>Allow foreigners to buy up massive amounts of real estate and large companies within your own nation
>Said foreigners would immediately block any attempt by your own countrymen to acquire large amounts of land and other capital in their own countries
Lolbergs will defend this.
We don't have free trade or anything resembling libertarianism, though.
Before you complain about private owners selling their property to foreigner, you should complain about your domestic government claiming ownership over a third of all land in your country and expropriating your private property (in the form of taxes) to subsidize corporations, single-mothers, immigrants, foreign elites and tons of other things.
Free market capitalism would only lead to globalization for those who want globalization.
Pole in Poland need 30-40 years credit in bank to be able to build or buy house.
Germamoney gets into Poland and buy apartment after apartmen like its fucking christmas.
Same goes for land.
40k pln for hectare is a lot of money in country where most of the pople do not earn more than 2k pln after taxe
40k pln = 9k euro
German in Poland are new jews
because that's what freedom is, it's not damaging anyone
and allowing freedom for everyone else in the world means you're making it closer that more places become open with freedom for foreign investors, big or small
that market relations make the most solid relation of peace in win/win relations
>Free market capitalism would only lead to globalization for those who want globalization.
A requirement of a free market is to have no barriers to entry (into said market).
Therefore "Globalization for those who want globalization" is already a contradictory statement, unless you are referring to the freedom of choice for a population to trade with foreign based companies. In which case, people are fickle, lazy and will flock to wherever has the lowest price. Your statement is weak as shit.
Mehmet is falsely claiming that we don't have a "real free market", he's right in the sense his idea of a real free market is an unreachable standard - since he sees nations as illegitimate by design.
The problem is that this line of thinking leads you to opening up your markets to foreigners while they keep their own closed off to you. I'm not sure how lolbergs reconcile this, I guess they just think at some indeterminate point in the future China is going to open up its borders and controls on foreign capital for no reason whatsoever other than reciprocity.
Sheer delusion in other words.
>it's not damaging anyone
Yeah alright Pedro, massive demand side inflation of real estate prices with foreign hot money and immigrants doesn't damage anyone. Having everything valuable in your country bought out by foreigners who then extract whatever comparative technological advantage you may have and re-shore it isn't harming anyone.
>muh nations don't actually exist, only individuals
Don't you have some thread about how 14 year old girls appearing in commercial jewish pornography is totally legit if they "consent", lolberg?
you're the one complaining about something ALREADY HAPPENING, under non libertarian nations, and claiming that it totally isn't the states fault
get enough whites to agree not to sell their property
boom voluntary white nation, free market capitalism, not inherently globalist
Can you retarded liberals and lolbergs stop using the word "fascism" to mean "things I don't like?"
Communism: For the Jew.
Liberalism: For the weak.
Libertarianism: For the degenerate.
Anarchism: For the filth.
National Socialism: For the strong.
Nah, it's every individual's right to sell his private property to whoever he pleases. What you can argue against, though, is the subsidization of behaviour like that by the government.
There is nothing in free market capitalism that forces your community to open up to foreigners other than if your members want it.
>A requirement of a free market is to have no barriers to entry (into said market).
No involuntary ones, i.e. everyone is still allowed to discriminate based on their own values.
>Therefore "Globalization for those who want globalization" is already a contradictory statement, unless you are referring to the freedom of choice for a population to trade with foreign based companies. In which case, people are fickle, lazy and will flock to wherever has the lowest price. Your statement is weak as shit.
And the main reason why foreigners are winning in this contest for providing cheaper goods is your own government undermining the competitiveness of your own country and subsidizing people who aren't worth it.
There is no free trade, there is the state putting barriers in front of domestic citizens and giving partial privileges to people who favor them.
>m... muh voluntarism
Force and conquest are a part of human nature, one's ability to compel through force, either to strengthen your group internally or to project force abroad, is a part of your group evolutionary strategy.
As far as I can tell libertarianism is literally just sticking your fingers in your ears and claiming that every state from Minoan citadel kingdoms and the Roman Republic to modern nation states is illegitimate because it violated the NAP.
Doesn't seem like the NAP is a good group evolutionary strategy to me! But what would I know? I'm not part of a political ideology literally invented by Jews to legalize degeneracy and open borders.
Reminder that perfectly free trade is a requirement for anarcho-capitalism, but not necessarily libertarianism.
Jack up taxes on foreign companies; keep taxes low for domestic companies.
Already happening? What bearing does time have on a rhetorical process being valid or invalid?
What does libertarianism have to do with linguistic disguise?
You are arguing for the sake of arguing, in the direction of someone who isn't arguing. Are you even conscious at the moment? Do you have illegal drugs in your bloodstream?
>There is no free trade, there is the state putting barriers in front of domestic citizens and giving partial privileges to people who favor them.
Exactly Mehmet. You don't actually see nations as real things so anything they do becomes an imposition on individual liberty. Partly because you're delusional and partly because your own nation has been transformed from an organic ethnostate to a multicultural wonderland (i.e. an empire composed of different tribes, with all the attendant dysfunctions this brings).
It's astonishing that the Jew has destroying academia to such a degree that there are lolbergs who LITERALLY and UNIRONICALLY believe that the only truly organic and natural unit of society is the individual.
Reminder that the faggot who came up with the fallacy of Free Trade was a god damn jew
And don't pretend Adam Smith was free trade, he loved Tariffs and was actually pro tariff "The recovery of a great foreign market will generally more than compensate the transitory inconvenience of paying dearer during a short time for some sorts of goods"
>Nah, it's every individual's right to sell his private property to whoever he pleases.
Sure, under a libertarian moral doctrine. It's also my 'right' to take your land through force and give it to someone else if I damn well choose to.
>And the main reason why foreigners are winning in this contest for providing cheaper goods is your own government undermining the competitiveness of your own country and subsidizing people who aren't worth it.
That's true, certainly. As are many other factors.
I wouldn't get ahead of yourself Panjeet. Although Indians love to hold onto China's coat-tails, the reality is that outside of steel you export very little where serious value-add has occurred, you rank near bottom on PISA rankings, your most fecund groups are the most stupid, your industrial growth is near zero and you are incapable of coordinating the sorts of infrastructural projects China is, who are presenting siphoning away a good part of your Himalayan fresh water.
I'll leave you to your delusions that heavily IQ-selected for Indian subcontinent diaspora populations are reflective of India proper though. We know that's all you have, what with that IQ of 83 and all.
>There is nothing in free market capitalism that forces your community to open up to foreigners other than if your members want it.
There are armies that can force my community to "open up".
Self-determination isn't about legalizing degeneracy, drugs, pornography etc. It's about standing on your own as a free people, that's what "liberty" always meant in the ancient world until moderns perverted it.
People are doing things I disagree with? Ban them from doing it, that's much more effective than convincing them that their actions are wrong!
Unironic use of the word degeneracy indicates an immature fool who wants others to be mandated to follow his orders. The word has been overused so heavily on this board that it has effectively lost all meaning.
>Exactly Mehmet. You don't actually see nations as real things so anything they do becomes an imposition on individual liberty. Partly because you're delusional and partly because your own nation has been transformed from an organic ethnostate to a multicultural wonderland (i.e. an empire composed of different tribes, with all the attendant dysfunctions this brings).
My nation has never been an "organic ethnostate". The actual glory days were when we were a loosely connected plethora of small nations who were connected through friendly competition, cultural exchange and relatively free trade and migration, i.e. very decentralized government power.
Multiculturalism is a government program, not the result of voluntary exchange.
>It's astonishing that the Jew has destroying academia to such a degree that there are lolbergs who LITERALLY and UNIRONICALLY believe that the only truly organic and natural unit of society is the individual.
No, there are people who believe that communities can only thrive under voluntary conditions. You have never actually read anything about libertarianism. I recommend you to read some Hans-Hermann Hoppe if you actually care about conservative values.
Right, and now some agency with an army is doing the same and also disarming its citizens so they have no choice whatsoever but to comply.
>People are doing things I disagree with? Ban them from doing it
Yes. Absolutely. If you can't see how fucked up commercial porn is and the poison it is working on young men's minds from a gander at 4chan then I don't know what to say to you.
And drug users are a negative externality producer, everyone knows this. Everyone who has ever known a pothead knows it makes you less productive and much more stupid, to the point that mundane things seem fascinating.
>Unironic use of the word degeneracy indicates an immature fool who wants others to be mandated to follow his orders.
No shit motherfucker. Life isn't about endlessly amusing yourself with electronic novelties and trinkets, and if you base your ethical and political philosophy on this notion, then your group won't survive for long.
>"Aren't your parents feeding you?"
>"Mommy and Daddy are Libertarians. Forcing them to feed us is a violation of the NAP. We are letting the free market dictate."
Self determination is the ability of the populace to choose how it is governed, you ignorant fool. Expanding governmental power destroys this ability.
Please read anything before trying to form a coherent philosophy. National socialism is an ideology for glorified manchildren who are incapable of handling dissent.
>The actual glory days were when we were a loosely connected plethora of small nations who were connected through friendly competition, cultural exchange and relatively free trade and migration, i.e. very decentralized government power.
I see, so you're ok with states, provided they are small, right? You realize that concept of scale is a natural result of one of those states gaining overwhelming hegemony against the rest, right? Just like the emergence of the various constituent states of the HRE was brought about by a similar process but on a smaller scale.
>No, there are people who believe that communities can only thrive under voluntary conditions.
And when the Jew buys up your media in totality, what do you do then?
>I recommend you to read some Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Hoppe isn't actually an ancap in the sense lolbergs are. He's 100% opposed to degeneracy.
>Singapore is a libertarian success story
You hear this all the time from lolbergs
A few facts about Singapore:
>extensive media censorship
>restrictions on personal behaviour
>it costs $70,000 US to get a certificate that lets you buy a car
>80% of the housing in Singapore is publically owned
>A large portion of Singapore's GDP produced by government controlled companies
So why do people claim that Singapore is libertarian?
>he actually thinks that banning something eradicates it
>he actually thinks that governments do not only try to expand their own power and disregard anything else
>I want things to be different! Please fix my problems for me, Mister Government!
If living in the UK hasn't taught you about the failures of a nanny state, then perhaps nothing will.
Chang please, I'm Iranian and Zoroastrian. You do realize Tata was a Parsi and not Indian? Go worry about your family's house being used as collateral in the Chinese stock market.
>he actually thinks that banning something eradicates it
I think if enforced correct it severely limits its usage, see Singapore and drugs for example.
>I want things to be different! Please fix my problems for me, Mister Government!
I bet you believe that "race doesn't matter" provided the shitskin with a white wife is a lolberg too, lol.
Drugs are banned here, too. The efforts to eliminate them have been infinitely more damaging than their use.
Your second point is an irrelevance. It is incorrect and does not properly address my argumentation.
>Don't use the same tactics we use
Are you aware of just how closely guarded your major multinationals are, chang, or are you just putting on an act?
Fuck off if you think westerners are obligated to open their markets to your kind. You hostile little chink.
Well, how are national socialists going to get people to give up their power over other people? I am somewhat convinced that a lot of people are intelligent enough to see the value in what libertarians who have economics on their side are saying, especially when people start listening to culturally more conservative libertarians instead only focusing on "end the drug war" libertarians.
And eventually statism will become terrible enough that they will be ready to risk secession, I guess.
>I see, so you're ok with states, provided they are small, right?
Fine? Well, I am not violently rebelling against the current state, am I? Libertarian theorists aren't all only coming from the moral stance that you have no right to infringe on their freedom, they are closely connected to the classic liberal tradition and economic principles, so obviously we see the value in aspects of society under the state. Hoppe has a book that largely deals with how monarchy is actually superior to democracy.
>You realize that concept of scale is a natural result of one of those states gaining overwhelming hegemony against the rest, right? Just like the emergence of the various constituent states of the HRE was brought about by a similar process but on a smaller scale.
Yes, states always tend towards world government and thus toward multiculturalism, isn't that an argument against statism?
>And when the Jew buys up your media in totality, what do you do then?
I compete with them, I guess. Although I find to be a silly objection, the only reason liberals are even competing with conservatives is the state's redistributive system, especially public schooling.
>Hoppe isn't actually an ancap in the sense lolbergs are. He's 100% opposed to degeneracy.
He is still in favor of no state and thus free trade, he just won't engage in indiscriminatory bullshit and since in his vision of society there is no public property there will be not forced integration/immigration.
>muh prohibition argument
Having punishments for rape, murder and slavery sure are bad and cause these things to proliferate! Time to legalize them.
Libertarianism: literally the philosophy for retarded children.
They are not obligated, they have an interest to. British consumers wants cheap and efficient goods & businesses.
They don't want to be forced to purchase things from unefficient, lazy and obsolete producers.
Opening your market doesn't penalize all citizen, it only penalize the lazy and uncompetitive producers. Who in turn would like a captive market, to "defend" their fellowmen against evil commercial invaders.
So you're telling me non-resident foreigners can purchase real-estate within a matter of days, if they're cash rich, in the same way rich Chinese can in Canada?
How about acquisitions? Do you think if an American company had the capital the CCP would allow them to purchase a majority stake/controlling interest in something like Lenovo or Huawei?
The market will already be "opened up" to its own indigenous population. That population is readily able to assess whether a current business is underperforming and can challenge their hold on the market whenever they choose to begin. The winner will be the more efficient, less lazy and more competitive provider.
Yeah, much less efficiently than the same process done on a larger scale.
Your line of reasoning was already existing when a village blacksmith didn't want to open his market to unfair competition from another county/duchy/shire.
It's funny because it's England which first came to the conclusion that it was retarded and openned the way to the free trade philosophy.
>mfw we could have been like Norway
>instead we decided to swell our population and squander our oil
the relationship between a group and an individual is symbiotic, this is what you fundamentally misunderstand. You don't understand that the individual literally cannot survive without his group, and that the group has certain measures it undertakes to protect the individual - The strongest groups win out, not the "strongest individuals".
Lol, globalization only applies to white countries. In China, the state controls all the major assets and simply won't sell them to foreigners, along with plenty of other nations.
Meanwhile, the third world continues to occupy the west because it's really the only place worth living.
Japan is a great example of the right way. Strong borders, a thriving industrial and tech sector, and plenty of support for fellow countrymen. America could learn a lot.
There was an article in dailymail today about filthy arabs buying all the expensive buildings in London. They even own the US embassy in London which is kind a weird.
Societies form organically. People want to join societies that allows them to have better opportunities, The US during the XIX century is a good example of this. The strongest societies are the ones in which individuals wants to be in, not the ones in which a bunch of retards run everything telling you that they will make you stronger and might, using force against your will for your own good.
What do you mean by legitimally? And if it didnt it would be the fault of the buyer and the one who sells, that is usually a native of said society, so the blame relies also on said individual. Blaming China for greedy Brittish is not very smart.
globalisation isn't necessarily the end goal of free trade, and in fact, having foreign powers control your capital is antithetical to true capitalism, libertarianism advocates that the citizen's business shouldn't be tampered with by the government, this rule doesn't secure the rights of foreigners, the only freedoms protected are those of the citizen, which is why many laissez faire policies have been protected by heightened taxation of foreign business and imports.
>People want to join societies that allows them to have better opportunities
...You seriously believe non-western peoples are just going to allow you to "voluntarily" join their societies?
Do you have no idea how important race is outside of the bullshit racelessness of the western world, dude?
I'm saying a significant amount of money that pours into the Canadian, US and British prime real estate markets from abroad is ill-gotten gains, from corruption, bribes and other criminal activity. It's not at all fair to expect the locals to compete with that.
I was just stating a fact. Would you rather live in the USSR or in the US. Opem societies usually attract more capital at in the end become economic hubs. For example the city in London.
I never said that other races would allow me to join other cultures, and I never said that they should join ours, but is obvious that people just tend to go to the most prosperous countries.
>The same process
You already know that you are making a huge leap, but I look forward do you cherry picking blinkered examples that reinforce this face-value comparison.
>Your line of reasoning was already existing
Please reiterate my line of reasoning.
Some Brittish real state owners also got their fortune by breaking the law. What is the difference between a Brittish criminal that makes his fortune on mischieving or breaking the law, than a Chinesse that does the same thing? Those people aquired property, because the owners, mostly the goverment and some private owners, dont give a fuck about the procedure of the money, they just care about inflaiting their accounts.
It's not a "fact" if the thing you're describing is impossible. Race is real, it exists, racial exclusivity is the norm for the vast majority of the world, it's increasingly the norm in increasingly non-white parts of Europe and North America.
The fix to ill-gotten foreign money entering the prime real estate market is simple: ban foreign ownership of property. It would at a stroke solve that side of the problem.
We could then concentrate on bringing our own criminals to justice, and let China close the net on its criminals.
This nigga right here is correct. Gooks aren't going to go buying up shit in South America for the same reason Allah isn't sailing there instead of across the Mediterranean: because they know white people will allow themselves to be cucked.
In South America a general will wake up one day and decide to nationalize whatever the fuck they want. In Europe and the US they know the risk of that happening is almost non-existent.
>china floods us markets with cheap goods
>taxes american imports
>money and jobs flow to china
>china uses this new money to buy raw materials and foreign land
>us increases trade deficit several hundred billion $$$
>us firms move overseas in order to compete
>us govt unable to protect commerce because muh "free trade"
keep drinking the kool-aid
>For the strong
>While posting on 4chan
Yeah man, keep on roleplaying!