Is libertarianism a cuck ideology?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RihMEpGhOL0
>>78794829
Nationalism is cuck ideology, libertarianism is about individualism, nationalism is about holding your sugar daddy dictator's hand all the time.
>>78794829
Libertarian is the ultimate ideology and is the least cucked
>open borders are OK
Yes.
Cucks enjoy being subject to dominant authority.
>>78795003
/thread
>>78794829
as long as you're the stefan molynoux type who knows to keep the brownies out
>>78795003
Truth, nationalism is the ideology of worthless faggots.
Nationalists think even though they are worthless pieces of shit who never succeeded in any way in their pathetic lives, that they are still innately superior because some rich people happen to live in their country.
Yes. They support letting society turn to degeneracy. They support open borders.
>>78794829
No, it's not a cuck ideology, but it's a bad one because it denies patriotism.
>>78794829
Time to break the lolberg circle jerk.
>>78795476
Since when? There's even a "national libertarianism" branch, but libertarianism by default is about freedom of thought and overall personal freedom, the nationalism is about "you can't do this and that".
>>78795699
>"b-but its Jews man!" argument
No, it's individualist. Despite free markets being best for everyone in society, probably the thing you could most attack libertarians for is being "selfish".
So, you tell me, is it cucked to pursue self-interest and throw off all forms of affronts to freedom or is it really cucked to tie up your entire identity in a race and geographic area where you were born and then crowd around a benevolent dictator with basically socialist policies (except in national interest, you guys!)?
>>78795372
Confirmed as not knowing what the word nationalism means.
>>78795476
Nigga how tf does it deny patriotism?
>>78795699
Of the main 4 schools of economics:
Monetarism (Friedman): Jew
Austrian (all): Jews
Marxism (Karl Marx): (Jew)
Keynesianism (Keyness): non-jew
It's ironic the school of economics that benefits mostly Jews was created by a non Jew. Also remember, are intel·lectuals Jews (not neo-nazis) who have the strongest arguments against the Jewish Mafia, like Bobby Fischer.
>>78796002
This guy gets it.
>>78795438
The man quoted in OP's video and pictured in the OP pic was pretty famously against open borders, so I feel like you aren't standing on shit.
Plus as far as real libertarians go (ancaps) Rockwell and Hoppe are arguably the most influential alive today. Both against open borders.
>>78794829
It's an awkward ideology.
The an Internationalist should be called a cuck, Libertarianism is often a stepping stone on the right wing track.
I think it was designed to make people believe in an end game, but they just made an ideology that is heavily subvertable.
Assuming we heavily deregulate the economy, International Organizations will come in, and hijack our democracy (even more so, than internal corporations have done), and buy most of our useful resources.
It also allows money to be printed by a private individual, and not the Federal Reserve. Which is a private company, with a monopoly on the American currency. Money manipulation tactics have given many groups International power. The Babylonians, Knights Templar, and Jews, all have/had experience in money manipulation. We need to focus on getting a true leader into power, one who can oversee the use of Government in a way that is beneficial for out people, and not in a leftist manner, that simply makes people do counter-productive things, to not feel useless.
As for the design of Libertarianism, I think it was designed, so that people on the path to truth would instantly hate the notion of a strong Government. Allowing leftists to retain the monopoly on Government they're trying to achieve. The belief that right wing is less government, and left wing is more Government, is a dangerous dialectic being forced onto the right wing.
The truth is that only with a strong, caring, and intelligent right-wing Government, can we ever hope to stop issues such as: degeneracy, open immigration, money manipulation, foreign harassment of citizens, and development of large infrastructure.
I do not hate Libertarians, I was once one myself. I merely observe that they do not consider the two paths of larger Government, and forget the fact that a right-wing Government is the only one capable of using both Capitalism and Socialism as tools, for the betterment of society.
>>78796250
A bunch of alt right memesters started as libertarians, and that's where people get this idea that it's some stepping stone. Historically, though, libertarians generally start out conservative and move libertarian and then eventually move anarcho-capitalist.
>The belief that right wing is less government, and left wing is more Government, is a dangerous dialectic being forced onto the right wing.
Personally I just believe it's history. Because historically, that's exactly what it means, genius. Conservatives have always been limited government. They never traditionally even liked warfare because it cost too much money. Fascism is arguably a form of socialism rather than a right wing conclusion.
>forget the fact that a right-wing Government is the only one capable of using both Capitalism and Socialism as tools, for the betterment of society.
The thing is that once the government "uses" capitalism, it ceases to be capitalism. Libertarians have often being economists or people from economics backgrounds for a reason. Because they know how free markets work and they know that just because there's a big business doesn't mean that's "free market capitalism." Government intervenes and you've fucked it up. It's not at all effective. Whether or not you think capitalism works is another story, but claiming you need government to "use" capitalism is legit retarded. And it shows that you were only ever a meme libertarian. You're the kind of retard that makes the whole movement look like a joke.
>>78794829
It's the ultimate redpill.
>>78795003
I have to wonder, are you always the same guy?
It's like there's always this polish libertarian in every thread mentioning libertarianism.>>78795048
>>78795003
libertarianism is about being a total slave to the jews and dynastic rich.
>>78795003
>>78795838
>>78795917
cuck
>>78795003
Libertarianism allows you to believe in anything that you want including nationalism. Nationalism doesnt allow you to pick certain stances. So, in matter of freedom, Libertarianism is pretty good.
>>78797024
>Australia
Okay, lets do this.
>
Personally I just believe it's history. Because historically, that's exactly what it means, genius. Conservatives have always been limited government. They never traditionally even liked warfare because it cost too much money. Fascism is arguably a form of socialism rather than a right wing conclusion.
Conservatives were originally Monarchists. The furthest right you can go. Republicanism (the lack of a monarchy) something Libertarians support, is leftist.
>The thing is that once the government "uses" capitalism, it ceases to be capitalism. Libertarians have often being economists or people from economics backgrounds for a reason. Because they know how free markets work and they know that just because there's a big business doesn't mean that's "free market capitalism." Government intervenes and you've fucked it up. It's not at all effective. Whether or not you think capitalism works is another story, but claiming you need government to "use" capitalism is legit retarded. And it shows that you were only ever a meme libertarian. You're the kind of retard that makes the whole movement look like a joke.
I'm not suggesting the use of Mercantilism, or Corporatism. Simply a proper taxation that aligns with the laffer curve, and the allocation of income in a way to build infrastructure, protect the nation, and ensure the perpetuation of the people and Government. You seem to be under the belief that you cannot have a free-market and a strong Government. The fact of the matter is that you cannot protect your nation from outside monopolies without Government protectionism, therefore, we have already established a framework where Government is essential. And within a Conservative Government, we can carefully see where Government would be a blessing or a hindrance.
>>78798010
No. It's anti-nationalist
>open the borders
>>78797378
In what way? In what way is a political ideology that advocates limited to no government about being a slave, in any sense but particularly to jews? Because of capitalism? You realise without protectionism and all that other lovely fashy shit that fags like you get excited about, we wouldn't have giant corporations that are immune to shitty business practice and competition? Government feeds the jew banks. Banks that libertarians would have let die.
>>78798170
Not all Libertarian leaders believe in open borders
http://openborders.info/libertarians-views-of-immigration/
There are a lot of them who do, so probably makes the general view of libertarianism being in favor of muhammeds and others leeching on your resources. But there are libertarians who defend strict control on the borders.
>>78797024
>Historically, though, libertarians generally start out conservative and move libertarian and then eventually move anarcho-capitalist.
That's not the case for all. Some start out meme communist then move libertarian (eg. Thomas Sowell).
You can have open borders and be just fine if you end the welfare state 100% and allow people to properly defend themselves. The cucks are the ones who rely on government for personal protection. Degeneracy starves in a free market.
>>78794829
Around 15-20 years ago the Libertarian movement went from a constitutional conservative movement to a globalist commie retard movement
>>78795372
>>78795003
>Reddit level of understanding what nationalism means
>>78798148
>Conservatives were originally Monarchists.
Our left-right scale refers to economics. Hence why we have quadrants that add authoritarian/libertarian scales.
>You seem to be under the belief that you cannot have a free-market and a strong Government. The fact of the matter is that you cannot protect your nation from outside monopolies without Government protectionism, therefore, we have already established a framework where Government is essential.
Protectionism is trash and also antithetical to free market. It is inefficient as fuck. It is literally about protecting garbage businesses that otherwise would die because of how noncompetitive they are. So you just allocate resources to a wasteful business for what purpose? For a strong nation?
Also what the fuck do you even mean by "outside monopolies"? Monopolies in a free market only occur when a company is large enough that they can produce at a lower cost and subsequently sell at a lower price than their competitors. If someone manages to produce for even less, they can beat them. If that monopoly raises prices too high, someone less efficient will be able to produce and sell at a lower price. Companies can only get so large before they start losing efficiency, but other than that, the only reason they have monopolies is because they have the best or same product at the lowest price. Which is good. No one should have to pay more for a worse product or more for the same product because of some feeling of pride in their country. That's idiotic. It's also just a waste of resources. Citizens have less money for anything else.
You've betrayed your lack of knowledge about free markets by the very words that you use, so I still don't see why I should take seriously anything you have to say about libertarianism. It's obvious you were a shit libertarian.
>>78799259
It's why if I ever describe myself, it is always conservative with libertarian leanings. You can thank jaded liberals that just want weed for turning what amounts to "LEAVE ME ALONE, REEEEEEEEE!" into some pseudo-commie movement.
>>78794829
This guy is totally based.
![rm0mcm[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/DMhj8N0.jpg "rm0mcm[1].jpg")
It is the only redpilled movement. No other movement has entire philosophical and economic treatises written to create its basis. The only reason it doesn't gain ground is that most people are not intelligent enough to understand it and its solution. It is not fashionable and it it is not easily accessible.
For a society to understand libertarianism the average IQ would have to be in the mid teens. Until that happens it will be in the background.
>>78799259
>>78799812
Most of the guys at Mises Institute are good libertarians. People like Rothbard, Rockwell, Hoppe, etc, all are essentially conservative while being full blown anarchists.
I feel like you two just spend too much time on the internet, though. Aside from the lame shit on the internet and the fags that parade through Libertarian Party conventions, most spokesmen are pretty much traditional. The biggest libertarian podcasters and speakers and economists are usually quite conservative, even of the Christian Libertarian bent. The idiots have always been a loud uneducated minority.
>>78795098
Who says open borders are libertarian?
I'll slap that bitch down right now, we want heavily restricted immigration and ONLY for jobs we can't find anyone to do or is being trained to do.
We want a universal basic income.
Basically you can have a social security system or immigration, you can't have both.
Libertarianism is good though a lot of famous libertarian minds use nazis as a boogyman to shit on nationalism when in reality you need to be in a controlled environment for libertarianism to work. a democracy will lead to socialism as the poor masses realize they can vote thier way out of poverty so too will a free society be over run over time by collectivism.
We must embrace a national identity, national boarders and some way of banding together against threats be it a republic or what have you.
Libertarianism is a pipedream
Libertarianism with a dash of nationalism gives you a system close to that the USA had at its inception and it would be nice to return to that.
>>78799767
>Protectionism is trash and also antithetical to free market. It is inefficient as fuck. It is literally about protecting garbage businesses that otherwise would die because of how noncompetitive they are. So you just allocate resources to a wasteful business for what purpose? For a strong nation?
Protectionism as in protecting against foreign companies.
>Also what the fuck do you even mean by "outside monopolies"? Monopolies in a free market only occur when a company is large enough that they can produce at a lower cost and subsequently sell at a lower price than their competitors. If someone manages to produce for even less, they can beat them. If that monopoly raises prices too high, someone less efficient will be able to produce and sell at a lower price. Companies can only get so large before they start losing efficiency, but other than that, the only reason they have monopolies is because they have the best or same product at the lowest price. Which is good. No one should have to pay more for a worse product or more
Outside monopolies, as in companies in foreign nations that have used cronyism to gain a monopoly. They could easily come to the United States, and gain almost complete hegemony over any market, then start racking up prices.
This is protected against, with protectionism. Unless you're talking about every country in the world being Libertarian, which is just the same situation as Communism, where you need to control the entire world, or else other countries just outright beat you.
>You've betrayed your lack of knowledge about free markets by the very words that you use, so I still don't see why I should take seriously anything you have to say about libertarianism. It's obvious you were a shit libertarian.
That's fine. I just mean to inform you, what happens happens, whether or not you are a part of it. Simply remember to question your beliefs.
>>78799767
I think the best coherent explanation of right and left is right = order, left = disorder or reordering.
Private property is orderly and public ownership is disorderly, with a constant struggle for power over property.
Libtardians are 15 year old pseudo-anarchic pussies.
>>78799521
>>78800621
That's disingenuous.
>>78800349
Nah, I just need to get the hell out of universities. Though, I do prefer the identifier of "Classical Liberal" over "Libertarian"
>>78800516
Libertarians advocate for something so decentralised that if it were achieved, I don't see how it would lead back to some collective system. Libertarians aren't against communities, but they just want ones with voluntary association.
>>78798965
Yes and shit like Miley Cyrus and similar is product of government intervention.
You dense cunt.
>>78800571
A monopoly that is granted by dictate is not an effective company and would not be able to capture foreign markets.
>>78795838
>nationalism is about you can't do this and that
>Rule of law is bad
>Rule of law isn't a cornerstone of libertarianism
>Having a strong community and national identity is bad
You know how mad you get when people assume libertarianism is anarchy? that's what you are doing with nationalism.
Nationalism doesn't need to be Nazism.
>>78794829
>muh individualism
>muh jewish bootlicker
>>78795003
>libertarianism is about individualism
That's what makes it liberal trash you special snowflake
>To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them. He is proud of a common heritage and loyal to common traditions. But he regards government as a means, an instrumentality, neither a grantor of favors and gifts, nor a master or god to be blindly worshipped and served. He recognizes no national goal except as it is the consensus of the goals that the citizens severally serve. He recognizes no national purpose except as it is the consensus of the purposes for which the citizens severally strive.
>The free man will ask neither what his country can do for him nor what he can do for his country. He will ask rather "What can I and my compatriots do through government" to help us discharge our individual responsibilities, to achieve our several goals and purposes, and above all, to protect our freedom? And he will accompany this question with another: How can we keep the government we create from becoming a Frankenstein that will destroy the very freedom we establish it to protect? Freedom is a rare and delicate plant. Our minds tell us, and history confirms, that the great threat to freedom is the concentration of power. Government is necessary to preserve our freedom, it is an instrument through which we can exercise our freedom; yet by concentrating power in political hands, it is also a threat to freedom.
find a flaw, /pol/
>>78800516
Agreed, anon, though there definitely needs to be a stronger emphasis on keeping the federal government bound by its restrictions and to stop exploiting any holes.
> libertarianism is about individualism
> falling for the myself jew
There's no individual m8.
Only nature and your volk.
>>78800392
I challenge you to find a Libertarian party that doesn't support some form of open border or close to it immigration policy.
>>78800661
Well, they are all certainly hedonists.
>>78799521
Care to elaborate?
No, I didn't think so.
>>78796002
Is it cucked to care about yourself so much that your nation is just dirt with some buildings on it to you?
The cuck is self-absorbed too, he cares about cummies and things being "hot". He doesn't care about progeny, his family line his history or anything long term.
You need a dash of nationalism to keep any system going. If they don't care it will fall into disrepair.
>>78795003
Libertarianism is cool as an idea but once you graduate high school you'll realize that peaceful anarchy is not possible. At least right now. Nationalism is just a step towards smaller organizational units, which is a good thing. There is a sweet spot somewhere between globalism and tribalism that we have to find and the resurgence of nationalism is a step in the right direction.
>>78795003
libertarianism is about holding your sugar daddy corporation's hand all the time
Don't argue seriously with lolbertarians or anfags, you are only legitimizing their "movement" here. Just have fun in this threads
>>78796041
>Keynesianism benefits mostly Jews
>The German economic miracle was the result of Keynesian spending
Nice try cuck
>>78801352
>Don't argue seriously with lolbertarians or anfags,
>Implying leftist haven't refused to address an argument nearly 100 years old which has completely and utterly deconstructed their entire ideology
https://mises.org/library/end-socialism-and-calculation-debate-revisited
Yes, libertarianism is a lie. Every libertarian is too lazy to study his own proposition, every libertarian knows that he is a rhetorical prick, avoiding any serious debate while jumping in easy picks. They have a way to hide facts and avoid effort while expecting everyone to say that they are not crazy. Well, hurray, libertarianism can only be voted by a dumb population, yet it can only work if we are all geniuses, enjoy being the next big retarded thing after communism. Your ideas are fulled by your lack of morals and extrospection, you are an autist lost in ideas unable to look at the world around you nor plan anything due to your a small forehead, that is why you don't like plans and government. You are the fake-right, you are the liberal without a mask, you are the scum of the Earth who opposes good. Farewell
>>78794829
See, with lolbertarianism we could have some zones where being a cuck is illegal (whitopia) and some where being a cuck is mandatory (interracial breeding grounds).
Libertarianism meme thread?
>>78801576
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0042366
Libertarianism is indeed proved to be the manly and rational ideology.
>>78801560
Here are some links to it
https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/2ir3ev/has_anyone_written_a_book_debunking_the_economic/
>>78798170
Saying that libertarians are for open boarders is like saying all right wingers are for mass 3rd world immigration.
It's patiently false and only sypported by people who are using thier political alignment to subvert.
>Neocons
>Globalists
>Left wing libertarians (impossible btw)
>>78801620
yes
>>78801576
>Every libertarian is too lazy to study his own proposition
Libertarians have questioned everything, from epistemology and metaphysic, all the way to the way history is interpreted. These are all main steam topics in the libertarian movement.
Low IQ /pol/ lurkers on the other hand, like yourself, keep yourselves busy with whatever fashionable topic is at hand.
>>78800571
>Protectionism as in protecting against foreign companies.
You just close the country off from competition and inevitably give the companies in your country no good reason to innovate because they have nothing to drive them. It's possible you'll have innovation, it's more likely all the other countries on earth will surpass you and you'll have a lower standard of living. If these companies can't handle the pressure of foreign competition, they don't deserve to exist. If they rise to the occasion, the consumers benefit.
>Outside monopolies, as in companies in foreign nations that have used cronyism to gain a monopoly.
That kind of cronyism doesn't mean anything overseas, though. They may have used cronyism in their country to gain an advantage, but without a state enforcing their monopoly, it doesn't really help them in foreign markets because their state can't enforce that monopoly elsewhere.
If you're talking about backing by foreign governments, deep pockets filled with other people's money doesn't necessarily make a good business. Governments are pretty shit at everything they do. I don't see how being in bed with government doesn't weigh them down. If they are in bed with government, it can only be to artificially grow the company, to, as in your protectionism, prop up a company that can't survive on its own. An organisation like that, no matter how big it is (even "too big to fail") in invariably inefficient and a massive drain on resources. Any free market could compete. Not a problem at all.
>That's fine. I just mean to inform you, what happens happens, whether or not you are a part of it. Simply remember to question your beliefs.
I'm almost 30. I've questioned my beliefs many times and I'm pretty secure in them.
I admire what nationalists are aiming for. You have the ideal, you use a series of bad economic policies in service of this ideal. Except you all pretend like the policies are actually good rather than means to ends.
Is libetarianism is to anarcho-capitalism is what socialism is to communism?
>>78801801
>Saying that libertarians are for open boarders
Of course they must be for open borders. Closed borders are a distortion of the free market, and infringe on the NAP principle
Any non-libertarian on /pol/ doesn't have a clue about what libertarianism is.
So at least try to be useful fucks and post snek memes, thank you.
>>78801468
>The German economic miracle was the result of Keynesian spending
Do you have zero knowledge of what the German economic "miracle" was?
The German government was praised by Keynesians all over the west (before they inevitably had to start invading neighbors to sustain their Keynesianist bubble and they acted like socialist running damage control "t t that'snot what true Keynesianism is) for their massive government debt spending
>>78801960
Libertarians believe in property rights, if you own the land the conditions of entering that land is up to you.
>>7879509
You don't have to have open borders, that's not like a cornerstone of libertarianism. There are variations my friend.
>>78801784
Yeah the thing is that they haven't debunked it.
They've tried but the closest "debunking" was just the injection of capitalist market forces into "socialism" which have still failed historically.
The fact that you have to link to a sad sad Reddit thread and not any reputable journals is just digging the hole further.
https://reason.com/archives/2005/01/21/the-man-who-told-the-truth
>>78801931
>That kind of cronyism doesn't mean anything overseas, though. They may have used cronyism in their country to gain an advantage, but without a state enforcing their monopoly, it doesn't really help them in foreign markets because their state can't enforce that monopoly elsewhere.
>I don't know what China is
>You just close the country off from competition and inevitably give the companies in your country no good reason to innovate because they have nothing to drive them
Or maybe you just close the country to unfair competition. There will always be a incentive to improve, because even in a protectionist environment, that means shit when exporting. So any company will want to innovate simply to stay competitive in a worldwide scenario.
>If they rise to the occasion, the consumers benefit.
And if they don't?
>>78800756
There's nothing stopping it from becoming collectivist, no internal mechanics unless you are expecting to have laws that protect the libertarian society and prevent people from being ruled by anything other than the small central and smaller local governments.
And now we are seeing why nationalism and libertarianism can coexist
>>78802015
Libertarians are driven by the idea that they would do well in a libertarian world, much like the guy who comes to school dressed as Naruto thinks he could "totally like, kill everyone in here" with a katana.
>>78802015
>open borders needed for a free market
>would lead Marxists operate without restriction
>most of its thinkers have been Jewish
All that anybody needs to know.
>>78801046
Absolutely
>>78802111
Out of curiosity what happens when someone buys all the land around your house/shops/workplace and charges you insane amounts or denies you entry
>>78801959
Pretty much. They are too dumb to know that communism is pretty much the same thing as ancap. They will vigorously defend one, while attacking the other as impraticable, lol.
>>78794829
>Is libertarianism a cuck ideology?
Yes. It has never been anything else. Literally the political ideology of the coward.
>>78802279
>Or maybe you just close the country to unfair competition
>Unfair
Is a meaningless political term that can means absolutely anything which is precisely why it is used.
>>78801960
>and infringe on the NAP principle
No, they don't. Jesus, when will this meme end. The NAP only says you can't initiate violence. Stop making up shit that doesn't even make philosophical sense. If someone attacks me, under the NAP I can shoot them in self-defense. If I can do that, just maybe your dumb fuck interpretation of it relating to open borders is wrong?
>>78795372
You have no idea what nationalism means. It sounds like you're projecting too. Read a book and come back when you turn 18.
>>78795003
What's wrong with having a sugar daddy?
>>78802415
>They are too dumb to know that communism is pretty much the same thing as ancap.
Ancom is attacked because outside of the family unit or above around 100 people it absolutely falls apart due to the calculation problem and is then necessitated by force to continue to exist.
>>78801784
Using "market socailism' and trying to rationalize prices for goods without competition is not debunking. It has been almost 100 years and there are still no answers.
>>78802402
Physical removal, and that would never happen anyway.
>>78802111
>Libertarians believe in property rights, if you own the land the conditions of entering that land is up to you.
And who owns the state? Of course open borders are the natural result of a libertarian society. Closed borders == strong state
>>78802266
>Yeah the thing is that they haven't debunked it.
If you refuse to read about authors that tried to debunk, of course "they haven't devunked it"
But i sincerely couldn't care any less.
>>78794829
Yes, unless it's Hoppe libertarianism.
>>78802786
>violating the NAP
So why are you infringing his rights to buy up property in a consensual bilateral aggrements? Why are you denying the man the right to charge tool for passage in his private property? Are you a commie?
>>78802710
>>78802804
>>78802804
>If you refuse to read about authors that tried to debunk,
No I have read their arguments and they've failed.
I can 100% guaranfuckingtee that you have never ever read "Human action" or even more basic Libertarian works such as "the law".
>>78801960
>Not letting you punch me in the face violates the NAP
No, punching me would violate the NAP, just like having invaders enter would violate the NAP before not letting them in would.
Fucking shit lefty pol, just keep on proving libertarianism and Leftism are mutually exclusive
>>78802804
>And who owns the state?
I'm not talking about the state, I'm talking about land owners.
>Of course open borders are the natural result of a libertarian society.
No, its not.
No, but a lot of libertarians are cucks.
>>78802804
>And who owns the state?
The monarch.
>>78802786
But doesnt that violate NAP ?
Removal of whom ?
>and that would never happen anyway
I beg to differ, most new housing developments, gated communities and rental areas are owned by single companies effectively giving them massive tracts of land they can prevent people from entering/exiting.
What would prevent me from shutting down a competitor by buying a strip of land in front of their entrance and building a brick wall there.
>>78803001
>>78802804
And if you actually read the link which js a very short summarization of the misean arguments and the attempted counter arguments as well.
And even then the adoption of market systems as "market socialism" is just a delusional concession that socialism is literally impossible but still trying to hold onto it.
>>78803001
read the 2nd sentence
>>78803010
See, the land owner can refuse entry. But the other land owners can admit entrance. Unless you buy all the border property.
>>78803009
violate the NAP as in a private land owner wanted to let some immigrant come trough his lands, but the state wasn't allowing him to.
>>78802959
>violating the NAP
If you take someone up in your hot air baloon are you suddenly able to change you r mind and throw them out? No, you are required to give them safe passage. The same goes for someone that chooses to enclose someone on their property.
Additionally you are referring to a situation that would never happen due to the ability to ostracize people that do such things.
I am aware of those works, they do nothing to debunk the calculation problem. The most they can be called is mental exercises.
>>78803272
>What would prevent me from shutting down a competitor by buying a strip of land in front of their entrance and building a brick wall there.
What prevents you from.using government to do the same thing at significantly lower cost to yourself?
The thibg with this inane hypotheticals is that cost is what stops it.
It is easier and more profitable to compete than to spend huge amounts of capital to stop competitors which is only practical when you're using the force of the State to extract the funds to do so through force.
>>78803312
read the 2nd line
I'm not a socialist. I couldn't care less about your "le socialaist caucuation puobuem xD"
Go discuss it with people who actually know about the socilaist calculation problem and done some work on the socialist side, don't just keep screaming the same old shit to a echochamber.
>>78803403
>read the 2nd sentence
Then you're just admitting that you don't care about any logical debate and are being a dogmatic cunt.
>>78803403
That would assume letting someone into the country only affects the person who let him in
It doesn't.
>>78803272
No, just like if someone take you up in their hot air balloon suddenly trying to throw you out is not part of their property rights. You have the right to physically resist.
>I beg to differ, most new housing developments, gated communities and rental areas
We don't have a free market or an anarcho capitalist world at the moment, so that doesn't follow, but ill work with you. In a modern economy people rely on the fact that they can exchange with others, ostracizing people will stop people from doing harmful things in an anarcho capitalist society.
>>78803403
>See, the land owner can refuse entry. But the other land owners can admit entrance. Unless you buy all the border property.
Yeah, I didn't say that wasn't the case.
>>78803645
>Go discuss it with people who actually know about the socilaist calculation problem and done some work on the socialist side, don't just keep screaming the same old shit to a echochamber.
It isn't an echo chamber when the other side did just wrong.
It's like saying everyone is part of an echochamber for saying the earth is round and calling flat earthers retarded isn't justified.
> I'm not a socialist.
And pray tell us what you are then.
>>78803527
>evading the question
I understood that safe passage thing as allowing someone to pass trough my private property if i firstly allowed him to enter my private property. But that is not the case that>>78802402
presented
So safe passage is a guarenteed right to anyone? Well, therefore, open borders
>Additionally you are referring to a situation that would never happen due to the ability to ostracize people that do such things.
Wishfull thinking
>>78803952
>Wishfull thinking
Name me one example of that happening in the American frontier which had no government and for all practical purposes was ancap
>>78803952
Ostracizing people stops them from doing undesirable things in the first place. I misread the original question and thought it was referring to someone actually in someones property.
>>78794829
lib-chan a cute
A CUTE
>>78803548
>What prevents you from.using government to do the same thing at significantly lower cost to yourself?
Nothing despite the books full of laws relating to reasonable entry and exit, trespassing, fire codes, the building appeal processes etc.
>It is easier and more profitable to compete
No, oh god no it is not.
I work in the food industry doing biochem QA and HACCP plans.
The cost of innovation and competition is astronomical, 94% of our products dont leave the RnD lab, and 72% of those that do make it out fail to meet projections. This one dairy company alone is employing 36 teams around the country to compete, with almost everyone in the teams on a 100k+ salary.
The cost of innovation and competition is unyielding as other companies attempt to compete as well.
It would be far cheaper, probably by several orders of magnitude to simply buy out the surrounding land and deny entry to delivery trucks.
>thw the left leaves the thread so there are no longer any softball questions to answer
>>78803691
>>78803645
>>78803797
So? You gonna sue him for allowing safe passage in his own lands? What are you, a commie? A nazi?
>>78803930
>Yeah, I didn't say that wasn't the case.
Therefore, open borders?
>>78803942
>It isn't an echo chamber when the other side did just wrong.
If you think that there are people here well versed on the socialist side of the economic calculation problem who can discuss it with you, you are very wrong. And if you think mises offers a accurate account of both sides, you are just retard. I don't know, but maybe even /leftypol/ or some commie blog would be a good place to argue with well versed people.
>It's like saying everyone is part of an echochamber for saying the earth is round and calling flat earthers retarded isn't justified.
When there aren't people to discuss it, then yes, it's a echo chamber
>And pray tell us what you are then.
nationalist
>>78801182
>Thinks nationalism is the same as fascism
>Thinks nationalism means you think your atomatically superior than people of another country
That sounds exatly like something a redditor would say
>>78804085
>Name me one example of that
of what?
>comparing american frontier with modern society
>>78804108
>Ostracizing people stops them from doing undesirable things in the first place.
Law does it, you retard. societal pressure works only up to a point. You can't expect that a well behaved society will last solely due to "societal pressure". I will give youy a example of amrican frontier, like this guy said >>78804085
>>78803930
Ok, but out of curiosity if you die in this confrontation would the person who killed you rightfully gain ownership of your land?
>so that doesn't follow
It doesn't follow that people own large amounts of land at the moment, and that in the future it is likely that many people will still own large parcels of land and that some of them will cause problems for others due to entry rights?
>ostracizing people will stop people from doing harmful things in an anarcho capitalist society
Out of curiosity, why do you think that this will work ?
It doesn't work right now, many of the most hated companies and individuals are filthy rich and make massive amounts of money.
And is it possible for everyone ?
Like sure, you can ostracize davo the useless bum with no detriment but what happens when someone who provides a vital or highly used service starts being a cunt ?
>>78801342
You don't know how libertarianism works do you?
>>78804299
That picture still doesn't make sense no matter how many times it's posted. It's Statism when a government holds power over people by a monopoly of power. You can't rob people as an individual, in a Statist or an ancap society. Ancaps would frown on you initiating violence to get what you want. If by "holding power" you mean I own an item I won't let you use or I own property I don't want you standing on, then I guess. But that feels like a pretty poor excuse for power. Get your own shit. Property is not even a new concept.
I also love how you think it's possible for people to build immense power and abuse it in a truly free market. There are other people around, you know. There's competition and then there's also a community of people who can exercise power in the opposite direction if someone oversteps or uses aggression. Where exactly do you think this guy gets his power from? He has no legal authority like a state. He can only do what his property and person allow.
>>78804482
>Therefore, open borders?
No, like I originally said it is up to the land owners. Closed or open, or whatever, they are totally compatible with libertarianism.
What I personally think would happen is a different story.
>>Pinochetian-Minarchism
>>not superior
I think you guys need helicopter rides.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhrYY3ocQ5o
>>78804297
>Nothing despite the books full of laws relating to reasonable entry and exit, trespassing, fire codes, the building appeal processes etc.
Again that didn't answer my question.
Government violates laws selectively enforces them and outright writes favoritist laws constantly.
isntisnt just some hypothetical this is happening around you as we speak.
> No, oh god no it is not.
Everything else you listed is ignoring the entire concept of return and looking at one side of the equation.
>>78804482
>If you think that there are people here well versed on the socialist side of the economic calculation problem who can discuss it with you, you are very wrong
Considering that not a single socialist has ever addressed the argument in any capacity is a clear demonstrating that there is no counter arguments
Just intellectual dishonesty.
It is the same as arguing with flat earthers.
They will spout the same tired fallacies and then claim all rebuttal as "biased"
> When there aren't people to discuss it, then yes, it's a echo chamber
No when one side us categorically wrong at every level everyone calling the retarded isn't an echochamber it is just accepting truth.
You're saying not denying truth ina. Delusional fashion is "an echochamber".
You could also say science is an echochamber because they all agree that the speed of light is 299,792 l,458 m / s
> nationalist
By itself isn't a political ideology
And if you claim NatSoc it also fails due to calculation problem
>>78796250
>I merely observe that they do not consider the two paths of larger Government, and forget the fact that a right-wing Government is the only one capable of using both Capitalism and Socialism as tools, for the betterment of society.
>The belief that right wing is less government, and left wing is more Government, is a dangerous dialectic being forced onto the right wing.
Correct, that is a false belief, Right/Left is not about Government size, this is libertarian propaganda. The idea the people go from Conservative to Libertarian to Anarcho-Capitalist is also a wide spread lie that can only be spread within minds that outside of reality. In fact, young people are more liberal/libertarian and old people are more conservative, people go from the love of freedom to the love of order as they become mature citizens.
Most libertarians are horrible people with deluded minds asking for attention with their childish bullshit. They are incredibly rude, they are cousins of commies/liberals/gibsmedat who just happen to be on the other side of government benefits. They are nation breakers, they will divide a kingdom for a fap
>>78804683
>societal pressure works only up to a point
In a modern economy you require the cooperation of other people to continue living. If you choose to be ostracized you will not have the ability to do what evil you wish because you no longer have access to the resources needed.
I don't want forlorner examples. Its up to you if you want to provide them or not.
>>78804683
>comparing american frontier with modern society
you would benefit from reading "The not so wild, wild west"
>>78804683
>comparing american frontier with modern society
>I don't like historical parallels so I'll just categorically dismisthem
Wouldn't it have been extremely easier to find that predicament due to the lack of modern technology which unchains humanity from these issues?
> Law does it, you retard
See
>>78804949
>Government violates laws selectively enforces them and outright writes favoritist laws constantly.
>isntisnt just some hypothetical this is happening around you as we speak.
>>78795003
Libertarianism is a nice roadway to be obsolete though.
Is the best synthesis is Patriotism?
>>78805168
>Leftist
>Reading
>>78804841
>It's not open borders because i can choose that nigger cannot enter my property
>"But you rent an apartment"
So it's open borders?
>>78804949
>Considering that not a single socialist has ever addressed the argument in any capacity
I linked you a Reddit link that had 10 or more link to information.
>Just intellectual dishonesty.
>Speaks the guy that refuses to argue with well versed people on the subject and keeps on screming to his echochamber
Small fish in a small pond makes the small fish look big. If the small fish goes to the big pond, he gets eaten.
I didn't even read the rest of your post. Whatever man
>>78804482
>You gonna sue him for allowing safe passage in his own lands?
Yes, the person he lets in can no longer be entirely his responsibility because he is a free man. And therefore I would have no other recourse to fix the root of the problem.
>>78804949
>ignoring the entire concept of return and looking at one side of the equation
You have clearly never entered the coprate world or worked a job that included the production or sale side of manufacturing.
Innovation provides negative return if there is no competition.
If you have tomato and are the only person who makes tomato, spending time and money to make tomato +1 is pointless. There will be no increase in total sales as the consumer base has not increased neither has the demand for the product.
You product may be slightly better but you now have to cover the cost while competing with yourself and you old product.
Its fucking retarded.
>Again that didn't answer my question.
I did answer your question, but you are asserting that the government does not enforce them unevenly and that is something i have neither the time nor patience to go into.
>>78794829
Yes, they are in 90% like leftists but the diffrence is, libertarians love corporations
Free-market classical liberalism is the backbone of western society. Thy only cucks out there are ones who praise how much they love paying taxes and being under the state since they think it's the "price of civilization".
>>78804542
Go on then, what does nationalism mean?
>Believing your country is the best no matter if it does bad or good.
>>78794829
>posting a jew
>not a cuck
Cuckoldry is a jewish tradition and creation. Of course it will be.
Hoppe is so goddamn based.
Rothbard was a lot better than most people here seem to think.
https://mises.org/library/nations-consent-decomposing-nation-state-0
>>78794829
HANG THE BUREAUCRATS
>>78805059
>In a modern economy you require the cooperation of other people to continue living
No, you need money. Do you know where you are? 90% of the people here are friendless neets without friends, and some of them are hated by their families. They live thanks to neetbux or handouts by the family
> If you choose to be ostracized
What happens when the sole water supplier to my whole town starts to act like a dick? I will ostracize him? And loose the acces to water? Do you guys know what power even means?
>I don't want forlorner examples.
But the fact that your snowflake ideology can't answer these little examples bodes well. I have yest to hear a good explanation to the roads, for ecamle
>>78794829
Libertarianism can only exit in a world without commies, leftists, jews, feminists, niggers, and mudshits.
>>78805228
>>78805168
>comparing a pre industial society to modern society
Do you guys even have any concept of history?
>I don't like historical parallels
What historical paralels?
>>78805556
based anon
>>78805468
>I linked you a Reddit link that had 10 or more link to information.
Which I already explained and the arguments made are directly rebuted in the first like I posted
Posting 10 different flat earth videos isn't going to refute any single scientific evidence of the earth clearly being round.
> Small fish in a small pond makes the small fish look big. If the small fish goes to the big pond, he gets eaten.
Which isn't a valid metaphor.
Nit a single socialist scholar in 100 years has addressed this argument in a sufficient matter. The biggest fish in the entire ocean is still Mises work on the topic which has gone unopposed for almost 100 years.
The few who have attempted which you linked to have failed as demonstrated by history.
The few who have been honest have adopted Socialism(link related) for different means and quite frankly antihumanist means which js quite ironic considering that socialism is supposed to be the champion of the poor working man and antihumanism wants to eliminate quite literally all people who aren't important enough
https://reason.com/archives/2005/01/21/the-man-who-told-the-truth
> I didn't even read the rest of your post. >Whatever man
>A leftist
>Not reading things that are assaulting their delusions
Color me surprised.
>>78805476
Good luck with that. The man broke no "law" when he let the man enter his property.
>>78795098
>posts Milton "Crush National Socialism So We Can Have Open Borders" (((Friedman)))
based kike
>>78806303
That's how he goes. When he's cornered, he either disregards your post or says "argue with someone who actually knows about this". It's a waste of time debating with the guy.
Libertarianism is best if you have enough nationalistic pride to care about your country.
>>78805540
>Innovation provides negative return if there is no competition.
Which is a good thing that without government enforced monopolies has never ever ever been an issue in human history. Even at the height of "rampant Rover barons" like Rockefeller controlling basically all of the oil market he only did so because he was able to provide oil for significantly cheaper than all his competition.
> but you are asserting that the government does not enforce them unevenly and that is something i have neither the time nor patience to go into.
It isn't an assertion it is the reality you live in.
One of the mist concrete examples is licencing laws which were developed under the false guise of "consumer safety" but were pushed by people already in x feild to stop and limit more competition into their field.
Provided smaller businesses are prioritised and that employees are seen as more important than employers, libertarianism and free market economies are most advantageous to those who can compete. Competition is dangerous only for the weak who can't, the strong (or rather intelligent) have the most to gain.
This is why meritocracy is bigoted.
>>78806558
>When he's cornered
I'm not cornered. I couldn't care any less about that shit.
>argue with someone who actually knows about this
What is wrong about this? I'm not pretending to be a know it all. I am saying to him clearly that i don't know anyhthing about it, and "arguing with me" is useless. He just wants me to get in a argument i don't know anything to "BTFO" me.
> Small fish in a small pond makes the small fish look big. If the small fish goes to the big pond, he gets eaten.
>It's a waste of time debating with the guy.
In this matter, yes
>>78801152
http://www.libertygb.org.uk/
Not very hard familia
>>78805815
Rothbard has written much so it's easy to cherry-pick two sentences to say anything.
He also changed opinions in the course of his life. Not on principles but on extremely intricate concrete questions, like rights of children or air pollution responsibility, which is typically what you quote for strawman rather than principles.
>>78806116
>Do you guys even have any concept of history
>Said the leftist
Also
>Wild west
>Pre industrial era
>Calling others ignorant of history.
> What historical paralels?
That whole anacho capitalist society we're discussing.
Do you have the short term memory of a fruit fly?
W
>>78807274
That's because you are a rational man using industrial society to mean mass investments in innovative technologies and equipment and a preponderance of joint stock societies.
In his mind "industrial society" probably means some caricature like A Tale of Two Cities about extremely dense urban centers with obvious pollution and a striking contrast between richer and poorer from street to street.
Daily reminder that the last and ultimate stage of red-pill is Hoppe libertarianism
>>78805969
>No, you need money
The innovation of crowd sourcing already shits on this
> Do you know where you are? 90% of the people here are friendless neets without friends, and some of them are hated by their families. They live thanks to neetbux or handouts by the family
That sounds like personal psychological projection if I've ever seen it and isn't prudent to the conversation at all.
> What happens when the sole water supplier to my whole town starts to act like a dick?
The only examples of this are government monopolies.
You're assuming that one man would control litteraly the entire world's supply of water which is argument ad absurdum.
You live in a world where water is bottled halfway around the world and transported and sold at an easily affordable price for a significant portions of the population of the world.
> yest to hear a good explanation to the roads, for ecamle
Then you haven't tried
Argument Ad ignorantiam just makes you an admitted moron not less wrong.
>>78807795
I like Hoppe as a masturbatory fantasy. At this point I think he doesn't give a single fuck about easing the way to converting people and has just gone absolute madman.
>>78806925
>What is wrong about this? I'm not pretending to be a know it all. I am saying to him clearly that i don't know anyhthing about it, and "arguing with me" is useless. He just wants me to get in a argument i don't know anything to "BTFO" me.
No I'm telling you that not a single socialist scholar has ever addressed this argument nor refuted it.
It isn't playing on your ability to address it or not the "greatest" socialist scholars and minds have never been able to debunk Mises's calculation problem
>>78806680
The whole point is that by buying land you would be able to create monopolies by denying competitors access to land, resources, supply chain routs, customers etc.
>without government enforced monopolies has never ever ever been an issue in human history
Thats a pretty bold statement to make. Im pretty sure the first guy who made a spear had a damn good monopoly on sharp sticks. And if you ignore the fact that the initial sate of a new market is a monopoly followed by a period of rapid competition.
But if you mean in the last few hundred years it hasn't been a real issue, you would be right depending on your view of many early infrastructure projects.
But you know what is an issue ?
Oligopoly, in my country 2 companies hold over 70% of the market share for supermarkets with the next nearest competitor holding just 7% of the market share. They have a long history of price collusion and price gouging to destroy smaller competitors.
Do you want to know why they go to such lengths to maintain an iron grip over their customer base ?
Because innovation is fucking expensive and its far cheaper to squeeze other competitors out.
When both the easiest and most effective way of squeezing competitors out is buying land, what do you think will happen ?
>It isn't an assertion
Yes it is, it is the very definition of one.
Calling it an assertion does not imply it is wrong or right, that is what you have decided to think.
>>78801960
Borders don't violate the NAP.
>>78808018
>The only examples of this are government monopolies.
What happens when 7/11 or the local gas station decides that 30 dollars a gallon is a reasonable price ?
Anywhere that isnt a city with many gas stations would basically be fucked right ?
So there would be massive incentive not to piss off the guy who owns an essential service.
>>78808429
>The whole point is that by buying land you would be able to create monopolies by denying competitors access to land, resources, supply chain routs, customers etc.
Which has never happened even when the ability to do so was there because it simply isn't a feasible strategy for making money.
> Thats a pretty bold statement to make
No it isn't it is reality.
One example is ISPs where local governments made it so only one could legally exist in any given area
>>78800964
This is image is retarded.
When you are able to distinguish positive and negative rights from each other come back to /pol/
>>78807274
>>78807602
So inventing definitions is OK in /pol/?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_society
>In his mind "industrial society" probably means
What it means. Check the link above
>>78808018
>The only examples of this are government monopolies.
>The only examples of this are government monopolies.
Because capitalism always existed hand in hand with a strong state.
>You're assuming that one man would control litteraly the entire world's supply of water which is argument ad absurdum.
No, just enough to control the water supply to a small town, for example. Read the posts, don't strawmen them, please.
>You live in a world where water is bottled halfway around the world and transported and sold at an easily affordable price for a significant portions of the population of the world.
>let me wash my clothes with bottled water
>>78808965
>Which has never happened even when the ability to do so was there because it simply isn't a feasible strategy for making money.
It's like people never heard of the colonial era. Frenchmen set up a regular land registry over half of North America with virtually no government actually capable of enforcing anything. No one had this problem.
>>78808965
>Which has never happened even when the ability to do so was there because it simply isn't a feasible strategy for making money.
Well it does happen as well in my country, bunnings buys out large plots of land to prevent masters (a competitor hardware store) from building on them as the box stores require a lot of space.
They just leave the space empty so masters cannot compete.
If its already profitable, why would it become any less so in the future when land would provide more power and the ability to deny entry regardless of the size of the obstruction.
>No it isn't it is reality.
Thank you for completely ignoring everything below that, i will return the favor.
>>78795003
Being a nationalist is wanting whats best for your country, promoting and advocating for a strong leader whilst retaining personal freedoms and morals.
>>78801620
Great bait.
By forcing your child to stay in and starve to death you are violating the NAP yourself and therefore are subjected to violence yourself.
>>78808201
>No I'm telling you that not a single socialist scholar has ever addressed this argument nor refuted it.
And i don't give the singlest fuck about it.
But keep screaming in the echochamber
>>78808512
You are denyng a man the right to grant safe passage by his lands to anyone he pleases
>>78809592
>>78804931
>the n.a.p doesn't apply to commies
my fucking sides
>>78804931
>>78810118
see and save >>78807795
Let's teach these degenerates a lesson
>>78794829
It's things like this that make me believe there is hope for the future
>>78810890
Godders is based.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzPBn5SLcxE
Depends on the policies.
If you support multiracialism, multiculturalism, feminism, homosexualism, etc., you are a cuck, no matter what other beliefs you have.
Plenty of self-described libertarians oppose these things (though there's some doctrinal twisting and turning required), and plenty of people who oppose these things support basically libertarian policies in other spheres.
a mix of both is correct
the founding fathers had it right B]
>>78807795
Not really true for me. I was never 1, started at 2, thought my way to 5 on my own (anarchism -> strongest community defence/private security/gang rules -> microstates, inevitably), read a bit (Hobbes, Evola, etc., and some blogs) and synthesised 4 with 5 (but I've always been very strongly monarchist, even before I had any political views), read a bit more and now I am fully 4, but recently I have been thinking that 3 is the only way to get there in the modern world. And yet as far as democracy goes I am stuck supporting the 1s for the time being.
Yes.
It's a step above your average liberal as it tries to cement its ideology on solid foundations, but ultimately it is based on the same nihilistic materialistic principles of modernity where man is understood in purely economic terms.
>>78806430
He's just stating the obvious remark.
You can't have open borders if you're going to have a welfare in any sense.
Also, you can't have freedom without capitalism.
It's not the other way around.
>>78814203
Why shouldn't he have said, "Open borders are incompatible with the welfare state, and we should have neither."?
The way it was worded strongly suggests that he wanted open borders.
>>78801468
You mean "ordo-liberalism" after the fall of the Reichsmark?
Nice try cuck.
>>78802033
This
Germany was like Venezuela today. Inflation, price fixing, regulations, bureaucracy.
Oh but unemployment was down and GDP up. Who cares? if you can't buy groceries.
>>78796250
>We need to focus on getting a true leader into power, one who can oversee the use of Government in a way that is beneficial for out people, and not in a leftist manner, that simply makes people do counter-productive things, to not feel useless.
Just tell me where to find this perfect person who will not fail in any circumstance and can actually have all the information necessary to run the country in a perfect manner.
Protip: there's no Santa Claus.
>>78800964
Dirty moor logic 101
>>78814382
From an economic standpoint it makes no sense to have closed borders. You get an always increasing amount of labor supply who can fill the jobs as your population specializes.
Thus why free immigration was a good thing for the US before the welfare state.
He's just trying to get to the root of things.
Hell, even I don't oppose open borders, but they can only be done if we end the welfare state first.
Doing them both is going to ruin any country.
>>78814203
>Also, you can't have freedom without capitalism.
wat?
>>78814483
>>78802033
I think he meant the german economic miracle after WW2
>>78815583
Yep. It's simply true.
>>78815726
It was not a keynesian miracle.
It was ordoliberalism, heavily influenced by Mont-Pellérin society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordoliberalism
>>78806356
>Willfully letting invaders into your county isnt a security issue
Why wouldn't there be a law against that?
>>78815912
>Yep. It's simply true.
>Because i say so
>>78815955
>>Willfully letting invaders into your county isnt a security issue
No, they are just disadvantage economic migrants that are trying to have a better life. What are you, a Trump?
