/liberty/ - Liberty

>>94538

Back to >>>/cuckchan/ with you.

>>94539

Why hello there young man. Care to answer my questions? No?

You'd rather call me a jew and a commie?

Oh well, that's too bad.

Didn't expect much, to be honest.

>why don't they advocate for voluntary association and the end of the welfare state?

They do. They also realize that the government will never end the welfare state and that getting voluntary association back into the overton window is all but impossible, so they take what they can get. Basically Civil Rights Act nondiscrimination bullshit<Jim Crow<freedom of association, everyone would prefer to be at point 3 if they can, but if they can't get point 3 they prefer point 2 over point 1.

>Shouldn't that be an easier sell than "hey let's kill the niggers"?

I thought it was "let's segregate the niggers" not "let's kill the niggers". Regardless, it turns out appealing to the in-group preference present in all human beings is actually far easier than teaching people the finer points of economics, and even more easier than getting the government to voluntarily end its vote farm.

>Why do these """"""libertarians"""""" believe the government won't abuse this power?

They don't. It's a given that all government power can and will be abused. But if there's going to be an abuse of power, and if we're not in a position to stop it and don't kid yourself, we're in no position to stop it, better that the abuse be directed at other people instead of us.

Police are state-controlled, enforce illegitimate laws, and have a monopoly of force in society. Even the most basic-bitch libertarians would agree that they shouldn't have the power that they do, and it should instead be vested in a private entity. Yet in spite of this, not even the most degenerate bleeding heart left-libertarians will protest when the police lock up a rapist or serial killer, despite the "illegitimate" nature of it, because this particular state action is quite clearly in their interests. The same principle applies to state action against the most violent demographic in the country.

>>94542

Thank you for the honest reply.

>Civil Rights Act nondiscrimination bullshit<Jim Crow<freedom of association, everyone would prefer to be at point 3 if they can, but if they can't get point 3 they prefer point 2 over point 1.

My main issue with this opinion is: What makes you think that, once you tear apart the foundational belief of equality under the law, a cornerstone of the philosophy of the west, never mind its legal systems, an idea that has its roots in the Magna Carta and the bible and snakes its way through most of our society in one way or another, you won't release an abject monster that will tear us apart? Why do you think regimes which assign collective blame on the basis of immutable characteristics always end up becoming violent bloodbaths?

Do you think that justifying the deportation of blacks by saying they're a drag to society wont lead to more violence? After we allow the blacks to be deported, what principled argument do we have against a proposed deportation of Hispanics? Of homosexuals? Of communists? Of libertarians? Of any and all "enemies of the race"? Of the state? They, too, are drags on society in their own ways. There are few things that keep the incredible, vile power of the state in check. The first is an armed populace; most of the west lacks that. The second is a tradition of limited power; this will fade in time, but if there is one thing we can do to speed that deterioration up, it's attacking the ideological basis for said limits.

>it was "let's segregate the niggers" not "let's kill the niggers"

What happens when the niggers tell you to get the fuck off their property?

>>94543

>What makes you think that, once you tear apart the foundational belief of equality under the law

The Civil Rights Act, affirmative action, "hate crime" laws, and in some ways even the progressive income tax have already torn those apart. The ever-increasing cries of "GIB REPARATIONS WHITEBOI" and the upsurgence of idiot socialists like Ocasio-Cortez show that the trajectory is only going to go further in the direction of irreconcilable hostilities. That ship has long since sailed, and I don't expect us to get it back under this government. Antifa starts fights by assaulting right-wingers, then those right-wingers get imprisoned for defending themselves, even when video evidence shows they are not the instigators. The slightest slip of the tongue for a white man can get him fired and possibly sued by the HR department. That same HR department is staffed by incompetent affirmative action hires, who sailed through college on diversity scholarships funded by white men, that the company can't fire because the liability of a discrimination lawsuit is greater than the loss of hiring these wastes of space, who then use their position of influence to preach about how oppressed they are. Because my enemies do not observe equality before the law, equality before the law is dead, and it can be only to my detriment if I try to pretend otherwise. Because I have no desire to extend to my enemy courtesies he will not extend to me, I see no issue with attempting to turn the coercive power away from me and towards my enemies, as they have already been attempting to do so for years.

>you won't release an abject monster that will tear us apart? Why do you think regimes which assign collective blame on the basis of immutable characteristics always end up becoming violent bloodbaths?

As I said, it's already been released, and such a regime is already in power, albeit one that blames FUCKING WHITE MALES for all its problems. The only question now is which master that monster will serve.

>what principled argument do we have

There's no principled argument for any of this, it's just a matter of survival. We need to wrest control of the state apparatus away from these scum, before they do it to us, and then do everything in our power to make sure they don't get power again. This staves off the violent collapse for a few more years, and gives us more time and more breathing room to organize and advocate for a truly free society.

>The first is an armed populace; most of the west lacks that

Unless spurred to action from the top down, an armed populace won't commit to a revolt until quality of life has dropped down so low that even everyday life becomes uncomfortable. Our armed populace hasn't stopped the state from confiscating 40% of our wealth, nor has it stopped the NFA, the GCA of 1968, the Hughes Amendment, the Bush-clinton import bans, the AWB, or the Obama import bans.

>The second is a tradition of limited power; this will fade in time

It fades pretty damn quickly in a democracy, particularly one with universal suffrage. It's been barely a century since the comparatively laissez-faire ideals of the 19th century dominated the American zeitgeist; now the number of people who truly appreciate those ideals only number in the thousands.

>>94541

>hello there young man

Heh, I'm probably older than you, kid, but the fact that you resort to age-shaming an patronizing clearly shows that you're another filthy redditor with an inflated sense of superiority, and aren't even worth arguing with, hence the few replies in your thread.

>Care to answer my questions?

Because the market is more discriminating than anything a fascist could come up with. It takes a state or an empire to force people to live together, hence it is anti-market and not something most people want. If you can't remove the state yet, the least you can do is get the state to do the least-wrong thing, while simultaneously trying to remove it.

>>94545

>Controlling immigration is one of the few rightful roles of government

>If you were criticizing ancaps you'd be right

>Every WN movement with any momentum does exactly what you say about voluntary association (amren, league of the south, northwest front)

These movements are mostly in favour of voluntary dissociation from the state, not of using state power to deport blacks from their property, which would weaken the traditional limits we place on govt.

I don't oppose the creation of ethnically homogeneous communities.

>The Civil Rights Act, affirmative action, "hate crime" laws, and in some ways even the progressive income tax have already torn those apart. The ever-increasing cries of "GIB REPARATIONS WHITEBOI" and the upsurgence of idiot socialists like Ocasio-Cortez show that the trajectory is only going to go further in the direction of irreconcilable hostilities.

I don't think cultural Marxism is nearly strong enough to justify the risk of taking a sledgehammer to the pillars of our culture.

The current dominant paradigm is liberalism, not progressivism. Granted, most people are uninterested and ignorant enough to engage in doublethink, unconsciously parroting memes from the progressive left, but if you force people to confront the bare truth about their beliefs, they (in my experience) reject identity politics in favour of more principled modes of thinking.

I understand your position, though.

>>94552

also meant for

>>94546

>>94552

>but if you force people to confront the bare truth about their beliefs, they (in my experience) reject identity politics in favour of more principled modes of thinking.

Sure. And to that end, when speaking with individual people it's preferable to call for free dissociation and Hoppean covenants over a statist solution. But when it comes to direct political action, such as voting, attempting to enact libertarian policies is futile, because the state (especially a democratic state) will never give up power voluntarily. So, given that the state will have power, and given that that power will be used against someone, better that the target be the enemies of liberty. It solves nothing in the long term, but political actions never do. Rather, it gives us enough breathing room to promote liberty through other means, because as long as our enemies are out of power, they can't use the state against us.

>>94552

>I don't oppose the creation of ethnically homogeneous communities.

Do you see how such a future state with a racial condition would require state control, but could still be called libertarian?

For instance, the proposed Northwest front Constitution criminalizing, and presumeavly deporting racemixers. They don't claim to be libertarian, but such a policy could still exist in a libertarian small-state society.

>>94556

>given that the state will have power,

For the foreseeable future, yes

>and given that that power will be used against someone

We're not talking about an on/off switch. Keep in mind that you're trying to justify an expansion, not a redirection, of state power.

Adding more asterisks to the US constitution makes future arbitrary exercises of power more likely.

I'm not ready to take that risk. I think it's the same kind of short-term thinking that helped create the Federal Reserve, for example.

>>94559

>Do you see how such a future state with a racial condition would require state control, but could still be called libertarian?

No.

>Northwest front Constitution criminalizing, and presumeavly deporting racemixers

>such a policy could still exist in a libertarian small-state society

No.

>>I don't oppose the creation of ethnically homogeneous communities.

A government forcibly deporting people because they chose to marry the wrong person is not libertarian.

And why the obsession with "racemixing"? It helps create bridges between ethnic groups and reduces the likelihood of inter-group violence.

>>94608

> Keep in mind that you're trying to justify an expansion, not a redirection, of state power.

I think you've misjudged my intentions or I've unintentionally obfuscated them in a desire to edgepost, then. I'm speaking specifically of redirection, in that given the choice between a government that pushes for mandatory integration and multicultural shite, and one that pushes for mandatory segregation, I see the latter as having less of a detrimental effect.

>Adding more asterisks to the US constitution makes future arbitrary exercises of power more likely.

Well, you're awfully more optimistic about the limiting power of the constitution than I am. The way I see it it's already all-but-ignored by those in power; certainly the fact that the Supreme Court and squint at it really hard and decides that there's a line about gay marriage in there supports this conclusion. Much of the left doesn't even pay lip service these days, and are open in their desire to ignore or destroy the Constitution. Back when Nikolas Cruz was going for his high score, outright repealing the 2nd amendment was the rallying cry du jour, rather than the usual "common sense" lines they pull out. More and more of the protestors carried signs with phrases such as, "Yes, we do want to take your guns". If our enemies are openly saying the Constitution doesn't matter, and their policies reflect that, I don't see how right-wingers taking a similar stance could possibly do any more harm than has already been done.

> It helps create bridges between ethnic groups

Setting aside for the moment that different ethnic groups have different, often undesirable, traits, that hasn't been what I've seen. The child either identifies fully with one culture or the other, or is left rootless and aimless because he has no clear place where he belongs. On top of that there's the increase in risk for various genetic diseases.

>reduces the likelihood of inter-group violence.

Inter-group violence is fundamentally the result of proximity between incompatible groups; the only measure that will reduce the inter-group violence in any reasonable measure is distance from the other group. It's one of the myriad reasons that minority elements within a society tend to self-segregate into homogeneous communities, examples being Chinatown, Little Mexico, etc.

>>94608

What are the proper roles of libertarian government in your view, and why wouldn't it include immigration?

>>94616

>immigration

Yes

>deportation and confiscation of property for reasons other than compensating victims of crime

No

>>94612

>given the choice between a government that pushes for mandatory integration and multicultural shite, and one that pushes for mandatory segregation, I see the latter as having less of a detrimental effect.

Fair enough. I don't fully agree with that sentiment, but I don't disagree with it either.

>you're awfully more optimistic about the limiting power of the constitution than I am

Yes, well, more in the importance of symbols as they relate to tradition.

>different ethnic groups have different, often undesirable, traits

Desirable ones, too. Besides, many people place character, intelligence and such above race when choosing a partner.

I'm not saying that it isn't a factor, just that it isn't that important to many people (notably those who score higher in openness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openness_to_experience).

>The child either identifies fully with one culture or the other

I have often seen otherwise (I am a Spaniard living in the UK, it may be different where you are from). In the absence of concrete data I would avoid making a statement on the subject.

>On top of that there's the increase in risk for various genetic diseases

Afaik a diverse gene pool reduces the risk of disease.

>minority elements within a society tend to self-segregate into homogeneous communities

As with choosing partners, more open people tend to be comfortable mingling with 'others' whereas less open people usually want to keep themselves separate.

Which is why self-segregation doesn't usually reach the level of an actual walled community.

>>94640

>notably those who score higher in openness

>I am a Spaniard living in the UK, it may be different where you are from

Conceded, but only to a point. There generally needs to be some basis of commonality for this to occur (Bongistan and Old Mexico do have some cultural similarities), and even then, the minglers tend to be a minority with above-average intellect, that limit their interaction with a like minority.

>self-segregation doesn't usually reach the level of an actual walled community.

Gated communities aren't exactly uncommon…

>>94640

>>Do you see how such a future state with a racial condition would require state control, but could still be called libertarian?

>No.

>>immigration

>Yes

Am I missing something?

>>94664

I was responding specifically to your example. If the state reserved the right to choose who may enter it…

It's borderline, but I think it can be justified if the community is small enough that all the land is owned by its members.

>>94546

The mid-west farm boys ARE that uncomfortable. And we're locked and loaded.