No.65116
During the inevitable upcoming U.S. civil war, how should we treat captured commies and nazis?
Helicopter memes aside, we capitalists, libertarians and conservatives are the last voice of reason. If we fall, America as we know it ceases to exist.
What should the militia's policy be regarding PoWs?
No.65119
>>65116
Personally, I think LARPers should be hit over the head until they finish highschool and then we'll have a snack.
No.65121
>>65116
>we capitalists, libertarians and conservatives are the last voice of reason.
>capitalists, libertarians and conservatives
>conservatives
Conservatives are retards who think the Constitution is fool-proof because it has obtained a legacy status. Libertarians/AnCaps are people who think critically and philosophically, and who actually get an education. Don't lump us in with those fools, especially since a majority of "conservatives" are NeoCons.
No.65122
>>65116
Don't get tight, but that fanfic is not happening. There might be a lot of AnComms at protests but compared to the normies they're nothing. No extreme group will have their way through violent means. Just a little bit more till cops and citizens start shooting at Antifas.
No.65125
A swift bullet to the head.
No.65139
commies should be put to death, nazis released into the general public
>implying all races are equal
>implying nazis wanna take my freedoms away (im already white)
>implying being a nazi somehow prevents you from taking part in the free market
besides, /liberty/ doesnt have the manpower for a civil war
commies do not respect neutral people, they would enslave you for whatever skills you might have and seize whatever you managed to save for yourself, nazis would allow you to produce whatever you want and trade for whatever you want
No.65142
>>65139
>>implying being a nazi somehow prevents you from taking part in the free market
It pretty much does. Capitalism is a Jewish tool after all.
No.65144
>>65142
>everything I don't like is because of Jews
I really hate /pol/ sometimes
No.65145
No.65146
>>65145
>You can only go on one (1) politics board
Fuck off, they have some good content, even if they argue like children.
No.65149
>>65142
hitler only said usury is jewish, market is fine, fucking hell nazi wartime production was private, the state was actually BUYING munitions
No.65150
>>65149
>the state was actually BUYING munitions
With what money?
No.65152
>>65150
reichmarks, backed by nazi gold, hitler fixed the weimar inflation and cut unemployment from 50% to ~0%
as i said, other than usury and child prostitution, and peddling drugs to hitler youth, 3rd reich guaranteed you the rights and liberties to produce whatever you want and sell to whoever you wanted
he was also buying steel from sweden and romania and also traded with switzerland, albania and ireland which were neutral
No.65155
>>65152
>hitler fixed the weimar inflation
>3rd reich guaranteed you the rights and liberties to produce whatever you want and sell to whoever you wanted
Hitler didn't "fix" the inflation. He spent his nation back into further debt. The State does not produce anything. Whatever it spends has come out of the very same people it pretends to give to.
The Reich issued orders to business that could not be disobeyed. What it "gave" was irrelevant considering it also restricted how and on what you can "spend". Nazi Germany had nothing remotely close to private property. Only State planning distribution of resources larping as a market.
You have to go back
No.65161
>>65155
>
can you stop being retarded please? hitler spent his entire life warning people about the threat of "bolshevismus" and centralized, planned economy
he HIRED huge boss to design uniforms, he HIRED ford to make volkswagen, he HIRED ibm to purchase primitive computers to help with the accounting
No.65172
>allying with conservatives
I hope you mean paleocons and not "muh Reagan" neocons.
No.65179
>>65172
My gun, my bible, my freedom and my private property.
As far as foreign policy is concerned, I'm a paleocon. I believe we shouldn't be meddling in another nation's affairs. The U.S. has done more harm than good in the last couple decades, especially with all the destabilization in MENA.
I only believe in intervention if there is an actual legitimate threat. The last real threat was the USSR, now we're just bullying defenseless 3rd world shitholes and arming terrorist groups or have the CIA stage fake revolutions to get rid of good governments and install puppet leaders instead.
No.65180
>>65161
Hitler even confiscated the property of one company producing planes because they refused to produce for the war. Not much "hiring" in being hired when the threat of nationalization looms over the deal.
No.65185
No.65188
>>65161
Hitler was dabbling into the occult. Ever heard of the Vril society? They were into pagan 'New Age' shit.
No.65189
This board shows its true colors yet again.
No.65190
>>65189
Communism has shown its true colors decades ago when it killed over 70,000,000 people.
No.65191
That depends.
Your average marxist is just a brainwashed clueless teenager, he doesn't know any better. A victim of propaganda. These will go into re-education.
But the intellectual elites - the professors, movers and shakers behind cultural marxism who have been deliberately undermining western civilization, get executed. Preferably thrown out of a helicopter.
No.65192
>>65189
The Consequentialists don't represent the whole board. Not yet, that is. We've already had a "true colors" thread before. One would wonder why it's becoming a regular occurrence.
No.65194
>>65121
>enlightened
>ancap
This board really is shit. Have fun sniffing your own farts while pretending you aren't reddit incarnate with this sort of circlejerking.
No.65197
>>65194
You forgot your flag, commie.
No.65199
Hello, /pol/ack here, I'm, one of those alt-right "Nazis" you're talking about, I'm a libertarian fascist, not a national socialist, the majority of alt-rightists are some combination of policies from libertarianism and nationalism, here's my conclusions:
1. anarcho-capitalism leads to feudalism as inevitably as anarcho-socialism leads to simply communism, this leads me to having minarchist policies at minimum.
2. a minarchist state cannot exist within a democracy, the founding US fathers thought they could manage it by restricting who could vote and keeping the population educated, look at how that turned out, considering /pol/ and /liberty/ already know what policies they like, the ideal situation is a system that no one can change, not even at the highest level of power, any voting should only be for the people who command the institutions within those laws, and even then measures should exist to keep them in check.
3. religion is not the only source of objective morality, true, there is no morality outside of living things, but there is a source objective morality within humanity, and we've had it ever since charles darwin returned home on the beagle, objective morality means the knowledge of how humans were intended to behave, and evolutionary psychology reveals more and more the morality that evolved within us over millions of years, that may not be sufficient within our current environment, and we may need to add some rules to make it work, but accepting what it does have to say needs to be the starting point in our moral systems, despite what it has to say being quite politically incorrect.
4. whatever rights and rules a government affords, they must only be afforded to the citizens who live under that government, and not applied to those of other nations, though forbidden to use the land in the same way a citizen would, the government owns all of the land in it's territory, even the land owned by the citizens is also owned by the government, this is why citizens pay taxes, and why the government's laws apply even in private areas.
5. there are natural gaps between different groups of people, especially between the races, in not only IQ, but also other psychological properties, these differences effect their ability to perform, which translates into economic differences, sometimes these gaps are so large, they can do noting but have a fuckton of kids and live on charity, this will also cause gaps in crime rates between the groups, add these up and you get the resentment we see now, in addition, culture is emergent from biology, not to mention ideologies based on global conquest, like communism and islam.
No.65200
>>65199
I was with you started spouting about Darwinism.
Evolution is a myth. there is no "millions of years" or ape men. Stop bringing your religion into politics.
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
You're free to believe in evolutionism, but don't force it upon others.
No.65213
>>65116
Who is this beautiful semen demon?
No.65221
>>65213
Triss, from "The Witcher." Have you been living under a rock?
>>http://archive.is/1S54K
No.65223
>>65200
>Drosophila, a model organism with a quick reproduction time, can be actively shown to evolve in a lab setting
>Darwinism doesn't exist
>Don't force it upon others
Take your Jewish invented religion, and kill yourself. If you reject Darwinian Evolution, it's because you've been tricked by Kikes.
>>http://archive.is/ZFn4t
No.65255
>>65197
Nicely memed. I'm not even close to a communist. Another excellent diagnosis by a faggot ancap.
No.65260
>>65255
Ancaps are fucking retarded don't even waste your time on them
No.65268
>>65267
Thoughts on these charts?
No.65288
>>65268
Social Darwinism is retarded and evolution happens over a much longer time span then what you would think for eugenics to have any effect on genes.
No.65289
>>65267
Holy shit, /leftypol/ is more retarded than Reddit. You can't pick and choose where you want to take things to their logical conclusions.
No.65290
>>65288
>I'm some retard who lives in his parents basement, but I took an ecology course one time so I'm definitely more qualified than an established scientist
No.65293
>>65289
How come? That post was absolutely retarded.
No.65295
>>65288
>evolution happens over a much longer time span then what you would think for eugenics to have any effect on genes
The persecution of the Jews in Europe for hundreds of years led to the ones with lower intelligence having less children. This resulted in a mean IQ gain of approximately ~0.3IQ points per generation in that population.
0.3 IQ points per generation may not seem like much but it very quickly adds up.
No.65302
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>65288
There is no such thing as evolution.
There is entropy and decay.
Darwinism is pseudo-science. It's a myth.
I have been following Creation VS Evolution debates and can tell that evolution is a dying theory. The only reason people still cling to monkey-man evolution is because it's the only atheistic worldview. Acknowledging evolution is false means accepting there is a creator God and we're not just some purposeless, meaningless accident, this idea frightens the fedoras.
No.65308
>>65302
I feel like you're just trying to spark a religious debate at this point now.
No.65309
>>65302
You didn't replace Evolution iwth creationism.
No.65310
>>65194
/pol/ and leftypol are reddit you fucking mong. They got all their converts from /r/donald and kiketube. leftypol got theirs from /r/socialism shitshow.
Go believe the federal co opted organizations like the KKK, surely that helped everyone out back in civille.
No.65319
>>65318
>so God must be real
No, it just means God could be real, so one can choose to believe in Him. You're free to make the choice to think what you want to think.
No.65329
>>65290
>A infographic is an established scientist
Your bias is showing.
No.65330
>>65310
I'm from /tech/ so fuck off with the damn generalization.
No.65335
No.65336
>>65335
this is your brain on a priorism
No.65337
No.65339
>>65337
>socialism
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
No.65367
>>65335
>WTF did you just add on to this list???
This is the wrong board to have such a discussion.
No.65368
>>65288
>and evolution happens over a much longer time span then what you would think for eugenics to have any effect on genes.
The Russian Fox Experiment, please look it up as when traits are highly selective then change will happen fast as fuck as has had happen with that experiment
No.65370
>>65368
Thanks, I'll look it up.
No.65377
>>65368
Only 20 percent of them is domesticated still after all of this time. It's not really shown it if the trait is favorable even after the whole time.
No.65405
>>65330
>hey guys, see that Windows OS? The one with millions of dollars into it, thousands of programs compatible with it, IT guys easily able to work with it, excellent Microsoft security for detecting ransomware in real time, and a good browser built in? It may or may not spy on you, so instead you should use "x" Linux OS made by 5 guys in Finland that has tons of vulnerabilities because it can't be patched quickly enough, and you have to use a VIM and WINE to run even the most basic fucking programs. That sure makes more fucking sense, doesn't it?
No.65406
No.65408
>>65405
> It may or may not spy on you
It does. That's not a "maybe" anymore. Don't make it as if the only reason to look for an alternative is being spied on and datamined.
>that has tons of vulnerabilities because it can't be patched quickly enough
Oh, you were just baiting. Because that's the exact opposite.
No.65410
>>65408
>It does
[citation needed]. Also, so does your fucking ISP. Using Linux doesn't protect you from the ISP reporting everything you go on.
>you were just baiting
No, I wasn't. Do you really expect me to believe something like ReactOS or Temple OS patches as quickly as Microsoft? Let's say you put forth Ubuntu. You make a decent point, but I'll trust Microsoft (an established company, in the PC business) over some horseshit Hipster company with le open source shit. You Linux fags, especially Stallman, are just jealous that Gates made a fucking fortune off of fine-tuning Linux into proprietary DOS. If DOS/Windows was the exact same, yet open source, you'd be going "look at how great open source is guys, look at Microsoft!!!"
Bottom Line: Microsoft gets shit done, I'm on Edge on Windows 10. I paid money for the OS and programs, they were quality, and they still work. I'm not gonna throw away MS for some horseshit that may not even be in business next year.
No.65441
>>65439
Remember when Mugabe threw all the white farmers out of his country, caused a hyperinflation and turned the very fertile former Rhodesia into a net-importer of food? Remember when Barre fucked up his country so badly that successive years of tribal rule under islamistic warlords improved the economy? Remember when Rwanda decided to hack its biggest minority to death with machetes? These people are suffering because they are primitive degenerates who pushed culture and civilization away and instead embraced socialism and black nationalism. Helping them is like feeding a dog that bites your hand, then vomits the food back out and demands more, but never goes out to hunt for himself.
No.65445
>>65199
>Hello, /pol/ack here
Hi, choose /pol/ flag please.
>I'm a libertarian fascist
You can be a libertarian or a fascist, but not both. Fascism is collectivism, it reject individual rights for a "greater good" (the state,it's seen as the rapresentation of the people's will), just read "the doctrine of fascism". Mussolini was an ex-socialist, he has developed socialism in a nationalistic way, the result is fascism.
> the majority of alt-rightists are some combination of policies from libertarianism and nationalism
Again, you can be an individualist or a collectivist, but not both. Libertarian fascism works like the marxist logic:
1. Revolution
2. Dictatorship of the proletariat (Socialism)
3. Extinction of the state, realization of Communism.
Libertarian Fascism:
1. Revolution (ethnic conflict?)
2. Fascism
3. Extinction of the state, libertarian society achieved
How could you end mass democracy oppression with dictatorship oppression? How could you stop a fire with a flamethrower?
>anarcho-capitalism leads to feudalism as inevitably as anarcho-socialism leads to simply communism
nothing to say.
>a minarchist state cannot exist within a democracy, the founding US fathers thought they could manage it by restricting who could vote and keeping the population educated, look at how that turned out.
i agree, i mean about keeping people educated in a democracy and restricting who could vote.
>religion is not the only source of objective morality, true, there is no morality outside of living things
What do you mean with objective morality? Morality is a construct who societies creates to make order, rules, and laws
>*still talking about some kind of "universal morality" that evolution has led to humanity*
kek
> whatever rights and rules a government affords, they must only be afforded to the citizens who live under that government
Fixing: "they must only be afforded to the people in the government's territory".
There are still non-citizens, like tourists.
>there are natural gaps between different groups of people, especially between the races, in not only IQ, but also other psychological properties, these differences effect their ability to perform, which translates into economic differences, sometimes these gaps are so large, they can do noting but have a fuckton of kids and live on charity, this will also cause gaps in crime rates between the groups, add these up and you get the resentment we see now, in addition, culture is emergent from biology, not to mention ideologies based on global conquest, like communism and islam
it is a complex argument, you can't just say: "culture is emerged from biology". Every organism developes its own biology through the ambience, also by interacting with another organism. 50% of human characteristics comes from biology, the other 50% comes from the ambience where they live.
No.65449
>>65445
>Morality is a construct
Morality is objective. They come from God, not societies.
>The Existential Problem & Religious Solution
Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw36V_iXR2k
Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkh2TXCHpNs
>Man or Rabbit?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9fR1vSxNEQ
>The Laws of Nature
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_20yiBQAIlk
>Mere Christianity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_VYCqCexow
>The Origin (or 1,2,3,4)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tw9biRRv_bM
>‘Right & Wrong’ – A Clue to the Meaning of the Universe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmHXYhpEDfM
>The Reality of the Moral Law
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqsAzlFS91A
>What Lies Behind the Moral Law
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcRFYGr1zcg
>The Poison of Subjectivism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgcd6jvsCFs
>The Rival Conceptions of God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaGwF7A79_w
>The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxwnHVr192A
>Why I Am Not a Pacifist
Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2xY2k26HFo
Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jreq3mVvDgc
>Bulverism (Foundation of 20th Century Thought)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH53uFBOGbw
>The Necessity of Chivalry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBT9LasyC3E
>The Three Parts of Morality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtTeCyrgjIQ
>Sexual Morality
Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RkZXZx6HCI
Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AXi4-_HPRk
Moral relativism has already been debunked and proven wrong by C.S. Lewis and various other philosophers and theologians.
Moral relativism is just another Cultural Marxist postmodern tool to undermine western civilization's foundations.
No.65454
>>65449
>They come from God
>GOD
No.65456
No.65457
>>65449
>They come from God
wew
>>65456
>back to reddit
gb2 4/pol/
No.65458
>>65457
>>65454
Trying to find argument..
Error: Argument not found. Post discarded.
No.65459
>>65458
Prove god exists.
Prove he lays down morality.
prove said morality is correct.
Answer this, I'm not going to watch some youtube video for "arguments".
No.65460
>>65459
I don't like you very much because you're both a namefag and a flagfag but let me tell you, I wasted my time watching all those videos and there is no need for you to waste yours. The arguments are all deeply flawed and none of them are particularly convincing. Many rely on the audience misunderstanding one or more topics, many also make great leaps in logic or otherwise rely on good ole shaming tactics. These people are something else, I can't understand why you'd post those in great confidence of your position. Truly "Christian Anarchism" flagfag is a fag.
No.65461
>What about muh god?
>What about bible?
<What about muh extradimensional reptile invisible friend?
<What about this fantasy book?
No.65463
No.65475
No.65476
>>65475
>TMM gets destroyed in the comments section
>'Answers' are full of logical fallacies
>runs away from debates
Nice try.
No.65483
>>65476
>Inspiringphilosophy
>Quantum Woo
No.65493
>>65406
Wow, I've never seen a more well contructed intellectual rebuttal ever in my life. I've been eternally ==BTFO==, nice one mate.
No.65494
>>65463
>look at my list of proof I got from a greentext! BTFO!
write something or go away. No one is going to watch youtube videos.
>>65460
>why you'd post those
post what?
No.65496
>>65410
>>65405
Just because it cost money and it is a magic box doesn't make it any more special.
>made by 5 guys in Finland
Just a sample https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/9/4
>The one with millions of dollars into it
https://www.linux.com/publications/estimating-total-cost-linux-distribution
>1.4 billion dollars
>tons of vulnerabilities because it can't be patched quickly enough
https://security.gentoo.org/glsa/201705-15
>recent sudo is patched
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Hardened/Gentoo_Hardened_and_Stack_Clash
>stack clashed is already patched via cflag
Enjoy your wannacry. Now redhat is another story.
>fine-tuning Linux into proprietary DOS.
Now I know you are shilling.
One last note, linux is not communist.
No.65497
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>65410
>I'm on Edge on Windows 10
No.65499
>>65496
> linux is not communist.
>t. commie
anyway, stallman is a leftist.
http://wiki.c2.com/?OpenSourceCommunism
No.65501
>>65499
>Stallman owns the linux kernel
Eric Raymond
http://catb.org/~esr/writings/response-to-bezroukov.html
I thought you were a objectivist?
No.65502
>>65501
He happens to be very influential.
When did I ever say he owns the kernel?
No.65503
>>65502
Eric Raymond had a large influence on the open source movement and Stallman with the free software movement.
It's seemed implied especially when you said linux is not communist. Torvalds adhearded more to the open source movement than the free software movement.
No.65506
>>65116
Regarding Civil War I always saw it as a regional conflict. I'm sure politics would play a part of it I just see the regional stuff as bigger like North vs South, Cascadia, Texas and even some Native American tribes getting in on the action.
No.65507
No.65509
>>65503
>It's seemed implied
If I didn't say it, I didn't say it. Don't assume.
And read the link I posted, it has arguments from either side.
No.65510
>>65509
I see that they tend to get open source and free software mixed up. Some didn't.
No.65511
I think we can safely mark this thread as the single worst thread ever to exist on /liberty/.
No.65513
>>65511
You haven't been around for that long then. Pirate flag fag and that one AnComm that used to write walls of word salads were far worse than this.
Now we have to deal with the guy that has nothing else to talk about but his religion and Catnwellfags LARPing as Libertarians because misinterpreting Hoppe is cool and edgy, and they probably came here from Facebook or Reddit.
No.65518
>>65511
Hahaha, what about the pedo thread? What about that time that one poster gave his cringefest lifestory? What about the socialist calculation debate that should've been easy, but every fucking poster on this board dropped the fucking ball? There are a lot of shit threads on this board. /liberty/ was never good. It's probably the main reason I keep coming back.
No.65523
>>65518
>>65513
>>65511
>t. post-infinity next posters
I remember when the only person who used the snek flag was the BO and the catalog had threads a year old and with good content.
No.65527
>>65518
>What about the socialist calculation debate that should've been easy, but every fucking poster on this board dropped the fucking ball?
What debate? There was never a debate. It never goes past Socialists posting Cockshot's crap.
No.65531
>>65518
>What about the socialist calculation debate that should've been easy, but every fucking poster on this board dropped the fucking ball?
What about it? Some users didn't understand it the calculation-problem properly, another user came and told us how it works, gave us a good reading list, and the world was saved.
The arguments given weren't even "false", that's why they persisted. And the commies couldn't even deal with them, they got completely btfo'd and we didn't even have to bring up Mises' original argument. You learn how to make a good punch from a superior boxer and not from fighting some kid that only flails around wildly, which is what /leftypol/ largely are.
And yeah, Cockshott/Cottrell a shit, they don't hold up under any kind of scrutiny once you look past the math. These two never had a grasp of the calculation-problem, they haven't even read any Mises when they first wrote their response to it. But 'we dropped the ball? Honestly, my man, screw you.
No.65542
>>65514
Thanks for the links. I don't like the writing style, but some of the information seems to be interesting.
No.66035
>>65116
>commies
DAILY REMINDER: COMMIES AREN'T PEOPLE AND HAVE NO INNATE RIGHTS
- t. "Nazi"/former ancap
No.66050
>>66035
>commies arent people
i hate this antiscientifis bullshit
this is the same mechanism which did
>jews arent people
t. non commie and non jew
No.66058
How do you guys deal with these people?
No.66066
>>66058
Laugh and see if I can get them to say anything else as funny as that.
No.66247
>>66058
leftists love emotional intelligence and sexual intelligence because they want to feel that they are somewhat intelligent
No.66259
>>66247
Many leftists have high IQ which just show how useless IQ as a metric is.
No.66265
>>66247
This. Look at how often the word wisdom is used nowadays compared to smart or clever. Everyone has to acknowledge that some people are smart, but to deny that a few are wise, that's possible if you're a dumb person who couldn't appreciate a brilliant thought if your life depnded on it (which it does, in a way). Like being "smart", having a high emotional or sexual intelligence is not a hard task. Just be compassionate once a week and you have high emotional intelligence. Sleep with your uncle and your sexual intelligence is high. Not hard to enter that club. Not so with wisdom; that's an exclusive club that you can enter when you're in your fourties after a life of adventure and studies and if there's one thing that leftists hate, it's exclusive clubs.
>>66259
Not useless, just overrated. After 125 or so, it gradually stops being a very useful indicator of anything. Being intelligent enough to reach a specific IQ in a test is like an entry ticket to an intellectual life, but it's no guarantee that you actually make anything of that chance. Guys like Marx or Rawls are a prime example: Intelligent enough to be extremely well-read and construct incredibly complex systems, but utterly detached from reality and, in the case of the latter, incapable of producing anything that isn't an apologetic for the current political system.
No.66371
>>66259
intelligence =/= ethics
No.66436
>>65405
Die.
>>65499
Who gives a shit? The dude has shit opinions regarding property rights and gun rights, but he clearly states that these are not his fields of expertise and thus prefers not to sperg about them. He spergs only about software so the contents of these spergouts are what really matters.
>>65514
So this guy's primary concern, underneath the schizo rantings, is that FSF is, in fact, a for-profit organization and that it doesn't give a fair portion of its profits to free software creators? Understandable. The former wouldn't be bad if they were honest about it, but they are not. The latter is easily fixed: Donate to the guys making the software you actually use instead of the FSF.
>new articles 2015/2016
(1)Agreed, Stallman is just being a petulant fuckwit. No different to guy calling it "Fascism" when his boss doesn't let him walk around with his dick hanging out.
(2)There is literally nothing wrong with charging for each sharing of information. It's when it is received that you lose ownership of that copy.
(3)Not software.
(4)Irrelevant.
(5)Interjection noted.
(6)Stallman might want free stuff as in free beer, but plenty of stuff licensed under GPL is blocked by paywalls. The only expectation is that if you buy the software then the company must make sure the source code is also available to you.
(7)"LOLUMAD?" is not an argument.
(11)Okay this one is actually pretty important. If servers do cost so much then it is fair that they would start charging. Free as in freedom, not free as in free beer. The point of GPL isn't so that people can get software without paying for it, but rather that: 1 they can modify it as they see fit, 2 they can use it as they see fit in its standard or modified form, 3 they can redistribute it as they see fit in its standard or modified format and 4 they can pirate it from anywhere without fear of legal repercussions. If a server host wants to charge they can, they just can't send copyright lawyers after you if you download it free off another website. Look at Red Hat and Fedora, for example.
(13)"LOLUMAD?" is not an argument.
1984 is a very important book written for a very good reason. That reason is to point out various methods in which a malicious government could seize and consolidate power, as well as showing the world the plight of the people of Russia. It is not about the hypocrisy of an autistic kike and shrieking "1984!" at everything you don't like just makes you look like a schizophrenic idiot. When Stallman runs for president, then maybe we can discuss whether or not Orwell warned us about him.
>>66265
I'd say that is more proof that IQ is useless if anything. Assuming Marx's ideals were born of misguided thinking rather than well-guided jewish malice, if he could think up something complex but kept missing elephants both IRL and even within his fictional system then he was stupid. If his processing power was seemingly enhanced by using it entirely on a single string of outcomes and a severely limited list of input data then he didn't have more processing power than somebody who relatively slowly saw a greater field of data and thought out all feasible possibility strings.
No.66607
Kill the Nazis (most are uggo anyway)
Keep the cute commie traps for myself
No.66612
>>66607
You will not tempt me.
No.66779
No.66824
No.66825
>>66607
>cute commie traps
Don't exist, last time I checked even gay /r9k/ hates commies and wish they could be sucking /pol/'s dick right now.
No.66826
>>66824
>I want to fuck someone with a dick
>but I'm not gay though!
keep deluding yourself faggot
No.66827
They're both just authoritarian leftists, they hold practically no distinction in my mind to the point that when I hang out at 4chan and someone says /pol/ is right wing I almost ask if they've re-embraced libertarianism before I remember normalfags and the dumber neonazis think national SOCIALISM is right wing.
Who knows. I don't think this is a question that honestly matters too much, if you were asking it seriously, because I don't think there's going to be too much left of anybody after the big fight.
No.66832
>>66773
Leftist traps > Rightist traps
Scientific fact.
No.66835
>>66773
Also, traps are not trannies ew
No.66853
Let the nazis have their own state. They can be reasoned with many of them are former libertarians. Commies will try to force communism on the rest of us.
No.66856
>>66853
Neonazis are largely hysterical, emotion-driven women. Muh degeneracy muh jews pretty much guarantees they'll try and march on us in this scenario at some point or another, especially since once their state starts declining and collapsing (as socialism always does) they'll have no choice but to declare war on somebody to try and BS.
No.66860
>>66856
>Neonazis are largely hysterical, emotion-driven women.
Evidence? I see people driven by facts and the desire to help their people.
>Muh degeneracy muh jews
Are you implying these aren't real issues?
No.66861
>>66853
>Communists will invade you
When has China Vietnam or Cuba said that?
No.66862
>>66860
Moral busybodies help nobody. And muh degeneracy is not an issue. Muh jews is more arguably an issue but certainly that's the kind of problems that arise when you consolidate all your power into a government.
No.66869
>>66860
>Neonazis are largely hysterical, emotion-driven women.
>Evidence? I see people driven by facts and the desire to help their people.
Have you been living under a rock or something? These people have taken some of the worst pro-government bluepills of all time and their moral compass is broken as fuck, and their movement is populist and collectivist. Their ideal is a socialist heavily favored by history who was primarily supported by protestant school teachers, who hated the clergy, the nobility and the monarchy but who supposedly would've saved Europe from "degeneracy" and "progressivism".
>Muh degeneracy muh jews
>Are you implying these aren't real issues?
Depends on what you mean by degeneracy. The jews are just as much a problem as women and blacks are: None at all, if we take away the (modern, democratic) state. Well, blacks admittedly are a problem, but they weren't before the welfare state and before black nationalism became a thing. Haven't heard much bad about them during the fourties or fifties. Now, of course, their culture is toxic and violent like it is in Africa, and you can thank the government for that.
No.66911
>>66862
>>66869
Libertarians are so fucking retarded holy shit.
Degeneracy is terrible. Niggers and Jews would still be bad without the state. Kys if you disagree
No.66978
>>66911
without the state they would still be bad, but I wouldnt have to deal with them
No.66981
>>66978
perhaps not legally but niggers aren't exactly known for respecting the law.
they will have to be physically removed
No.66982
>>66981
>no social programs
>heavily armed NAP respecting white populace
>niggers nigging
It would be like your all holy DotR but every single day in a libertarian society, until they are all finally gone.
No.66985
>>66982
>no social programmes
so they will be more eager to steal
>but we will have guns!
and so will they. overall effect is not much difference
>niggers nigging
you mean taking advantage of the fucking chaos
No.66986
>>66985
>so they will be more eager to steal
Which leads to point #2
>and so will they. overall effect is not much difference
They will have beater guns that they do not know how to use, while the whites would have higher quality guns which they do know how to use.
>programmes
Why am I even talking to you about things like rights or arms, disregard my posts I guess.
No.66987
>>66986
>They will have beater guns that they do not know how to use, while the whites would have higher quality guns which they do know how to use.
take it seriously. i doubt their accuracy is that bad. they manage to murder thousands of people every year.
there is no serious correlation between gun ownership and crime, so it is not something you can point to
No.66988
>>66987
>i doubt their accuracy is that bad.
It really is terrible
>they manage to murder thousands of people every year.
Either at incredibly close ranges or a person they are not aiming at. Believe me m8, a chimp with a gun is no match for a white with a gun.
No.66989
>>66988
>Either at incredibly close ranges or a person they are not aiming at
so why can't they continue like this?
>Believe me m8, a chimp with a gun is no match for a white with a gun.
it will depend on the chimp and the white. also there could be a group of chimps.
the point is they will continue to kill people and be a problem, and i see no problem admitting this
No.66991
>>66989
>so why can't they continue like this?
Being killed whenever they violate the NAP would thin their numbers, lack of social programs would thin them out even more as they start feeling the affects of having too many kids they they can't support.
>it will depend on the chimp and the white.
Only factor on the whites is whether they will have the heart to pull the trigger.
>also there could be a group of chimps.
They are most dangerous when in groups, yes, but their group is easily shattered when they meet firm resistance.
>the point is they will continue to kill people and be a problem, and i see no problem admitting this
and they will continue to be killed in return in greater numbers until they either learn to act human or die out. Really the only whites in any danger in a libertarian society would be the soft city dwellers who put themselves in harms way by not arming themselves.
No.66992
>>65116
Create a TV show where they must fight each other to the death to survive.
Each episode is duel, and as is standard with these reality tv shows half the show is dedicated to participants back story, and then the fight itself at the very end.
No.66993
>>66991
>Being killed whenever they violate the NAP
but the point is they can shoot at close range, in groups, take people by surprise, and so on
> their group is easily shattered when they meet firm resistance
which won't happen considering they will just shoot the store owner, grab things and leave
No.66995
>>66991
>they can shoot at close range, in groups, take people by surprise, and so on
Stop relaxing around blacks and maybe you will stop being surprised.
>they will just shoot the store owner, grab things and leave
>voluntarily allowing niggers into your store or place of business
No.66997
>>66995
>Stop relaxing around blacks and maybe you will stop being surprised.
they can still take you by surprise.
>voluntarily allowing niggers into your store or place of business
this is the same argument as 'gun free zones'
No.66998
No.66999
>>66997
>keeping "people" who are violent savages at every opportunity out of your business is the same as keeping inanimate objects out
Didn't know I was talking to a leftist.
No.67001
>>66999
>keeping "people" who are violent savages at every opportunity out of your business is the same as keeping inanimate objects out
keeping out inanimate objects should be easier
No.67008
>>66911
You sure showed us.
No.67009
>>66861
>China
Tibet, Vietnam, Taiwan.
>Vietnam
Republic of Vietnam.
>Cuba
Literally all south american marxist guerrillas were trained and funded by Cuba, this is not exaggeration or hyperbole. They're just fucking failures, although if you want a country that they've essentially taken over there's Venezuela.
No.67032
>>67009
Didn't Vietnam invade Cambodia when the Khmer Rouge were doing their thing?
No.67034
>>67009
Cuba has had soldiers all over the place, from Angola to Venezuela. I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't in sandland on behalf of PKK right now too.
>>67032
Yeah, it was a Sino-Soviet proxy war
No.67042
if this thread was a person they'd kill themselves over all their schizophrenic attacks
No.67043
>>67042
This your first experience watching people with conflicting views speak to each other? Well buckle up boyo you're in for a ride.
No.67965
>>66853
nazis want lebensraum
No.68005
>>67965
They aren't going to immediately try to annex us after the war. We will have time to prepare.
No.68112
>>65172
What is your problem with Reagan, he was one of the best Presidents in recent history.
No.68115
>>67965
Nazis declare war on capitalist West - get btfo.
West so rich it gives lend/lease to the commies.
Commies act violent towards the capitalist West - get btfo.
Flaky commies and nazis in the US want violent overthrow - get btfo by gun totin' freedom lovers defending their lives and property. After the failed revolution, capitalists give beaten commies and nazis jobs and a nice life.
We have nothing to fear. We're not inbred Russian aristocrats or authoritarian minded Europoors.
No.68137
>>66992
>a black american
>a mix brazilian
Was a shit meme.
No.68147
>>65116
You are massively retarded.
Moderates never win Civil Wars. Ever.
America as you know it deserves to die, the Constitution deserves to burn and be replaced.
The new one should be explicit in its agenda regarding race, religion and sides.
Liberty failed.
No.68148
>>65439
Most of those are niggers.
No.68149
>>68147
Liberty got one knee shot out before the race even began.
No.68151
>>65439
go back to /leftypol queer.
No.68155
>>68137
Gisele Bündchen isnt mixed, faggot
No.68165
>>68147
>Liberty failed.
"IF LIBERTY MEANS THE ABILITY TO PROPAGATE DEGENERACY, WE MUST REJECT IT. IF LIBERTY MEANS THE ABILITY TO UNDERMINE AND SUBVERT THE WHITE RACE, WE MUST REJECT IT. IF LIBERTY MEANS ECONOMIC SUBJUGATION TO WORLD JEWRY, WE MUST REJECT IT! WE REJECT THIS 'LIBERTY'!"
No.68172
>>68155
everyone is mixed to some extent
No.68281
>>65185
The same could be said for the communists when they also "hired" people.
No.68283
>>65441
Remember when Singapore went from a poor shithole with extreme racial and religious tensions to one of the most developed and wealthiest countries in the world after they freed their markets? Remember when that shithole called Mauritius had racial tensions between blacks, Indians and Creoles, as well as rampant poverty and homelessness but now nearly everyone there has a home and racial tensions disappeared after freeing their markets?
Has it ever occurred to you that the problem isn't an outgroup, but the web of incentives that governs everyone's actions? Or is it just too easy to scapegoat arbitrary groups of people as the cause for all the pain in the world?
No.68418
>>65439
we need to kill more ppl to stop overpopulation
t. necrocapitalist
No.68421
>>68283
>Has it ever occurred to you that the problem isn't an outgroup, but the web of incentives that governs everyone's actions?
And who creates this web of incentives? People do.
>Or is it just too easy to scapegoat arbitrary groups of people as the cause for all the pain in the world?
>Arbitrary
>Socialists
>Black Nationalists
>Implying they're not actually responsible for a great deal of the suffering in this world
Really, I have no idea what you're on about. Did you even read the post I was responding to?
No.68449
>how should we treat captured commies and nazis?
Physical removal
No.68459
>>68449
but what to do with so many bodies? it is more economical to make money from it and make cat food or dog food from it
No.68554
No.68582
>>68459
i thought physical removal means banishment/deportation, not genocide
No.68586
>>68582
Depends on whether you ask people who read Hoppe or idiots. Hoppe was very clear that he meant removal by voluntary means, like boycot or eviction from your own (not their) property.
No.68638
>>68636
>Humans are the only intelligent life form in the universe
>Therefore, objective morality exists
Just what the fuck.
No.68643
>>65116
What you don't seem to understand is that US doesn't have any "commies". There is no American Left - only puppet-show to get more votes by providing "alternative".
> we capitalists, libertarians and conservatives are the last voice of reason
I'm not even going to comment on this, except to point out that you are suffering from Stockholm syndrome. Capitalists are the ones with the money (capital). You are not becoming filthy rich by supporting them.
>>65142
> It pretty much does. Capitalism is a Jewish tool after all.
Hitler literally pioneered privatization. He is no different from Reagan.
>>65152
> hitler
> cut unemployment from 50% to ~0%
What would you say, if women in Third Reich were fired from their jobs and were not counted as unemployed?
>>65155
> The Reich issued orders to business that could not be disobeyed.
Except big businesses owned Reich lock, stock, and barrel.
> Nazi Germany had nothing remotely close to private property. Only State planning distribution of resources larping as a market.
Oh, boy.
>>65180
> Hitler even confiscated the property of one company producing planes because they refused to produce for the war.
Confiscation of one single company (two, actually: it was Arado and Junkers; and the question of "refusal" is up to discussion - as well as the involvement of competitors) does not abolish Capitalism.
Many states were nationalizing property in 1930s (Great Depression), but only Fascists privatized it afterwards. That is what you should be looking at.
>>65190
> Communism has shown its true colors decades ago when it killed over 70,000,000 people.
Come on. The current number is 100 million.
>>65191
> But the intellectual elites - the professors, movers and shakers behind cultural marxism
> movers and shakers behind cultural marxism
> Communists
I hate to break it to you, but Cultural "Marxism" isn't arguing against Capitalism as such. They redefined it as some bullshit and are actually supporting real Capitalism (the one Communists want to abolish).
No.68648
>>68643
>tripfag
Kek
>Confiscation of one single company (two, actually: it was Arado and Junkers; and the question of "refusal" is up to discussion - as well as the involvement of competitors) does not abolish Capitalism.
Nationalizing some five hundred businesses, forced cartelizations, decreed wages and working hours and all of that shit comes pretty close to abolishing capitalism, if you ask me. And just how formalistic does your thinking have to be for you to accept a privatization as legit if it goes hand in hand with sending a commissar to the "private" business to tell it what the government wants it to produce?
>inb4 big business collaborated with the Nazis
Oh, like in mercantilism, then? This term was invented for a reason.
No.68653
>>68648
> oh, noes. Someone does not give a fuck about our "culture"
Grow up. In any lengthy discussion you need IDs.
> Nationalizing some five hundred businesses, forced cartelizations, decreed wages and working hours and all of that shit comes pretty close to abolishing capitalism, if you ask me.
Capitalist mode of production - and, consequently, its abolition - are defined in Marxism quite extensively. Which is why, for example, USSR recognized itself as State Capitalist until 1929 (despite State having far more influence of economy than in Third Reich) and only in 1934 was it officially announced that the dominanat mode of production is no longer Capitalist. And China only promises that it will become Socialist in 2050 (IIRC).
> And just how formalistic does your thinking have to be for you to accept a privatization as legit if it goes hand in hand with sending a commissar to the "private" business to tell it what the government wants it to produce?
Am I getting the income? Because that's the purpose of investment, not to produce something specific. Money go in, money go out - that's all that matters.
As for commissar - the fact of government intervention is hardly something new. Any modern Capitalist state has production standards. What's the problem if Reich is a bit more stringent with it? In return they can be used to secure profit. Having a stable customer is worth quite a lot.
> pictures
If you want some insight into Third Reich, I recommend Neumann's Behemoth.
> Oh, like in mercantilism, then? This term was invented for a reason.
Like State Monopoly Capitalism. Finance capital (merger of banks and industry) makes state it's bitch. Frankly, I'm not sure what exactly AnCap have problem with here - someone turns state into privately owned corporation. Is that not what you want in the end?
No.68654
>>68643
>recognize property rights, except for when people want to use their property for something other than what you want
>be beacon of freedom
Choose one.
No.68655
>>68653
>Capitalist mode of production - and, consequently, its abolition - are defined in Marxism quite extensively.
And why exactly should I care about this specific definition? If Marx would've called both mercantilism and anarchocapitalism by the same name, then that quite simply means that his definition is worthless, because the two economic systems are nothing alike.
>If you want some insight into Third Reich, I recommend Neumann's Behemoth.
I already did enough research on it to last a few more months, thanks.
>Frankly, I'm not sure what exactly AnCap have problem with here - someone turns state into privately owned corporation. Is that not what you want in the end?
Does it follow the NAP? If no, then we don't want it, because it would still be a government.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: For a New Liberty is just 350 pages and very easy to read. How come you didn't bother with it but still expect us to not only have read Capital, but to have done so with an open mind and a study guide in each hand so we actually understand him?
No.68658
>>68654
You really need to explain the argument.
>>68655
> And why exactly should I care about this specific definition?
Because you argue about this specific definition being applicable to Third Reich. No?
Or "Nazi Germany had nothing remotely close to private property. Only State planning distribution of resources larping as a market." is about something else?
> If Marx would've called both mercantilism and anarchocapitalism by the same name, then that quite simply means that his definition is worthless, because the two economic systems are nothing alike.
Firstly, before you can evaluate "likeness" of systems, you need to know the context of comparison. Dolphins and rats may be nothing alike, but both are mammals.
Secondly, no Marxist compares AnCap to anything. It does not exist within Marxism, since it is considered flat-out impossible in industrial economy. Well, other than under "Primitive accumulation", which boils down not to economic activity, but preventing workers from using MoPs through violence.
Thirdly, stop putting words in my mouth. At no point did I use the term "Mercantilism" to describe Third Reich.
> Does it follow the NAP? If no, then we don't want it, because it would still be a government.
Of course it does. It's just you are trespassing on German soil and violate NAP yourself. [/s]
> I've said it before, I'll say it again: For a New Liberty is just 350 pages and very easy to read. How come you didn't bother with it
NAP makes sense only among self-sufficient individuals. That, however, is patently not the case in our society and I have problems taking seriously ideologies that can only function in Stone Age.
> but still expect us to not only have read Capital, but to have done so with an open mind and a study guide in each hand so we actually understand him?
I don't, actually. Apologies, if I gave this impression (I'm often arguing with other Communists who obviously are expected to read it - which most don't).
No.68669
>>68638
Searching for argument… Argument not found.
No.68671
>>68658
The Nazis only let you have private property if you did exactly what they told you to do with it. The 3rd Reich's economy was a mess of price controls, fines, dumbfuck bureaucrats regulating things they knew nothing about, and subsidies that bore no resemblance to anything any libertarian has ever spoken in favor of.
No.68685
>>68659
Inherently autistic nature of Internet requires [/sarcasm] tags - there is always someone out there who will take things seriously.
>>68671
> The Nazis only let you have private property if you did exactly what they told you to do with it.
You are missing one detail: it was big Capitalists who were telling Nazis what to do. Nazis simply acted as enforcers of whatever Big Money agreed on.
> no resemblance to anything any libertarian has ever spoken in favor of.
There is. Private property.
If you argue for keeping a cute bear cub, you have to deal with the question of grown-up bear as well - even if it is quite different from the original small furball.
No.68690
>>68658
>Because you argue about this specific definition being applicable to Third Reich. No?
No.
>Or "Nazi Germany had nothing remotely close to private property. Only State planning distribution of resources larping as a market." is about something else?
I didn't. It's false that Nazi Germany had nothing resembling private property. That's the only reason why it kept functioning.
>Firstly, before you can evaluate "likeness" of systems, you need to know the context of comparison. Dolphins and rats may be nothing alike, but both are mammals.
>Secondly, no Marxist compares AnCap to anything. It does not exist within Marxism, since it is considered flat-out impossible in industrial economy. Well, other than under "Primitive accumulation", which boils down not to economic activity, but preventing workers from using MoPs through violence.
Obviously, we disagree both on anarchocapitalism not being possible and on mercantilism being just the same as capitalism. However, as our methodologies and economic principles are sound and yours aren't, I'll go with our theories. Marx didn't even define what a class is, his theory has no place for farmers, he misunderstood the role of vendors, he didn't refute that value based on utility is the only value that is meaningful… and his methodology, not even quite sure what it is. Honestly, it seems to me like he just made shit up as he got along. Sometimes it sounded a priori, but historical materialism was historicist and historicist theories belong in the trash.
>Thirdly, stop putting words in my mouth. At no point did I use the term "Mercantilism" to describe Third Reich.
I know. I did. Because what you were describing is properly called mercantilism.
>Of course it does. It's just you are trespassing on German soil and violate NAP yourself.
So you mean to say that the Federal Republic acquired its land through homesteading voluntary interaction, and not at all through violent appropriation? Territorial sovereignty is not land property. All the power of the landowner derives from his right to evict, whereas the modern sovereign state would rather make sure that you cannot leave his property.
>NAP makes sense only among self-sufficient individuals. That, however, is patently not the case in our society and I have problems taking seriously ideologies that can only function in Stone Age.
Care to back your premise up? Because to me, it's not at all evident that two mutually dependent individuals would have less of an incentive to cooperate than two troglodytes.
>I don't, actually. Apologies, if I gave this impression (I'm often arguing with other Communists who obviously are expected to read it - which most don't).
I mean this general tendency of presupposing that we know all about Marx and can "properly" use his terms, which apparently requires more than a lecture of several of his texts. In the meantime, no leftist, whether they have read Marx or not, has read Rothbard before they come here.
No.68692
>>68690
> I didn't.
The glorious ID-less discussion.
> Obviously, we disagree both on anarchocapitalism not being possible and on mercantilism being just the same as capitalism.
It's not about similarity. Capitalist and Mercantilism describe things in different context. Comparing those two concepts is like trying to compare pink with bitter. One is a colour and the other is a taste.
> However, as our methodologies and economic principles are sound and yours aren't,
I'm sorry, but would you mind presenting actual arguments?
You don't even have methodology as such (we do - diamat), while economic principles are mostly the same: Marx did not invent anything qualitatively new, he relied extensively on both Adam Smith and Ricardo.
> I'll go with our theories. Marx didn't even define what a class is
Wrong. He did. Marxist class-based analysis forms the basis of modern sociology. But that's irrelevant.
Relevant: "non-existent" Marxist class definitions are quite simple. It's an economic role in relation to Capitalist mode of production people assume: Proletariat are the exploited, Capitalists are the exploiters, while Petit-Bourgeoisie are the unaffiliated (outside of Capitalist mode of production).
Obviously, specific individuals can assume different roles in different situations.
> his theory has no place for farmers,
Again - wrong. I can spam this thread into bumplimit with quotes that prove otherwise.
> he misunderstood the role of vendors,
I don't understand what exactly you are implying here. At least mention the originator of critique.
> he didn't refute that value based on utility is the only value that is meaningful…
Why should he? That is patently wrong: the air has extreme utility, but little value due to abundance.
Marx pointed out that "value" has different contexts (meanings): use-value and exchange-value. Then he also defined labour-value through exchange-value.
> and his methodology, not even quite sure what it is.
German philosophy. Modern "education" system does not allow people to learn philosophy until you are in university. And even then you get castrated version, so as to prevent you from thinking too much.
No.68693
>>68690
>>68692
> Honestly, it seems to me like he just made shit up as he got along.
I'm sorry, but I can't take this seriously. You admitted yourself that you don't know anything about Marxism.
> Sometimes it sounded a priori, but historical materialism was historicist and historicist theories belong in the trash.
You keep making statements, thinking them to be arguments. But that is not the case.
> I know. I did. Because what you were describing is properly called mercantilism.
Not in the context we are discussing. The question is presence of Capitalism (as it is understood in Marxist discourse) in Reich - or what are you arguing about?
> So you mean to say that the Federal Republic acquired its land through homesteading voluntary interaction
No. I mean that your principles are inapplicable IRL.
> All the power of the landowner derives from his right to evict, whereas the modern sovereign state would rather make sure that you cannot leave his property.
Context, please. I don't really care about proving Anarchism wrong (a specific thread is necessary for this), but you are comparing the basis of power with the desire to use power in a specific way.
>> NAP makes sense only among self-sufficient individuals.
> Care to back your premise up?
Sure, but I'd suggest a separate Marxism-Leninism VS Anarcho-Capitalism thread for this - if you want to discuss this thoroughly.
> Because to me, it's not at all evident that two mutually dependent individuals would have less of an incentive to cooperate than two troglodytes.
People are not "mutually dependent", not in a binary way - co-dependencies are different in both quality and intensity.
> I mean this general tendency of
Ah. Strawmanning.
> presupposing that we know all about Marx and can "properly" use his terms, which apparently requires more than a lecture of several of his texts.
It's not about Marx, but general political illiteracy of Americans.
In fully orwellian manner the political discourse in US was subverted through substitution of the terms used. Capitalism now means free market to Americans, while Liberalism is no longer a doctrine of Capitalists (old meaning of the word), but pseudo-Left stance of US Democrats. The list goes on and on.
On /debate/ some geniuses even try to discuss Socialism without understanding that it includes several incompatible ideologies and different applications of said ideologies. Arguably, that includes even Anarcho-Capitalism; modern AnCom might whine all they want, but Proudhon's main differences from modern AnCap are his religious stance and rabid misogyny - which makes modern (rabidly right-wing) AnCap more Left than the founder of Anarchism (which is supposedly Ultra Left). But pointing this out to them would make things even more confusing.
> In the meantime, no leftist, whether they have read Marx or not, has read Rothbard before they come here
Should I start just putting "not an argument"? That gauche, but oddly fitting.
Nobody read Evola, before they came to /polk/ or wherever.
No.68701
>>68692
>The glorious ID-less discussion.
Beats tripfagging.
>It's not about similarity. Capitalist and Mercantilism describe things in different context. Comparing those two concepts is like trying to compare pink with bitter. One is a colour and the other is a taste.
Jesus Christ. Do me a favor, share your definition of these two concepts.
>You don't even have methodology as such (we do - diamat), while economic principles are mostly the same: Marx did not invent anything qualitatively new, he relied extensively on both Adam Smith and Ricardo.
I'd upload more, but the file limit is a bit too small for Human Action, Man, Economy and State and I think also for The Counter-Revolution of Science. Yes, we have a methodology, and if you don't know even that, then you're even less qualified than I thought. The single most relevant book on the Austrian School has a good two hundred pages of methodology.
>Wrong. He did.
He didn't. He stopped the third volume of the Capital before he got to define it.
>Marxist class-based analysis forms the basis of modern sociology.
It doesn't. I'm no sociologist, but I did have university courses in criminology, and I don't remember getting a Marxian vibe from anyone except Durkheim. Maybe Merton, but that's stretching it.
>Relevant: "non-existent" Marxist class definitions are quite simple. It's an economic role in relation to Capitalist mode of production people assume: Proletariat are the exploited, Capitalists are the exploiters, while Petit-Bourgeoisie are the unaffiliated (outside of Capitalist mode of production).
That's not a definition of class, just to clarify. It's a definition of different classes under a certain mode of production, but for the historical analysis that Marx engaged in, that isn't enough.
His concept of exploitation is senseless, but I believe we'll get to that soon enough.
>Obviously, specific individuals can assume different roles in different situations.
Which explodes the whole idea of a class-consciousness, or of an uprising or revolution of any class. In general, it weakens his class-theory in just about every regard.
>Again - wrong. I can spam this thread into bumplimit with quotes that prove otherwise.
Funny guy. I don't doubt that he mentioned farmers. What I do doubt is whether they had a consistent place in his ideology, instead of being the object of a dozen small treatises that all went nowhere. I doubt this because I've heard everything, from "farmers are the allies of the working class" to "damn Kulaks!", from Marxists.
>I don't understand what exactly you are implying here. At least mention the originator of critique.
Better term would've been merchants. If he had understood them, he'd acknowledge the value of shipping goods around for profit. Not much use in a good that you have no physical access to.
>Why should he? That is patently wrong: the air has extreme utility, but little value due to abundance.
This alone tells me you know nothing of marginal utility theory. You even confused price and value. The value of an object is not its price, value can only be assessed on a subjective basis.
>Marx pointed out that "value" has different contexts (meanings): use-value and exchange-value. Then he also defined labour-value through exchange-value.
Marx quoted Condillac on whether exchange is mutually beneficial. He dismissed this idea because Condillac talked about use-value, but according to Marx, he should've analyzed the transfer of exchange-value. Marx even claimed that Condillac confused the two concepts, when it was very clear that Condillac was only talking about utility, yet he himself tried to prove that exchange didn't provide greater use-value to the exchanging partners because the exchange-value on both sides was the same before as after. And that is why I don't take his different concepts of value very serious, either. He couldn't even get the distinction between use- and exchange-value straight but kept invoking these concepts.
>German philosophy.
You mean hegelian philosophy, strongly modified, mixed with outdated classical economics and the historicism that was in vogue at the time, which he probably copied directly from Auguste Comte. Consistency looks different.
>Modern "education" system does not allow people to learn philosophy until you are in university. And even then you get castrated version, so as to prevent you from thinking too much.
Had a pretty good philosophical education in school, all things considered. You gotta find another insult for me, I'm afraid.
No.68703
>>68693
>I'm sorry, but I can't take this seriously. You admitted yourself that you don't know anything about Marxism.
I didn't. I said that I don't care about the fine points of Marxism, like whether labor-value derives from exchange-value or is an independent kind of value. I never said I know nothing about Marxism.
>You keep making statements, thinking them to be arguments. But that is not the case.
Then sum up his methodology. Dialectic materialism didn't underlie his usage of classical economics, that's for sure. This is why I call him a mess.
>Not in the context we are discussing. The question is presence of Capitalism (as it is understood in Marxist discourse) in Reich - or what are you arguing about?
I'm arguing that your concept of capitalism is false and meaningless.
>No. I mean that your principles are inapplicable IRL.
But you didn't say that. You said:
>Of course it does. It's just you are trespassing on German soil and violate NAP yourself.
>Context, please. I don't really care about proving Anarchism wrong (a specific thread is necessary for this)
I'm not playing this game. If you don't want to talk about whether anarchocapitalists are right or wrong, don't question whether they're right or wrong. Simply as that. You opened up this discussion, not me.
>but you are comparing the basis of power with the desire to use power in a specific way.
Actually, no, I talked about legal concepts.
>People are not "mutually dependent", not in a binary way - co-dependencies are different in both quality and intensity.
My point still stands.
>Nobody read Evola, before they came to /polk/ or wherever.
But then they don't discuss Evola, whereas the leftists that come here constantly feel the need to talk about the exact content of the NAP.
No.68708
>>68685
>Nazis simply acted as enforcers of whatever Big Money agreed on
Private property rights still weren't being respected in any meaningful way.
No.68710
>>68701
>>68703
> But then they don't discuss Evola, whereas the leftists that come here constantly feel the need to talk about the exact content of the NAP.
I'm pointing out that:
1) There are no Communists as such in USA. So I'm not sure whom you expect to hunt. In fact, many will recognize you as Communists - if you actually intend to support Rothbard quote you provided.
2) Perception of Reich as Socialist state is provably wrong. That was the example of well-known "Capitalism in decay".
3) Cultural "Marxists" are rabidly anti-Marxist and have nothing to do with Communism.
That's all. The rest is my attempt to entertain your incoherent accusations.
I've been polite so far, but now I would like you to commit yourself to one of those positions:
- a) I did not read Marx and cannot make any judgements about Marxism.
- b) I did read Marx and I will defend my judgements with my knowledge of Marxism.
You've been alternating between those two mutually exclusive positions for quite some time, but now you've started making some very bold claims about Marx (with no evidence whatsoever). So make your choice: either you are not required to know anything about Marx and you ignorance cannot be held against you, or you are going to properly prove all the bullshit you've been spewing without hiding behind your ignorance.
>>68708
> Private property rights still weren't being respected in any meaningful way.
As I pointed out already - the purpose of investment is to get profit. That is the most important meaning of investment. Almost no investments would be made without this. Since the profit for big Capitalists was protected, then - yes. Private property of big Capitalists was respected quite meaningfully.
No.68712
>>68710
The point of ancap is that everyone's rights are respected up until they try to violate someone else's rights. In Nazi germany, property was a privilege given to people who played nice with the regime, not a natural right that everyone gets by virtue of being sapient.
No.68716
>>68712
> The point of ancap is that everyone's rights are respected up until they try to violate someone else's rights. In Nazi germany, property was a privilege given to people who played nice with the regime, not a natural right that everyone gets by virtue of being sapient.
I.e. Third Reich wasn't Anarcho-Capitalism. Wonderful. What's the point of your comment?
Only real AnCap is real Capitalism and we all live in Communism?
No.68717
>>68716
>Third Reich wasn't Anarcho-Capitalism.
Was this ever in doubt, or are you that much of a retarded faggot?
No.68718
>>65335
back to /christian/ with you
No.68719
>>68717
The first sentence is about defining feature of AnCap, while second sentence explains how the defining feature of AnCap didn't exist in Third Reich. The retarded faggot here is you, if you think that this cannot be interpreted as an attempt to prove that Third Reich wasn't AnCap.
And try to read further than the first words:
>>68716
>What's the point of your comment?
No.68723
>>68719
Minarchists and Libertarians still have plenty of respect for property rights. The nazis weren't even close to what we want.
No.68725
>>68723
> The nazis weren't even close to what we want.
Of course. Even big Capitalists don't want Fascism as such. It's just the alternative is worse - for them. State goes Fascist when it can't do anything else (well, except for revolution, of course - hence, "revolutionary situation").
You had made quite a few posts, but I still can piece together your argument.
No.68762
No.68763
>>68762
Accidentally. Just coming back from monarchy.
Anyway:
>>68725
>Filter
>Tripcode
Unless you have something of value to contribute.
No.68844
>>65439
>the literal famine ideology is arguing world hunger is because of capitalism
No.68868
>>68844
> Capitalism is not famine ideology
I'm sorry, it's hard to hear you over the sound of market economy.
Are you telling, attempting to stop famines somehow makes you responsible for not being perfect and it's much more moral to leave things as they are - regardless of what is happening - since nobody can blame you for anything? At least in theory. IRL crazy evil people may attempt to kill you for some arcane reason.
No.68869
>>68868
>This man has never read Malthus
>He is unaware that redistribution of food resources only causes people to breed more which makes them consume more food which worsens the famine.
The entire Red Cross business strategy is to destroy villiage economies with foreign aid in order to cause famines and collect charity gibs, and you see how that works. Trust me, the best thing you can do during a famine is look after your own.
No.68874
>>68869
The best thing to do during a famine isn't to look after your own. It's to acquire food with which to turn your neighbors' hunger into your assets. In a market economy, your neighbors may be trying to do the same thing to benefit from your hunger. The result of everyone ravening to profit from each others' hunger is a much lower tendency for anyone to go hungry at all.
No.68876
>>68874
When times are that hard, your first thought is subsistence. Who cares about making a profit when your family needs to eat?
No.68885
>>68869
> The entire Red Cross business strategy is to destroy villiage economies with foreign aid in order to cause famines and collect charity gibs, and you see how that works.
While you are correct, what does Red Cross has to do with anything? We are talking about ideologies. I.e. Capitalism/Socialism.
Specifically, comparing semi-revisionist China with India. One was much stabler and richer than the other (China was practically destroyed through long Civil War and WWII), but remained mostly the same shithole it was in 1947. Why? Because it did not even attempt to change anything and entrusted itself to the Invisible Hand.
People may laugh at (grossly distorted) history of China, but today it's the India that is drowning in shit and misery.
>>68874
> The result of everyone ravening to profit from each others' hunger is a much lower tendency for anyone to go hungry at all.
How are you going to be more efficient at feeding someone else over yourself? Both you and your neighbours want the same thing: food.
Historically accurate strategy for profiting during famine is to be in business of grain trading already and notice the prices going up. At this point you stop selling and inform the other traders about it. They will stop selling (they aren't dumb) - now the prices are rising even faster and even far away traders are getting the hint - they'll stop trading as well, if they have any brains. I.e. "market panic".
Once this happens, you'll wait until food prices go up 3-4 times. That's when you start selling grain again. Whatever is left afterwards will be exported to foreigners (so as not to cause price deflation at home). Repeat every few years and you end up quite rich, especially if you don't forget to give loans to the starving people at high interest.
No.68893
>>68885
>what does Red Cross has to do with anything?
To say that resource redistribution only makes things worse. It doesnt actually helo anyone during a famine.
No.68911
>>68893
> To say that resource redistribution only makes things worse. It doesnt actually helo anyone during a famine.
But Food Aid is not being distributed to starving - it's being sold on internal markets. No?
No.68939
No.68978
>>68939
> no
The quality of discussions here is astronomical.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41072.pdf
> Title I of the FFPA provides for sales on concessional credit terms of U.S. agricultural commodities to developing country governments and to private entities for monetization in recipient country markets.
> Title II of the FFPA provides for the donation of U.S. agricultural commodities (referred to as “in-kind” donations) to IOs and qualifying NGOs to support specific emergency or non-emergency food needs either by monetization or for direct food distribution. …
> The 2014 farm bill also required that USAID prepare an annual report for Congress that addresses how funds are allocated to and used by eligible organizations as well as the rate of return on aid funds—defined as the sum of the proceeds from monetization of food aid commodities relative to the total cost of procuring and shipping the commodities to the recipient country’s local market. Sponsors and projects with rates of return below 70% are to come under special scrutiny.
> Title III of the FFPA—entitled “Food for Development”—provides for government-to-government grants of U.S. commodities to support non-emergency long-term economic development in least developed countries. Under this program, implementing partners can monetize donated commodities in the recipient country …
> The 1985 farm bill (P.L. 99-198; §1110) authorized the Food for Progress program. USDA’s FAS administers the program. USDA undertakes multi-year agreements with cooperating sponsors (i.e., eligible organizations include PVOs, cooperatives, IOs, and recipient-country governments). These agreements require monetization of donated U.S. commodities
> The 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171, §3107) first authorized the McGovern-Dole IFECN program. … The implementing partners, in turn, use the commodities for direct feeding or, in limited situations, for local sale to generate proceeds to support school feeding and nutrition projects
tl;dr: Do not confuse actual help during famine with the dumping of local markets US had been doing via Food Aid since forever.
No.69212
>>68885
pajeets say india will be superpower by 2020
No.69226
>>65116
POW's are neocons.
Don't trust them.
No.69228
>>69212
Then wait until 2020 before saying I'm wrong.
Also, 60 years of Space Era, people.
No.69258
>>65116
Hand them this book
No.69259
>>65200
I wonder who could be behind this post…
naisu torai, yudaya na shill
No.69260
>>65493
bet this faggot takes poettering's 50 inch system D in his gahnoo/windows powered transhuman asshole
No.69283
>>69258
Basic Economics, or Economics in One Lesson?
No.69290
>>69283
I think Hazlitt has more meme potential, sort of like our version of the "bread book."
No.69300
>>69290
Kind of off-topic, but getting real damn tired of reading introductory level shit. When is the point where I can relax and stop reading ten variations of "economics for dummies, libertarian edition"? Because somehow, they're all classics.
No.69307
>>69302
Implying you didn't read even a single introductory text for libertarian economics because you've already read Marx. Are you even aware that this makes you sound like a fucking pleb?
And yes, I did read some Marx. I think he's complete trash, and talked at length about the reasons in other threads.
No.69310
I can't speak for all of /pol/. But I would fight alongside the capitalists, libertarians and conservatives. I personally believe that Europe should be National Socialist and the United States should be a majority white confederacy.
On a personal level, I just want the niggers gone. If any of them agree to side with us in some civil war event, I am in favor of paying for their trip back to where they originated from and letting them take them take their personal property and wealth with them.
Fuck, I'm even willing to help them carve out their own personal Liberia for them if it means I can kill more niggers. This new Liberia is entitled to arms and military related trades with our new government so that niggers can continue slaughtering each other. I'm not a bloodthirsty person nor do I like the idea of killing people. But niggers aren't people, so that's not of issue to me.
Spics have to go back. If they legally immigrated here and fought along side of us the 25% most educated can stay (Barring they have no criminal record). Those who fought along side us that cannot stay get the same treatment as niggers (We buy their land, they take their personal goods and wealth) but have priority to receive an American higher education over any other foreign group.
Jews get shipped back in bags.
Arabs get the same treatment as niggers, except with arms sales. No more arming those assholes. I have no issue allowing them to receive an American higher education after an extensive background check.
Asians I don't have an issue with. They get the same privileges as whites.
No.69311
>>69307
>can't take an obvious tongue-in-cheek reply
>makes up accusations
>declares himself superior
I guess it's no joke when they said autism is more prevalent among libertarians.
No.69313
>>69310
> I'm not a bloodthirsty person nor do I like the idea of killing people. But niggers aren't people, so that's not of issue to me.
Mind backing that up? Shitty people are still people, too.
>I would fight alongside the capitalists, libertarians and conservatives. I personally believe that Europe should be National Socialist[…]
You would fight alongside capitalists and libertarians while being a socialist, and alongside conservatives while supporting a collectivist dictatorship, its policies informed by pretty much all the exports of the French Revolution.
That's one of the reasons why I don't want an alliance with your kind. You basically admit that you will stab us in the back as soon as you don't need our support anymore. Your entire moral system condones this kind of behavior, too. And this tendency even existed in Hitler, your spiritual father. According to every standard, you're untrustworthy and dishonorable.
>>69311
>can't take an obvious tongue-in-cheek reply
Well, yeah, if they're shit. Why should I take them in good faith, then?
>declares himself superior
I am superior as far as knowledge on economics goes. Sorry to be so blunt, but it's true.
No.69316
>>69300
Try Menger or Bohm von Bawerk.
No.69322
>>69313
Nah Anon.
I very much believe in the idea of the United States NOT being National Socialist and falling more in line with it's natural libertarian identity. I respect that, most of /pol/ will not, but I am the exception in this case. I'll gladly leave for Germania as soon as we've physically removed the communists, jews, and niggers.
No.69336
>>69310
>I can't speak for all of /pol/. But I would fight alongside the capitalists, libertarians and conservatives.
Of course, you would. As so would the rest of /pol/. And Clintonites too. After all, there is no qualitative difference between Liberals of any kind.
I don't really understand why people keep rejecting this. The whole thread is filled with denial of the obvious, but Nazi are firmly pro-Capitalist.
You should post this modern National "Socialist" program from /polk/ here and compare notes with Anarchists.
No.69337
No.69338
>>69316
Wanted to read them, I'm just not sure if I should scratch Basic Economics from my list completely. Probably should.
>>69322
Germany and the rest of Europe don't have a national socialist tradition, either. Nazis ruled Germany for all of twelve years, and in that time, they never made any attempt to bring back the ancien regimé in any form. They didn't even keep federalism alive, when Germany has a strong history of federalism. In Austria, they even threw the Habsburg out of the country instead of reinstituting them, ending a three hundred year tradition. Much of the rest of Europe - Italy, Spain, Portugal, the slavic countries, Greece - was at most left alone or occupied by the Nazis. If you sincerely think that the Nazis are somehow rooted in tradition after a reign of less than twelve years in parts of Europe, then you quite simply don't know how your history.
>>69336
>I don't really understand why people keep rejecting this. The whole thread is filled with denial of the obvious, but Nazi are firmly pro-Capitalist.
They're called socialists. All historical national socialist parties were socialist in ideology. The 25 Point Program has several anti-capitalist points. In The Nazi-Sozi, Goebbels also proposed some socialist policies, like outright nationalization of many industries. Hitler made several comments in public speeches to the effect that the Nazis are socialist. Their economic policy was all about interventions, they set quotas of all sorts, and while they formally privatized many enterprises, they regulated them so tightly that they were private in name only.
Source that develops all this in greater detail: https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian
No.69347
>>69338
> They're called socialists.
They call themselves Socialist in an attempt to mimic the Left. They've never been recognized as Socialist by any Socialist movement.
Hitler himself fully admits this in Mein Kampf (Chapter 7: The Struggle with the Red Front). Nazis (and Fascists in general) simply used everything they could to impersonate the actual Left movements: were Bolsheviks using red colour? so will we; did Marxists refer to each other as comrades? so will we; did Socialists have solidarity marches? so will we.
> All historical national socialist parties were socialist in ideology.
Bullshit. The whole notion of nationalism denies the class struggle, substituting it with the national struggle. Instead of uniting people against Capitalists, Nazis were uniting them against Jews and whoever else gets added to the list of Untermensch.
National "Socialism" is no different from Cultural "Marxism" - both deny the very basis of the ideas they are supposed to represent.
> The 25 Point Program has several anti-capitalist points.
Which either got amended before Nazis came to power (as was the case with the land reform - from all land being expropriated it changed to the expropriation of land owned by Jews), or it was never implemented.
> In The Nazi-Sozi, Goebbels also proposed some socialist policies, like outright nationalization of many industries.
Again - you are looking at rhetorics, not actions. As I already stated several times: Nazis were doing the same thing as Reagan - privatization and liberalization.
> Their economic policy was all about interventions, they set quotas of all sorts, and while they formally privatized many enterprises, they regulated them so tightly that they were private in name only.
Again - we already discussed this. Just because big Capitalists used state machine to regulate and divide market among themselves, does not make them subservient to the state.
> Source that develops all this in greater detail: https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian
Go fuck yourself with a rusty dildo. I wasted fifteen minutes of my life on this primitive shit-flinging filled with Cold War propaganda, dumb stereotypes, delusions of grandeur, and outright lies.
You know WHY nobody "apart from Mises and his readers" (as well as Fascists - need I remind how Pinochet was supported by Hayek?) "thinks of Nazi Germany as a socialist state"? Because it obviously WASN'T.
I already mentioned Neumann's Behemoth which discusses - in great and exhaustive detail - factual inconsistency of attempts to paint Third Reich as non-capitalist. Either stop posting Fascist propaganda (and the article in question cannot be described as anything else) - or begin by refuting Neumann.
No.69357
>>69347
>simply used everything they could to impersonate the actual Left movements
They were directly copying your strategies and just changed the primary bogeyman to da j00s.
>Cultural "Marxism"
Cultural marxism takes marxian theories of oppression and social classes and applies it to other dichotomies such as male/female, white/nonwhite, gay/straight, and cis/trans. That's like saying penguins aren't birds because they swim instead of fly.
>Nazis were doing the same thing as Reagan
Nazis were pro gun, right? After all, they made it easier to get a gun as long as you weren't jewish.
>article talking about how fascism is bad=fascist propaganda
No.69362
>>69347
>Because it obviously WASN'T.
It's true, the nazis obviously didn't murder enough German peasants and workers nor did they inflict a sociocide on Germany, so they can't be counted among the luminaries of Real Socialism™.
No.69373
>>69347
>All Socialism is Marxism: The Post
>As I already stated several times: Nazis were doing the same thing as Reagan - privatization and liberalization.
You even conceded that they didn't leave much discretion to private property owners, if I remember correctly, but said that this didn't matter to you because of your ideology. However, your ideology is not just wrong, it's hopelessly confused, and that's why I don't care in the slightest about its perspective.
>Again - we already discussed this. Just because big Capitalists used state machine to regulate and divide market among themselves, does not make them subservient to the state.
If the state has the last word, it does. The state has far more leverage than business owners, even more so in a collectivist paradise like Nazi Germany. What could business owners have done if Hitler had decided to screw them over? He could confiscate their businesses, execute them for sabotage, and let Himmler control whatever capital they had.
>Go fuck yourself with a rusty dildo.
Got one to spare, faggot?
>You know WHY nobody "apart from Mises and his readers" (as well as Fascists - need I remind how Pinochet was supported by Hayek?) "thinks of Nazi Germany as a socialist state"? Because it obviously WASN'T.
Oh, alright, it's unpopular except among circles you don't like, so it must be wrong.
>I already mentioned Neumann's Behemoth which discusses - in great and exhaustive detail - factual inconsistency of attempts to paint Third Reich as non-capitalist.
And you expect me to start reading a six-hundred page book the moment someone recommends it to me? Please. I added it to my list, but that list is overflowing.
>Either stop posting Fascist propaganda (and the article in question cannot be described as anything else) - or begin by refuting Neumann.
I think it happened thrice that a leftist asked me to read this one work that will totally turn my views on capitalism and socialism upside down. Yet, I don't think I've met one who has done his reading on Hoppe, Mises, Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Hayek or Rothbard. Most haven't read a single work from any of these scholars, in fact. How serious, then, do you think I'm taking what you just said?
No.69386
>>69347
>Cultural "Marxism"
>Invokes Neumann in the next paragraph
Ayy
No.69388
>>69338
I assure you.
When the United States engages in a civil war, the EU will not be far behind it. We're all cheering for the EU to crumble and burn into the wind, so that white nationalism can be comfy again.
>>69336
Capitalism works in the West. In an ethnonationalist state, capitalism will not help and I would be firmly against it.
I'm not coming to your board to tell you that I think you're all fucking wrong in what you believe. I'm here to tell you that I agree that the United States would be better off as an ANCAP or a Confederacy (Or something in between), just as fucking Europe would be better as a National Socialist State. I disdain those neocon cocksuckers just as much as liberals do, but I'm more supportive of those neocon cocksuckers because at least they allow us to keep our guns and cater to whites exclusively over niggers and other minorities.
In the event of some hypothetical Civil War in America, and my having been born in and currently living in America, I would fight against liberals, communists, and anyone associated with those groups. Afterwards, if you fags wanted to handle the neocon cocksuckers, I'd be glad to help.
After I helped you solve your problem, I'd fuck off to Reichland.
Either way, you're wrong. We're not siding with you because you're fucking capitalist or because we're 'pro-capitalist'
No.69409
This whole 'nazis are just like commies' meme needs to die. At least in modern terms, if they aren't a reincarnation of post-GLR neo-nazis led by jews, or fashy goys led by faggot jews, than their 'natsoc' means very little beside ensuring the survival of the white race. If you accept evolution, you have to be able to accept that races in humanity is real. Modern science makes this blindingly obvious for anyone willing to buck the inertia of their government education.
If you look into the historical writers on the topic, who didn't have modern genetics to base this on, they show how a certain part of the white race is always destroyed over time by mixing. As long as they had a homeland, whether it was northern germany, england, scandinavia, old stock america, whatever, their race was secure. Once geographical mixing with other races occur, no caste system can ultimately save them from miscegenating. There has to be a homeland. And right now, every single one is under attack except perhaps Iceland.
Is all the above 100% settled? It never will be. But there is nothing wrong with wanting a place for you and your people. Some /pol/lacks sperg over economics (though it's usually a slide thread) but all that matters is racial survival. Economics is nothing but a means to that end, or a tool used against us. I'm a hoppean, but I really don't care until we have that white homeland, somewhere, and the jews are not able to influence us or anyone able to hurt us. Afterwords if we have ancapistan, that's fine by me. Minor topics like 'banning usury' should cease to matter. I understand the function of interest, yet in my personal life have loaned as much as a years wages without ever charging anyone interest. Honestly, who the fuck cares about that stuff when you have people like yourself around you, and your kids can grow up in a good society and know they have a future?
Practically speaking, it won't matter in a civil war scenario because in cities it will be whites vs. mongrel hordes and traitorous whites who side with them. In the mixed south, race war and separation. In the rural white part of the country, it will be all about who has power, whether they side with government or not, because every 'capitalist' of the type we currently have is of the Tyson or ConAgra variety (I'm talking them hiring PMCs to maintain themselves) and are no different from either the gov or the jews. Commies basically don't exist out there, the liberals will side with the gov no matter what, and rednecks, racist nadsies, ancaps and whoever else will oppose them.
>What should the militia's policy be regarding PoWs?
Since you're not going to be able to negotiate with Trump, Pence, Hillary, Adelson, Soros, CIAniggers, or who ever the fuck, and anyone fighting will be treated like a terrorist, you won't be taking POWs.
>>65144
And yet it holds up. They are subversive and will always hurt non-jews more than jews even if separated from the way the main jewish camps. Jews are the main pushers and encouragers of every self-destructive tendency I can think of among whites. Some things like mass migration in europe you can try to explain with evo-psych ideas or muh roasties need an alpha and other things, but absolutely nothing fits as clearly and concisely as just listening to the jews, who will tell you over and again that they are trying to destroy whites.
tl;dr if you have time to listen to molymeme or Tom Woods, you have time to listen to some classic William Luther Pierce.
No.69418
>>69414
HAHAHAHAHA YOU SPIKED TO THE COMPLICATED STUFF BEFORE GETTING A HANDLE ON THE FUNDAMENTALS. No wonder your whole ideology is so fucked up.
No.69420
>>69414
stick to learning the basics first since you can't even provide a concise definition on labor time or simple labor time
No.70219
>>65121
Libertarians are the biggest fartsniffers I've ever seen on the internet since Atheism was popular
No.70229
>>70219
>Tfw necrobumping a thread without making an argument
Also, just look at that neoliberal in the other thread. He slammed libertarian economists who won the nobel prize but then played it modest when it got to actually critically evaluating economic theories. And we got another one on /monarchy/ who was proud of not reading anything controversial. Hell, fucking Keynes admitted to not understanding enough German to recognize an original thought, and also to not finding anything original in Mises' Nationalökonomie. And we are the arrogant ones? Come on.
No.72229
>>69357
> They were directly copying your strategies and just changed the primary bogeyman to da j00s.
How this refutes anything? Of course, they did. That was the whole point.
Or do you believe that it doesn't matter who is the target?
> Cultural marxism takes marxian theories of oppression and social classes
No, it does not. Also, there are no theories of "oppression". There is exploitation - which is economic concept Cultural "Marxists" do not use.
> and applies it to other dichotomies such as male/female, white/nonwhite, gay/straight, and cis/trans. That's like saying penguins aren't birds because they swim instead of fly.
That's like saying that fishes are birds, because they have fins that resemble wings.
>>69373
> >All Socialism is Marxism: The Post
Just like physics is relativistic after Einstein, so is Socialism after Marx.
> If the state has the last word, it does. The state has far more leverage than business owners, even more so in a collectivist paradise like Nazi Germany.
Except there is no "state". There are bureaucrats - who do what they are told by those who gives them bribes.
> What could business owners have done if Hitler had decided to screw them over? He could confiscate their businesses, execute them for sabotage, and let Himmler control whatever capital they had.
First and foremost, Hitler did not do it. This is important, because objective reality is important. Otherwise someone'll end up arguing that there is no Capitalism, since it is Jesus who decides everything - because he can smite anyone at any time.
Secondly, one would need hundreds of thousands of managers to control everything. Even Soviets did not have this kind of manpower - in a far less industrialized society - and had to postpone for a decade their Planned Economy.
Thirdly, any significant power relies on a compromise between power groups. The second Hitler goes batshit insane and starts putting Big Money into gulags, Big Money brings suitcases filled with cash to his colleagues - who organize a coup and retire Hitler one way or another.
Also, look up all the nonsense German industrialists were pulling during the WWII. There is hardly anyone who sabotaged as much German military power as they did (well, maybe with the exception of Soviet partisans).
> Oh, alright, it's unpopular except among circles you don't like, so it must be wrong.
I'm sorry, are you actually defending Mises here?
> And you expect me to start reading a six-hundred page book the moment someone recommends it to me? Please. I added it to my list, but that list is overflowing.
If you refuse to assess argumentation, don't expect that your refutation of arguments will be taken seriously.
> I think it happened thrice that a leftist asked me to read this one work that will totally turn my views on capitalism and socialism upside down. Yet, I don't think I've met one who has done his reading on Hoppe, Mises, Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Hayek or Rothbard. Most haven't read a single work from any of these scholars, in fact. How serious, then, do you think I'm taking what you just said?
Except none of them are relevant to the topic being discussed, and - if they are - you didn't even attempt to present their arguments here. Also, I've read some works of Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard - had a good laugh.
No.72230
>>72229
>If you refuse to assess argumentation, don't expect that your refutation of arguments will be taken seriously.
He's telling you that "read the entirety of X book" is not a real argument, but a lazy cop-out. If you can't summarize and point to specific chapters or excerpts, which even if they don't cover everything still contain the main arguments, you probably don't know it yourself.
If someone ever says "Read Mises" (as in everything he's written ever) about a specific topic, be sure to tell them to fuck off. They're no less retarded than the guys that will end the conversation with "Read Marx."
No.72239
>>72230
> He's telling you that "read the entirety of X book" is not a real argument, but a lazy cop-out.
The book in question (Behemoth) provides factual evidence (laws, articles, statements, events, etc.). It is literally impossible to summarize it without losing the whole "factual evidence" angle that it supposed to provide.
No.72240
>>72229
The rules are made up to obtain bribes, not the other way around.
No.72242
>>72240
> The rules are made up to obtain bribes, not the other way around.
So you can't enjoy apples, because apples were grown to be sold?
I'm pretty sure, there is something you are missing. If you attempt to present a whole argument, it may become evident.
No.72245
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>72229
>Just like physics is relativistic after Einstein, so is Socialism after Marx.
You kinda botched that analogy there. Along with that and me forgetting what we talked about two months ago, I had to look at the original chain of posts. Am I right that you're saying that the Nazis weren't socialists because they weren't Marxists, because after Marx, all socialism was Marxist? That's a nice petitio principii you got there.
>Except there is no "state". There are bureaucrats - who do what they are told by those who gives them bribes.
And business owners do what they are told when you hold a gun to their head, including bribing you into putting the gun away. In a totalitarian state, the bureaucrats are in charge, whether you call their assembly a state or not.
>First and foremost, Hitler did not do it.
He did a few times, and that was just about the ultima ratio. Lesser control measures, like regulations, were ubiquitous.
>This is important, because objective reality is important. Otherwise someone'll end up arguing that there is no Capitalism, since it is Jesus who decides everything - because he can smite anyone at any time.
A better analogy would be a slave owner. He doesn't have to kill his slaves regularly to show that he has power over them. It's enough if he kills one every ten years, or if he whips them if they do something wrong.
>Secondly, one would need hundreds of thousands of managers to control everything. Even Soviets did not have this kind of manpower - in a far less industrialized society - and had to postpone for a decade their Planned Economy.
To "properly" plan an economy, you need God on your side. Lesser experiments can be run by a few thousand bureaucrats
>Thirdly, any significant power relies on a compromise between power groups.
It doesn't. This couldn't be more plain wrong. Do you think the inmates in maximum security prisons have a compromise with the wardens? Or the Armenians had with the Young Turks? You're invoking a principle that just doesn't exist.
>The second Hitler goes batshit insane and starts putting Big Money into gulags, Big Money brings suitcases filled with cash to his colleagues - who organize a coup and retire Hitler one way or another.
Right, because it's that easy. Organizing a coup is not that easy. Just try thinking that scenario through. You have a million Reichsmark, and you want to bribe a general. How do you know he's not loyal to Hitler? How do you know he won't take the money and rat you out, even if he's not loyal? How do you find the right general, and how do you make sure discreetly that he gets the money? Do you preemptively bribe the entire Gestapo and hope for the best? We're talking about business owners here, most of them aren't retired intelligence officers or have good connections to the military.
>Also, look up all the nonsense German industrialists were pulling during the WWII. There is hardly anyone who sabotaged as much German military power as they did (well, maybe with the exception of Soviet partisans).
Doesn't mean that Hitler and his regime weren't socialists. There was also tons of corruption under the Soviets, and still, they were socialist.
>I'm sorry, are you actually defending Mises here?
Not sure how that related to what I said.
>If you refuse to assess argumentation, don't expect that your refutation of arguments will be taken seriously.
Again, this cuts both ways. Which brings me to this:
>Except none of them are relevant to the topic being discussed, and - if they are - you didn't even attempt to present their arguments here.
Their arguments or their relevancy to this topic are irrelevant. I mentioned them to point out what a hypocrite you are. You expect me to read a six-hundred page book and refute its arguments in this thread here, but you (rightly) wouldn't take me serious if I told you to read a book of half this length and then refute it in front of me.
>Also, I've read some works of Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard - had a good laugh.
Vid related, I guess. By your own standards, you'd have to present me with a refutation of the arguments they made in their major works.
At least you didn't bring up steel dildos again, I guess. That was mature of you.
No.72246
>>72239
>The book in question (Behemoth) provides factual evidence (laws, articles, statements, events, etc.). It is literally impossible to summarize it without losing the whole "factual evidence" angle that it supposed to provide.
You idiot. It's entirely possible to substantiate your arguments if you want to. Just drop some names and dates, and other details, and we know you've done your homework. I regularly check these things on Wikipedia while writing, some of them I have memorized, and I even checked in my library on some occasions.
No.75413
fuck it make America Feudalist
No.75414
>>72242
>apples were grown to be sold
apples grow for the sake of themselves
No.75415
>>65121
>Calls conservatives fools
>flying the LP party flag
If you're an ancap you're one of the most pozzed that's ever lived.
No.75442
>>75414
What does soy grow for, if not for further feminizing millennial cucks?
No.75450
>>75442
I guess it originally grew in Asia for consumption by Asians.
No.75459
>>75450
Are you trying to racistely imply that only #azns must get f3minized and not #aryan (((race)))?
No.75521
how are you gonna handle nazbols since they're both? with confused looks?
No.75524
>>65116
Does the NAP apply to dangerous animals? Shoot all rabid dogs, bears and leftists on sight and shoot any conservatives who may pose a danger due to their cognitive or moral inability to grasp the NAP
>>69414
When I was in middle school there was a weird kid whose parents told him how much smarter / special he is than everyone else. He often brought a differential equations book to our Algebra I class and pretended to read it, but he learned neither and, according to Faceberg, eventually became a communist.
Besides, we all know that "advanced economics" is merely the art of bullshitting your way through justifying centralized economic control and intervention using linear models and uncontrolled experiments that would make any serious empiricist cringe in shame.
No.75526
Respect, fair treatment, and due process.
No.75527
No.75645
>>65405
I couldn't be further from a Communist, but GNU/Linux and other free software projects are objectively better than Windows in every capacity. I've been using GNU/Linux for over a decade because Windows is literally the worst major OS ever made.
No.75646
>>75645
>liking free shit makes you a commie
I hate this shit meme. There's nothing wrong with GNU/linux and other open source software.
No.80961
>>65288
true but not in proper policy form: if you prevent or lessen certain people from reproducing, you can reduce suffering (autism etc) and poverty (lower class ghettos / trailer trash)
No.81028
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>68643
This may be from six months ago but it's still cringe
No.81033
>>75646
True, but it's still communist.
No.81046
>>81028
He says that he wants to stay away from Nazi propaganda but he does go into nazi propaganda.
The reason the economy "Recovered" and they reduced unemployment is because the nazi's tinkered with the statistics.
The previous unemployment rate included women.
After the nazi's came they stopped counting women and jews as unemployed and thus they could claim they have reduced unemployment by over 50%
They also forced people into civic service, and also counted those people as "employed" even if the wage they got for the work was only enough for them to buy a meal a day.
The economy was fixed just like the communists fixed it. By forcing people to work for little to no money in order to build infrastructure and hospitals.
Any nation on earth that will force its population into hard labor will benefit economically but the people of that nation would still be under hard labor
No.81092
>>81046
You obviously didn't watch it otherwise you would know he talked about that as well. There were actually more women working in nazi Germany than there was in the Weimar Republic despite the government encouraging against it.
No.81094
>>81092
It's not even an hour in before he talks about it either 36:26
No.81213
>>65410
>but I'll trust Microsoft (an established company, in the PC business) over some horseshit Hipster company with le open source shit.
Just when you thought ancaps couldn't lick more corporate boot.