included. Yes, taxation is theft, but certain tax-funded services are overall beneficial to the population, not just individuals (i.e. Tax-funded welfare)

I'm gonna give immigrants the same treatment of any American citizen. If they wanna buy a house, they buy a house. If they can't afford one, they can't afford one. I understand what you're saying,and what can stem from my ideas. (they'll just steal to get what they want). I'm aware, but I'd want to have some police for , and open carry so people can prevent theft.

Why can't mothers just teach their children?

>he's still at the edgy ancap autism stage

Haha, I remember being a 16 year old virgin having just read Atlas Shrugged and having introductory economics classes too.

Libertarianism implies globalism. Immigration is simply about movement of labor.

The issue is that globalism removes collective bargaining - everyone's labor undercuts each other.

Nationalism within global market serves as a trade union - countries can band together, picket lines and and nuke scabs. Sure, it leads to trade wars now and then. Still much better than ending up with neo-feudal structure of rentier capitalism of extremely small oligopoly cartel we're en route to now.

I'm pretty close to ancap imo, just not as far into it as you are user.

I wouldn't call that socialist considering the term's origin, but I agree with your core point.

By this logic you could justify any social program provided it comes with economic gains. For instance, healthcare prevents early death and thereby provides more years for an individual to generate taxable income.

Either way public education is nothing more than a tool of entrenched interests designed to sustain and protect the established order. See image No, you've missed the point entirely. It doesn't matter how many police you have if the immigrants make up the majority of your population growth and, on average, they vote against the politics of liberty.

How will the mothers learn? Well, information will become distorted (i.e. a telephone game related effect)

>implying that all capitalism is multinational corporations and no local business

This was me 3 years ago haha.

But in general it provides more of a gain then Healthcare. Of course, a life is absolutely priceless, and even though there are so god dammed many of us, we are still very valuable. Although, from an economic standpoint, people are ultimately numbers.

It was me maybe 3-4 years ago. We all go through that stage.

Have you done the math? Looked through the data? You are asserting that without any proof or verification whatsoever.

Attached: laughing nazi.gif (244x230, 898K)

Public schools are fucking garbage. Even giving people school vouchers will turn your country into a socialist shithole. Just look at Sweden. Education is only good when people have to pay for it themselves, so that they actually appreciate it and so you don't end up with serious moral hazard.

Allow me to re-word my 'pro-immigration' idea. An user is this thread has inspired this idea, and that's ultimately why I'm here. People should apply to be here, and the best to fit will be allowed in. I just mean im not an anti-Mexican isolationist.

How's your pension treating you, boomerbong?

Gay

>public schooling
You're not even a good liar.

I mean right what America has now. Free college is bullshit, I agree with you on that.

Wait, what past 5th grade is important for mothers to know and for children to learn? Why do mothers need an Art History degree if they can't bake bread or sew or be bothered to even cook?

>We all go through that stage
I went through the NatSoc stage to arrive at AnCap. I do still believe in NatSoc for Afro-Eurasian countries, it just doesn't seem feasible for the Americas.

You're a stupid cuck.
Mexico is offloading their poor on us.
Show your real flag, stupid leaf.

When will people finally understand that saying you belong to a party doesn't mean that you perfectly align with every single one of their ideas? I allign with MOST ideas, not all. Inb4 'centrist cuck'

What determines "best fit"? Are you going to screen by ideology? Will they have to take a test? How will you verify it? What is to stop someone from faking?

Understand a naturalized immigrant to the US takes a test on US history, values, etc. Yet, when given the choice, still vote overwhelmingly for policies that are contrary to core american values, like the right to property, liberty, privacy, etc.

>Heh, yeah I used to be for freedom. But I grew up and accepted the state that constantly fucks me in the ass financially, emotionally, psychologically and culturally. And now, I'm ready to fight in the state's fruitless wars that'll end up getting me and my entire family tree killed anyways.

It's almost as if these fags wee on a straight diet of government cock.

I want you to read my clarification again, really slowly. Sound out the words and comprehend what I'm saying. Use Google if you don't know what a word means. ;)

If you remove limits on immigration and gimmies (and taxes it swallows now would be cut by 3/4), america would be the closest thing to minarchic ancap on earth.

I just don't see how would that improve the life of average joe. Things would still remain extremely exploitative because of inherent deficiencies of ancap market models (most notably, assumption of infinite market expansion to prevent monopolies).

Mass immigration is a big government program.

Oh, I still believe in freedom. But freedom is the exception in human history, not the rule. It only exists to the extent to which it can be defended. And we're getting dangerously close to the point where it will be impossible to defend.

>an anti-Mexican isolationist
Why would you ever want Mexican immigration (or any non-White immigration for that matter)? Look at the chaos in the States since the '65 and '90 Immigration Acts. We need an immigration policy akin to the Johnson-Reed Act

Attached: 1536327635417.png (1008x709, 715K)

>improve the life of average joe
The goal isn't the improvement of life of the average joe. That's a side effect.

Not just "free college". ALL publicly funded schools sooner or later turn into communist indoctrination camps. You can't let politicians own your children.

What if i told you that there was a way to weaken the state without firing a single bullet?

>Cheatcode: C R Y P T O A N A R C H Y

I understand just fine.
You don't live in an area impacted by illegal immigration.
Your schools are still white enough that you have a positive opinion of public education.
You think Mexicans are just like Iowans with better food.
Fuck you.

Okay, look at whites and Asians commuting crimes. Of course, it's not as extreme relative to their population, but it's not fair to the people that actually are good people. With your idea, we would ultimately genocide everyone, and brainwash every citizen into obeying.

How do you brainwash people so you stay politically stable? You know full well that trickle down is bullshit. Capital gravitates up. All progress is made through innovation of technology which eventually gets so cheap to be affordable for the underclass.

The market failure is essentialy related to socio economics. In play word, people being butthurt about ever widening wealth gap. Eventually all the losers pick guns and steamroll you over. Which is why there are no stable ancap societies in recorded history. They're never stable.

>not heavily impacted by immigration
I'm near chicago, I know what I'm talking about. I've traveled to many cities in the area as well.

>Eventually all the losers pick guns and steamroll you over
Capitalism allots power much more effectively than the State. The Capitalist man in power has far more money than the proletariat masses combined, giving him the power to maintain stability.

I'm not an Ancap buddy

Anarchy is all the same, regardless of the prefix. I might have some guns, but I doubt I have enough to enjoy living in a state of anarchy.

And with your ideas, liberty dies by way of majority rule. Quite the conundrum. I'll take liberty for whites over socialism for everyone any day of the week.

You don't understand, the losers picking up guns would be violating the NAP, so that can't happen.

>not heavily impacted by illeagal immigration
When you say "near Chicago" you mean Wisconsin
Once again fuck you.

>Why would you ever want Mexican immigration (or any non-White immigration for that matter)?

Since most non white immigrants use state subsidized programs such as welfare, they won't come since there is no state to provide welfare. They won't take any entry level jobs since there is no welfare to assist them while they work. Hell, they won't be able to take them anyways since economic gains that led to innovation also led to automation of low level jobs. Welcome to ancapistan. Get some real skills or die trying.

Except that literally no one gives a fuck about the NAP.

Attached: ancrap.png (640x640, 246K)

>The Capitalist man in power has far more money than the proletariat masses combined, giving him the power to maintain stability.

Easy model for you - a factory owner has far more power than his worker. Yet workers can still form picket lines. Revolutions stemming from too much of divide work on same principle.

AnCap might indeed be viable if the capital concentrates to a point they can get overwhelming force with technology (killerbots a'la Diamond Age). But that's still very risky, especially with nukes.

>The Capitalist man in power has far more money than the proletariat masses combined, giving him the power to maintain stability.
Boy, somebody should tell Chiang Kai-shek, he'll be happy to hear that.

>People should be educated in order to make a more productive society.
> it's such a priority for economic gain that I think it should be included.
Interesting. So your argument is that there are positive externalities from public schooling that outweigh the costs. And that at a national scale, this can only be achieved through forced taxation, rather than some kind of charity.

If I've represented your argument correctly, do you think there are other things government pays for which this argument would also apply to? Why or why not?

Attached: 1524010243398.jpg (766x3231, 853K)

>Chiang Kai-shek
That's called the State, buddy.

>AnCap might indeed be viable if the capital concentrates to a point they can get overwhelming force with technology
We'd already be at this point if it weren't for government intervention in the market

why do you keep avoiding the point??

Because he knows it's one he can't address.

Protip: your "capitalist man in power" would be the state as well.

There are bunch of places where you can try ancap in practice. Fistful of millions USD and PMC in south sudan or liberia. Let's see for how long you survive the warlord elements in there. I can guarantee you there's no government there, and there's completely free market of "protection".

The Capitalist man in power is decided by capitalism aka socioeconomic Darwinism, brainlet. The State is decided upon by the masses or some opium sniffing egomaniac.

Also, open carry is for retards looking for trouble.

I guarantee you the UN and (((America))) would send in "peacekeeping forces" the second the State is abolished

>Anarchy is all the same, regardless of the prefix. I might have some guns, but I doubt I have enough to enjoy living in a state of anarchy.

Pfft! Yeah all anarchy is the same. Except we have many ways to protect themselves with localized private security, guns that we can buy to protect ourselves, and the very fact that we can lay our hands on any kind of military hardware we want (except for nukes). But all of that goes out the window, because >muh no gubmint!

>With your idea, we would ultimately genocide everyone, and brainwash every citizen into obeying
What faggoty world do you live in where violence doesn't exist? Anyways, homogeneous White nations are much more peaceful than multiracial hellholes

Attached: 1541551899509.png (597x875, 151K)

The state has only been decided upon by the masses for the past ~200 years or so. Human history extends long before the advent of democracy. Your "capitalist man in power" sounds rather similar to a monarch, IE another embodiment of the state.

The ancoms would have the same access to nukes you do.

That's crazy, man. Have you ever done DMT?

show flag
happy hanukkah

Attached: happy_hanukkah.png (600x325, 265K)

Did you not read my comment? Monarchs don't rise to power through principles of socioeconomic darwinism. They rise to power through use of force. I was referring to all forms of autocracy when I mentioned opium sniffing egomaniacs. Like your beloved Hitler.

>The Capitalist man in power is decided by capitalism aka socioeconomic Darwinism
But without the state who holds a monopoly on violence there is no real "decision". Unless the "Capitalist man in power" establishes a state of his own and suppresses his potential competitors - which in turn would result in something that isn't Ancapism.

Basically, the fallacy of ancap is that they assume primordial existence of market. Needless to say such notion is ridiculous. First there must be monopoly on violence, and only this monopoly forms walled garden where kids can play with their money (which funds the warlord holding the monopoly on violence).

The largest issue is to stop warlords from feuding, which is what current world status quo essentially is.

The reason I mention those two is specifically because UN got tired of this shit and withdrawn. The places are endless lines of warlords. US is interested only in ME, not rest of the african niggers. It's mostly frenchie mess now in there.

However if you actually managed to consolidate a monopoly on violence and become actual geopol threat, THEN interventions under funny pretenses would be quite likely. Again, ton of historical examples.

Point is, NAP is simply ridiculous notion until there is a single NWO warlord with access to all the nuke buttons providing safe market for all the underdogs to extract rent from.

Such a minarchy could be done on very cheap - basically just maintain the nuke silos and army of killerbots, and run it as a company like any other. Just pray that no hidden startup with competing nukes shows up...

>The ancoms would have the same access to nukes you do.

No one without training and a massive budget is able handle radioactive material and the cost of doing so is just as expensive as a year's salary. Oh and you forgot the fact that no one would sell that shit to you AND since cesium nukes are fucking expensive since they're rare. the black market isn't the same as it was during the era of the soviet arms dump.

>no real "decision"
What decision? And if you're referring to a decision of who's in power, why does monopoly on force have to explicitly be given to a single entity?

> Unless the "Capitalist man in power" establishes a state of his own and suppresses his potential competitors - which in turn would result in something that isn't Ancapism
Suppression of competitors would result in violence, destabilizing his attempt to monopolize power.

>Yes, yes that is socialism
Protip: If you want to be good at debates, learn fucking definitions of words before you try to use them in debates. No, it's not fucking socialism. It could KIND OF be argued as communism, but not socialism. Socialism means one thing, and only one thing: Social ownership of the means of production. Public education has fuckall to do with socialism/capitalism/means of production.
>inb4 "but muh socially owned schools"
Means of production refers to economy, not education.
>inb4 "but muh tax funding"
Taxation is collectivism/communism/statism. It has nothing to do with socialism.

actually no the first police force was after karl marx was born, and the fire departments at the time were private, first public schools were also established after marx was born.

>why does monopoly on force have to explicitly be given to a single entity?
Because how else is he going to establish his rule?

>Suppression of competitors would result in violence, destabilizing his attempt to monopolize power.
If he's more powerful than his competitors they will either submit or perish.

Based & Statepilled

The free-market has been the single most destructive force to the modern West. The corporate powers that have displaced the working class with 3rd world labor and even jobs in professionalism, like in the tech industry, have been the main forces pushing for immigration and hurting Whites internationally

Attached: CryOrMiss.png (1116x1400, 1.41M)

>The largest issue is to stop warlords from feuding, which is what current world status quo essentially is.
Perhaps. It doesn't necessitate State force, regardless.

>NAP is simply ridiculous notion until there is a single NWO warlord with access to all the nuke buttons
Mutually assured destruction. The people with access to nukes in an AnCap society will have a high enough IQ to understand this basic principle. State leaders chosen by the masses, on the other hand, might certainly not. See: Pakistan.