/liberty/ - Liberty

Your meme only makes sense to a butthurt lolbert who already decided authority doesn't benefit the people

>>87011

It doesn't. The people in charge are people just like any other, and therefore every bit as likely to abuse their power.

>>87015

You made so many implications is such a small post

>putting idiots in charge

>everyone is equal

>everyone is bad

>le power corrupts

>every leader corrupts power

>no leadership is the way to go :DDD

Nigger you made me angry. You are saying a nobody would be put in place of leadership AND that everyone would abuse power because everyone is bad or some shit. How fucking dense can you larpers false-flaggers be?

>>87016

What nation on this earth doesn't "put" idiots in charge? Can you name even one? Wise men do not rule, they may be skilled in rulership but they are not skilled in attaining rulership. Stop bumping this shit thread with your retard posts.

>>87016

The people most likely to abuse power are most likely to seek it out. It's why democracy fails. The problem isn't idiots in charge, it's malicious people in charge.

>>87015

>The people in charge are people just like any other

>egalitarianism is now real

>abuse their power

>market forces suffice to steer businesses, but corporations

mate the problem is the leftist style political organization - very cult like - that push for bullshit policy of various kind cause zombie-humans feel that way. to the benefit of their masters.

thats very different from the dictionary definition of state.

>>88815

He means "they're only human." What the Government says it can provide is not very realistic, but people go for it anyway. Some just want to believe.

Pedophilia is the issue that the elites use to get those who claim to oppose said elites to dance to their tune and willingly throw away their rights. They've been doing it for fifty to sixty years now and nobody questions it because they'd rather be "righteous" than right.

Why did you leftists revivied a thread that was about to die?

>>88832

Because they are the ones who need the redpills the most.

>>88828

Pretty much this, and most of them use murrika's definition of pedo. I've seen communists saying they'd ally with capitalist governments to murder a man who fucked a 17-year-old. If ancapistan ever actually happens, it needs to launch those recreational nukes at these faggots immediately. Trying to reason with them is totally futile. Somebody just needs to bitchslap them as hard as fucking possible.

>>87015

>The people in charge are people just like any other

nope

>>87011

>doesn't benefit the people

It does benefit the people who have authority.

>>89149

>power corrupts

>not the power of the rich though, based job creators :–DDD

>>89204

Stop trying to put words in my mouth like you cram dicks into yours.

>>87011

authority doesn't exist. It's simply extortion, assault, and plunder with a veneer of good intentions.

>>88828

previously it has been homosexualit

now it is pedophilia

wonder why? i know why

>>87016

>>le power corrupts

Using power prompts a dopamine response. It's physiologically addictive if you do it too much You do the math.

>>89525

These days it's getting more well known why this happened, although it should have been well known much, much earlier. It's because jealous feminist crones are mad that guys evolved to find girls between 14 and 16 the most attractive, and since they rode the cock carousel during their teens and 20s instead of finding a husband, guys passed them over for teenage hotties.

>>89554

Rerolling for trips.

>>89554

I can attest to this. I generally hang out with girls in their late teens so that I don't end up with a used-up whore, and I don't have to worry about being arrested or some shit because the age of consent is lower than 18 in my country.

We shouldn't forget that age of consent laws were created by first-wave feminists to prevent prettier younger women from competing with older whores. It's the same as incel males coming up with a law that prevents guys in their 30s from fucking chicks in their 20s, because out of jealousy they want to hoard women they can't have, and not be out-competed by more experienced, more established men.

>>89557

Sounds like ancapistan should start in your country. Actually, anywhere but the US and its most loyal cuck countries is probably an okay starting point. The US is the most collectivist society in history. It's more fucking collectivist and full of government cocksuckers and censorship lovers than the goddamn Soviet Union ever dreamed of. Although there is a sticking point with your recital of history. It's true that first-wave feminists were the ones who originally came up with these laws, but they didn't manage to finally get most of those laws passed until the third wave, starting in 1980 or so. Millennials are the only generation that's ever really had to deal with this in full force. The damage this has done to millennials, society and the bond between the genders is so catastrophic that once America collapses, it will be pinpointed quickly by other nations as the most destructive social policy ever. Nobody in any other country will ever dream of passing laws like that again. Of course, humanity isn't likely to survive America's collapse anyway given how many nukes there are and all the other things that could fuck over the entire species, so it's probably a moot point.

>>89560

>Of course, humanity isn't likely to survive America's collapse anyway given how many nukes there are and all the other things that could fuck over the entire species, so it's probably a moot point.

We must end the state before the state ends us. At the rate that things are going, humanity isn't likely to survive as anything other than mindless, zombified cattle in the next few hundred years, and whoever takes the red pill will be too out-numbered, too powerless, and too poor to do anything by then.

>>89560

>The US is the most collectivist society in history.

Have you ever been anywhere but in the US?

>>89564

This. Most of Europe and especially far eastern nations like China are especially bad about collectivism. The US is far from where I want it to be in terms of liberty, but it could much much worse.

>>89557

>We shouldn't forget that age of consent laws were created by first-wave feminists to prevent prettier younger women from competing with older whores.

I see, we shouldn't forget it's actually all about your muh dick.

>>89573

>complaining that things are about muh dick to libertarians

>not being disgusted at the realization that feminists raising the age of consent up to the stratosphere is effectively a form of market distortion designed to ban a superior product because no guys would ever purchase the inferior product otherwise

Which fucking board do you think you're posting on?

>>89577

>HBD

what is it?

>>89525

And before that it was niggers.

>>89557

>We shouldn't forget that age of consent laws were created by first-wave feminists to prevent prettier younger women from competing with older whores

Too shortsighted. The feminists were nothing but pawns in a struggle between liberty and authority that has been going on since before any of your grandparents had even been born. It's about control. It has always been about control. A divided people who have a common enemy on which to focus their hatred are easier to control.

>>89560

>Actually, anywhere but the US and its most loyal cuck countries is probably an okay starting point. The US is the most collectivist society in history. It's more fucking collectivist and full of government cocksuckers and censorship lovers than the goddamn Soviet Union ever dreamed of.

It wasn't supposed to be. The America I was taught about in grade school was the most libertarian society of which I had ever heard. Of course, imagine my shock upon realizing that the myth was not the reality. Power corrupted. It always does.

>>89605

There's some truth to this, but you have to understand that tyranny tends to fall along demographic lines. Feminists became useful to the lovers of big government oppression because the oppressors came to understand that they could exploit feminist hags' sexual jealousy of teenage girls, and even more than that, they could get nu-males who can't get anything better than a roastie to cuck out for feminism. This allowed them to pass all sorts of absurd laws under the guise of fighting those evil disgusting pedos who commit the heinous, unforgivable crime of consensually fucking hot young girls that roasties are jealous of.

>>87011

Getting cuckolded is getting cuckolded whether it benefits people or not.

>>89612

What is this idiocy?

>>87016

>You are saying a nobody would be put in place of leadership AND that everyone would abuse power

That's literally what happened in the cases of Mussolini and Hitler. Not only that, but both of them fucked up their own countries by getting their countries involved in almost-unwinnable wars.

>>89614

You have to go back

>>89621

No, you have to go back. Fuck up off back to your shithole.

>>89610

One feminist in particular spoke out for her right to be punished equally to men, under the law, because she was fed up with being treated like a fragile little flower. They're not inherently bad, they're just misled. Don't be deluded into wiping the pawns off the board while the rest of the pieces put you in check. Kill the masters. Everything else will work itself out.

>>89646

There are actually several feminist movements. Individualist feminists, for example, are fighting for equal treatment under the law, less legal power to marriages, public and moral behavior requirements, pro-choice and general deregulation, unlike 3rd wavers and their inclusiveness.

>>89646

Until these people have just as much of a media presence as the feminism we know, they don't matter and I don't particularly believe in their existence anyway given that feminists have been pulling their bullshit for over a century now and women for the most part haven't said a damn thing because they benefit from these ridiculous laws.

>>89650

>public and moral behavior requirements

These will invariably have the same cancerous prohibition on teen pussy that we have now.

>>89663

>Until these people have just as much of a media presence as the feminism we know, they don't matter and I don't particularly believe in their existence anyway

Then maybe you should be informing people about Susie B. Any feminist you know, you should be challenging their bullshit with her example. The fuck are they gonna do, tell you she "wasn't a real feminist"?

>>89610

this

end gynocracy now

jews have big nose because air is free hahahha

>>87016

>You made so many implications is such a small post

Funny that the same thing can be said right back at you.

You can't prevent idiots from reaching power, you can only make it harder for them, but it can always still happen. What matters then is "what do we do if there's an absolute mad asshole in power?" which is why nobody likes authoritarian regimes or gives a single leader all the power.

>everyone is equal, everyone is bad

The poster you were replying did not implied that at all, but you can safely assume that everyone has an equal potential for being bad. You never know the true character of everyone, you can't asume that they are all bad or all good and as such you have to employ rules that can weed them out as they come along based on what they do, not just what they say or promise.

>le power corrupts

>every leader corrupts power

Something something, learning from history, something something, not making the same mistakes. But hey, "me ne frego", isn't that right Mussolini?

Nobody claims that ALL leaders are corrupt since you can easily find examples of leaders that weren't. Again, the important aspect is preparing for when they turn out to be corrupt instead of assuming by default that, if they are leaders, they can't be corrupt. That's an incredibly childish view of the world.

>no leadership is the way to go

You need a compromise. The other poster is being a bit extreme in his reasoning, there's good reasons to keep a government but the amount of power they should have probably shouldn't be that big. Just enough to protect the citizens from external influences.

>>90686

>you can safely assume that everyone has an equal potential for being bad

genetics proves you wrong

>>90784

It's niggers, and it's a cultural problem, not a genetic one. Prove me wrong. Protip you can't, nigger. Every man is responsible for his own actions, but your obstinate refusal to admit that nigger communities had been unfairly and unjustly victimized for decades after the niggers were freed suggests to me that you care nothing for truth, but rather are simply pushing your own propaganda. It makes perfect sense that they don't trust the rule of law, and that they reverted to tribalism and violence. It absolves none of them from any monstrous action, so don't even try to pull the whole "you're defending murderers and rapists" card, /pol/cuck.

Every man has the potential for monstrous actions within him. Every single person struggles with the divide between selfishness and altruism and, when you are raised in a community that gains no benefit from altruism or the rule of unjust law, how is it surprising that they turn to selfishness? You would miss the forest for the trees, and turn away millions of potential allies because the color of their skin offends you, even if they as individuals have done nothing wrong. You could teach them to respect themselves, to respect one another, to rise above the class divides, the racial divides that the elites use to keep them in check, but you would rather masturbate about how superior you are due to an accident of birth. Niggerdom is a mindset, not a skin color.

YOU fuck off back to Reddit, nigger.

>>90789

Culture is downstream of biology faggot, it doesn't develop in a vacuum and it doesn't change IQ distributions. Centuries of civilization can't be picked up like a fruit basket, and niglet babies won't come out "Western" just because you read a pocket constitution aloud while they were in the womb. If muh culture was all it was, a few decades of exposure to hWhites would have produced something more sophisticated than hip hop music and grape drank. If it was some other outside influence "holding them down," five Marshal Plan's worth of aid to Africa would have had some tangible result. Nigs are gonna nig, in the jungle or out of it.

>unfairly and unjustly victimized for decades

Holy shit, cool down the virtue signalling you leftist fag. What, you think just because you forced yourself to type the word nigger a bunch of times it hides what an utter plebeian you are? Gas yourself.

>turn away millions of potential allies because the color of their skin offends you

Uh-huh, sure. If you want to masturbate to pictures of BASTE black men wearing MAGA hats, the_donald is that way. Maybe this time when you lean left, the Democrats will finally stop calling you racist now that you've found a couple outliers.

>You could teach them

Even if the pavement apes were capable of being taught (which is unlikely as, again, they've been utterly unresponsive to the myriad gibs and advantages they're provided already), I don't want to. I have enough problems of my own without succumbing to lefty pathological altruism, and subsidizing the poor decisions of r-selected vermin.

>>90789

Just fucking go back to reddit.

>>90791

>leftist

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Left_Wing_vs_Right_Wing

>Left-wing beliefs are liberal in that they believe society is best served with an expanded role for the government.

You're more leftist than I, since you want to take the government and use it to remove the deplorables.

>>90793

>You're more leftist than I, since you want to take the government and use it to remove the deplorables.

>implying implications

I don't need to use the government, because a private society spells nigger famine. The porchmonkeys can't hope to sustain themselves in civilized society without affirmative action and landlords wouldn't deign to rent to them without Section 8 and antidiscrimination laws. Without the government there to protect their voterbase they'd all die off or be physically removed from the covenant. Regardless of that, however, your DR3 PR-cucking is doing far more to support the agenda of the left than any kind of state action that I may advocate–any miniscule gains you might have made in the short term to get blacks to be good neocons and die for Israel are overshadowed by the fact that you're aiding and abetting the left's long-term goal of gaining power through demographic replacement. Ideally, government force wouldn't exist at all; but as long as it does, you're just intentionally naive if you don't acknowledge there are good and bad ways to use it. Pointing it at the Democrat's pet apes and riot-mongers is most certainly one of the better ones.

>>90794

>Government power and overrreach is okay when I do it!

>>90794

> Ideally, government force wouldn't exist at all; but as long as it does, you're just intentionally naive if you don't acknowledge there are good and bad ways to use it. Pointing it at the Democrat's pet apes and riot-mongers is most certainly one of the better ones.

This is the only thing in your paragraph that I disagree with. I don't give a shit about niggers, but the last thing I need in my life is any more damn govt involvement. You give govt any power and they will be just as likely to use it to oppress you as they will your enemies. As >>90795 puts it, you sound more like a statist whose okay with using govt force as long as its with people you don't like.

>>90796

>You give govt any power and they will be just as likely to use it to oppress you as they will your enemies.

The government already has power, there's no need for me or anyone to give more to it. This is a given, and will not be changed in the immediate future. So long as this is the case, as long as we know for a fact that the government is a loaded gun about to fire, we have a vested interest in making sure that gun is pointed a certain way and not the other. I don't consider this an initiation of force anymore than I would consider gunning down a trespasser an initiation of force. The left has made it clear that they will use whatever means possible to obliterate whoever stands in their way, and I am not inclined to grant my enemy courtesies that he will not grant to me. Using the state to crush the anti-fascist mob that has so clearly declared its aggressive intentions against us is not force, it is self-defense in the name of survival. I have no qualms about acting in self defense, and you shouldn't either.

>>90799

You read like an apologist. "Pointing the gun" at the other guy not only explicitly condones the act but strengthens it, both by opinion and funds.

>>90800

Well, when government force is directed against you and not the left you can rest secure in the fact that at least you didn't "explicitly condone" what is about to happen to you. It's going to happen whether you want it to happen or not. I'm not "condoning" anything, I'm acting in self-defense and survival. If I do nothing to manipulate the state's action away from me, then the left are free to manipulate the state unopposed, and they will use it to destroy everything you love and hold dear. They will continue to import hordes of mudpeople to make your opinion less and less relevant, they will either ignore or actively promote the violence and criminality of their new voterbase, they will ostracize anything traditional, masculine, or sensible in the name of progressivism, they will silence you for disagreeing with them, they will destroy the economy with their socialist policies, and they will actively suppress and destroy history because it doesn't match their sensibilities. Taking a partisan stand against leftism in all of its forms is not just a matter of principle, it's a matter of survival. Your kvetching over whether or not you "condone" what they do is the equivalent of waking up and catching Tyrone halfway out the door with your flatscreen, and deciding you won't shoot him because that would be an NAP violation. Aggressors forfeit their right to nonaggression, and the left's actions are quite simply an NAP violation on a macro scale.

>>90814

If you're actually the type to own an M2 you probably have nothing to fear. Although I'm not sure from where you extracted the notion that I'd round up a lynch mob.

>>90814

Remind me to have some of these ready when the Chris Hansen faggots gather up to lynch the soon-to-be-mainstream movement to roll back the feminist age of consent laws. Years of having them laugh at logic and facts have shown me that diplomacy isn't going to work on them, which means we're going to need some different tactics.

>>90783

>>90784

Genetics has nothing to do with this. Everyone has the ability to go out in the street and mug people, everyone has the power to kill someone else, everyone can do bad shit.

Black people actually doing that in a greater number does not mean white people are incapable of doing it, only that they are less likely to use that ability.

You're only mixing race in this discussion, that did not start with race nor does it need that topic at all, because it's familiar ground for you and so you have an "argument" to stand on.

It doesn't matter if, when voting for a prime minister, he's 5% likely to be corrupt if he's white or 40% if he's black. In the end, there's still a chance that your prime minister is corrupt, so the question is not "how do we make sure black people don't run for office?" but rather "what do we do if we have a corrupt prime minister".

Fascism, Communism and even Monarchy do not have an answer to this question. In fact, half of the point in those regimes is to avoid answering this question.

But you'll gladly run the risk of having a corrupt ruler, as long as he hates niggers as much as you. You'd gladly eat trash and leftovers everyday while the upper classes live the good life as long as niggers ate nothing at all.

This is why morons like you are dangerous and will never achieve anything, because everyone else already outgrew the "my way or the highway" phase of life, also known as your teenager years, and they can compromise for the sake of better solutions.

The entire point of mandates and democracy is basically compromises anyway. Parties making concessions as long as the other will vote in favor of something they want, leaders doing what they want for 4-5 years because then they have to give the seat to someone else, etc.

>>90823

I'm not going to dress the top half of the post since that's not for me, but holy shit anon. How in the world do you come across an imageboard and yet still actually have any kind of faith in democracy? A good chunk of the western world has already experienced the democratic experiment and by this point it should be obvious that it has failed. Fuck compromising. Compromising on freedom constantly is how we get to where we are now. Compromising on freedom leads to reduced gun rights, govt surveillance and police states.It is in the government's best interest to turn in's population into slaves so they will continue to push any agenda that leads to reduced rights for all of us. The United States basically started with just local states governing themselves and look what it has turned into now.

Some may disagree with me here, but trying to play the political game is completely pointless. Your trying to work in a system that is basically rigged against you. Plus even if the person you wanted actually manages to get in, they have no obligation to actually put into place the policies you wanted. Actual honest people have no place in the political game. Look what happened to Ron Paul when he tried.

>>90827

>How in the world do you come across an imageboard and yet still actually have any kind of faith in democracy?

Because despite all it's flaws, it's still the best system. Not because it's a good one, mind you, but because every alternative is so much fucking worse you'd have to be mad to even consider them at all.

Think about the current bunch of faggots that run a country to the ground. Now tell me you'd seriously prefer it if they couldn't be impeached, if there was no term limit to their reign or that their sons would inherit the office when they die. Would any of this make the situation better or worse?

The great thing about Democracy is that you don't need a revolution, regicide, an entire generation or even violence to enact change. The option to radically change a country comes every 4-5 years and all it takes is seizing it.

You will scoff at the idea because it's always the same people running for office and shit never changes, but then again… Donald Trump.

The point isn't that Democracy is the best shit ever but rather that, despite all it's flaws, you still got to replace Obama with Donald Trump, instead of Obama Junior inheriting the American Throne or Obama being a Glorious Leader for the next 30 years before passing the role to a close friend. That's what's so great about Democracy.

>Compromising on freedom

I never said anything about compromising on freedom, but I get why you'd think so because that's the only kind of compromise that's offered to americans and they obviously refuse it. There's more to this instead, however.

You are unwilling to compromise on social programs because they are Socialism (different things, but since they sound the same…) and therefore you can't get a proper social network like many countries in Europe have.

Your multiple states aren't willing to compromise on having the same laws, and therefore every state rules itself according to their own shitty rules instead of compromising and making deals with each other to benefit everyone.

You especially won't compromise on race issues. Even though you claim the primary qualifier is inteligence and therefore niggers are inferior, you will never acknowledge whites that score lower than niggers or niggers that score higher than whites, proving that race matters more than inteligence to you anyway. You could have your superior enlightened society that rewards inteligence, but you'll never go past being bible-thumping racist bigots to everyone else because you're incapable of compromising on race and accepting the few niggers that rise above the ghetto while taking out the few whites that are dumber than niggers.

>>90828

Confederate anon already said everything I wanted to say though I have no clue why your bringing up the race and nigger shit for me when I wasn't even making that argument to begin with.

Nihilism is a learned behavior that has become common after generations of compulsory schooling. It is easy to quell moral outrage when the average man is so socially retarded that he sees other people as soulless robots.

>>90831

>demographics and statistical averages don't mater

I wish you guys stopped using statistics since all they serve for is terrible strawmans or showing how little you know about statistics.

Here's what statistics are for the average /pol/ faggot:

Because 80% of blacks commit crimes, 100% of blacks are criminals.

Because whites are 40% more likely to be smarter than blacks, 100% of whites are smarter than blacks.

Yadda Yadda, repeat ad nauseum.

Let's say that crime statistic is real, that 80% of niggers are criminals. You round up 10 niggers of the street. Can you simply take 8 of them and put them in jail, since niggers are criminal 80% of the time? Is this a fair trial? No. You cannot look at an individual nigger and say "You're a criminal because statistics", only that "You're more likely to be a criminal!" which validates no action whatsoever besides obviously having a preference for white people.

Even then, you can say that niggers are more likely to commit crimes than whites, but overall this is just a consequence of something not a simple fact on it's own. You'd have to look up the reason for why they are more likely to commit crimes to solve the problem, not do the american solution of "let's treat the symptoms until the disease disappears, oh shit he died".

>>90833

Maybe because the discussion was going quite raceless up to >>90686 but then two White Sharia Jihadists barged in with race here: >>90783 and >>90784 because they can't argue about anything without baiting race into it.

>>90831

>Fascism endeavours to minimize corruption by entrusting the current leader to select his replacement

<Fascism endeavours to minimize corruption by trusting nepotism to avoid corruption

>There were quite a few good Emperors however.

And then there was Nero and the horse too. And there was that whole "Rome falling" business that maybe you'd want to look into.

We were talking about "how can you solve having a corrupt leader once he's in power" since obviously things go swell when that's not happening, so your "there were a few good emperors" doesn't change that one bit, it just showcases that once you have a corrupt emperor you not only can't fix it with Fascism, a whole nation is expected to fall when it happens. Nice solution.

>Monarchies avoid corruption through two factors: good lineage

AKA inbreeding, LMAO

The rest of that paragraph is all hypothetical. Those are the things a good leader will do, obviously. But a bad or corrupt leader won't. Even with all the tutoring, even with all the advisors, he may decide otherwise. That he needs high taxes to pay for some important project, that war will benefit him with conquest.

I mean, are we really gonna ignore Marie Antonietta and the "Let them eat cakes"?

Again, the issue isn't "How do you improve the odds of having a good king?", those methods answer that very well but you can't be 100% certain that they will work.

The question remains "What do you do if your king is a knobhead?" and the answer to that tends to be regicide.

>the democrat has NO incentive to enact policies that keep the realm healthy. He does not own the realm

The democrat operates under a different mindset. He is not a ruler, he is a public functionary defending the interests of those that elected him. His role is purely representative and his incentive is that he wants to defend those who voted for him.

Usually a democrat steps forward when he wants to see some change in society but no current party is interested in enacting it, so he will start a party and see if anyone else wants the same change and will support it.

You're looking at the whole thing in a very, very primitive way.

>This encourages him to maximize present profit and present success over future long-term misery

Most democrats live on reputation alone. It's reputation that gets them new terms, that bends the hand of oposition and gives them a good job afterwards. They work for long-term in more ways than you imagine.

>by the time long-term comes around someone else is in office. He cares not how costly a war is because it is not his coffers he is draining. It is of no matter to him that lower taxes will increase future productivity because he is only interested in maximizing his gains as much as possible in the short time that he has control.

Democrats join parties that defend their interests. A Democrat working with such a limited mentality will reach nowhere within his own party as he'd only damage it's reputation with his decisions.

In a way, it's not the democrats that rule, it's the parties that do so, who have a vested interest in avoiding the kind of decisions that mark them as terrible alternatives.

President A from Party B might not care if his country goes to war, but Party B does since it's gonna run for elections with a different candidate next term and it really doesn't want to be known as "the Party that started a war".

Furthermore, having your own Party in a weaker position means your very own interests won't be defended as well. Politicians have long term interests to worry about, even when they are no longer worrying for office.

You know, it sounds a lot like you think you have all the solutions when that only happens if you side-step the real issues and especially because "you clearly know nothing about any of these ideologies". You should get involved a bit more with your contries democracy to see how it actually works.

It's horrible, brutal and corrupt to no end, but it's still a better alternative than Fascism or Democracy since actualy legitimate non-violent change is still possible every 4 years.

>isn't democracy great, goys?

>I'm so glad we live in a country where power can peacefully transfer every four years! Wow, America is so great

>Democracy may be useless and dysfunctional, but it's better than everything else!

I almost hate normalcattle NPCs more than the leftist shitposters. At least the latter are good for a laugh every so often.

>>90877

Statistics can not tell anything about cause and effect. It can only suggest correlations, of which most are ignored as obviously unrelated.

>>90878

Aw, baby got a new buzzword. Adorable.

>>90879

Then how do you determine causality? You eliminate or control for other factors.

>>90879

Like the other guy said, it's not exactly difficult to control out extraneous variables to definitively show that nigs are gonna nig. But even if you could, what difference does it make? Even if criminality and high time-preference aren't genetically inherent to niggerdom, but some ancillary reasons that only happen to be related to niggers, so what? Even if it's not baked into their DNA, the problem still goes away when the niggers go away, so it doesn't really matter. If the problem is cultural and not genetic, then nigger culture still disappears once niggers disappear. If it's an "income inequality" problem (which has been debunked, but let's humor it for now), well removing the niggers removes a lot of low-income people now doesn't it. If it's a "racist sexist KKK patriarchal oppression" problem, those also go away once the different race goes away. And so on.

Further, it's really irrelevant whether or not criminality or some other socially undesirable behavior is inherent to these people. Because the fact of the matter is, I just don't like them. I don't like their shitty music or their other cultural practices, I don't like the way they look, and I don't like their hoodrat names. There doesn't need to be a rational justification for that, I just have an in-group preference for my own people, as does everyone, whether they admit it or not.

>>90886

>There doesn't need to be a rational justification for that

There does whenever you start thinking about passing laws.

>>90881

Taking the measurements by itself is a possible factor, and a plausible one with regards to humans' behaviour.

>>90886

There are so many things legally encouraged or discouraged that it is difficult to see how much say anyone has, especially about things like culture and crime, which are heavily influenced both for the purpose of treating groups differently, and to make sure the groups are as separated as possible to continue treating them differently.

>>90784

>Using statists' arbitrary definitions to try to quantify the badness of an entire demographic

I seriously hope you guys don't do this.

>>91057

>crime rates are statism

<looks at you, waiting.

>and IQ

<reminded, quits waiting

>>91058

Butterfly, is it you? pls die

Being raped by Masonic deep state niggers when i was 6 pretty much cemented my hatred of the establishment. The greatest redpill is relizing what the world is and how little you actually matter. I was a star of the private school I was in. Advancing through the curriculum at a record pace until I realized what i was being prepared for. I managed to escape deep state Masonic niggers that raped me and then gave me the forgot pill but that didnt work correctly. Imagine living in a hell where if you advance the Masonic niggers are right there ready to take you back into the fold and once you go back into that fold you ARE NOT coming back out.

So you have to be medicore and nice and christian values just enough so they do not have a excuse to send you to some re education camp nor enough to reward you with that private school they were going to send you up in the mountains thats far away from civilization and parents IT was going to be all paid for by the "church" to.

Such a wonderful world we live in.

>>91102

Where is this private school? Do they accept applications?

>>87005

"Actually, it's ephebophilia."

>>91062

No.

Crimes are defined by law. Therefore states.

IQ tests are based on an arbitrary set of questions that desires one general outcome. (A state could implement them, but it's usually just some authority figure that makes you take them) pls hi

>>91148

That's absurd. Even if we accept for now that all authority is "statism", your objection to the methods used to measure niggerdom does not change the fact that nigs are gonna nig. You can use an IQ test, you can use some authority-free hippy shit, or you can use nothing at all, they will still have the same high time-preference behavior, and they're still going to rape, steal, and murder. This is like saying that the population of the US would skyrocket if only the statist Census Bureau would stop measuring it so often.

>>91150

Anon, just ignore this stupid bitch. For all the time she's been here to still keep the idea of "money is evil" and fighting over it it's simply impossible to change any of the few bits of information imprinted on the insides of her skull.

>>91102

plz tell me more, this is very intriuging.

>>91150

Direct control of population numbers didn't catch on in America the way law enforcement, but if it did, there would be many more or less people and removing the census would improve things.

>>91150

Measuring behavior, in whatever method, for a set group of people that are kept in a set environment, is going to give you similar results. Change the environment and the generation after will show a change in results. It's not skin pigment, it's socioeconomic conditions. Explain wiggers.

>>91152

The accumulation of money is the predominant function of this society. That breeds success for those that can gather the most, and those people are always the best suppressors of their own ability for feel sympathy for those they step on to get ahead. The world is run by sociopaths. Not talented or especially industrious people, but psychos.

>>91156

>Measuring behavior, in whatever method, for a set group of people that are kept in a set environment

What are you going to throw at me next, Schrodinger's goddamn cat? This is a baseless assertion and makes no sense.

>Explain wiggers.

Tail end of the bell curve, with government-induced dysgenics+lugenpresse glorifying niggers warping how incentives work. But mostly the tail end of the bell curve, it's the same reason Thomas Sowell existing doesn't change statistics.

>The world is run by sociopaths. Not talented or especially industrious people, but psychos.

This is a true statement, but for the opposite reason: it is precisely because of the suppression of profit motive and the communist siren songs of equality and democracy that pond scum rises to the top

>>91147

>being attracted to someone who's biologically ready to mate and has received sex education is different from being attracted to someone who has neither of those things

Holy shit, what a revelation. It's fucking embarrassing that some people actually think responding to being called out on their bullshit false equivalence between pedo and ephebo (aka normal human sexuality) by repeating back exactly what was said to them is some kind of witty rejoinder. America is the laughingstock of the universe.

>>91164

>The brain is conditioned from birth onwards, and is highly malleable.

it is conditioned even before birth

>>87005

> greatest red pill

leftists are sort of correct for being mad at corporation and so should we cos they are state created entities, historically created to give advantages to favorites of the kings, like nobles and those who poses state created currency. They disconnect an organization from the free market through fully government created laws like limited liability and a pardon from taxes as well as allowance for tax loopholes. This means that capitalism and the free market are not the same. In an economy you have land labour and capital, capitalism is when the state gives priority to capital and finance, to creating of paper and 'wind trade', instead of balancing the three.

>>91156

>consensual labour is opression

oh not it is him again

>>97617

>capitalism is when the state gives priority to capital and finance

Except that's wrong. Capitalism is an economic order in which goods are controlled by private owners, instead of the state. When the state imposes restrictions on what private owners can do, then it is taking control away from them and therefore strays from the proper definition of capitalism. You can be "more capitalist" or "less capitalist", but saying that capitalism is defined by state interference in the market is equating a concept with its very antithesis. The extent to which the state interferes in the market, to help or to hinder private interests, is the extent to which that economic order is NOT capitalist.

>>91164

Shit, I was going to reply to you seriously but then I saw you're that gay tripfag. Blend in or get gone, especially from the boards I like. Go be gay on those Communist boards.

>>97759

Thanks. I'd almost forgotten.

>>97823

In that case what is the difference between the free market and capitalism? why do we have two different terms that is supposed to describe the same thing? by saying that you ignore the history of capitalism and corporations. Free market is when all factors of production (land labor and capital) are equal, including currency and the medium of exchange and store of value that people choose to use. Historically the time when the priority was given to capital was when the central currency and the chartered monopoly were introduced. They were introduced to cut off the peasant communities from participation in value creation, as it is value creating that pulls you out of poverty. That was the time of birth of capitalism, when state connected and wealthy individuals started firms that engaged in monopolistic trade and other various imperialist ventures.

in the medieval time after crusades, the solders came back and brought tons of new technology, but the most important was the bazar or the market place. Now the peasants under feudalism would trade and eventually through private enterprise they got richer and richer, in fact thats why so many cathedrals in europe were built cos they did not have saving veichals so they put everything into cathedrals. Because before people would bring in their own goods and trade with money that they all agreed upon, cos gold is too valuable so u would use paper receipts or something along those lines. what that was was something called the 'peer to peer' economy. which is good and should not be suppressed cos its just free people trading what ever goods they want or made. Thats how wealth is created, thats how you get rich.

However as the middle class grows the upper class shrinks.

So the nobles made the concept of a chartered monopoly as well as central currency. It give the king's favorites a monopoly over certain fields and markets. It was made it illegal to create value on your own, outside of the corporation, so if you were a tradesman you had to work for the corporation. Around that same time is when clocks started to appear on towers, because now instead of people creating value for themselves they became employees and sold their labor. Because the way a corporation is structured (or the state structured it) its purpose becomes to produce returns in the short term to its investors, basically like giving back loans with interest. Its purpose becomes to convert value to shareholder cash. When u build a system on interest it requires growth, if you have to return more money than you own, it has to come from somewhere, either u take it from someone who goes bankrupt or you grow as a corporation. If you need to grow you need space and resource into which to expand. Historically speaking, that's what gave rise to all those mercantilist corporations of Europe. Because they have a growth mandate they go to the Americas or India or Africa and enslave and extract resources and value to fuel their growth. Corporations now technically function along the same rules.

>>97970

>>97823

Now don't get me wrong I am a full-on free market guy, I don't discredit the amazing things that the free market and those corporations have created, also absolutely hate commie policy of state ownership and the rest of their BS however the facts that I have presented above does two things: it gives common ground for us and lefites to discredit the state and colonial powers of the past and link with today and second is that it explains the harm that corporations do create (and have created) to which he should not be blind. An economy is made up out of three factors of production: land, labour and capital. What my case states are that through a monopoly on violence (and central currency) the state give priority to capital instead of making the three equal. Thus corporations can afford to ignore and pollute the land (again not a tree hunger but pollution is still there and it is bad) and pay relatively small wages to its employees like amazon's workers on food stamps. There is a pretty good book on this whole situation called: Throwing Rocks at the Google Bus by Douglas Rushkoff. The guy isn't an economist so he comes up with those feel-good leftie ideas like guaranteed income and a few others but the overall message is legit.

The process of incorporation is given and dictated by the central authority. The gift of limited liability is given by a central authority, exemption from taxes and rules along which the stock market functions is dictated by the central authority. All those things are not natural to the market and exist only as a result of arbitrary rules that the state creates. Remember what Adams Smith said about the state: its purpose is to protect the haves from the have nots. Government gives all those goodies that disconnect from the market and give advantages to the company that is anti-competitive in exchange for obedience and submission to its rules.

Again as is said before, it's about equalizing the three factors of production: land, labor, and capital, otherwise, you get disenfranchised workforce and polluted environment. Like we have now where 40% of American adults cannot pay for a 400$ emergency or 46% of Canadians are 200$ away from not being able to pay their bills. Again not a commie or a tree huger but hate statists not only now but from the past.

>>97854

yawn

here in europe we have 0 gun rights

dont be usacentric

>tribalism is cucking

Then why do foreign tribal cultures have so many of THEIR OWN genetic offspring?

Do as they do, not as they instruct.

>>97971

>amazon's workers on food stamps

The average amazon wage is $13 per hour excluding incentive pay. This is more than the warehouses in my state on average pay and i live in a state with one of the highest costs of living.

Is the reason for blanketing the sky with cloud at night and using a Tesla type sun reflector during the day because . . .

THE SUN IS THE PORTAL TO ACCESS OUR STAR GATES (time travel)?

(and SYRIA IS ABOUT CLOSING THE STAR GATES?)

I was up all last night, thinking of you all and trying to find out why we still see no sun and have bonkers (-66C 'vortex') weather conditions. I wondered if it may be to limit weapons options - then I found this:

Twitter: Poisoned in Fake Terror Attack = Personal

https://twitter.com/InPoisoned

The information provided is precise and covers all main Q areas.

Sending my sincere best wishes and love to you all, friends. We are truly living through the miracle of all miracles. xxx

>>98051

nah, too much have happened for it to become beyond a coincidence. Also you are probably one of them.

> prevent libertarians from rising up

People in government want to keep their jobs as well as justify their existence. You will do whatever it takes to keep your miserable but easy job with 100,000$ retirement funds.

>>98051

>never attribute to malice that which is explained by stupidity

On the whole, I agree. However, when you see disparate groups of people all exhibiting the exact same kind of stupidity at the most opportune possible moments repeatedly, it's much more difficult to presume innocence.

>>98040

>WN

>White Nationalism

lol wtf are whites a nation now?

>>98051

It's not simply a co-inky-dink, all that anti-white SJW bullshit is one of many tools of statecraft being used to weaken and exploit a population. Firstly, it's easier to control low IQ niggers than whites, and secondly, it's easier to control someone who has been shamed and beaten down from birth (modern white men) than someone who is completely confident in himself and his abilities (white men of the past).

>>98053

>People in government want to keep their jobs as well as justify their existence. You will do whatever it takes to keep your miserable but easy job with 100,000$ retirement funds.

This too. National-socialism is still socialism, it's more likely that governments would let neetsocs in or copy their policies (as they did after WW2), instead of letting libertarians get into power and erode credibility in the institution of government.

>>98065

people are not motivated by money only

Most posters on 8chan are mentally ill

I actually think National Anarchism would be the ideal form of society, but to get there there needs to be a transitional period of dictatorship, as only an authoritarian government will have the will and power to deport the nonwhites (Jews and mudslimes first) and exterminate the White traitors, which is necessary if white communities are to have any hope of living in peace.

>>104438

I'd be happy either way as long as the dictator actually fulfills his promise to create ancap, but I'm very skeptical of such promises. For every Lee Kuan Yew there is a hundred socialist cocksuckers, and the chance of a getting an altruistic dictator seems low.

In any case, most of these niggers are illegals, and the rest have been invited by the government without anyone's consent, so for all I care, it's completely ethical and even profitable for private police to get rid of them, as no one tolerates niggers, not even leftists.

>>98060

Have been for a least a couple hundred years, yeah. The US of A is a white country, pal. That's how it was defined.

>>104507

whiteness is a race not a nation