New Reply
Files Max 5 files32MB total
[New Reply]

[Hide] (46.9KB, 499x499)
Most 'ex-libertarians' weren't truly libertarian to begin with. The ones that went fascist were impulsive control freaks who want to mold society in their perfect image regardless of what anyone else wants. If you're about that, you're not a Libertarian. You're just a LARPing fagola.
Replies: >>335 >>399 >>651
[Hide] (28.8KB, 600x400)
>>334 (OP) 
>ex-libertarians gone fascist
I don't know many of those is this just a Pete Q. thread? I don't know the full story but from what I gather he had a toxic girlfriend who was constantly shooting off her mouth and because he is such a "loyal" guy he took her side on everything even against people who were his long term friends and supporters.

And after destroying all his personal and professional relationships she dumped him anyway. But instead of apologizing and admitting he made a mistake he decided libertarianism was dumb and got infected with christian brainwroms and now thinks he is in a "spiritual war" against The Jews.

The sad thing is he still doesn't get it. He claims the reason he gets so much hate is because he dared to question the libertarian orthodoxy and left the "cult". He did no such thing, one day he just hopped on twitter and his podcast and started launching vicious personal attacks against people who had been his friends and supporters for years and years up until 5 seconds ago. It had nothing to do with ideology it was all personal.

And then he was shocked pikachu face when his donations collapsed. It turns out people don't want to support a coward who will stab them in the back as soon as he finds new pussy or an edgier ideology to switch to.
Didn't Stef go the bald neonazi route?  Also, just in general, I think the reason this comment gets brought up a lot is because at the same time you saw traffic in libertarian forums decrease, you saw them increase in fascist/neonazi/white supremacy forums.

It's funny because libertarians get thrown in with them as the 'alt right,' and this homogenization of the alt right means that the control left can't stop actual extremism.
Replies: >>337
[Hide] (36.2KB, 474x315)
>Didn't Stef go the bald neonazi route?
Molyneux? I don't like him I think he is a narcissist who routinely sacrifices truth for the sake of his own ego but you're being unfair here.

He is bald because he had cancer and cries about it constantly, it's definitely not a political statement. And he has never renounced libertarianism, free markets, anarcho-capitalism or the NAP. As far as I know he's still on good terms with Dave Smith who is a new parent and loves Molyneux's "peaceful parenting" stuff (apply the NAP to your own children first).

He says some stuff about race and iq and open borders and he doesn't hate the idea of having more white (high iq) babies in the world. That's all it takes to be labeled a nazi by the establishment in current year.

Like I said I don't like him on a personal level and I've rage quit his radio show 20 times because of the way he gaslights and shits on people who callin to his show whenever he needs an ego boost. He's not a nationalist or socialist though.
>>334 (OP) 
Authtards/fascists post here on occasion to try and subvert the board into regulating everything (which is how we got to where we were in the first place) by trying to appeal to people here's more socially right-wing impulses like banning homosexuality, even though doing so not a net benefit to society in anyway and goes against libertarian philosophy. You don't have to be for globohomo or homosexuality at all but criminalizing what people do consensually in their personal lives is Not Libertarian.

Refute and move on.
Replies: >>478
The line between libertarianism and fascism is slim indeed.

Imagine the scenario of anarchi capitalism or nws minarchism. In both cases the laws are derived from the principle of non-aggression. 

From there to transition to fascism lay in the simple question of "who/what does the nap apply to?", the anawer is obviously not "everyone/everything" because we must suspend it extending to criminals in order to enforce those laws, and we'd be foolish to extend it to all forms of life, say, to a tree or microscopic organism. 

We must draw the lines on who qualifies for the protections of the law (along with the accountability to the laws that comes with it's protection) and who does not.

So the lines must be drawn, and if we were smart we'd draw them with the intention of producing the ideal results for ourselves. That would be making it so that the nap applies exclusively to white men, restricting the non-living, non-humans, non-whites, non-males, and non-adults from having the inherent right to the protections of the law, and having the inherent responsibility of being accountable to it.

As they are dejure outlaws, cadavers/robots, animals/plants, coloreds/ethnic minorities (like jews), women/girls, and prepubescent boys all become the property of white men, defacto making them into their chattel slaves.

For white boys this legal state is temporary, and they gain the full rights of a white man upon reaching sexual maturity at the average age of 12 or 13. Yes, human rights come to them when their bodies developed the potential capability of biological fatherhood. (If there be any eubuchs, they receive their full rights upon their 12th birthdays as that is the average age of biological adulthood for white males).

For everyone/everything else, slavery is their only option, by choice or not, since they are legally objects in the eyes of the law they may be claimed as property by those who possess rights (white men), this has the benefit in that as his property, they gain legal protections under the nap by virtue of his rights of ownership, no other white man may do anything to or with them without the consent of the white man who owns them, meaning many may even seek out white men to claim ownership of them and to become their masters.

But on the other hand, they lack all legal protections from their owners and anything that their owners do consent to happen to them. 
They may also be traded as commodities, where the ownership of them is transferred from one white man to another.
I expect that this is the form that marriage would take, where ownership of a girl or woman is transferred from her father (or whoever else the firet white man to possess her was) to her husband (the whire man who would take ownership of her from that point on). 
There may even be a price paid by the groom for purchasing the bride from her father, or in the reverse, a dowry paid to the husband by the father as a way of convincing him to accept the bride as his property and responsibility.

Which brings us to the downsides of owning a slave, in that since they do not have accountability to the law for their actions, their master must assume responsibility in their place. 
This can be used as a way of incentivizing masters to not offend their slaves too terribly, or as an incentive to them to maintain strict control over the behaviors of their slaves. Though of the two options, the former is much less of a sacrifice on the master's part.

Slavery works where equality doesnt, we had a much more stable and prosperous society when only one select demographic had rights. The more unequal the society was, the better off it was, and granting equality to other groups beyond that demographic was where things had begun to turn towards the worst for most of these civilizations.

Just as freedom and limited government have proven themselves as long term winners for stable and successful societies, so too has the supremacy of only a small club of people that make up the national stock of the civilization.

Here, we have the foundations of national capitalism, or libertarian fascism, whatever you call it,  it is the product of early 4chan and the patented ideology of the alt-right, combining freedom authoritarianism in just the right places for an imperium that towers above all other countries that were established in the past. 

Note that these previous civilizations were all not established in a kind nor peaceful manner.
Violence (most often mainifesting in the threat thereof) is the foundation of all human organization and all human interactions throughout history.

It is violence what gives substance to the abstract concepts of laws and rights, which do not exist as most perceive them (neoplatonic forms which have a real and objective existence to them in some way).
Rights are simply a set of boundaries to the conduct of others towards yourself that would give you just cause for violence towards them if they were to be violated by them.

Understanding the everpresent role of violence in the world is necessary to having the capacity to make political changes effectively, rather than wasting your efforts on how you think things should be, rather than how they are.

You would then comprehend the harsh reality that those with the greater capacity for violence can do as they please,  and this explains why so many rules are broken right before your eyes by the rich and powerful with zero real consequences faced by them for their crimes.

So yeah, inequality is awesome is slavery is the best form it can take, short of simply annihilating the other, which for women, children, and animals, may not be an option (but for other races and ethnicities it most certainly is on the table of "things we can do"). Theres no greater inequality than that between the living and the dead.

I want what's best for myself and those like me, which are straight white men. I'd ban sexual relations between white males if it involves any white males who are under the age of 25 as a "grey law" thats technically on the books, but never actually enforced (like jaywalking).
It would only be present in the cultural zeitgeist as being taboo or seen as inappropriate. This iant a ban on the practice, more of a discouragement, and thered be no issue with other forms of male-male sexual conduct.

Also I'd want the governemnt to havr a branch that runs banking at all levels in their countries, they should be printing their own national currency at the very least, but I'd further want the state banks to have prohibitions on issuing currency backed solely by fiat, lending on a fractional reserve basis, and charging interest on loans.
Bring back the gold standard, and with it the honest banking practices that do not create an ever growing cancer of unresolvable debt that kills the economy.
This is one duty that I beleive the state could be entrusted to do better with than private individuals would.

A last pro-fascist point is that we should have overseers instead of lawmakers, we already know the perfect government and perfect set of laws, so giving political leaders the power to change those can only serve tk fuck things up.
Our leaders can enforce the laws as they are written without the legislative power to make any changes to them.
They can also comand the ranks among law enforcement and national defense, or set the rates of taxation as are needed to fund the aformentioned duties of the state.

Taxes should be collected as a percentage of all transactions that use the national currency as a tax on sales and services, and optionally add an additional percentage charge for those transactions that occur across national borders as a tariff.

We could also collect a percentage of the price paid for land holdings by the landowners who presently posses them at regular intervals of time since the first purchases of land were made by the landholders being taxed. 

The national state banks would also collect a fraction of the deposits entrusted to them as their banking fees. 

On top of all this, we could also charge a flat lump sum toll on those who cross the borders of the nation.

I beleive all these to be fair, they are able to be justified and they are always able to be paid by those they are being levied against.

Btw, i want there to be no such thing as "public land", i want only "privately owned land" and "unclaimed land", land where governemt buldings/structures stand for use in governemnt functionings should be the only ones owned by the state. The government should bear no claim to the used lands within their borders against their own citizenry.

I fully support the rugged pioneering spirit of the homesteaders and squatters. The best solution to the homeless problem is having them be able to go innawoods and build a home for themselves using the resources of the land that they find there. Then they could go directly from homeless to homeowners by virtue of their own efforts, and out of that we can see the founding of new towns and neighborhoods, that could all generate more capital for the national economy.

I prefer to provide people the means to aid themselves rather than to provide aid to them.
Replies: >>479 >>482
[Hide] (120.3KB, 640x640)
>From there to transition to fascism lay in the simple question of "who/what does the nap apply to?", the anawer is obviously not "everyone/everything" because we must suspend it extending to criminals in order to enforce those law
False. We do not "suspend" the NAP for criminals.

The Non-Aggression Principle means do not initiate force. If force has been initiated against you then you may use a proportional amount of force in self defense. Self defense is part of the NAP it is not an exception.

I don't have time to read the rest of your post especially since you already got such a basic libertarian principle completely wrong.
Replies: >>493
>Faschizo's opinion
So someone steals from me while my back is turned, what happens then?

Am i to be the one in charge of defending my rights, and then only in the momment?

What lf someone had wronged me in the last week, can i never get justice?

Do you just endorse a world of "might nakes right" when the offender is stronger or otherwise advantaged over me in terms of application of force?

I am obviously talking about our punitive/rehabilitative system that deals with criminals. 

Like any laws, We must enforce the NAP otherwise it doesnt matter, and like any laws, their endorsement requires the violation of them agsinst those who violated them.

Explain to me how the NAP is to be enforced, in detail. Maybe im getting your positions wrong here.
Replies: >>495
>i don't know anything about anarchy therefor it can never work
Ignorance and lack of imagination are not an argument. Go and read Chaos Theory or Ethics of Liberty or something.

>So someone steals from me while my back is turned, what happens then?
You figure out who did it and get your property back. Using force if necessary. You can also pay somebody to help you. If you were smart you would get insurance first and then the insurance company will pay you what the stolen item was worth and it is now their problem to find the thief and get their money back.

>What lf someone had wronged me in the last week, can i never get justice?
Your property is your property. It doesn't matter when it was stolen. Things get complicated if the stolen property changes hands and then a person who thinks they are the new owner makes changes. But like I said there are entire books written about private law, it's not like nobody has ever thought about this shit.

>Do you just endorse a world of "might nakes right" when the offender is stronger or otherwise advantaged over me in terms of application of force?

>I am obviously talking about our punitive/rehabilitative system that deals with criminals.
That's not your business. You have to the right to use reasonable force to protect your property and extract compensation from somebody who has damaged your property. What happens to the criminal after you got your shit back is not your problem.

>Like any laws, We must enforce the NAP otherwise it doesnt matter, and like any laws, their endorsement requires the violation of them agsinst those who violated them.
The beauty of a private property society based on the NAP is that everyone is equal. You do not need somebody who is above the law to enforce the law because the NAP is enforced without violating it.

>Explain to me how the NAP is to be enforced, in detail
It will make sense once you understand the principles behind it.
Replies: >>496
>Do you just endorse a world of "might nakes right" when the offender is stronger or otherwise advantaged over me in terms of application of force?
Keep in mind that's the world we live in now. The government does whatever the fuck they want and you just have to bend over and take it. If your best argument against anarchy is that we might end up back where we are now then you've already lost.
>>334 (OP) 
The funny thing is that under a libertarian government they still would have the right to build their own communities with their own ethos. All statists would have those.
It's easier with someone else's money though
[New Reply]
13 replies | 4 files | 12 UIDs
Show Post Actions



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