/liberty/ - Liberty

>state

First, how are you defining the state? Could I include a watchdog organization that ensures negative rights are not infringed in this situation?

>>97644

In this case the state would be someone who will make the law criminalising bringing africans even if you bring them to your property.

In this case, negative rights may be infringed by individual refugees, but there is no way for you to prosecute Soros himself.

>>97643

nobody. I don't see what would be the problem, it would be a huge burden for him to mantain them with his own money. And if they start crossing the borders into white people's lands the private security will deal with them. Results are not guaranteed but nothing is in this world.

>>97646

> it would be a huge burden for him to mantain them with his own money.

Well, he is more than happy to spend money on it.

> And if they start crossing the borders into white people's lands the private security will deal with them.

So white people will have to pay more for the security, and will be subject to crime when private security fails. And there is no way to punish Soros for putting the cost of locals directly. Don't you see a problem here.

>>97648

If somebody creates a hazard, then they're responsible for it and can be sued for it.

The mere presence of the niggers alone is not a threat. There are countless ways to drive them off such as organizing an employment blockade or convincing them to sign up as human guinea pigs in exchange for addicting and easily fatal drugs. Moreover, if we recognize that the niggers forfeit their negative rights when they violate the rights of others, we will be able to crucify them and put their heads on pikes as warning to the others. The real threat here is Soros establishing a coercive state that enforces positive rights for the niggers.

>>97651

>The mere presence of the niggers alone is not a threat.

It forces people to pay more for security.

>There are countless ways to drive them off such as organizing an employment blockade or convincing them to sign up as human guinea pigs in exchange for addicting and easily fatal drugs.

It is a lot of additional costs which may not pay off if people just decide to leave and Soros will end up conquering area with his nigs.

Why dont just form a state, pass a law saying that you are not allowed to damage the society, then prosecute Soros

>>97649

Again, you will be able to prosecute individuals but not Soros

>>97653

>you will be able to prosecute individuals but not Soros

Why not? If Soros is bringing criminals to the community he is violating the rights of the population. It is akin to purchasing large quantities of rabid wolves and letting them roam free. If he refuses to leave the just thing to do would be to form a vigilante mob and lynch him in the town square.

>>97654

Because he technically does not violate the property rights of anyone, it is the refugees whom he brings in

> It is akin to purchasing large quantities of rabid wolves

In this case you are responsible fro your wolves because they are your property

>>97655

A community has no obligation to grant rights to an alien. It does not matter if a state isn't here to say that these people are not citizens, they are obviously not part of the community and thus the community owes them no obligation. They are demonstrably subversive and thus it is the proper course of action to drive them out.

>>97659

do we even still have communities in the west? i live in a city and i dont talk with neighbours at all

>>97659

Who will make sure that society acts coherently? Like you need a state to make sure noone interacts with Soros, otherwise someone will still decide to work with him just to make some profit even tho he brings refugees.

>>97697

Small towns, rural communities

>>97698

Even if Soros himself is able to avoid retaliation by acting through proxies we can still prevent the niggers themselves from entering into society as they are aliens. Even if they are somehow smuggled in we still can refuse to grant them rights and make examples of them.

>>97643

You yourself recognize that the state gave Soros the permission to do whatever he wants, that's why you think only the state can take it away. The solution isn't the state though, the solution is having to ask everyone and their grandma for permission for every single thing he does.

At it's core, libertarianism isn't even about capitalism, it's about giving people the means to defend themselves from aggressors. So even if there would be some Soros in Ancapistan, due to the decentralized nature of the society, the damage he would do would be seriously limited.

>>97701

What if Soros uses the nigger lynching to turn world opinion against the town through mass media and boycott it?

>>97706

Are you talking about South Africa?

>>97706

That's not really a criticism of anarcho-capitalism since Soros could boycott any government that acts against his interests.

>>97702

>>97701

All this requires a high level of collectivism and consciousness, it is theoretically possible, but in practice you better have a state to punish everyone who will decide to conduct some business with Soros and his pets and stops acting in the interests if the community

>>97719

Or simply a night watchman state that puts border security and naturalization in its list of responsibilities.

>>97718

How to deal with it though? Killing him violates NAP doesn't it?

>>97723

only if you believe in natural rights

>>97723

I'd gladly violate the NAP to kill people like him, and accept punishment for it if it's due. But (((they))) have already initiated agression against humanity itself, so it probably wouldn't even be a NAP violation.

Also the NAP is an ethical baseline, it's not the end goal

>>97643

You yids aren’t that rich.