There are four industrialized countries, each with its own Australia-sized

>>119258252
The Christian one.

The anarcho-communist one fails instantly.

The representative democracy lasts for a good hundred years but eventually turns into an authoritarian shithole.

The national socialist one fails as soon as an idiotic asshole becomes the chancellor, so it really depends on how long they can keep it up.

The libertarian one survives because there is no massive state to sustain.

>Libertarian
Undermined by leftists and degenerates the year it's made
>National Socialist
(((((Other countries))))) conflict with this country leading to it's downfall
>Anarcho-Communist
Literal oxymoron, it's like if someone made an anarcho-fascist society.
>Representative democracy
Eventually balkanizes. Thing about this one is it lasts the longest, but it will fall, like any other "democracy".

>>119258845
I disagree. The leftists and degenerates won't be a problem in the libertarian society; reminder that there won't be any Civil Rights laws. Therefore, businessmen can refuse service to anyone they want. Besides, that's a more cultural issue than a political issue.

File: Stag Shambler.jpg (114KB, 461x620px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 461x620px

Bumping with a saproling.

>>119258517
Oh, assume they're all Christian, I dunno.

Whichever one hits oil first survives the longest.

>>119260266
Anarcho-communist since there would be actual morality

File: 1475699777471.jpg (157KB, 1533x961px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1533x961px

>>119260494
what did he mean by this?

File: image.jpg (32KB, 228x221px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 228x221px

>>119260266
>Christian communists

>>119258706
Assuming the citizens in the libertarian continent aren't warmongering greedy slobs

Finally a good thread

>>119258252
libertarian
1 week and they would be reduce to a few but after that they would turn into a small comunity stabilized.

socialist
they would survive for a single generation, the
people on power would desert to the anarch comunist island

anach comunist would live forever, that is untill the democracy and socialist islands starts to fuck up its economy

democracy would never work on a island sized without external factors forcing it.

File: tmp_27080-1490104839016752042248.png (357KB, 1200x1000px) Image search: [Google]

357KB, 1200x1000px

National socialist: instantly becomes a dictatorial shithole. Last long but people are dead inside, a la USSR.
Anarcho communist: starves instantly.
Representative democracy: last some century before it devolves into a welfare state and collapses under its massive weight.
Libertarian: last forever.

File: 1490121611510.jpg (389KB, 683x1024px) Image search: [Google]

389KB, 683x1024px

>>119258252
That is what happens if Alice uses the 'eat me' pastry as a suppository

File: Wolfgirl.png (694KB, 539x751px) Image search: [Google]

694KB, 539x751px

>>119260660
>warmongering
>libertarian
PICK ONE

>>119261103
RARE

File: ANCAP FROG.jpg (27KB, 411x411px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 411x411px

>>119258252
>-Libertarian

Until someone invents recreational nukes

>-National Socialist

Depends on military, but probably no more than 100 years

>-Anarcho-Communist

Until next winter

>-Representative Democracy

I'd give it 150-500 years

>>119258252
T H I C C
H
I
C
C

i wish anime was real

>>119258252

National Socialist will survive forever. It is the perfect system.

>>119261727
last time it survived for 12 years, nat-soc country needs enemies to feed on if they have wealthy jews in the country, they can do pretty well for 10 years, but once they rob & kill all the jews, a there is no one left to give them loans, they have to start war

>>119262417
>last time it survived for 12 years

I am in no way a Nazi, but the only reason it failed because it started a World War and got invaded. The country seemed to be doing fine. Look at Spain, it's dictator lasted for like 40 years.

Population: 120m
Homogenous white population (start)
>libertarian
Would succumb to natsoc republic, or democracy. Right libertarian is a very vague term.
>Natsoc
The standard of living would be high, overall best solution in this scenario.
>ancom
Literal oxymoron, would succumb to larger imperial forces
>representative democracy
Would become lAmerica

>>119258706
Considering as well they can't decide how to fund and use an army to defend themselves from centralized countries with huge militaries

>>119262904
Yup... guess what - they had no other choice, socialist countries need to rob, they can either rob its own citizens or rob foreigners, the nat-soc countries prefer the latter which means war sooner or later

>>119258845
> Anarcho-Communist

This shit is hilarious. While it is an oxymoron in a way I would say there are a shitload of people who think of themselves that way. Think of all the statist "anarchist" that call themselves Bernie bros. Another great example is that e-celeb from Burzum who fucking whines about wanting to be left alone but lives off gibs.

>>119263448
Why do they need to rob

>>119258252
Depends on how close they are to each other and what's in the middle

>>119263532
>Why do they need to rob

Because states dont produce shit, people do, so the large state needs to rob a lot of money.

>>119263448
>can make all of its own shit and is self sustaining. Needs to rob

t. Nigger

File: Power.jpg (336KB, 1612x1076px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 1612x1076px

>>119263885
Assume there's a deep ocean basin between all four, about the size of the Indian Ocean.

Also assume that none of them have nukes but all four do have access to oil and steady wind.

File: 40oras.jpg (36KB, 600x520px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 600x520px

>>119262668
>>119263096
>>119261005
>>119260903

fucking BRAAAP posting is the most stupidest shit on this board but I have no idea why it makes me kek sometimes

>>119258252
T H I C C

>>119258252
are they allowed to fight each other?

this is very important.

>>119258252
>Libertarian
forever as long as leftist ideology is kept at bay
>National Socialist
until corporate inversion collapses the economy
>Anarcho-Communist
lel
>Representative Democracy
200 years

national socialist lasts the longest, followed by representative democracy, then libertarian, then anarchocommunist, which falls after 3 weeks

File: Mercy and Widowmaker.png (779KB, 1800x1674px) Image search: [Google]

779KB, 1800x1674px

>>119264391
Yes. Their starting military tech is 1950s-tier, minus nuclear weapons.

>>119264695
>minus nuclear weapons.
its unrealistic then.

>>119262904
The Nazi economy was a sham. If you look at figures that can't be faked you can see that consumption of bread and meat was lower in 1937 than it was in 1927. The Nazis reduced unemployment, sure - by taking women out of the statistics and conscripting anyone who didn't have a job. That's not real productivity.

>>119263914
>imports 30% of its raw materials
>"self sustaining"

>>119258252
The whitest one

>>119263368
In a libertarian state, pretty much everybody would be armed. Good luck invading that.

>>119265061
>my small arms fudd guns will surely defeat the enemy tanks

File: 027c1576e2594fabb282f8e50fe1371c43a6a7e0f0520641171ad9c9a5eb3b56-pol.png (1MB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x1000px

>>119263505
Lol they just want legalized drugs and hardworking whites to pay for them and the food they need to survive.

-Libertarian
-National Socialist
-Anarcho-Communist
-Representative Democracy

The Libertarian country does well until an encounter with any other country and hasn't been dumping enough money into military and mind control tech.

Nat Socs take over the world. But in doing so end up losing the national part and forcing crony capitalism type socialism like we see now in the world.

Anarchy and communism are both failures of shit idiocy and completely at odds with eachother. Without state enforced communism it instantly collapses into chaos and mass starvation.

Representative democracy is subverted from within. The struggle with democracy is when the lazy people outnumber the hardworking people and begin to allocate money they don't make to shit.

Nat Soc country wins easily, but it isn't pretty what the world becomes in the end.

>>119265233
do you really want to invade a libertarian state, where there are no laws and they are free to do ANY kind of research regardless of ethics.

you'd die stepping on the genetically modified grass.

brap desu

>>119265233
>t.abbo

You kill the supply depots and mechanics using guerilla tactics.

>>119258252
They would all "last" until the land couldn't support humans anymore. The question is how long it takes before the societies change.

The anarcho commies would eventually morph into two 1984 esque communities as people naturally build up towns and form communities whch creat governmental systems and expand.

The libertarians have an actual government, so they're less likely to do this, but it would eventually become a feudal monarchy, one company will monopolise so much that it owns everything on the continent, the CEO position would be made hereditary and the incredibly rich shareholders would rule over the slave class with an iron fist, the slaves may one day rise up and form communism.

The National socialist country would last pretty much forever assuming complete societal homogeneity. this is simply because nat/soc is the only governmental form here in which the societal glue is so strong that civil unrest is unlikely to occur due to complete continental autarky, homogeneity and the overwhelming strength of the state.

The democracy would last until it's citizens became to decadent and an autocrat was elected and demolished the democratic system in favour of fascism or monarchism.

>>119263505
Varg does not live off gibs. Spread your Semite lies elsewhere.

>>119260644
It's true, they are one and the same actually.

One very key data point is missing:

What's the average IQ of each population?

>>119258252
assuming nukes and aggression.

4. representative democracy

3. anarcho communist

2. libertarian

1. natsoc

democracy would fall to the tyranny of the majority.

commies would fall to inefficiency and the lower classes getting shit on to the point of sabotaging themselves.

libertarian would fall due to being unorganized and many of them being unmotivated, however they have an advantage of no ethics or laws to prevent research of more powerful weapons.

natsoc would succeed due to being more organized, more efficient due to a focused population, no jews.

>>119265898
100.

File: 1477436159560.png (502KB, 483x806px) Image search: [Google]

502KB, 483x806px

>>119262417
>>119263448
>>119263891
Oh Polan...

>>119265898
The average IQ is 110.

>>119265575
Yeah, and what happens when they just pump up security around them?

How many times did the Iraqis destroy an entire US F.O.B.? Never ever in the entire decade of war? How many times did the Vietcong do it? Only when they launched conventional attacks with conventional forces including things like tanks - i.e. when the NVA and not the Vietcong were involved.

This isn't a police state fantasy where they're knocking on your door. They invade for resources - oil, ports, farms. The people living there - you - don't matter. They can just park their tanks around their oil well and unless you can engage conventionally to force them to go, they just don't have to go. They'll take casualties but they will still win.

If "MUH GUERILLAS" is a foolproof effective guaranteed-to-win strategy why does NOBODY use it? Everybody wants - and maintains - large, conventional armies. You need large, conventional armies to actually fight a way.

Guerrilla warfare is what you do when you've already lost.

File: e834b2853ba25050b4925e98ad247b277814d0eae4962dfcfdaf7d08e0bc3366-pol.png (189KB, 500x756px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 500x756px

>>119265929
Nat Soc without Jews.

Stop I can only get so erect.


>>119265775
They never invent boats?

>>119265428
>do you really want to invade a libertarian state, where there are no laws and they are free to do ANY kind of research regardless of ethics.
Do you really think the same doesn't apply to a natsoc state?

Also, I'm pretty sure libertarianism maintains the harm principle, so there actually would be laws probably more stringent than the natsoc society which doesn't give a fuck about """harm""" if it's for the state.

File: 1484540414024.png (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

>>119265775
If only more people like you had been alive in the Anglosphere in the decicive moment of our Empires https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No1ZmYiKeRY

>>119266269
>Do you really think the same doesn't apply to a natsoc state?
not to the same extent.

emus fuck off.

>Also, I'm pretty sure libertarianism maintains the harm principle
it doesnt, fuck off nigger.

>>119266204
>They never invent boats?
I'm assuming that the countries are seperated from each other. Deciding who would win in war is a different ballgame

>>119258252
Excluding the Ancom island they probably all will 'survive' the variance is in the livelihood of the citizenry.

If people hate their lives and everything about their society thats probably a 'loss' for said island.

>>119258252
ᴮʳᵃᵖᵖᵖᶠᶠᶠᶠᵗᵗᵗ

Glad to see that most of /pol/ still knows that National Socialism is the final redpill.

>>119266375
>it doesnt, fuck off nigger
You're wrong and retarded.

If libertarianism doesn't incorporate some doctrine to prevent people from hurting others, what differentiates it from pure anarchism?

>>119266513
NatSoc loses every poll dude.

>>119266632
>You're wrong and retarded.
said the retard.

>>119266740
Reddit doesn't count.

>>119265335
Isolationist monarchy when?

>>119266632
Libertarianism isnt Anarco-capitalist. Libertarians believe a extraordinary small federal govt is best not no govt at all.

>white homogenous population:

libertarian: good at producing wealth, but needs border control to control the influx of immigration from poor countries. Lack of strong welfare state helps in that aspect.

natsoc: economy does ok, but is not as rich as the libertarian. Overrall it's a safe, conservative country. Does not atract much tourists or immigration (heavy crackdown on 3rd world immigration).

Anarcho communism:
Impossible to reach, would more or less become a dictatorship like the URSS. No immigration because it's poor.

Representative Democracy:
Western Europe. Mostly social democracies, need to enforce strong borders in order to keep low iq immigrants that go for the gibs.

>Multiracial country
libertarian: Good to avoid the low iq population from having too many kids. High inequality, though. Somewhat violent in low-iq areas

natsoc: National identity is not define by race, but nationality. Upper class still benefits in politics. Law and order keeps it from being too violent.

Anarcho-communism
Same case with the white one. But substitute URSS for Cuba, or Venezuela. Very few rich people (mostly government officials), high emigration.

Representative democracy:
Latin America. Drugs, degeneracy, corruption and violence goes rampant. High emigration.

>Africa
libertarian: Good for attracting foreign investment, which will dominate economic growth in the country. A lot of the population still lives in poverty, with immigrants being the upper class.

natsoc: Several African countries with dictators fall here. All of them corrupt, in permanent crisis, and dependent of foreign aid. Government is anti-communist and very religious (be it islamic or christian). Fertility rates over 6 children/woman.

Anarcho-communism:
Will become a dictatorship in no time, otherwise will fall into a civil war. Worst countries in the word to live in.

Rep democracy:
Very corrupt, the government violates the rule of law frequently. At high risk of becoming dictatorship. Very poor.

>>119266821
Every /pol/ poll you fucking dingus.

>>119266487
Nigga how

>>119266923
>implying we haven't been colonized by civic nationalist faggots

>>119266995
>Implying it hasnt always been a generally libertarian/civic nationalist board

>>119266857
Yeah, that's the point you tool.

Anon said that a libertarian society would be the least hindered by ethics in research. He's wrong - libertarian society would still enforce ethics in research because libertarian society is not lawless anarchy and the harm principle (or similar) still applies.

This is contrasted with natsoc, where anything goes because the state is brutal and oppressive and doesn't give a fuck about harm.

>>119258252
Haha the thumbnail looks like a big fat ass.

>>119258252
>-Libertarian
Lasts until poor people realize they can vote for bigger and bigger social programs at which point it becomes a social democract or pseudo social democracy.
>-National Socialist
Lasts until they get rekt in a war and their entire country collapses because their entire political doctrine is based on militaristic expansionism.
>-Anarcho-Communist
Collapses once hard workers realize they don't benefit from working hard or simply horde resources they produce.
>-Representative Democracy
See libertarian

>>119260660
>violate the NAP
>tomahawks from neighbors "chop" down your house

>>119267079
>implying implications which were not implied

>>119266176
Yet Vietnam won. They also beat the fucking Mongols using a lot of the same tactics that they used against the US. The Afghanis are a perpetual resource drain, and they're a bunch of retarded goat fuckers. Sans the nuclear option, it takes an enormous amount of resources to sustain an invading army. It took over 100,000 tanks to invade Germany, and that was with all of the allies turning almost all of their industry to war production. And Germany is small compared to a country like the US.

>>119261103
second rarest flag i seen

the rarest one is the guy from pitcairn

>>119258252
>Libertarian
Would collapse instantly since you can't have private property without a state protecting it

>National Socialist
Give it 10 years, would build it's entire economy on debt and then tries to invade another country so they don't have to pay it back, would get all the others to team up against it

>Anarcho-Communism
Communism means post-scarcity, so it would be an utopia. If you just mean Libertarian Socialism, like Katalonia, it would probably work as they aren't subject to debt since they'd have labor vouchers instead of money. The problem is the defense, it would probably get invaded and without a state having a strong military is impossible.

>representative democracy
Like liberalism? Probably stable but subject to constant econimic crashes and inability to get shit done. Would probably have a strong military though through military-industrial complex.

>>119258252
It depends on which ones have the highest majority of white people.

Assuming they're all white, natsocs duh.

>>119266020
This is ignorance. They didn't pick UK. They were force into the allied forces after being brutally devastated by a shitty natsoc country. After that shitty natsoc country left, Russia claimed them.

>>119267202
>damage control.

>>119267229
>Yet Vietnam won.
Not militarily. The US had the capacity to sit there for another century and Vietnam never would have been able to shrug them off. If your strategy is "wait until the enemy lets us win" that's not a good strategy.

>it takes an enormous amount of resources to sustain an invading army
Yep. So?

Ask yourself this: if guerrilla warfare is so effective how come nations have been able to conquer vast swathes of land and consolidate it? How can France exist if guerrilla warfare makes it impossible to invade and conquer?

This stupid worship of guerrilla warfare denies both military reality and history. For every highly circumstantial and situation victory of guerrilla warfare there is an endless litany of times it failed. Literally every territorial conquest in history has been opposed by some amount of guerrilla warfare and yet they still happened.

Not to mention that this could very well not even be an invade-and-annex. Maybe the invaders literally only want control over the sea lanes and offshore oil and so are content with just sitting in your ports and saturation bombing the interior without ever stepping foot in it.

>>119267406
>stable
Tenuously stable.
The United States would be better under an inverse feudal system as the founding members intended. Instead of power being concentrated in the head, the most power is given to the individual municipality, and ultimately the individual.

>>119267866
Not really in the mood for an argument right now. Our main enemy is globalism, anyway. If all the NatSocs and Libertarians got their own continents, I'm pretty sure both would be happy to leave the other alone.

File: 1491002619580.png (37KB, 600x700px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x700px

>>119258252
BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA*BOOOM*pfffffffff

>>119258517
I would choose the Libertarian, because Libertarians don't know yet, but the only way they can make it work is with walls and homogeneous population.

>>119258252
BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHPP

File: 1484026382264.gif (1023KB, 490x326px) Image search: [Google]

1023KB, 490x326px

>>119258252
Vast amounts of wealth, cancer cured, life extension technology found, ultra-life like fuck bots invented, the libertarian society has it all. The happiest, the most intelligent, and the most vicious of fighters.

>>119258517
FPBP

File: 1483061637731.jpg (46KB, 550x367px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 550x367px

>>119258252
>Libertarian
It depends. Is it libertarianism in the sense of anarcho-capitalism, or just a really small state to put some laws and an army without much power? If it's the first, then it last for some time until a new form of government rises because people naturally unite. If it's the second, then it might as well for hundreds of years.

>National Socialist
Works until the socialist side becomes more apparent and they eventually colapse economically.

>Anarcho-Communist
It goes all well and good until they realize that everyone planted weed and now they don't have water, meat, machines, books, or anything, just weed and one guitar that one guy knows how to play one song.

>Representative Democracy
Democracies tend to fall for socialism. Considering the politicians have enough power to slowly transform the country, it will work well until the major changes start to happen and the small ones to pile up. This could take 500 years, or 10. It all depends on the people and who they are voting for.

>>119268990
>democracies tend to fall for socialism
>literally every democracy in the west became more neoliberal since the cold war
Socialism isn't "when the government does stuff"

>>119268990

My ideology is a combination/mix of hoppe libertarianism and communitarianism and a few other ideas such as ethnic groups.

Don't know what to call it but might think of something up eventually.

File: 1484196175160.gif (3MB, 360x203px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 360x203px

>>119269227
Socialism is a path to communism. It's pretty much when the government starts to group all important services and tax out the people's property, regulate the market and put their finger on every matter. This is cultural marxism 101.
And no, western countries didn't become more neoliberal, they either temporarily stopped their socialist rampage, or started doing socialism while saying it was the opposite. These days, they just do socialism and call it "social democracy".

>>119270348
>>119270348
>socialism is taxes
No? That's Social Democracy. Socialism is public ownership of means of production. Literally the only socialist countries left are Cuba and Rojava.

>These days, they just do socialism and call it "social democracy"
But Social Democracy is on retreat everywhere. Look the elections and the main SocDem parties are neoliberal New Labour cucks. You complain about corporatism (government and it's cronies), so do I, but that has hardly anything to do with Socialism or even Social Democracy.

National Socialist
Libertarian
Ancom <--- This would destroy human civilization in no time because it's incompatible with the hard wiring of the human mind.

File: 1484110364011.jpg (76KB, 680x664px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 680x664px

>>119271106
Kiddo, there is this thing called Marxism. Marxism is a culture, that follows the ideas of Marx and Communism. The main point of said culture is the revolution - or in other words, implement communism.
Because Marxism, or Cultural Marxism, is a culture, it can be seen in many ideologies. These ideologies are simply different ways of trying to achieve communism. At first, it was about workers taking up arms and fighting the bourgeoisie, today it is about opressed people against straight white males. And in-between these two, there are hundreds of different variations. And every single one of them wants the same things: destroy the traditional culture, control the economy, put the masses against itself, and, at the end, implement communism.
On the political side there has been many ideologies that followed Marx. Socialism is one of the most known - and ideology firstly created because people quickly got afraid of communism, once they saw the evil that lurks in it. But soon, people realized that socialism was just the front door of communism, and discarded it. Other ideologies came to take it's place, and today the most successful of them is the Social Democracy - and ideology that, just like socialism in it's roots, wants a big government that interferes in every aspect of life, slowly absorbing everything. Once everything has been absorbed, the path is clear for communism.
In short:
>It's social democracy guys, totally not socialism!
>Now, let's tax 25% of your property
>Now let's tax 50% because healthcare, you wanna be healthy right?
>Now 70% because you're too rich! You burgo- I'm sorry, you capitalist scum!
>Now 80% because you want free universities, even though they are shit, right?
>95% because the refugees need to eat
>99.99% but we are not socialists, stay calm
>100% and we might as well start communism, eh?

>But Social Democracy is on retreat everywhere.
Not really. At best it had some political defeats in a few regions,just that.

File: 1488489029421.jpg (112KB, 445x503px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 445x503px

>>119273192
>Marxism is culture
You fucking nuthead, did Paul Joseph Watson tell you that? Marxism is based on materialism, which isn't a culture but entails the principle of a material base defining the superstructure above (which is culture, religion etc.).

>At first, it was about workers taking up arms and fighting the bourgeoisie, today it is about opressed people against straight white males
What the fuck

Bourgeoisie is defined by an economic relation to the means of production, nothing else. Marxism rejects identity politics of race, gender etc. as those are economically irrelevant. A rich black guy is more privileged than a poor white guy.

>And every single one of them wants the same things: destroy the traditional culture
That's funny because pretty much every post-Marxist has written huge extends how it is capitalism which erodes culture through the profit motive and commodification. Adorno hated Jazz. Marxism only tackles traditional culture when it serves the capitalist superstructure, but doesn't want to change it, rather, it wants to seize the econimic base for the superstructure to adjust itself naturally. Most of your traditional values, such as a traditional family, were created as an economic unit after the invention of agriculture.

>Other ideologies came to take it's place, and today the most successful of them is the Social Democracy
Again, wtf. Marx has written extensive rantings about Social Democracy ("Critique of the Gotha Program"), Social Democrats have teamed up with Fascists to kill Socialists and it is generally regarded as "Social Fascism" amongst Socialists. Welfare programs perpetuate capitalism.