where does our brass, lead, and copper come from?
I'm beginning to think neo-mercantilism wasn't such a good idea.
ore from mines dug up by jews probably
>Society is one person
How they came to such a conclusion about society reflects their own unstable mind.
That image was clearly made by an angsty tranny. You don't even have to try to read these people.
There is nobody more transparent than anti-freedom nutters. They are the quickest to strawmen, the least educated and philosophical, the least politically active, and generally, they hold some form of cuck delusion about whatever magical utopian ideology they're patron to despite being willing to do nothing to achieve said ideology. These are of course generalisations, but they apply to NEETsocs, commies, NAZBOL GANG, and several other groups in mostly equal measure. That said, there are people who believe in national socialism, et al and aren't retarded, who can make good on discussing politics and other related topics without resorting to shitposting, buzzwords, paranoia, and robotic spam, but they are a dwindling minority on this site in the last two-ish years. We're in a long tunnel.
It helps to remember these are usually the same blackpill fags going 'turn your guns in goy the government has tanks you won't fight' in literally every thread. They don't even care that they stick out because self-awareness is the virtue of someone who needs to think.
Holy fucking shit that was difficult. I expect compensation for my five seconds of labor. Bitcoin is accepted.
That's another five seconds of labor OP's paying me in Bitcoin for. You see that, OP? This faggot's reaching into YOUR pocket by being a stupid faggot. Pay up. I expect 10 bitcoin cents or ash ketchum's or whatever they're called in the mail by Wednesday.
>misinterpreting the whole point of the image
It's to counter the argument that nobody should criticise gays and trannies for being degenerates because it's none of your bussiness, thus completely ignoring their cancerous effect on the society which even non-degenerates are part of, dipshit.
>misinterpreting the whole argument
I doubt you'll find libertarians who'll defend gays and trannies from criticism here and there are plenty of them who'll be the ones who' call them out on their behavior, with some even basing their theory on that, like Hoppe, for example. The actual argument would be that you're free to dissociate with them and leave them to their own demises, proving that their degeneracy is harmful the most clear way but that'd only apply to a society where people are free to dissociate with each other and not being forced into one big "collective".
You're talking to a nigger who's literally so dumb that he thinks libertarians are anti-freedom of speech. Just ponder that for a second. These are real human beings, who are this stupid in real life.
>You're talking to a nigger who's literally so dumb that he thinks libertarians are anti-freedom of speech. Just ponder that for a second. These are real human beings, who are this stupid in real life.
>"real" lolberturdianis squeezing their HR pool ever tighter while their mainstream representatives go full cuck and "anti racist"
>libertarianism means Gary Johnson, right?
Yeah, and national socialism means Richard Spencer. Reported for sub-70 IQ.
Tariffs, in the long run, always end up fucking over the consumer to the profit of the local cronies who asked for it, most often because the locals cannot or are unwilling to compete with the foreign market in some way. Money that is forced to stay local due to tariffs ensures that prices don't come down faster since there's not as much incentive to improve; additionally, other trade goods that may not have a tariff may not be ordered in further quantities since a greater portion of profit was directed toward the "protected" class of crony capitalists. It may be that the entire point of driving home these shenanigans is to drive down the price of non tariff charged items (from lowered demand) to the benefit of those who profited from cronyism.
Henry Hazlitt wrote of the above here.
In general, with the exception of objective law (don't hit, don't steal, don't defraud) whatever a government sets out to achieve, it will do the exact opposite. Gun control ban attempts gave gun manufacturers a shot in the arm from enormous spikes in demand. Wars on drugs left columbian drug lords as more powerful than some governments. Common core to raise standards lowered everyone's bar to a sub 70 IQ nigger. The non-voluntary state is your enemy.
> he thinks libertarians are anti-freedom of speech.
>implying they aren't
Nope, the government of the USA is just fucking shit at all.
You want gun ban, you want drug ban, you look at Singapore. They do it and thoroughly.
The US government exists to make money, they lack morality and the will to get things through.
> the least educated and philosophical, the least politically active, and generally, they hold some form of cuck delusion about whatever magical utopian ideology they're patron to despite being willing to do nothing to achieve said ideology
Are you okay? Whole lot of projection there buddy.
I dunno, the lolberg does quite a lot
>I doubt you'll find libertarians who'll defend gays and trannies from criticism here and there
Most lolbergs are retarded enough to have nothing against fag marriage; not only marriages are sanctioned by a third party, God via proxy of a priest, or a statesman, so state sanctioning a union between two people should be against the very principle, and secondary, marriage exists to create a stable environment for offspring, sodomites are incapable of creating it
>Wars on drugs left columbian drug
Because war on drugs is waged by DEA against CIA assets.
Duterte's implementation seems to be going much more smoothly.
Richard Spencer is totally all about that faggot.
If we are quoting twitter lolbergs, let's post the gay twitter nazis.
inb4 not our nazis
>this one fag on twitter mentioned the free market while kvetching about fox news
>therefore, kvetching about fox news is a central tenet of lolberg philosophy
Are you retarded?
>Most lolbergs are retarded enough to have nothing against fag marriage;
That literally isn't true. You do realize most lolbergs are social conservatives, and don't fit the low-effort strawman Eric Stryker fed you, right?
>so state sanctioning a union between two people should be against the very principle
Yeah, that's exactly what lolbergs say.
Nazis (and their yid brothers) argue by strawman.
But if you bring up the bad nazis, they will say they are not nazis.
They never, ever own up to their mistakes.
>The non-voluntary state is your enemy
Is there any other kind?
What the hell does a voluntary state even look like? You have armed men in uniform come to your house and take your money, maybe make you lick their boots a little? Maybe build a community democracy shrine with a ballot box for
prayers votes to be turned in? Have a bake sale to support invasions?
>post from actual person self-identifying as a libertarian
>expressing legit libertarian argument
Nice logical fallacy, McFake and McForgery.
Honestly, I can see the idealistic virtues of NatSoc, and if someone wants to buy into that for their personal life or their own society, more power to them. However, this site is full of utter shitbrains who are incapable of talking about or arguing in favour of NatSoc without making a mockery of themselves. But that won't change my views away from libertarianism, won't affect what I believe in any way, won't turn me into one of their hilarious caricatures they have to argue against in order to have a point, and won't help them achieve anything in real life, so it doesn't hurt my feelings. It is funny, though.
>implying the image is aimed at 8ch resident lolbergs
>implying I said anything about freedom of speech
The "not your bussiness what happens in people's bedroom! They're free to fuck whoever they want and deserve the same rights!" spiel is the most common argument for gays and trannies. In fact, it's repeated so often in their defense ("it doesn't involve YOU so why do YOU care you fucking homophobe?") that I don't believe for a second you aren't familiar with it.
>Most lolbergs are retarded enough to have nothing against fag marriage
Most lolbergs are against marriage as a legal institution that state uses to hand out privileges. Whether to allow it as a church ritual is up to the church and its priest, while otherwise a contract between these people has nothing to do with you unless they are trying to interact with you directly. And many libertarians, again, would not want to do anything with a couple of fags regardless of some bigger fag in the government sanctioning it or not and therefore would refuse any interaction, cooperation or contracts with the members of the group. Just like many would with autistic obese strawmanning children.
>legit libertarian argument
>implying the image is aimed at 8ch resident lolbergs
It was posted, responded to and it all turned into a shitshow. Again. There are many people in the world calling themselves "libertarian", even "libertarian socialists" or other leftists exist, yet you don't draw an equation between the two, for an obvious reason that they are completely different and actual libertarians can clearly explain that these fags are nothing more than another brand of leftists hijacking another popular term, all while remaining leftists before all.
>deserve the same rights
Libertarians will tell you that any "rights" are either privileges granted by the state or an extension of property rights, granting you rights to speak, create and act the way you want to as extension of your rights to your property and limited by it. But you seemed to only imply that libertarians use this assertion, so if you don't, i don't think that libertarians have much to do with the debate.
Every time I meet a person calling himself "libertarian" (or any other variation on that term), he says something entirely different from all the others, and I don't mean "well we aren't a hivemind" kind of different, but "We have absolutely nothing in common" kind of different. Fuck, in fact, let's take YOU, for example. You tell me that a proper lolberg would have nothing to do with faggots, yet the Libertarian Party of Russia is massively pro-faggot. To this you will argue that they aren't the TRUE libertarians, but they obviously present themselves as such, and it therefore should come as no surprise that an attack on their position will be an attack on "libertarians" because that's what they call themselves and how they are generally regarded. It should thus come as no surprise to see a meme mocking pro-faggot libertarians, even if you think that no such thing exists.
Your argument on the topic is also flawed, see here:
>a contract between these people has nothing to do with you unless they are trying to interact with you directly.
This implies that just because you refuse interacting with a group, said group will have no effect on you. In reality, said group can easily have an effect on your surroundings (and thus you) and on the laws of your country, thus clearly impacting your life. In fact, it does not even need to be imposed by government – even their private initiatives, such as plastering homo propaganda on every billboard in sight or opening a gay club near where you live will have noticeable effect on your life, even if there is no direct contact between you and the fags in question.
Not him but…
>Every time I meet a person calling himself "libertarian" (or any other variation on that term), he says something entirely different from all the others, and I don't mean "well we aren't a hivemind" kind of different, but "We have absolutely nothing in common" kind of different.
This is because the only thing that connects libertarians (classic, ancaps, ancoms, etc) is the shrinking of government and growth of liberty. They all differ in what they are going to do with the liberty. So there are gay lads that want to get rid of money, or the capitalists who want to run mercenary groups. The only thing that connects these is the lack of government regulation.
>a person calling himself "libertarian"
I agree, the term has become really broad. I've been using the term in the context of the board though, not in terms of normalfag vision.
>You tell me that a proper lolberg would have nothing to do with faggots
Not necessary, a proper lolberg wants nothing to do with marriage, as it is a legal construct, while support or opposition to gays is more of a moral matter, not economical or political one. I just pointed out that rejection of fags is not uncommon among the libertarians, especially on this board.
> the Libertarian Party of Russia is massively pro-faggot
I'm not much into Russian politics but i'm pretty sure they aren't even registered so it's basically a shapeless movement so abundance of leftists would show up a lot more. Unfortunate but Russian politics is such a shitshow i don't even want to mention it.
>they obviously present themselves as such
It's not a matter of devotion to a group of some status symbol, but rather the acceptance of non-intervention principle and application it to the broad specter of situations. A leftist that actually just wants to help people(workers, poor etc) and is actually not authoritarian(assuming we can call him leftist at this point) could have more in common with an ancap than some libertarian party member that's in there for the weed because the leftist, despite wanting to aid the poor, doesn't view theft as a means to his goal(so he starts a charity NPO, for example), while "libertarian" neocon will sell out the moment anyone will offer him anything.
>This implies that just because you refuse interacting with a group, said group will have no effect on you
Again, i have pointed out that this cannot be properly applied to today's society due to forceful integration of all its members into a united organized structure. It's done via taxes, social security, laws, rules, authority figures and even the currency they use. With all these things, of course a tranny living off of your money does impact your life and it spreading its diseases costs you not only its medical checks but the appearance of other such parasites as well. If this wasn't the case and we actually had freedom of association(and dissociation), you could've organized into a separate localized society that would reject any contact with any group you'd deem unfit. Such goals could easily find support among concerned people and you'd probably find easier and happier life among them. That's basically Hoppe's concept of covenant communities.
I don't know how your twitterfag is and I don't care. I don't see any "legit libertarian argument" either, unless you assume anyone who invokes the magic words of "free market" is now a libertarian.
<implying the image is aimed at 8ch resident lolbergs
Then why was it posted here?
>…and deserve the same rights!
The only rights libertarians care about are "don't touch my shit or I shoot you." That doesn't entitle fags and poopdick to any kind of equal treatment.
>Every time I meet a person calling himself "libertarian" (or any other variation on that term), he says something entirely different from all the others
Wow, it's almost like arguing for or against various "-isms" without bothering to define what you mean by those terms is an exercise in futility.
>This implies that just because you refuse interacting with a group, said group will have no effect on you. In reality, said group can easily have an effect on your surroundings
If you're not interacting with them, how are they part of your surroundings? They've been physically removed from your community.
>on the laws of your country, thus clearly impacting your life.
I actually agree with you here. And to that end I'm in favor of preventing poopdick and socialists from having any kind of political power or influence, because it has very clear effects on my property and person. But this question is irrelevant in ancapistan because there are no federal laws for poopdick to influence.
> In fact, it does not even need to be imposed by government
>such as plastering homo propaganda on every billboard in sight or opening a gay club
Except those things are imposed by the government. It's because of the Civil Rights Act being passed that the landowner is forced to lease the nightclub space to fags even if he doesn't want to, and it's also because of the Civil Rights Act that billboard owners are forced to sell adspace to fags even if they don't want to. Tell me, why do you think we never had problems with fags until the 60s? It's not because there were RWDS lurking in every corner to take them down, it's because private entities were free to discriminate against faggotry, and the problem fixed itself.
>Then why was it posted here?
How would I know? Ask OP.
>If you're not interacting with them, how are they part of your surroundings?
If I see a guy choking on dick, and choose to simply turn away and not interact with the pair of homos, I can still clearly hear the fag swallowing cock. He's still part of the surroundings.
>They've been physically removed from your community.
"Not interact" and "physically remove" are different things.
>Except those things are imposed by the government. It's because of the Civil Rights Act being passed that the landowner is forced to lease the nightclub space to fags even if he doesn't want to
Not all countries in the world have such laws, yet faggotry is still being promoted there. Government imperatives like these help fags, but to say that without them they wouldn't get any influence would be untrue.
>How would I know? Ask OP.
This pic actually implies that this point is made not just by a random libertarian, but by an ancap, which is a lot more specific and so it seems like it's just another retarded strawman.
>"Not interact" and "physically remove" are different things.
Assuming there is a gated community that limits those who are allowed to enter it physical removal after breaching the agreement is perfectly valid.
>Not all countries in the world have such laws
No country would allow you to create such a community and anything close to "physical removal" is castle doctrine, which applies only on your own property. You've actually given a great example of this - you see guys fucking on a street so you want to isolate yourself from them and to do that you could try to"
a)kill them, resulting in commiting murder and going to jail or being shot by the police
b)ask the owner of the roads you use to forbid that, which won't happen because the road is either government owned or is controlled by government contractor who's not going to listen
c)ask them - doesn't really work
d)create a gated community that would have its own inside rules that it'd require its members to follow - aside from doing that being hardly possible because of all public infrastructure being controlled by the government, it won't allow you to organize even if you manged to create an independent settlement with all the basic necessities supplied, as it'll want to tax you, control your decisions and will not tolerate competition in running people's lives, resulting in attack on it under the name of multiple charges: from gun manufacturing and tax evasion to breaking laws and its own due process(the one that involves their own courts), and would result in your society being overrun by overwhelming forces of government agents, as it was done with much less radical attempts before. So, you're not only economically limited to accepting what the government and its big industries offer you but are also legally obliged to not step outside of the controlled space they've created. Even if you manage to acquire some walled district and try to modify it to your needs(already within government standards and regulations), government will not allow you to manage it yourself, forcing its own legalities on your communities, introducing limitations and removing restraints you try to uphold, so your first attempt of physical removal or conflict would introduce officials in it, messing all things up.
Basically, your best bet in that situation would be to limit the contacts, i.e. choose a job where your boss won't allow any fags, drive yourself and pick proper places and isolate yourself from them within these constraints, even if this is inconvenient and does look like fleeing from the problem rather than coming up with a proper and reliable solution but that's just the sad state of things with current states today and there's not much more that we can do about it, until something changes the balance of things once again.
Sorry if it's not very comprehensive, i'm a bit tired and need sleep so i'll have to go now.
The premise of such an isolated community is confined to the realm of fantasy and wishful thinking, as I can assure you no such thing is going to happen, as such an isolated community will itself form a government upon reaching sufficient size so as to enforce the values due to which it was created in the first place. Alternatively, it will be eliminated by a different isolated community due to resource competition.
Seeing as how living in such a community is not a possibility, wouldn't it thus make sense even for a libertarian to try and fight against the elements that impact his life negatively despite those elements not being present in his idealised society, simply because said idealised society will remain just an idea?
> It's because of the Civil Rights Act being passed that the landowner is forced to lease the nightclub space to fags even if he doesn't want to, and it's also because of the Civil Rights Act that billboard owners are forced to sell adspace to fags even if they don't want to.
But they can't do it for Nazis and (((anitsemits))). Glaring double commie standards. Every time you finger to state they took your arm with abuse and misuse of authority (who would've thought huh?) .
>spermutt ban evading like a rat
It is likely not a gook but some mutt who racemixed in the rice field and is now stuck there. Happens all the time.
>such an isolated community will itself form a government upon reaching sufficient size so as to enforce the values due to which it was created in the first place
Yeah, and there's no way an armed citizenry could ever stand up to the feds. We should just give up our guns now and start bootlicking. Even if this bald assertion of yours was true, it isn't an argument, and does nothing to contradict the points that have been put forward. By saying this ideal can't exist instead of addressing the arguments, you're implicitly saying that the arguments are valid if this ideal can be attained.
>wouldn't it thus make sense even for a libertarian to try and fight against the elements that impact his life negatively despite those elements not being present in his idealised society
Yeah, it does, and that's what most of them do, same way lots of WNs vote republican instead of sitting back and waiting for Magic Mustache Man to rise from the dead and lead them.
Also, side note:
>Alternatively, it will be eliminated by a different isolated community due to resource competition.
This isn't just wrong, it's Marxism. Going to war over resources is only something that really happens outside of democratic regimes that spend other people's money, because the war will almost certainly be more expensive than the spoils. This is one of the reasons why the democratic 20th century was so bloody, whereas war in the feudal Middle Ages, in which war was funded by kings' personal treasuries, consisted of low-intensity skirmishes, or one army parking outside the castle of another army until one side ran out of food and a treaty was signed.
>Spergkraut 2: Autism Boogaloo is allowed to shit up literally every thread with his /intl/ niggardry
>Spergook is banned for some reason despite him being part of board culture
Is Ausmod a saboteur?
back to /liberty/ with you kike
>freedom is Jewish
>Jewry is based
You sure showed me, man.
>Yeah, and there's no way an armed citizenry could ever stand up to the feds.
This premise, though unlikely, is at least theoretically possible and has precedent. Isolated communities staying as such and not getting rolled over does not have precedent and I don't see how they would be sustainable even in theory. You're mixing apples and oranges.
>By saying this ideal can't exist instead of addressing the arguments, you're implicitly saying that the arguments are valid if this ideal can be attained.
You didn't address my argument either, thus, I take it, from the logic you used, that you accept that your ideal is literally impossible, even in theory. As such, your arguments are invalid by default, as they argue for an impossibility.
>Going to war over resources is only something that really happens outside of democratic regimes
I assume you meant "rarely" instead of "really" since I don't think you'd be so retarded as to say that democracies don't go to war over resources
>because the war will almost certainly be more expensive than the spoils
That is both untrue and works with the false premise that the only resource of worth is money.
>whereas war in the feudal Middle Ages, in which war was funded by kings' personal treasuries,
Personal treasuries that were filled by people's taxes. How the hell else do you think royalty got their money?
>consisted of low-intensity skirmishes, or one army parking outside the castle of another army until one side ran out of food and a treaty was signed.
They were less bloody because there were less people, there wasn't mass manufactoring of weapons so actually equipping troops was more expensive, and because a significantly larger percentage of populace needed to stay at home to produce food, to name a few reasons.
>libertarianism, an ideology founded by jews
Yeah, freedom for kikes
>mercantilism, a proven successful economic policy, embedded into european history since the 15th century, is jewish
braindead, probably some mutt iphopping
Yeah I remember when I was a lolberg shitposting on /k/ 6-7 years ago. Unfortunately times have changed.
>libertarianism founded by the Jews
>th-those British bankers were good English men, not foreigners!
You really do believe everything you read on nu/pol/, don't you? Can you understand these words or should I make an unverified infograph to convey my point in a more comprehensive, child-friendly fashion for you?
>spermutt/gook is a freech poster
Funny how the nazi get triggered by the word Nazi.
Fuck is "freech"?
Yep, the nazi LARPer is a white nigger.
Hitler spits on you.
Damn son I haven't heard that in a long while. I thought those fuckers got scattered to the wind, I guess not.
Hardly apples and oranges. The core idea–that ideals are worthless just because the end goal is hard to attain–is very much the same, and that's what I'm addressing here.
> Isolated communities staying as such and not getting rolled over does not have precedent
They do have precedent, several actually. I'm intentionally not invoking them because it's a lazy way to argue; everything is "without precedent" until some pioneer sets the first precedent. If your only reason not to support something is lack of precedent you're just saying you're too afraid to try new things and want to stay in the safety of the overton window.
>You didn't address my argument either
What argument did I not address? Your argument was to ignore the idea of a propertarian society because there are no examples of it, which I very much addressed.
>I assume you meant "rarely" instead of "really" since I don't think you'd be so retarded as to say that democracies don't go to war over resources
Yes, I meant that democracies were the only regime to ever bother doing this.
>That is both untrue
It's hardly untrue, it's practically tautology. War is always a net loss of resources, and I'm not just talking about money, I'm including all things in that. It's the reason that the ooga-boogas tribes in Africa who always went to war with one another never got anywhere, and the Euros who favored trade and cooperation were able to build up enough surplus wealth to conquer most of the world.
>How the hell else do you think royalty got their money?
You're missing the fundamental difference between monarchies and democracies. The monarch sees his realm as private property and treats it as such. He wants to preserve it in the long run, and to that end is willing to accept a lower payoff now in favor of a higher payoff later. The democrat is only in control of the nation for a short period of time, and has no incentive to preserve the nation's productivity in the long run, because the short run payoff is the only one he will receive. Thus, even though both are nominally collected by taxes, the monarch's treasury is "his," and spending from it is a personal drain on him, whereas the democrat's "treasury" belongs to other people, and he harbors no sacrifice from spending it. Ergo monarchs, and by implication, private property owners, are more frugal, less likely to throw resources into destructive conflict, and more likely to seek cooperation.
>They were less bloody because there were less people
I'm not just talking about raw kill-count, I'm talking about the tactics used and the nature of war as well. The idea of total war and murdering civilians wholesale in regular battle was much less common under monarchy and came about from democratic regimes–Sherman burning Atlanta being the prime example. Medieval wars were usually between the King of X and the King of Y, and their personal forces. Democratic wars are between the country X and the country Y, with all of the increased collateral damage that implies. This is getting somewhat away from your original contention however, which is that isolated communities would degrade into constant warfare. I suggest you give this a read: https://mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over
Just imagine getting permabanned for spam and then hopping IP with EVERY post.
As said, either paid for or freech/intl,
Does freech even still exist?
>Autismal IP hopping
>Using lolberturdianism as justification for spam
The org might be dead, but the members sure live on. Consider how spermutt gets off from saying retarded things then get curbstomped, I am quite confident the sperg menace never ended. Even evolved, quite frankly.
Don't worry, spermutt. "We" have a lot of ricemixer in our ranks too. But learning gookbabble shoddily is crossing the line.
Sorry spermutt, I don't claim speak nor understand gookbabble. So I don't run around claiming things without third party reference.
You on the other hand…
I guess this is the difference between aryans and orange'd banana republic monkeys.
>Vietnamese is actually my native language so I do know my shit.
Sure thing, spermutt.
>The core idea–that ideals are worthless just because the end goal is hard to attain
I am not arguing it is hard to attain, I am arguing that it is literally impossible. This sort of mentality is why leftists keep trying to estabilish communism, despite the ideal being literally impossible. If your ideal literally cannot be achieved, then it is a shit fucking ideal.
>What argument did I not address?
Any community adhering to certain values will need to either start enforcing those values after the original pioneers die out and the community grows to a sufficient size, or face losing their values as the new generation will have plenty of people disagreeing with said values and seeking to subvert them. Another argument is that should the community choose to remain small in order to avoid this dilemma, another, bigger community will simply conquer them.
>Yes, I meant that democracies were the only regime to ever bother doing this.
>what is colonialism
>what is imperialism
>what is the Roman Empire
>what is literally any empire in history
>War is always a net loss of resources, and I'm not just talking about money, I'm including all things in that.
That's simply not true. Even if we discount oil fields and similar high-gain resources and only talk land in general, consider: the cost it took for Turks to conquer Anatolia might have been high, but they have been taxing the land ever since. Centuries worth of taxes have already paid the cost of the wars over the territories hundreds of times over. War has thus been incredibly profitable in the long term; more profitable than any sort of trade agreement, as those tend to be temporary, whereas you will keep taxing that land forever, unless somebody else takes it through war.
>the Euros who favored trade and cooperation were able to build up enough surplus wealth to conquer most of the world.
Are you reffering to the fucking Brits? I hope you do not actually imply that Bongs favoured cooperation – they invaded quarter the damn world simply because they figured that TAKING spices from India is far cheaper than BUYING them, and that's just one example. If anything, the British empire is a perfect example supporting my point, as war for resources was the main cause of British expansionism.
>You're missing the fundamental difference between monarchies and democracies.
Actually, I agree with you on this, since I've always been a proponent of monarchy over democracy, and I agree with your take on the difference of values and incentives, however monarchs have, historically, also been prone to wars of conquests because, again, wars can be immensely profitable, ESPECIALLY in the long term.
>I'm talking about the tactics used and the nature of war as well.
A lot stemmed from different technological levels.
>The idea of total war and murdering civilians wholesale in regular battle was much less common under monarchy and came about from democratic regimes
This stemmed from the appearance of nationalism. Medieval and early modern peasants weren't concerned with their nationality – they cared little which monarch ruled over them (they did care a lot about his religion, however). Murdering peasants during conquests would thus simply mean you killed some of those obedient serfs generating your income, so it wasn't done. With the appearance of nationalism, however, that stopped being true and the conquered peasant started being unruly. Now, that alone would not be that big an issue, as some peasants can't do much, but it became used as a casus belli by other powers to dismantle your nation, as well as becoming a fifth column ready to aid the enemy against you. With this change of the game board, slaughtering civilians became entirely logical and even necessary if you wished to bring long term stability to your country. This is thus not a democracy/monarchy thing. If you do not believe me, just look at what late Ottoman Empire did to its minorities.
Why do you report me?
For a moment I thought I was at the half chan.
I have also given https://mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over a read and I must said I found it almost comical in its naivety and idealism. Its very premise is that
>people in this society would act like X and have values like Y
which, really, just renders the entire argument pointless, as this premise is false (I did read the rest of the paper, however, so do not tell me I discarded it too quickly). This premise is literally the same as the one communists have, about proper communist society having the worker have these proper values and all that bullshit, and just like communism, it simply will not work due to the same reason – you cannot change the nature of man. The paper argues that the majority of people in an ancap society would have some sort of inherent desire and respect for a free market and for the rule of law. They would not. Or rather, they would have it, but only as long as it benefited them, and would be willing to immediately throw it out the window should a better deal come their way (which, in a way, is also a free market of sorts, ironically enough. Free market of ideas).
Let's take the example of the city of New York, that the paper describes.
>Imagine a bustling city, such as New York, that is initially a free market paradise. Is it really plausible that over time rival gangs would constantly grow, and eventually terrorize the general public? Remember, these would be admittedly criminal organizations; unlike the city government of New York, there would be no ideological support for these gangs.
Is the author unfamiliar with the very concept of gangs? Does he imagine that they are formed by some hardline ideological core seeking to rebel against society? The "ideology" of a gang is "we want take other people's shit because it is easier for us to take that it is to earn (be it through lack of skill, laziness, or even job market situation". That's really all the reasons a gang needs to exist and it will be a very convincing pitch to recruit people with. After all, why should Tyrone work a year in an assembly line to save up for a TV, when he can just break in and rob some guy he doesn't even know and have enough money for two TVs in a single night? The notion that crime needs an "ideological support" to exist is thus laughable – all it needs is a promise of wealth, which it something that it can always, ALWAYS offer.
>We must consider that in such an environment, the law-abiding majority would have all sorts of mechanisms at their disposal, beyond physical confrontation. Once private judges had ruled against a particular rogue agency, the private banks could freeze its assets (up to the amount of fines levied by the arbitrators). In addition, the private utility companies could shut down electricity and water to the agency’s headquarters, in accordance with standard provisions in their contracts.
This assumes that the criminal gang would literally be a private company with known bank accounts and assets, which I hope you can see is plain ridiculous. It also assumes that the gang has no ways to influence its surroundings – a private judge can be bought, intimidated, or even killed. A bank has no reason to freeze a client's assets just because he's unpopular – why would it do that? A bank that would declare it'll freeze nobody's assets even if he's a baby killing cannibal would immediately gain a competitive advantage, as it'd provide an assurance that you will always be able to reach your money, regardless of what happens.
finally, the paper even admits its position to be flawed, albeit grudgingly:
>Of course, it is theoretically possible that a rogue agency could overcome these obstacles, either through intimidation or division of the spoils, and take over enough banks, power companies, grocery stores, etc. that only full-scale military assault would conquer it. But the point is, from an initial position of market anarchy, these would-be rulers would have to start from scratch. In contrast, under even a limited government, the machinery of mass subjugation is ready and waiting to be seized.
I argue that it is not just theoretically possible, it is practically certain as your system's safeguards are laughable. Should the gang be able to have sufficient power to dominate its community (which, seeing as how all that stands before it is "people want to be lawabiding and they'd sue" is practically a given), it's immediately become a government in its own right. Brutal, corrupt, and exploitative, but it might evolve into something akin to our current government in a few generations. We'd be back where we started, only with a lot more nations (due to there being a lot more gangs), which would then, thorugh centuries of warfare, again coalesce into bigger nations.
Of course, we needn't be worried about any of this, as this state of ancap society is not going to ever come about.
ban evasion, sperg and autism.
>Hopping IP every post to evade ban for 2 weeks now
>literally having no life that it buys extra mutt VPN just to stoke it's autism
the argument in that picture is retarded. They literally made 50 china lakes ever. They made around 1 million MG34/42s and there are 5 china lakes in private ownership in the US (that we know of) ;)
It was a pretty bad example, I admit.
I was poking every angle to expose spermutt. So thats the best I could do.
The point remains though
>Full auto military guns in NSDAP Germany: legal, no frill
>Spermutt trying to bait like a retard again
Find me a law that said it was banned 1938-1945 in NSDAP Germany for Germans.
So where is the law that said Germans are not allowed to own full auto weapons?
>None of this mention SMG or machinegun.
So they weren't regulated for Germans.
Find a law that said they were then the case is your.
>Find me a single picture evidence of a german civie owning a MG34 in Nazi Germany.
Why should I? I know it was not banned.
>Where is the laws that say they can?
>Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, and the possession of ammunition.
And since you can't speak German quoting you this link wouldn't help either.
You can try. I will just keep on reporting you for spam.
>why did not a single civilian possess it?
Prove it, kek.
>People didn't take pictures therefore they didn't own a camera
It looks like spermutt actually thinks most laws or all laws concern themselves about what is allowed and not what is regulated/banned instead.
Even the 2A basically means it BANS the infringment of gun rights. Not that it allows guns. Because that is what laws are, what is "verboten", not what is "erlaubt".
But you can find proof for your claim first that Germans under Hitler weren't allowed to own machine guns.
I only have the actual laws that existed. Sorry I can't find selfies for your autistic mind.
>I can't find proof for my case therefore your case didn't exist
One last report, BO, I promise.
Judging from the thread, you are.
Well? Why didn't they?
muh warrior nation
Yet no one fucking owned a MG34?
Good fucking god, BO clean up the spam please.
Spermutt destroyed yet another thread…
>Find somebody holding something otherwise the laws were not what they were
Spermutt is still ass ravaged, I see.
>implying the spam isn't the IP hopping nigger from cuckchan who can barely even speak English shilling every single thread
>implying you aren't the IP hopping nigger from cuckchan who can barely even speak Engliah shilling every single thread
Ausfag really has destroyed this board, holy shit.
You really think you convinced anyone :^)
>It is still ban evading
Ok, maybe the whole Chinalake argument was dubious.
How about you show us a Swiss casually using a full auto STGW 57 as a civilian at home?
I know I'm poking a retarded sperg, but this is entertaining
Proof anybody owns one?
How about a SIG550?
inb4 this dude is a CIA nigger in disguise
The burden of proof is in the person making the positive claim. You have to prove anyone did in fact own one, or else you're making shit up to fit a narrative. Quit switching VPNs and arguing like a Jew.
>Spermutt accusing people of IP hopping
>The burden of proof is in the person making a claim
I only know German laws didn't regulate machine guns in 1938.
Anyway, I WANT the picture of the STGW 57. You demanded the mg42 and mg34 in civilian use, yet most amerimutts didn't film themselves shooting a Maxim gun or using a Maxim Silencer during the time period either.
Funny how you tried to switch card. I made a mistake again trying to hold you on serious, honest level of discussion.
Reported for ban evasion.
>I only know German laws didn't regulate machine guns in 1938.
>Anyway, I WANT the picture of the STGW 57. You demanded the mg42 and mg34 in civilian use,
SIG550 is a selective fire rifle with full fun mode.
> I made a mistake again trying to hold you on serious, honest level of discussion.
So where is the honest level of discussion? Where's the proof?
This board is shit because of people like you, who have no substances, no content, and just spam and insult.
>support Trump to the hilt in 2015/2016.
>it's now 2018
>you finally realize that this man really could have saved us.
Rand Paul is still here.
Nothing said about SMG being regulated.
When the Maxim, both the MG and the silencer were sold, no law against them either. Where are the photos of mutts using them?
>SIG550 is a selective fire rifle with full fun mode.
No, I WANT the STGW 57, spermutt. I know your game, I want to see how far you can push your autism.
>So where is the honest level of discussion? Where's the proof?
Not your pilpul, apparently. Reported again for ban evasion.
I'm not that guy, you dumb schizo nigger. You really believe more than one person can't disagree with you at the same time? I'm not even going to (You), you've successfully ruined this board. Fuck this, I'm going to the bunker.
Everyone who isn't a samefag take note. This is how the Jew wins.
>Nothing said about SMG being regulated.
So why didn't anybody own one?
>When the Maxim, both the MG and the silencer were sold, no law against them either. Where are the photos of mutts using them?
There are plenty photo of american owning other machine gun. The point is the people OWNING machine gun, not any type.
>No, I WANT the STGW 57, spermutt. I know your game, I want to see how far you can push your autism.
Why? The point is proven, SIG550 proves that swiss can own full auto gun.
>Not your pilpul, apparently. Reported again for ban evasion.
The fuck is a pilpul?
>There are plenty photo of american owning other machine gun
Alright, where are those photos prior to 1934 and all the way to the first camera?
No photo? Bullshit. They were banned.
Where are the photos of americunts using Maxim silencers and MG in their private ranges? Until 1934 no laws against them and cameras were invented and circulated for decades.
No photos? merifats were not allowed to own them.
No, I WANT the STGW 57 during the time period it was issued. Let's go specific like you want, spermutt.
>Alright, where are those photos prior to 1934 and all the way to the first camera?
Pic is advertisement for Thompson in the 20s, completely legal for US civies.
>No, I WANT the STGW 57 during the time period it was issued. Let's go specific like you want, spermutt.
What? If you can't find a picture of civie-owned MG34, you are welcome to find ANY owned SMG or MG owned by germ civie in that period.
>Only an ad
Why didn't anyone made a photo of themselves legally shooting them then?
No photo, no reality.
Legal? Who said it was legal? Which law spefically allowed it?
The laws are about allowing things and not regulating things.
2nd amendment: ARMS, which include guns, and thus machine guns.
The ads prove that they were marketized and can be sold to civilian.
Where did the law said Arms mean machine guns? Which passage?
Why didn't anybody use them then? Fucking bullshit. No photo, no reality.
2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Arms, means weapons, including machine guns.
>Why didn't anybody use them then? Fucking bullshit. No photo, no reality.
People do, gangsters use them thorough the 1920.
Thats your intepretation, spermutt.
Where is the written law that said pew pew boom boom fast shooty are explicitly legal?
And no evidence that the gangsters used the thompson either. No photo in action. Bullshit. Not reality. Spermutt logic.
That's not my interpretation. That's the lawful interpretation of the country and its people.
And gangsters buy these guns legally.
The supreme court disagrees, which is how the ATF came to be and how the NFA is the standard.
So the official laws and intepretation are against your case. Fast shooty werent caught on camera either.
Mutts were not allowed MG. And definitely are not now.
Spermutt logic completed.
Now for the mandatory report for ban evasion.
>right to bear ARMS
<right to bear the ARMALITE RIFLE MODULAR SYTEM
And finally, I found a photo.
But these dudes could be FBI.
>The supreme court disagrees, which is how the ATF came to be and how the NFA is the standard.
The supreme court can go fuck itself, they revise the laws.
>Mutts were not allowed MG. And definitely are not now.
This is funny because machine guns are STILL legal in US, just very limited and super expensive.
No proof they werent feds.
Mutts confirmed cucked from thompson smgs.
Spermutt said you need to have laws that specifically said what you are allowed to use. Because apparently federal and national laws are about little things like that. Ask spermutt.
There's a fucking lever gun there so I really doubt they are in fact FBI.
So there, I find my proof. I find your butthurt entertaining.
>FBI agents in 1908 were forced to abstain from using cowboy guns for some reason
>Top FBI used a revolver
Anyway, no law specfically allowed cowboy guns either. Mutts were all using them illegally.
So you are going to dig it further? As said, the 2nd Amendment allows the ownership of ARMS, including cowboy guns and machine guns, and ALL other weapons.
>FBI agents in 1908 were forced to abstain from using cowboy guns for some reason
Well, they have their fucking rules, don't they?
>Well, they have their fucking rules, don't they?
Which rule? Doesn't exist, but take spermutt word for it.
>When Walter R. Walsh joined the FBI in 1934, he was in the first class of new agents to be officially armed. Prior to that class, agents often obtained commissions from local sheriffs and chiefs of police in order to carry a handgun. One wonders just how legal these commissions were, and what happened in cases when the gun had to be used.
Nothing against fbi pigs using cowboy guns.
Spermutt is just destroying threads now.
Akusually, infer from that, they need the sheriff permission in order to carry a gun at all.
I'm Swedish, and I am on a VPN all the time, honestly going on the internet without a VPN feels like fucking a 5$ hooker bareback.
>MUH RARE RESOURCES
The west is brimming with resources, we just can't extract them due to shitty environmental laws that don't even protect the environment. For example a corp here can despoil the earth and turn it into a wasteland, but they have to pay 10% more in
legalized bribery EPA licensing fees than they would in China.
Their continent was inhabited for tens of thousands of years, over which time they've been mining every inch of it. For the last 1500 years they've been using machinery to do the mining and even quarried fucktonnes of rock to build giant Maginot lines.
You really think there's more resources in any part of the world than a continent basically untouched by anything except stone age savages until a few hundred years ago?
Even the continent of Africa over which resource wars are fought, and which is ten times bigger, has less resources than North America.
Only Australia has comparable resources to North America.
The Libertarian party is:
1. Against the freedom of speech.
2. Against the concept of borders.
3. Pro Jew^.
It's all I need to know about the ideology not to support it.
^ or any minority group that vehemently hates the majority
>i hate jews
>youre a jew
Only a Jew would think the Libertarian Party is actually libertarian. They're neoliberals. Project all you want, but you're glowing right now.
>only a jew would think green is green, when green is clearly violet
What a Jewish sentence. It forces your enemy to either admit that jews are truthful for saying that green is green, or to actually adopt an irrational mindset just to separate himself from you out of disgust.
Even if the libertarian party got compromised, do you think I give a fuck? Libertarianism let its own political party get compromised, which makes you weak and pathetic, and not a philosophy I want to subscribe to.
The Libertarian Party was never libertarian. Do you think the Democratic Party was founded to promote and protect idealistic democracy? No, you intellectually dishonest faggot. Do you even know what the term 'controlled opposition' means? Libertarianism is at odds with even the idea of political parties, because those represent collectivism and ideological lockstep which are antithetical to liberty and thus defeat the entire point.
Read a book.
>Do you think the Democratic Party was founded to promote and protect idealistic democracy?
Actually it was, back when it stood for killing darkies and represented the majority of americans. The Democratic Party got co-opted as well, which is why I don't subscribe to the wishy washy philosophy of democracy any more than I do the faggotry of lolbertardianism.
>working together towards a goal is antithetical to lil'bert'sturdianism
It's refreshing to find a libertarian careless enough to be honest.
>Read a book.
What a stupid fucking argument, I have exhausted entire libraries. Starting around the age of seven and for the next three years, I read a book per week. Childrens books true, but books nonetheless. Twenty years since that I have read roughly an age appropriate book every two days. From that point on I've read a book every four days, due to constraints on my time from family and work. Without giving out my age, lets just say I haven't stopped since then and I'm not stopping anytime soon. I don't need some pathetic reprobate telling me to read when reading is my life.
This dude has a point, the Libertarian Party is absolutely kike.
Rand Paul is more libertarian then the Libertarian party.
This is why if we vote, we should vote on actual promises and policies, and less on party membership.
Largest turnout ever and only 42% of the country voted. The two main parties are split pretty evenly, which means every president since the fucking 1930s when we started counting voters, only has about 21-22% real support. Congress, at its best, has between 20-25% public support. Meaning you're being led around the nose by one in five people, more or less, no matter what type of government system you have. This is a law of nature:
A king and an aristocracy is LESS corrupt than a democracy, because a fucked up noble can be held responsible and assassinated whereas an anonymous democratic committee has no sense of responsibility and will replace people faster than you can even kill them.
Nobody says otherwise, but now democracy is a thing and we must learn to exploit it to turn it back to back to monarchism.
Reminder that democracy will always turn to autocracy, what matters is if the autocracy is good or not.
>Libertarianism is at odds with even the idea of political parties, because those represent collectivism and ideological lockstep which are antithetical to liberty and thus defeat the entire point.
Collectivism and grouping for jews. Atomiztion for goyim.
Thanks Yahweh for lolberturdianis.
>Read a book.
Le baste Hoppe still hasn't explained while killing people for having opposing ideas is still in lockstep with lolberturdianism.
>back to monarchism
According to the Demosthenes' autistic screeching, monarchy a shit. I won't disagree that a combination of hereditary patrilinear monarchy and tribalism are the natural state of humanity but I think that the Spartans and Hitler demonstrated there's some need for improvement and modernization when it comes to unnaturally big populations like ethnic-scale states. Also from Babylon to the USSR (and more discreetly today's Jew World Order) it is demonstrated that multi-national empires never work and require constant suppression of the majority of the population by the dominant ethnos, and the only reason Byzantium lasted or simply prolonged its death that long was because of the relative homogenization of its population through Christianity and miscegenation of genetically and culturally similar nations.
If you keep this up, we'll be in imkampfy territory in no time.
>implying there was anything wrong with imkampfy
>implying /pol/ wasn't best under him
/k/ would be better under someone like him instead of this faggot BO.
Shut up spermutt.
This thread needs to be nuked, and you, the swede, and the dane need to be rangebanned.
Shut the fuck up, spermutt. You're a kike shill that's ruining the board.
It's all the same fag.
Yeah, it's beginning to feel that way. I'm normally against wordfilters, but this faggot has such an ideosyncratic way if posting that filtering "spermutt" for the time being might be a decent idea.
Replying to yourself, spermutt? My, how low can you go?
Now spermutt is acting like a Brit.
What the fuck did I do, you merimutt retard? It is not my fault you all harbored this sperg for so long now it makes a home out of this.
Alright, which one of you (or both) is spermutt under a different flag?
I know this cocksucker >>638701 is.
The dane has been making the same sort of posts in multiple threads. Not coincidentally, he's also usually the first to start posting about "mutts," and the threads completely fall apart thereafter.
If you think that I'm the guy hopping IPs, then why are you agreeing with me?
No. I'm calling you out as spermutt.
You agree with me on the swede.
>implying worse than chodemonkey not banning even the most obvious resource burning bait
Kampfy at least banned cuck fantasy spammers.
Well, at least there is one person in this thread whose bullshit is consistent.
And why the fuck shouldn't people be allowed to type "mutt"?
While I personally find it to be posted almost exclusively by salty Europeans who have run out of all other means of recourse, the issue at hand here is that it has been used to derail about 3/4 of new threads dor the last week or so. /cow/ does this shit all the time–just filter it for a week or two, and then remove it once the spammer (in this case, you) has gotten bored.
What does this spergmutt even find to argue about anymore? Why is everyone replying? Is every post a samefag?
I wish there was some magic identifier to shine a spotlight on which posters have autism or have no guns/weapons of any kind.
>seceding from a country defeats the purpose of the system of the country from which you seceded
If you made a leap of logic any wider, you could jump clear across a Thor dildo.
all you are doing is conceding.
>allow fags and tyrannies to spread their shit
>oh shit, our orderly society is falling apart
>lets make our own country but in a smaller area than what we started with
anarchy cannot be sustainable, since people will end up infighting, thus breaking apart a once unified country.
you could say;
<well that's good since those people hated each other when they were forced under one state
but that's just decentralization.
Unless, you are implementing this in a homogeneous region; something like Tolkein's Shire.
The issue here is that you have one lolbert sperg arguing incessantly against three or four NEETsoc spergs. Because the "spergmutt" cannot tag-team in the same way as the other guys, he will look marginally more autistic by virtue of the volume of his posts.
File: f123f1c191f7b14⋯.png (Spoiler Image, 360.38 KB, 1004x659, 1004:659, Trumpkike officially banni….png)
>salty Europeans who have run out of all other means of recourse
Spergook isn't really libertarian, and the guy pretending to be a wehraboo is just /intl/.
So were any bump-stock officially handed in yet?
And where are your bump-stocks in the first place, yid?
Copper isn't particularly rare in the US, just expensive. Neither is lead. In fact we're in the top 3 countries of lead production and top 4 or copper production. Furthermore raw metals, metal alloys, and even metal compounds are easily and readily recyclable. Even on a small scale if you were so pressed, provided profit isn't your goal.
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO THE BAN ISN'T TECHNICALLY IN PLACE YET SO IT DOESN'T COUNT
You can always detect spermutt with it's always readily available excuses made for trumpkikes.
Anyway, I have as many bumpstocks as I do
hand grenades in Sweden :°)
Too bad I don't have any photo so you have to take my word for it :^)
Reported again for shilling for blumpf.
Except regulations like US firearms import bans are the reason the US gun industry thrives, and why there are US branches of European gun companies.
well Autarkies are best, I used to be Ancap years and years ago. now, not so much.
jude poster using hitler dubs.
something is not right here.
No, you are still an ancap.
Ancap is retarded. So are amerimutts. You are a mutt, therefore a retard and still like ancap.
Go kill yourself.
Likely the very same person.
No, I support Trump, but I do not support his anti-gun or pro-Israel policcies.
Because people should know it. Protectionism works, and is really the only way to protect a capitalist economy from competitive advantages that are amoral, such as slave labor.
All of the ammo I buy is imported from Italy or Serbia so I don't see it harming my supply. If anything decreasing US imports of copper and lead through tariffs should increase global supply and cheapen my European sources.
It's real funny to see a fucking brit whining about american.
Go clean up your country first.
You mean the things that have been voted in TWO fucking years ago, but yet hasn't been done.
You are under a government where NO ONE is your friend or even remotely "right wing".
The gun control mess could have gotten away. But drumpf really fucked up BIGLY this time.
You're absolutely right, my fellow upstanding American. The State, our benevolent leaders, must ruthlessly suppress speech and expression whenever it's bad, so we can have a prosperous and free society. They must also decide what is bad, because otherwise the bad people could pick good things as bad and let their bad words get through.
Stop being a boot-licking little bitch. To pretend that a society without a Tyrant is unsustainable is insane considering a society is nothing more or less than a group of people. When you interact with your friends, is one the Tyrant? No? Well that's simply unsustainable.
>But drumpf really fucked up BIGLY this time.
People keep saying that.
Yes there is, it is being built, where is Brexit?
No, YOU go back to your cuckshed.
That doesnt look like steel slats tho
I don't know what it is but it looks good.
Anyway, America is in a very bad week:
- Syria withdrawal is again overtuned
- Foodstamps once again granted to niggers.
- Trump is low energy and cannot deliver a goddamn NUCLEAR option over the wall
Hey man last I check that Russian 7.62x39 is still dirt cheap. 9mm ain’t bad either
How exactly will the tariffs fuck us?
Nothing that I said disagrees with what you have said in terms of us companies doing well due to a lack of competition- again, crony capitalists try to kill off competition by use of force. The consumer is still fucked over by comparison when you think about how you could have had ex swiss service sig rifles, or real russian AKs, or mossberg making shotguns that cost 75 dollars instead of 250.
This is so loosely /k/ (i.e. weapons board) related it might as be /pol/ (i.e. politics board).
Then tell me please what other lolbertarians are there apart from Gary "what's a leppo?" Johnson that have any sort of organizational presence or political influence.
The alt right (including alt kike/lite) can just point to Trump and say "here's our guy in office, we played a part in that" and pull out figures like the percentage of people who agree with white nationalist viewpoints to quantify the size of their influence.
Randlet is just another lolberg cuck like any other who thinks spics and niggers are wonderful and baste with the only proviso that they don't demand gibs from the state and respect the NAP.
If you want a more hardline (and internally consistent) libertarian, hans hermann hoppe is an excellent example. He is not a fan of forced racial intergration, dislikes a great amount of degenerate behavior, and is a fan of letting people with the same basic principles of NAP but differing interests and preferences form their own neighborhoods, communes and associations with common contracts of behavior (such as a no dirty commie clause).
I am fan of the idea of subscription government, following these principles.
>The right to your land is absolute.
>Your right to self exile (breaking contract) is absolute. Self exile changes your status within that community from member to sovereign nation, with the obvious caveat that if you cross into either direction you are either a permitted migrant or an invader.
>The government's right to select who enters contract with it and enters government land is absolute
>A government is hired as your protector, with elective packages for what services you want that year- don't want to use government roads? Don't pay for them.
>Investigative processes shall be set out in contract as a requirement for entry to the country given sufficient reason by the courts, else you must leave.
>The judicial system acts as normal, but the punishment system changes- you, the victim, your attourneys and the judge negotiate your punishment. At any time the accused may leave the court, but walking out the door counts as permanent exile, and you'll be given 3 hours to get back to your property or be shot.
>If you commit a crime as a sovereign citizen, it is counted as an act of war.
Toleration is practiced to varying degrees by different libertarians; I would rather see a pothead smoking his stuff on his porch than I would see him getting his rights violated by people he didn't pay for. I despise tumblr and a large portion of the legbutt community despite being bi and wish for commies to fall into a giant pit full of violent rape baboons but I'd rather call them turbofaggots and exclude them from my little area than throw them into a gulag if they didn't hit first. It can actually become really, really hard to exist in an area if everyone suddenly decides they don't want to trade with you.
>voted aye on outlawing boycott of pissrael
What did he mean by this?
IIRC he did not support the government boycotting israel and wanted the people to decide for themselves.
I sometimes worry we're being picked off one by one in isolation comparing the site today to what it was like a few years ago. It definitely feels like the police state is getting more serious these days.
What the fuck is this then?
>on my /k/
When will they learn that their ideals are shit? Most people are idiots. Morons that happily chew up whatever garbage you feed them. As long as you pay them in bread and circus, they don't care about "liberty".
We need to bring monarchy back. Normalfags were, are, and forever will be serfs. It is their place to be serfs.
Baste Muttspammer of the Baste muttwheel finally drops some truth bomb!
Obviously just an attempt to not accept the lesser devil.
By the looks of things, rand paul's fallen off the wagon. Fuck me solid.
Ron Paul would have collapsed under all the allegations of sexism racism and homophobia that any republican candidate faces.
The sad truth is only someone like Trump can go through all that and come out stronger on the other side.
Trump spent decades cultivating a media presence and he knew exactly how to manipulate the press to do his bidding.
What the hell did you expect from a philosophy invented by kikes to further atomize white people.
This is more to do with rand getting infected by the shenanigans of government and dropping his principles by the roadside. None of you had problems with him when he was consistent. Anyway:
>Invented by kikes
Even if this was relevant, it would imply
>John locke was a jew
>Thomas jefferson was a jew
>The various american revolutionaries were jews
>Hazlitt was a jew
>Mises was a jew
Granted, rothbard and ayn rand were jewish but both of them were extremely internally consistent in reducing or demolishing the state. If it were not for these principles, you would niether be shitposting here freely nor would you have guns. If you appreciate statism, I invite you to swap places with me and my family. We will gladly appreciate the freedom you clearly don't.
Ayn Rand isn't a libertarian and doesn't believe in libertarian principles, full stop. The whole "created by Jews" catch phrase is nothing more than a strawman made up to try and discredit the ideals of liberty without having to actually construct any meaningful arguments or criticisms, so having a real discussion with these people is pointless. It's more effective to scrutinise their talking points and show how they're founded on delusions, since they won't listen to any real defense of libertarian thought.
>the most prominent and iconic libertarian flagbearer since Adam Smith isn't a real libertarian because I slightly disagree with her
>>John locke was a jew
Worse. Forefather of liberalism.
>>Thomas jefferson was a jew
>>The various american revolutionaries were jews
>>Hazlitt was a jew
Hardly political, only minor part of work covered economic commentary and that wasn't even blatantly libertarian.
>>Mises was a jew
Rhymes with Moses.
Now this is shitposting.
Hitler must have been an anarchist then.
Races dont exist dear goyim.
Because there isnt, retard. All lolbergs that dont sound mentally retarded also based their version of lolberturdianism on a race blind basis.
>Shitskins and krauts are anti-liberty.
Imagine my shock.
>cucked into the 13th amendment
>cucked into islamic fedoraism by the Treaty of Tripoli
>cucked out of his foreskin
>cucked down to 56%
>thinks is in charge to tell people they are not White
Btw there were many major and influential shitskin monarchic and oligarchic Empires during antiquity but surprisingly I can't recall a single historically recorded lolberg society.
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>implying US wasn't proto-Libertarian
>implying Great Britain wasn't proto-Libertarian
>implying Latin Christendom wasn't proto-libertarian
>said the subhuman with even LESS culture than amerimutts
You are welcome to throw away all kraut music. It is all very anti semitic and racist
We are still waiting for the day he shall explain how killing ideological opponent is lolberurdianism.
You know your opponent ran out of arguments when he starts shoving "proto-" onto things.
>"Yeah, see, christianity was actually proto-socialism because it promoted solidarity, teehee :^)"
>"Hitler didn't eat meat too much and liked animals, so he was a proto-vegetarian :^)"
>"Hussites surrendered their property for the common cause, so they were actually proto-communists :^)"
No, just fuck off. All of this "proto-" shit stands on a fucking logical fallacy where it implies that what came after was somehow a natural evolution and an upgrade and that the people pushing it would ACTUALLY push your kiked ideology if they lived today. They would not. They would push the same thing they pushed back then, because that was their fucking opinion that they stood behind, regardless of whether some auskenazi thinks his shit opinion is a straight up upgrade over theirs.
Oh hello stormfag. Time for a sperg out about Jews and interest rates?
>They would push the same thing they pushed back then, because that was their fucking opinion that they stood behind
Because every event is completely independent of the subsequent event. And the principle of causality isn't in fact a thing. Do you realise how retarded you sound? The West has been in fact in a state of progression as evidences by its dominance over other cultures, the reason being the development of superior ethics which promote power and prosperity. Starting roughly with the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule morality; the creation internalised ethics that create high-trust societies and incentivise productive action rather than exploitative action. Next being the development of Capitalism and Classical Liberalism via Adam Smith, the founding fathers, and a host of others, which precipitated the industrial revolution, and Great Britain and the USA becoming the hegemonic powers of the world. And lastly being the refinement of the enlightenment ideas via Libertarian philosophers which have highlighted the errors of previous enlightenment thinking which have resulted in the decline and subversion of the West. These ethics being profoundly Western, in opposition to whatever bootlicking totalitarian ideology that has sprung in the 20th century which you subscribe to, which are characteristic of shitskin races who can't progress past might-makes-right societies, blind deference to authority and the idea that one's on arbitrary preferences must be enforced upon his fellow men with violence.
You're ordering that most people are retards who only desire for bread and circus. They don't care about things like freedom, liberty, or rights. Look at your average normalfags. Do you really consider them people? Treat them as slaves or serfs at best.
>implying might makes right doesn't work
It's always worked. It worked for thousands of years. It works today. It'll work into the future. Violence helps keep people in line. Whoever is stronger or has greater capacity for violence gets to call the shots.
In short, you're an idiot.
*Forgetting, not ordering
>"IF ADAM SMITH WAS ALIVE TODAY, HE WOULD BE AN ANCAP!!!!"
Do you even realise what a piece of shit you are? Putting words into a dead man's mouth, so that he can't defend himself from your slander? Literally on par with communists, who heavily utilised this sort of propaganda – "hussites were proto-communists" is not something I made up, it is something that was taught at school during the communist regime.
As for your claims, they're hilarious. Great Britain became great due to liberalism? Great Britain became great through force of arms and ruthless subjugation of native populations. That's right, your example of liberalism only succeeded thanks to wars of aggression, the thing that supposedly would not exist in your "libertarian" society. The world has always been, is, and always will be a "might makes right" system, no matter how much you hate it. The modern western villification of this simple fact is the leading cause of its downfall.
You're right, I did goof on the objectivism = libertarian thing. Given what I have read in objectivist ethics, they bleed over to a great degree and actually resembles a very conservative form of libertarianism.
>There were a great many monarchic societies
And all of them treated their people as cattle. Do you hold up everyone with a gun to their heads by a looter and thief as the highest of morality?
Wanna know where your argument falls down?
Lao-tzu. The ideas existed as far back as ancient fucking china.
Whether one man only desires the next beer, or whether you wish to build a trade empire off your own back, does not give you any right to start force to achieve your ideals- elsewise I can shoot you right now and take your car. Do you hear me?
The initiation of force, no matter how many times it has been done to keep people as cattle, is still wrong. If it isn't, there is no point in a court system- there is no point in property.
At no point did that man claim that adam smith was an an-cap. You are arguing in bad faith and clearly a dishonest nigger. Stop that.
>implying courts matter
>implying it's not all a song and dance
>implying you have a right to property
>implying property isn't what you can claim and keep bugging force and expand it with force
As for your car example, I can keep my car if I kill you first. Everyone is naturally ready to kill anyone else at a moment's notice.
> Do you hold up everyone with a gun to their heads by a looter and thief as the highest of morality?
MUHrality and huMUHn rights are irrelevant if they cannot be put in sustained practice. A lion doesn't ask a gazelle for consent to devour it or pondered about the ethical implications of it.
inb4: muh rational agents
intelligence is nothing more than another survival&reproduction tool in our evolutionary arsenal as a social and hierarchical species; we can get meta about it but in the long run fancy rhetorics about fairness are trumped by collectivist might and we just have to choose which kind of collectivist might we prefer on our neck, our genetic duty towards our own people or some egalitarian death cult?
>the reason being the development of superior ethics which promote power and prosperity
No, this is the real reason:
>What is a man,
>If his chief good and market of his time
>Be but to sleep and feed? a beast, no more.
>Sure, he that made us with such large discourse,
>Looking before and after, gave us not
>That capability and god-like reason
>To fust in us unused.
The Ice Age forced the Europeans to develop a mind that is excellent at long-term planning and thinking forward, and so they have no other choice but be extremely industrious and proactive, as they know that they only have so much time to live and act. The events of the Migration Period pushed the simple Germanic tribes into the ruins of the Roman Empire, and forced them to organize. Then they used those ruins as a stepping stone and developed a civilization that engulfed the whole planet. It's not because of any particular system of ethics, but the minds that are capable of developing those ethics in the first place. And even then it wasn't the ethics that discovered the secrets of nature, fashioned wonderful machines, mapped the whole world and organized empires, but people with capability and god-like reason.
>Lao-tzu. The ideas existed as far back as ancient fucking china.
And they surfaced in the West when it turned into a civilization. But soon enough blood will win over money, and all these weak and unnatural ideas like libertarianism will end up in the trash heap of history. Then an other high culture will develop them again, only to discard them once they turn into a civilization. Just like how trees grow and wither. Your idea that everything is a "proto-"something suggest a linear image of history, which distorts everything into a single story. But that's not true, we aren't slowly marching towards some kind of a libertarian paradise. Instead your ideas will be stomped out (again) by the harsh realities of life.
>does not give you any right to start force to achieve your ideals
Rights exist inside a legal system. Legal systems are enforced by force and punishment. If there is no legal system then might makes right, until those rights form a legal system. There isn't a supernatural legal system that binds every human to the same laws, and you have to be delusional to think otherwise.
>Wanna know where your argument falls down? Lao-tzu. The ideas existed as far back as ancient fucking china.
I don't see how that relates to my argument at all. At no point was Lao-Tzu ever mentioned.
>At no point did that man claim that adam smith was an an-cap.
He clearly insinuates that the founding fathers would have approved and joined him in belief of his shitty ideology, something he has absolutely no grounds for, which is what I am criticising him for. It is you who either argues in bad faith or lacks reading comprehension, because the point I made is, I imagine, quite clear.
This nigger right here >>639901 is absolutely right.
Mercentilism was always better.
Bismarck, for all of his fault of bringing in the damn jew bankers, has mastered capitalism since the goddamn 19th century, he called it "prussian socialism". Tariffs are good since the global free market does not exist.
That's why Democracy and any type of mob rule is a bad idea. Normalfags aren't philosophers or intellectuals, and if given the vote they will just vote for safety and comfort over freedom or any greater good.
A retarded non-sequitur argument. Adam Smith was the father of Capitalism and developed ideas integral to Libertarianism and Classical Liberalism, it's completely irrelevant what ideology he would subscribe to today.
Britain become a superpower because of it's industrialised economy and position as a trade hub. Colonialism as been demonstrated to bring little benefit to the home country as any benefit gained from "exploitation" was lost by the enormous upkeep costs of maintaining overseas colonies. It's because of Britain's powerhouse economy that it could maintain a colonial empire, not the other way around.
We need our genotype to develop the ethics, and we also need the ethics to reach the full potential of our genotype. The innate ability of the people in your society is pretty meaningless if everyone is exploited or prevented from using their talents.
Adam Smith advocated free market capitalism, he did not invent capitalism.
That has existed since market exists.
>But soon enough blood will win over money
Men like Spengler and Evola essentially predicted the world we live in. I am convinced they also foresaw the world we will live (or probably die) in.
Morality absolute exists in the form of divine virtue, however you're right about human rights being a meme.
I never even liked the concept of rights, peroid. A system of privilages will always be superior to a system of entitlements.
Mercantilism worked up until the scientific and industrial revolutions, which basically allowed the west to multiply its wealth without any additional gain in resources due to massive leaps in technology. This basically amounted to better refinement and far more efficient usage of the resources already available, which was somewhat incompatible with the mercantilist dogma, which is based on the concept of wealth being locked to the immediate potential of current resources and their respective divisions amongst nations.
While competition still exists, it's well recognized that significant wealth can be created via innovation without new resources which was never really accounted for in mercantilism.
>X is proto-Y
>no, look, see how I cherrypick something from this guy's ideas and how it corrobates with what I believe in. That means the guy was totally on my side and proves my ideology
<no, it means no such thing. You're a fucking idiot
>i-it's irrelevant what he would believe in today, I am still right!
Are you finally ready to admit your proto-X bullshit is just a fallacy stemming from a linear understanding of history, as 84e56d so eloquently put?
>Britain become a superpower because of it's industrialised economy and position as a trade hub.
Britain became a trade hub because of its colonialism you idiot. Britain had exactly fuck all to export on its own – it was considered one of the poorer regions of Europe, which is why English kings valued their french holdings more. It was only after Brits colonised Americas and conquered India that they started getting some serious income and became a trade hub.
You mean the thing that only happened centuries AFTER they started their colonialist policies?
>Colonialism as been demonstrated to bring little benefit to the home country as any benefit gained from "exploitation" was lost by the enormous upkeep costs of maintaining overseas colonies.
Colonialism is literally the only reason Britain ever gained any sort of relevancy and why English became lingua franca. Nobody gave a single shit about the rainy island up until then.
What kind of innovation ended the idea of tariffs?
Internet freedom? Firewall exist? Crypto-currency? Banned.
The chinks employ this shit and profit from the dumbass free marketers who ship infrastruture and technology to them for free.
The chinks are also colonizing Africa right now, sending their bugs to breed with niggers.
Where is the condemnation?
Oh wait, colonialism is bad because da wyte man does it, never mind everyone has done this before the gay jew got crucified.
>visiting wordfilter site
>le helicopter man
And all of you took spermutt's bait again.
>Adam Smith was the father of Capitalism and developed ideas integral to Libertarianism and Classical Liberalism, it's completely irrelevant what ideology he would subscribe to today.
>>implying US wasn't proto-Libertarian
>>implying Great Britain wasn't proto-Libertarian
>>implying Latin Christendom wasn't proto-libertarian
Jesus and people took these baits? Creating retarded arguments for the sake of "arguments" is as keynesian as it gets. The irony.
>Morality absolute exists in the form of divine virtue
Maybe the autist was trying to say that there is no evil devil/satan, but only a lack of goodness?
Boy, you really showed me
Read Evola and Aquinas. Positivist notions are a short sighted liberal dogma and those who try to understand the world through them will always fail to do so.
> Positivist notions are a short sighted liberal dogma
The most "fascist" scientific theory is positivist; plus constructivism is an academic signature of leftards. Doesn't (((leftwings))) like Jared Diamond spouting anti-empirical bullshit and doing mental acrobatics to present their hypotheses as fact give you a hint on that?
Royal Society's positivism and the scientific method just had the tendency to debunk traditional perceptions and that merely attracted leftards and kikes towards it, after the Academia was subverted the left is just enforcing double standards where all rightwing, traditionalist and nationalist claims must be filtered through experimentation and stripped off any didactic context if they are not debunked while the left can make the most blatantly politically motivated propagandistic claims and then do "research" which they take out of context and cook its conclusions to match them. It's a problem of ideological motive and intellectual dishonesty, not one of method.
also fuck sandnigger mythology
And from there it's a short jump to deconstructing humanity into neat little scientific boxes and the erasing of moral law.
Deconstructing towards the truth >>> constructing towards a multitude of lies.
>Gayreek btfo'ing limeybongistani AGAIN
Your not though you're deconstructing towards nothing.
>traditionalist and nationalist claims are stripped off any didactic context
The problem is not positivist conclusions from strict experimentation but the insistence to not consider them as useful in any any other context.
Natural selection theory is a prime example of it since social darwinism is considered "unscientific" because "hurrr durrr false analogy" "and "muh naturalist "fallacy"".
We should pay >>>/liberty/ back for those mutts shitting the thread
>a libertarian board is responsible for /intl/ and nu/pol/ niggers attacking libertarian principles
And the whole world is ancap too am I right!
Get the BO to say it then we will consider :^)
I mean look at these banners. They are absolutely retarded.
>liberty prime is NAP
>Nigel Faggot is a lolberg
I wonder if the BO of that board is the muttsperg that has been shitting up /k/ and created /liberty/ just to credit libetarianism further.
/liberty/ is dead board with no BO, also its existed long before people started shitting up /k/
Just report the spamming nigger and move on. He 'is' the people shitting up /k/.
I forgot to double my quotes but you know what I mean.
It takes time for disillusioned spergs to finally snaps.
>sperg spam finally cleaned up partially
>hurr durr ban people for ???
Looks like something spermutt/spergookmutt would do.