Inb4 underage. I'm 29

Attached: 1463450240227.png (456x850, 465K)

None of these are questions but just dumb ass memes that make underage tribalists be able to consume otherwise complicated content.

youtube.com/watch?v=DeiK0fdPv8Y

Attached: 1464564476625.jpg (394x373, 37K)

youtube.com/watch?v=U2Nad1b_3yY

Attached: 1464567957956.png (600x594, 315K)

Attached: 1464573984815.png (539x512, 493K)

This was a sad situation that should not have happened, but did only serve to harm the Libertarian premise.

lol what the fuck

how do you refute this?

Attached: 1123235466333.jpg (500x457, 49K)

Attached: 1443403231010.png (1280x1163, 1.01M)

Attached: 123235552.jpg (1080x1030, 162K)

Yes I also disagreed with Rothbard's thesis on a privatized court system. I prefer Milton Friedman's theories. But yes, Rothbard takes it to the absolute extreme and wishes for no government whatsoever. And to do that he had to go to extreme lengths that most would not be willing to follow. However, he also has good ideas. But to look at a single idea amongst the thousand ideas and dismiss the thousand ideas is downright idiotic.

This is totally ridiculous and is an attempt to destroy the fundamental rights of humans. To put it into perspective, no. You cannot harvest your child's organs.

One. The child is not actually developed enough. Even the prefrontal cortex of your brain, which is the logical portion of your brain, is not fully developed till you are 25. Some would say people can express their inalienable rights at 18, and some even at 16. But the point being, that you cannot make the choice for a child's body, even with consent because they cannot make logical sound decisions.

Additionally, Rothbard cannot simply be ignored for even this. Mostly because Rothbard is one of the most prolific historians in the United States and the inception of the United States. Because of this, he has a much higher understanding than 99.9% of people over history.

Attached: file.png (1000x627, 734K)

if the kid is basically a property as many ancaps say, there is nothing to prevent this

>if the kid is basically a property
Because a child cannot make sound decisions, there is no right to property or forcing removal of people's right to life, liberty, and property.

There is a role for government in a capitalist society. The government is supposed to stop the Krony Capitalism we see now, but it's not. There's another root cause and it's lobbyists and liberals pushing socialist policy.

You need a strong nationalist society that values it'd people over larger profits, otherwise a libertarian capitalist society outsources everything over seas. It's why I voted Donny. Love your country and bring back jobs. Country over globalist capitalism for profit. That's it

>>inb4 jew. I believe in your inalienable rights
Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum
>zionist
supporting Israel
>parasitic
enrolled in Social Security and Medicare

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

/thread

The issue with your theory is that this has been done in countries in the past. It doesn't end well. The best policy and the highest increase to quality of life is by global trade. Every single country that has attempted this type of isolationist trade has always resulted in ruin.

Because she had to take on social security and medicare, her justification was that they stole from her the entire time, so she would reap the reward for what she put into the system. It's sad to see people take Ayn Rand's work and simply dismiss it all with this simple act.

There's places where global trade is absolutely necessary and good. No dispute.

You cannot have a country that outsources shit like call centers for profit.

It has a flow on effect for the price of products and our wages.

Without national pride though, basically nothing works. I don't actually think we can come back from where we are. There's no pendulum swing coming.

Everyone is mad right now because they're in a weird limbo. They can afford new TVs but feel unsatisfied with everything. When a population gets like this, it implodes in to ridiculous argument and revolution

>believes in inaliable (aka GOD GIVEN) rights
>posts God-hating wrench who died consuming welfare she spent her pathetic life whining about
MAJINE MOI SHAWK

opinion on finland

>You cannot have a country that outsources shit like call centers for profit.
The issue with this is that it ignores basic economic concepts. Economically, someone would want to attempt thrift and buy something that is cheaper. This then opens up the opportunity to spend money on something else with money saved. Because of this, people will often maximize their output with their money. Highest bang for your buck. While you cannot resolve happiness or belonging this way, you can maximize it by having a society that promotes the highest quality of life possible, which enables higher happiness. People are always happier in a rich country, not a poor one.

One of the free-er nations. It has a high promotion to people's individual liberties. Because very little money is spent on military adventures, they are able to afford welfare programs that are sustainable.

Also this: heritage.org/index/country/finland

I already addressed this.

Your opinions are trash.

Attached: Sophisticated Harold.jpg (1908x2000, 403K)

I think it's a lot more in depth than you are granting.

You are a useful fool.
You are being used by them.
Get your head out of your ass.

Ad hominem.

Do you know what externalities are? And if so, do you think that there are times when the government should intervene in the market to discourage transactions with negative externalities and reward transactions with positive externalities?

All I'm seeing is a few brief mentions of God given rights and a whole lot of defending of materialist kikes.
Here's a question for you. What do you think would be the best means of dealing with the subversives who are hell bent on establishing an international totalitarian system of governance?

Attached: Go cart Terry.png (552x328, 202K)

that's nothing be a subversive Jew

Attached: Walter_Paisley_(Howling)_001.jpg (285x304, 12K)

No. but at the same time, a government needs to defend people's inalienable rights. Just as a man coming up to your property and stabbing you with a knife, is effectively equivalent as the company that aggresses on your body and property by releasing CO2 emissions nearby. Because of this, the government needs to be able to defend people's inalienable rights. The EPA has stunningly done a terrible job in managing how companies are allowed to aggress on individuals.

>What do you think would be the best means of dealing with the subversives who are hell bent on establishing an international totalitarian system of governance?
Those that aggress on people's inalienable rights must be stopped at all costs.

I think Ayn Rand was a self-hating Jew. I remember reading her book Anthem where it was a story about Aryan Chad and Stacy escaping Communism.

Agreed

Attached: Libertarian to Fascist.jpg (320x826, 36K)

So that also means those who would not allow open immigration, or allow a welfare state, that one can exist or that both are effectively aggressions against people. This must be stopped.

Do you honestly think a libertarian capitalist society would be a nice place to live?
I'm all for telling the government to fuck off and not interfere with my life - but business has proven every single time that it will do everything possible to maximise profit at the cost of the people

I can't imagine a lib/cap society being anything but a miserable hellscape

You realize that "capitalists" are the people weaving this international system.
They want open immigration to provide cheap labor and debt slaves.
And no I'm not a communist.

You can look at several instances throughout history that would completely circumvent that people's quality of life are stomped on with Capitalism. As it turns out, the opposite is true in that you cannot have a 1st world country without capitalism.

>Hong Kong
>East vs. West Berlin quality of life difference
>Venezuela
>Cuba
>Chile being the wealthiest nation in South America due to privatization of the Chicago Boys, taught under Milton Friedman

There is no question. History is on my side that capitalism makes for a better society and happier people.

In the short run, a company may be able to get away with short term profits at the expense of the user. But as a company aggresses, it makes terrible PR in that, the business model is unfeasible. When a company screws over people, they lose their business. this is prevalent even in giant companies like BP where they go out of business when they screw up.

Nonsense.
Large tech companies hire indians from oversees in mass.
Large agricultural companies hire beaners in mass.
Small time contractors hire illegal immigrants in mass.
The free market won't solve that issue.

Unbridled capitalism and nationalism are antithetical.

youtube.com/watch?v=yuBe93FMiJc

What are people's inalienable rights? "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? Surely that is far too vague... Does a right to life guarantee healthcare coverage for any potentially fatal ailments? Does a right to liberty guarantee that you don't have to pay any taxes?

It guarantees you the RIGHT to all the healthcare you can afford. You also have the right to contribute financially all you want to whatever current tax payer funded programs you want it used for. See it's pretty simple.

podcasts.com/alan-buttle-radio-show-3ffaa8b26/episode/Hour-10-Austrian-school-economics-Ayn-Rand-Libertarianism-Anarchapulco-Ron-Paul-Mises-d2f6

In this episode i discuss Austrian school economics, Ayn Rand (Alisa Rosenbaum), Libertarianism, Anarchapulco, Ron Paul and many "alternative" researchers and internet celebrities, including Max Igan, which are connected to them. I discuss Ayn Rand's (or perhaps Alan Greenspan's?) philosophy and how it compliments the plans of the international Jewry and how it is leading us to the same destination as global Marxism, which is a global system under complete Jewish control.

Anarchapulco: anarchapulco.com/speakers/

Attached: POL.gif (834x870, 327K)

I don't think OP is an Ancap, his answer will probably be different from yours.

But by your understanding, then, the "right to life" is really just a right to not be killed by another person. If some other outside force, such as a disease or natural disaster, threatens to take your life, you don't have any right to live. You only have as far as your money and resources will take you.