/lrg/ LIBERTARIAN RIGHT GENERAL

Helicopter rides for all rebbitors when?

I might as well bump this thread, got nothing better to do

File: file.png (6KB, 539x64px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 539x64px

What the fuck is this shit?

File: 1458058931025.jpg (34KB, 453x604px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 453x604px

finally found one
you are a bong, why do you make them always so late?

File: hoppe_pepe.png (134KB, 853x1025px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 853x1025px

>>133673780
Digital communism.

>>133673881
>you are a bong, why do you make them always so late?
I have terrible sleep habits, and tend to post them later on in the day anyway - I figure there won't be many posters early.

Are all Americans libertarians?

>>133674149
American nationalism is Libertarianism. So, yeah there's a lot of Libertarians in America.

>>133674149
Just about all of Appalachia is. We just want to be left the fuck alone for the most part.

File: 1498071159275.png (1MB, 665x735px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 665x735px

Wassap my freedom loving brothers?

File: 18732461_m.jpg (163KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 500x500px

>>133674077
I guess there are mostly mericans here, but opening a thread at 2:15 doesn't help my sleeping habits either, guess it will be a long night.

>>133674240
There seems to be a lot of crypto-fascists and fascists in America too. Most of the ones I meet online are definitely American. Libertarians tend to be very present worldwide, with a strange amount in Brazil.

Makes sense, average american is white enough to hate niggers and spics, not white enough to take personal responsibility.

File: 18057631_10155097290008449_4842639232915716900_n.jpg (143KB, 638x949px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 638x949px

>>133674149

A good amount of them. Gun ownership helps with that number.

>>133674633
>2:15
Where you live senpai?
I should make an effort to put these up earlier and more consistently. Shouldn't be too much of a difference, I reason when this thread is slow, the rest of the board should be too.

>>133674849
I am living on the continent, island-chan.

File: anzio.jpg (150KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1280x720px

>>133674240
Its more just liberalism. but ya, that's the right idea.

> For since it can never be supposed to be the will of the society that the legislative should have a power to destroy that which every one designs to secure by entering into society, and for which the people submitted themselves to legislators of their own making: whenever the legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence.

>>133675187
Based locke

File: IMG_0556.png (17KB, 480x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x400px

>>133673435
Need a new Friedman for 1980s 2.0

Conservatism and libertarianism are not compatible.

>>133673435
Who will build the roads?

How the fuck is Hoppe not an authoritarian?

>>133676102
he is but not by means of the state but by private property.

Funny, you link David Friedman's book. Isn't he one of those open borders advocates you fake libertarians hate so much?

File: 1490024308005.jpg (30KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 960x540px

>>133675992
Nice meme.
>>133676102
Nothing Hoppe advocates is statism, what ever do you mean?

>>133676102
Why would he be? He's compliant with the NAP and libertarian ethics.

>>133676036
the commies in the work camps.

>>133673435

How long until there is an actual effort in locking up the key swamp members

>>133676315
this is true, welfare recipients are public property that should be privatized.

>>133676274

Hoppe is delusional. He wouldn't see the outcome he wants in an anarcho-capitalist society outside of small closed-gate communities.

File: IMG_0369.jpg (145KB, 1024x961px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1024x961px

>>133676036
> Trust the free market.

Pic related

>>133676463
there is effort, but /ourguys/ can't be overt. You wont see it coming.

>>133676529
> outside of small closed-gate communities
but anon, that's exactly what he wanted

>>133676473
so can we say they have finally become the thing they love the most?

>>133676529
Anarcho-Capitalism is a world of gated communities.

>>133676473
I would say its more of a lease.

>>133676274

"physical removal" is authoritarian

File: pino2.jpg (37KB, 460x287px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 460x287px

>>133676813
workers? Yeah, either that or a red splatter that will have to be scraped off the private roads.

>>133673435
Libertarians create Weimar Republics.

>>133677064
No one has a right to my property. I can physically remove anyone I want.

>>133677064
Exercising the right to discriminate isn't authoritarian.

>>133677096
Desperation cause by socialist wars created the Weimar Republic. But you never learn.

>>133677064
Anarcho Capitalism is inherently authoritariam. You are the king of your private property.

>>133677094
no I meant public property, so they can finally transcend into their dream of not owning their life anymore before they get privatized.

File: chart.png (17KB, 480x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x400px

am I accepted here?

>>133677064
yes it is but it doesn't effect anyone who has no business with the property owner.
authority doesn't automatically mean statism.

File: left vs right.png (2MB, 5000x7500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5000x7500px

>>133677096
Pic related
>>133677356
Depends. Do you believe in the NAP and private property?

>>133677356
Depends, answer this question:
>Do you own yourself and thus your labour?

File: 1489622843739.jpg (201KB, 800x352px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 800x352px

>>133677356
you like property? you hate communists? you're cool, just dont tread on me or 1776 will commence.

is anprim left or right?

>>133677528
>NAP
sure
unless you're a commie 2bh, nothing wrong with being aggressive against communists
>private property
definitely

File: Kill_Commies_For_The_NAP.png (71KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 800x800px

>>133677850
neither, its just dumb
>>133677862
communists are agressors against property be default. all attacks on them is self defense imo

>>133677954

You're insane. Holding communists beliefs does not violate anybody's property rights per se.

File: 1498168013982.png (94KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 800x800px

>>133678156
You're insane if you believe that.

File: Honoka2.jpg (48KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 1280x720px

>>133677954
>communists are agressors against property be default. all attacks on them is self defense imo
you should even kick them out of your town when they officially form a group, it is just as much as a thread as when some thug tells you I will rob you the moment you go on vacation.

>>133678156
Does suicide violate nap?

>>133678156
yeah, and calling yourself a christian doesn't really make you one. LARPers will die because they're useless idiots instead of me giving them a free ride.

>>133678346
your body is your property. No, its just really stupid.

>>133677862
>>133678156
>>133678285
>>133678344
Being a communist does not violate NAP per se, but realistically we should deny all access to our property towards them - thus, physical removal.

>>133678445

If you use physical violence against individuals who have not initiated violence against you, you are in fact that one violating the non-aggression principle.

>>133678445
having people you openly admit they want to steal your property, the moment they get a chance inside your town will lower the values of your property and hinders people to invest in your town.
and if you won't do something about them they will attract more commies to their rathole, this goes on until they are strong enough to take your property and kill you if you resist.

File: Argh!.png (1002KB, 1200x2597px) Image search: [Google]

1002KB, 1200x2597px

>>133678757
Not if it's removing them from my private property.

>>133678757
so you have to wait until someone does you harm before you defend yourself.
imagine a well known alcoholic in your community goes around every evening threatening people and some day someone will shoot him, you think your fellow men in the community have a problem with it?
that's why I can't it is something people overthink too much, people could live together for thousands of years in europe without nap and without a strong state, it is just civilisation based on property, in the end it all comes down to the culture and it's values in which you live.
a shithole in the middle east will never accept the nap.

File: HoppeFlag.png (63KB, 313x590px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 313x590px

>>133679485
coercion is threat, telling me you're gonna "seize the means or production" is enough. It's very easy to prove the violent tendenceis of communists.

>>133679105

Communists, as is, don't have the right to enter your house without your approval.

>>133679790
Every squared centimeter would be privatised, it wouldn't be just my house. No sane private property owner would like to have communists on their property.

File: miki3.jpg (35KB, 600x744px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 600x744px

>>133679764
with your definition of the nap i am more than ok.

>>133679905

People don't think like you, dude. Private property owners generally don't mind associating with communists.

>>133680102
Flag related.
Also this > >>133679764

File: Fire.png (634KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

634KB, 1000x1000px

>>133679971
You own your body and therefore, your actions. If you point at a gun for me I don't have to wait for you pull the trigger.

>>133676102
It isn't his fault that idiots keep misappropriating his shit.

>>133680200
>If you point at a gun for me I don't have to wait for you pull the trigger.
yeah exactly what I meant, when someone declares himself a communist it implies his tendencies to steal your property by force if necessary and it is the only logical reason to expel them from your community then, maybe tar and feather them so everyone can see that he is a thug when he arrives in another town.

>>133680432

You're not a libertarian.

>>133680577
>You're not a libertarian.
yes, but I like libertarians

>>133676191
Which is to say not an authoritarian. If I force someone off my private property I have not violated his rights in any way but merely defended my own.

>>133678757
Let's say that you walk into a room and, realizing it's empty, you turn around and try to leave, only to be blocked in by someone wielding a gun. The man's body is wide enough and tall enough to block the entire entrance. You ask him to move, but he refuses. You also happen to be carrying a gun. You are slowly going to die of dehydration unless you escape this room, do you violate the NAP?

Would your answer change if this was happening in your home? How about on unowned property (i.e. an old house in a forest whose owner has died and no one has yet bought)?

>>133681336
>Which is to say not an authoritarian. If I force someone off my private property I have not violated his rights in any way but merely defended my own.
yes but you have full authority over your property.
as I said before authority isn't automatically authority enforced by the state.

>>133680577
I have aways maintained that animals can not be granted human rights because they are unable to accept and respect the human rights of others. Same goes for communists.

Also
We are what is neccesary.

>>133681536
Ah, I missed that. Apologies. I assumed you were using the classic definition.

>>133681536
You're right but I wish people would stop equivocating property rights enforcement with state coercion, like That Guy T who made a video about "libertarian fascism" which is the dumbest shit I've heard.

>>133682090
no problem, that's why I only really visit the libertarian threads on /pol/ here are people who can actually discuss things without going into an autistic rant.
>>133682510
well I don't even need a state for this, also looking back on the history of europe a state even hinders people to flourish.
but have to say I haven't watched the video.

File: snek (17).png (159KB, 1042x786px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1042x786px

bump.

>>133675992
>being this retarded
Keep believing that libertarianism is a leftist concept, faggot.

>>133676680
this.

Honest question, what happens when someone violates the NAP?

>>133676529
Have you read his shit? Do you understand any of his ideas?

>>133677064
Let me lay this out at a kindergarten level:
>property rights exist
>communists are trying to abolish property
>therefore, communists are violating property rights
>The use of force against communists is then justified.
Use some basic logic before you post on this thread, please.

File: 1496984550541.gif (1MB, 800x667px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 800x667px

>>133684859
>Do you understand any of his ideas
Well to be fair you're commie and that said, Do you understand anything about communism?

>>133678410
Exactly

>>133685136
>being this autistic
he's clearly not a communist

>>133685136
I only use this flag because some faggot said "libertarianism is inherently leftist"; I figured I'd have some fun with RPing as a communist. Honestly, I just forgot to change the flag from a few days ago.

>>133685136
also that gif is fucking amazing.

File: Eagle.png (538KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

538KB, 800x800px

Bump.

File: lrg_hoppe.png (133KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 1000x1000px

>>133688966
saved

File: gold.jpg (39KB, 445x316px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 445x316px

If one believes in the gold standard, what happens when a new gold mine is opened up and the value of the currency goes way down? How is the price of gold more stable then a fiat currency?

File: 1499986388153.png (194KB, 3240x2808px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 3240x2808px

All hail the NAP

File: 499341483222244602.jpg (59KB, 504x720px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 504x720px

What's your favourite ghost story, /lrg/?

Mine is the NAP.

>>133688205

Are you serious? Tim Mcveigh? What's wrong with you people? You're not libertarian.

>>133674149
no, pretty much all Americans are liberals.

And libertarian is right-wing liberalism.

File: ancap andy.png (85KB, 801x765px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 801x765px

>>133694567
Mainstream libertarianism maybe. Liberalism believes in public property and democracy, I think you'll find a lot of the people here don't believe in either.

>>133695531

People in this thread are neither liberal or libertarian. You people admire mass murderers like Tim McVeigh.

>>133695623
Timothy McVeigh love is just a meme. I condone killing commies, but McVeigh got innocents caught up in his attack. For that I can't condone his actions. Dude shoulda been smarter about that.

Also, how is anything in this board not libertarian? Communists aren't people, how is killing animals violate the NAP?

Is Libertarian Fascism possible?

>>133695531
I believe in some private property (roads). And I believe in some democracy (educated, married, non criminals)

>>133677064
this

>>133696275
We had a democracy like that here in the US, you know what happened? The land-owning, white, men with families and no criminal record gradually opened up voting rights to everybody. That's how we got into this current mess. Or rather Congress did that on their behalf. This happened in Britain, France, and every other democracy in history. Democracy leads to socialism leads to communism. There's no getting around it.

>>133696264
Fascism itself isn't even really possible. After the sovereign is dead, what happens? Who takes over? And if the sovereign isn't even sure who takes over, why would they bother improving the country so it can survive beyond their lifetime? If another party member takes over you get the same problem you just had ad infinitum until the system collapses as the current ruler doesn't know which party member will take over when they die and aren't invested in them.

Monarchy is the only autocratic system that works. Monarchs are already invested in their heirs since they fathered them, and they can plan in the long-term so that the kingdom their children inherit can prosper under them. We know that the king's son will be about as good as the king because the king will teach the son to rule (not to mention having access to scholars and tutors from a private education system).

File: 1454727413298.png (257KB, 625x807px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 625x807px

What's /lrg/'s stance on net neutrality?

>>133697595
it's a shit regulation for kids who want free netflix and think bandwidth is infinite
netflix takes up 37% of bandwidth in the us

>>133697191
What would stop a monarchy from experiencing the same problems as a fascist regime? What if a King goes mad Or a regicide occurs before an heir is selected?

File: 1499480289469.jpg (53KB, 800x500px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 800x500px

/lrg/ is based as an argumentative aggregate, but Libertarianism is incomplete Objectivism. Objectivism without the epistemology.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erytcpYpzRk
Objectivism is Nationalist, Capitalist, Individualist, Egoist, Libertarian, Minarchist, and Meritocratic all rolled into one.
Reminder that all these smear attempts by commie, cyrpto-commie, and NatSoc shills of Ayn Rand are borne out of their gut wrenching realization that Objectivism is the greatest threat they have ever encountered which is why they cannot even bear to have it discussed as a philosophy. ALL of the andversaries she descibes in her novels are EXACTLY what /pol/ describes as the sterotypical kike. Kikes exist but Rand is quite literally the most based jew to ever live. I do not exaggerate. Reminder that Cultural Marxists are terrified of Ayn Rand as she represents the American Constution completed. Epistemologically validated, metaphysically defined, and ethically expanded.

Also regarding AnCaps: reminder that while AnCapism means well and is certainly preferable to statism but is utterly inferior to Laissez-faire Capitalism. LfCap>AnCap for the same reason Minarchism>Anarchism and THAT is because objective law>polycentric law. Read a little of these lexicons to discover why.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anarchism.html
https://fee.org/articles/the-nature-of-government-by-ayn-rand/
Ayn Rand's criticism of pure anarchism is irrefutable, especially in C:TUI and TVoS. I like Molymeme but a case against anarchism can be observed in his attempt, and failure, to "rebutt" Ayn Rand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=My2sLnHpyG4
Observe the comment section.

>>133697595
For an Objectivist's: https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/government-and-business/capitalism/Net-Neutrality-vs-Internet-Freedom

>>133677528
Explain like my genetic IQ is that of the american black (85), and why I should give a damn when I get foodstamps and section 8 housing along with the rest of my family.

File: 1499997512812.png (208KB, 4320x2592px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 4320x2592px

>>133697837


Here's a (you)

>>133697775
Then if the monarch had a brother, it goes to his kid. If the brother had no kids it goes to the brother. If he has no brother, it goes to the uncle's kids. If the uncle has no kids, it goes to the uncle. And so on. This is the way the English crown works, and that's survived for a thousand years, so I'd say it's a good model to work off of.

>>133697837
>>133698047
The only part about objectivism is how the philosophy requires atheism. How does a religious person fit into an objectivist society?

LIBERTARIAN SIM CITY
https://youtube.com/watch?v=qLWuwicKgh4

>>133697775
Yes, but what would stop a fascist from setting up a similar chain of command? ie party leader, cabinet members, etc.

>>133698261
Let me take an indirect attemp to answer you.

I actually intend to one day write a book called "Atheism Minus". Opposed to the left's brainwashy "Atheism Plus". I found a youtube comment that succinctly encapsulated at least one small part of the prose the book will one day contain. Writen by a well spoken christfag

Enjoy:
>Objectivism and Christianity can be reconciled if you don't allow other men to have unquestionable authority over your belief system and you recognize that religion is an art form of a very abstract truth and God is synonymous with that Truth. In Christianity if you seek The Truth and value [The] Life you will find The Way. In Objectivism if you seek non-contradictory beliefs (The Truth) and you hold Life as the ultimate value you will hold reason as The Way. Libertarians are the political wing of true Christianity with the non-aggression principle - if you live by the sword you shall die by the sword; if you lead into captivity, you will be lead into captivity. (I guess not too many cops will be making it to heaven.). Who knows, Ayn Rand could be the reincarnation of Elijah. Objectivism is an impenetrable foundation (or rock) to build one's temple.

Something of my own:
>Individualist religious morals (which Orthodox Christianity is a nigh-perfect representation of) to be superior to (subjectivist) secular ones even IF god doesn't exist.
>See deity belief is either simply an chemical artifact of our sapience OR Gods intrinsic interaction with the makeup of our minds and, get this; it is actually irrelevant which of these is true.

>>133698450
thanks for the laugh

>>133673570
NatSocs first.

File: 1500008025126.png (41KB, 628x864px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 628x864px

take your retarded cuckoldry to reddit

How have ancaps taken over /lrg/? Libertarianism is literally in its name. Now the OP copypasta is full of ancap shit. Ancaps are definitely /ourguy/, but I feel like the recommended reading and whatnot should include more libertarian and classical liberal content.

>>133673435
Fascism is the only way to defeat the enemies of the white man's liberty.

>>133699758
This is why I keep posting my LfCap>AnCap Minarchism>Anarchism argumentation.

File: atlas shrugged.jpg (106KB, 531x504px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 531x504px

>>133697837
>My political philosophy is low-functioning autism: the post

File: tumblr_nt9cv4GlPu1uaxri9o1_1280.jpg (270KB, 700x1059px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 700x1059px

>>133700042
>memeideology>memeideology>memeideology>memeideology

Questions for ancaps:
1. Why don't you just identify as civic nationalist if you believe in physical removal to protect Western traditional values? Is there any difference between civnat and "physical removal" other than the latter is just an unrealistic meme at this point?

2. Who conducts the free helicopter rides if there's no government?

File: 1484502193128.jpg (60KB, 350x510px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 350x510px

>>133700085
Yawn. Any arguments to the -why- of your statments?
Is this that leftist engineered talking point that
>B-but Ayn Rand is only for teenagers!
?

>>133699642
t. Brainlet

File: oy0zfu4.jpg (34KB, 552x529px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 552x529px

>>133700714
t. Autist

>>133699642
Monopolies only occur when competition is not allowed to rise up to challenge them. In a free trade economy, competition with other private companies drives costs down, quality up, and innovation is encouraged. Under a monopoly, prices are encouraged to rise (as there is no one to keep you in check), quality drops (as the consumers have no alternative), and innovation stops (R&D costs money, and it's not like there's any need to). Because of this, new competitors are already in the advantageous position, all they need to do is innovate and keep their prices in check and they can topple their competitor. Without regulations and taxes to strangle out small business startups, new sources of competition can arise before a potential monopoly becomes too powerful.

>>133699480
Well, I guess objectivism is worth another look then. I'm a bit eclectic when it come to religion, I'm something like a Christian-inspired stoic, so I have an affinity to that sort of approach to religion. I saw Leonard Peikoff's book on objectivism at my library, is that any good?

We're does the yellow and black affiliation come from?

>>133699547
Redditor detected

File: 0aec0d755e33eb92c56020af342807b7.jpg (83KB, 500x750px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 500x750px

>>133701392
Little known fact: Libertarians are huge fans of Wiz Khalifa

>>133697595
it doesnt protect privacy, and it doesnt protect free speech.

net neutrality intends to do something like protecting free speech, but the FCC's record on censorship denotes that it cannot effectively provide this protection.

>>133701554
>Khalifa
>means caliphate

>>133701237
Very, I'm sure you've read Atlas but give this a try as a refresher. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F5nhYo5nx4 Her work is actually really good as audiobook during menial tasks. Especially narrated by Christopher Hurt.

Then read "The Virtue of Selfishness" and Capitalism: The Unkown Ideal"
I consider these two her unassaiable masterworks. THEN read Peikoff's formilization of ther system to round them off.
After you can read her other books to augment your experience such as "Philosophy: Who Needs it" and "The Romantic Manifesto"
Peikoff's "The Ominous Parallels" Is also really good.

SOMEONE TELL ME WHO THE FUCK DOES THE HELICOPTER RIDES? REGARDLESS OF WHO DOES IT, IT'S STILL AN NAP VIOLATION? ARE WE NOW SAYING THOSE WHO DON'T BELIEVE IN WESTERN TRADITIONAL VALUES DON'T HAVE AN NAP? IF SO, THEN WHO DECIDES IF SOMEONE DOESN'T HAVE THOSE VALUES? THIS IS A PROBLEM FOR ALL CIVNATS BUT MORE SO FOR ANCAP CIVNATS.

File: meme-quote-erik-von-kuehnelt-leddihn-farmer-as-enemy-of-socialism.jpg (39KB, 547x342px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 547x342px

>>133701237
>implying small business can topple an international giant
>implying they will ever have the money to do so
Just look around, anon established brands e.g Apple,Nike, most of the people don't even care if something is better than it, they will buy it just because it's famous, so it must be good

also, that's kind of (((materalistic)))
"Modern capitalism is just as subversive as Marxism. The materialistic view of life on which both systems are based is identical. As long as we only talk about economic classes, profit, salaries, and production, and as long as we believe that real human progress is determined by a particular system of distribution of wealth and goods, then we are not even close to what is essential."

>>133702267
Quit taking the meme this seriously autism-mancer

>>133702126
Thanks. I've always had an interest in the philosophy but I could never find something truly comprehensive of it. Usually whenever I investigate an idea, I just crack open a book and take notes. Unfortunately it's a bit harder to do that with the way that she incorporated her beliefs into fiction. They're all great reads, but it just doesn't fit my style of reading comprehension so I could never gleam to much from it unless she was really beating you over the head with her point (like in Anthem, for example).

>A monopoly granted either to an individual or to a trading company has the same effect as a secret in trade or manufactures. The monopolists, by keeping the market constantly under-stocked, by never fully supplying the effectual demand, sell their commodities much above the natural price, and raise their emoluments, whether they consist in wages or profit, greatly above their natural rate.


>The price of monopoly is upon every occasion the highest which can be got. The natural price, or the price of free competition, on the contrary, is the lowest which can be taken, not upon every occasion indeed, but for any considerable time altogether. The one is upon every occasion the highest which can be squeezed out of the buyers, or which, it is supposed, they will consent to give: The other is the lowest which the sellers can commonly afford to take, and at the same time continue their business.

adam smith : wealth of nations

>bu- bu- but monopolies are an acceptable component in capitallism.

being this bluepilled

>>133702418
If by "modern capitalism" you mean regulated socialism then I agree. But you are just opposed to the current socialism and want to replace it with your version that you think is somehow "better". It's all the same bullshit. Whether it's international socialism or national socialism it will always be the enemy of liberty and freedom. Our materialistic culture will collapse once the current world order collapses, only at that point will the revolution I seek and the revolution you seek even be remotely possible. Despite our talk of markets and wealth, a libertarian society is based on a homogeneous ethnic population with a culture celebrating family values. Even if all regulations disappeared tomorrow, the culture is beyond repair in the current system, thanks to the Marxist subversion of our culture.

>>133702771
Ayn Rand is necessarily ciritical of Theism as her intended prose demanded it so prepare yourself. She did not find it necessary to differentiate between different denominations and not without rhetorically valid reason. I however decided to go further and I found that I admire Orthodox Christianity and utterly despise Catholicism.

I mean I am an atbeist, but I actually go to Chirch and even Bible study on Wednesdays and I am openly atheist. Though I tell my fellows that "ther is a big asterisk attached". They eat up my descrpitions of this "Atheism Minus" idea I am cooking up.

>>133699642
>The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it

Adam Smith - Wealth of nations

>lobbying is an acceptable practice in capitalism

being this bluepilled

>>133704547
>To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens. The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.

>>133704435
I'm pretty big into Jungian psychology, and the themes that Christian theology taps into are universal to the human experience. I can definitely understand how an atheist can find something compelling about it. In fact, Christianity's development of the individual is one of the best of any belief systems so far. I'm surprised that more extreme individualists don't look into it for that purpose. But then again, that development of the individual places the highest possible good as being the sacrifice of oneself for humanity as a whole, which I suppose could contradict some aspects of the Objectivist moral system. In any case, I wish you luck with that "Atheism minus" idea, I hope something comes out of it for you.

File: meme-quote-alexis-de-toquerville-aristocratic-societies.jpg (47KB, 547x316px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 547x316px

>>133704179
But you are just opposed to the current socialism and want to replace it with your version that you think is somehow "better"
It's not socialism to want people to have their own land and take their responsibility, it's called distributism. If anything that promotes tradition, it promotes, self-sufficiency, not being reliable on the state, Unlike socialism where everyone that triggers the state will lose their job, or capitalism where everyone is greedily in pursuit for material vanity. The key issue with libertarianism is that there is no legitimate hierarchy, therefore everyone forget their obligations, trying to climb higher on the scale, by any means possible, even if that means killing your fellow brothers or subverting thousands with your degenerate products.

>Our materialistic culture will collapse once the current world order collapses, only at that point will the revolution I seek and the revolution you seek even be remotely possible.
Indeed true, destroy the degenerate west, and the heroic will build it anew

File: Libertarianleade2.jpg (57KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 512x512px

How many agree with this image?

File: C79F5EC62C0C41DEBEB489ED3A74D8DB36200000029C0D8445D.jpg (90KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 850x400px

Bump

>>133705295
>>133704179

the one thing that you two are missing is that libertarianism has the idea of the social contract, that people who enter into a society have an agreement on socially acceptable behavior.

We are past that point. for 60-70 years people have been coming to the US in spite of their willingness to adhere to that social agreement. They are unwilling to become American, and adhere to that code.

Even libertarians will say someone in violation of some kinds of moral standards should be dealt with legally... Easy example, murder. If you kill someone you go to jail libertarians / liberals will all agree.

We have some problem here, we woke up one day and the people enforcing the laws are free to break them. We woke up in a corporatist nightmare, it is widespread, its everywhere. In this predicament, simply jailing a few people isnt going to help. In this case, there is a good argument to autocratic / authoritarian intervention.

>>133705295
So how will you determine who gets what? How will you ensure that everyone is producing what they are supposed to be producing? How will you anticipate and adjust for price shocks? Same problem with every command economic structure, the economy is simply too big now to be overseen by a single body. It needs to be decentralized, if everyone watches their own hides and every business watches over their own customers, the economy can be handled efficiently and with minimal effort on the part of the government.

>The key issue with libertarianism is that there is no legitimate hierarchy, therefore everyone forget their obligations, trying to climb higher on the scale, by any means possible, even if that means killing your fellow brothers or subverting thousands with your degenerate products.
The goal of a meritocratic hierarchy is to be climbed. Unless you're anti-meritocracy (which if you are allow me to disregard your opinion), you want the best people in the best place for their specific skills. Often, the best person for a second class job was born in the first class or the best person for a first class job born in the third. If you allow those individuals to climb up to the position that best suits them you can increase production exponentially compared to other models. No blood will be spilt in climbing the hierarchy if you do it right, and the free market capitalist model works perfectly fine. I'm fine with one person out of every hundred climbs the hierarchy by selling useless goods instead of products that benefit the whole of the people, it's still the best meritocratic system we've yet to develop as a species.

>>133705822
I love this fucking picture. Makes me smile

File: C-tvmVsUAAEPS-P.jpg (88KB, 1200x500px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1200x500px

>>133704547
>>133705081
>he thinks fixing of ecomomy while the west declines to the point where fucking dogs is acceptable
If you think culture and tradition shall bend to economic prosperity you are a hedonist who fell for the material jew.

>>133705268
Thanks. It is actually one of 10 books I wish to write. I have their concepts and titles worked out and everything. 2 of their preambles are done.

>>133707062
you were the one posting the pic crying about lobbyists and monopolies.

your picture is uninformed and fucking stupid.

Its pretty clear that culture and tradition are being destroyed right along with economic prosperity. Its not about picking one over the other. The come together.

>>133707485
>Its not about picking one over the other. The come together.
This. Hard.

File: DAodIphXgAAjJrb.jpg (273KB, 1200x750px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 1200x750px

>>133706935
>So how will you determine who gets what?
According to distributistsm, property ownership is a fundamental right, and the means of production should be spread as widely as possible, rather than being centralized under the control of the state, as for who gets what is a matter of the man's virtues, service of his people and his sacrifice for the traditionalist ideals
>How will you ensure that everyone is producing what they are supposed to be producing?
You don't need to ensure, it is a fact that everyone's priority will be production of resources which one can live without.

>The goal of a meritocratic hierarchy is to be climbed.
The fact is that all people will want to get as high as they can, therefore the ones that are not fit for high positions will have their effort not only in vain but, also not benefical.
e.g: a farmer moves to the city for his ambition of becoming a trader, it is a fact that he knows less than, let's say than a trader that was already taught his trade by his father. If the farmer succeeds, the economy will lose a worker from the bottom hierarchy, which has to be the most numerous, while if he fails he will probably not make profit, therefore making the years as a trader useless, while the farming would have been of some benefit.

File: meme-quote-dominique-venner-like-plants-men-cannot-exist-without-roots.jpg (36KB, 547x322px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 547x322px

>>133708522
cont

>Under such a system, most people would be able to earn a living without having to rely on the use of the property of others to do so. Examples of people earning a living in this way would be farmers who own their own land and related machinery, plumbers who own their own tools, software developers who own their own computer, etc. The "cooperative" approach advances beyond this perspective to recognise that such property and equipment may be "co-owned" by local communities larger than a family, e.g., partners in a business.

>In Rerum novarum, Leo XIII states that people are likely to work harder and with greater commitment if they themselves possess the land on which they labour, which in turn will benefit them and their families as workers will be able to provide for themselves and their household. He puts forward the idea that when men have the opportunity to possess property and work on it, they will “learn to love the very soil which yields in response to the labor of their hands, not only food to eat, but an abundance of the good things for themselves and those that are dear to them.” He states also that owning property is not only beneficial for a person and their family, but is in fact a right, due to God having “...given the earth for the use and enjoyment of the whole human race”.

File: meme-quote-alexis-de-toquerville-power-legitimacy-corruption.jpg (89KB, 547x707px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 547x707px

>>133708700
>Similar views are presented by G. K. Chesterton in his 1910 book What’s Wrong with the World. Chesterton believes that whilst God has limitless capabilities, man has limited abilities in terms of creation. As such, man therefore is entitled to own property and to treat it as he sees fit. He states “Property is merely the art of the democracy. It means that every man should have something that he can shape in his own image, as he is shaped in the image of heaven. But because he is not God, but only a graven image of God, his self-expression must deal with limits; properly with limits that are strict and even small.”Chesterton summed up his distributist views in the phrase "Three acres and a cow".

Guild system
The kind of economic order envisaged by the early distributist thinkers would involve the return to some sort of guild system. The present existence of labor unions does not constitute a realization of this facet of distributist economic order, as labour unions are organized along class lines to promote class interests and frequently class struggle, whereas guilds are mixed class syndicates composed of both employers and employees cooperating for mutual benefit, thereby promoting class collaboration.

Banks
Distributism favors the dissolution of the current private bank system, or more specifically its profit-making basis in charging interest. Dorothy Day, for example, suggested abolishing legal enforcement of interest-rate contracts (usury). It would not entail nationalization but could involve government involvement of some sort. Distributists look favorably on credit unions as a preferable alternative to banks.

File: meme-quote-the-family-is-the-principal-force-of-cultural-reproduction.jpg (69KB, 547x683px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 547x683px

>>133708795
Social theory

Human family
>Distributism sees the family of two parents and their child or children as the central and primary social unit of human ordering and the principal unit of a functioning distributist society and civilization. This unit is also the basis of a multi-generational extended family, which is embedded in socially as well as genetically inter-related communities, nations, etc., and ultimately in the whole human family past, present and future. The economic system of a society should therefore be focused primarily on the flourishing of the family unit, but not in isolation: at the appropriate level of family context, as is intended in the principle of subsidiarity. Distributism reflects this doctrine most evidently by promoting the family, rather than the individual, as the basic type of owner; that is, distributism seeks to ensure that most families, rather than most individuals, will be owners of productive property. The family is, then, vitally important to the very core of distributist thought.

File: meme-quote-alexandr-solzhenitzyn-freedom-and-equality.jpg (73KB, 547x646px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 547x646px

>>133708911
>Distributism puts great emphasis on the principle of subsidiarity. This principle holds that no larger unit (whether social, economic, or political) should perform a function which can be performed by a smaller unit. Pope Pius XI, in Quadragesimo anno, provided the classical statement of the principle: "Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do."[42] Thus, any activity of production (which distributism holds to be the most important part of any economy) ought to be performed by the smallest possible unit. This helps support distributism's argument that smaller units, families if possible, ought to be in control of the means of production, rather than the large units typical of modern economies.

>Pope Pius XI further stated, again in Quadragesimo anno, "every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them." To prevent large private organizations from thus dominating the body politic, distributism applies this principle of subsidiarity to economic as well as to social and political action.

>The essence of subsidiarity is concisely inherent in the Christian maxim 'Give someone a fish and you feed him for a day; teach the person to fish and you feed him for a lifetime'.

File: meme-quote-progress-is-the-name-moderns-give-to-the-destruction-of-what-our-ancestors-nurtured.jpg (120KB, 547x751px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 547x751px

>>133708972
Social security

>Distributism favors the elimination of social security on the basis that it further alienates man by making him more dependent on the Servile State. Distributists such as Dorothy Day did not favor social security when it was introduced by the United States government. This rejection of this new program was due to the direct influence of the ideas of Hilaire Belloc over American Distributists.

Society of artisans
>Distributism promotes a society of artisans and culture. This is influenced by an emphasis on small business, promotion of local culture, and favoring of small production over capitalistic mass production. A society of artisans promotes the distributist ideal of the unification of capital, ownership, and production rather than what distributism sees as an alienation of man from work.

>This does not, however, suggest that distributism necessarily favors a technological regression to a pre-Industrial Revolution lifestyle, but a more local ownership of factories and other industrial centers. Products such as food and clothing would be preferably returned to local producers and artisans instead of being mass-produced overseas.

File: natural monopoly.png (81KB, 967x556px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 967x556px

what do ancaps do about natural monopolies?

File: DAakVmQUAAAnjd-.jpg (58KB, 1080x359px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1080x359px

>>133709058
>Distributism is the name given to a socio-economic and political creed originally associated with G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc. Chesterton bowed to Belloc’s preeminence as a disseminator of the ideas of distributism, declaring Belloc the master in relation to whom he was merely a disciple. “You were the founder and father of this mission,”Chesterton wrote in 1923. “We were the converts but you were the missionary…. You first revealed the truth both to its greater and its lesser servants…. Great will be your glory if England breathes again.” In fact, pace Chesterton, Belloc was merely the propagator and the populariser of the Church’s social doctrine of subsidiarity as expounded by Pope Leo XIII in Rerum novarum (1891), a doctrine that would be re-stated, re-confirmed and reinforced by Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo anno (1931) and by Pope John Paul II in Centesimus annus (1991). As such, it is important, first and foremost to see distributism as a derivative of the principle of subsidiarity.

File: C_JhKxBVYAAL00U.jpg (208KB, 1200x1006px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 1200x1006px

>>133709161
Since there are many who will be unaware of terms such as “subsidiarity” or “distributism,” it might be helpful to provide a brief overview of the central tenets of each. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church subsidiarity is discussed in the context of the dangers inherent in too much power being centralized in the hands of the state: “Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.” Put simply, the principle of subsidiarity rests on the assumption that the rights of small communities—e.g., families or neighborhoods—should not be violated by the intervention of larger communities—e.g., the state or centralized bureaucracies. Thus, for instance, in practical terms, the rights of parents to educate their children without the imposition by the state of “politically correct” school curricula would be enshrined by the principle of subsidiarity. Parental influence in schools is subsidiarist; state influence is anti-subsidiarist.

>>133684667
Classical liberalism is literally left wing.
So is NatSoc, its in the fucking name
The only two undeniably right wing ideologies are fascism and monarchism.

File: tumblr_ns872ySBT31uaxri9o1_1280.jpg (318KB, 1010x1228px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 1010x1228px

>>133709205
>Unlike the socialists, the distributists were not advocating the redistribution of “wealth” per se, though they believed that this would be one of the results of distributism. Instead, and the difference is crucial, they were advocating the redistribution of the means of production to as many people as possible. Belloc and the distributists drew the vital connection between the freedom of labor and its relationship with the other factors of production—i.e., land, capital, and the entrepreneurial spirit. The more that labor is divorced from the other factors of production the more it is enslaved to the will of powers beyond its control. In an ideal world every man would own the land on which, and the tools with which, he worked. In an ideal world he would control his own destiny by having control over the means to his livelihood. For Belloc, this was the most important economic freedom, the freedom beside which all other economic freedoms are relatively trivial. If a man has this freedom he will not so easily succumb to encroachments upon his other freedoms.

File: DB2uj-JUQAEMR8v.jpg (116KB, 792x396px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 792x396px

>>133709312
>Belloc was, however, a realist. Indeed, if he erred at all it was on the side of pessimism. He would have agreed with T.S. Eliot’s axiomatic maxim in “The Hollow Men” that “between the potency and the existence falls the shadow.” We do not live in an ideal world and the ideal, in the absolute sense, is unattainable. Yet, as a Christian, Belloc believed that we are called to strive for perfection. We are called to imitate Christ, even if we cannot be perfect as Christ is perfect. And what is true of man in his relationship with God is true of man in his relationship with his neighbor, i.e. we are called to strive towards a better and more just society, even if it will never be perfect. Therefore, in practical terms, every policy or every practice that leads to a reuniting of man with the land and capital on which he depends for his sustenance is a step in the right direction. Every policy or practice that puts him more at the mercy of those who control the land and the capital on which he depends, and therefore who control his labor also, is a step in the wrong direction. Practical politics is about moving in the right direction, however slowly.

File: C-uGcSiV0AA1wzp.jpg (204KB, 1200x716px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 1200x716px

>>133709358
>In practical terms, the following would all be distributist solutions to current problems: policies that establish a favorable climate for the establishment and subsequent thriving of small businesses; policies that discourage mergers, takeovers and monopolies; policies that allow for the break-up of monopolies or larger companies into smaller businesses; policies that encourage producers’ cooperatives; policies that privatize nationalized industries; policies that bring real political power closer to the family by decentralizing power from central government to local government, from big government to small government. All these are practical examples of applied distributism.

File: meme-quote-g-k-chesterton-the-christian-ideal-has-been-found-difficult-and-left-untried.jpg (96KB, 547x700px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 547x700px

>As the foregoing practical examples would suggest, distributism/subsidiarity is not an esoteric ideal without any practical applicability in everyday political and economic life. On the contrary, it is at the heart of politics and economics. In all politics and economics there is the tendency for power to become centralized into the hands of fewer and fewer people. Subsidiarity can be seen as the antidote to this centralization, i.e. it is the principle at the heart of the forces of decentralization, the principle that demands the rights and protection of smaller political and economic units against the encroachments of central government and big business. Other practical examples can be given.

>>133708522
>>133708700
>>133708795
>>133708911
>>133708972
>>133709058
>>133709161
>>133709205
>>133709312
>>133709358
Thanks for bumping the thread. Have a (You)

File: meme-quote-bad-democracy-vs-bad-monarchy.jpg (97KB, 547x733px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 547x733px

>>133709456
>The constitution of the European Union is fundamentally centralist in its very nature, so much so that all reference to “subsidiarity” in EU documents amounts to a scandalous employment of Orwellian doublethink. As such, what has become known as “Euro-scepticism,” the view that the European Union is a gross monolith that needs to be dismantled, is fundamentally subsidiarist. Similarly the rights of rural cultures to enjoy their traditional ways of life are essentially subsidiarist, whereas urban-driven legislation banning traditional rural pursuits is a violation of subsidiarity. In the United States the right to gun ownership and in the United Kingdom the right to hunt foxes would fit into this category. (It is not a question of ‘gun control’ or ‘animal rights’ but of the right of rural cultures to choose their way of life without the imposition of unwanted urban value-judgments.) The continual erosion of states’ rights within the United States and the consequent increase in the power of the Federal Government and the Supreme Court is a violation of subsidiarity. Many more examples could be given but these should suffice for our present purposes. In short, and in sum, distributism as a variation of the principle of subsidiarity offers the only real alternative to the macrophilia and macromania of the modern world.

File: CbxuvtHWEAUNkgn.jpg (164KB, 1200x799px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1200x799px

>>133709519
>G.K. Chesterton’s early 20th century “distributism” is a movement typically considered a spent force, which is always a good reason to pay attention to something, for finding a vision for the future often requires swiveling back to the past. It holds out just the sort of powerful vision that could very well capture the hearts and minds of business leaders.

>Chesterton’s “distributist” project tried to chart a middle course (but not “Third Way”!) between laissez faire capitalism on the one side and state socialism on the other. The problem with the former, as Chesterton wrote in The Outline of Sanity 10 years after the Russian Revolution, was that “The practical tendency of all trade and business today is towards big commercial combinations, often more imperial, more impersonal, more international than many a communist commonwealth.” While of the alternative, Chesterton said, “the point about Communism is that it only reforms the pickpocket by forbidding pockets.”

File: liberalchurch.jpg (56KB, 500x337px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 500x337px

>>133709608
>Instead, Chesterton picked up and ran with what we might call the Lockean strain in Pope Leo XIII’s famous encyclical Rerum Novarum, the emphasis on the natural integrity of private property. For Chesterton, ownership is a self-evident good, which therefore shouldn’t be abolished but widely distributed. Similarly, profit is a good thing, in fact too good a thing not to be shared. Accordingly, what Chesterton took issue with in the then-current defense of capitalism was that it was a “defense of keeping most men in wage dependence; that is, keeping most men without capital.” This conviction compelled Chesterton to lambast big business (which backfired when big chain of news stands refused to sell G.K.’s weekly); to monitor and oppose mergers; to advocate independent proprietorship; and to pronounce on every possible occasion that “small is beautiful”.

File: C-Udz8zXUAACvlA.jpg (56KB, 800x486px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 800x486px

>>133709640
>Most of our modern ideas suffer from being no more than breakfast cereal. Most of the energy and attraction in them is in the packaging. Inside there is very little substance. A lot of it is fried air with sugar-coating. There may be a few grains of truth, but not enough, not the whole truth. Yet the world feeds on these light and snappy ideas and on nothing else. The rest of the complete breakfast is completely missing. Even those ideas which are profound and practical for our world still suffer from incompleteness. We can have the right ideas about politics and economics, but life is more than politics and economics. The affliction of specialization is myopia. As specialists we are under the delusion that our small area of expertise informs us about everything else. We know more and more about less and less. Truth has been carefully compartmentalized. Colleges and universities have been carefully departmentalized. We are all specialists, and none of us are generalists, and there is no glue to hold all our fragmented truths together. There is thinking, but no thought, as in a complete understanding that is comprehensive and coherent.

File: meme-quote-le-kwan-yew-race-politics-democracy.jpg (67KB, 547x365px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 547x365px

>>133709731
>G.K. Chesterton had a word for all the specialists of the modern world. It is a surprising word. A jarring word. The word is “heretics.” The problem is not that the specialist—or heretic—is wrong, but rather narrow and incomplete. The heretic is someone who has broken himself off from a wider view of the world. The heretic, says Chesterton, has locked himself in “the clean, well-lit prison of one idea.”1 Another way Chesterton puts it is that the heretic has one idea and has let it go to his head.2 It is a case where myopia leads to madness.
Chesterton was one of the last of the great generalists. He wrote about everything. Everything: history, current events, art, literature, politics, economics, social theory, science, philosophy, and religion. But his dozens and dozens of books and his thousands of essays were not simply random observations and disconnected thinking. His writing was all part of one very consistent and coherent and complete system of thought. We could argue that Chesterton really wrote only one book, but it was in many chapters, many volumes. In one of those essays, he says, “There is only one subject.”3 Elsewhere, he writes,

File: tumblr_of81vl5vbJ1uaxri9o1_1280.jpg (478KB, 1280x926px) Image search: [Google]

478KB, 1280x926px

>>133709775
To try to sum up Chesterton’s “complete and conscious philosophy” is a good exercise. Like any good exercise, however, it is not easy. Chesterton saw the world as a wonder, a miracle that does not explain itself. He saw life as a gift, the best kind of gift—a surprise, and something undeserved. Thus, gratitude and joy informed his perspective of everything. He believed in the dignity and liberty of the human person, made in God’s image, but sullied by sin. He believed that we generally want happiness but often pursue pleasure in the mistaken sense that it is the same thing as happiness. He saw morality and civil order as safeguards against sin and utter selfishness. He saw the home and the family as the centerpiece of society because they are the centerpiece of living. Home and family are the normal things. Trade and politics are necessary but minor things that have been emphasized out of all proportion. He saw that proper proportion was the key to art as well as the key to justice. And sanity.
As a young man, Chesterton flirted with socialism, but he soon realized that it was mostly a reactionary idea. The rise of socialism and its attendant evils was a reaction against industrial capitalism and its attendant evils. The danger of fighting injustice is that if the battle is misguided, even a victory is a defeat. Good motives can have bad results. This is the point Chesterton makes when he talks about how the “virtues wander wildly”5 when they are isolated from each other and wandering alone. In a broken society where we have this seemingly endless battle between the left and right, the virtues on either side are doing war with each other: truth that is pitiless and pity that is untruthful.

File: master of yourself.jpg (206KB, 1200x759px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 1200x759px

>>133709828
The conservatives and the liberals have successfully reduced meaningful debate to name-calling. We use catchwords as a substitute for thinking. We know things only by their labels, and we have “not only no comprehension but no curiosity touching their substance or what they are made of.”6
It is interesting, it is fitting, that the philosophy which Chesterton embraced as the only real alternative to socialism and capitalism (as well as to liberalism and conservatism) goes by a name that is utterly awkward and misunderstood. As a label it is so useless it cannot even be used as a form of abuse. Its uselessness as a label demands that it be discussed. To say the name immediately requires explanation, and the explanation immediately provokes debate. The troublesome title is “Distributism.” It has to do with property. It has to do with justice. And it has to do with everything else.
The word “property” has to do with what is proper. It also has to do with what is proportional. Balance has to do with harmony. Harmony has to do with beauty. The modern world is out of balance. And it is ugly. We have only glimpses of beauty, glimpses of things as they should be. These glimpses are our inspiration.

File: meme-quote-e-h-looney-society-and-community.jpg (37KB, 547x359px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 547x359px

>>133709868
The word “economy” and the word “economics” are based on the Greek word for house, which is oikos. The word “economy” as we know it, however, has drifted completely away from that meaning. Instead of house, it has come to mean everything outside of the house. The home is the place where the important things happen. The economy is the place where the most unimportant things happen. The backwardness of the situation is something constantly pointed out by Chesterton: “There is nothing queerer today than the importance of unimportant things. Except, of course, the unimportance of important things.”7
There is another rather neglected meaning to the word “economy”: the idea of thriftiness.
The best and last word of mysticism is an almost agonising sense of the preciousness of everything, the preciousness of the whole universe, which is like an exquisite and fragile vase, and among other things the preciousness of other people’s tea-cups. The last and best word of mysticism is not lavishness, but rather a sublime and sacred economy.

File: tumblr_o7er8aMFaw1uaxri9o1_1280.jpg (316KB, 1280x810px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 1280x810px

>>133709891
>Chesterton points out that inside the word thrift is the word thrive.9 We can only thrive within our means, just as we can only be free within the rules. The modern understanding of the word economy is, once again, just the opposite. It is about accumulation instead of thrift. Even worse, it is about mere exchange. It is about trade, and not even about the things that are traded. It is about figures in a ledger. It is about noughts. It is about the accumulation of zeros. It is more about nothing than it is about something.
Our separation of economy from the home is part of a long fragmentation process. Each of the modern ideas that might have once been part of this complete breakfast have come to claim that they are complete all by themselves. We have separated everything from everything else. We have accomplished this by separating everything from the home. Feminism has separated women from the home. Capitalism has separated men from the home. Socialism has separated education from the home. Manufacturing has separated craftsmanship from the home. The news and entertainment industry has separated originality and creativity from the home, rendering us into passive and malleable consumers rather than active citizens.

>>133700714
>>133700810
top tier argument

File: tumblr_o1565noeZ31uaxri9o1_1280.jpg (779KB, 1000x1441px) Image search: [Google]

779KB, 1000x1441px

>>133709939
There is more to Distributism than economics. That is because there is more to economics than economics. Distributism is not just an economic idea. It is an integral part of a complete way of thinking. But in a fragmented world we not only resist a complete way of thinking, we do not even recognize it. It is too big to be seen. In the age of specialization we tend to grasp only small and narrow ideas. We don’t even want to discuss a true Theory of Everything, unless it is invented by a specialist and addresses only that specialist’s “everything.” In reality, everything is too complicated a category because it contains, well, everything. But the glory of a great philosophy or a great religion is not that it is simple but that it is complicated. It should be complicated because the world is complicated. Its problems are complicated.
The solution to those problems must also be complicated. It takes a complicated key to fit a complicated lock. But we want simple solutions. We don’t want to work hard. We don’t want to think hard. We want other people to do both our work and our thinking for us. We call in the specialists. And we call this state of utter dependency “freedom.” We think we are free simply because we seem free to move about.

File: monarchy debunked.jpg (106KB, 600x478px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 600x478px

>>133709970
Chesterton’s opening line in his book about his visit to America was this: “I have never managed to lose my conviction that travel narrows the mind.”10 As with all his paradoxes he points to a truth that is the opposite of what we expect. The man in his field, the man in his garden, thinks about everything. The man who is traveling thinks about only a few things. He is distracted not just with details but with destinations. He thinks the thing he has come to see is the only important thing and this makes him narrow. The real purpose of traveling is to return. The true destination of every journey is home. That is the main idea behind Distributism.
The distributist ideal is that the home is the most important place in the world. Every man should have his own piece of property, a place to build his own home, to raise his family, to do all the important things from birth to death: eating, singing, celebrating, reading, writing, arguing, story-telling, laughing, crying, praying. The home is above all a sanctuary of creativity. Creativity is our most Godlike quality. We not only make things, we make things in our own image. The family is one of those things. But so is the picture on the wall and the rug on the floor. The home is the place of complete freedom, where we may have a picnic on the roof and even drink directly from the milk carton.

File: CRVWlGXVAAAYhfi.jpg (63KB, 600x453px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 600x453px

>>133709993
Chesterton could be very specific at times, but in general, he was a generalist. His critics always rush in with objections to his generalizations forgetting that they are generalizations, and generalizations by their nature allow for exceptions. The problem in the modern world is that the exceptions get all the attention. The generalizations get none. The exceptions have become the rule. It is now an exception for a woman to raise her own children. But Chesterton’s distributist ideal not only called for mothers to stay at home, it called for fathers to stay at home as well. The home-based business, the idea of self-sufficiency would not only make for stronger, healthier families, but a stronger, healthier society. If everything in a society is based on nurturing and strengthening and protecting the family, that society will survive centuries of storms. A home-based society is naturally and necessarily a local and de-centralized society. If the government is local, if the economy is local, then the culture is also local. What we call culture right now is neither local nor is it culture. It is an amorphous society based on the freeway off-ramp and tall glowing signs that all say the same thing. Convenience is our culture. We all convene at the convenience store, where we get our gas and our munchies and our magazine and we are careful not to look anyone in the eye, not even the Pakistani clerk who waves our credit card across the laser beam. This is a revealing snapshot of our fragmented society: passive, restless, shutter-eyed, lonely, not at home.

File: morality.jpg (62KB, 736x437px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 736x437px

>>133710031
It would take “a clear and conscious philosophy” to build a distributist society, not a philosophy of broken and leftover ideas. The first clear and conscious idea would be to recognize that money is not the most important thing. It is the means and not the end. The end is a quiet, happy home. It is many small places with many local heroes.
So. How does this all happen? That is the grand question when it comes to Distributism. Chesterton argues that the main thing about Distributism is that it is voluntary. If we are not creatures of free will, if everything is predetermined by God or by Fate or by Biology or by Birth Order or by the Big Bang, well, then I suppose it is not worth wasting energy talking about how we can bring about a distributist society. Let’s just kick back and pop open a beer.

Chesterton understood God a lot better than he understood economics

the real world has kikes and brown people, no 'system' can fix the presence of those groups

only as slaves can they have any dignity, and the world any freedom

>>133675625
>need a new Washington for 1770s 2.0

File: tumblr_ohymrnORpU1uaxri9o1_1280.jpg (486KB, 1280x1640px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 1280x1640px

>>133710056
Though Chesterton would argue that a distributist society would be most fully realized if it were based on a Catholic worldview, he would not insist upon that basis as essential for achieving such a society. In fact, he would argue that such a society is more congenial to the different religions than any other societal plan. Freedom of religion, as it now supposedly exists under a huge centralized government, actually needs to be “enforced” by that government. The result, as we have seen, is that religion has actually been stifled where the government watchdog is there to “guarantee” the freedom. But local-based governments (supported by local-based economies) are more conducive to religious freedom because people of the same religion would naturally gravitate together. The main reason that people of the same religion tend to scatter in our society and that people of different religions tend to mix uncomfortably is that our society is not based on the home. It is based on the opportunities outside the home. The better jobs are always elsewhere. It is not their religion that makes people chose a place to live; it is their job. It is convenience. It is not philosophy.

File: DEA_0FyV0AAu1ut.jpg (223KB, 1280x840px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 1280x840px

>>133710108
The dilemma of Distributism is the dilemma of freedom itself. Distributism cannot be done to people, but only by people. It is not a system that can be imposed from above; it can only spring up from below. It can only come from what Chesterton calls “the non-mechanical part of man, the sacred quality in creation and choice.”12 If it happens, it seems most likely that it would be ushered in by a popular revolution. In any case, it must be popular. It would at some point require those with massive and inordinate wealth to give it up. In most popular revolutions, this has been achieved by means that are not always soft and cushy. In order to avoid a lot of blood and broken glass, religion can provide a very practical solution. It usually does. The Christian argument, if taken seriously, should be more terrifying to a rich man than a mob with axes and torches. The Christian argument has to do with eternity and not just immediate creature comforts. The central figure of the Christian religion said quite unambiguously that it is easier for a camel to go through an eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. No matter how the rich man may try to breed smaller camels and manufacture larger needles, no matter how hard he snorts and stomps, he cannot get around the reality that to cling to his riches is to put his soul in peril. Although there are commentators who rush to soften the interpretation of this passage, the message is unfortunately backed up by the rest of the New Testament, most notably in Matt. 29:16–22, where a very good man is told to sell all he has and give to the poor, and in James 5:1–6, where the description of the eternal scenario for the rich is not very soft at all. The implication is clear. As Chesterton says, “The obligation of wealth is to chuck it.

>>133709304
>Classical liberalism is literally left wing.
classical liberalism is neither left nor right, its a moral philosophy on the rights and obligations of men.

File: tumblr_nwibkhN2HW1uaxri9o1_1280.jpg (145KB, 1168x800px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1168x800px

>>133710140
But the rich are a small part of the problem–only because there are so few of them. The larger part of the problem is the mentality that drives so many people to chase after money. Again, religion provides a practical solution. There is a commandment that states, “Thou shall not covet.” This little known commandment would have to be rediscovered and re-emphasized in order to build a distributist society.
Most people have never heard of Distributism. They know only about socialism and capitalism and favor one or the other while they suffer under a combination of both. Our schools have ill-served us, for the idea has never been taught. If more people were exposed to the idea they would realize that it makes sense. They would at least realize that there is an alternative to the two ideas that they claim polarize them but which in fact unite them in despair. The big schools right now tend to teach the smallest ideas. But Distributism is, like any secret, something that cannot be kept secret forever, in spite of institutionalized censorship. It will be taken seriously in spite of those who sneer at it. It will be stumbled on by those who try to avoid it. To quote Chesterton in reference to something else, Distributism “has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.”

>>133710172
Regardless of it's intent. It morphed into a political philosophy and therefore should be judged as one.

Ancaps can't and won't defend themselves from Communist threats from the outside.

File: hi.jpg (349KB, 1200x1400px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 1200x1400px

>No Nozick

You people fucking disgust me. Get your shit together.

>For Nozick, a distribution of goods is just if brought about by free exchange among consenting adults from a just starting position, even if large inequalities subsequently emerge from the process. Nozick appealed to the Kantian idea that people should be treated as ends (what he termed 'separateness of persons'), not merely as a means to some other end.

>Most controversially, Nozick argued that a consistent upholding of the non-aggression principle would allow and regard as valid consensual or non-coercive enslavement contracts between adults. He rejected the notion of inalienable rights advanced by Locke and most contemporary capitalist-oriented libertarian academics, writing in Anarchy, State, and Utopia that the typical notion of a "free system" would allow adults to voluntarily enter into non-coercive slave contracts.

>>133708522
What you are describing runs counter to reality. It doesn't account for ambition, an essential human emotion. How do you know that farmer is going to be a bad trader (how are there even traders in a society where everyone is self-sufficient?) , he could have the right genes for it or just be gifted in speech craft and you'd never know because he was never allowed to follow his ambitions. You need outsiders to come into a stale market or a stake society impeded to breathe new life into it. Your system tries to change human nature rather than work with it. It will inevitably fail. Also, it's anti-meritocratic and like every anti-meritocratic society it will become a corrupt tyranny and die out.

Which begs the question: if you gained power how many people are you going to kill for the sake of changing human nature? 40 million? 60 million? Or are you going to try and surpass your commie brethren of the 20th century and get a new high score in the game of genocide? It's already happened twice, what makes you so special to think your any better than they are? Your either going to be the next Stalin or the next gulag guard torturing innocents, and if you think you won't your more deluded than I thought.

>>133710304
And NatSocs will bend over for the commies once their Führer commits suicide.

>>133710249
>something else

this strikes me as a rather important distinction, the 'christian ideal' is not 'something else'

why quote a bunch of garbage by some unrelated author? Why not just quote chesterton himself?

File: Libertarians and Ancaps ready to be overrun by commies.png (114KB, 1324x674px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1324x674px

>>133710427
Nice argument, can't even defend your own ideology, kek.

File: 1487570184893.png (73KB, 812x726px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 812x726px

>>133710304
That's what heavily armed private mercenaries are for

>>133710293
are you talking about neo-liberals or Federalism?

what retard brand of conservatism are you talking about that is opposed to federalism?

File: John_Milton.jpg (42KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 850x400px

hoppe is a retard. Using the authorutarian practice of exiling to create a better society. Only to put in place a system where the degenerate will flourish

>>133710486
Why exactly did you expect an argument in response to your non-argument post?

>>133710570
Why do you assume there are that many people willing to be private mercenaries and that you both can afford to hire them and that they won't defect when they get a better offer?

>>133710486
you're in-kind response contends that you cant either. just saying

rip

>>133709304

>Classical liberalism is literally left wing

wtf no. one of its best thinkers, john locke, was clearly "right wing".

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/

>left wing: revolutionary
>right wing: traditionalism
there is nothing traditional about libertarianism

>>133710712
>And NatSocs will bend over for the commies once their Führer commits suicide.
At least they put up a fight, and against many other countries at the same time no less.
Might I remind you it was the U.S, which was once a Libertarian paradise, that funded the Soviets.

File: alpha.jpg (37KB, 604x453px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 604x453px

>>133710690

it's called a contract.

File: 1499881573266.jpg (28KB, 293x277px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 293x277px

>>133673435

>>133710690
What stops that from happening now?
People are bought all the time. The only solution is to offer them something better and give them a reason to be loyal to you.

>>133711063
Completely missed the point, so let me spell it out for you.
THERE WON'T BE ENOUGH PEOPLE THAT VOLUNTARILY WANT TO BE MERCENARIES

>>133711155
Because society doesn't solely revolve around profits.

>>133711202

shouting is not spelling, newfriend.

>that they won't defect when they get a better offer?

my post was clearly in reply to your last part. see, if you didn't type it like a retard maybe you would have seen that as well.

>>133710778
>one of its best thinkers
not just best.

Locke is often cited as the "father of liberalism".

Almost everything we talk about in modern culture, society, government in one way or another relies on locke if not indirectly, even marx who never made an argument for communism so much as he intended to rebuke capitalism took time to acknowledge important ideas of Adam Smith, who in turn relies on Locke.

The preamble to the declaration of independence was straight plagiarized from locke. (which I wholly believe Jefferson would take pride in were he alive to be asked today)

Civilization rests on his shoulders.

File: 1498007484487.jpg (61KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 480x480px

>>133711272
lol

>>133711348
So you just admit that there aren't enough people then? You seem to be fine with that, and, in that case, it doesn't matter if all 3 mercenaries you hire stay true to their contract (which in itself is a big maybe especially if a) a country makes a better offer b) it won't be profitable to do so due to potential odds/loss of manpower) if a country invades, now does it?
>>133711545
Yes, your picture is exactly how your Ancap warlord battles would play out, kike enabler.
By society, I mean average people. Why would anyone sign up for the military if they're just fighting for oil? That's why you guys hate them, right? Lots of people sign up to due patriotism or what they see as an attack on values.

File: 1494254741502.jpg (54KB, 556x504px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 556x504px

>>133711856
And yet these are the rule set we all play by.
And if this rule set must exist it should exist to serve the people, your people, my people, any people.

A society based on free association opens up the door to a whole different set of rules when it comes to society, social dynamics, and even race.

>>133711856

you know it's just easier to ask 'who would enforce the contract?'

that's a fucking fatal flaw of a libertarian society. someone that enforces contracts would require coercive power over everyone, and then by a loose definition be a government.

>>133712188
Nice job dodging the arguments.
You can give theoreticals all you want but without actual proof if this "other set of rules", you are no better than the communists with their naive assumptions that everyone is the same.
>>133712210
Everytime I do they say "muh honor system" or say "no one will make contracts with anyone who breaks them." The most ludicrous part is that for their "police" they said they'll have private organizations for that, which will either lead to a monopoly or a clusterfuck of rules that people still won't really have obligation to follow.

>>133712416
>You can give theoreticals all you want but without actual proof if this "other set of rules"
The ideal Libertarian state is the golden city upon a hill. Its not realistically about achieving the perfect society, but about working endlessly toward a more perfect society.

In that respect it is utopian (as is fascism towards the same goals). The difference is the use of civil authority vs an autocratic authority to work towards the utopian ideal.

File: Fascism redpill.png (130KB, 1559x962px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1559x962px

>>133714065
>Its not realistically about achieving the perfect society, but about working endlessly toward a more perfect society.
Fascism is about both realistically achieving it, and working towards it.
It's about maintaining the golden age of an empire, where the culture, race, and morals of a society are strong, healthy, and at peace with others. Working for profit and only for profit leads only to destruction. National Socialists believe in both profit and spirit. I think the difference is that Libertarians are robotic, and whether they mean it or not, really only care about themselves in the end. That's what it means when individualism is taken too far.

>>133714626
>Fascism is about both realistically achieving it, and working towards it.

there is no way of realistically achieving utopia period.

I think your criticisms of libertarianism / liberalism not being able to protect itself politically (and therefore culturally) are valid, its clearly capable of protecting itself militarily and economically. But the criticism that it they only care about themselves is obviated by the willingness and ability to protect itself economically and militarily.

>>133716132
>But the criticism that it they only care about themselves is obviated by the willingness and ability to protect itself economically and militarily.
The criticism is not just gone away with. Things happen in this world, and people can be unlucky. If a factory goes out of business, is that the fault of it's workers? No. However, a Libertarian and An-cap society would have them starve should there not be other jobs around for them.
Complications can happen in life, but the Libertarian mindset seems to be "as long as it's not me." They don't understand that the environment around them can change their quality of life, and they don't feel an obligation to help others unless they are saint like to begin with. That's why it never sits right with me. Libertarians don't take action when it comes to things like that, while the Nazis would hold charities and such. That's why I say, in the end, they only care about themselves.

File: 14962535_1413314215360490_6378227570517445416_n.jpg (35KB, 708x394px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 708x394px

Who are the essential Libertarians to subscribe to on YouTube?

>>133693984
>Muh 168 gorrillion

File: images.jpg (14KB, 291x173px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 291x173px

when will the west just let the s*mitic "people" kill each other?

File: subs.png (65KB, 349x574px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 349x574px

>>133717360

>>133717360

RonPaulLibertyReport

Molymeme

misesmedia

ReasonTV

TomWoodsTV

>>133717360
Chris Cantwell

File: 18953410_1724460774245831_8440160376418532295_o.png (157KB, 1024x800px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1024x800px

>>133717980
>>133718047
>>133718181

Thanks lads. Love from the UK

hey fags
come debate me about socialism
>>133712163

File: Opa6ZCkh.jpg (60KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 900x900px

>>133718316

>UK
>libertarian

do you plan to leave?

>>133718417

There can't be a debate over socialism, because it's a political stance while libertarianism isn't.A more proper setup would be "Authoritarianism vs Libertarianism".

>>133718661
>There can't be a debate over socialism
why
>because it's a political stance
what the fuck are you on about, thats literally the most retarded thing ive heard

>>133718781

Oh nice argumentation there

File: 3OddQwdF_400x400.jpg (41KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 400x400px

>>133718548

No. We plan to start winning.

>>133718849
i gave a completely valid argument, i pointed out that you have not explained at all why the fact that socialism is political means it is not a subject that can be debated on.
you quite literally gave no arguments to back up your claims, while i have no claims to back up.

>>133678285
>>133678344
>>133679764
>>133685084
Nice thought police. How does that cum taste?

>>133716851
>The criticism is not just gone away with. Things happen in this world, and people can be unlucky. If a factory goes out of business, is that the fault of it's workers? No.
This is a bit hyperbolic. It is indeed sometimes the fault of the workers.

>However, a Libertarian and An-cap society would have them starve should there not be other jobs around for them.
Nobody starves in the west that you wouldnt euthanize for being a degenerate or retarded draw on society under fascism anyway.


>Complications can happen in life, but the Libertarian mindset seems to be "as long as it's not me." They don't understand that the environment around them can change their quality of life, and they don't feel an obligation to help others unless they are saint like to begin with.

>as long as its not my actions being seen as degenerate
>as long as its not my culture being bulldozed
"successful ideology" and "selfish cooperation" are tautological.

>That's why it never sits right with me. Libertarians don't take action when it comes to things like that, while the Nazis would hold charities and such. That's why I say, in the end, they only care about themselves.
charity is not exclusive to national socialism, cmon now.

>>133719027

>i gave a completely valid argument

No, you said it was "retarded".That's not an argument.

>>133719027

>you quite literally gave no arguments to back up your claims

Yes I did.The word "Libertarianism" carries a meaning, you should look it up.

>>133717360
not necessarily high philosophy, but for your bi-weekly gitmo nation media assassination

noagendashow.com
shows are also available on w/e podcast app and are updated to youtube weekly.

>>133719043
alright wait for the gunman to pull the trigger. See where that gets you.

>>133719141
i think we got off on the wrong foot.
Your claim is "There can't be a debate over socialism"
your reasoning for which is "because it's a political stance while libertarianism isn't"
in this case libertarianism is an example of something which can be debated over, with this example "A more proper setup would be "Authoritarianism vs Libertarianism"."

is this correct?

if so, explain how your reasoning supports the claim that there cant be a debate over socialism.

>>133719297

Libertarianism is a moral stance that argues there should be no coersion against people who haven't violated the natural right of another.So it's logical conclusion is the absence of a state.Therefore socialism and libertarianism assume different frameworks of how a society should work, because socialism cannot happen voluntarily in a scale larger than a self-sufficient community, you did always have to trample over somone who doesn't want to participate.That's why I said the correct debate is if there should or not be a central power who rules over people or if they should be left alone (giving that they haven't violated someone's right to be left alone). So "Authoritarianism vs Libertarianism".

>>133719984
and for some reason you couldnt translate that into a debate between the socialistic policies of an authoritarian government (the current standard) vs libertarianism (your own ideals)?
>the correct debate is if there should or not be a central power who rules over people or if they should be left alone
but this isnt the debate, the debate is about socialistic economic policies put into practice by a government. you can argue against socialism in this framework easily, you can hold the belief that socialism should not happen because it requires 'coer[c]ion against people who haven't violated the natural right of another' and argue that the principles that socialism is founded on are wrong, but you cant go around trying to force everyone to work within your own narrow-minded framework.
You could even stretch those cognitive fibers and put yourself in a hypothetical situation where its a debate about socialist government vs capitalist government. Theres no need to refuse to debate about anything that could potentially include a government, that just indicates a lack of flexibility, narrow-mindedness, and lack of any knowledge about the very thing you claim to oppose.

also
>socialism cannot happen voluntarily in a scale larger than a self-sufficient community
this is wrong. cultural socialism could indeed work in an anarchist society, it would require people to be willing to share, which happens all the time. in this case a distributed network of sharing will lead to everyone getting support from others so you cant really say it cant happen voluntarily.

i would suggest you read some of the posts in this thread
>>133712163

File: 1491162566636.png (170KB, 1500x1231px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1500x1231px

>>133676036

>>133720689

You don't understand.There can't be libertarian polices because there's no policy with 100% approval.There isn't"stretching" or being "open-mided", that's the WHOLE POINT of morals -- THEY'RE ABSOLUTE AND UNBENDABLE.Libertarianism is not a political stance, again, trying to have you understand this.

>>133720689

>cultural socialism

It's called charity, already exists.

File: purecoincidence.jpg (23KB, 296x314px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 296x314px

Libertarianism was pushed by Jews to remove non-Jew's group and ethnic identity. An atomized individual is easier to control.

>>133721258

you should know the meaning of the words you use

>>133720765
take this to reddit, this is a cringy meme and if its not a meme then your reasoning is horrible.
some other points for improvement:
- Your blackletter font and lemon milk do not stylistically match
- Your color scheme is black, yellow and white but then you have random red in there? make the red to black or some other color that blends better.

>>133720990
oh i see, so you are using libertarianism as not a political view but a system of morality. thats a good way of avoiding challenging your beliefs. (pretty sure thats a fallacy though)
however if you are of the same opinion as me then you will believe that the only morality is in reason. there is no 'good' or 'bad' apart from good or bad ideas, logically speaking.

>There can't be libertarian polic[i]es
i never said anything about 'libertarian policies'
you really pulled this one out of your ass didnt you

>Libertarianism is not a political stance
it is though, by definition, and by all merits it is a political philosophy.

>>133721053
>It's called charity, already exists.
yes i know, your point?
i was using it as an example because you said that charity couldnt exist without a state.

>>133721548

>oh i see, so you are using libertarianism as not a political view but a system of morality. thats a good way of avoiding challenging your beliefs. (pretty sure thats a fallacy though)

Where's your argument here? Government polices aren't logically compatible with the libertarian position, it's not about "beliefs".You were the one who came to the libertarian general without even knowing what it meant.


>there is no 'good' or 'bad' apart from good or bad ideas, logically speaking.

Yes there is.Couldn't expect a socialist to not be a relativist :^).

>i never said anything about 'libertarian policies'

You said it's "narrow-minded" to not want to discuss governmnent policies even though I already explained you can't have a libertarian position on ANY political practice because it's AGAINST politics entirely.


>you said that charity couldnt exist without a state.

I never said that.

Reminder that libertarians will be thrown into the gas chamber too.

File: 1499523743802.webm (2MB, 480x848px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x848px

>>133722324

>flag

File: Brazil.jpg (99KB, 700x517px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 700x517px

>>133722402
>flag

File: mfw 4chan virgins.jpg (12KB, 258x245px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 258x245px

>>133722503

you're not gassing anyone, Hans

your children will be turning their asses to MECCA 20x a day

>>133722607
>Germany is 5% muslim
>Brazil is 90% monkeys and 100% corrupt
>not even a first world country

Hmm I wonder which one is the shit country

File: They don't want freedom.jpg (42KB, 602x271px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 602x271px

>>133674149
Most Americans seem to hate freedom, in my experience.

File: 1448149656293.jpg (62KB, 504x283px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 504x283px

>>133717360
BillWhittleChannel
AesopsRetreat

>>133722166
>>You were the one who came to the libertarian general without even knowing what it meant.
>implying i didnt know what libertarian meant
false, i used to be just like you until i realized how fucking retarded i was being. (i still hold some beliefs over from that period, one of which is the belief in decentralized government which is what hoppe-libertarianism sort of advocates)

>Yes there is 'good' and 'bad'
okay, do you have any reasoning to back this?

>implying i am a relativist
this is wrong, how the fuck did you get this idea from 'the only morality is in reason. there is no 'good' or 'bad' apart from good or bad ideas, logically speaking.'
look up Immanuel Kant, i came to the same conclusions as him.

>>i never said anything about 'libertarian policies'
>You said it's "narrow-minded" to not want to discuss governmnent policies
not quite, I did not say 'it's "narrow-minded" to not want to discuss governmnent policies'
I DID say 'its narrow-minded to refuse to debate about anything that could potentially include a government and try to force everyone to work within this framework'
and quite frankly that IS narrow minded. Also how does saying this ^^^ mean anything to do with libertarian policies?

>you can't have a libertarian position on ANY political practice because it's AGAINST politics entirely
hahaha youve got to be kidding me. You dont understand the meaning of 'politics' do you?
an anarchist form of government is still a form of government, you are just not being governed by a state. politics still comes into play because the politics of it all is the LACK of government.

>>133722166
>>you said that charity couldnt exist without a state.
>I never said that.
really? want me to bring up your quote? here: '[charity] cannot happen voluntarily in a scale larger than a self-sufficient community' >>133719984
to which i replied 'this is wrong. [charity] could indeed work in an anarchist society'
and you replied indicating that you think cultural socialism and charity are the same thing. Therefore, i replaced these equal and interchangeable terms to 'charity'

>>133722324
Reminder that Nazis didn't really gas the Jews and that fags like you are larpers.

>>133723659
This.

Jfc, if you want to larp, go on /bant/ or put on a Kekistani flag.

>>133723689
Soon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vGd1Oy7Cw0

>>133723480
>>133723460
>>133722607
my logical explanations and proper arguments have beaten the ape
he knows he cant come up with enough absurd strawmans and fallacies to faze me

any other libertarians want to debate?

>>133710690
Because to do otherwise runs contrary to societal demand.

Why do you assume there are that many people willing to elect trustworthy representatives that won't betray you when they get a better offer?

The motivations behind acting in the interests of oneself, ones' nuclear family, ones' friends and ones' community are stronger than the motivations behind acting in the interests of greater society. Surely you, as a NatSoc can identify with this in your opposition to Communism/International Socialism.

>>133692469
Because it's a lot more difficult and expensive to find and mine new sources of gold than it is to create credit out of nothing.

Additionally as the price of gold goes down it becomes less and less profitable to mine the stuff in the first place. Which gives it's value some stability. The value of state backed credit has absolutely no bearing on the value of producing it.

So do you guys believe that freedom is the most important thing, even over the practicality of things?

Are you okay with having fire fighters and cops? If so, why?

I'm currently trying to sort out my own thoughts and feelings but having trouble, would really like to see how others think

>>133677064
this

File: C7FOghHXgAA_NjG.jpg (106KB, 960x533px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 960x533px

>>133729410

Why would you assume those services couldn't be provided the market?

>>133729739
My main issue is over the last several years my optimism and believe in the average person has dropped dramatically. I've talked to and dealt with a lot of people who have very low standards, either out of ignorance or laziness, and they're willing to eat whatever shit a company lays out to them.

I just fear that if everything was to become privatized, the quality of life would drop because the average person's low standards would allow for it, people are becoming too weak these days to even boycott video game companies, let alone fire fighters or cops.

>>133729924
It's not people's standards that increases the quality and lowers the cost of goods and services in a free market. It's competition.

If it is just as easy for you to pay for a lesser service as it is to pay for a superior equivalent service, your "standards" are fairly irrelevant.

>>133729410
Imo I care more about decentralizing the federal government. I think having all of that handled at a state level is perfectly okay, because I don't think it's something a functioning society should have to worry about.

I don't necessary disagree that it can't be provided from a capitalistic standpoint, but I also feel that there were some serious problems that led to the centralization of firefighting. (Something along the lines of fire fighters refusing to put out certain fires.) Especially since a good chunk of fire fighters are volunteers. Since you're in the /lrg/, you're going to get major pushback from ancaps and larping ancaps alike, but at the end of the day not everything about a common shared service is LITERALLY STAGNATING THE FREE MARKET

>>133716132
>there is no way of realistically achieving utopia period.

Hitler almost did it. Why can't it be done? You sound like a nihilist.

>>133727597
what happens when gold is already concentrated in the hands of a few elite circles (jews)
what happens when they use their control of the gold to fuck with all the countries in the worlds economies?
why is social control of fiat currency a bad thing?

>>133731322
I'm not sure i know what you mean by "concentrated in the hands of a few elite". Currency is constantly circulated, if it isn't, i.e. someone is hoarding it, the value of the currency in circulation increases.

Under capitalism capital will flow to wherever it's most productive, it doesn't matter where it started.

You'll have to explain how they're "fucking with all the countries in the worlds economies", that's a very vague statement.

>>133731575
>someone is hoarding it, the value of the currency in circulation increases.
bingo
so if someone is hoarding it and more and more falls into their hands, their gold becomes more and more valuable due to the scarcity outside of this individuals hoard
goes back to that old saying, control the money and u control the world

>Under capitalism capital will flow to wherever it's most productive, it doesn't matter where it started.
under which principle does this occur? i dont believe this is the case. provide some reasoning to back this please

>You'll have to explain how they're "fucking with all the countries in the worlds economies", that's a very vague statement.
have you never seen the money masters?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miD_mtAEdRs
just to get you up to speed :---^)

>>133731575
also you didnt answer my question of 'why is social control of fiat currency a bad thing?'

>>133730848
no.
maybe you should just read the book.
Its not even supposed to be realistic, its satirical.

alternatively "A modern utopia" - HG Wells (1905)

ok times up im going to sleep
was good debating you retarded libertarians though
look forward to next time

>>133732972
I'll put it on my reading list. But you're still not tackling my argument.

>>133733143
I did tackle your argument.

your argument is that utopia is a practical ideal. It isnt, its impractical by definition.

>>133732264
>>133732388

True, the value of the currency any given individual is hoarding will increase, but not necessarily at a rate higher than the interest or dividends they'd receive were that currency invested. I'm not sure why you think this is such a problem.

The reason capital flows to where it's most productive is simply, the majority of loose capital will be invested in industries where productivity is greatest, giving a higher return.

"Socialised" anything is bad in my opinion, because you introduce into the equation human error and worse still the potential for corruption.

>>133733354
It's ideal and it can be implemented. Just because it's harder to achieve doesn't mean it's impossible. Stop thinking it's impossible.

>>133699642
>Thinking fascism will work

How is Junior High? Did you get a girlfriend yet?

>>133730848
>Hitler almost did it.
This is why I hate the dipshit redditors that only catalog away what they want to hear and ignoret he rest. Hitler was aggresively expansionist and would seize factories and resources because his brand of Socialism was retarded like the rest and couldn't reliably provide for it's people. Which is why his whole schtick was that "the country is too small for the German people".
Had the Brits and French not been cucks and slaped his shit the first time he tried that push into the Rhine the war wouldn't have happened and Hilter's general wohld have ousted him for his dangrrous folly.

>>133735301
People provided what they needed on their own, everyone had a job. How is that bad?

(((socialism))) is not National Socialism

>>133733598
its not about "implementing something"

its about achieving moral / philisophical unity between "everyone" while still making societal progress.

These two things are competing forces, its not possible to ever in reality achieve both at the same time.

Its satire, not reality.

just read the book.

>>133735812
The Germans had moral unity and had societal progress. Prove me wrong.

>>133736014
> moral unity
>everyone had exactly the same moral code and nobody had any dissenting ideas or even questioned anything at all
prove to me this is even possible.

>>133736212
You're thinking about unity as if everyone had the same face.

Unity as in everyone has a general sense of what was right and wrong. If everyone had exactly the same beliefs then that would mean everyone couldn't think for themselves.

>>133736563
>You're thinking about unity as if everyone had the same face.
ya, that is the utopian ideal you have been telling me is possible for the past hour.

seriously, just read the book.

>>133736771
That's not a utopia. That's a society with no mind.

>>133737102
I
T
S

S
A
T
I
R
E

>>133735673
>FeeltheBurn.jpg
"It's DEMOCRATIC Socialism!"

File: 1500121681647.jpg (84KB, 645x851px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 645x851px

>>133737239
Did Germans have moral unity and societal progress?

>>133737471
it was something approaching the Utopian ideal yes.

>>133737650
So it is possible for a Utopian ideal to be achieved. While very hard to achieve, is possible. Why not strive for that?

>>133737885
no its not possible.

yes we should strive for it.

that was my original point.

>>133737961
I think there's a disconnect between our definitions of utopia.

Utopia for me is something as perfect as imperfection can get. Because we are human it's impossible for a true utopia, but in an imperfect world a utopia is the best an imperfection can strive for. The little details about what is wrong in such a "utopia" is irrelevant because humans aren't supremely perfect.

So Germany was close to a utopia.

>>133735673
who paid for the jobs?
If the jobs weren't government jobs, with which money did the gov stimulate the industry to take in more workers?

>>133738365
>Utopia for me is something as perfect as imperfection can get. Because we are human it's impossible for a true utopia, but in an imperfect world a utopia is the best an imperfection can strive for. The little details about what is wrong in such a "utopia" is irrelevant because humans aren't supremely perfect.


dude, its not about your fucking opinion.

its a fucking book, called utopia

the book called utopia, has shit in it about the society called utopia. that shit about utopia, is what utopia is.

everything else that has ever used the word utopia is talking about that one book called utopia about the place utopia that IS PERFECT.

seriously arguing with you is like talking to a nigger.