/liberty/ - Liberty

>>91840

>pluralist, democratic, mutli-racial

You don't need any of those things to have a libertarian government.

>durr muh stability

Every fascist country either collapses because of retarded wars of aggression or when the leader dies. Every single one. Fascism is incredibly unstable. The USA was created 250 years ago, the only serious attempt at libertarian government, and it's still to this day the freest country in the world. You'd be lucky to have your fascist hellhole live for 30 years. Monarchies were not stable either, there were constant pretender revolts and murders, peasant tax revolts, and religious revolts but an amerilard like you have never actually read European history.

Congratulations for buying into stormfront propaganda.

>>91841

>it's still to this day the freest country in the world.

fuckin lmao. enjoy getting jailed for going after non-roastified teenage cuties because roasties make the laws. the agenda of liberals and roasties is inherently opposed to that of uncucked men and if roasties get any power at all they will crush the rights of men to pursue any girl who isnt a used up cumrag. op probably never had any real knowledge of libertarian theory like most /pol/acks, but hes right that a homogeneous culture needs to exist, which means fuck liberal bullshit. if you let liberals do anything in libertarianland they eventually start redefining freedom and placing all these "common sense" restrictions on it so they can "protect against harm" which is really just anything that hurts their feelings. in the mind of a liberal, nobody is informed enough to agree to anything that offends liberals.

>>91842

its shit but it's worse everywhere else

Welcome to /monarchy/. We even have flags for Bavarians over there.

>>91843

i dunno, i hear good things about the czech repub.

>I realized that a libertarian society can only be established in a homogenous society.

You've got it backwards. Any libertarian society will very quickly turn into a homogenous one, even if it starts out as "diverse," thanks to natural incentived and the power of eviction. Multiculturalism and degeneracy can only sustain themselves with government subsidy; good ideas don't need to be forced on people if they truly are good ideas.

>a pluralist, democratic, mutli-racial and liberal system of thought/politics

None of those things, least of all democracy, are libertarian in the slightest.

>That's why the monarchies old old failed to withstand Bolshevism and that's why libertarian "states" would not withstand them either: they are much too laisez-fairez to build a completely resistant block against Bolshevism.

Nigger what? Laissez-faire spurred on commie takeover? Hardly, it was these monarchies becoming less monarchial (which is the most libertarian form of government btw, just ask Hoppe) age more democratic that opened them up to commie influence. Bolsheviks gain power by subverting government agencies to grant them finance and power, and ancap has no agencies to subvert so there's no way for them to gain influence. This is on the same level as "You need to let Tyriquoa give you a prostate exam before going onto a plane because oy vey muh ISIS."

>I was a libertarian by choice once. Began in my edgy teenage years. I have now long abandoned libertarianism/ancapism in favor of traditionalism/fascism.

The more often I hear this the less believable it sounds to me, honestly. Every "lolbert turned fash" I've cared to meet hasn't managed to to make an intellectual case against libertarianism, certainly not one based on first principles. I think what really happens is people see the NEETSocs LARPing about how "pure" and "woke" they are, and insulting anyone that doesn't hold their views for not being edgy enough, and people feel pressured to agree with the loudest group in the room.

>>91859

Thought I do agree on the importance of traditionalism, or at least understanding it.

>. . . [I]t may be seen from historical experience that the integrity of the political formula is essential for the survival of a given social structure. Changes in the formula, if they are not to destroy the society, must be gradual, not abrupt. The formula is indispensable for holding the social structure together. A widespread skepticism about the formula will in time corrode and disintegrate the social order. It is perhaps for this reason, half-consciously understood, that all strong and long-lived societies have cherished their "traditions," even when, as is usually the case, these traditions have little relation to fact, and even after they can hardly believed literally by educated men. Rome, Japan, Venice, all such long-enduring states, have been very slow to change the old formulas, the time-honored ways and stories and rituals; and they have been harsh against rationalists who debunk them. This, after all, was the crime for which Athens put Socrates to death. From the point of view of survival, she was probably right in doing so.

>Same author/book, pp. 100-101

>>91856

i was there and i liked it

>>91859

>Why do fascists/natsocs/etc always try to woo libertarians with their conversion stories?

Because the alt-right and its rise in popularity is heavily associated with imageboards and their culture of irreverence, there's a certain incentive in the movement to signal how non-conformist and contrarian you are to your fellow edgelords. As a result, they all like to poke fun at libertarians because, even if it's not really true, libertarians have a reputation for being "live and let live" types, and that's not nearly edgy enough so it gets shunned. That's the main reason they flock to NatSoc despite saying how much they hate socialism, because it's the most reviled ideology in the mind of John Q. Normie. It's also why so many of them become pagans, because saying "le dead kike on a stick" is nice and edgy, and that gets you street cred with anons.

>>91874

Go to war with yourself right now (suicide is what I'm referring to). War is definitively one of the worse things that can happen to a society. You lose lives, you lose freedom, you lose wealth, you lose information, you lose everything.

OP. Thoughts on Japan?

>>91876

>weak man afraid of hard times

checks out

>>91888

If you're so tough show us how it's done.

> I loved beeing a libertarian, it is fun and feels good but I had to evolve.

Your next step should not have been fascism. It should have been agorism.

>>91840

So what are you? Do you still believe in liberty and free markets with that one exception or what?

>>91902

Nah, he just wants to fit in with his new online friends and he needs to signal how much better he is than them now.

>>91903

Either way, it sounds like he could do with reading a little Hoppe.

>I was stupid once but right now I'm practically brain dead

Nice blogpost OP

>>91907

I think I remember you making the same thread here like a year ago. The consensus back then was that you weren't really a libertarian in the first place, and that seems to be the case now too.

>>91912

Welp that wasn't me back then…

>>91907

>My definition just shifted from that boomer-tier me-my-and-myself freedom

If you actually think this is what libertarianism I'm not sure you can say you ever were one. Libertarianism isn't a selfish, atomistic worldview, it's actually pretty friendly to traditionalism and family values. I'll reiterate what others have said and recommend you give Hans Hoppe a read, he shows that not only is libertarianism traditionalist, it's also the only system that allows traditionalism to be sustainable and not die off in a few generations.

>I'm not an edgy 15-year old…

You don't need to be 15 to virtue signal how edgy you are, just look at Kike Enoch.

>>91907

>I like Japan. Wanna have a more specific answer?

Japan is a racially homogeneous society, but I somehow doubt they're making progress on the liberty front.

>>91841

While I agree that fascism is far more unstable than op seems to think, the U.S was not the first serious attempt at a libertarian government and its position as the freest today is debatable to say the least. Also, to the op, the state breeds degeneracy (which of course is catalyzed by a larger initial state), and to the both of you: Democracy is far worse than any other form of government which it is mutually exclusive with (e.g monarchy, aristocracy, but not dictatorship as that fits with democracy).

>>91855

>applies to monarchism

No it doesn't, you twat.

>>91959

>a lot of

>lolbergs

Pick one and always one.

>>91928

Nope, it was definitely you, and now you're back to seek attention.

>>91939

>the U.S was not the first serious attempt at a libertarian government

What else is there? The Icelandic Commonwealth and Gaelic Ireland weren't founded as explicitly libertarian, they just happened to end up that way. The US on the other hand was founded with liberty and self determination in mind.

>its position as the freest today is debatable to say the least.

It's not the freest economically, but it's better on speech than most of Europe and it's better on guns than just about anywhere.

>>91980

mmkay, I agree with the specifics there, though it's importabt to note that the two of them were far freer than 'murica once the state had established there.

>>91859

>Why do fascists/natsocs/etc always try to woo libertarians with their conversion stories?

both groups are low IQ tea party trailer trash or middle class basement dwellers

>>91840

The only reason why you or anyone else has these gay, retarded, illogical stories is because you fail continuously to even understand the ideologies you use as your identity. You can be libertarian and refuse foreigners, criminals and undesirables entry into your country, state, province, city, neighborhood or whatever word you like for land. You can be an an-cap and refuse foreigners and criminals entry into your property, you can co-operate with other likeminded people to keep them out of your society.

To put it another way: There is absolutely nothing unique that authoritarian ideologies have to offer a man who simply wants a place in which he can live and raise his white children with no fear of niggers or jews using their dark sorceries to destroy him and his. However, authoritarian ideologies do offer the enslavement of said white people to someone else and they also promise a framework in which that slavery is acceptable, accepted and even applauded as good and noble. It doesn't matter if the King is white if he steals from you, extorts you, threatens you, jails you, murders you or anything else. What matters is that "future for white children". Furthermore I don't reckon people really care if their dictator calls himself a socialist or not when he's starving them to death. So, in a short insult, you're a gay retard.

>>91840

Oh no, the ex-libertarians strike again!

>I was a libertarian by choice once. Began in my edgy teenage years.

Every fascist was a libertarian "once". Every single one. However, almost none of them have even intermediate-level knowledge of libertarianism. Face it, you guys were impressed by Ron Paul and then abandoned the idea (which HE championed for fifty years!) as soon as he left politics. Then GamerGate and Trump happened and you gladly went over to the rising alt-right and then eventually to the more sophisticated right-wing (or pseudo right-wing) movements. I've seen that happen time and time again, and it was always caused by the same two or three epiphanies, over and over, by people who couldn't be more enslaved by the Zeitgeist.

>I have now long abandoned libertarianism/ancapism in favor of traditionalism/fascism.

How about, instead of moving from one echo chamber to the next, you actually do your thing and come up with your ideas? I am not telling you to be a Rothbardian purist, but, like, do some original thinking, you fool. A synthesis of right-wing and libertarian ideas can definitely be pulled off.

>>91841

>Every fascist country either collapses because of retarded wars of aggression or when the leader dies. Every single one. Fascism is incredibly unstable.

This, pretty much. Hitler was in power for twelve years. Mussolini failed after a bit more than twenty. Franco, Salazar and Pinochet were more successful, but they were hardly (if at all) fascist. The fascist track record, then, is abysmal.

>Monarchies were not stable either, there were constant pretender revolts and murders, peasant tax revolts, and religious revolts but an amerilard like you have never actually read European history.

All in all, still more stable, as a revolt did not entail throwing the entire system out and massacring half your population. That's for a variety of reasons, but the biggest is probably that the monarchies weren't total states. When the state is the king, then all you have to do to substitute the state for another is to supplant the king. When "we" are the state, well, that becomes a lot harder and requires a lot more violence.

>>91847

Yeah, I like your board.

>>91857

>Nigger what? Laissez-faire spurred on commie takeover? Hardly, it was these monarchies becoming less monarchial (which is the most libertarian form of government btw, just ask Hoppe) age more democratic that opened them up to commie influence.

Aso this. Centralization actually made the monarchies less monarchical, as it spurred the development of a strong bureaucracy and a more anonymous, less personal state. Back when the king ruled through his lords, under feudalism, democracy could not have been pulled off, as there was no single sovereign to supplant with "the people", but many sovereigns who were all legitimate rulers in their own right. Bertrand de Jouvenel talked about this in Sovereignty.

>>91960

peace is cringe and cucked, war is based.

>>92385

>t. 15yo edgelord

>>92404

>not wanting to get purged by the flames of war

why live tbh?

>>92231

This is a very good explanation, and I think OP has come to his conclusion because /pol/ has created a fantastic black or white fallacy. I see posts all the time equating libertarians with hard left spectrum because they are not nat soc.

The libertarian party is shit however, so this does not help.

>>92416

We will be the ones doing the purging, commie, not because we like war, but because we love peace.

>>92417

>This is a very good explanation

Agreed, I screencapped it for reference.

>I see posts all the time equating libertarians with hard left spectrum because they are not nat soc.

Which is extremely ironic, since neetsocs are leftist as fuck, and they try to get away with it with it by claiming they have found the secrets of the universe in their third-pos ideology and that they are neither left nor right.

How does libertarianism work insofar as eliminating the cancer after it has already metastasized throughout the levers of power?

>>92436

Not that well, as you can see. It's too easy to cuck culture(the little bits that weren't cucked), fuck up science and destroy education as well as spread their influence, which is why we have a democracy fetish today instead.

If your question is about libertarian society then it's that there are no "levels of power" per se, so if you try to fuck with people you get outcompeted, ignored or phased out either way so you've got to try to change the rules and become a state, i.e. gain monopoly on power, likely through violent means.

>>92435

>neetsocs are leftist as fuck,

which is interesting because most of their problems are assumed to be fixed under more of what caused it to begin with. They bitch about corruption and waste in government while NatSoc wants nationalization of some industry. They bitch about corruption of Obama, but they want an autocratic leader separate from a democracy. They bitch about restriction of speech, but they want NatSoc to enforce correct speech. The only thing they see is The Jews and most of the time, rightfully so, but they choose NatSoc because they see only that one element. It was a joke to attack a problem that grew into ignorance.

>>92448

> the government empowers jews by design

what do you mean?

>>92479

It allows maximum benefit to those who do nepotism, lie, steal, remove and discredit opponents and remove competition. Do i need to explain it further?

>>92482

Goverment only empower those when the goverment is led by jews, otherwise it attack thoses types.

You children/boomers are fucking retarded, you replace basic logic and history with your imagination. Where is that image with the stats about libertardians being autistic?

>>92529

The state breeds degeneracy by its definition. A good leader doesn't require force against his followers. The state entails that virtually no good man may become powerful, and guarantees that no ome who stays in power may stay good.

>>92529

>government can be good too!

>some politicians aren't bad!

>become their slaves, and they will treat us well!

You're the children here.

>Where is that image with the stats about libertardians being autistic?

I second this.

>>92482

Jews are not more prone to lie, steal, remove and discredit opponents and remove competition than the rest of population. quite the opposite, they have higher moral standards because they are wealthy

>>92634

Doesn't really matter, i said that government incentivizes such behavior by design. Now go dispute how the jews do not act like that and how does wealth help moral standards.

>>92635

> Now go dispute how the jews do not act like that and how does wealth help moral standards.

yes this is what i wana do

>I was a Feel good Capitalist by choice once. Began in my edgy teenage years. I have now long abandoned Feel good capitalism in favor of Actually existing capitalism.

Why Fascist think of nations as hiveminds? like if everybody has the same roots they will not abuse of power or do harm aganist each other when it already happened before?

>>92805

Because they are naive feels > realz idiots.

>the only serious attempt at libertarian government

The one that started a war to evade taxes, and after said war the very first thing it did was introducing a whisky tax then use army against its citizens in the Whisky Rebellion? The very first thing ever, not even the failed 1812 land grab.

The US was a weak state with its people able to constantly move ever West to evade the feds, that's why it was kinda OKish at start. Not by its design, but by its weakness. The Civil War aka Conquering the South made the US basically the same empire it supposedly fought to leave. So, something akin to libertarianism lasted from 1783 to 1861, about 78 years. The frontier closed and the enlarger and emboldened state went on to conquer and plunder on other continents.

It's like saying the ultra-rightist absolutist till 1905 Russian Empire was a libertarian government, because the tsars had dire troubles enforcing their will on 10% of world populations stretched over 2 and a half continental US territories with chronically understaffed and corrupt govt machine.

The state wasn't libertarian, it's a contradiction in terms. The state was weak. The commies saw to themselves getting stronger than the tsars, the US Feds see to the same now. Just without artificial famines and state enforced slavery for now.

>>94580

>It's like saying the ultra-rightist absolutist till 1905 Russian Empire was a libertarian government,

Compared to many other places, it really was. For 18 of the 25 years preceding WWI, Tsarist Russia was the fastest growing economy in the world. If it were around today it would score in the top 20 of the economic freedom index. By 1913 it had overtaken France as the fourth largest industrial power. Absolutist monarchies are generally the least bad alternative for those who appreciate a small, non interventionist government.

>>94580

The war of 1812 happened because the British were boarding American ships and kidnapping American sailors.

>>94588

Boarding was done at British ports and they seized runaways from the navy.

>>94617

They grabbed a bunch of people on what were at best shaky justifications.

>>94617

The US seceded from Britain, every soldier of the US navy could have been argued to be a "runaway" from the Bong navy.

>>91840

When someone says he's an "ex-libertarian" you can tell he didn't bother reading anything about it.

>i used to be an angsty child

>now im just an autistic adult

gb2

>>>/pol/

>>91907

This cartoon perfectly demonstrates the ridiculousness of the paradigm. What are these naggers even fighting for?

>>94678

>>94679

>afraid to say nigger

>freedom is angsty

TRUE PATRIOT!