/liberty/ - Liberty

>I'm assuming that all of you are to a degree, against degeneracy of the modern world.

A lot of folks here honestly don't care so long as they personally don't have to engage in it, and can invest their time in their own hobbies instead.

>What are the benefits of not setting up those barriers?

For many here, not setting up those barriers IS the benefit.

See, the degenerates are a corrupt politician class who mostly sell out the people for the sleaziest of profits. I mean, really cheap, "you're doing this to debase your soul and don't give a damn about making money, do you" cheap. In the US, look how cheaply Hillary was willing to put fucktons of classified data on an unsecured server which was "accidentally" accessed by her foreign donors.

That is not even remotely the worst of the everyday. Not having the ACTUAL degenerates around is TOTALLY worth not caring about whether bob dresses in women's clothes and doesn't even shave. Hell, it's easier than gnawing off my own limbs without anaesthesia, which would ALSO be an improvement over this shit.

>I'm assuming that all of you are to a degree, against degeneracy of the modern world.

I am, yes. So in voting with my dollar and with my feet, I will not support degeneracy.

>My philosophy to combat degeneracy is to either heavily discourage or outright outlaw what is deemed degenerate.

But who decides what's degenerate? Say you give a government enough power to take away the rights of other people, who you don't like. One day, that same government will have the power to take away your rights, if someone who wants to do so gets into power.

>I would make it illegal for them to adopt children or get married for [wage] benefits

Without a State, they don't get wage benefits for being married or adopting kids. And orphanages that allow gays and degenerates to adopt will not receive the support they need to stay open, assuming charitable people aren't degenerate. Either way, gays will die out without government gibs, see my next point.

>Do you hope that faggots will eventually wither out naturally with no interference or do you not genuinely care?

Yes, I think people that are extremely prone to AIDS and other STDs, as well as not being able to naturally reproduce will die off rather quickly without the support of a state. Sure, doctors could make a killing off of helping them, but doctors would also have the ability to not serve them, which they don't have now due to the state holding a gun to their head for it.

>However, I fear that people may abuse stuff like weed and other hardcore drugs because I've seen nothing but LARPing communists and degenerates smoke them and watch them leech off of welfare

Read this sentence carefully. If someone who does nothing but smokes weed has to live off welfare, and we get rid of welfare, are they going to stay around long? No. They don't offer any productivity to the market so they don't get money. They either clean up and get a job or they die off.

>welfare shouldn't even exist to begin with.

Yeah I don't think I should be forced to give my hard-earned money to some dumbass that can't support themselves. If I have a kid who can't support themselves, sure I'll help out, but it has to be voluntary charity rather than the State telling me what to spend MY money on.

>Is libertarianism purely materialistic or just really concerned about individual freedom or both?

Mostly freedom, if you look in the right places. I don't care about being materialistic, I just want to be free to do with my money as I please. And if someone else has the capital to be materialistic, God bless em. But forcing me to waste my money on things that other people want is stupid. The material and the freedom go hand in hand, I can't have private property if I'm not free to have private property.

>I believe that some people aren't capable of making smart choices on their own

I agree, and those people are a cancer to society when you give them free shit. Forcing people to be responsible for themselves only improves the state of society.

>I'd allow people to own a gun provided they pass background and mental health checks

I agree with that too. We could have a rating system like how colleges and businesses are accredited by non-government third parties now. This would force gun stores to be reputable. Have you noticed how leftists always attack the gun control issue with "common sense" gun laws involving background checks (which we already have anyway)? Imagine the uproar if there actually weren't background checks.

>f you needed a roommate to help you pay for your expenses, would you rather have a fascist or a communist as a roommate, and why?

Communists are fascists, they need to have a state to coerce people to do things, or not do things. That said, I'd rather have the fascist I think you're imagining - the national socialist. He'd be concerned about my wellbeing and would see value in our remaining individuals rather than just trying to take my shit for his own. I used to believe national socialism was the way to go, but I think I've written here most of why I've changed. Ask away if you have any other questions.

>>85760

>A lot of folks here honestly don't care so long as they personally don't have to engage in it, and can invest their time in their own hobbies instead.

The first part of that sentence is what bothers me and don't understand. I can't help but notice that there are so many negatives that come along with degeneracy and people choose to not involve themselves with it. Everything that is associated with degeneracy makes their countrymen statistically weaker and a laughing stock for other countries that can be more aggressive and willing to invade. Yet, people don't care about it and allow that to happen. But, why don't you (or the other people) care? I'm assuming that it's just because it doesn't affect them directly? Or is there more such as promoting individual freedom even if they hate it?

>See, the degenerates are a corrupt politician class who mostly sell out the people for the sleaziest of profits.

So you're more concerned with foreign influence/traitors? I'm easily behind going after those people, no doubt about that. That's what I most hated about the US leadership for its recent decades, putting foreigners and their own selfish interests above the people's lives they rule. Count me in for helping the tree of liberty grow to allow more traitors like them to hang. Regardless, my definition of degenerates include the people that typically push for other people that give them what they want in exchange for going against their national interests. A lot of the bernouts supported him just for the weed aspect, inadvertently supporting a marxist socialist. Why shouldn't we also condemn these people?

>>85764

>However, I fear that people may abuse stuff like weed and other hardcore drugs because I've seen nothing but LARPing communists and degenerates smoke them and watch them leech off of welfare

And you can only really do that if you've got welfare to leech off of. On top of that, there are other reasons not to fuck around with drugs. For starters, you're not nearly as likely to get hired if you're an unproductive pothead. For another, if you're constantly stuffing poison and shit into your body your insurance rates are sure to go up, and some companies might refuse to insure your junkie ass altogether.

> I'd much rather close the loopholes unlike you which would probably say that welfare shouldn't even exist to begin with.

I'd be curious if you explained this reasoning. Even assuming you could 100% guarantee that no degenerates would ever abuse the system (personally I don't think that guarantee is possible), welfare has a number of degenerative effects on society all on its own.

>Is libertarianism purely materialistic or just really concerned about individual freedom or both?

I guess that really depends on what you mean by "materialistic." But overall, whether you're materialistic or not doesn't have much to do with whether you're libertarian or not; libertarianism certainly allows for you to have spirituality and put things above consumerism (in fact I'd argue that it's in the spirit of the NAP to have such values), but it's not a hard-and-fast requirement.

>I believe that some people aren't capable of making smart choices on their own

Okay, but why are you trying to play mother-hen to the entire world? If some people are stupid, let them be stupid; without a government in place to give them the vote they aren't hurting anyone besides themselves. If their own family or friends wants to intervene to put a hamper on their stupidity, then all for the better. If they choose not to, none for the worse, because the stupid man in question is hurting only himself. If you overheard a couple in an elevator discussing some domestic problem or another, would you feel right butting into their conversation and offering unsolicited advice to their problems? If not, why are you okay with doing the same thing on a national scale?

>I'd allow people to own a gun provided they pass background and mental health checks, while you may not even want those checks being there in the first place. Why not?

My personal thoughts on guns and background checks could fill an entire essay all on their own, so instead of writing out my whole thoughts I'll just say this: if you must have a background check, you could easily have a system in place through private means. The credit score system that banks use today is an excellent example of this.

>If you needed a roommate to help you pay for your expenses, would you rather have a fascist or a communist as a roommate, and why?

Oh, the fascist, easily. I think we'd be pretty similar in what values we hold and what we want the world to look like, we'd just have different ideas of how to get there. And even if we don't end up agreeing on everything I think we'd both have the capability to agree to disagree, and of course it would be nice to have a friend to bully commies with.

You seem like a pretty cool guy, OP. Even if you don't end up joining the ranks of us lolbergs, props to you for making an honest effort to listen to another point of view. I'd be more than happy to any questions you might have–my path was kind of similar to yours, I started out nominally libertarian, but veered back and forth between it and the fash for a bit when I first realized how much degeneracy there was in the world, before ending up back here. I'd highly recommend you give picrelated a read when you have chance, it's meant to address people coming from your position. If you can't do that, then at least try to find some Hans Hermann-Hoppe videos online and give them a watch.

>>85758

>I'm assuming that all of you are to a degree, against degeneracy of the modern world

I am against degeneracy in so far as I don't really practice what I would refer to as "degenerate behavior", and in a free market, would have the right to refuse to do commerce with those I consider degenerate or undesirable.

>My philosophy to combat degeneracy is to either heavily discourage or outright outlaw what is deemed degenerate.

The problem with this approach is that it very rarely ever actually works. Prohibition is the classical example of this, or even marijuana today.

>So you could just easily force the fags off your property, but they can encourage the mentally unstable to follow their ways and eventually have a movement big enough to where they can fuck you over while giving you HIV and AIDs in the process.

I don't particularly understand this part.

>What is the thought process behind that, though? Do you hope that faggots will eventually wither out naturally with no interference or do you not genuinely care?

There are numerous forks of thought that come into this. Faggots are not exactly in and of themselves inherently violent in any significant manner, and as an earlier anon posted; you could just very well live in a community that refuses to do commerce with them or associate in any substantial way which will inevitably cause them to leave.

>You got niggers that commit more crime

Well in a free market I have every right to live in a whites only neighborhood, do business only with whites, etc etc. Another thing to keep in mind is that there is no affirmative action within a Libertarian society as such a thing is not market efficient in any coherent way. Niggers will most likely end up living amongst their own and not really expand much beyond that (seeing as how there are no welfare subsidies for homes, etc, there is no reason that they would expand beyond their own communities, let alone have the level of political and economic dependency that they have today).

>traditional (or sensible) family values being lost because of single parents

Due to the massive change in culture caused in the 60s and 70s by academia as well as the state subsidizing these single parents and making divorce seem almost lucrative. These are all state symptoms, not products of the market by any means.

>immigration that can set up language barriers and even cause hostility, and more.

Again, the welfare state is ultimately what provides these immigrants with the incentive to come to the United States to begin with. Most people do not immigrate to places where they cannot speak the language, where they do not have any resonance with the culture, etc, unless there is some sort of abstract benefit in it for them. The welfare state ultimately acts as that benefit which encourages them to immigrate and inevitably vote for more policies that will seek their growth.

>So what are your stances on those issues to be more specific?

That a lot of these issues aren't ones that require violence to solve. In the case of foreign elements that you don't approve of, again, you could very easily simply live in a community with people of your own race and do away with commerce with any of them, even to the point of simply not allowing them on the property and hiring private security to prevent them from anything substantially dangerous. With economic knowledge we can also already foretell that the private security would probably be more efficient than the traditional national border patrol because they'd have a profit incentive.

> Is libertarianism purely materialistic or just really concerned about individual freedom or both?

Individual freedom.

> If you needed a roommate to help you pay for your expenses, would you rather have a fascist or a communist as a roommate, and why?

More than likely a fascist, at least with the fascist I can make as many racial and taboo jokes as I please, whereas the average communist is a bit far up his own ass in that regard. Other than that, there really isn't much benefit.

Damn, this thread's blowing up and I'm taking such a long time to respond to you all. Sorry about that.

>>85762

>But who decides what's degenerate?

Good question, however I think I might've already answered that in the most recent post I was already typing and it didn't refresh, but my definition of degeneracy was this:

>Regardless, my definition of degenerates include the people that typically push for other people that give them what they want in exchange for going against their national interests. A lot of the bernouts supported him just for the weed aspect, inadvertently supporting a marxist socialist.

You do have a very good point though when you mentioned that someone else can easily take over and redefine the term, a la 1984-style. That's going to give me something to think about though.

>Without a State, they don't get wage benefits for being married or adopting kids. And orphanages that allow gays and degenerates to adopt will not receive the support they need to stay open, assuming charitable people aren't degenerate. Either way, gays will die out without government gibs, see my next point.

>Yes, I think people that are extremely prone to AIDS and other STDs, as well as not being able to naturally reproduce will die off rather quickly without the support of a state…

Ah. Interesting. I can see where you're going with this. But I'm hesitant on having absolutely no state for multiple reasons because I don't see how that's going to work out for us in today's world. Wouldn't having a state mean that we wouldn't get an accurate representation of our people? What about crime and justice? Will courtrooms be privately run for example? That means that the law system could get extremely complex and I could pay for a fine for something I didn't even know existed when it didn't exist in another town/city. How would that work out?

>Read this sentence carefully…

Well I just answered my own question, didn't I? Heh. Yeah, I see where you're going with this, but like I said above, I think there would be unnecessary consequences if we didn't have a state. I still can't fault that on the basis of being extremely clever. That's going to help me be more open-minded to you all in the future.

>Yeah I don't think I should be forced to give my hard-earned money to some dumbass that can't support themselves…

Agreed, however I'm concerned about the genuinely disadvantaged. Genuinely disadvantaged meaning the people that actually do work hard to benefit their society unlike the types that blow their welfare checks away on "DUDE WEED LMAO", or the single moms that abuse alcohol. I believe that some people are naturally unlucky at finding a well-paying job to support themselves but making a genuine effort, so welfare would be much more efficient if we got morons like Tyrone off and put much more limitations on welfare. I do see how people would be against welfare entirely, for the right reasons, so you did give me another thing to think about.

>Mostly freedom, if you look in the right places…

I agree with you so much on private property. If people are capable of affording their own property at reasonable prices, they should be damn well able to keep it. However, I fear that materialism has a role in promoting selfishness rather than improving their society. Would that mean that you are mostly concerned with improving the self in order to improve society as a whole?

>Communists are fascists, they need to have a state to coerce people to do things, or not do things. That said, I'd rather have the fascist I think you're imagining - the national socialist.

I knew something might've been off with my wording. It's interesting to see your perspective on all of this, so thanks for responding!

(1/2)

>>85764

>I'd argue that the free market covers the "discourage" part of that well enough to be self-regulating…

Huh, that's pretty cool actually. That's interesting to know that giving more freedom to others can also induce the same effect of actually fighting against degeneracy. I can't believe I didn't think of that. I completely forgot that we have crappy laws like Affirmative Action that promotes degenerate behavior. I forgot that repealing that would grant people more freedom and less confusing ratifications to our laws like I originally hoped for.

>Without the government to subsidize them, and without nondiscrimination laws forcing you at gunpoint

Again… see my response above. I can't believe I completely missed that.

>I doubt that they would go away completely, but it would be driven behind closed doors and spoken of in hushed tones.

That is exactly what I would take, over the gays today that have nothing to be proud of other than spreading bugs so we should give them more entitlements. Anything to make what the faggot community currently is stop.

>Again, freedom of dissociation…

Yeah, but a lot of the people that allow niggers are Jewish, getting record labels and allowing them to tear up a town simply by only allowing niggers in an apartment they own (see: Chicago). That is pretty noble, but I can see that being abused by people that wish to see the destruction of their society. I'm willing to hear how that or similar disagreements would be dealt with in that case, though.

>Single parenthood is only viable with a welfare state and/or child support to give the single mothers gibs and subsidize their degeneracy…

Again, still can't believe I missed that.

>In addition to freedom of dissociation (which I explained above), the thing about immigrants is that most of them are crossing over for gibs, either directly through social security and medicare, or indirectly through public schools…

I still have concerns about this as I pointed out in the response above this. How would people deal with a business that only hires immigrants or niggers? Especially if the businessman lives somewhere else. Instead of it being a public matter, it's now become a local matter (which isn't as bad, but I fear it's still prone to robbing/destroying just that specific area).

>We wouldn't put up government barriers because we wouldn't need to…

>And you can only really do that if you've got welfare to leech off of.

Yeah, you've given me more things to think about. Thanks.

>I'd be curious if you explained this reasoning. Even assuming you could 100% guarantee that no degenerates would ever abuse the system (personally I don't think that guarantee is possible), welfare has a number of degenerative effects on society all on its own.

Here's an answer that I already typed to another person near the top of this post but I'll repost here:

>Agreed, however I'm concerned about the genuinely disadvantaged. Genuinely disadvantaged meaning the people that actually do work hard to benefit their society unlike the types that blow their welfare checks away on "DUDE WEED LMAO", or the single moms that abuse alcohol. I believe that some people are naturally unlucky at finding a well-paying job to support themselves but making a genuine effort, so welfare would be much more efficient if we got morons like Tyrone off and put much more limitations on welfare. I do see how people would be against welfare entirely, for the right reasons, so you did give me another thing to think about..

To elaborate, welfare shouldn't be a constant paycheck like an actual job, but rather something like a grant that someone must apply for everytime, and they'd have to go through regulations to make sure that they're being responsible for themselves. and they can only keep getting a certain amount if they show actual effort to better their society/themselves rather than wasting the money. The money would flow much more efficiently back into society (especially if we remove dual-citizens and foreign interests).

(2/2)

>I guess that really depends on what you mean by "materialistic."…

Yeah, that's highly open to interpretation. Still, that's something for me to think about.

>Okay, but why are you trying to play mother-hen to the entire world?…

Because I don't think people should have to suffer because some retard that they happen to affiliate with, but then again, I might be overreacting because there are currently laws in the US that appeal to this behavior that would be relevant if they were repealed. That was a good wakeup call, though.

>My personal thoughts on guns and background checks could fill an entire essay all on their own, so instead of writing out my whole thoughts I'll just say this:…

Again, I'm still concerned about others only selling to a specific group of people because they can without facing repercussions because they happen to not live around there. What would be a proper method of dealing with those people if they do such things like that as I already mentioned having concerns about?

>Oh, the fascist, easily. I think we'd be pretty similar in what values we hold and what we want the world to look like, we'd just have different ideas of how to get there.

This. I thought that there was something similar to our endgame, even if we do mean to reach it through different means. I'm pretty surprised that we have so much in common (especially socially) when it's really just our philosophy on what the government (if it exists) should do. This was a pleasure seeing everyone's explanations and I can't wait to read more. (And I'll give the book a read as well)

Hot damn. Thanks for giving a lot of things to think about. I can't thank everyone enough that responded in this thread so far because that's pretty awesome to see you all give me a chance to listen to your ideas and how they would be applied.

>>85768

>But I'm hesitant on having absolutely no state for multiple reasons because I don't see how that's going to work out for us in today's world.

It doesn't, it works out for us in tomorrow's world.

>Wouldn't having a state mean that we wouldn't get an accurate representation of our people?

The people would define themselves. I'm white, and want to be around white people. We'd get together, form a small(ish) community and be a defined people.

>What about crime and justice? Will courtrooms be privately run for example?

This should explain it a bit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o

>the law system could get extremely complex

Our laws are already extremely complex. Businesses have something like 8000 pages of laws to follow, and a lot of them don't even apply to their business. But they have to read through them all and stay on top of the changes so they don't break any laws. This would be avoided by having businesses regulated by their own consumers and the invisible hand of the free market.

>I think there would be unnecessary consequences if we didn't have a state.

Give an example. What faculty of the State is both necessary and can only be provided by the State? Why can't I just choose to pay the companies the State pays myself, without my money being taken from me and used for whatever they think it should be used for? Cutting out the middleman is easier, faster, and because the companies now have competition instead of being subsidized by the state they have to offer a superior product and or lower their prices to stay in business. This causes the best goods and services to be offered for the lowest prices.

>I'm concerned about the genuinely disadvantaged.

Chances are they can find someone charitable enough to help them out. Just like welfare now, except it's not mandatory that I have to pay for that person if I don't want to.

>I fear that materialism has a role in promoting selfishness rather than improving their society.

The really selfish one is the statist who says that I have to give them my hard earned money or they'll throw me in jail. I'll gladly support society, donate to charity, etc. as long as I'm not forced to pay for things I don't want. And improvements in society happen because people want better products. We wouldn't have iPhones if everyone was content with their basic flip phone. And while the iPhone itself is a consumerist product, it has forced the inventors to be more inventive and discover new technology that everyone can benefit from.

I'll gladly continue to respond in the morning if you have more questions, but I need to get some sleep. Thanks for keeping this thread interesting and civil.

>>85771

>Then maybe there could be a heavier focus on propaganda similar to pic related?

I don't think propaganda is so much the thing to do as much as having a traditional parental structure as well as a culture that dis-encourages short term action. Much like smoking or drinking, the best approach isn't to make it taboo as much as it is to make people understand the negative effects of it and phrase it in that manner.

>However if they get caught, then they can get fined which would be beneficial for the state, and in the end, the people anyway

What's beneficial for the state is very rarely actually beneficial for the people. The state itself is a parasite on the people at large, and worse, it encourages others to commit to parasitical behavior so it can a voter base (which in effect levies the tax burden on to the productive).

Along with this criticism is also the fact that in such a case the state could tax you for quite literally anything from smoking cigarettes, to drinking beer, to eating a McCheeseburger. It's simply not the place of any government institution in a libertarian society, let alone any rational society. Self-harm does not cause any tangible aggression on other people, ergo, there is no real reason to actively punish it through force.

> (However, someone mentioned that business owners could make it harder for degenerates like them to even exist in the first place, so you can ignore this)

Fair enough.

>Yep, that was my biggest mistake in this thread so far. A lot of the problems I heavily dislike exist because of acts like that. You absolutely got me there.

It's all good fash-bro. It almost sounds like exaggeration but I think it is safe to say that pretty much 99% of what's wrong with the United States today on a cultural, economic and political level has been facilitated by the state in either indirect or very direct ways. Very rarely will you find such predicaments in a free society simply due to the fact that such courses of action are not feasible in the long term.

>Yes, which was why I would rather make it difficult for people like those to get welfare [and more restrictions on welfare] and rather have actual people that are somehow unlucky (but show progress in getting there) to be eligible for benefits.

The problem with the thesis of people who are "unlucky" is that generally speaking, welfare doesn't actually help them and that these people are rare to begin with. Most people on welfare generally stick to it as it tends to be more lucrative than getting a job, especially with politicians promising them more and more. Along with this of course is the ethical question; why do these people have a right to my money to begin with? Why is the government now in the business of stealing from one and giving to another? This will inevitably expand into various other functions that will expand on this and facilitate even more theft from the people, even if it means effectively destroying the economy and by consequence, the people themselves.

This is also not even mentioning that charities generally give out far more to the poor and disadvantaged, and are far more efficient at insuring that the money gets spent helping the people in question. On top of all that, charity is of course also voluntary.

> But I've been concerned with the business owners that could even be foreign that only seek to hire immigrants because their labor is cheap and ignore the countrymen seeking for jobs. So instead of it being a nationwide issue, it becomes a local issue.

If you don't appreciate those types of businesses then I just wouldn't do commerce with them, but they do have a right to hire their own kind as much as you do to not hire theirs or even do business with them. Hiring their own kind might even be far more beneficial for them as it creates a cultural semblance that only benefits the place in question (ie: an Italian restaurant composed of a workforce of only Italians: they will most likely be efficient at making the food among other things simply by virtue of the fact that this the culture most of them are familiar with).

> agree, I think that reforms should be the way to go.

Depends on what you mean by 'reforms' but most of these foreign interests (such as Israel or Saudi Arabia) have foothold on the nation by way of the state and the state's regulations, laws and various other institutions. While I agree that it's far more likely to have a libertarian society in a more homogenous population, I don't see the state at large as an effective solution to the problems at hand, seeing as how special interests within the state caused this to begin with. Dismemberment of the welfare state, the state-run schools, the various taxes and regulations that violate the individual's private property among other things will most likely present a more viable solution to these problems in the long run.

>>85769

>How would people deal with a business that only hires immigrants or niggers?

Well, there's more than one way to go about this kind of thing. For instance, in a smaller community it's easy enough to arrange boycotts, or something akin to a Homeowner's Association: no one who lives in a community actually "owns" their house, but leases it indefinitely from the HOA or a similar entity. Part of the lease agreement is that the tenant is revoked his privilege to live in that house if he commits certain behaviors, or violates the community charter, or whatever. With this kind of system any community can easily and voluntarily push out detractors. On a more macro level, one of the things Hoppe talks about is the idea of demographic-based insurance companies–there could be Catholic insurance, and Orthodox insurance, Anglo insurance, frenchie insurance, and so on–that would require all of their clients to behave a certain way when dealing with their other clients, and would standardize on some kind of system with the other insurance companies to deal with how their clients treat competitor's clients. Anyone who violates the terms of agreement loses out on all of the benefits provided by their insurance company, including things like police and legal services. However, that's drifting into private law territory, which is a bit too complicated to hammer out in a single post. Instead, here's a more expedient solution to the problem you suggested: let's assume freedom of dissociation isn't enough to deter some business from hiring undesirables, and some landlord is willing to rent to these people. Assuming they continue with this practice in spite of losing their other customers (who wants to live next door to obnoxious niggers?), as all the good and decent people flee the community for greener pastures, property values would plummet, and no one besides other undesirables who can't go anywhere else would want to move there. In effect, all the undesirables have managed to quarantine themselves in some shitty ghetto nobody else wants to visit–because they can't afford to move anywhere else and no one else has a desire to live there. So even if businessowners double down on retarded, unprofitable business practices like hiring niggers, and don't react properly to all their good customers leaving, the problem will contain itself. Apologies if this ends up sounding a bit rambly.

Regarding the businessowners who own assets in other cities that get trashed: they're not going to stay businessmen for very long, because they've just allowed niggers to trash the apartment building that they own, the market value of which just plummeted due to the shitty area that it's in. They have an incentive not to allow this to happen.

>>85778

>To elaborate, welfare shouldn't be a constant paycheck like an actual job, but rather something like a grant that someone must apply for everytime, and they'd have to go through regulations to make sure that they're being responsible for themselves. and they can only keep getting a certain amount if they show actual effort to better their society/themselves rather than wasting the money. The money would flow much more efficiently back into society (especially if we remove dual-citizens and foreign interests).

I see a few problems with this, economically speaking. First, even if we assume that the regulations are written completely without loopholes, and that only people who "need" the welfare are really getting it, the mere fact that there exist all these restrictions and caveats means there's a lot of overhead to running this kind of system, to the point that it becomes a cash cow of its own. This is actually what's happening with the US right now–because the SSA employs tens of thousands of employees, with degrees from Schools of Social Work in hundreds of universities, the Social Security system itself has just turned into a welfare system in its own right for those employees, and the universities they owe their student loans to. More than 70% of the SSA's budget goes back into itself, with only that remaining 30% going towards "helping" anybody. Private charities, in contrast, are about the opposite–70% of donations go to the intended recipients, and only 30% is spent on overhead. Simply because of the nature of government jobs–since the government is in no danger of going bankrupt, government agencies tend to just create more and more useless make-work positions with no incentive to get rid of them–I would expect any kind of "verification" style welfare system to end up like this.

Second, there are a few economic problems with welfare in general, no matter what form it takes. It comes down to the incentive structure you create through welfare, and how that affects total productivity in the economy. Let's assume that country A enacts some kind of welfare system, and a corresponding income tax system to pay for the welfare (we'll assume that it's paid for entirely through taxation, and not loans or money-printing, because those create even bigger problems on top of the problems with taxation), and suppose the welfare is valued at $10,000 per year. Now, the first thing that would happen is that every job that pays 10,000 or less would be destroyed, as there's no incentive to work for what you get for free. What would also immediately happen is the destruction of a lot of the jobs that pay 12, 13, 14, or 15 thousand a year, because there would be many people who would consider the extra free time that they have to be worth the "price" of a reduced income. So already the welfare system has destroyed a good chunk of the available jobs I know you proposed an audit system where, theoretically, only a small subset of people would qualify for welfare, I'm just including this bit to show what would happen under an UBI system. For your system ignore the last bit about job destruction, but everything that follows still applies. Now, let's look at the payment side of things. The productive income brackets are being taxed to finance this welfare, presumably in a progressive manner. Because you are now getting less reward for the same effort (the tax increase), there is now less incentive to be productive. Because there is less incentive to be productive, there is less productivity, which manifests itself as people slipping into lower income brackets, working fewer hours, or ceasing work entirely to join the welfare system. Because there is less productivity, you need to raise the tax rate a bit higher in order to meet the costs of the welfare system (and those costs are a bit higher now, because a few more people who used to be working are now on welfare). This tax increase has the same effect as the last one, giving people even less of an incentive to be productive. And the cycle continues like that, with the economy tracing a downward spiral until there's no productivity whatsoever, everyone is poor, and your country looks kind of like what Venezuela looks like right now. This is happening with the Scandinavian countries right now actually, this same decrease of productivity. It's just a lot harder to see because the Scandinavian countries were very rich, very free market economies until 1960 or so, which gave them a lot of productivity "surplus" to run down in this downward spiral before they get to Venezuela levels.

>>85779

>Again, I'm still concerned about others only selling to a specific group of people because they can without facing repercussions because they happen to not live around there.

Repercussions in the market would be the biggest one. Boycotts and blacklists by other companies who disapprove of the practice (some people are skeptical as to how well this would work, but it has precedent. British merchant courts were entirely privatized until the end of the 19th century or so, and the most common punishment was blacklisting a merchant from his buyers or sellers, and it was pretty effective), combined with the fact that they're basically advertising that they're a risky group to do business with–if they'll do one form of shady shit they'll probably do others, including backing out on deals, delivering bad product, and so on. And all this shadiness is going to make them a lot more expensive to insure, to the point that most companies won't even bother taking the risk… so they don't have any kind of insurance protection if they get caught up in legal trouble, which puts them in deep shit.

>>85758

>fascist

Meme-tier bullshit ideology.

I guess I'm a traditionalist sort of like you, except instead of looking back to the traditions of 50 years ago, I want a return to the traditions of the last 40,000 years. The nuclear family is degeneracy; tribe is what matters. Marriage is degeneracy; we evolved to fuck everything that moves. Prohibitions on homosexuality and pedophilia are the result of the Abrahamic religions' degenerate fixation in procreative sex. Women should be infertile the vast majority of the time due to physical activity slowing the menstrual cycle, and pregnancy and lactational amenorrhea rending them infertile for years after conceiving a child. All sex should be recreational with the occasional child here or there, and those children should be in a huge herd cared for by the entire tribe. STDs should be contained as infected people are excommunicated from the tribe.

Gun ownership should be absolutely unlimited with no background checks. The solution to crazy fucks with guns is sane fucks with guns. There should be no property rights; possession is ten tenths of the law. If you come home from work and there's a squatter living in your home, it's pretty fucking telling that your neighbors just let him move on in there. Maybe you should move to somewhere where everyone doesn't hate you. Or if you're going to be an asshole that everyone hates, at least be a rich asshole and hire a security guard to shoot intruders on your behalf while you're away.

>>85876

>tribalism

>gun ownership

lol

>>85877

You can go ahead and start arguing any time.

>>85890

>implying that tribalism can achieve technological level required to create a gun to own, and not steal, buy or get gifted one from a superior organization or actor

lol x2

>>85891

Correlation is not causation. You're assuming that because modern nations are dominant over places where tribes still exist, that dominance is *caused* by the trappings of modern life. It's like saying that because Donald Trump is rich and uses cheap spray tan, that all you need to be rich is to get a spray tan.

In fact, most of the things that I called out are not part of the environment that contributed to Western dominance in the first place. Kid herds disappeared just in the last 40 years. Limits on firearm ownership are less than 100 years old. Homosexuality and pedophilia were not prohibited in ancient Greece, or Rome, or Egypt. In fact, hating gays is a very recent phenomenon: for centuries, the Catholic Church only condemned anal sex, not homosexuality. Property rights, and by extension, marriage, have been around longer, but only because it's a function of the state, and states have been around for a while. If you'd like a primer on how innovation can exist in a stateless society, I'd be happy to explain in greater detail.

>>85893

>property rights are an extension of the state

>>85894

Not an argument. Would you like to try again?

>>85876

What you're describing is anarcho-communism, you're not fooling anyone by labeling it as "tribalism". Your post is also full of unscientific nonsense which completely ignores evolutionary biology and tribal psychology, I'd be really interested in reading the research that backs up whatever you said because to me it just looks like bullshit you pulled out of your arse.

t. real tribalist

>>85896

>Sarcuck

Tou sneaky little shit, you could have at least Hooktubed it. Also check these dubs.

>>85896

>"tribalism"

Your word, not mine. I never used it once.

>Your post is also full of unscientific nonsense which completely ignores evolutionary biology and tribal psychology,

Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it unscientific. I'm not actually claiming it as any sort of science, but it's more consistent with current research than your own viewpoint.

>I'd be really interested in reading the research that backs up whatever you said because to me it just looks like bullshit you pulled out of your arse

If you have a specific claim you'd like to challenge, go ahead. Provide some counter-evidence while you're at it. I have no interest in digging up dozens of references so you can disregard them at a glance.

>>85906

>Your whole post is about living in a fucking tribe.

So substitute the word clan or community if it makes you feel better. I used the word tribe because it's the one that most accurately describes the groups that humans lived in during prehistoric times, and still do in some parts of the world.

>In a tribe, no one is going to guard your house for you while you're out fucking their wives, you'll likely be beaten or killed because humans are territorial by nature and by marking territory, they're laying claim to property

Hobbes, pls go. This is bullshit, and you'd know that if you had any knowledge of the topic whatsoever other than circlejerking with /pol/ over news stories (understandably) shitting on Africans.

>You're telling us how people supposedly lived 40 000 years ago and "what we were evolved to do". Unless you have something with which to back that up, you're full of shit.

My opinions aren't science (and neither are yours), but there's plenty of research into primitive lifestyles and our nearest nonhuman relatives (chimps and bonobos) that give us a pretty good idea of what things were like a few thousand years ago. Also, as I already noted, most of the things I mentioned in my original part don't even involve evolutionary biology or even opening a history book; you just have to talk to your grandparents.

>you are the one who has to have the evidence ready to prove it, not me.

You're the one that's been making low-effort one line posts, not me. I'm more than willing to have a scholarly argument if you are, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to disprove your ridiculous implicit claim that life hasn't changed since the dawn of time except for the level of technology if you're just going to sit back and post " tl;dr lel".

>>85758

Literally imagine your own ideology but with less spookery about muh nation and race. Pinochet, being a liberal who acted like a fascist dictator, is a good illustration of the fact that fascism is just an extension of liberalism with some spooky rhetoric on top.

>>85924

You see this shit right here? This is why I'm not going to bother trying to prove anything. If you want a scholarly argument, the way it works is that we each provide references, we each read over those references, and then we critique their accuracy and relevance. I've already shown that I'm willing to continue this argument in good faith by taking the time to type out fairly detailed posts explaining my position. Meanwhile, you're currently showing that all you're capable of is parroting 17th century memes and making lazy greentext >implications.

>>85926

>Pinochet

Killed 30000 people or so. Mao killed a hundred times that much. If we start collecting shit and throwing it at each other, you'll lose. So, maybe argue in good faith and not with disingenuous talking points?

>>85930

Contrary to popular belief, not every argument has to be entertained. The day has 24 hours, and if we were all to give a fair counterargument to every position we are faced with, even those that we are already convinced are bullshit, we'd waste at least twelve of these hours. Openmindedness and fairness in an argument are very good traits, but demanding them at all times is the equivalent of demanding the last penny from a charitable man.

>>85963

I, as another сукаблять agree with this. Modern Russian political environment is similar to that on /pol/, quite literally, except there people are actually making money on it, as well as reinforcing this environement.

>>85950

When I see a post entirely devoid of articles, I suspect that I am in for something bad, and most of the time, this is indeed the case. I have no idea why that is. Most Russians I know don't strike me as dumb the way these people do.

>>85963

>>85993

>>86053

Thanks, that explains a lot.

>>86053

Well, i'm no /pol/ack, so i'll leave it to your judjing

>>85758

(part 1)

I tend to agree with all of the philosophical aspects of fascism, which is uncommon in many libertarian circles. However, hear me out.

There is a common belief that individualism and collectivism are antithetical. This is simply not true. Most of this posturing comes from hyper-ancaps, and NEETsoc LARPers who didn't even understand what Uncle Adolf was about (never read his book, etc.) What I am about to say comes from a very American point of view, and I implore you to listen, especially if you are European, not so that I may convert you to some ideology, but more importantly to give context to many things that need to be addressed in pan-Atlantic discussions (which are usually nothing more than muh 56% McDonalds eating Amerifat VS Cucked Migrant Buttfucker.) It's not my goal to convert you, but to bring some understanding as to how I feel about the topic.

America in it's most fundamental sense is a "fascist" nation. I am not talking about Mussolini's fascism, which is an economic theory, but instead a "traditional" worldview (more in a classical European sense, not a Christian sense.) George Washington and his buddies helped forge what I believe to be the greatest form of government the world has ever seen, the Constitutional Republic. I see "Libertarianism" as kind of a dirty word, and I can understand why it's seen that way due to all the Jewish names attached to it, but let's be honest here, the only reason that it's used is because calling yourself a "Classical Liberal" sounds really stupid, and the fact that words can change so drastically over such a short period of time scares me so much that I seldom use the word "Liberal" in reference to anything I dislike, and instead opt to use the term "leftist" instead, for what it's worth.

To get back on track to what I was saying, it is in our culture to behave in a way that we would consider "evolved" (or arguably "devolved" but I could take it or leave it) in contrast to our European ancestors. This is not to say that we're better than them, or that they're doing something wrong, but merely an establishment of a new way of doing things. I don't mean in a progressive way either, as I see the progressive/regressive dichotomy as being an intellectually dishonest worldview that does not consider the intricacies of even the most subtle nuances of not just the socio-economic side of things, but even the fundamental aspects of the human condition. To explain myself: Civilized Europe is traditionally a very bureaucratic, aristocratic society. Americans are the salt of the fucking earth. I'd go as far to say that we're undying pieces of shit, but you know what, we're not pussies. We work with our hands and don't need to put much thought into things, but we can if we want to. We believe it is our call to duty by nature itself to run around with fucking muskets and fight tyranny, even if this type of renegade lifestyle is not in common practice today. Yes, America is a primarily white nation, and much of our culture is intertwined with that of Europe, but fundamentally, our Constitution is our culture. I'll get back to this later.

Many Europeans think that America has no culture, or that it's too young, or too diverse to have any culture. This is simply not true. If you want to put into context of what American culture of antiquity is like, I feel that the frontier is the best way to embody that.

(cont.)

>>85758

(part 2)

Now, it needs to be said that the frontier was a fucking shithole. You want to know what Anarcho-Capitalism looks like? That's what the frontier was. Washington was far away, and when under a very real and constant threat of brutal annihilation by Indians, there wasn't much choice in the matter. You get your fucking gun and you stand your ground. Nature was the law, and nature was a fucking bitch. The weak were killed and so were the strong. Only the strongest survived. If you want context to what the Frontier was actually like, read Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy. It's one of the most well researched books of all time, to the point to where when his research notes were auctioned off, it amounted to 96 very large moving boxes worth of nothing but papers, newsletters, war diaries and manuscripts; almost every line of that book actually happened in some way or another. You have encounters between well trained militias VS an army of Indians who would slaughter the frontier soldiers, and in some cases, would hack up a soldier's friends, and while they were all still alive, hack the soldier's testicles off, wave them in front of his face, and sodomize him in front of all his dying buddies whilst calling him a faggot, and that's not even the worst of what the frontier had to offer. Say what you will about the Native Americans, but they were some good fucking shitposters, even when they were savagely murdering people. Regardless, the point of the matter is that the frontier was abominable. It was nearly the worst place to be in the entire history of the world, second only to Europe during the Black Death.

Now you might be asking me

<But Anonymous, where the fuck is this going? I get it, the frontier was a shitty place to live and all, but you sound like you're going nowhere with this

Hush my sweet summer child. I'll get to the point now.

(cont.)

>>85758

>What is the thought process behind that, though?

I know it's a children's fairy tale, but watch vid related. The actual parable is about how it's easier to convince people to do things on their own than to force them to do things, but statists changed it to be about "showing off."

Basically the thought process has to deal less with "hippity hoppity get off my fucking property" and more to do with the underlying issue of dealing with the gays. If you ban the gays, they just go underground and become the 50s rape ape government warnings that are hilarious to watch now. There's two things to consider:

1) Actions have consequences

Fucking a guy in the ass carries the consequences of a high risk of diseases that will kill you young. We're living in a society where people can easily live to be 100, yet gays are getting STDs in their 20s/dying by their 40s. Imagine if gays had to pay their medical expenses out-of-pocket? No insurance company insurance is a scam but that's another topic in their right mind would allow fags to be on their insurance plans because they're walking disease-ridden corpses as far as their bottom line is concerned. Basically the gays would still exist, but you'd likely see it become something resembling a normal relationship. This same argument applies to a million other topics, but we'll stick to the gays.

2) The government funds the gays

Not even joking, consider that many of the issues with gays also affect straight people, so medically the government is subsidizing the gays. Additionally consider that publicly subsidized education is the root cause for about 80% of our current leftist problem in society (as well as the cost of education). Too tired to go into detail right now.

3) Children are useful

Children served a place in society as workers (and not as child labourors in the industry but as "workers" at home or at their uncle's farm or business) that is illegal today. Gays don't get children on top of having their mental illness(es) so they're at a competitive disadvantage that forces them to be productive members of society if they don't want to be stuck in dead-end career paths.

>>86445

Basically it devolves down to survival of the fittest and people being able to do things better/protect them and their own locally than any government ever will be, but I'm too tired to go into details.

>>86429

>I'm new to 8chan

It shows, namefag.

>>86448

Thanks for the welcome.

Heil Hitler.

>1) Actions have consequences

>Fucking a guy in the ass carries the consequences of a high risk of diseases that will kill you young.

How about fucking a woman in the ass?

>We're living in a society where people can easily live to be 100

I think it's still a 100-to-1 shot.

I think the oldest person alive today is younger than the one 20 years ago.

Many on 4chan/8chan are likely too sedentary to make it past 80.

>in their right mind would allow fags to be on their insurance plans because they're walking disease-ridden corpses as far as their bottom line is concerned.

Unless STDS, particularly AIDS, is not covered.

>Basically the gays would still exist, but you'd likely see it become something resembling a normal relationship. This same argument applies to a million other topics, but we'll stick to the gays.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV_and_men_who_have_sex_with_men

"A 2010 study estimated that for every 100,000 MSM, 692 will be diagnosed with HIV. This makes MSM 60 times more likely to contract the virus than other men and 54 times more likely than women.[27]"

That's less than 1%.

>2) The government funds the gays

>Not even joking, consider that many of the issues with gays also affect straight people, so medically the government is subsidizing the gays.

All less than 2% of them.

>3) Children are useful

>Children served a place in society as workers (and not as child labourors in the industry but as "workers" at home or at their uncle's farm or business) that is illegal today.

Children have to be watched over. This can be done by sending them to school, or sending them to work in some satanic mill or commercial farm (unlike the mixed commercial and subsistence farms of, perhaps say, the Amish).

>Gays don't get children on top of having their mental illness(es) so they're at a competitive disadvantage that forces them to be productive members of society if they don't want to be stuck in dead-end career paths.

Unless they have lesbian friends or can't hire surrogates—which will be easier under liberty and/or ancap

>>86445

cute vid, though

>>86465

How about Italian women pissing on your face, Il Duck?

Nah, you want children as cannon fodder for stupid wars of conquest or attempts thereof.

Gotta hand it to the Italians though, they didn't go for him the way Germans went for Hitler. Call it an innate anti-authoritarianism-of-sorts—particularly in the south, I suppose (though I'm far from being an expert).

But I wouldn't worry much. Most gays no more have sex with children than step-fathers of America have with their daughters. Maybe you fascists want to ban that.

What was her name? Gelli? If she wasn't murdered or died of suicide she might be alive today, though well into her 90s.

>>86482

>Most gays no more have sex with children than step-fathers of America have with their daughters

Child molestation is disproportionately high among homosexuals compared to the rest of the population. It's a real problem that the LGBT+ community is unwilling to address because they're afraid that doing so will legitimize homophobia.

>>86566

What about racist faggots? Would you let my boyfriend and I buy a child if I had a swastika tattoo?

>>86567

What if you identified as women and converted to Islam also? Do you think that's allowed?

>>86568

What if I just like the movie American History X and am not a National Socialist, am still a homo, but am also still racist?

>>86570

>check-ups for abuse

Gonna have to drop a lawsuit on you for homophobia in that case, good thing folks like you put laws in place allowing me to do so.

What if my boyfriend is from a muslim family and is nonwhite, I am a racist, and politically I lean closer to AnPrim ideally but AnCap pragmatically?

>>86571

Again, where do you assign the 50 boys and 50 girls to?

This thread started as a self-described fascist saying LGBTs shouldn't adopt children. My implied argument is that LGBTs are likely to be less harmful to children than perhaps Muslims and certainly less harmful than fascists and nazis.

>>86573

I already told you where they go nigger, time for you to answer my much more pressing questions.

What if I want to raise the children in my image by having them work from a young age?

What if there are 100 nazis wanting to adopt the children or 1 convicted child molestor who is an anti-fascist and wants to adopt all of the children, which one will you sell the children to?

>>86574

Time for you to start your own thread with such questions: perhaps on /pol/ or /b/, though there seems to be a tolerance for your ilk here that verges on acceptance.

>>86575

I am just asking questions lad but you keep dodging them. Why would you send an open homosexual who up until now you insisted on speaking for to a den of evil NAZIS?

>>86576

Your questions are stupid.

Create your own thread, ask the question, and await answers.

Your last post was particularly stupid.

>Why would you send an open homosexual who up until now you insisted on speaking for to a den of evil NAZIS?

WTF are you trying to say?

Wow, this fuckin thread blew up. gg /liberty/

[spoiler]fuck[spoiler]

I am myself but I'm between lefty and regular pol, so not in much agreeance with them except underground market strategies/countereconomics and private property (in some cases)

>>86565

please don't defend Turdistan here. Turks are better by a country mile because they don't believe in social egalitarianism.

>>86624

Is that a kurd flag, magapede?

>>86623

>I am myself but I'm between lefty and regular pol

OK, so you are regular pol.

>>86577

>Your questions are stupid.

They are openly stupid, rather than attempting some "Gotcha!" bullshit like your equally stupid questions.

>WTF are you trying to say?

English your second language, xang?

>>86624

Turkish spurdo, speaking Turkish and you bring up the kurds out of no where

>>86645

>pol

>>86655

Nah.

My question is smart, yours is stupid.

>>86661

Does one have to be so smart to see how reasonable my question, or how stupid yours, were.

>>86656

>hey would you give these kids to two groups that seem really bad or one group that is 99% good but has a 1% chance of being people I don't like? Oh you picked the "good" group? Gotcha nazis!

Yeah nah, at least I don't put a veneer of pretentious bullshit over my stupid questions.

>>86672

Is that a quote or are you just making shit up?

The question was relatively simple enough.

No veneer.

Your questions are stupid, as are your other posts.

Are you on crack?