New Reply
Name
×
Email
Subject
Message
Files Max 5 files32MB total
Tegaki
Password
[New Reply]


Why did libertarianism die so fucking hard since '08?
>>127 (OP) 
Where did all the libertarians on the internet go?
Replies: >>132 >>145
>>127 (OP) 
>Why did libertarianism die so fucking hard since '08?
What do you mean by "die so fucking hard"?
>>129
Discord and Telescam.
>>127 (OP) 
All it's proponents graduated from high school.
>>127 (OP) 
Nobody is obliged to defend a statement you just made up.
>>127 (OP) 
Because most high-school libertines have an incredibly basic understanding and are easily swayed away by propaganda and populism? This is why the "libertarian - altright" pipeline exists at all. Many people were self-declared libertarians after listening to Ron Paul a few times, but never understood the moral, let alone epistemological rationale behind free markets and private property.

Unsurprisingly, a person with surface level understanding of their own ideology will easy be fooled by a charismatic source, life situations, or ecochambers. That is how a movement dies. By people being pragmatic, aesthetics chasing, optics concerned faggots. Ironically we are seeing a resurgence in that aspect with twitter "Hoppeans" (ironically most of them never read Hoppe, or even other authors in the Austrian school) and "paleolibertarians", who know make up what most people believe libertarianism is, which is another term of MAGA. And no, I'm not kidding. Go on Reddit, Discord, Twitter and talk with some real hard normies. They will tell you that libertarians vote republican, love guns, and closed borders.

This is nothing new. Liberalism was destroyed the same way during the early 20th century, and actual liberal positions were overshadowed and forced to be rebranded as "classical-liberals". So I expect libertarians will have to find a new name. Voluntarism seems nice to be honest, and emphasizes that the actual movement values self-ownership and voluntary exchange over slavery and violence.

And this is EXACTLY why I hate politics. Fucking naming. Every single time, instead of discussing policy or positions, people get stuck up on how stuff is called and use circular logic to circle jerk. Well OF COURSE capitalism is going to be fascism if you DEFINE IT that way, no fucking argument there whatsoever. Or look at US politics right now. Most people are concerned with Trump's personal matters (no impact on actual politics), Joe's behavior (again, not politics), or DeSantis' laugh (still nothing to do with politics). Even considering that politics is a sad circus for crimes, this is just too detached. At that point have the powerball elect the next president.

So this, this is why the movement died. Because modern politics and ideologies are a giant fucking joke, while libertarianism is the only thing in this world that offers actual answers, but that would go against the act of being a circus.
Replies: >>263 >>667
>>129
Cryptocurrencies and tech-savvy places. Or rather, those areas cultivate libertarian ethics. Two people with the same computer produce vastly different quality and quality of output. So Labor Theory of Value is a no-go already. Genuine cryptocurrencies permit all transactions as an axiom and cut out third parties, so economic regulation or state regulated monetary policy is a no-go,
Obviously, there are countless exceptions, you cannot group people in just like this. This is why Marxist class analysis fails. But personally, I have seen AI and cryptocurrency and other "freedom tech" if you wanna call it that, cultivate a sort of "silent majority closeted libertarian". If you wanna meet other libertarians online, out of the context of edgy teens ideology jumping, go to any community discussing technology that incorporates freedom as a fundamental axiom for it to function. There won't be that much, but it will be way higher than if you went to your local worker union or library.
>>144
Lolbertarianism should be the starting point of conceiving your nation, not the end.

So, if we are going to begin with lolbertarianism, we should then move onto the policies we could add to it to make it a functional society.

Just remember that we are going for long-term value of stability, not the short-term value of safety.

So, starting from NWS Minarchism with NAP for it's laws.
It goes without saying that I hold to the lolbertarian ideals that property and people must be physical to be legitimate, we should not recognize intellectual property nor corporate personhood.

First, remove the legislature and legislative powers, political leaders should be overseers who enforce the laws as they were written at the nation's founding, not those who make changes to the laws.

Second, make all the banks into a branch of the government, we print our own money, and we prohibit practices like issuing currency backed by fiat, lending on a fractional reserve system, and of course charging interest at any rate.

Third, taxes, they will be charged in the following forms:
- A flat percentage on every transaction using the national currency with an additional percentage for such transactions occurring across national borders.
- An annual flat percentage of the value of landholdings at the time when they were acquired by their current owners.
- A flat lump sum charge for crossing the national borders, both entry and exit.

Fourth, the most important stuff:
The laws only apply to those who fit into five requirements of "PersonHood", each defined in the strictest biological sense :
- They must be Alive.
- They must be Adult.
- They must be Male.
- They must be Human.
and 
- They must be White.

Anyone who falls short of even one of these requirements for "personhood" is a DeJure outlaw and a DeFacto slave:
- They are outside of the law, lacking any rights, they have none of the law's protections, and have no accountability to law's rules.
- They're legal status is equal to that of an inanimate object without sentience, meaning they fall into the category of ownable property for White Men, so any protections the law affords them would come to them second-hand from the property rights of their Masters, nothing may be done with them that their owner does not consent to.
- Naturally, White boys will become their own masters once they reach biological adulthood and become White Men.
- White girls will most likely begin their lives as belonging to their fathers, and later on to their husbands, who are the White Men to whom their fathers would transfer ownership of her over to. 

Voting and elections are unnecessary, I prefer the idea of a hereditary monarchy with only Male leaders in succession, appointing a cabinet of ministers under them, who would in turn appoint those who serve under them.

I'd make it illegal for any White Man to be a recipient of anal penetration by male genitalia, they may hold most power in society but I would not permit them to be made a woman of.

I am quite inspired by the civilizations of the ancient world, European culture originated there,  and by extension, the greater west. Things were a lot better back then, when Men were of crueler hearts, back before the faggot philosophers of the enlightenment led us to where we are today.

Instead of just talking shit about libertarianism, how about you step up to scrutiny like a Man, and tell us what you propose our nations should be?

I desire an Empire, one that takes over the world in a new age of conquest wherein great legends are written and heroes are born.

The White Man should have complete dominance over the planet and over all that live upon it.

Give me your blueprint for a country, tell me what your government would be like, ow your political system would function, and what laws or policies you'd have.

Ideologies are useful only to summarize a commonly understood set of concepts that could be looked up, to save time and characters length when describing the way you'd run a nation.

But if you just stop at the ideological label, you likely haven't thought enough about the kind of civilization you'd want to have.

People who'd care about civ-building would start with an political label "X", and then begin listing the deviations they'd make from that ideology, "X, with the following changes..."

If you disagree with me, don;t tell me what you disagree with, tell me what you'd replace the part you dislike with. If you can tell me what you don't like, but not what you'd do instead, I don't think you deserve to have a place in political discussions. I want /pol/ to have anons with ideas.

To /pol/: 
If you just want a carbon-copy of the 3rd German Reich that's fine, I'll prefer almost anything to what we have now, but the only thing I ask is for you to be able to describe what that would entail.

If you want National Socialism but cannot tell me what National Socialism even is, I cannot take you seriously.
>>263
Not /pol/ but National Socialism pretty clearly tells you what it is, A worldview under which all else falls, in that worldview, Nature is primary, and the laws it demonstrates for us follow from that one of the first is that Race is that from which all else is subordinate, from the family, to the state, from politics to the beliefs and religion of the folk and so on, a state following this worldview could take any shape it's folk desired for their governance, even that of a republic, the worldview itself pushes one towards the rule of the strong,  and the strong shall decide individually or collectively what form the state takes, it could be a rehash of the US government with the flaws, misguided christian morality, and other kinks worked out, and additional securities put in place for the republic to never betray the Race and work in it's interests always.
Replies: >>320
>>314
> National Socialism pretty clearly tells you what it is, A worldview under which all else falls, in that worldview, Nature is primary, and the laws it demonstrates for us follow from that one of the first is that Race is that from which all else is subordinate
Don't jews and asians have a higher IQ than you. Why would you want a race based order when you are starting in 3rd place.
Replies: >>322
>>320
>Why would you want a race based order
To preserve the white race. White people are already a minority on the planet and their numbers are declining.
>Don't jews and asians have a higher IQ than you.
IQ isn't everything.
Replies: >>330
>>322
>To preserve the white race.
That's an argument for freedom not a "race based order". What you want is your own land where you control your borders and only allow white people to live with you. That's perfectly fine.

"Race based order" sounds like you want some kind of hierarchy where darkies are the slaves of whites or wogs to be exterminated in gas chambers or some shit. That's not fine that would be stupid.
>>263
You have contempt for the demos, and for the self-representations of the volk. Just like congo bongo. Just like the jew.

You wish to help yourself to other people's stuff and concern yourself with other people's things to the inevitability of distracting your full attention from that of your own. Just like congo bongo. Just like the jew.

The best steel man for your argument was probably the British Empire, but I'll tell you that concerning yourself with other people's stuff was a mistake. "International" Rome fell. It fell so hard I feel like the last one to still drink tea or eat fish and chips. The fields and hedgerows exist only in my heart now.

Concern yourself only with your historical home. Thou shant steal the possessions of others. People who do receive divine punishment. You might enjoy American levels of supremacy and prosperity for 300 years but then inevitably you will get your divine punishment.
Replies: >>526
>>263
>Instead of talking shit about libertarianism, how about you step up to scrutiny like a Man, and tell us what you propose our nations should be?

Oh, I didn't do this bit... I don't concern myself with any other nations. I can only speak for my own:

First, remove foreign nationals. Those arrived or having been born here after the millennium must prove their legal residency by right of native origin or elsewhile be deported. Military will be reoriented to inwardly defend the country and be used to fast-pass foreign citizens back to their country of most reliably informed origin. Any notion(s) of dual-citizenship status are to be dissolved.

Second, anti-monopoly laws on landholding. You may own a controlling share in only so many plots. No more. Landholding must be native majority owned. If you wish to own land in this country, then you must either be a citizen by right of native origin of this country, or as a foreign citizen only hold a minority share to that of native citizens who retain the majority share in it.

Third, in the way of taxation, philanthropic spending will be taxed. Reinvestment business spending heading (provably, tax man will investigate) outside of the country will be taxed. Taxation to become a duality of the sexes. Women who don't sign up to vote spend the rest of their lives un-taxed. Men who don't sign up to vote are still taxed. Education to be paid for by educational establishment-backed loans. Debt caps triggering bankruptcy status and intervention from the state will be imposed. NGOs with foreign headquarters are to be heavily taxed/otherwise abolished.

Fourth, the natural rights of the native "demos" and those of "foreign nationals":

The right to access to single-action longarms, as a minimum. Legally binding referenda, bi-weekly, every 2nd/4th Saturdays. Possibility of the reintroduction of the death penalty by hanging depending on the result. Some form of proportional representation probably incoming as well as a result.

I can't say if this particularly supports or opposes any one political movement or other, but it should bring some of the "old" England back to our sore bodies, even if we're internationally punished/significantly poorer than the Russian Federation as a result.
>>263
>authtards
>>127 (OP) 
Lobertarianism was stillborn when it was conceived.  It is based on an IQ-105 midwit comprehension of human nature that is trivially proven false.

"Inside that room are the controls that would allow someone to take over society, but we're sure no one would ever--" *gets trampled by Schlomo leaping into the room and welding the door shut behind himself, cackling all the while*

It's sort of like the way every component of the Internet was conceived of and built from the ground up by IQ-105 midwits who never wondered if some sheenie smelling a dime would study what they'd created and turn it into a crater to put another penny into his bank account.  "We should design email relay software that's unsecured from the ground up because because communication is paramount, and surely no one would ever abuse it to send junk mail."  See also, Usenet.

Lolbertarianism only appeals to IQ-105 trust fund babies who've never had to work a double shift in a factory, never lost that job because they couldn't compete on wages with wetbacks and Chinese political prisoners, never learned to code and had to flip burgers anyway because they couldn't compete on wages with Pajeet, never seen their town turned to flaming rubble by "the free movement of capital and the free movement of peoples." "The only color I care about is green!"

This is why no one takes you seriously.  Atlas Shrugged is an okay novel but it's not something to base your personality on, and it doesn't contain any recommendations for what to do when the hedge fund of Shekelberg & Goldblatt buys your Senators, your Governor, and your mayor and moves a hundred thousand ultraviolent IQ-55 Congo cannibals to your town in a "refugee resettlement diversity" scheme that they will justify with talk about "justice" and "inclusion" but which is motivated by their burning hatred of the goyim.  And the next town.  And the next town.  And every town in your state that's big enough to have sidewalks and a traffic light.  And the next state over.  And the next one too.

If any aspect of lolbertarianism can work in the real world the absolute minimum prerequisite is a culturally monolithic English-speaking White ethnostate.  Otherwise it is destructive fantasy, little better than Marxism.
>>339
>t. 115 IQ fascist who thinks Ayn Rand is libertarianism
8nw3ywg0rtc71-1441539251.png
[Hide] (53.5KB, 900x600)
>>339
>Inside that room are the controls that would allow someone to take over society, but we're sure no one would ever
Said nobody.

>gets trampled by Schlomo leaping into the room and welding the door shut behind himself,
The point of libertarianism is the blow up that room and anybody inside it.

>Lolbertarianism only appeals to IQ-105 trust fund babies 
Anti-governemnt politics only appeals to people who can't survive without the government? You might want to try again Mr IQ-106.

>Atlas Shrugged is an okay novel but it's not something to base your personality on
Throw Atlas Shrugged in the trash and read Hoppe.

>If any aspect of lolbertarianism can work in the real world the absolute minimum prerequisite is a culturally monolithic English-speaking White ethnostate.
When european powers ruled the world it was because of property rights and freedom. What fucked everything up was fascists, socialists and communists getting into government positions and taking away property rights and freedom.
8GhJeyj.jpg
[Hide] (89.4KB, 750x902)
>>339
>*gets trampled by Schlomo leaping into the room and welding the door shut behind himself, cackling all the while*
And if it isn't a jew you would suck his cock and thank him for oppressing you because muh white race.

>never seen their town turned to flaming rubble by "the free movement of capital and the free movement of peoples."
There is no welfare state in libertarianism. Without a welfare state the only immigrants are working immigrants. And working people don't destroy the society they have a stake in.

>couldn't compete on wages with Pajeet
But why would a 200iq White be doing a job that can be stolen by a 70iq pajeet? You can't play masterrace and the victim.

>Libertarianism doesn't contain any recommendations for what to do when the hedge fund of Shekelberg & Goldblatt buys your Senators, your Governor, and your mayor
If politicians don't control anything then it doesn't matter who buys the politicians. That is the libertarian answer.

>moves a hundred thousand ultraviolent IQ-55 Congo cannibals to your town in a "refugee resettlement diversity" scheme
Where do you put them? There is no "government property" in libertarianism, everything is private.
>a malicious rich person buys land and puts the cannibals there
Already we have moved from the government using your own tax money to house the cannibals to forcing the malicious actor to burn his own money. And with no federal reserve this money is not unlimited anymore either. That is already a win but there's more. The cannibals don't have permission to enter anyone else's property. If they do try to enter your property that's when you get your fully legal fully auto M4 and start pew pewing.
Replies: >>366 >>414
>>339
>all the replies to this post are either deflecting or the point went over their heads entirely
Nice one anon. Nothing says more about a political movement than the actions of it's biggest supporters.
Replies: >>365
>>353
>posts dumb strawman masturbation fantasy
>is shocked when real humans with real arguments tear your post apart
>y-you guys are meanies and your political movement s-s-s-sucks
Cry more little baby.
>>352
>But why would a 200iq White be doing a job that can be stolen by a 70iq pajeet? You can't play masterrace and the victim.
>You can't play masterrace and the victim.
>You can't play masterrace and the victim.
white nationalists are just wannabe jews lol
The unwelcome new tax surprise for side hustlers
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20240129-the-unwelcome-new-tax-surprise-for-side-hustlers

More people are taking on side gigs to supplement full-time income. But tax rules are different than salaried jobs, and some workers are getting caught off guard.

Every day, Milo, a 29-year-old maintenance worker, reports to his full-time job at a university in London. But his salary, paid weekly, isn't quite enough. So, he goes to his second job after he clocks out of his first.

He started his side gig – delivering food for app-based companies like Uber Eats – in September 2019, and is still doing it on nights and weekends. He also set up a YouTube channel, London Eats, where he documents his life on the road.

The delivery work and the YouTube channel bring in multiple streams of income where he used to have just one. He appreciates the extra money – but not the extra paperwork. Milo now has to report three separate jobs to the government. "Keeping records is one of the hardest things when it comes to being self-employed," he says.

According to a 2022 survey by insurance company Aviva, one in five Britons has taken up a side hustle since the start of the pandemic, one-third of whom did so to make ends meet in financially trying times. The data shows average income from such side hustles is nearly £500 ($635) a month.

Yet with this extra income comes an extra tax bill. And since governments don't take out taxes in advance for self-employment like they do with a salaried job, many new side hustlers aren't prepared to owe money come tax time. For some people, the arrival of these documents may come as unwelcome surprise.

...

Independent workers, gig work and side hustles are all taxed differently from traditional payroll. No tax is taken upon payment, and workers must hold back part of their income to pay tax later. But some side hustlers don't report their income or pay taxes: either deliberately by transacting in cash; or unknowingly, since they are not aware they this rule exists.

Tax authorities worldwide have started to crack down. In early January, the UK tax authority His Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) announced digital platforms including Airbnb, Vinted, Depop and eBay would be required to routinely report seller profits made on the websites. In early January, an HMRC spokesperson said: "These new rules will support our work to help online sellers get their tax right first time. They will also help us detect any deliberate non-compliance, ensuring a level playing field for all taxpayers."

The change is unsurprising, says Stevie Heafford, tax partner at London tax firm HW Fisher. "With the cost-of-living crisis, more adults in the UK are turning to side hustles to bring in some extra income, and HMRC are concerned that some people are not paying the right amount of tax based on the profits that they make," she explains.

In the US, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is implementing similar changes for earnings in 2024, specifically responding to the increased activity on peer-to-peer payment platforms, such as companies including Venmo, PayPal and Stripe. Congress is currently working through the details of what should be included in this new reporting rule.

These moves by the UK and US governments are designed to claw back more revenue through taxes, and to better reflect the changing way we work.

"Side hustles and alternative ways of earning a living remain on the rise, particularly among millennials, with most reporting it is to keep up with rising inflation rates," says Kathy Pickering, chief tax officer at H&R Block, a Kansas City, US-based tax preparation company.

In the United States, 39% of people report having some kind of secondary income, according to Bankrate, and say they need the money to meet living expenses. The average American makes $810 (£639) a month from freelance income – meaning they'd easily fall under the auspices of the IRS's reporting rules.
Replies: >>373
>>372
Normies have been programmed to think that taxes benefit "the people" somehow and therefor the government taxing the everloving shit out of the working class is actually a good thing.
hola.png
[Hide] (19.8KB, 861x454)
>>352
>There is no welfare state in libertarianism.
Replies: >>417 >>428 >>437
>>414
>we like welfare and we vote left
There's no egalitarian suffrage in libertarianism either. No stake no vote.
>custom made comic
Why do you put so much effort into aggressively misunderstanding everything about libertarianism. Wouldn't it be easier to just read a book and actually learn something.
https://mises.org/library/what-must-be-done-0
Replies: >>418 >>523
3isn9j.png
[Hide] (191.9KB, 693x435)
>>417
>No stake no vote.
Don't forget that most NatSocs are unemployed / minimum wage losers. They don't want a free market meritocracy based on absolute property rights any more than a blue haired feminist or BLM chimp does. Just because they put straight white men at the top of their society hierarchy instead of gay black trannies doesn't make them the opposite of leftists.
>>418
Why do you put so much effort into aggressively misunderstanding everything about National Socialism. Wouldn't it be easier to just read a book and actually learn something
Replies: >>420 >>426
>>419
What's the matter, couldn't name a book?
Replies: >>431
>gets criticized once
>immediately goes into blue-haired dick-in-ass hasan piker BASH DUH FASH spergout
The kosher apple doesn't fall far from the yiddish tree. Am I right fellas?
Replies: >>428 >>437
>>419
He's not wrong though. And you don't even know any natsoc books except mein kampf. Here, read your own literature and see how retarded it is
https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=D7BF5E75329FA2E793B246EDF6C9522C
Replies: >>431
fashcaptcha.png
[Hide] (13.3KB, 783x563)
>>414
>>418
>>423
I've been reading this guy's posts throughout the board and it's been making me wonder...is this guy a bot?

Hey fash-anon, solve the attached captcha to continue conversing with libtards.
Replies: >>435 >>443
>>420
Anything by Gottfried Feder.
>>426
Stephen Goodson had no influence over German National Socialism, obviously.
Replies: >>435 >>441 >>449
>>431
Holy shit, maybe >>428 is onto something...
Replies: >>436 >>437
ALetter.png
[Hide] (32.8KB, 1115x849)
>>435
Incongruous text so the bots don't catch on.
Replies: >>437
>>435
I am neither >>414 >>418 nor >>423, why should I answer questions not direct towards me?
>>436
ChatGPT can read cursive and images just fine.
abf95989f25b085e34096d674ca8e9989684b7a1f042858fa693cea1394f92f3.png
[Hide] (328.4KB, 1000x800)
>>431
>Stephen Goodson had no influence over German National Socialism, obviously.
I went to a /fascist/ board and asked for something to read and that's what they gave me.
It's literally 100 pages of
>In year X
>Everything was perfect
>Then jews arrived and ruined everything
>In year X+500
>Everything was perfect
>Then jews arrived and ruined everything
>In year X+1000
...
And then the last 100 pages are just a mishmash of out of context quotes from various people and the last chapter is just "gold bad, hard money bad, free market bad, we just need to get rid of jews and everything will magically be good".

This is not a strawman, it's a real book and real self described natsocs told me to read it. This is the best they've got.
Replies: >>445
>>428
Not every mentally ill loser who spends 10 hours a day refreshing chans in a loop is a bot.
>>441
>I went to a /fascist/ board and asked for something to read and that's what they gave me.
>This is not a strawman, it's a real book and real self described natsocs told me to read it. This is the best they've got.
A single person on an anonymous forum told you to read a book for idiots. Get over it.
If you want a book on NS economics I have already given a recommendation.
Replies: >>448
>>445
>If you want a book on NS economics I have already given a recommendation.
>anonymous forum
How am I supposed to know what post you're referring to.
javier-milei-v0-dqefr0icrhz91-3081290540.png
[Hide] (355KB, 3000x3000)
>>431
>Anything by Gottfried Feder.
That's not a book that's a person but ok I guess that means I get to choose. This was the first thing I found
>The Fundamentals of National Socialist Economic Policy
https://arplan.org/2022/04/18/fundamentals-of-national-socialist-economic-policy-feder/

>The completely unfettered capitalist economic form leads to ever sharper disparities between rich and poor
So >>418 is correct, you're as anti free market as any screeching green haired tranny.

>the state as the representative of the nation, must not involve itself within the productive economy, since it would then all too soon be drawn into the lobbyism of the individual sectors of the economy
This is correct but then he contradicts himself straight away
>the state has right of intervention through policing, administrative, and fiscal policy (taxation) measures
As a smart lady once said there is no half way between food and poison. Either you leave the economy alone or you fuck with it. There's no such thing as fucking with it but only in a way that leads to good results.

>All labor is worth its wages, and all labor must yield its due reward. 
Labor theory of value.
>Capitalism has managed to completely subjugate labor, to exploit it and make it subject to interest.
>National Socialism recognizes private property as a matter of principle, and places it under the protection of the state. But it binds the right to own property to a moral duty towards the Volk as a whole.
This is just communism with extra steps.

>The despotism of loan-capital is no longer contented with simple forms of money-lending
Like communists you don't understand the problem is not lending money the problem is lending money that doesn't exist.

>the National Socialist state will make measured use of its right to create money in order to finance large public works and the construction of housing
And like communists you don't want an economy free from the machinations of fake money printers, you just want to be the ones cranking the handle. Because for some reason you think you can do a better job of subverting the laws of nature.
Replies: >>450 >>452
>>449
based capitalism defender
>>449
I'm not the original anon you were arguing with, but I can make these points:

In any country, you get what's called critical national infrastructure. These are things you need to have in supply (if there's a war on) outside of/or sheltered from the global market because if your ports are blockaded, you still need a supply of milk, bread, eggs, cheese... You need transport to keep on being functional and not gouge the price "because there's high demand". Letters still need to be sent and delivered. And it takes state level management of this sort to be able to fight off professional-level armies that might subtly declare an interest in your possessions.

I know you'll say you should make your farmers efficient by not taxing them, instead of by subsidizing them, but other countries most of them in fact are paying theirs at a ratio of two or three times their effective yield. Your farmers can't compete with this unless your country follows suit in offering subsidy.

Yet if you buy the reduced price grain from abroad without a supply of your own, then when something like Ukraine happens and you've no backup, along with those few dozen other countries who also don't have backups, then at the very least you're left to pay an extraordinarily high amount for grain to be the highest bidder on what remains.

As far as saying "if you do good work, then you are entitled to a good wage" is concerned, this is not communism nor communalism. You might argue that companies which pay their wage earners too low an amount would be inefficient and self-correcting short termism, but do long as there's a next generation to replace a crippled and aging generation, then short termism can afford to just break their workers and replace them with a fresh set of new ones.

Binding the right to own property to a moral duty to the volk, to me, reads as though the foreign born will be excluded from owning land/private property in the country, which is exactly how I want it even though I'm not a nat-soc. You have no ties to the land. You will just use it to invite more foreigners in. Your speculative practices have not self-adjusted the price down on land/property, especially since every square foot is being used as a means to store investment. I don't want the culturally disparate taking our land and living on it/doing anything else with it.

The last part about "magic money" I can't really defend, except that to use a currency made of the precious metals that're backing it is just asking for the economically illiterate to lose at least some of your reserve supply in an uneconomic way in puddles/oceans/down sofas/anywhere stupid that they can, and on that and a couple other basis you will be less economically capable than a country which cheats, and is not caught/punished unilaterally.
Replies: >>453
>>452
>if your ports are blockaded, you still need a supply of milk, bread, eggs, cheese...
>You need transport to keep on being functional
Publicly used transportation used to be private.  The NYC metro used to be private, a lot of first-world modern day countries have private rail and shipping yards.  Railroads were a venture of private capitalism (that's still going on today, e.g. Brightline, etc.).  Even 'public goods' like lighthouses are private.  Roads, too.
>not gouge the price "because there's high demand".
Alright, if we're going to have a conversation, we're going to have to agree that the price inflation that's taken place since covid is because of the massive amount of money printing.  If we don't have that, then we don't have the common ground to even begin to talk with each other.  I know that's maybe not exactly what you're bringing up here, but I just want to head this off at the pass before it goes too deep into the weeds.  Money printing causes price inflation, can we at least agree on that?
This is my point where I've realized in conversations with people that if that agreement doesn't exist, if we have to start off by arguing about the price controls of Emperor Diocletian, then I know we aren't going to see anything eye-to-eye.
>Letters still need to be sent and delivered.
...you still use physical mail?  That...o.k., I won't get into that, let's just say I'm surprised anyone who knows and uses the internet would bring this up as a point of contention.
Anyways, a lot of current first-world countries in the modern day have mail delivery without the state.
>Yet if you buy the reduced price grain from abroad without a supply of your own, then when something like Ukraine happens and you've no backup, along with those few dozen other countries who also don't have backups, then at the very least you're left to pay an extraordinarily high amount for grain to be the highest bidder on what remains.
>The last part about "magic money" I can't really defend, except that to use a currency made of the precious metals that're backing it is just asking for the economically illiterate to lose at least some of your reserve supply in an uneconomic way in puddles/oceans/down sofas/anywhere stupid that they can, and on that and a couple other basis you will be less economically capable than a country which cheats, and is not caught/punished unilaterally.
Again, I understand if this wasn't your point, but at this point I have to ask:  do you understand comparative advantage?  Because that's another line in the sand for me.  If it's a case of, "Yes, but this is a national defense thing, not a--" o.k., fine, I can sort of understand that.  But if we're back to 17th century mercantilist economics, then I don't think we have common ground.
>You have no ties to the land. You will just use it to invite more foreigners in. Your speculative practices have not self-adjusted the price down on land/property, especially since every square foot is being used as a means to store investment. I don't want the culturally disparate taking our land and living on it/doing anything else with it.
What do you think would happen to someone who buys land and does nothing with it compared to someone who does?
Replies: >>459
>>453
>public transport used to be private transport
It's true railways were originally built by the capitalists, with varying degrees of public help, but virtually none at all compared to the modern age.

Yet during a national emergency that transportation was expected to waive their profiteering and put it aside, whereas the likes of Uber sees things like an active shooter as a great monetary opportunity.

Another example would be Musk's Starlink or something - it's not like you're going to hop on a different railway running the same parallel route if the service shuts down or is poor. Once the infrastructure is established, it does not afford for competing redundancy alongside it. Yet once they're there you depend on these services to function.

>printer go brrr money printing
I couldn't argue on the point very much, not being a nat-soc who wants personal control of the printer button, so I shifted the argument to one of debasement or not as opposed to money printing or not.

Go ahead and try to claim your Rubles in tangible currency from a gold-backed Russian bank. They will escort you out the door. Because the banks they lie when they don't have gold. But the banks they lie even if they do have some gold. The money printing grift is their logical conclusion that if they're going to lie, then might as well make the lie big.

I'll put it another way. With things the way they are, any NWO-candidate can now cause a run on government bonds and on the national currency if you don't do what they want politically. But does your money being gold-backed really stop that? How or to what extent does it stop that?

>mail services being an anachronism and also not needing the state
It is like this: The Opel Blitz delivery van still works when the radio tower is bombed. Or the radio tower still works when the Opel van is bombed.

It's rather important that economic interests do not otherwise divert the King's letter from where it's meant to arrive. Again, you envision parallel service so if one becomes poor you can abandon it and seek a superior one. But the infrastructure is such (especially once you start delivering big things like stone aggregate) that to have two fulfilling the same work is virtually unthinkable and takes great time and effort to set up.

>do you understand comparative advantage?
You mean between a libertarianism with some faults vs endless money printing? Yeah, sorta. If it means something else then no.

I have read no studies, I have not been to school to learn anything, I am an economics moron. I might do better than some with an economics degree in their possession, but that doesn't make me any less of an uncultured moron.

>What do you think would happen to someone being economically inefficient with their land, vs someone who is not
I think they would store their money in the worth of the land knowing that it will go up next year, vs leaving it in a bank for it to be squandered by lying grifters. Plus, there's money to be made in profiting from Infinity Africans™
Replies: >>460 >>464
>>459
>You mean between a libertarianism with some faults vs endless money printing? Yeah, sorta. If it means something else then no.
Yeah, no, that's not what comparative advantage is.  Some other libertarian on the board probably has more patience than me, but I have other things to do today than find common ground that far away.  Sorry this conversation didn't work out, chau.
Replies: >>464 >>516
Bitcoin_cant_be_inflated.jpg
[Hide] (121.5KB, 586x660)
>>460
Tag me in bro.

>>459
>It's true railways were originally built by the capitalists, with varying degrees of public help
The private railways being the cheapest and most efficient. The state funded railways looped in circles and ran through as many constituencies as possible to maximize the public funds they could loot from the government. Not to mention the violence that came from public funded railroads getting unlimited military protection incentivized them to tear through occupied land. The private railroads had to pay for their own protection so they were far more peaceful in buying land and negotiating deals with the native tribes.

>Yet during a national emergency that transportation was expected to waive their profiteering and put it aside, whereas the likes of Uber sees things like an active shooter as a great monetary opportunity.
Price gauging is a feature not a bug. Higher prices signals to the market that more producers need to get involved to fill the shortage. Your problem is that in an "emergency" you expect producers to work harder in dangerous conditions for zero extra profit because muh common good or some shit. That just prolongs the emergency. Most socialists chimp out on twitter everytime their minimum wage starbucks barista asks for a tip, the idea that they will risk their lives for the common good is laughable.

>Another example would be Musk's Starlink or something - it's not like you're going to hop on a different railway running the same parallel route if the service shuts down or is poor.
The reason for little competition in railways and wireless comms is because of regulation. If you have to ask the government permission to start a competing company guess what the existing companies are going to lobby for. A free market forces everyone to compete instead of hiding behind politicians.

>Go ahead and try to claim your Rubles in tangible currency from a gold-backed Russian bank. They will escort you out the door. Because the banks they lie when they don't have gold. But the banks they lie even if they do have some gold.
You're missing a part which is regulation again. You can't operate a commercial bank without permission from the central bank. That's why all banks have the exact same monetary policy.

Because fractional reserve banking + hard money + free market competition simply doesn't work. Any bank that issues more notes than money, a competing bank can buy up the notes and demand the money. When the cheating bank can't pay they are out of business, out of the market, and more profit for the honest banks. That's why banking is such a tightly regulated cartel to make sure all banks inflate at the same rate and only exploit the people instead of each other.

>Does your money being gold-backed really stop that
That's like asking how do we prevent the execution of a thief. The answer is you don't. Bank runs are not the problem they are the solution. If a bank or government issues more money promises than actual money then a bank run is the natural way the market will punish the cheater and restore order. It sucks for the people who lose their savings but the answer is to drop the stealing bankers out of a helicopter, not to use tax money to give them bailouts.

>I have read no studies, I have not been to school to learn anything, I am an economics moron.
Comparative advantage is a mainstream economic concept. If you don't like my source then pick your own. Refusing to learn new things might protect your ego in the present but it's only going to harm you in the long run.
Replies: >>467
>>464
>railways, parallel infrastructure
My understanding of the railways comes from Victorian Britain & not from the Americas. My understanding of this period was that the few extremely rare cases where a service ran parallel to another one, even for only a small section of the line, it would lead to an expensive arms race in every arena; politically speaking, to hired muscle to bully the other company customers/participants and so on.

The only reason I think the likes of somebody like Jordan Peterson can argue for the development of parallel services, is that they've become so broken as to become contra-functional. Hospitals that begin killing a sizeable number of their patients, etcetera.

I don't think it's a natural state even within a free environment to have parallel services when those services are necessarily huge and expansive. Something has to go wrong first, and so badly wrong as to justify vast investment into infrastructure.

>just let companies that all shat the bed fail, that's the point
Now when I mention price gouging as a problem, I mention it as just one of several that can go wrong with a company or service. I need to get troops to the border. Quickly and reliably. Preferably cheaply. I can't afford companies to be playing economic jenga with a service that will decide the survival of a nation. Maybe I can afford it when they decide the survival of your relatives; in zero-regulation flying, for example. But not the survival of a country.

The sense of urgency, and the sense of patriotic/moral good are important to me, moreso than them being economically sympathetic/sentimental/shrewd or anything else.

I'll give you another example: I have too many of the foreign born in my country. To deport them, vast use of infrastructure will be necessary - functioning like a clockwork mechanism to get these people out. If I have some pattern-spotting algorithm telling me it's now tens of thousands of dollars per passenger then what you're telling me to do is essentially build my own railway. I do not have the time or resources to do this within the four year window that is necessary.

The stakes are rather high. The point of urgency is that we already needed it 6 months ago/6 years ago...

>banks and their functioning under ideal/significantly less than ideal conditions
As far as banks cheating and the runs on them go, I agree that bank runs should be a feature not a bug, but then running on your bank is atypical behavior. It's so beyond the norm that I've had relationships resembling marriages come and go but my relationship with the one bank remains, in part I suppose because leaving them for any reason is as good as with any other bank largely... I don't know how you would encourage it to become typical behavior for people to regularly move all their savings and investments like that.

>understanding terms only academics of a particular arts will get
I know a lot of things through observation. "Lived experience" the left call it (how you'd "experience" while not being alive I don't know) but essentially the smell in the air.

I can read a lot of books all telling me how things are supposed to work, but if the smell in the air contradicts them then that air remains the truth in front of me - the books potentially being a scam.

Having looked up comparative advantage it seems I'm familiar or understand apart from the name for it itself, but when asked if I agree with it or not I'd side more with splendid isolation or a kind of critical infrastructure protectionism than with free marketeering.

You have to understand that I envision a future in which we are punished for simply not towing the line of our global hegemony overseers any more; where our currency loses 97% of it's value, where every major product or service provider like coca-cola and pepsi pull out and refuse to do business with us any more, with my view being shaped by the reaction of "well, what would one then need to do?"

Your populace must eat something. Your populace must drink something. That's why I tried to drag the last anon down into the idea of critical infrastructure as a theory. If you have no domestic farmers to sow grain, will you strip the trees of their bark and start eating this instead?

To what extent do you concede to that argument? If it's nothing, then to what extent do you think my armageddon planning is unlikely or beyond the norm?
Replies: >>470
HYRK0irR9ypT.jpeg
[Hide] (148KB, 1170x1437)
>>467
>My understanding of the railways comes from Victorian Britain & not from the Americas. My understanding of this period was that the few extremely rare cases where a service ran parallel to another one
The problem with looking at a country like england is that most of the land is owned by the government or royalty so all it takes is a bribe to the right politician / bureaucrat / aristocrat and your competitor suddenly can't get the land he needs to complete his parallel track.

>I don't think it's a natural state even within a free environment to have parallel services when those services are necessarily huge and expansive.
Competition works in multiple dimensions. If the trains to some specific london borough are shit then somebody might build a train to some other undeveloped borough and then investment would move to the place with the better rail service which will then add profits to the new train service over time.

>to hired muscle to bully the other company customers/participants
Do you have sources on this?

>in a free market competing enterprises will just shoot each other in the street
You need to be careful with arguments like this because there is a difference between regulations and law & order. Corporate propaganda does a good job of tricking people into thinking they're the same thing and therefor there's no way to deregulate without causing chaos in the streets. They are different things, just because in a free market you don't need a city license to open a restaurant doesn't mean mcdonalds is free to firebomb you. Crime is still crime.

>I need to get troops to the border. Quickly and reliably. Preferably cheaply.
You can't ignore the insane amounts of waste that comes with our current standing armies just because they are "cheap" to deploy during the few days of an emergency when you actually need them.

>I can't afford companies to be playing economic jenga with a service
You also have to step outside the imperialist mindset though. Defense is always cheaper than attack. And if people are defending their own property they will expend an appropriate of effort and capital without you forcing them to. Your problem is that in a free market it will be expensive to convince a bunch of mercenaries to travel 10,000 miles to kill children in the middle east and to be honest I think that's a good thing.

>The sense of urgency, and the sense of patriotic/moral good are important to me
Again this is easier with smaller and localized political units. People care a lot more about their local town or city than they do about a global pseudo-empire. That's why the US military is full of immigrants looking for citizenship and kids looking for free college rather than actual patriots. This is also why the potential texas succession is interesting because men in texas are far more likely to pick up a gun to defend their local town. How many democrat voting new yorkers are going to risk their lives to invade a state on the other side of the continent because "muh USA" or whatever.

>I don't know how you would encourage it to become typical behavior for people to regularly move all their savings and investments like that.
It doesn't matter anymore because any bankrun will be fixed by the central bank just printing the missing money out of thin air and giving it to the failing banks (what happened in 2008). That's not possible under a hard-money standard (they can't just magic more gold out of thin air) which is why basically everything you hate about the modern economy can be traced back to the end of the gold standard.

>I'm familiar or understand apart from the name for it itself, but when asked if I agree with it or not I'd side more with splendid isolation
Comparative advantage explains itself. China can do literally anything better than anyone else and yet they still trade with other countries. Economic isolation is more about preparing for war and being able to survive with all your trade routes cut off. It made sense 100 years ago but if you "smell the air" you'll realize it's pretty much over now. The most sanctioned countries in the world (russia, iran, north korea) still manage to profit from global trade without resorting to isolationism.

>If you have no domestic farmers to sow grain, will you strip the trees of their bark and start eating this instead?
Nope, you just trade. Even ukraine in the middle of an invasion still exports grain to far away places like africa. The world you are thinking of does not exist anymore.

>To what extent do you concede to that argument? If it's nothing, then to what extent do you think my armageddon planning is unlikely or beyond the norm?
It's not clear what you're talking about here. What kind of armageddon is going to destroy all global food production and transportation but your isolated/protectionist economy is going to survive somehow? It certainly possible that some kind of disaster will separate you or me from the rest of the world for a few weeks. Maybe 20% or 40% of the people around us might die. I don't think it's that hard to prep enough resources to keep yourself and your friends/family out of the 40% bracket. I'm not telling you to not prepare for shit I'm telling you not to depend on the government for it.
Replies: >>474
the_sky_you_are_living_under.jpg
[Hide] (787.5KB, 5280x3960)
It was co-opted by government psy-ops. You know better than to think you actually have rights. lol
>>470
>The problem with looking at a country like England is that there's no land
This got me thinking, rather. Once you're done fighting each other to decide whose line is the preferable one, what if you accept that no matter how many lines are built, whoever successfully launches one has entered the same monopolous position as you? Since building more lines is hard to do? Even if there are seven parallel lines alongside yours; do less of the fighting, get into bed with them and start doing the price fixing. How many would it take to undo? Nine? Ten? Two dozen?

Is this not the natural state we've arrived at after all? How is maintaining a state of liberty even accomplishable if this has happened in our history before?

>post sources for hired goons bullying
It's lost in some British TV documentary but my assertion there isn't about a violent anarchy or anything, but that competition to the degree of hiring opposing muscle gets expensive - with the customers inheriting the bill for that.

There's a similar example on Count Dankula's channel somewhere about America's tourist cave spelunking. Everyone would brag how safe theirs was and the companies would hire "constables" and "health inspectors" to start telling horror stories and try to discredit each other's businesses. All this is stupid and costs money. But it might cost your competitor *more* money and so on it went.

>free market pew pew pew still has laws
You want fewer of them. Which is a reasonable request. But you have women voting who say "Daddy state please keep me safe" at the first port of call. How do you anticipate you'll be able to get to where you want to go, from where you're stood?

>standing armies vs local militias
My point wasn't about the current or former state of the military. Just "Afuera" the lot of them and remake it about one man with his pointed stick, and the ammo to supply that stick. There need be no "means of production" argument for that to work; already you would beat out most of the 207 other countries that are for varying reasons antagonistic toward competence.

No, my point was about the current state of private companies in relation to that military. I need trains. I need them to enable deporting the foreign born out of the country. If they say "oh, then the ticket price will be prohibitive" or "we're on strike because of our ESG/DEI commitments" then there is no recourse for politely asking them, nor is there in constructing a length and breadth railway before I can get on with the job.

This is where a nationalist and a libertarian part ways essentially. I want a national consciousness, and while I want that to be organic and not based on a fictional "mythos" or "founding story", if you flagrantly act in opposition to that organic national consciousness then I will get decidedly less "organic" and into enforcement, because I can't afford to wait for you to decide what you are up to is unprofitable.

It may be only temporary instability but reaching for the disciplinary rod of the state won't be optional. Even you would advocate/require judicial reform to get to where you want... Those magistrates are on >£150/$300 an hour. Do you think they should go quietly?

>gold standard & banks, ducking the question about how you'd get behavioral change
It's not relevant or anything, but why do you think Reagan didn't do anything about the problem? Sold his soul to Bohemian Grove or some such?

>economic retaliation and how it doesn't work against Russia etc
Eastern Europe, even at war, is in a better state/position than us atm. No military blockade of our ports would even be necessary - a total economic blockade would starve our cities in a matter of ours. Maybe they deserve it, but I live in one and know others I'm fond of who do also.

>what kind of armageddon
A run on our money until it's functionally Weimar money, then trade sanction any countries that otherwise would offer to sell us grain. Britain's money is all fake money based on financial transactions. It's one of the easiest countries to do this in.
Replies: >>475
47202105262e0bbf815672ef28b7a00b.jpg
[Hide] (119.2KB, 633x616)
>>474
>get into bed with them and start doing the price fixing
Price fixing is not sustainable on its own because the first person to break and offer a lower price will be rewarded by the market. That's why cartels reality only exist with government help or in the case of drug cartels are built on the threat of extreme violence to anybody who sells at a lower price.

>Is this not the natural state we've arrived at after all?
Where we are now is the result of government growing way too big and taking full control of the currency.

>competition to the degree of hiring opposing muscle gets expensive - with the customers inheriting the bill for that.
Well yes and then the 3rd guy who doesn't play stupid games can offer lower prices and out-compete both of them because he doesn't have any goons to pay. Violence is only profitable if you can pass the cost off onto somebody who doesn't have a choice e.g. the taxpayer. There are also ways of getting protection without hiring goons directly through insurance and cooperatives.

>telling horror stories and try to discredit each other's businesses
This was also in a time of limited communication technology. Websites like tripadvisor have solved this problem already.

>You want fewer of them. 
No regulation doesn't mean no property rights.

>How do you anticipate you'll be able to get to where you want to go, from where you're stood?
Where we're stood is not sustainable, eventually the welfare state is going to run out of other people's money. If you're talking about being proactive then a book from Hoppe called What Must be Done is a blueprint on how to dismantle the current system peacefully and effectively. As you alluded to though, a system that gives everyone an equal vote regardless of how much they contribute to society is the poison pill that keeps us trapped here.

>I need trains. I need them to enable deporting the foreign born out of the country.
I don't need trains. If there is no welfare state and no "public property" for them to loiter on then they will find a way back to where they came from by themselves (breathing is optional).

>This is where a nationalist and a libertarian part ways essentially.
Sure. I don't have a problem with "immigrants" as long as they purchase their own property or have the property owner's permission to live wherever they are (they pay rent or are a guest of the owner). The point is in a fully privatized society there is no way for somebody to smuggle immigrants in and make it everyone else's problem. As soon as they leave the smuggler's property then they are trespassing on somebody else's property and that person probably doesn't want them there. At that point something will happen to make the uninvited guests go back where they came from (again breathing is optional).

>I want a national consciousness
Consciousness based on what? Before mass transit you could make an argument that everybody within horse riding distance was basically part of the same extended family. That doesn't work at all anymore even if you wanted it to. Your "country" is just a landmass of strangers now.

>reaching for the disciplinary rod of the state won't be optional
If people can legally own weapons and legally do anything to protect their property then the problem solves itself. Or to put it another way, in a real emergency the police won't be there to protect you anyway. Events like the LA riots red pill many americans on the 2nd amendment because they call 911 and the operator says - yeah the whole city is under attack right now you're on your own buddy.

>ducking the question about how you'd get behavioral change
The discussion is already unwieldy I didn't want to add new topics. The only thing an individual can do about cheating banks is limit your exposure to cheating banks. Put your savings into hard assets that cannot be inflated. I don't want to be one of those jerks who says "just buy bitcoin" but do look into it and understand for yourself what it actually is and how it achieves its goals.

>a total economic blockade would starve our cities in a matter of ours
What's the alternative though, you live in a place where there is way more people than farmable land. No government policy can change the laws of nature. Prep enough resources to make sure you and your family survive the initial stages of an emergency and then have a backup plan to escape the city if the situation doesn't improve. What else can you do?

>A run on our money until it's functionally Weimar money, then trade sanction any countries that otherwise would offer to sell us grain.
I say the same thing to eco-mentalists, if you want to go back to a pre-industrial agricultural economy then you also have to go back to pre-industrial population levels. There is no magic solution here. If britain was fully blockaded and you turned all available land over to farming you still won't be able to support the current population level. That's what I said before, people will die either way the best you can do it take care of yourself and the people you care about first in such a situation.
Replies: >>480
>>475
>price fixing is unsustainable, government growing way too big is how we got here
How do you think the government got to being "too big" in our own developed history? Price fixing works and it works well. Do you think the contents of every fizzy drinks can are all worth a dollar? Are you going to set up your own canning and juice pressing manufactory to offer that for "only" ¢0.75?

I'm seeing that it doesn't particularly scale well and you've not got specific solutions in mind.

>hired goons can only bump the price if they can give their customers no recourse/alternative
Ideally you want 12 tonnes of materials for the foundation of a big shed. Don't ask me how I know that, just take my word that to dry store things ideally you want that plus a wooden raised floor over concrete to dry store things not just bare concrete by itself because moisture climbs the iron of a car or whatever it is you're storing.

Sizes like that, you can move with some rubble bags and a van or multiple wheelbarrow trips if you're really enterprising about it.

But to be a man with a larger construction project, or a man who *sells* aggregate for a living then trucks make less sense than a boat or a train because of the wear on the vehicles and the roads necessary for doing the lifting.

You intend to find/or build another canal? You intend to find/or build another railway? You intend to find/or build a postal company that operates using it's own, entirely separate and parallel infrastructure to get this done cheaply enough for you?

This is the point about any number of strange examples I'm giving you to work with. I'm telling you that Libertarianism doesn't scale and your response is just "the market will fix it" when the land you intend to build it on is always "somebody's" and has been that way for us since 1066. Do you have *any* plans for what to do about it?

I'm not even opposed to your market system at all as should be apparent by now, except that I want businesses that earn money in my country to then spend it (or most of it) in my country, which is where government and protectionisms creep into it. Corporatism has scalped us so heavily, Britain used to make things for the world but now the corpos took the juicy bits and left us a hollow corpse of a country.

>Websites like tripadvisor, technology to the rescue for poor comms and things
My man, my man 30's Germany got more done with personally stamped papers. Better that you have a strong and persevering culture than all this "best technology in the world". Belief in God would be a boon also - "Tripadvisor" you just already know has none.

>No regulation doesn't mean no property rights
You misunderstand the hole I poked, it was that at least half your electorate loves protectionism because women reach for safety however immediate/short-term it is, whereas men let a few people die down a mine before they'll think about asking the state to intervene there. The right to have private property does not alter that particularly. How you expect to get where you want to go, from where you are is seldom fleshed out by libertarians. Personally I would say that you need to financially encourage women not to vote, but you haven't said anything like that.

>let's make voting into landholders-only again, since propertyless men are not invested/productive enough
Sorry, sorry I'm putting words in your mouth but it's actually even more extreme than my own view IMHO. I was just gonna say to women: "you will pay none of the tax like a man does if you don't register to vote, but will then have to pay them on principle if you register to do so". Whereas an ultra-libertarian would say tax should be optional/not a theft for men as well - but then I need to push men into productivity in order to fund even just a small governance. I'm trying not to completely uproot and unhinge society here with more radical social experiments than have been foisted on them already.

>I don't need trains. Without welfare the loiterers will go
They've noticed the soil here is a fertile loam better than a lot of the rest of the world. Even if they've no roots to it or attachment to it, and they don't care what the difference between a blackbird or a magpie is, it's a lot better to pennilessly loiter here than to return to sand where every shovel strikes across stone. Do you think they will go? Even the judicial reforms, even once I'm charging judges with aiding and abetting human trafficking which they've flagrantly done by the way, do you think quietly they're going to move on out of here?

Because I think they will try to out-wait and obstruct and out-delay your four years in office, and that's assuming the NWO doesn't fund a coup/civil war.

>what national consciousness?
Every field and hedgerow. Personal ties to the soil. Libertarians aren't exactly against the idea - but I'm saying that currency is not integral nor a cure, nor an equivalent substitute. People choose between more culture and more money, and they'll side with culture to the nth degree.

>guns will get the foreigners out, problem solved
Everything's fucked mate. It's all foreign owned bankers and corrupt military government employees. In our case we don't even have any guns. The first thing you'd have to do is say to the military "you're all fired - if you're fit then please reapply" and then say as well "foreign born can not majority-own any of our domestic land, kindly sell/GTFO".

Basically like a reverse-Ukraine, for which you could expect a fight. Which is why you wouldn't be asking you'd need to be telling.

>cryptobro be sure to fuck the banks
I don't ideally want a currency where I need the internet to barter with other people. Get tangible precious metals or equivalent tangible assets physically within your hands

>on armageddon prepping, escaping a city
It's every city. I'm not sure if mouths knawing trees sounds preposterous but I want farmers, domestic and well fed and well paid farmers, even if a part of their salary is redistributive welfare queen salary.

This is the opposite of what Europe/Canada wants too btw. Don't it make you think.

>hungry people die get over it
Currently we subsidise and have our own supply of bread, milk and cheese. America had their own they called "government cheese" where they pay dairy farmers to make the stuff and store it in caves whether the market demand is there or not. It's a test example for measuring you on whether you accept the critical infrastructure argument,  and if you do, to what extent/where is your absolute line in the sand at?

Sorry about the winding road it's a casual conversation with a man you don't know the name of in a cafe, you can drop out at any time.
Replies: >>481 >>487
>>480
Oh and if you find the point on national consciousness to be too metaphorical, then I'd describe it as "the pursuit of virtues in the way that a certain group of people sees them" - even the Chinese have it and it's not the same as being vested in a land in terms of your money, or it's not a "money fixes it" argument.
Replies: >>487 >>489
nbhG75KluRnp.jpeg
[Hide] (105.7KB, 1158x1098)
>>480
>How do you think the government got to being "too big" in our own developed history?
Universal suffrage. Once everybody got an equal vote the people who depend on government vote for more government and the people who have to pay for it are a permanently outvoted minority.

>I'm seeing that it doesn't particularly scale well and you've not got specific solutions in mind.
You've already been told. Competition destroys cartels. Violence is what makes cartels viable in the first place. And the state is the monopoly on violence.

>You intend to find/or build another canal? You intend to find/or build another railway?
It sounds like you're living in the 1800s. Everything is transported by trucks now. I point to australia as a counter example. They have vast amounts of unused land but they don't build railways they build roads because roads are more efficient.

>Britain used to make things
What's your argument do you want white british people to compete with chinese sweatshops for 3c an hour? Or are biritsh factories supposed to pay workers a #9 minimum wage and operate at a phenomenal loss? To have manufacturing you also need cheap energy, how does that fit in with your global warming hysteria?

>My man, my man 30's Germany got more done with personally stamped papers
Don't know what this means. The bottom line is whatever government institution you point to for quality control can be done more efficiently and with less corruption by market forces. If people can figure out how to safely buy guns and drugs on the darknet you will be able to figure out how to find a safe restaurant without a government health department.

>You misunderstand the hole I poked, it was that at least half your electorate loves protectionism because women reach for safety however immediate/short-term it is
And letting such people vote is a mistake as I already explained to you. Our current democratic system is the equivalent of a credit card company giving a 12 year old a credit card in your name and then you are forced to pay for all the stupid shit they buy. The 12 year old and the credit card company are having such a good time they will never let you vote your way out.

>Do you think they will go?
If there is no welfare state they either have to work or go somewhere else. With an armed native population with full self defense rights they will work or go somewhere else quickly.

>they will try to out-wait and obstruct and out-delay your four years in office
>The first thing you'd have to do is say to the military "you're all fired
The problem is you still think the government is the solution. The government is not on your side and never will be.

>cryptobro be sure to fuck the banks
You asked and I answered. Don't be a cunt about it.

>I want farmers, domestic and well fed and well paid farmers
Watch Clarkson's Farm. Even your own bloke is dropping redpills on how government intervention is what's fucking up the farming industry.

>>481
>if you find the point on national consciousness to be too metaphorical, then I'd describe it as "the pursuit of virtues in the way that a certain group of people sees them"
Sure but see my previous point. Even 100 years ago basically everyone around you literally shared your blood. Now we've had 60 years of cheap international travel and I don't think you can put that genie back in the bottle except maybe on a small scale like a city state.

>it's not a "money fixes it" argument
Money has a lot to do with culture. The reason our culture is caught in a degenerate death spiral since the 60s and 70s is because that's when money was untethered from the gold standard. With no gold backing now governments and bankers just print money out of thin air and give it to themselves which devalues the money that is in your bank account and that's inflation.

In the old days if you had a gold coin you could buy a cow or put the coin under your mattress for 50 years and then buy a cow. Now if you have #1000 you can buy a cow or put it under your mattress for 50 years and then #1000 won't even buy you an egg anymore.

So in the old days with stable money people could plan long into the future and save up for things like marriage and kids and buying a house. In our modern age of fiat currency you don't even know how much you money will be worth in 1 year nevermind 50 years. So the incentive is to buy now and not think about the future. And that's where degenerate culture comes from. The exact same thing happened in 1920s germany when their currency became worthless.
Replies: >>499
>>481
>if you find the point on national consciousness to be too metaphorical, then I'd describe it as "the pursuit of virtues in the way that a certain group of people sees them" - even the Chinese have it
Nowadays in single nation you have people with vastly different value systems. "the pursuit of virtues in the way that a certain group of people sees them" is actually more in line with libertarian view of voting with your feet and moving to a country that has law and people more in line with your values, not clinging to your nation. Tell me - if most people in your nation hate your guts because of your ideology do you still cling to them because "muh national consciousness" or do you move to live with similar-minded individuals even if they're not necessarily from your nation? 
In "people's republic" of china the government enforces national coherence. If someone is against the government or government's ideology, the government makes their life harder, kills them or just genocides them like Uyghurs.
Replies: >>490 >>499
>>489
The antidote to nationalism is go and take a walk through a chav estate late at night and tell me you want these people as neighbors. A violent 70iq white is not better than a violent 70iq black. Chavs will cut you open and steal your bike as quick as any herd of niggers.
Replies: >>499
>>487

>universal sufferage made cartels
Governments and monopolies pre-date it.

>competition destroys cartels
You act like competition is natural from the highly enterprising and springs up like mushrooms. But if you wanted to make rubies that outcompeted the East India Company, you would first need to muscle, i.e. Forza, your way into the mining rights of that East India Company since they were only found in such abundance in that one region. Competition is not necessarily natural or agiven. Even libertarians that actively try to cultivate it cannot assure it.

>trucks/roads are more efficient than trains
Wider rubber contact creates larger frictional resistance and less efficiency. Roads are free to leave any man at their liberty to travel on them, in whichever direction he wants and they are more freeing in this respect, which unless you're a libertarian you do not conflate as being more efficient.

>Do you want Britain to compete with 3¢ an hour? Do you want Britain to peg their minimum wage to an arbitrary figure? Haven't you wanted Net Zero?
I want profits made here to be reinvested here. I'd engineer policy to those ends. What happened in Britain was that the boomers and the silent generation did not pass on their competences particularly in management, since after the war it seemed unnecessary to sweat over a training-expert position when prosperity and abundance returned post-war without expending any of the effort. It led to mismanagement, which led to the companies they worked for being stripped like carcasses, and their remaining expertise was scalped to help prop up more internationalist firms instead.

I can give examples. Ford Motor Company owes virtually it's whole modern product range to Ford of Europe, which scalped engineers leaving the other ailing firms at the time and it's basically British engineers helping to save the company a tonne of time and development money in those engineering fields.

Take the generation of consoles including the PS1/N64/Saturn also. The dev kits for the PS1 were built by a company called Psygnosis. The N64 had a bunch of devs from Rare Software training Nintendo on how to program for their own devices. For a small island, this was the input that they had and the difference those people made, to the lives of people internationally. All this great potential was bought and sold and it came and went across continents, without the British state ever saying "no, you can't". EA bought Codemasters. Kraft bought Cadbury's. What remains of us as a nation is a financial service island, with the rest of it being a thoroughly picked clean corpse.

As for net zero, you're assuming a nationalist or a traditionalist cares about any of that crap when we're for "Net Zero renewables" instead.

>market forces ensure safety better than states ensure safety
Safety of what? I'm trying to ensure the continued existence of a nation. You take your Tripadvisor employees with the latest and greatest ray guns. I'll take a professional state militia with some Opel Blitz vans and some carrier pigeons.

You've an argument to make for libertarian localism but it's not because of their embracing technology.

>natives need full self defense rights and then the foreign born will leave
The foreign born will try to rob, fail, and then leave. Correct. But you're asking an old and frail people to do the deterring. It will be messy. Mostly for the foreigners because even elderly Anglos are feisty and will give those folk a good what for. But the mess and collateral is worse than a professional army. And it's slower. And you'd be sacrificing virtue, which the British are loathe to do. I'm still entertaining that we will physically force them with bayonets onto a plane to be deported, rather than physically force them with bayonets into the ocean.

>being a cunt about technology and cryptocoin
It lets me speak to you in the digital cafe, but personally to one another as an ideal is  better even if it's full of social awkwardness and autism. My love for man and the agency he can provide for himself... I never want it to be completely tech-dependent.

>government intervention on farming
It's only recently the EU changed from providing heavy state subsidy to farming, into hating them and hoping they'll die because having your own domestic supply of food allows reform (without starvation) to happen.

I've been pushing you hard on definining Critical Infrastructure in the eyes of a Libertarian, and they concede nothing here.

>>489
I say what I love about England is the way they view virtue is unique to them, likewise the soil or land is pretty unique although Ireland looks pretty close by the landscape and the climate and such. But I love them, even to the point when there's only one of them left. I don't want to leave even if armageddon is repeatedly visited over us.

>>490
Men with a low threshold for willingness to utilise violence continue to exist and are useful, precisely because we keep going through cycles of fruitful times - weak men, weak men - hard times, hard times - strong men, strong men - fruitful times.

My religion is a protestant and pacifist one which contradicts my overall utility for the current hard times. But it means that I understand why cultures, any culture, they keep men with high "violent utility/propensity" ratio from ever being erased completely from the gene pool, since it turns out we'll be needing them again soon.

As for similar types like pikey travellers that come from Ireland or Liverpool or from wherever, so long as we created the problem it is up to us to provide the solution. You could abandon it and go to Argentina or Costa Rica or some such place, but you would be conceding that you have abandoned your home instead of viewing it's cultivation as a duty.
Replies: >>501 >>504
15380-623750b18754901ee65dfaec976625b9.jpg
[Hide] (50.8KB, 624x479)
>>499
Well I shitted 16 more paragraphs on the casual internet board just to reveal I'm a nationalist with a strong (and disgusting) "liberal" bent and an undecidedly/indifferent view of all of the "means of production" things talked about by the 'genius' suspects...

But if you can't answer the holes I poke then you won't stand a chance against a normie who'll believe whatever the status quo talking point is immediately. You need to have good arguments for these things, like practical plans for how libertarianism could scale better.

"The market wilk fix it" just sounds like voodoo to people.
Replies: >>504
5f2e8be200ddc70e79421fb7c4543012dee9d1b2dff412af66c5d7f190e3db95_1.jpg
[Hide] (45KB, 550x400)
>>499
>universal sufferage made cartels
Universal suffrage made the current state of western governments. And now you are permanently outvoted you will never be able to use the same democratic process to turn the clock back.

>if you wanted to make rubies that outcompeted the East India Company, you would first need to muscle
Because their monopoly was protected by the government.

>Wider rubber contact creates larger frictional resistance and less efficiency.
Explain why australia does not build new railways for industry despite not having any of the political or economic barriers you mentioned earlier.

>I want profits made here to be reinvested here. I'd engineer policy to those ends.
Yes I know everyone is an idiot except you if you were in charge everybody would get what they want with zero costs.

>As for net zero, you're assuming a nationalist or a traditionalist cares about any of that crap when we're for "Net Zero renewables" instead.
You are missing the point which is that you have high minimum wage, employment laws which make it impossible to fire shitty workers, everytime the workers feel like striking the company has to pay them anyway and also insanely high energy costs. And then you cry about having no manufacturing industry. And your solution is vague slogans like profits made here should be reinvested here.

>I can give examples. Ford Motor Company owes virtually it's whole modern product range to Ford of Europe, which scalped engineers leaving the other ailing firms at the time and it's basically British engineers helping to save the company a tonne of time and development money in those engineering fields.
The british motoring industry imploded because of constant union action in the 60s and 70s and the government taking the side of the workers which made manufacturing in the UK prohibitively expensive so everybody left or closed down. You have to remember you were in the middle of a cold war with a marxist superpower, the kgb were actively infiltrating trade unions and stirring shit to destroy the british economy and if not provoke a marxist revolution then at least take britain out of the cold war.

>Safety of what?
You were talking about the safety of cave exploration or something. If you don't remember then just leave it out of your response.

>But you're asking an old and frail people to do the deterring.
You're the traditional values guy why are you not defending your grandparents, do you even live anywhere near them? You want the government to do something but the government is the one doing this to you in the first place.

>I'm still entertaining that we will physically force them with bayonets onto a plane to be deported, rather than physically force them with bayonets into the ocean.
Better yet catapult them from the cliffs of dover in the general direction of africa.

>It's only recently the EU changed from providing heavy state subsidy to farming, into hating them 
Not really. Do you not remember the straight bananas bullshit. The only thing the government can do is add more regulations and regulations are what make it harder and harder for small farms to compete while the big corporations roll over their corpses. That's why corporations fund thinktanks to lobby government to create more regulations in the first place.

>>501
>if you can't answer the holes I poke then you won't stand a chance against a normie who'll believe whatever the status quo talking point is immediately. "The market wilk fix it" just sounds like voodoo to people.
picrel is for you. If we can't convince you it's because you don't want to be convinced not because we are wrong. Since you're so confident in your beliefs why don't we do a book swap. Give me your top 3 economic or political books or intellectuals and I'll read them. Here's your chance to education a dumb ignorant heartless lolbert.
Replies: >>507
>>504
>Universal suffrage made the current state
Universal suffrage was a rung on a ladder and you could have got away with it a lot longer if you'd stayed religious, traditionalist and patriarchal. Your problem is that the world is a smaller place now and the protection racket is World Order levels of collaborated efficiency. Universal Suffrage simply didn't make those cartels at the start. Those are Kings & Queens levels of old. They didn't even improve their efficiency as much as the slow, lumbering march of greater technology. The way they co-ordinate and conspire now they get a universal soundbite out across the globe within 10 minutes. As impressive as it is, technology by itself is pointless. You need culture, in this case the culture of swindling, and it's there where the universal suffrage plays it's role.

>monopolies protected by government theft not by militia
Monopolies result from natural formations, only their staying power is improved from government.

You can dispute it all you want but unless your property deeds contain some Blue John or some Peak District Fluorite then you are functionally mistaken.

And what's worse is your chosen means of government, in the manner you describe it, does nothing about this. Businesses create artificial scarcity when they know they're among the only supplier. Their land deeds sit vacant; less than 10% of it is actively producing. But you just let this landlord class sit on a deed that accrues more money as a deed than it does by manufacturing product. You don't ever make them get off their unused land. Because "eh the market will sort it out".

>explain why Australia does anything
Perhaps the Aussies value freedom to roam with the steel or limestone or whatever it is they ship more than peak efficiency to weight/expended fuel.

In Britain we're full up and we've got no money and no gas. Each boat or train carrying rocks means less potholes and one less goods vehicle clogging an underinvested transport artery.

I forget why we were arguing over transport efficiency. Oh yeah it was the "I'll just build my own with blackjack and hookers" argument "if there was no government". No you wouldn't, stop lying about it.

>the genius that is letting foreign companies buy your businesses then immediately taking them abroad
I don't recall there being a 70's strike at the Cadbury's factory, yet our confectionery is all internationalist brands. This is the case across industry. The closest thing we have to a domestic chocolate producer is Terry's Orange, that's owned by French company Carambar and not manufactured anywhere close to here.

Internationalism ate those companies, although in the case of the auto industry "Socialism" didn't exactly come along and help.

>solutions to shit, utter shit like HR departments and energy costs and things
If I tell women they can keep their earnings untaxed at the end of the day, will they still work a 60 hour week? What if I, as a traditionalist, ideally do not want them working at all? In the military everyone's fired and has to reapply with the old fitness test standard. In the judiciary that discerns employment tribunals, planning permissions and criminal prosecutions, I'm telling them "retire early" or else make a public display of their permissive human trafficking verdicts.

It's frankly the same "Afuera" as a Libertarian would do just framed in a traditionalist lens instead of a Libertarian lens. Libertarians aren't forced to think about culture with the views that they hold, it's just oh the libre money will sort it for them, so they don't flesh out these things that I'm fleshing out. Or they will get bogged down in means of production academic discussion. I don't like that judges are effectively welfare queens either, but you're supposed to say to people how you will start to get from the status quo, to the private mutual trust sheriff that you want or whatever.

As for energy which I nearly overlooked, that's Critical Infrastructure. Every single power plant in the country is deep into the swindle. I'd be taking the utility companies, temporarily or otherwise, and make sure the lights stay on.

>british motor corp sucks
Covered this one above. Letting women claim sewing the upholstery is the same as lifting heavy equipment and then demanding equal pay was lols - you can keep sewing till you're 85 because it doesn't break your vertebrae.

>why not start rounding up some islamists already
I'm not the young mercenary I was either frankly. If I got a government majority I'd put paid national service up for the zoomers and do deals with other countries to swap our material and industrial anything we have left for some of their islamist hating young men also.

>get the catapults and the guillotines
Britons are on the whole a soft sort and very orderly. I can't see them beheading 100,000 people like in France. When the changes finally arrive I expect they'll probably not look identical to that.

The straight bananas and stuff was modern too I think. EU started as a way to protect agro and steel workers. Now they want them dead because food independence is insurance against the globalists.

>recommend three books
On economics and markets? I've nothing at all. It's funny when you ask me effectively where my views even come from, I think because I saw the 90's I've just seen decline since then and I just sit and watch what changed and conclude "it's time to go back" or revert those changes I saw. Three books on traditionalism would be hard too. It goes Emmanuel Swedenborg for the epiphany or divine grace that God and kindness in man or the developed fourth layer of the brain are synonyms to each other, followed by George Fox/the Quakers because of their autism for scriptual soundness (at the time, since co-opted), then use your own Christian stoicism and biblical authority.

Intellectual laziness has killed most of the religion but at the time they saw many ways to live in Greece or Rome or Egypt and wrote what was best and sound for man down, along with why if you go looking enough.

God's son didn't care about means of production or in having to work with Kingdoms or Emperors or anything, in fact he leant onto it for use as an allegory. So I've a similar view. I do want private property rights, but beyond that the means by which you produce something is just a technical detail or an indifference.
Replies: >>510
>>507
>recommend three books
>On economics and markets? I've nothing at all.
Then why are you arguing? Basically you're just an NPC repeating snippets of propaganda you've absorbed from state education, corporate media and other NPCs around you.
Replies: >>514 >>516
>>510
>state Ed.
I did not repeat any gay atheist communism
>corpo media
I did not repeat any gay jewish communism either
>other NPCs
Look if you push me for names I'll be recommending the channel Academic Agent, whose main rebuttal of Milei is that his Libertarian arguments are from the previous century and that the globalists have used and since surpassed them, in sheer economic efficiency terms, or in terms of creating the most lucrative funnel into their pockets and the largest inequity from the rest of what they deem to be gutter society. He says you are a defeated force, and part of what has caused the problem in the first place.

I *have* repeated some of that argument by inviting you to make clear the protections you'd put in place in order to maintain a state of Libertarianism. You pretty much just say "let the market do it" or "we'd still have laws bro".

That's cool and all, but I want specifics. About monopolous practices, or about critical infrastructure, or about taxation and voting. But if you want to listen to it yourself, it's called: "FIERCEST SPEECH EVER at Davos" and about 34 minutes. Do be warned that he's a self assured smug bastard.

My contempt for academics, again, stems from the fact that gay communism prevails there and my tradition stems from a bunch of simple middle-eastern shepherds who sniffed a burning bush, rather than from harvard or ayn rand or hoppe or whatever.

That said, I will take a look if you explicitly tell me to.
>>510
Exactly why I bowed out of here at >>460 .
Replies: >>517
>>516
I will say again in the nicest way possible: Your culture is built upon shepherds leading simple lives and who kept sheep.

Having no domestic grain harvest, exactly like how Canada and the EU wants to do those same things, is not a great idea.
Replies: >>518 >>546
>>517
>Having no domestic grain harvest, exactly like how Canada and the EU wants to do
[citation needed]
>is not a great idea.
If one can import grain cheaper than one can produce it then it would be foolish to produce it. 
In libertarianism the choise between production and importing is not made on state level. In libertarian country everyone would be free to produce and/or import grain if they have means to do it legally.
Replies: >>519
>>518
>choise
*choice
Replies: >>521
>>519
The farmers lit up a big pyre of shit outside the Brussels EU HQ buildings. Everyone not a part of mainstream media has begun to notice them.

You being at liberty to plant your own potatoes is fine and all, but just about every other nation state on Earth is providing their farmers with a subsidy. Libertarian doctrine on this is "if they want to be fools and make things that our nation doesn't produce and has to buy remarkably cheap for us to obtain, then may as well let 'em" but you then have no insurance against farmers going bust or against world shortages creating a blanket "refuse to sell" famine-scenario.

You also have to account for how much influence your political opponents have and how far they're willing to go. A run on the pound can be made to the point where 97 pence of it's worth is lost, the pound coin (or "dollar note" if foreen) in your pocket being resultantly worth 0.03p/¢ to buy things with instead.

I'm sorry but at that point I'll envy America's "government cheese" and the fact they've still a policy of redistributing wealth just to stash it all in a cave somewhere or give out some as part of a social safety net.

I would rather farmers paid into a mutual insurance trust and the wealth redistributive thefts stop, but then a bad year is a bad year and such a trust would need reserves to be able to pay potentially every single farmer/member of that trust to keep them sustained.

And at that point it would resemble a bank and you would be betting the farm in terms of the trust in the operators of that bank.
Replies: >>529 >>547
libertarian-government-force-comic-3329620471.png
[Hide] (162.6KB, 1000x500)
>>417
You don't even know how old the meme is, do you?  Are you too retarded to do a reverse image search and see how many, many times it's been used?

This is why no one takes you people seriously.  You and your ideology are fundamentally unserious.

>no egalitarian suffrage in libertarianism either

Until they outnumber you, decide they want your stuff, and organize to take it away from you, amirite guise?  ("Nolite de lege vocare nobis, qui gladios ferimus.")  I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

Leftists don't grasp human nature.  Their ideology requires a constituency who are not human in their psychology, for whom neither kin preference nor Dunbar's Number exists.  It requires bugmen who are content to be fungible, interchangeable, expendable units of economic production and consumption.  They're retarded.

Your ideology requires an isolated, resource-rich, high-trust society--which is to say, a monolithic ethnostate--with little or no internal population pressure. It can't work outside of one in which there are no consequences, either immediate or in the long term, for choosing to be the other kind of bugman-- an isolated, solitary consumer, who chooses to be a completely disconnected unit of economic production and consumption and calls this "freedom."  It also requires that no outsiders enter to loot and subvert.  But your ideology prevents you from understanding that when you create something good, other people will organize to take it from you, because it's always easier to steal than to build.  Further, your ideology prevents you from comprehending that you have to organize yourselves if you want to prevent that and keep what's yours.  Human beings who do not view the world as you do are an Outside Context Problem for you and your ideology.  Your grasp of human nature is little, if at all, better than that of Marxists.  You're almost as retarded as they are.
Replies: >>524
>>523
I just want borders, cultural homogeneity and deportations, and forming a privateer militia to do the work is a little too messy, sporadic and slow for my sensitive palette.

Apart from that, arguing with libertarians will just be set dressing around the edges since we agree on a bunch of things already. It's more to steel man their argument into pragmatic blueprint. They keep claiming internationalist free markets will come and fix everything like a magic wand and you'll never need to touch a state lever or to lift a finger. I'm sorry but you need to spell out the practical means precisely because that claim is too exceptional or out there.
>>331
Name one state that thrived without taxation of any kind, you need taxes to sustain a government, and you need a government for a centralized institution of law enforcement and national defense to maintain the stability of the civilization. Safety is something libertarianism is famous for disregarding, but we do care about stability,, we arent anarchists. You can avoid taxes about as well as you could avoid your own deaths.
Replies: >>527 >>529 >>548
>>526
Alt right national capitalism, fascist libertarianism, its not about your worthless fucking values, its about putting together the policies that ahve historically been proven to work best together over the long term in order to create the best country that we can.
Replies: >>528
>>527
Im not here to pass some retarded test of ideological purity, im here to get shit done and get it done well. I have no values or principles that i am committed to, I am nothing but ruthlessly pragmatic. My criteria is purely in whats most practically useful. To find what works best, and to find the best way of getting it inplemented.
Replies: >>532
>>521
>inflation of currency
Solution to that is giving people freedom to use other currencies,  barter, trading gold, silver, other valuables, etc.

>>526
Ever heard of tax evasion?
Replies: >>531
>>529
Crypto is better than gold
>>528
>I have no values or principles that i am committed to
>I am nothing but ruthlessly pragmatic.
So which one is it? Are you not committed to any values or principles? Or are you committed to pragmatism as either a value or principle?
Similar points can be made about other statements of your post.
Replies: >>533
>>532
Right, pragmatism is impossible because it is a value to be without values, how autistic of you to miss the point of my message for the sake of your meticulous pedantry.

How about this? I could say that my value is practical utility, with a goal of doing what works best to create the best working society. 
As a pragmatist I reject all other values except practical utility and the goal that I am setting out to accomplish.
Replies: >>537
>>533
How are you going to judge what gives most utility when you
>reject all other values except practical utility
?
How are you going to discern 
>what works best
and what is
>the best working society. 
without other values and principles?
Or are you advocating for pragmatism for pragmatism's sake?
I guess that if you refined your position it would look like utilitarianism and there are many holes in that philosophy. You can read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#Criticisms_and_responses for a brief overview of some of them.
>>517
>I will say again in the nicest way possible: Your culture is built upon shepherds leading simple lives and who kept sheep.
You already admitted you have not read a single book on economics or politics. If you don't know where your ideas come from then it comes from propaganda. You hate us because you've been programmed to hate us. It's as simple as that.
Replies: >>566
>>521
>You being at liberty to plant your own potatoes is fine and all, but just about every other nation state on Earth is providing their farmers with a subsidy. 
Wrong. Government regulations are actively destroying private food production. That's what the farmers are rebelling over. The problem is not that we don't have enough socialism, what you are watching is socialism.

>Libertarian doctrine on this is...
You don't know shit about libertarian doctrine so shut the fuck up.
Replies: >>566
>>526
>Name one state that thrived without taxation of any kind
I don't want the state the thrive I want the people the thrive.
>>546
>>547
We had a leader in our country his name was "Gordon Brown", and what he did was he announced that he was going to sell off the country's remaining gold reserves in a week or two - then waited till the market had thoroughly hit the bottom to react to that pending glut and then pawned off the country's last reserves at the lowest possible rate.

That man had a degree. What was his specialist field of study do you suppose? It was economics. His degree was in economics.

You instinctively know already, not to worship the technocrats or the diplomas. What I'm trying to give to you is a universal law as to why. Varying fields have varying degrees of competences and vested interest after all. But the universal rule is that a shepherd boy whose life is simple and humbling will think more about reality and about his world, than a man who's too busy organizing and structuring the innumerable beans on his desk. "Matt Walsh" worded this in a secular way about common sense when he spoke to a congressional hearing on transgender treatment, but I have biblical reasoning on top of however well articulated his point was at that time.

If you want to know God you must live this way. At least some of the time. It does not come from studying a book. Any book, even the Bible. Just sit back and observe the universe and the truths that it reveals at your feet.

Unless of course, "propaganda" has told me to do this. And to hate you, which for me is not merely some sort of marked character flaw but a sinful behavior. Which it's pretty evident that I don't. You can tell from the way I argue.

I'm a little green alien just got here that hasn't been convinced of any particular way being the way things should be done. I'd just side with whatever way pragmatism seems to reside in the most, and that could be libertarianism or it could be some other thing.

This other anon made the semantic error of saying he "believes nothing" by which you know what he was implying "I believe nothing (until ~basic observable truths etc)" but which grammatically was unsound and you were able to trip him up over it... which is not in good faith because you're then arguing over your dictionary book and not over your concept.

>>547
I say again on the farming point, that there are 207 other countries while the ones in Canada and certain parts of the EU are the ones beginning to revolt. It's not all over lack of subsidy - some of it's over taxes or over access to diesel. But my point was that you would not have any farming within your economy if it had to compete with half the planet's output that *is* in receipt of subsidy. So you would be critically vulnerable. And of your excuses for not prepping as a nation at all, the best one you have is; "it would be immoral to forcibly take people's money as insurance that we have our own food supply".

You're right it's immoral, but it's the best system we have for now. What are (You) going to do? You haven't spelled out what alternative you have in mind, you've just said; "get the market to fix them".

When it's like this across the board you just give up on Libertarians and their  Libertarianism. At least Milei is a pragmatist even if he does too much ring kissing for Israel. The least he can do is spell out what he intends to do and why.
Replies: >>572
Take judicial reform as one field you would need to sort out before reacting to the rest.

In my country, employment tribinal magistrates are completely fucked. "What's that you did not put up enough gay pride posters in the workplace? Then pay $100,000."

Planning permission/home owner's association by-laws are completely fucked. "No you can't convert your loft - because the thinner insulation material is insufficient and would harm the polar bears."

Even criminal law has been completely and utterly fucked. "Criminals are the real victims here, of their own crimes."

Even under a statist system the problems needn't be this bad, but the problem is partially caused by the fact that judges are essentially employees of the state. They are in effect, >$300/hour welfare queens.

What would (You) do, Libertarians? As one not averse to handling state levers I would fire them all/encourage early retirement, then force them to vet for new judges that hold the values that I wanted; simple as.

What does a Libertarian judiciary look like? Are they just mercenaries for pay? Do you have systems in place to stop corruption? What, *down to the specifics* do you propose?
>>566
>That man had a degree. What was his specialist field of study do you suppose? It was economics. His degree was in economics.
My brother in christ this person was obviously not acting in the interests of his country he was acting in the interests of the people he sold the gold to (which he obviously got a kickback for). It doesn't matter who you vote for because 👏 politicians 👏 don't 👏 work 👏 for 👏 you 👏.

>no greentext
I'm not going to have an argument with your imagination. Either respond to something somebody has actually said or stop wasting everybody's time.
Replies: >>574
>>572
>It doesn't matter who you vote for because 👏 politicians 👏 don't 👏 work 👏 for 👏 you 👏.
Ask around on the street and literally any blue billed BBC watching NPC will agree that Tony Blair lied about weapons of mass destruction to start an illegal war in Iraq to enrich the oil and weapons companies. Everyone agrees. Everyone. So Tony Blair is obviously in prison right? No he is cruising around the Mediterranean in his private yacht. Democracy is a scam to keep you compliant. You the voter have zero influence over what your government does.
Replies: >>592
>>574
The interesting thing is back then any one of 650 MPs could have instigated a bank run in a speech to parliament that could have stopped all the dead/crippled Iraqis/soldiers AND pre-empted the worse crash that was to come and is more or less still happening since 2008... Whereas if you tried that now, they'd make sure the CBDC fix is in because the tools are there to try to attempt that.

The reason none of us want contempt for the plebes-demos even if it's broken, not just because that's what tyrants tend to do, is because under revolutions such as the French one 100,000 heads tend to roll and some of those will be thoroughly deserving while others will be your children or (You) so it is a case of weighing up the current turmoil with the potential one. It's coming at the rate we're going culturally mind.
Replies: >>594
no_step_on_snek.jpeg
[Hide] (92.2KB, 500x568)
>>592
>The reason none of us want contempt for the plebes-demos even if it's broken, not just because that's what tyrants tend to do, is because under revolutions such as the French one 100,000 heads tend to roll and some of those will be thoroughly deserving while others will be your children or (You) so it is a case of weighing up the current turmoil with the potential one.
Libertarians don't want "revolution" or whatever other scary words the corporate media has programmed into your NPC brain because you refuse to read a single book. Libertarians want political autonomy. You don't have to come with us you are free to stay under your current rulers.
Replies: >>599
>>594
Do you think it's a case of them just letting you? Ukraine is the result of the interference you're fighting. Not just the deaths but the right of foreign entities to buy Ukrainian land all of a sudden, a hallmark of libertarianism. Because "international markets will fix it". Whereas what you *really* want is the right to tell them you're only owning 49.9% by landholding bond if not to outright fuck off.

I do not care if Honda of Japan are ingeniously productive, environmentally compliant and politically benign. Who that land is next sold to still concerns me. It's British land and it will stay British land. Our vassalage to these companies, to the deeds on our land they've acquired and to the US dollar post-'71 has been our complete and utter ruin. Tell those not vested in you locally or vested in the people that they're to fuck off and when they bring the civil war *which they will* you make plans to mitigate it.

A "revolution" by one of the four boxes you have got one, whether you're prepared to call it that or not.

Secondly, as for not needing me to come along with you take the number plates off your car then Libertarian. Movements of people and ideas require (a) critical mass, a nebulous number that's hard to pin down but a substantive number nonetheless. Otherwise charity starts at home so you bin your tax letters by yourself m8.

Take all the booksmarts you've accrued and refute my NPC points won't you? This is what a robot would say after all. IDF paying me to tell Israel and Alphabet Inc. if they want our land they'll have to lease some proportion of it split with an Englishman...

Accomodate the "Critical Infrastructure" argument or sob and complain and take your ball home with you, but don't say that I didn't show you the way.
Replies: >>604 >>607 >>613
>>599
>more stupid bullshit you pulled out of your arse
Read a book. Read a paper. It's literally 15 pages. Your attention span is not that pathetic is it.
https://mises.org/library/book/what-must-be-done
Replies: >>605
>>604
Are you familiar with the four boxes? Or critical mass? Because I did not come up with those from my own arsehole and thus cannot take any subsequent credit for them.

As for your 15 page essay on how Kings should abdicate because we ask them nicely and then nu-tribalism will fix everything; I'm afraid it's rather ignorant of human development. How do you think the King got there? His protection became monopolous because his force (plus a bunch of other extraneous qualities) was superior. I would not overlook all that history tied up in our lives because "oh times are changed" or because it's convenient for my rhetoric. I'm not trying to do that, in fact I don't ignore the necessity of using state levers, at least initially.

More to the point if you're not for "small government" but rather "no government" instead, then you need to spell out how your parallel systems are going to function. I can see mention of insurance companies but I would much rather a mutual trust or association. Such things won't function properly (or at all) unless you know your neighbour. So you then need to spell out how you would deal with the problem of cities.

I want private property rights, and I like the idea of being constitutionally at liberty, but I'm neither here nor there on anything else that I've been told. I'm hoping in the last five pages of this document something will come up about judiciary reform because thus far I've gotten even less than previous attempts to get it out of a Libertarian's POV.

Explain what you would do, or at least do a little better.
Replies: >>610
>>599
>It's British land and it will stay British land.
The British Isles are comprised of 60 million acres of real estate. Who owns it all? The short answer is Queen Elizabeth II. The Queen, which we call ‘The Crown’, owns about one sixth of the planet’s surface, and is the largest legal land owner in the World.

Although we have come to think of the British Empire as being a ghost of its former self, in reality Elizabeth II owns only 22% less than Queen Victoria did during the height of the Empire. That’s about 2000 million acres, better known as India. The Queen continues to legally own all the lands of Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, 32 other members (around two-thirds) of the Commonwealth, and Antarctica. Feudalism is not dead. It’s just hiding.

In Britain the Land Act of 1925 allegedly gave British subjects the right to two kinds of ownership. Freehold and Leasehold. Let’s have a careful look at these. Freehold is described in the Land Registry Act of 2002 as ‘an interest in an estate in land, fee simple’. Leasehold is similarly ‘an interest in an estate in land, in fee simple, for a term of years’. Fee simple is the important phrase here. It’s a medieval phrase which puts limitations on ownership in the form of taxation, police power, Eminent Domain and Escheat.

Eminent Domain (also known as Compulsory Purchase) gives the Crown, or its Government agents, the power to purchase land from the freeholder in the event of necessity. The freeholder has no power to refuse this purchase. Escheat occurs if the freeholder dies without heirs. The property then automatically reverts to the feudal lord who is immediately superior, or in modern parlance – The Crown.

Freehold and Leasehold do seem in principle to be about long term ownership, but in reality are both a form of feudal tenure bestowed on us by the Crown. At any point the Crown can take back your land if it is deemed a necessity. During the Second World War the government, acting on behalf of the Crown, seized 11 million acres of British land. Compensation was minimal, and in some cases not paid at all. No one complained. It was wartime.

Within the freehold market land ownership has changed rapidly in the last 150 years. In 1872 an illuminating report (called The Return of Owners of Land) was compiled about land ownership in Britain and then for some strange reason it was rubbished by an Oxford scholar, buried and never referred to again. That was until a tireless Irish journalist called Kevin Cahill wrestled a copy from the back of a dusty library. The report informed him that the British Isles of 1872 was held by a mere 4.2% of its population. 94% of the population held nothing at all, not even a shed. Today 70% of the population have some amount of land, usually with a house on it. This is a huge shift, partly due to the beneficence (if you can call it that) of the Land Act. But this is not the whole story.

Of the 60 million acres of the British Isles, 70% of us owns less than 5%. This is around 3 million acres of mostly urban development. The idea that land is scarce in Britain is a myth. There’s loads of it. Just think about that the next time you stare out of a train window.

The largest freeholder in Britain is The Forestry Commission, owning around 2.5 million acres. Then comes the National Trust with 630,000. Close to them is the MOD with 592,000 acres of land acquired for military uses during wars and never given back (in the name of the Crown). Large pension funds and utility companies hoover up another million acres, and the RSPB has a surprising portfolio of 320,000 acres. The once powerful church has a mere 120,000 acres, though it’s now claiming mineral rights to half a million acres of land it used to own. The Crown’s declared lands add up to something like 677,000 acres when you include the Queen’s duchies and private estates. But all this land added together amounts to only 6 million acres, just 10% of Britain. So who sits on the rest?
https://www.highlandtitles.com/blog/this-land-aint-your-land-part-1/
Replies: >>608 >>609 >>687
>>607
Who owns the other 85% of British real estate? A group of families, about 189,000 of them, collectively own about 40 million acres. But the 8000 families with the largest land ownership are not obliged to produce any information about how much they own.

The largest share (we know about) is claimed by the Duke of Buccleuch (pronounced Ba’kloo), the freeholder of a quarter of a million acres. The original title and lands were given to the eldest of Charles ll’s illegitimate children in 1663. When the boy was fourteen he was brought to London, given a title and married off to a wealthy countess. Once married they were formally made Duke and Duchess of Buccleuch. Clearly Charles ll had a fondness for the boy, but another relative, James II, later had him beheaded. The descendants of this illegitimate boy have sat on the land ever since, and the current Duke runs The Buccleuch Group, a corporation of businesses based on the land’s resources.

The Duke of Westminster (133,000 acres) owes his massive fortune to a Norman ancestor, Hugh De Gras Veneur, who forcibly seized land during the Norman Conquest of 1066. Hardly seems fair that the descendant of this violent robber now owns Mayfair and Belgravia, 300 acres of the most valuable real estate in the world. But that’s the landed gentry business. Much of the modern gentry still own land stolen by William the Conqueror and his friends in the first recorded “land grab”, which forced the Anglo-Saxons to become second class citizens in their own country and formed the prototype of the two-tier society, a peculiarly British sickness.

Not all of the 8000 richest land owners are British (or even Norman) gentry. Alcan, a Canadian based Aluminium Company have managed to acquire 135,000 acres of the West Highlands. They recently sold a tiny crumb of it to (3.7 acres) to the Kinlochleven Community. 71,000 acres of the Glenavon and Braulen Estates are owned by a mysterious Malaysian Tycoon who spends most of his time in Kualar Lumpur and calls himself Mr Salleh when he visits Scotland. Most of it though is owned by some more familiar names: the Duke of Northumberland (131,000 acres), Prince Charles (141,000 acres), Earl of Seafield (101,000), Marquess of Bath (100,000 acres), Duke of Atholl (145,700 acres), Lord Rutland (only 60,000 acres? How on Earth does he manage?). And the list goes on.

These landowners benefit from combined assets of £3.3 trillion. As the economist Hernando de Soto Polar argues in his book The Mystery of Capital (2000), there is an absolute connection between land ownership and prosperity, and poverty always exists where no land is owned. Land provides plentiful resources in the form of tenancy, wood, fish and farming. In reasonably managed circumstances land and wealth automatically go together. Incredibly though, large land owners receive a payment from us the tax payer, in the form of an EU agricultural subsidy, for all farmland on their estates. This amounts to about £20,000 a year for every 220 acres.

During the ten years from 2000 – 2009 the top 50 recipients of the agricultural subsidy received a total of £168 million from the tax payer. These include the Duke of Buccleugh, the Earl of Moray, Lord Inchcape, the Duke of Roxburghe and the Earl of Rosebery. Frank A Smart and Son Ltd, a company that owns 39 farms in Speyside received the largest subsidy, a staggering £1.2 million. In 2008 they recorded a profit of £3.1 million. The subsidy is paid whether the land is farmed or not. In 2009 this same company sold 24 plots of agricultural land with planning consent to developers, making a further profit of £2.9 million.

The UK government doesn’t audit this subsidy and according to the journalist Jack Thurston “refused to supply” current figures on his request. But according to Thurston the Duke of Westminster – he of the most valuable real-estate in the world – receives a farm subsidy from the EU. Do you think he needs it? Does the Buccleuch Group, with recorded profits in 2012 of £1.4 million, need a subsidy? When we talk of benefit cheats we don’t automatically think of Dukes and Earls, but maybe it’s time we did.

The land registry, supposedly a record of all land ownership in Britain, is only a partial report. At the moment you are required to register any land which is sold as freehold or leasehold. Vast acreages of Britain have not been sold in centuries but remain firmly under hereditary control, so there is no obligation to say how much you have, or even to really know. As a result about 40% of land held in Britain is not even recorded in the Land Registry, which begs the question, who is the registry for? It must be remembered that the largest freeholders have long been the law makers who had strong links with parliament and until very recently sat in the House of Lords.

When Kevin Cahill wrote the first comprehensive study of land ownership in Britain for many years he found the task irksome, with information withheld at every turn and secrecy endemic. He said his book was “… a call to analyse the economic consequences of what the landed aristocracy did to another portion of the population and to ensure that those economic effects – a rigged and overpriced land market, a farming sector maintained almost wholly by public subsidy, diverted ultimately into the pockets of large landowners, and a defective Land Registry to conceal ownership of the UK – do not persist any longer.” (Kevin Cahill, Who Owns Britain and Ireland, 2001).

That call was made 12 years ago, but as yet shows no sign of being answered.
https://www.highlandtitles.com/blog/this-land-aint-your-land-part-2/
Replies: >>609
>>607
>>608
I think anon loves me. Copypaste that's high quality and relevant and follows the thread, potentially, completely T-bones my argument over here. But you love to see it though.

I think the wealth redistributive stuff muddies the water a bit but defintiely the bit at the start talking about legal land rights is on the list of "things that controlled opposition wouldn't say".

For any of the other anons that don't know, "land fiddling" is the second biggest swindle in the country after quantitative money-printing/banking. Men in sheds built this country and after that most of the modern conveniences in our lives that have liberated us from spending a massive chunk of our time working some viking-era plough with a wooden blade on the end just to make sure there's bread on the table. 

Those men in sheds need land, secure property rights on which they can build and work. An attack on them and their rights leads at best to a managed decline across industry. Modern products and inventions change nothing and look like complete shit. This is why.

What "globalism" does is assume their sons and daughters will take the place of their inferiors as the inventive genius class instead of being a bunch of Hunter Biden tier low-lives whose reign will be over a mud hut because anything better they burned down completely in order to get there.

So, anon I think loves me in the best possible sense; "I want what's best for you".
Replies: >>612
>>605
>As for your 15 page essay on how Kings should abdicate because we ask them nicely and then nu-tribalism will fix everything; I'm afraid it's rather ignorant of human development.
Just admit you didn't read it because you are scared of new information.
Replies: >>614
>>609
Your mask fell off about 50 posts ago. You pretend to be reasonable and open minded but you haven't listened to a single thing anybody has said in this thread. You just keep asking the same questions over and over and reverting to the same talking points.
Replies: >>614
>>599
>on how Kings should abdicate because we ask them nicely and then nu-tribalism will fix everything
Failed reading comprehension. It is about dismantling democracy not monarchies.

>if you're not for "small government" but rather "no government" instead, then you need to spell out how your parallel systems are going to function. 
It's a 15 page distillation of a 300 page book. Things like insurance companies are just a suggestion, this is not about designing a perfect society it's about giving people freedom to figure out what works for them.

>Such things won't function properly (or at all) unless you know your neighbour.
Based on nothing except your strongly held beliefs. You're missing the point. If you don't like how a free private village or city is operating then don't go there. This doesn't affect you in any way. The only people who are threatened by liberty and libertarianism are tyrants who want to rule over everybody.

>I'm hoping in the last five pages of this document something will come up about judiciary reform
Like all government institutions it is expensive, inefficient and corrupt because it is a monopoly. You fix it by privatizing it and exposing it to market forces where cheap, efficient and honest service providers will win out.
<but what about judges and justice? Recall that the root of all evil is compulsory monopolization of justice, that is one person says this is right. Accordingly judges must be freely financed, and free entry into judgeship positions must be assured. Judges are not elected by vote, but chosen by the effective demand of justice seekers. Also don’t forget that on the small local level under consideration, one is talking actually about a demand for one or very few judges only.
Replies: >>615
>>610
I really hope that Hoppe is a genius who redeems himself by calling things that're going to happen in the same vein that Alex Jones does, because his essays seem about as unhinged and more denying of reality to the point where he looks like controlled opposition in order to discredit your position.

If I ever get serious about studying the subject I'll read Mises instead. My mind is fairly made up on it by looking at what is in there. Maybe his longer books are better.

Anyway these "scary new" ideas aren't unique or new, go study for yourself a little "Peter Hitchens" and his contempt for "demos" or see for yourself any Republican view of the monarchy. They might be scary actually, I don't know. But they're not novel.

>>612
Ah you caught me again. The hose I pee from is small and I just want the statists to make it big for me you see. That's why I want a health service that kills people or an education service that makes people dumber or a land service that grows more farm vermin instead of food. This all makes sense to me... What kind of mask do you think I've got for you? One that's resistant to change? Because that's what a traditionalist is I'm afraid.

The first anon to come here and actually make me work I've given their due praise because he's got a thorough refutation of agriculture subsidy and of the state's right to seize land. I'll have to get into the when and why or what extent if I want to defend it.

That example is an example of how it's done.
Replies: >>618
>>613
>neighbour familiarity being a choice
If I don't know you, and your house, and your children, and your wife and your job and even your car then I'm not signing into a mutual defense trust with you, since you'd be taking my money and not repaying any if I'm robbed/arsoned, nor do I want to cover your liability of a house that for all I know gets robbed/burned down to claim the money sent in that trust.

You must know your neighbour or pay extensive premiums to not really know them. I suspect city living would become financial black holes for this sort of thing. Maybe that's for the best. The British don't *do* cities very well. Abandoning them might not be so bad.

Also there is the problem of the extent of mental illness within this country. Every family has a member or knows someone liable for erratic or costly behaviour. You're effectively paying an insurance premium on their behalf whenever you pay taxes to the government, bur you don't want it to get personally worse for you in the switch to Libertarianism.

>on judicial reform
With "Critical Services"™ or "Critical Infrastructure"® the whole point behind some of those is to be money agnostic. What I mean by that is, the statue of lady justice wears a blindfold. That is the principle of being blind, including towards things like the wealth of the accused.

While I would be happy for a health service to operate under the strict goal of financial targets, number of successful appendectomies performed for example, I explicitly don't want a defensive force paid by the number of criminals they thwart committing offenses against some insured village or shire, since I'm liable to be on the receiving end of them making a little extra commission. This is why I think you need religion within the police force, or a shared moral goal or set of beliefs to work towards that isn't "leftism".
Replies: >>616 >>618
>>615
*because I don't see the means by which financial objectives will act as a fit or moral way to incentivise them, so I want their profession to be motivated by their ties to the land and people I suppose, and I don't know a way to monetize that ethically. 

"Number of live saving Godly acts you perform"? I've no idea. It's hard to make tangible or measurable to be able to pay those competences.
Replies: >>618
>>614
>If I ever get serious about studying the subject I'll...
Be real, you can't even be bothered to study your own side's literature.

>>615
>neighbour familiarity being a choice
Remember when I asked you how close do you live to your own elderly family members and what are you doing to protect them from the barbarian invaders flooding into your country and you completely ignored the question. Making a list of all the things you want is just a larp if you are not willing to pay the cost. That's the disease of statism everyone is trying to get what they want while forcing somebody else to pay for it.

>explicitly don't want a defensive force paid by the number of criminals they thwart committing offenses against some insured village or shire
That's not how insurance works. They only profit when it is peaceful. Just like how car insurance companies only profit when people are not crashing into each other. That's why you get a discount for driving a safer car and taking advanced driving lessons. And in the same vein defense companies will make the highest profits if they invest in preventing crime in the first place rather than just reacting to it.

>>616
>I don't see the means by which financial objectives will act as a fit or moral way to incentivise them
As long as trade is voluntary then financial objectives do actually line up with the general well being of your customers. Because they don't have to give up their money, they only give their money when they are happy with the service. The problem with state run institutions is that the citizens are not the customers they are victims. You are forced to pay your taxes regardless of how long the NHS makes you wait in the emergency room or how badly the nurse practitioner fucks up your treatment because all the real doctors are "busy". If people could get a 20% tax discount and no longer be covered by the NHS anyone with a brain would take that deal and use the money on BUPA instead.
Replies: >>620
>>618
>I demand scholarly study even if it's your own ideology
If I ever study the Bible, it'll simply be the tool or the shovel with which to dig out of the hole I've found myself in while I'm sat at home. My primary tool will still be the real, physical shovel.

I'm going to need lots and lots of capable men and capable shovels in fact. Capable books? Not really so much. Even if the book is the best book in the world.

I think you do need media for rhetoric, but you pick up rhetoric and bits of media just by paying attention. "Pay attention" is the only demand I'll really make of you. I did tell you to suffer through 34 minutes of Academic Agent, if only to learn how to combat other rhetoric you'll find like it against your point of view.

>my own elders and protecting them from the barbarian hordes
The way you ask vastly oversimplifies it. If you ask in one way; they're 80, they're due to die before Ahmed will get to them. If you ask in another way; they bear the compulsion to die at the hands of the national health system and in bloody minded ignorance of the way they were supposed to live and die - principally Biblically. They will support things like state euthanasia, before their boomerism becomes an unwelcome lingering ghost carried by their mostly woke progeny. If you ask in yet another way; there are ten million or so "certain demographic" known for doing terroristy things in the country and to get them out in a four year term would require a target of 10,000 per every 24 hours... Do you have any idea what it's like to ask one man to fix this? What is it you want me to do? Form ad-hoc local militias? I want paid national service, unforgiving and grueling for the zoomer generation. I don't know what else really to tell you.

>pre-empting crime under a protection insurance system
Most products and industries if they have "regimentalism" and "cohesiveness" (the opposite of ESG) they will be slick and work properly, and their connection to "divine respect for human life" will be inconsequential since their product or service will provide for that anyway. But in military, private security, any hard man industry they have a unique industry. I will explain thus; in Quakerism there is the term "accept no compulsion" but in security there is necessarily this.

So instead of just wanting the service to be consistent, and regimented and cohesive I also want it to have a divine understanding of life and of what it is and of what it means because otherwise the very same "pre-empting crime" is overzealous and possibly even extorting.

How do you go about measuring that as the customer transactionally speaking, if you want a comprehensive luxurious service or you want a basic economy "good enough generally" service because you're tight fisted or do it yourself or can't afford it or what not?

You need performance metrics for something akin to virtue and Godliness, and I've never tried to measure those with objective, tangible yard sticks before.

>state-driven compulsions, NHS resources etc
Private security need not worry about maintaining an air (whether imaginary or otherwise) of "consent of the governed". You may as well just pay your local protection the government rent money you owe them at that point.

As for the NHS argument, the main argument that typically follows is that decentralisation leads to fewer resources, kind of like the church priory health system that it threw by the wayside that was preceeding it. I expect the local church field medic could do a number of things for me, but probably not fit a new hip replacement. The irony of that argument is that the NHS has now outsourced more of those to private medics than it actually performs in-house. The NHS has essentially become a training apprenticeship service where you learn the basic trade on some unsuspecting and uninformed consenting public and then go and specialise something for a private clinic.

Not much of a rebuttal but it's really all I've got to say for the NHS now.
Replies: >>621 >>625
>>620
uninformed-consent* (i.e. non-consent)
The solution is violent revolution, taking power by force. The NAP doesn't come into effect until the libertarian state is established. 
The "democratic" system is so corrupt that it is impossible for us to win even with a majority of supporters in tne population. 
The first step is to blind the cities - destroy the caneras and microphones anc other means of surveillance.
Second is to subtly sabotage the  infrastructure that the enforcers of the state's will rely upon to bring in backup to overwhelm an attack by rebels, also whatever setves to frustrated or prevent the rebellion from calling in their own reinforcements.
Third is the attacks on the enforcers of the state, the security guards, the police, the military, and whatever other guys with weapons and legal authorization for use of force exist to substantiate ths power of the government.
The laws die out when theres nobody left to provide the incentive to follow them. Then you immediately step in to fill the vacuum of lawlessness with your own regime. New management.
Replies: >>623 >>625 >>671
>>622
If you have political shock troopers upheaving parliament and running through buildings that bind political significance to them, who then cares about targeting the ULEZ system in London?

You tend to ratchet through the gears of ungovernable disobedience and violent revolution, rather than having them take place all at once/at the same time.

The point about "critical mass" is this; not one of you can yet arrange 10 likeminded of your own in the same room. That isn't to insult you. I can't do it either theologically. Imagine the uphill boulder I've got to be pushing to get there. I'm not a sociable person. I'm not evangelical. I'm not equipped to take on the state's particular hatred towards Christianity.

It's not like this because I say it is - go and look for yourself. It's hard to get people from paying for custom number plates to taking them off of their cars. It's just what you have to get good at and what you have to do.

That or they need to be starved of their bread enough that they'll grab the first stick that seems sturdy enough to pull their way out of the mud. Possibly both, possibly they are already getting there.
>>620
>If I ever study the Bible, it'll simply be the tool or the shovel with which to dig out of the hole I've found myself in while I'm sat at home. My primary tool will still be the real, physical shovel.
I guess I'll say it one last time. If you don't understand what you believe and why you believe it then you are just opening yourself up to be programmed and exploited by somebody else's ideology without you even realizing it. You think that being anti-immigrant and anti-gay makes you at odds with the status quo but in the end you still believe in giving up your money and autonomy to the same people pushing all this crap on you.

>they're 80, they're due to die before Ahmed will get to them
>they bear the compulsion to die at the hands of the national health system and in bloody minded ignorance of the way they were supposed to live and die
>Do you have any idea what it's like to ask one man to fix this? What is it you want me to do?
The point is you babble on about returning to traditional values and close-knit neighborhood ties and other such things and yet you don't even lift a finger to help your own family.

>I want paid national service
Yes, I know, you want somebody else to do all the work for you. If zoomer was a mindset instead of an age then you would fit in perfectly as it happens.

>How do you go about measuring that as the customer transactionally speaking
Hw do you pick the best mortgage or car insurance deal? Are you really this terrified of taking on any level of personal responsibility? We are at war and the government is not on our side. After everything you've seen in your lifetime, iraq, afghanistan, syria, libya, yemen, ukraine, covid, that Gordon bloke stealing all your gold, banker bailouts, mass immigration, why do you still look to the government to wipe your arse for you as if they give a single shit about your wellbeing.

>Private security need not worry about maintaining an air (whether imaginary or otherwise) of "consent of the governed". You may as well just pay your local protection the government rent money you owe them at that point.
If private security does a shit job you stop paying them. You can't not pay your taxes. That's the point you are missing: competition and the option to withhold payment.

> The irony of that argument is that the NHS has now outsourced more of those to private medics than it actually performs in-house.
You are still not the customer though. Those doctors don't answer to you they answer to the NHS. And the NHS doesn't care about you.

Look at it this way:
You go to Adam's barbers, he gives you a haircut, if you're happy with it you pay. The more heads Adam cuts the more money he makes. But only so long as he maintains a minimum level of quality. Now with the NHS it's different. You pay your taxes, a portion of the money goes to the NHS. Now every patient the NHS sees is a drain on their budget. It's not more patients = more money it's more patients = less money. So the incentive structure is completely reversed, they want to spend as little money as possible to get you to fuck off out of their hospital and hopefully never come back. And quality is irrelevant because you can't not pay your taxes. If somebody gets paid regardless of how well they perform why should they make an effort at all.

>inb4 muh inherent goodness of man
This is literally what communists believe. If you just engineer people to be "good" then they won't mind working for free. That's not how reality functions.

>>622
>The solution is violent revolution, taking power by force. The NAP doesn't come into effect until the libertarian state is established. 
Thanks Fed.
Replies: >>627
>>625
>understanding what you believe and why you believe it
People care about culture more than money, more than rows about any novel structure or about any particular means of production.

As far as I'm concerned, so long as you preserve and improve the culture or you make a culture argument instead of one about academic politick, then I don't care what political theory you then try and execute. Let's try socialism and fucking long queues for bread. But keep survival of "we" as a culture.

>not helping family not very trad is it
Just assume if you will that my experience with the health service is first-hand and involves supporting most of my family as they die in that environment. What do you want me to do with conflating it about fighting Akhmed harder? What undertaking do you have in mind for me?

You need religion. Not necessarily *my* religion, but you need aim or pursuit toward shared (not isolationist) moral goals. Which is something you will never admit because "money will fix it" but when it's cheaper to kill a patient then they will kill a patient. Atheists, Satanists, God's Chosen People™, Hann Chinese... any and all except that if you at least had Buddism going for you you'd be fine.

>you want somebody else to do all the work for you
Not only do I want to pay the professional, using yours and everybody else's money, but I want to train the professional and tell him exactly how I want it done as well. Just like a boomer in fact. Except that I want to deport the invaders instead of inviting them all in, and then the condition is do whatever the fuck you want have a libertarian utopia I don't care just get them out.

>forced compulsion on human lives are just like mortgages and insurance
When you're paying a group for how effectively they use the truncheon, don't be surprised when they resemble a protection racket and they resemble government. Libertarians don't think outside of money or think that I'm motivated by money. I don't care about your doge coin tokens I just envy a trad life

>NHS performance again
Bad news given with a smirk, this patient's a quiet economically shrewd one since he died... Honestly, you could motivate these people entirely with money if you had to. Even under a "safety net" style govenment provision sort. You'd just have sliding scales for difficulty of operation that line up with other sliding scales for successful results. I wish they'd believe in something that afforded inherent human dignity though.

>inherent goodness of man communism
What were we arguing over the goodness of man in relation to again? Were you dismissing the idea that you need something other than money? Because it's true, you know.
jews.. many of us realized a libertarian society is literally semite paradise to exploit the goyim. Address the JQ and I will reconsider libertarianism.
Replies: >>659 >>665
>>658
a libertarian society will literally destroy the banking system and the credit expansion that they use to make economies fall.
>>658
>jews.. many of us realized a libertarian society is literally semite paradise to exploit the goyim. Address the JQ and I will reconsider libertarianism.
We offer you freedom from tax slavery and the fiat banking system and absolute right to defend your property from anybody with deadly force. If you still get scammed by high interest loans and diamonds and whatever the fuck you think jews do then it's just natural selection at that point.
ab665f41fe078129a1b14c71618321d76b5be14c74dbd41d117b8bc9c0fa31c8.jpg
[Hide] (43.4KB, 609x596)
>>127 (OP) 
In short we Americans collectively are fucking retarded and to an extent deserve our suffering based on how people vote, 'Oi, surely Red side of the coin/ Blue side of the coin will change things for the better this time eyy?'.

Also decades of corn syrup and hydrogenated seed oils contribute to this retardation and since school cafeterias are more or less unofficially nationalized/corporatitized/hyper regulated by Monsanto/Bayer, Kraft Heinz, and Coke to name a few - as in it's actually illegal to NOT poison kids with mind numbing slop means the trend will continue until all parents and legal guardians pull their kids out of federal schools.
Yes if a school chief decides to pick from their backyard garden and buy quality beef from their local butcher shop and bring that to feed children at school they will be punished and I know it's a corny saying but the phrase 'You are what you eat' is very true.

>>144
r/TheDonald folks on 4Chins being brain dead and easily amused fools is nothing new, yeah sure Orange Man occasionally says something that makes me chuckle to but I know in the end his masters aren't the American people or the Constitutions, oh no - it's AIpac, the Saudi royal family, and the Murdoch's. Just keep reminding them that their President of peace PBUM who shook hands with Kim in Singapore is the same guy blatantly proposing starting a world war against Iran if he gets elected. Ehh I don't know if they even can be saved at this point with how enticing the prospect of 'owning the libs' is to them even if that means their sons and daughters will come back from the Persian mountains in coffins.
Replies: >>671
For the US I think it's mostly the LP becoming milquetoast as shit and indulging mostly in non-issues. There is a reason why people vote for Republicans or Democrats and it's because these while you may not like how they handle it speak to issues most people tend care about.
No one cares about weed, or trannies. Literal non-issues.
>>622
>The solution to state intervention against our own interests
>Is intervening into people's lives for our own interests
Glow or underage, take both
>>667
>Buzzword buzzword buzzword buzzword
Non-issues, Americans have it too good thanks to liberty and now they're generating issues out of thin air.
>>607
>The short answer is Queen Elizabeth II.
in 2024, anon? She's been dead for ages now
[New Reply]
112 replies | 18 files | 64 UIDs
Connecting...
Show Post Actions

Actions:

Captcha:

Select the solid/filled icons
- news - rules - faq -
jschan 1.4.1