/liberty/ - Liberty

Yes, especially within hoppeanism. Natsoc isn't, though.

>>89625

>Is it compatible with libertarianism?

Yes, you are free to subject yourself to any object thing or idea you want, no matter how stupid, pointless or non-existent it is.

>Is there such a thing as nationalist libertarianism?

No. Libertarianism is the way it is. If you impose nationalism, it's not libertarianism. If you don't - it's not nationalist.

>>89629

Damn good post, Anon. I've always considered myself to be capitalistic and nationalistic, but I guess that's just par for the course for libertarianism, then?

>>89628

That last bit implies that nationalism has it's own concrete system that can't be modified whatsoever, and that libertarianism is the same. If that were the case there wouldn't be so many different kinds of libertarian beliefs, or so many people who were nationalist all across different beliefs.

>>89632

A certain organization can be nationalistic in libertarian society, but the society itself is not nationalistic, unless it is, then the society is not libertarian because it cannot be upheld that way voluntarily for long, if any time.

>>89637

>A certain organization can be nationalistic in libertarian society, but the society itself is not nationalistic

A lack of nationalism is the result of when (ironically) the nation becomes "nationalized" and treated as "public property", it's hard to not be a nationalist when your country has a strong respect for property rights, and places its own citizens interests first above everyone else. When you own a plot of land where generations of your family have lived and been buried in your own back yard, and you're sure that your family will continue living there for the next hundreds of years, you feel rooted and directly connected to your land. Your city, region, and country will really feel like they're "yours" and not just "no one's" or "anyone's", and this will give you a strong incentive to cherish it, so it's perfectly understandable for people to get defensive when them, their parents, their grandparents, and everyone before them has invested so much into something that they feel is personally theirs, just for some foreigner to come out of nowhere and demand the same rights to that thing, and to take advantage of someone's comfortable situation instead of taking care of his own.

>unless it is, then the society is not libertarian because it cannot be upheld that way voluntarily for long, if any time.

If you're talking about neet-socs, then I agree, but if you're talking about any right-wing nationalist, then I don't see how laissez-faire and loving your country and people are mutually exclusive things.

>>89644

>it's hard to not be a nationalist when your country has a strong respect for property rights, and places its own citizens interests first above everyone else

Not really. Country itself is a construct based upon property rights infringement, and citizens' interests aren't something that can be determined that easily, especially if they conflict each other. Even if treated equally “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” .

>When you own a plot of land where generations of your family have lived and been buried in your own back yard, and you're sure that your family will continue living there for the next hundreds of years, you feel rooted and directly connected to your land.

Unless you do not actually hold such a belief. Outside of this, you just putting too much value into a piece of land because of the remains of people you have genetic similarities with.

>Your city, region, and country will really feel like they're "yours"

You will never have anything "yours" in a country. Never. Deal with it. You are not a politician, and they rule the country, and all that you have is under their control, even if they do not decide to ruin it all immediately and even leave you alone. For now.

>something that they feel is personally theirs

Delusions named "democracy" and "political freedom", both leave you as powerless and your opinion as unimportant as they were before, but now with the association with the leaders and illusion of choice. Of course, it does nothing but prevents more individuals from fighting back, while utilizing resources taken from them to suppress those who try.

>right-wing nationalist

nationalism is an inherently collectivist idea, the same as faith/religion, race or any other, with everything that comes with it. Ancap is individualistic. You have to choose what is more important for you - a construct that can only exist and be upheld artificially or independence and absence of ideology and absolute of persona capabilities instead of imaginary relations. Or try to hold onto both till the moment you have to choose and cannot ignore it.

>>89649

1. You're putting a lot of words in my mouth and making a lot of assumptions about things that were never said, as if you're having an argument with some imaginary person that doesn't exist. For example, where do you see me saying anything about democracy, or even advocating for it?

2. Disregarding everything that you don't like as "constructs" which are somehow bad by default without any other reason provided, is a weak argument, and it makes you sound like a Marxist professor. Similarly, I can say that your hyper-individualism is also some kind of "construct", and I'll also add that things like nationalism, racism, caring for "people with genetic similarities" and even religion are all natural to human beings, since they are explained by evolutionary psychology.

3. Your whole post is unfiltered egalitarian leftist rhetoric disguised as libertarianism, and you saying that we must "choose" to do away with religion/race/nation/etc… or somehow get the special combination of things to ban in order to achieve "real anarcho-capitalism" is proof that you don't get how ancap fundamentally differs from all your authoritarian/socialist ideologies, and you're just either LARPing or trying to subvert this place.

Yes. Many people use the term nation when referring to nation states, but in reality, a nation is a group of people defined by a shared identity, usually with some combination of cultural, ethnic, and linguistic factors, and generally concentrated within a certain geographic region. If someone, of their own volition, decides to prioritize the interests of their nation, they are a nationalist, and they are not doing anything to infringe on anyone's rights. Furthermore, I would argue that libertarians ought to be nationalists, as homogeneous, high-trust societies are much more likely to remain prosperous and free, rather than falling into tyranny. This is made clear by how vigorously the pseudo-Marxists in the governments of the West, and their propagandists and servants in the corporate media, academia, and the crony capitalists from Wall Street to Silicon Valley have pushed anti-nationalist sentiments onto the masses, in order to atomize them and destroy their trust, and to make them more susceptible to government enslavement.

>>89652

>making a lot of assumptions about things that were never said

They were never said either because you do not know about them or intentionally ignore them protect your beliefs.

>where do you see me saying anything about democracy, or even advocating for it

Democracy cultivates the sense of ownership of the country in its citizens. You are embracing that sense. Like nationalists did before, actually, being the first democrats.

>Disregarding everything that you don't like as "constructs" which are somehow bad by default without any other reason provided, is a weak argument, and it makes you sound like a Marxist professor.

If you believe in some thing that only exists in your imagination or requires sophism to associate with an actual existing phenomenon, i will point it out. Marxists use this argument against many things, but "classes" are definitely not one of them, it does not make the argument less solid.

> Similarly, I can say that your hyper-individualism is also some kind of "construct"

You do not understand what is individualism then, without any "hyper" or other overtone window moving buzzwords, and i doubt you are even libertarian.

>nationalism, racism, caring for "people with genetic similarities" and even religion are all natural to human beings, since they are explained by evolutionary psychology.

Same as stupidity, incompetence, shortsightedness, cowardice, and many many more. Still, i have yet to see the cult of retardation, or have i?

> Your whole post is unfiltered egalitarian leftist rhetoric disguised as libertarianism

I never argued about equality, so your egalitarianism is a miss, if you actually know what the word means, i want nothing to do with any collectivist movements, left or (presumably) right.

>you saying that we must "choose" to do away with religion/race/nation/etc

No, i'm saying that you are free to be whoever the fuck you want, just when the ideas you try to keep start conflicting each other, you'll have to do your choices.

>somehow get the special combination of things to ban in order to achieve "real anarcho-capitalism"

I never said anything about banning, or physical removal based on ideas and views expressed, i oppose it, in fact. Ancap does not need for people to be ancap, it just needs higher level of personal autonomy than we have today. It's not socialism to be built on hammering thoughts into people's heads, but a natural result of humanity's development and progress. Yet, you would not be an anarcho capitalist as much as you would if you did not hold beliefs in things that hold no solid basis in reality besides people's association with them.

>>89656

>but in reality

In reality, a nation is a product of nation-states, it's in their name.

>prioritize the interests of their nation

So goes the saying "nationalist is one to support a man of his nation in an unjust cause".

>and they are not doing anything to infringe on anyone's rights

Unless they do. Neetsocs are actually more consistent with this, as they always make a choice based on the nationality and not wiggle around these two.

>homogeneous, high-trust societies are much more likely to remain prosperous and free, rather than falling into tyranny

Too bad meritocracy is interchanged by personal relations and similarities to majority when applied in practice, leading to protectionism and government policing.

>have pushed anti-nationalist sentiments onto the masses

You forgot the jews.

>to make them more susceptible to government enslavement.

Like nationalists do when they come to power? Or were they "not real nationalists" and did this only to make other nationalists look bad?

>>89625

Nationalism is illiberal in nature and not very compatible with free trade, or at all. It's not the same thing as patriotism or love of heritage as it goes a step above, rejecting and being actively antagonistic with all things foreign, or not belonging to the majority populace. It is (obviously) Statist in nature and big government type at that, as no "small government" would have the power to enforce all of the nationalist agendas.

>>89692

Ok, i agree, kind of. Sure, nations are different, but their existence as separate entities is the exact result of the nation states' existence. Without them, culture would evolve and not conserve, to the point that there is only one cultural massive of knowledge, and individuals contain certain parts of it. Parts that are inferior to others either fade away due to their inferiority or be left to proportionally underdeveloped individuals. Associating cultures with nations is the same as associating wealth with economic classes.

>>89688

>They were never said either because you do not know about them or intentionally ignore them protect your beliefs.

What are you talking about? Your post might as well be one giant ">inb4". You sound like a schizo arguing with an imaginary person in your head who has no relation to me or the arguments I bring forth. I am not the person who caused your intense butthurt, so don't projecting his arguments onto me, I'm not going to defend things I never said.

>You do not understand what is individualism then, without any "hyper" or other overtone window moving buzzwords, and i doubt you are even libertarian.

If you even go so far as saying that family relations are nonsense and collectivism, and they get in the way of a successful ancap society, then you're terribly wrong and calling it hyper-individualism is an accurate description. With your logic, forming a company would probably be collectivism too.

>Same as stupidity, incompetence, shortsightedness, cowardice, and many many more. Still, i have yet to see the cult of retardation, or have i?

Are these also just constructs? Or just whenever people talk about them in relation to you?

>I never argued about equality, so your egalitarianism is a miss, if you actually know what the word means, i want nothing to do with any collectivist movements, left or (presumably) right.

An ancap society will not be egalitarian, and therefore it won't be inclusive. Private property implies exclusivity.

>No, i'm saying that you are free to be whoever the fuck you want, just when the ideas you try to keep start conflicting each other, you'll have to do your choices.

I hope I don't need to explain why an ancap society with strong familial relations, national sentiments, and in-group preferences will out-compete an ancap society full of anti-social, hyper-individualist edgelords that couldn't give a fuck about each other.

>I never said anything about banning, or physical removal based on ideas and views expressed, i oppose it, in fact. Ancap does not need for people to be ancap, it just needs higher level of personal autonomy than we have today. It's not socialism to be built on hammering thoughts into people's heads, but a natural result of humanity's development and progress. Yet, you would not be an anarcho capitalist as much as you would if you did not hold beliefs in things that hold no solid basis in reality besides people's association with them.

Look, you do not require to abolish family, nation, race, religion, culture, and whole bunch of other things to finally achieve your perfect anarcho-capitalism which only exists in a vaccuum. An ancap society functions in such a way that the most radically different groups can exist within it, as long as they aren't forced to integrate together, and they don't force their ideals on others. What you're preaching instead is blatant cultural Marxism disguised as libertarianism, and I feel like I'm wasting time with a sneaky commie like you.

>>89697

> but their existence as separate entities is the exact result of the nation states' existence

So Bavarians seeing themselves as different from the Bantu people is purely because of the nation state? This doesn't make any sense.

> without them, culture would evolve and not conserve, to the point that there is only one cultural massive of knowledge, and individuals contain certain parts of it.

This is some borderline NWO fantasy shit, what the hell are you even talking about at this point? Without nation states cultures would evolve and not conserve? That's such an odd statement, one that I find counters the reality of numerous nations. The culture of nations tends to evolve as time goes by, however it usually does so by conserving it's past so that there's a future to begin with. I don't know what the fuck this "one cultural massive of knowledge" is but it sounds blatantly retarded.

>Associating cultures with nations is the same as associating wealth with economic classes.

I'm going to sort of go with the perception that maybe English isn't your first language because thus far, everything you've said is completely wrong and/or conveys that you don't understand the topic at hand.

>>89699

> So Bavarians seeing themselves as different from the Bantu people is purely because of the nation state?

Partially. If they spoke same language, have same social interaction norms and all that general stuff, they would still be pretty different because climate, routine, activities and cultural remains of the past, but they would not be that alienated from each other.

>Without nation states cultures would evolve and not conserve?

Without them it would happen a lot faster. We already this today with the spread of the internet, but there are still plenty of limitation, some of them are stated above.

>what this "one cultural massive of knowledge" is

Fair, i guess my wording is bad. I just wanted to say that cultural elements(objects? i dunno) are not limited to a culture, and a national culture is just a set of these things at a certain state. Another culture can contain similar things, along with completely different. By putting value in a culture and/or trying to preserve it, you preserve the elements, even if they are unnecessary, dated or, especially interchanged with superior ones from a different culture you disrupt their further development the same way you prevent economical growth by isolating markets.

Is this clear enough? I'm feeling kind of sleepy.

>>89698

>If you even go so far as saying that family relations are nonsense and collectivism, and they get in the way of a successful ancap society

And it's me who is projecting. Family relations are no more important than friendship or cooperation. I was just stating that it is nothing beyond them, even if people believe so.

> calling it hyper-individualism is an accurate description

unless you try to be enlightened centrist hyper position is a good thing, except saying it with hyper is unnecessary. If you are trying to support collectivism that way, you are a dishonest piece of shit.

>With your logic, forming a company would probably be collectivism too.

Voluntary cooperation based on individual merits of participants is the most individualistic thing you can think of.

>Are these also just constructs?

No. Only when people identify with these things they are.

>An ancap society will not be egalitarian, and therefore it won't be inclusive. Private property implies exclusivity.

Exactly. I never said or implied the opposite.

>I hope I don't need to explain why an ancap society with strong familial relations, national sentiments, and in-group preferences will out-compete an ancap society full of anti-social, hyper-individualist edgelords that couldn't give a fuck about each other.

Only in becoming a state it will. Also, your retarded strawman misses the point, probably because you are too stupid to read what individualism is. You do not even understand how ancap work, because 'do not have to care about each other" is one of its biggest points. The only thing i wonder about is what are you doing here, neetsoc reject.

>An ancap society functions in such a way that the most radically different groups can exist within it, as long as they aren't forced to integrate together, and they don't force their ideals on others.

Exactly. That's what i was talking about all the time. Anyone can find his place in ancap, be it cooperating or feeding worms. But living in ancap society does not make you an ancap. You can be whatever you want, from a pagan retard to soyboy commie, but it will not make you ancap. Not a little bit. Today it can be said that states exist in ancap, we just want each individual to be on the today's state place.

>blatant cultural Marxism

You know i'm not the one who cares so much about cultural identities, do you?

>sneaky commie

It's not even funny to hear that from a collectivist.

>>89625

I though that suggestion was the dumbest shit ive ever seen until i read this >>89629