/mlpol/ - My Little Politics

Anon you need to get into the oven now this place is TAWKSICK!

>>260914
Jesus was the son of God and Joseph was a cuckold. God's first act in the world for a long time was to cuck a jew and make him raise his wife's son. Imagine that, being cucked by your own diety, and then getting cucked again when said godchild threw your kind out of the temple and told you you were the children of satan.

Is it time to post this again?
“Jewish and non-communist is practically a contradiction.” –Walter Block, in reference to his peers in early life.
"You're all a bunch of socialists!" von Mises repeatedly said, at a conference of "free market" economists (including Friedman and Rand).

Trying to divide and conquer, griffon?

>>260943
See? Capitalism is the only way to achieve prosperity and you can't reject your freedom just because some kikes wrote books about it.
Did you already forget about Pinochet and Miracle of Chile?

It's not that freedom is bad, but only whites think it's rad. Once you realize this you begin to see the merits of nation and identity. No more autism, or syllogisms, marijuanas, or polyamory. So long to NAP.

>>260955
You can keep the NAP and still embrace the 14 words.

>>260955
>>260965
A fundamental axiom of (((Lolbertarianism))) is deliberately forgetting the fact that the indivisible fundamental building block of a sustainable society is not the individual, but the extended family.

(((Lolbertarianism))), like Marxism, reduces extended families to loose collections of individuals and strives to break every bond between them, rendering them alienated, atomized, deracinated consumers--fungible, interchangeable, expendable, identical units of economic production and consumption only.

>>261247
You're a nigger and a shill

>the fact that the indivisible fundamental building block of a sustainable society is not the individual, but the extended family.
literally who said it's a fact

>(((Lolbertarianism))), like Marxism, reduces extended families to loose collections of individuals and strives to break every bond between them, rendering them alienated, atomized, deracinated consumers--fungible, interchangeable, expendable, identical units of economic production and consumption only.
and what's wrong with that?
Also, real libertarianism by definition doesn't force you to do something.

>>260955
What if it's the white man's dedication to making a better world for "everyone" that makes him amazing, and has made him so easily fooled?
White people can't make a better world for "everyone" because nigs and niglikes can't coexist happily.
Rats will never stop trying to bite holes in this ship and kill their betters in an attempt to steal more.
Liberals can't create so they take and destroy, like niggers.
That lot doesn't deserve a place in the better world white people want to create.
A society that wants to maximize happiness and freedoms and quality of life for all needs to recognize that nigs reduce happiness and QOL for others and themselves through their own stupidity, evil, and inability to contribute when they're anything but slaves.
Fuck ZOG.
The cure for that is WOG.
White-owned globe!
Look at the scientific accomplishments of any small white country, now imagine what a country the size of Africa could do for the world if it was full of whites and had no niggers dragging it down!

>>261320
nigger problem should be solved in the same way we solved Indian problem - force them to assimilate or sent them back to nigger reservations in Africa and cut off all humanitarian aid. The problem will solve itself
>>260934
>Mary and Joseph were both of the tribe of Judah and descendants of David. Joseph descended through Solomon, the royal but cursed line, while Mary's line was through Solomon's brother Nathan.
Do you even read the Bible? Jesus was circumcised and could legally qualify as Israel's king.

forgot pic

>>262291
>she was kind of helped by the Rothschilds
First I'm hearing of it. Where did you find out about this?
>Dunno about the others
Rothbard is great, especially in the late 80's and 90's, when he shifted rightward on race and culture. I'm in the middle of Man, Economy and the State by him currently and it may be the best book on economics I've read.
>Mises
Great on economics, not particularly redpilled in other areas to my knowledge, but he didn't focus on them all that much. He wrote Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth, a concise and powerful blow to socialism.
>Friedman
Not terrible, but not as great as Rothbard or Mises. He supported government manipulation of the money supply, but was pretty consistent in support for laissez-faire outside of that.
>Block
Don't know much about him, other than he's an ancap. He wrote a book on how roads would be dealt with in an ancap society, but I haven't read it yet.

>>261405
Yeah, the problem could solve itself eventually.
But we'd get way more land and resources if we solved the problem ourselves in our lifetimes to reap the rewards of an uncucked earth in our lifetimes.
Those demons want us dead more than they want to live. They want us to starve more than they want to eat. They are partly motivated by envy and mostly motivated by rage for their superiors.

>>262295
>Don't know much about him, other than he's an ancap. He wrote a book on how roads would be dealt with in an ancap society, but I haven't read it yet.
Tbh Block is probably the most Jewy of modern Austro-libertarians in that he loves to plays devil's advocate and come up with his own odd legal justifications, but that's mainly because he's never really shed his Randian roots. Although extremely prolific he's definitely somewhat of a screwball compared to Bob Murphy, and you can tell the difference by their respective recent podcast weeks on the Tom Woods Show. Nonetheless I'd say Block's innate delight in subversion is steered in a more-or-less harmless direction, certainly compared to what he'd be doing if he stayed a socialist, and his work is useful for fringe cases of applied libertarian theory.

>>262295
My bad, it was essentially an assumption that Rand has been kind of commissioned or highly inspired by Jacob DeRotschild for her John Galt character, being together, more or less his mistress, but researching bak the sources that was complete bullshit and something that never happened. Just another pretext to spawn the «objectivism bad it's a conspiracy.» apparently.

I tried to find sources but no one I could trust to confirm that bullshit that's been echoed by leftards.

And even I reiterate my case, if we're libertarians it's because we don't base our philosophy on someone's book or ideology or views of life, that's the very point, it's up to us to seize the freedom we have to think what we want to think. Some will still believe she's a Rotschilds's sockpuppet, others will blame her for the NWO, zionist propaganda or anticapitalist bullshit, but again it's good to always check the facts to forge our opinions.

>>261248
Borders. Language. Culture. Blood and soil. In the long run, they're the only thing that matters. When you realize that your race is your extended family, it becomes self-evident regardless of whether you can get thirty pieces of silver by betraying your people. Even the United Nations agrees that importing millions of stunted little brown IQ-55 subhumans to force down your people's wages, turn their communities into Third World hellscapes, colonize, marginalize, and replace them is called "genocide." Real genocide, not the melodramatic fantasy genocide with the human skin lampshades.

>"but what about ME? What about MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE and muh shekels?"

Absolutely degenerate.

>>265894
>Borders. Language. Culture. Blood and soil. In the long run, they're the only thing that matters.
Great. And how do these goals contradict the NAA/NAP/Harm Principle? Liberty, in my view, must be the best way to separate the races, since we know that racial mixing is promoted by government propaganda pretending to be independent and made possible by wars the government wages abroad (which is not to criticise government in itself, but the HP violating actions of what is essentially a unified western government). Since races are inherent and create in-group behaviours, intermixing would grind to a halt, save for a few outliers that couldn’t do much harm on their own. As far as I’m concerned removing immigrants is fine too, since they were brought here without the consent of the native landowners, who I think can be understood to collectively have an interest in the common land of their country.
> When you realize that your race is your extended family, it becomes self-evident regardless of whether you can get thirty pieces of silver by betraying your people
With a limited state apparatus, a minimal government that is, there isn’t a lot you can do to betray your people. The only betrayal you could manage is a murder or racemixing, betraying your descendants. It is the modern, monstrous, sprawling state apparatus that allows elites to control humans behaviour in unnatural ways and for the whites among that machine to betray their entire people.
>"but what about ME? What about MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE and muh shekels?"
First, there’s you, and your self reliance. Rational self interest. Then you have a family, naturally a white one since that’s your general inclination as an ordinary human. Now both you and your family must be protected, since it is in your rational self interest to preserve your successors. And finally since your happiness and your children’s future depends on the survival of your people, it is in your rational self interest to preserve it. Now tell me again how going against your own self interest, literally the only thing that can turn you against your own, is the non-degenerate way to go.

>>265964
The modern sprawling hellstate brainwashes people into betraying their race while criminalizing dissent.
Fuck the modern sprawling hellstate.
But tell me, do you think that if we lived in a country with limited government and little in the way of a standing military, we would end up conquered/attacked by Globalist countries with large militaries?

>>265966
>But tell me, do you think that if we lived in a country with limited government and little in the way of a standing military, we would end up conquered/attacked by Globalist countries with large militaries?
Certainly, we did it to the Boers after all. But despite this being a distinct possibility, I don't think that it's anything like impossible to win - another, more famous example in our history of militias actually winning a war against a globalist power is the american war of independence. I think a standing army can be legitimate, but I would rather it be volunteers rather than conscription, and I think that it should be drilled into those soldiers in training that they must not ever attack their own people, even when ordered (excepting perhaps civil war and such matters). If everyone takes care of their national defence and agrees to come to the aid of their neighbours when attacked, then a state of affairs where conquest is too difficult becomes feasible.

>>265969
I want to believe in liberty because I think liberty is good.
But every time we've tried to give liberty to everyone, we've suffered for it.
We suffered for freeing the blacks from their own slavery, we suffered for trying to uplift them, we suffered for trying to free Vietnam from Communism, and we suffered for trying to maintain peace in the Middle East.
What can change about the methods used and the goals to actually create liberty, instead of just creating more ground for the enemy to exploit us on?

>>265970
>But every time we've tried to give liberty to everyone, we've suffered for it.
It's not really something you can give to people - we can try and pressure foreign states into preferring liberty, but introducing liberty by force won't work. So first and foremost we should secure it for ourselves - and freedom and liberty are a primarily european idea, so I think it's fine if, whilst promoting it, we accept the existence of other national and cultural ideas - I don't think, for example, that we should force the middle east to abandon sharia, merely encourage them.
>We suffered for freeing the blacks from their own slavery
That's an excellent example actually, we mainly achieved that by diplomatic pressure and the brave actions of people like Dr Livingstone.
>we suffered for trying to free Vietnam from Communism
I think overall the domino effect theory was rather inaccurate - it was more like a stack of cards. Only already unstable governments fell to communism, and once the country propping them up collapsed, the rest fell down. Even today I'd ascribe the existence of Laos and North Korea mostly to China. I think that ideally we should have supported preexisting governments and made them more stable - in that sense I think the Korean war was the justified one, not the Vietnam war.
>and we suffered for trying to maintain peace in the Middle East.
I don't think it's our job to maintain peace in the middle east - most of our interventions were predicated on lies, and in the case where it wasn't, where Kuwait was invaded, we handled the war poorly. Ultimately we'll always be blamed for it since we drew the colonial provinical borders, which many decry as not making sense, but they deliberately ensured that each area had a significant minority that was cut off from their majority area whilst ensuring the area they were in now had a threatened majority - like with Afghanistan and the Pashtun. It was to decrease native stability, and it's the same thing happening in west in many ways. But at the very least we could not violate sovereignty with airstrikes.
>What can change about the methods used and the goals to actually create liberty, instead of just creating more ground for the enemy to exploit us on?
Militarily, not a lot, it mainly depends on diplomacy in order to ensure that countries will come to your aid if attacked. Spreading liberty abroad will not decrease ground for the enemy to exploit us on, rather the contrary. Ultimately, the greatest enemy to liberty comes not from abroad, not from foreign invasion, but from our very own houses of parliament, which hate and despise us ordinary people far more than any chinese bureaucrat or middle eastern jihadist.

>>265971
That makes sense. What do you think could solve the current parliament problems?

>>265964
>As far as I’m concerned removing immigrants is fine too, since they were brought here without the consent of the native landowners, who I think can be understood to collectively have an interest in the common land of their country.
Who will remove them, if not the State? Who will prevent more foreign colonists from coming, if not the State?

Eurosocialism is one route to Clown World. American-style anarchotyranny is another. Both roads lead to the same destination, with (((them))) sitting on every seat of power issuing diktats enforced by the State, despite the fact that no one voted for them.

>>265982
MPs should be appointed based purely on merit, preferably from the area which they'd represent.
>>265983
>Who will remove them, if not the State?
Minarchism. Has a government.
>Who will prevent more foreign colonists from coming, if not the State?
Minarchism. Has a government.
>American-style anarchotyranny is another.
My initial question was how avoiding Clown World is incompatible with the NAA/NAP/HP. You have not answered it.
>despite the fact that no one voted for them.
What does voting have to do with it? They would be evil whether voted for or not, and even if others were voted you can bet nothing would change - a democratic system ensures that the least qualified, least suitable person for a position gets said position.

>>265990
Why would a democratic system ensure the least qualified/suitable person gets the job, compared to any other system?
If there was one "Great Leader" who decided who gets what jobs, would that guarantee qualified people in powerful roles?

>>266003
>Why would a democratic system ensure the least qualified/suitable person gets the job, compared to any other system?
Those who seek to attain power, and have the means to acquire it, be that through industry connections, dirt on their competitors or preexisting fame, are least suited to hold it - Thomas Carlyle explains it much more eloquently, give him a read.
>If there was one "Great Leader" who decided who gets what jobs, would that guarantee qualified people in powerful roles?
Not necessarily, but it would be more likely than under our current system - despite all the myriad evils and disadvantages of the communist system, for example, in both today's china and the soviet union most government members were qualified engineers, which is more than your average western politician can say. A system of sortition, similar to that practiced by the spartans, could also be a possible solution.

Solving the jewed status of libertarianism:

- the individual needs a family to exist
- a family needed a people to exist
- you can life on through memes and genes
- in the long run your genes and memes become part of the people
- subversion violates the nap
- the objective core of values makes the defense against subversion of ones ethics necessarily good
- minarchism is the least bad option realisticly possible.
- monopolies are coercive and need to be socialy controlled until a competitor arises
- a basic social safety net is necessary for the freedom to switch jobs and let the market work
- people who fundamentaly deny these facts or want to fight them are nap violating
- the destruction of the people that uphold these truths violates the nap
- the borders must be secured against intruders
- only people of a sufficient spirit to uphold these truths may immigrate.
- nap violation must be prevented
- only taxpayer shall vote
- culture is a psychological health factor and property of the people. enforced destruction of it violates the nap.

TlDr; Nationalsocialist Libertarianism

socialist in the sense of solidarity and human centricism
national in the sense of merritocratic (not just civic, but not limited to ethnic) nationalism.

>>266387
>points 1-6
I agree, but I'd like a clear definition of subversion.
>minarchism is the least bad option realisticly possible
I disagree, but I'd definitely take a nationalist minarchy with a monarch as head of state over this shitshow.
>monopolies are coercive and need to be socialy controlled until a competitor arises
Well, the state is by its definition a monopoly, and monopolies are relatively short lived without the protection of the state.
>a basic social safety net is necessary for the freedom to switch jobs and let the market work
I think in the absence of social-trust-ruining state enforced diversity, ZOG taxing half their income, and the FED debasing the other half, whites would be charitable enough to voluntarily give to the less fortunate without the state being involved.
>people who fundamentaly deny these facts or want to fight them are nap violating
What does "fundamentally deny" mean? What does it mean to "fight" these facts? This seems loosely worded enough that it could be used to accuse anyone who disagrees with any policy of NAP violation. Obviously a communist, who advocates mass theft and murder, should be forcibly removed, but is someone violating the NAP according to your definition by saying "Minarchy isn't the best"?
>All the rest
Agree

>>266393

subversion: harmless seeming actions and idea seeding that, with resonable extrapolation (rules of debate necessary), lead to a disintegration of the people, which are the cause and reason of the state.

i support minarchism ( a non-bureaucraticly-bloated state that leaves me alone as much as possible. Not a weak or incapable state) over other forms of goverment, because it is highly efficient when a market is present.

a state is indeed always a monopoly, but by the possibility of being a voluntarily creation and inbuild systems of accountability it is preferable to a private monopoly that has no systems of inbuild accountability. least shitty option.

anarchism is to open for a high achiever to become powerfull enough to usurp the nap and enslave the market, becoming a state. a preventative voluntary aliance of force by the people, a free state, is preverable. It also helps against outside and organized threats because of the preventatively created defense network.

the current state has broken the contract of accountability and is therefore a purely dangerous monopoly.

the support net is for bare survival only. charity is limited in its locality, but otherwise preverable. if you receive state support, you can't vote.

fundamentaly deny: they try shitting with the immigration officers or law, they try to subvert, they try to directly remove basic freedoms, they ignore voluntary association, etc.
pilpul, niggering, communist shit, sjw shit, etc. all fall under this if it affects others.

additional point: full reserve currency, created on the basis of the real state product ( only real services and products are quantized (no trading effects regarded). natural decay rate of products subtracted from resulting value) and small added inflationary factor.

>>266387
All of those sound good, so long as criminalizing enforced destruction of culture doesn't mean getting rid of freedom of expression. Assuming that minorities are deported rather than killed and basic individual privileges are respected, like fair trial, freedom of expression as aforementioned, privacy and of course the right to bear arms, I pretty much agree with all of those. So the name "Nationalsocialist Libertarian" confuses me, since I'm in no sense of the word NatSoc, libertarian or otherwise.

>>266393
ah sorry I forgot this part.
>Well, the state is by its definition a monopoly, and monopolies are relatively short lived without the protection of the state.
If this is the case then there's no harm passing anti-monopoly legislation alongside deregulating the economy - if monopolies don't form without government intervention, then it'll simply never be used.
>whites would be charitable enough to voluntarily give to the less fortunate without the state being involved.
this has historically been the case, but ultimately even the greatest of charity lacks the abilities the government has for welfare. And welfare is not incompatible with libertarianism, it should be stressed - take a look at Milton Friedman's Negative Income Tax model.

>>266432
What should laws restrict when it comes to destroying culture?
Anti-white movies should be illegalized, but what else?

>>266491
>What should laws restrict when it comes to destroying culture?
Some countries actually have laws stating that in order to broadcast media without restriction, the organization has to be based in the country that they're broadcasting in. And, how I found out about this out was watching Lee Kuan Yew's press conference back in 1988 telling the U.S. to fuck off in regards to them crying about a journalist being censored (Except, they weren't) in Singapore because they spread fake news: https://invidio.us/watch?v=RVlbyN-COTE

>>266483

the first three amendments of the american constitution are an esserntial building block for a free society.

the name is still work in progress. i haven#t decided on a better name yet.

>>266491

culture is defended by the same laws as historic places. cultural myths are essentialy tales about the human condition bound to a location. they are psychologicaly valueable.

- forcefully changing them (removing the original) is illegal.
- every historic and cultural event deserves and needs recording
- grooming is illegal
- advertising for self destructive behaviors (if not designated as such) is illegal.
- unconciously suggestive advertisement of self destructive behaviors in non artistic media is illegal
- culture, as a psychologicaly helpfull good and a socialy mediating good shall not be diminished.
- rules of debate and statistics can question the legitimate application of a cultural methode.
- culture lies in the public domain
- private cultural methodes ( as long as they don't infringe on other laws) are not to be regulated
- presenting destructive or self destructive cultural components as benefitiary is illegal.
- denouncing (without differentiation and argument) the naturaly grown culture of a place is illegal
- the diversity of seperate cultures is to be protected, as it allows for differentiated views on the human condition
- natural emergence of culture is not prohibited
- religious displays may not be state funded
- citizens decide which public events take place in their public area
- subjecting children to harmfull things or desesitizing them towards the seeking out of harmfull things is illegal.

>>266508
artistic media point: faulty

correction:
- suggestion of self destructive behavior is ilegal
- artistic media can display self destructive behavior overtly and as self destructive.
- there shall be campaigns to disincentivese self destructive behavior. these campaigns must be overt and proven in debate and science. they must be openly declared as campaigns and clearly visible as such.

>>266506
>the name is a work in progress
I think Hoppean Minarchism is a pretty accurate term for what you propose. It isn't stateless, but it otherwise resembles Hoppe's proposal for exclusive covenants as the dominant form of social order in a libertarian world. Paleolibertarianism and to a lesser extent ethnolibertarianism are terms used by some right-wing libertarians, and they don't imply either minarchy or anarchy.

>>266515

the proposed safety net and monopoly decelerating methodes are at ods with the hoppean system. the proposed merrit and spirit based selection of potential migrants is closer to evolas ideas than classic ethnic sorting. The system is aristocratic in its ruling, making a paleo prefix unsuited. the proposed voting by net taxpayers removes the centralized propetarian nature of hoppean libertarianism (which is basicly feudalism).

>>266520

conservative solidaric lliberalism would be the more paletable euphemism of National socialist libertarianism.

>>266004
>in both today's china and the soviet union most government members were qualified engineers
As the current state of Chinese manufacturing shows, and the states of Soviet space travel and nuclear physics showed, "were" is the right word, because that shit didn't stick.

>>266525
Do you think good niggerless meritocratic schools allowed the smartest of russian kids to become nuclear/engineering experts, because the government wanted more engineers/nuke experts at the time?

>>266508
>- advertising for self destructive behaviors (if not designated as such) is illegal.
that would appear to criminalize telling someone to go kill themselves, not so keen on that obviously.
>- denouncing (without differentiation and argument) the naturaly grown culture of a place is illegal
I beg your pardon? So I can't say muslims have stupid traditions?
>- subjecting children to harmfull things or desesitizing them towards the seeking out of harmfull things is illegal.
that's rather vague - to give an example, this could easily prevent teaching of shakespeare in schools, which whilst far from essential is now an ingrained part of english-speaking culture.
>>266509
I do have to disagree here. If we read John Stuart Mill, we find that since there isn't an eminently and immediately apparent objective truth, even if there may indeed be an objective truth in actuality, it's unreasonable to then enforce one worldview as objective reality. I can understand regulating in this manner with regard to media, but in terms of individual persons expressing themselves this would set a dangerous precedent.
>>266515
>Hoppean Minarchism
Even though I'm somewhat outside of the area you're both talking about, my main issue with Hoppe is his idea of "political animals" - this monstrous notion that if a person holds a particular ideology then human rights, or rather the manner in which a covenant has agreed to treat one another, do not apply to him. I realize that this idea is somewhat popular amongst the various /pol/s, but it is totally incompatible with freedom of expression.
>>266520
>the proposed safety net and monopoly decelerating methodes are at ods with the hoppean system
that too is a good criticism, though it's worth pointing out that a covenant could agree to implement both of those.
>>266525
>As the current state of Chinese manufacturing shows, and the states of Soviet space travel and nuclear physics showed, "were" is the right word, because that shit didn't stick.
China left that behind with Hu Jintao, but they did have some rather impressive engineering projects during his reign, mainly dams and other power generating plants. However Jintao also reveals to us the fundamental flaw in absolute technocracy with his one child policy, which makes sense to an engineer looking at a problem, but of course is not applicable when you take material realities and geopolitical constraints into consideration. Essentially you need a political variety of technocrat. In any case, I think my point stands that even the communist method of leadership, when stripped of it's primitive ideology, is preferable to the democratic system.

>>266554

if you say "kill yourself" bluntely, it is ok. you however can't publish advertisements for it.

islam denounciation is valid, as it is suported by sound arguments.

there is an objective truth. moral truth canm be found by using the randian question of "value for whom?" and extrapolating from their. the human subjective perception is honed by natural selection to approximate the objective reality good enough for survival. delberation is the currently known best methode to further approximate the truth. "Different truths" eventualy merge to an actual truth, which is yet unknown. Instincts are in many cases, especialy cases that are presidented in evolutionary history, good first indicators for truths.

The system i propose is a system that favors truth and mankind. It does not indoctrinate static truths, but methodes to find the truth and the idea of refining those methodes.
the only thing surpressed is the elimination of truth seeking and known things that harm mankind definetly. Otherwise humans are able to understand true and benefitary things, thanks to the evolutionary advantage of having this ability. Most other systems have a need for active indoctrination because they include a set of lies, which humans would otherwise reject.

>>266569
>there is an objective truth.
which we only reach through debate and exchange of ideas, per the structure of the scientific community. what I meant to say was that objective truth is not immediately apparent, that is it requires investigation and peer review to properly determine objective truth, and then even when something is objectively proven to be true, it should not be an enforced fact, since things that were previously thought to be objective truth have, in the light of further investigation, turned out not to be the case, and that's the point Mill makes.
>Instincts are in many cases, especialy cases that are presidented in evolutionary history, good first indicators for truths.
In a Randian sense this is quite interesting, because that's precisely how religion emerges. If, after a particular set of actions, a bird is provided with food, they will then repeat those actions like a ritual, now believing that this process will supernaturally provide them with food (obviously not on the first go but eventually). So I think it is with humans, and around the world we find this tradition of the "earth mother", or goddess of crops or rains or some such thing, where people will construct a statue or bundle of straw into a human likeness, believing that it will keep them fed in the year to come through a supernatural blessing. This, to me, seems to be the result of an "instinctual truth" - if I do x, and y is the result, then my instinct is that x causes y and merits no further investigation. this doesn't persist in religion as much anymore as it once did, I think this instinctual truth is found more in superstition. because I had a bad day on a 13th day of a month, 13 is unlucky! So whilst you are mostly correct, I'm just trying to make the point that the basis of objective truth is a lot more shaky than I think you give it credit.
>The system i propose is a system that favors truth and mankind.
And it is interesting, though it is quite a challenge to forge an ideology. Beliefs are much more like a nebula of ideas that can be broadly categorized, whereas rigid ideology like communism is of course not the sort of thing you're looking for. Essentially what I'm saying is going from a set of personal beliefs to a philosophy of governing isn't an easy task, but I wish you luck anyway.

>>266790

>debate
Debate and further refinement is an essential point in the proposed political system. The knowledge of science is not enforced, unless you would hurt people, the future of all, the existance of the people comprising the system or the founding ideas behind free system proposed.
The system aims to prevent a dystopia, insted of building an utopia. this calls for the enforcement of methodes that remove purely negative and expansionist factors for the well being of man and the people upholding this ideal.

This is also the reason for the proposed laws to punish sets of actions that have an underlying principle of destruction, insted of punishing the whole group of statisticaly perpetrators ( unless a definitive cooperation in the whole group is present, which would make it a mafia). This alows for the system to be flexible in determining mankinds foes and also differentiating in its application.

>"instinctual truths"
instincts are tested in reality, beliefs may be fed from instincts, but they are not the instincts. Instincts use no words and have no inherent rationalisation, as they are just statisticaly benefitial accumulated urges. The methode of first principle, the scientific methode and debate should be used for extrapolation and analysis insted of just magic thinking. Instincts are basicly just a hint you can use to guide you towards truth ( but a shaky hint). It is still far better than the cluelessness and divorce from reality most have towards truths and morals.

stereotypes also come from somewhere and warant analysis.

> forge an ideology
it is more a methode and a set of analytical tools to discern morals based on the human condition and the necessary existance of values. The core system behing it may be called ideology, but it is continously tested against reality and has not yet failed (which worries me, because either i found something big, there is a great filter flaw, or i am dumber than i expected). This makes the core methode very robust and disprovable, making it a theory insted of just an ideology that ignores proof.

The current set of political methodes are just the best way to achieve a system of value i know of and can discern to function to reality.

> addendum to the set of political ideas:
- insted of just tax payers voting, there should be a three tiered voting system: one vote for every citizen of age, a second vote for taxpayers, a third vote for net tax payers.

This removes the problem of people that can be affected by the system not having any say in it ( reconection of authority and accountability), while retaining the necessary authoritye of the more accountable and distinguishing different levels of accountability. adding even more tiers would have diminishing results, stear towards plutocracy and reduce the necessary anonymity of votes for genuine votes to much.

>>266856

A very strict selection must take place for citizenship for not native people. A person that does not inherently and internaly truely shares the goals of the nation should not be allowed to become a citizen.

>>266892

Only a person that does not interfere eith the gosls of the people through the nation, adapts the goals as their own in heart and will be of a net benefit to the nation shall be allowed to imigrate.

I don't get why so many people hate ancaps. Ancaps aren't like cringy ancoms, ancaps do believe in having order, it's just who's in charge of the order that changes. Ancaps aren't socially left wing or whatever, and they don't believe in opened borders.

>>266893
Good post.
So tired of the myth that people with "Necessary skills" can only come from abroad.
As if Doctors are only taught elsewhere.
Are there any "Future doctors and scientists" among the third-world immigrant hordes, or their children? Of course not. The handfuls of foreign doctors given priority promotions because of "diversity" isn't making up for the burden foreign parasites put on the healthcare system.

>>266898

Ancap has the problem of private courts leading to plutocracy, which leads to feudalism. It also has issues with quickly managing structures to defend against outside threats.

A minarchist (night watchmen) minimal state is the less shit real option.

>>266898
Unfortunately, there are is subset of ancaps that promotes open borders and completely ignores culture and race, and they reflect badly on the rest of us.

>>266898

Hoppe gets closer to monarchism than ancap.

>there are is
Oops, typo.

>>266906
He's still an ancap, he just says monarchies are preferable to democracies.
>>266904
Why would a militia or defense contractor is less suited to respond to a threat than a state run military? From an economic standpoint, the reverse would more likely be true.

>>266908

> Militia

an outside threat likely needs multiple militias to be fought. a structure guideline for this organization should be created preventatively. This would make the resuilting militia cooperation ( which ever militias it may include) practicaly a collective effort for an area, making it a temporary minarchist state structure in practice.

>>266856
> The knowledge of science is not enforced, unless you would hurt people, the future of all, the existance of the people comprising the system or the founding ideas behind free system proposed
Again just a little iffy on this "unless", sounds like it doesn't cross the line into victimless crime though.
>The system aims to prevent a dystopia, insted of building an utopia.
That's a very neat logical approach to limited government.
>This is also the reason for the proposed laws to punish sets of actions that have an underlying principle of destruction,
Again if that's not force or threat of force in those actions, I could argue wearing the wrong clothes is an action with an underlying principle of destruction - even if the laws did not initially criminalize this, it sets a precedent that could allow it - which is why we have the concept of power limits and rights, so that there is a principle which is not violated.
>It is still far better than the cluelessness and divorce from reality most have towards truths and morals.
In this example I'd argue that monopolized media is what causes this, using the selfsame instinctual senses to warp the sense of reality, with very minor things individually, but together create a different sense of reality, an ideology without substance that crosses beliefs.
>>266898
Firstly you are speaking of hoppean anarcho-capitalists, and secondly your image is a perfect example of why I dislike hoppe. for starters of course imagine if jews got control of a covenant - that happened before in feudalism, a similar system by hoppe's own admission, and obviously then I imagine he'd rather regret not limiting a covenant's power and limiting the private property rights recognized both within and without it.
>>266899
>Good post.
I guess. nothing mind-blowing or controversial though, the vast majority of people will agree with that statement (before you say it, yes obviously not so much in the west).
>The handfuls of foreign doctors given priority promotions because of "diversity" isn't making up for the burden foreign parasites put on the healthcare system.
Private healthcare system would be nice after securing borders as well, just because of issues like this where government policy influences healthcare.
>>266904
> which leads to feudalism.
hoppe's never denied this. at least he's honest about believing in tyranny - though I think if I had to choose feudalism would be my first choice over national socialism.
>>266906
you mean feudalism or absolutism. that's not monarchism. what you just said would be like saying that hitler gets closer to democracy just because he believed in a republic.
>>266908
>He's still an ancap, he just says monarchies are preferable to democracies.
that is certainly not all he says, he says that private property rights give the owner the right to abridge and ignore a person's rights, such as with political animals, and given that private property allows it's owner to do whatever they please with both the property and it's inhabitants, all (((they))) need to do is declare themselves owners of the world (after legitimizing it with some contracts and purchases of course) and hoppe would bend the fucking knee. as far as I'm concerned private property rights can go fuck themselves - the people who inhabit their land own it collectively, e.g the germans own germany, not some, not a little, but all. in practice this would mean the government manages it on their behalf, selling leases to occupy the land for a given amount of years, and renting the land, and the profits from that then go toward government projects that benefit the people ( or "volk" if you are so inclined.) In any case, perhaps I would not go so far as to say "fuck hoppe", but he's not got a pleasant system in mind.

>>267031
>unless
>Again if that's not force or threat of force in those actions
Hoppe's logic is that if conspiracy (organizing for the purpose of causing others harm, or to threaten harm) violates the NAP then this includes socialist activism. Socialism is an open threat to enforce coercion against a group of people and is therefore criminal.
>if jews got control of a covenant - that happened before in feudalism, a similar system by hoppe's own admission
>at least he's honest about believing in tyranny
>all (((they))) need to do is declare themselves owners of the world (after legitimizing it with some contracts and purchases of course) and hoppe would bend the fucking knee
First off Hoppe is not a feudalist. There is a serious problem of people knowing about Hoppe the meme rather than Hoppe the philosopher. His apologetics is that anarcho-capitalism > feudalism > monarchism > modern democracy on a scale of which system limits the size of government. It's a "would you rather" mental exploration from a historical revisionist point of view, because the mainstream consensus is "oh monarchy is so outdated and bad compared to democracy and feudalism is even worse" particularly due to socialist influence. Hoppe points out the oft-ignored benefits of feudalism which lacked a central monopoly on power, allowing a pseudo-anarchy to flourish. This was especially prevalent in the Holy Roman Empire which, though maligned by historians after Voltaire, enjoyed relatively excellent economic growth and personal freedom.
Also, Jews are much less likely to take over in a decentralized nation than in one with a centralized system of power. It's easier for Jews to exert influence over society in a monarchy than in feudalism, and in democracy rather than in monarchy. It's impossible for Jews to "declare themselves owners of the world" in a private society.

>the people who inhabit their land own it collectively
That's like, your opinion, man. Germany exists not because of some mystical contract giving control over a specific part of Europe, but because the ancestors of the Germans settled there and built nations. You don't need "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer" because objectively speaking Liechtenstein would be worse off if it was part of Germany.

>>267032
ok before I reply I should say I meant land rights, not property rights.
>Hoppe's logic is that if conspiracy (organizing for the purpose of causing others harm, or to threaten harm) violates the NAP then this includes socialist activism. Socialism is an open threat to enforce coercion against a group of people and is therefore criminal.
I disagree. only if they as a group conventionally violate the NAP, such as a murder, then you can arrest their members, but preemptive action to prevent future violations of the NAP could be justified in any situation, making his reasoning there make the NAP irrelevant. i.e, a drug user is likely to commit a crime that violates the NAP, therefore drugs should be illegal. No NAP violation, right?
>First off Hoppe is not a feudalist.
a monarch who owns his land as property has existed in the past within a feudalist system. however, as you say, technically speaking he isn't a feudalist since obviously feudalism no longer exists as a system.
> His apologetics is that anarcho-capitalism > feudalism > monarchism > modern democracy on a scale of which system limits the size of government.
which is a flawed interpretation I believe, the limitation of government should be measured by lack of intervention in personal lives, not in land rights.
>Hoppe points out the oft-ignored benefits of feudalism which lacked a central monopoly on power, allowing a pseudo-anarchy to flourish.
in that he is correct, and ironically in some ways there was greater liberty under that system than there would be under hoppe's (and in case you point it out, yes of course there would be more liberty under feudalism than under modern democracy).
>Also, Jews are much less likely to take over in a decentralized nation than in one with a centralized system of power.
Quite so! the french revolution occured after the sun king centralized power in paris, after all.
>It's impossible for Jews to "declare themselves owners of the world" in a private society.
because all land can be bought and held permanently, all it takes is one farmer to have a lucky harvest and in a matter of generations he can own his village. as such private land naturally leads to monopoly. could they buy the whole world? perhaps not, that may have been a bit hyperbolic, but they would still hold a monopoly either as bad if not worse than the one they hold now.
>Germany exists not because of some mystical contract giving control over a specific part of Europe, but because the ancestors of the Germans settled there and built nations.
Which means that, since there is no such contract defining that ownership, it can in no way be understood as private land ownership. it belongs to germans, not to a singular person.
>You don't need "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer"
well said!

>>267038
So it seems that your qualm is with land rights existing, mainly because it is a finite resource that can be excluded from others easily. However, precisely because land is scarce (finite) it needs a system of privatization governing its use. If no more gold could be mined on earth there would be no reason to not permit owning gold; a painting by definition is unique and can be owned by one person. A laissez-faire attitude towards land is the best system possible, particularly as "land reform" tends to have nasty consequences and impoverishes nations. And sure, there are plenty of scenarios where there's not an immediately visible solution, but libertarians have not ignored these. Generally speaking where there is uncertainty cultural norms will spring up over time to provide a solution through tradition.
>I disagree. only if they as a group conventionally violate the NAP, such as a murder, then you can arrest their members, but preemptive action to prevent future violations of the NAP could be justified in any situation
Not at all. Conspiracy is a specific legal charge and there has to be demonstrable evidence of planning a crime. I hate linking to Wikipedia but it provides a decent definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(criminal)
Also, under Common Law assault is a credible threat or attempt to cause harm while battery is the harm itself. So no, "the right to swing your fist doesn't end where my face begins," and if you're holding a baseball bat telling me you'll grievously injure me I can respond with lethal force. Not only do socialist groups like Antifa actually cause physical harm and property damage but organizations which campaign for extortion (like income tax) are also criminal. The problem with democracy is that it is less a democratized form of governance and more of a democratized form of conspiracy, as promising a share of loot for your supporters is just a civilized equivalent of a coven of criminals; it encourages the public to act like "civilized criminals" as well.
I do wish legal discussions like this were more prevalent among edgy types; rather than bicker about "muh optics" it is better to argue whether retaliation is objectively justifiable against a NGO vs. an ordinary synagogue. But I digress.
>a monarch who owns his land as property has existed in the past within a feudalist system
Government operating a monopoly (like in communist China in regards to land) is always bad and is worse even than a private monopoly. However, a monarch's monopoly is more similar to a private monopoly than a public monopoly, because it is directly tied to his own personal success and that of his descendants. This is why monarchy is preferable to democracy, though Hoppe doesn't like monarchy either.
>which is a flawed interpretation I believe, the limitation of government should be measured by lack of intervention in personal lives, not in land rights.
Defining "lack of intervention in personal lives" gets cloudy because libtards claim to want this too. One key difference is that a libtard considers a business denying access to a group of people worse than the government regulating that business. Thus rooting freedom from government in property rights (including land rights) acts like a steel pole (as Hitler would say) and prevents the government (which cannot own property non-coercively) from coming up with excuses to interfere.
>there was greater liberty under that system than there would be under hoppe's
I have no idea why you think this.
>all it takes is one farmer to have a lucky harvest and in a matter of generations he can own his village
1) Members of his village have to consent to selling him property. If they don't want to then he cannot legally force them. If they do consent then obviously they value the sale over their property.
2) You contradict yourself. One lucky harvest is a singular event and is not spread out over generations. If his descendants do successfully purchase their neighbors' land then that indicates that they can manage it better than the original owners could. This is a eugenic effect and rewards intelligence. Monopoly on the other hand is unlikely to take place because first, there are a lot of other intelligent people and second, not all land has the same worth to the same people; land good for growing rice is not necessarily good for building an office.
I will tell you that the Jews owning the world is far worse because of the current system. Governments openly collaborated with Jewish-owned institutions, the pinnacle of which is the Federal Reserve, and used various hard- and soft-power techniques to suppress counter-semitic sentiment. Moreover, a double standard is enforced whereby pro-white attitudes are punished but Jewish collaboration for the sake of their race is permitted, if not openly encouraged. Even if we hadn't gotten rid of the Jews, without such controls over our lives they would own much less and critique against them could be more open.
>Which means that, since there is no such contract defining that ownership, it can in no way be understood as private land ownership. it belongs to germans, not to a singular person.
I mean there is no collective contract as is claimed in social contract theory. Individual Germans can, information permitting, trace their land ownership back to when their tribal ancestors first settled the land agriculturally, or when their ancestors purchased land off someone else. Although homesteading theory is not applied so much nowadays it is still important to grasp. The Invisible Hand applies not just to economics but also to culture, and because Germans (who are of many different cultures, not one uniform group) like to be with one another they chose to weave their individual destinies together. It's all very organic and is more-or-less a mosaic.

>>267031

>Victim less crimes
if it is truely victimless ("the whole population to an individualy minimal extend" is still a victim) it should not be considered a crime. self harm in the full understanding of it is no crime, unless you endanger others or promote as something other than self harming.

> principle of destruction
you wearing the wrong clothes for the weather is your own problem. desensitising youths to overtly sexual display and therefore potentialy too predators is a destructive act. limits of power, fundamental rights , etc. should of course be in place.

>media
the media should not be a monopoly. the state may have media outlets (clearly named and visible as such, so the propagandistic effect is overt and counterable by reason if the points are unreasonable).

the proposed pilosophy should stand on its own because of its truth, not because of indoctrination. it shall be freely proposed to others.

>>267043
>If no more gold could be mined on earth there would be no reason to not permit owning gold; a painting by definition is unique and can be owned by one person.
Firstly land is a necessity for people to live. Certainly I would have no quarrel when you put it as gold, but change it to a limited supply of bread and we have an issue.
>a painting by definition is unique and can be owned by one person.
indeed, but a painting firstly has no practical use, and secondly cannot be used to produce more value for it's original owner - that is, you can only sell it once (unless you sell tickets to an exhibition or something like that). This is why there is a legal separation between property that is land, and property that is chattel, because they are fundamentally different kinds of property.
>A laissez-faire attitude towards land is the best system possible, particularly as "land reform" tends to have nasty consequences and impoverishes nations.
I don't propose land reform, I propose that a family not own land for generations. A farmer may have to renew a license to his land every decade or so, but other than that land will operate the way it always has where land reform is concerned. Renting is different obviously, not an up front payment like a lease or license, but used here as a source of income for the government as an alternative to punitive taxation, and one with greater legitimacy as previously explained.
>Conspiracy is a specific legal charge
I don't know about your side of the pond, but here conspiracy historically meant that you could not advocate the downfall of the government, or even promote immoral actions. That's a clear violation of an individual's independence.
>Also, under Common Law assault is a credible threat or attempt to cause harm while battery is the harm itself.
Quite correct, and as such shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is assault - yelling fire itself is not illegal, so in english law we'd regard the words as a tool used to inflict harm through immediate apprehension of unlawful force.
>and if you're holding a baseball bat telling me you'll grievously injure me I can respond with lethal force.
that counts as self defence due to the definition we have of assault: "causing another to have IMMEDIATE apprenhension of unlawful force" - and immediate will vary from case to case, but it is not when someone says "I will destroy x eventually", as with your antifa example. so to state that assault extends to advocacy of committing violence - well, don't let my government hear your ideas because they will ban it's people from ever saying anything again.
>Not only do socialist groups like Antifa actually cause physical harm and property damage but organizations which campaign for extortion (like income tax) are also criminal.
This would appear to justify the closing of 8chan too - you have supporters of relatively recent mass shooters, some who advocate doing the same, and the US government decided to shut the site down. Of course this was not justified, this was not ok, this was tyranny and oppression to shut down 8chan because of "muh hate speech", even if every single person who browsed /pol/ shot up a mosque, because words, in common law, can never amount to actions. or at least that is what actual common law says, both our governments violated common law a long, long time ago. If you truly insist I will find you some cases demonstrating this (in british common law obviously, I am not going into your country's mess).
>The problem with democracy is that it is less a democratized form of governance and more of a democratized form of conspiracy, as promising a share of loot for your supporters is just a civilized equivalent of a coven of criminals; it encourages the public to act like "civilized criminals" as well.
this is irrelevant, democracy is criminal regardless of conspiracy, that is to say even without conspiracy it would be wrong.
>it is better to argue whether retaliation is objectively justifiable
vigilante justice is not something you want to have in a properly just legal system - there is some room for it under our current broken system, I think, but it still should not violate the NAP, which I believe retaliation, if it were not felt to be sufficiently immediate, would.
>This is why monarchy is preferable to democracy, though Hoppe doesn't like monarchy either.
interesting, and I apologize for my lack of education on the subject.
>gets cloudy because libtards claim to want this too.
they are fully aware that they violate every basic principle of liberalism there is.
>One key difference is that a libtard considers a business denying access to a group of people worse than the government regulating that business.
they don't see a difference between oppression by government and oppression by business - which is currently incorrect, but only, I would argue, because the government in some capacity limits land ownership and monopolization of these large businesses. as far as personal property businesses are concerned that's just liberals morphing into the giant jackboot they actually are.
>Thus rooting freedom from government in property rights (including land rights) acts like a steel pole (as Hitler would say) and prevents the government (which cannot own property non-coercively) from coming up with excuses to interfere.
As I've stated before, I do not believe, as (I think at least) hoppe does, that property owners have the right to direct their tenants however they please, and as such the government has no more right to those excuses than a business. so if they ever come up with an excuse to interfere, then it is justified to overthrow that government.
>If they do consent then obviously they value the sale over their property.
it's well known that consumers will value immediate gratification.
>One lucky harvest is a singular event and is not spread out over generations.
indeed, but the wealth gained can.

>>267043
>Governments openly collaborated with Jewish-owned institutions, the pinnacle of which is the Federal Reserve
that's a fairly modern example. I'd say that they acquired their wealth long prior, and it was that initial position that allowed them to begin lending to various european governments. probably the first major move they made was the english civil war, though they may well have started flexing their muscles earlier.
>Moreover, a double standard is enforced whereby pro-white attitudes are punished but Jewish collaboration for the sake of their race is permitted, if not openly encouraged.
they're not doing a very good job at preserving their race, it must be said. their rate of intermarriage with other races makes me think that they're more genuine ideologues than shady manipulators.
>Even if we hadn't gotten rid of the Jews, without such controls over our lives they would own much less and critique against them could be more open.
they didn't get to where they were through that apparatus, and not in spite of it either it should be said, but nonetheless I think that they were primarily responsible for building the state apparatus in the first place.
>they would own much less
if this were property of any other nature than land I would agree with you, but land is unique in that it allows naturally occuring monopolies. and if we do have a laissez faire market, and naturally occuring monopolies do not exist, then there is not harm in anti-monopoly laws since they need not be used, and ideally, cannot.
>critique against them could be more open.
sounds like conspiracy against poor, innocent land-owners to me, anon! oy vey, this is going to overthrow the private property system!
>I mean there is no collective contract as is claimed in social contract theory.
as much as I hate voltaire and his fellow chucklefucks, the social contract is the basis of the nationalist idea.
> Individual Germans can, information permitting, trace their land ownership back to when their tribal ancestors first settled the land agriculturally, or when their ancestors purchased land off someone else.
that seems rather flawed. populations in the past moved around rather more than nowadays (and not in the sense of refugees and modern immigration, I mean entire populations) - so some mongolian could turn up, produce archaeological evidence of living in western russia, and before long you've reestablished the khanate. obviously that wouldn't happen due to population imbalance, but it's altogether messy to bring up very long past ownership, not least since it would bring up intense disputes where land was conquered. if a family wanted to inhabit the land they always had, all they'd have to do is buy a lease and renew it, like paying much less frequent taxes. so the way I see it, a "social contract" is a better way of defending a group's land than ancient ownership.
>The Invisible Hand applies not just to economics but also to culture, and because Germans (who are of many different cultures, not one uniform group) like to be with one another they chose to weave their individual destinies together. It's all very organic and is more-or-less a mosaic.
now this I do like, very refreshing compared to your usual drivel from a neofascist or some such who claims the fascist conception of "freedom" as preventing the individual from poor decisions, protecting their culture by enforcing it in law. truly blood and soil cannot be protected whilst people are still able to think individually!
>>267050
>desensitising youths to overtly sexual display and therefore potentialy too predators is a destructive act.
it is. however, giving the state the power necessary to stop that would be a significantly more destructive act.
>the proposed pilosophy should stand on its own because of its truth, not because of indoctrination. it shall be freely proposed to others.
which immediately seems contrary to national socialism, so I question the presence of that in the name, but it's your idea so I shan't question it.

>>267059

it is pretty easy to discern public sexual display in the vicinty of minors. the risk for gouvermental abuse is low.

national socialism is constantly turned into strawmen and bashed. Yet many of its ideas hold up when examined. Its core and deeper analysis can stand on its own and is only prevented from doing so.

>>267055
>Firstly land is a necessity for people to live.
Pic related. Certainly there is a romantic idea in living off the land and it has its advantages but it's possible to be quite well-off without owning any land. "Ah-ah," you might say, "what if a cartel of landlords makes life unbearable for their tenants like in 19th century Ireland?" In response to this strawman I just set up, Ireland was under political domination by the English with landlords either being English themselves or Irish collaborationists. Causing misery for tenants is based on motives other than profit because an abused tenant is 1) likely to move to a competitor at the first opportunity, 2) will have little respect for the property or paying on time, and 3) certainly will not pay as much as to a better landlord. It becomes a problem only when coordinated, either by cultural groups external to their tenants or by government itself.
>limited supply of bread and we have an issue
We're always going to have "limited" supply of bread by definition. If you mean limited as in no more is being produced then you have more important things to worry about than property systems.
>cannot be used to produce more value for it's original owner
Plenty of things produce more value. Machinery, transport, livestock…sure, they all need land, but at different rates relative to their return. Some land is better for some purposes than others and so value fluctuates depending on the value society places on it; this is possible only with a private system.
>I propose…as previously explained.
That's very similar to China's model. I don't know why if you're concerned about a monopoly buying up the land you want government to own all the land; that's jumping from the frying pan into the fire. You have no freedom as you can be dispossessed at any point, you have to get special permission to change the land's function, etc. That's completely at odds with the libertarian theory of land ownership, which as far back as Mises is inviolable as a person could willfully secede from a country, just as a state, county, or town could secede.
>conspiracy historically meant that you could not advocate the downfall of the government
In America that's called sedition. Conspiracy is a real thing. Suppose, for instance, a group wants to kidnap kindergarteners and a P.I. investigates. He finds masks, toddler-sized handcuffs, and a detailed plan to force the schoolbus off the road, maybe even personal testimony from one of the members. Does that not count as an immediate threat and cannot he file charges against the group before they actually follow through? A court of law could determine whether a credible threat exists. And yes, your concern makes sense because governments are bending the law and using their monopoly of "justice" to go after anyone who makes an edgy joke; but just because a bridge collapses when a pressure exceeding design tolerances is placed on it doesn't mean it's a bad design.
>shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is assault
From a property point of view it's not objectively illegal or assault; it may be that it's a movie theater where viewers (voluntarily) go to get pranked. Normally, however, it is illegal because the owner would have a policy whereby anyone who causes harm to other patrons directly or indirectly on the premises is prosecutable.
>immediate will vary from case to case
Yes; a man threatening you with a bat from a hundred yards probably can't be fired upon, but if he has a rifle that's a different story.
>don't let my government hear your ideas because they will ban it's people from ever saying anything again
Government by itself is coercing and threatening others, so arresting people who want to curb it is equivalent to an intruder killing a home owner "in self defense."
>this was tyranny and oppression to shut down 8chan because of "muh hate speech"
There is a difference between a platform and the people who use the platform. A mob may commit crimes on a publicly-available plaza but that doesn't mean it has to be torn up or the owner held responsible. Thus no platform can, to my knowledge, be taken down, though if the owner provides material support to a criminal he may be prosecutable. Now, call me a cuck, but I do think that individuals conspiring to commit violence against non-aggressors ought to be charged before they can actually cause harm. This does not, however, justify measures of deception or surveillance, in particular tracking browsing history or baiting people into violent behavior (in the latter case, an agent doing so ought to be charged as an accomplice).
>property owners have the right to direct their tenants however they please
They do not but they can set rules for how their property is to be used. This is the idea behind covenants: you can lawfully forbid loud music, strange women, or even cursing on the premises, but you can't stop a person from going somewhere else if he wants.
>it's well known that consumers will value immediate gratification
Only to an extent and people have different time preferences. A person of even moderate intelligence will weigh the future potential of his property against the present sale.
>I'd say that they acquired their wealth long prior
This was due to an economically illiterate ban on lending with interest by Christians; because demand predictably exceeded supply the Jews filled the gap and made huge profits.
>more genuine ideologues than shady manipulators
And you'd be right. It's easy to trick yourself into believing a lie.
>anti-monopoly laws
The libertarian critique on them is quite interesting, I recommend looking into it.
>critique
If I call you a scoundrel I'm not threatening violence.
>the social contract is the basis of the nationalist idea
And it's pretty gay
>produce archaeological evidence
Unbroken ownership ought to be emphasized.

>>267074
>it is pretty easy to discern public sexual display in the vicinty of minors.
fair enough - it is more difficult when it's media they see, but your point stands.
>national socialism is constantly turned into strawmen and bashed.
that's great, kristallnacht is a pretty clear violation of the NAP though.
>Yet many of its ideas hold up when examined.
if we were talking about fascism then at least we'd have evola to lean on, but as it stands there's not much there to examine.
>>267076
>Pic related.
made me chuckle
>Certainly there is a romantic idea in living off the land
already I will have to stop you, because I'm willing to bet you're posting this from a room, which is situated on land.
>but it's possible to be quite well-off without owning any land.
I should hope so, since I advocated collective ownership of land (or more accurately a government monopoly on land) which would mean nobody would any land, technically speaking.
>"Ah-ah," you might say, "what if a cartel of landlords makes life unbearable for their tenants like in 19th century Ireland?"
modern landlords are unlikely to do this, if anything the government's probably more likely to do this, which is certainly a problem needing close examination, but the main issue is land allowing accumulation of wealth that can create monopolies.
> Causing misery for tenants is based on motives other than profit
this is fair to say, however in a case where profit is the only motive that can be counted as criminally negligent, it should be pointed out. in most cases, of course, it's harmless. so that is to say, there isn't a problem in terms of it being essential with private ownership, rather that monopolies will form from it because it's a unique kind of property.
>We're always going to have "limited" supply of bread by definition.
it's hard to come up with an analogy for land, since unless you're building underground cities or the capital of bespin you're going to run out of it at some point, as you said with your gold analogy, but it's also a useful necessity, which makes it in many ways more valuable than gold.
>Some land is better for some purposes than others and so value fluctuates depending on the value society places on it; this is possible only with a private system.
the government should sell and rent land according to market prices and run it as if it were a business, similar to hoppe's aristocratic stockholders. difference being the group holding the land in this case are bound by particular rules and limitations, and specifically exist to, other than maintaining their administration, provide for it's community.
>I don't know why if you're concerned about a monopoly buying up the land you want government to own all the land
several reasons, but mainly because unlike the government, the monopoly can buy up other areas of the economy, and as such a free market will cease to exist.
>You have no freedom as you can be dispossessed at any point
now this is a very good point, however it is again no different other than that a government is ideally beholden not to do this, of course they may well try to so I can only offer that if this happens even once every citizen must rise up and overthrow them, and perhaps that the government is kept from the ability to defend themselves, which again the citizens will have to enforce, whereas a monopoly could choose to defend itself.
>That's completely at odds with the libertarian theory of land ownership, which as far back as Mises is inviolable as a person could willfully secede from a country, just as a state, county, or town could secede.
I don't see a huge problem with an occupant choosing to secede into another entity, save if it interfered with infastructure too much or would lead to enclaves. if a person wants to individually secede with their land, and this would merely amount to not wanting to renew their lease, then they're free to try and remain on the land but the new occupant would be entitled to remove them.
>but just because a bridge collapses when a pressure exceeding design tolerances is placed on it doesn't mean it's a bad design.
this is a fair comment. I just think that it's essential that it be confirmed fairly with jews, for example - so without trials simply declaring an entire group guilty and allowing punishment accordingly would be out (I'm not talking about historical/fictional occurrences here, not least since the historicity of a certain event has never been relevant to any discussion since either outcome has zero effect on the position of the debating parties).
>From a property point of view it's not objectively illegal or assault
quite - in the classic case it's of principle importance that the defendant intended to do harm, whether recklessly or through design.
>Now, call me a cuck, but I do think that individuals conspiring to commit violence against non-aggressors ought to be charged before they can actually cause harm.
that is complicated, since we could be talking about any number of different kinds of preparation. antifa seems primarily spontaneous rather than planned or coordinated, so their conspiracy I think is too broad to be tied to an individual crime. That is, you could round them up if they had a bomb plot, but simply having a plan to replace whites via immigration doesn't cut it unless actual direct harm (or threat thereof) is involved.
>This is the idea behind covenants: you can lawfully forbid loud music, strange women, or even cursing on the premises, but you can't stop a person from going somewhere else if he wants.
An occupant may do this to some extent, and as a group they may decide how to internally run their small parcel of land, but so that rule of the mob or rule of the monopoly does not exist I think the powers covenants have need to be limited. i.e they cannot kill someone, political animal or no.

>>267076
>A person of even moderate intelligence will weigh the future potential of his property against the present sale.
You are correct! But not 100% of the time, and that's the problem, minor advantages, when the progress as it were can be handed down through generations, can snowball.
>This was due to an economically illiterate ban on lending with interest by Christians
at the risk of turning out to be economically illiterate I'm going to jump into the gap and say I think the government should take control of banking - but not through force. they should run a central bank that offers loans at prices lower than a private bank can, allowing for much safer investment whilst also, providing that private banks can't beat a government bank that could go so far as to make a loss (albeit very minor), put them out of business.
>because demand predictably exceeded supply the Jews filled the gap and made huge profits.
and that's my main issue with the humongous emphasis placed on jews in particular: the way I see it, it could have been the gypsies now at the top of the world if they had played their cards right.
>And you'd be right.
Which makes it difficult since we'd need to round up several different groups of conspiracies with evidence for all of them. worth doing for sure, but a difficult task.
>The libertarian critique on them is quite interesting, I recommend looking into it.
when I have time, I will.
>If I call you a scoundrel I'm not threatening violence.
I will kill you. How's that for threatening violence? and I imagine you could get pretty pissed off if a jew came along and put you out of business with unbeatable competition. I do get your point though, since you'll point out it should just be assault being criminalized which needs proximity in both time and space, which we don't have, and in this case they probably wouldn't have.
>And it's pretty gay
honestly that's fair.
>Unbroken ownership ought to be emphasized.
in your system ownership can only be broken by sale or agreement, so that family could have moved to africa and become zulus by now, unless what you meant was occupancy - in which case, yeah, what I'm talking about is a way of formalizing a system of ownership defined by occupancy.

>>267115
>I'm willing to bet you're posting this from a room, which is situated on land.
How do you know I'm not a seasteader? I'm not, but I am living in a city for the foreseeable future out of choice; I do plan to purchase some land eventually. Owning land is impractical for the average city-dweller which is why renting is common; nonetheless it's possible to purchase apartments called condominiums.
>you're going to run out of it at some point
Unlikely, as cities require relatively little land and more people will be living in cities until transportation technology makes geographic proximity irrelevant. There's plenty of land and we're not going to "run out" any time soon; the reason fertile areas like Siberia aren't being actively settled is because people would rather be close to each other anyway (which is why cities are growing). And if we have to, we can terraform places like Australia into habitable land; Internet Historian's latest video (which is really good) covers this. This isn't taking into account artificial islands and seasteading.
>monopolies will form from it because it's a unique kind of property.
This seems to be central to your thesis but it doesn't seem historically verifiable. Sure you had land ownership in the hands of a few in feudal Europe but this was due to hereditary titles having legal precedence. It's barely conceivable that one man may, due to shrewdness and immense wealth, be able to own a whole city, but it's impossible for him to own anything larger and there's no reason to it. A single entity is unlikely to be able to manage disparate land as efficiently as multiple owners, so he may sell it. People don't typically go "My precious!" in regards to land and regularly sell if they stand to gain from sale; land may not be a liquid commodity but it does change hands fairly often.
>the government should sell and rent land according to market prices and run it as if it were a business
That's the problem I just brought up, it cannot manage and maintain land as well as multiple owners. If public spaces get run down and zoning laws cause inefficiencies, how can you expect government to realistically price land? It's the socialist calculation problem. And doesn't the queen own all the land anyway?
>monopoly can buy up other areas of the economy
There's no logic to a monopoly existing in the first place other than assuming land owners act like raccoons with a hand stuck in a jar. And if they all acted like that, land wouldn't change hands in the first place.
>every citizen must rise up and overthrow them
Yeah, they said the same thing about the U.S. government. Fun fact, the federal government owns 28% of land in the United States.
>antifa seems primarily spontaneous rather than planned or coordinated
Antifa is planned, however, they have their little circlejerk meetings and plot out what they're going to "disrupt." Also, it does not matter how a gang conducts illegal activity: if it's plotting in someone's basement to rob a bank, or if it's standing on a street corner chasing down passersby. Arguing what could be validly charged as "conspiracy" is something to be settled in a court of law.
>they cannot kill someone
So you can't defend your property from brigands? Also, of course permissible force must be reasonable and proportionate: you can't shoot someone who takes all the candies on the reception desk. Ancapistan memes are funny but they are inaccurate.
>But not 100% of the time, and that's the problem, minor advantages, when the progress as it were can be handed down through generations, can snowball.
I recall reading somewhere that in America a wealthy family tends to return to the average in about three generations. Of course there are exceptions but "snowball" effects are not problematic as long as coercive force is not an option.
>at the risk of turning out to be economically illiterate
It really is, but don't feel bad.
>run a central bank that offers loans at prices lower than a private bank can, allowing for much safer investment
That's the opposite of safe. Again, this setup is very similar to China's system with massive state-owned banks. These have generated a shadow-banking system because they always favor lending to state-owned enterprises, forcing private borrowers to use essentially a grey market. If the intent is to lend to private borrowers, then you have a Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac situation where the state-owned bank lends much less efficiently than private institutions.
>can't beat a government bank that could go so far as to make a loss (albeit very minor), put them out of business.
This necessarily means that the government bank would be operating at a loss because it's unlikely that it could come up with a better return/risk ratio than private lenders. It'll be "too big to fail" but all these costs would be pushed onto the public.
>the gypsies
The Gypsies eschewed land ownership and look at where that got them. A better example would be the Medicis who arguably were a beneficial, even if political, group. The way I see it, an elite will form anyway because of unequal intelligence/talent, but this is a problem only if it's of a different culture from the rest (Marxists hate this view).
>How's that for threatening violence?
Context matters. Again, a court of law determines what is reasonable threat.
>formalizing
A lot of records of transfer or ownership have been lost to history but that doesn't necessarily mean theft or somesuch should be presumed. Theft in the distant past generally isn't a problem since the victim has to prove ownership prior to the theft–and no, hunting-gathering is not homesteading. As for abandoning property, there's an interesting tidbit of an article: https://mises.org/wire/inability-abandon-property-civil-law

>>267115

natsoc definetly has many issues, this is why it must be married with minarchist and libertarian methodes.

the evolian methode of spirit still applies. The things of natsoc that still apply are displayed in
>pic related
there are shortsighted methodes in it, but libertarianism can learn a great deal from it.

>>267149

the applicable good ideas of natsoc are however no excuse for its overwelming problems, mostly in the form of blind rage, to high need for the impossible perfect leader, tendency to punish innocents,name things degenerate that by all mesures of reality are not and the other way round (some pieces of knowledge and art), and singular hyperbolic religious focus on one evil while others of similar magnitude exist. This narcicism in national socialism is its downfall, by becoming blind to ones own errors and failings and spending ones energy in a fetish of an utopia.

many libertarians are simmilarly full of them selves, but less effective in their conquest, benefitting those they technicaly should fight ( todays markets are so skewed and monopolies are based on market enslavement, so that a defense of current rich people is against the free market and a quasi socialist restart of the economy is the most free market reinstituting action still possible).

bolstering libertarianism with methodes and ideas from national socialism creates a robust system that can reflect on itself and thereby prevent purity spirals.

>>267151

helping in the fusion of libertarian, nation- spiritual and solidaric ideals is the following methode:

1.) start with nietzsche's "god is dead"
2.) continue with rands analysis of the concept of value needing a value holder, value holders needing values and the necessity of life for any applicable concepts because only life makes concepts existent by having conciousness
3.) scrap the neurotic and self centered bullshit rest of rand
4.) understand that family is necessary for the existance of the value holder.
5.) extrapolate by hitler
6.) make the statements universal and able to differentiate with evola
7.) understand the evolutionary refinement of instincts and the mind to deal with reality
8.) use the aristotelean debate to analyse these ideas for first principals and connect them
9.) use machivelie to understand the limits of centralised power
10.) use classic libertarianism ( american founding fathers)to find compensatory methodes
11.) use bakunin to fill in some created holes
12.) understand that a free system that defends its own freedom with an iron fist can persist.
13.) understand that aiming for an utopia directly is not (yet) possible for the human mind
14.) use the step wise improvement humans can produce when encouraged to start approximating utopia instead

>>267126
>Owning land is impractical for the average city-dweller which is why renting is common
Which is why this isn't about "living off the land", it's about the fact that renting out land is one of the chief sources of monopolistic income.
>This seems to be central to your thesis but it doesn't seem historically verifiable.
Well, and I know you're going to laugh at me, it' based on the labour theory of value. And the issue presented with the LTV is the potential for monopoly from rent, interest and profit. Profit of course can be limited by anti-monopoly laws, which are unlikely to be needed the vast majority of the time if we have a true free market rather than crony capitalism, and as I've already discussed rent and interest would be under government control.
>People don't typically go "My precious!" in regards to land and regularly sell if they stand to gain from sale
It is a rather common practice for abandoned buildings to still remain the property of some corporation somewhere, so it's precious to some extent.
>That's the problem I just brought up, it cannot manage and maintain land as well as multiple owners.
Indeed, and I'm afraid the best I can offer you here is a decentralized government. The only vital element to this administrative body is a set of rules and limitations by which they must abide, a sort of constitution that can never be changed or added to.
>And doesn't the queen own all the land anyway?
Correct, so in our legal system we don't say that someone owns land, rather that they "have an interest" in the land. despite this occupancy is still not requirement for ownership - I fail to see how someone can have an interest in something they've abandoned.
>Yeah, they said the same thing about the U.S. government. Fun fact, the federal government owns 28% of land in the United States.
That element of the US was destroyed as soon as the army put down the whiskey rebellion, which they were able to do because it was viewed as legitimate for the US government to have an army.
>So you can't defend your property from brigands?
if they just broke your window yes, but not merely because they are conspiring to do so.
>I recall reading somewhere that in America a wealthy family tends to return to the average in about three generations.
That's fair enough, and I was using familial inheritance as the example. However, I think this effect might well be more common with a business.
>It really is, but don't feel bad.
It's the same thing as the race problem, I do not have time to acquire proper expertise in biology to truly examine the issue, so instead I try to hold a position which I would believe in regardless of whether race is a significant factor in intelligence or not - and since I don't believe in victimless crimes, I wouldn't believe in criminalizing miscegenation even if race was the only determining factor in intelligence.
> If the intent is to lend to private borrowers, then you have a Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac situation where the state-owned bank lends much less efficiently than private institutions.
If the lending is less efficient then businesses are free to receive private investment at the cost of owing much greater interest: the purpose of a zero/low interest central bank is to allow smaller and less successful startups to flourish, since they owe much less interest.
>It'll be "too big to fail" but all these costs would be pushed onto the public.
The idea with the land ownership is not just to do with preventing monopolization (which as you've demonstrated may not even be the case), but also to fund projects like the central bank, without requiring a punitive taxation system, or at the very least drastically reducing the amount of taxation needed. One such scheme would be a UBI-type system whereby a portion of the revenue from land is held aside for national shareholders, that being all inhabitants of the nation, who then receive an equal portion of that revenue, which circumvents the need for public education, public healthcare and so on, since now those are affordable. So yes, these costs would be pushed onto those of the public who occupy land, but these costs would not be significant since occupants could share rent/lease costs, or be housed by their business, or some other solution.
>The way I see it, an elite will form anyway because of unequal intelligence/talent, but this is a problem only if it's of a different culture from the rest
I see it as a problem if they can acquire enough power to violate the NAP and go unpunished, but otherwise I'm with you there.
>As for abandoning property, there's an interesting tidbit of an article:
It was an interesting read, thank you.
>>267149
>natsoc definetly has many issues, this is why it must be married with minarchist and libertarian methodes.
or, being flawed, you could just develop your own theories without having to carry the baggage of the national socialist failures. I'll read pic related later.
>>267151
>bolstering libertarianism with methodes and ideas from national socialism
national socialism stole from reactionary ideas without credit, and furthermore without the slightest grasp of the context of those ideas - I think you'd be fully justified taking national socialist ideas without crediting them to national socialism, not least since the context of national socialism is clearly not something you've ignored.
>>267153
>scrap the neurotic and self centered bullshit rest of rand
see you don't call it objectivist, so why call it natsoc?
>understand that family is necessary for the existance of the value holder.
without a concerted state effort to remove the family unity, I believe that the family will remain strong. It isn't a fragile glass entity, it's the building block of all civilizations!
>understand that a free system that defends its own freedom with an iron fist can persist.
I don't understand this, or rather I disagree. I see some of what you're saying.

>>267151
Wait a second, "Blind rage"?
Is it not justified for the Germans to hate the Jews over what the Jews turned Weimar "Germany" into?
Is it not justified for the Whites to hate the Jews over what the Jews turned Weimar "Earth" into?
>high need for the impossible perfect leader
The same could be said of any ideology that requires leaders.
>tendency to punish innocents
When did the Nazis ever do this? Did they ever do this more than the Jews are doing now?
>name art and knowledge degenerate
What fucking jewish fantasy novels have you been reading? The Nazis burned pornographic books. Pedophilic books. LGBTQWERTY books. Books that argued against the white man's existence and tried to steal his accomplishments from him by revising history and painting whites as evil. You know, things that should be burned.
I know Indiana Jones said "Nazis burn books instead of reading them", but that's bullshit. How would they know what books to burn if they never read them? Heresy must be cleansed in holy fire for the good of the imperium.
>the nazis were bad for focusing on one evil while ignoring others
What evils did they ignore? Besides the time Hitler called Islam good because both hate Jews.
>blind to failings
In what ways did NatSoc fail, besides losing a war against the rest of the jewed world?

>>267160
>rage
blind rage concerns the loss of ones focus on the enemy by succumbing to the rage about the obvious injustice due to the enemy. If the righteous fury blinds your vision, you can not apply it apropiately.

> leader
this is why i advocate for a merritocratic minarchist system

> innocents
there were many personal power plays in the third reich that hindered efficiency. lower officers applied shortsighted deathsentences in the war where forced labour would be more efficient. there were a plathera of cases of true gays ( born with the brain abnormality insted of the more common traumatized version) that were perfectly integratable into society without deviancy and other edge cases that could have been handled better and would have made for excelent publicity.

>books
i definetly agree with the public removal of such material, but i would prefer an archive of these materials to keep the danger of these materials known. you must know your enemy.

the people that were mislead into owning those books should have been compenstated, while the perpetrators were punished. there were also multiple books that made it onto forbidden lists not because of their subjective content, but because of personal
preferences and disputes. there should have been a more detached methodology.

> evils
the methodology to identify evil lacked an analysis of first principle. by analysing the principles behind the rightly detested traits a more refined methode for exterminating these traits would be achivable. This methode would apply to jews as it should, but it would also show the same evil in other races and individuals, or the seldom goodness in statisticaly evil races (evola, aryan soul or jewish soul).

The deeper analysis would also have prevented the ideology from being strawmaned as surface level rascism and would have prevented the street level infiting that took place (people not understanding the fussy in its presentation term of degeneracy, leading to unnecessary social distrust for minor acts of freedom that are not degenerating the people but are out of the norm non the less). insted of just fighting degeneracy, there was a push to hyper normality

> blind
the early success of natsoc lead to a hubris on the degree of ones own superiority and to the capabilities of hitler and others. this was a major factor that hindered the war effort (to much haste in the second half of the expansion streak, leading to logistic problems.), hindered the spread of the ideology ( with the proposed changes it would be far harder to strawman and far easier to understand its truths) and lead to irrational descissions in the later war ( to much investment in wunderwaffen, hitlers unnecessary overtaking of the eastern front deployments,too lax enigma code protocols, overworked pilots deploying mines in the temse, etc.)

>>267165

under books: ...becasue of their objective content...

i was already menatly working on the next words

>>267158

>being flawed

of course, i developed much of the final methodology by myself. but taking inspiration and coming to similar conclusions is not prohibited.

> context of ideas
the developed methodology gives context back to ideas. the naming of national socialism ( as it is a collection of many concepts similar to those i refined methodology with) is simply a shortcut to enter the sphere of ideas. the system i propose stands on its own and can work without prior knowledge. you could say the naming of libertarianism and national socialism is well intentioned bait.

> why call it natsoc
publicity on the chans. it is like calling it humanitarian elsewhere. the proposed system shares enough methodologies with rand and classical libertarian methodes to be called so, it also shares enough methodologies and practical results with natsoc to be called so.

it is a new beast yet to be named.

> family
the problem lies in removing the brainwashing and preventing future brainwashing. bringing the obvious into logical words makes this easier.

>the rhyme:

a system that values liberty must necessarily prevent and fight things that diminish liberty. if the system is to surfive indefinetly, it needs to prevent and fight things that seem liberating at the moment, but bite you in the ass in the medium to long term ( like public sexuality, promotion of childlesness, religious sects, destructive banking, promotion of trauma induced fetishes, fat- acceptance, passivity instead of righteousness, weakness as virtue, the prevention of all controlable struggle that would strenghten people, static strenght as a virtue ( insted of the self improvement being the virtue), etc.)

>>267165

additionaly, most of the non expansionist goals of the third reich could have beenachieved with more humane methodes and reeducation. an informational war against other nations and for othher people would hve been far more effective. the retaking of the area lost in the great war made sense, but further expansion was hubris. concentrating on holding the originaly german areas, fighting a memetic war and seeing others turn to support germany would have been the solution.

>>267160
>Is it not justified for the Whites to hate the Jews
it's irrelevant, what is important is that the rage does not lead to violence.
>When did the Nazis ever do this?
Well for one being a homosexual was grounds for arrest - now before you tell me about how it's a mental illness, that merits treatment, not punishment.
>The Nazis burned pornographic books. Pedophilic books. LGBTQWERTY books. Books that argued against the white man's existence and tried to steal his accomplishments from him by revising history and painting whites as evil.
If ideas are so dangerous of their own accord, then for achieving their goals it would appear by the same logic the jews would be justified in their enforcing of censorship and hate speech laws.
>Heresy must be cleansed in holy fire for the good of the imperium.
Humans are by nature impure, we'd better get to work burning the lot of them.
>What evils did they ignore?
themselves for one, the very altar of the state on which the very individuality and free will that makes us human is sacrificed.
>In what ways did NatSoc fail, besides losing a war against the rest of the jewed world?
You know, the communists claim the USSR failed because the whole world stood against them. But it's different because this time we're talking about jewish capitalists rather than just regular ones, right? But I get your point, the national socialists certainly did not fail, they achieved precisely what they set out to do: intervention in personal lives on a scale only since seen under communist regimes, an approach which seems to imply that whites are the most weak willed people the world has ever known.
>>267167
>publicity on the chans.
fair enough, but you'll find it quickly questioned by chaps like the one I just replied too for being altogether too concerned with human dignity. The white race only built civilization, why would we trust them to make their own decisions?

>>267171

>human dignity

human dignity is not an axiom necessary for my methodology, but practicaly one of its emerging concepts. efficiency and long term interests, applied to reality, make the concept of human dignity a sensible concept.

a being of low capability that still works towards truth and value according to its own ability and manages to offset its costs to zero or to resulting benefits should be kept around. if the benefit drawn from the low capability being would be somewhat steady, investing a bit into it to make it a benefitial factor makes sense.

if their descissions don't affect us, we shouldn't spend energy concerning us with them. if they negatively affect us, we should eliminate this effect. this guides wether we should interfere or not.

modern technology, genetics and other methodes should allow for uplifting and peacefully integrating territories.

>>267171

the existance of values that are true (as objectively as humanly possible) alows for the rightfull application of violence to prevent greater violence. ( one evil instead of the many) (no entity can be logicaly externalized from the whole, otherwise you get the spiral down to 1). it is still a regretable act, but one we can grow above.

the enforcement of modern hate speech laws is against true values, as the truth could be considered hate.

removing pedophilic promotional literature ( that tries to genuinely normalize or romantizies pedophilia and is not obviously absurd or unreal) from the public reduces the normalization of pedphilia and therefore increases the threshold for pedophilic actions that definetly hurt children and therefore mankind.

pedophiles should be treated as ill. compensatory tools to releave urges should be administered, as long as the understanding of the difference between the tool and a real child is previously verified by psychiatrists. ( medicinaly administered child sex dolls). chemical neutering is possible too of course.

humans are not exclusively pure or impure, but we a slightly more "pure", meaning moral, than not. basic true morals can be derived from existence itself, and evolution made damn sure we have these as instincts. instincts are however low resolution and need philosophy for refinement. this is where we falter.

>>267170
it would have cost far less and would likely have worked.

>>267175
the pure natsoc way limits the necessary freedom of man to much and would have lead to a libertarian movement 8around the time of the hippy movement) to reconstutionalise power and reinstate free speech (with the learned points).

but this all is a what if utopia and we have to deal with the crude methodes natsoc applied and negative consequences of it.

if the crude side of natsoc would have won, we would just live in a destructive dictorship.

>>267177

we fortunately have the power of hindsight an can analyse the core failures of libertarianism and national socialism to remedy both.

a natsoc dictatorship would have made the european races strong for survival at first, but would succumb to tyranny like any other system of absolute power. it would make europa survive, but would limit all lifes to the enforced path, removing the chances for generative self expression and achivements outside of the norm, endangering mankind in the long run by removing adaptability and the necessary room of mental freedom for progress.

take this board: MLP would be seen as highly degenerate by classic natsoc standards. Through a less crude analysis it shows its generative character. It is weird, but benefitial. Horsepussy posting would be seen as degenerate, when in fact it is neutral, as the unreal and fetishized nature is apparant and people can seperate it from reality. wishing for pony waifus irl would be seen as degenerate, which it only would be if it would prevent you from living. a real mlp pony could be generative if it would have the aryan spirit and would not prevent you from reproducing. It is weird and highly abstract, but possibly generative. There are even some private degenerate things that, when used to apease your own mind, can make you more generative in other areas, offsetting the damage to yourself (dopamine rush stuff to trick your brain into not feeling despair in face of reality to be able to fight against the destructive forces). This is why a deeper analysis beyond classic crude natsoc is needed and the endsieg may would have been a negative unless the deeper analysis would take place, which was unlikely.

This in no way makes the current jewed system good. the jewed system simply enslaves slower. optimised self reflective national socialism would have been the better option, but this option didn't exist. Survival is a honourable goal, but removing free will makes life unbarable and insecure in the long run. Hitler had some noble goals, but had crude and destructive methodes. The keeping of free will while being in danger of extinction leaves the possibility for greatness to arise, i hope mankind uses it. The naming of the jew by hitler was necessary, as weimarand the western world was tumbling into extinction. we now tumble again, but slower, so we can refine the methodes to stop the cycle. First tries don't always need to succeed, as long as you get there.

libertarianism fails because its reliance on the free market and nap makes it unwilling to prevent apparent dangers, ignores reduced capability by chance, silently favour oligarchs and sets profit and the atomized ego above everything. it is jewed in its current form and eats itself. in its unjewed form it has some major problems with accountability of judges and plutocratic problems. the possiblity of merrit, free will and freedom of coercion makes it a good base for other systems that can handle the other issues.

taking the libertarian basis and applying natsoc values of family, freedom of subversion, monopolies being bound to the people, solidarity, defense, secure borders and the well being of the soul to it could create a very generative system.

the modern world is a harsh farce. the western world is dying. But it creates the unique position of having an extreme pool of information due to the relativism practiced. This allows for political refinement. The crude authoritarian system of natsoc would not have allowed for a refinement and would therefore perish in its crudeness. the current system is more dangerous to mankind survival, but it still leaves a greater option to create a system that would make mankind great and lasting, a better system than natsoc or libertarianism.

>>267171
>violence bad
Rage against the jew fixed Weimar problems. Violence against the jew fixed Weimar problems.
>arrest le homos
How are you going to "Treat" the homos if they don't think being homosexual is wrong? People will only know you're a homosexual if you get caught doing something wrong. Arresting homosexuals for being homosexual is justified.
>false equivalence
>humans are impure by nature
Choke on my cock, faggot.
The Jews are bad because they pushed Germans to the breaking point.
Germans broke and became Nazis to fight back against Jewish oppression.
Stop pretending to believe platitudes like "violence always bad" and "pobody's nerfect so if some impure ones need burning we'd best burn everyone.
>germans lost their individuality to become Nazis
Did they really? How so? Is this the part where you tell me you abandon your individuality by joining a movement, having an ideology, or unironically caring about something? Do individuals in a collective not have their own individual reasons for joining and remaining in a collective?
>false equivalence again, this time comparing Germany and its only friend getting mobbed by Jew countries to USSR and its Communism failing, starving its citizenry, blaming its own war crimes on enemies, and genociding uncountable numbers of innocents.
You aren't good at this.
You don't get to claim that recognizing the unfair odds Germany was up against is like claiming USSR was up against impossible odds. They had America's support when Germany invaded. Their Christian churches were plundered by Jews and their atheist attack dogs, and the riches were sent to the Jews. USSR is a Jew abomination, just like Weimar.

>>267180

The second world war was unnecessary as it was. But the allies winning, while bringing us to this jewed hellhole, allows us to reflect and improve our ideas to overcome it and could therefore be the better option than the axis winning, which would likely have us locked in a stronger tyranny ( that while saving the western world and white race, would have made us more succeptable to future calamities by limiting novelty). The current system is bad, but it allows for the creation of something closer to truth than classic natsoc by being less strict. natsoc would, while stopping degeneracy, stop many things that benefit mankind too.
The current time is dangerous because of its degeneracy, but a never before possible option for greatness.

If the war didn't happen, the third reich would become more tolerant to the tolerable over time and the rest of the world would have become more intolerant to the intolerable, creating greatness. But the war happened, which made the existing outcome the better outcome ( because a reform of a winning axis would be harder than a reform of our time and the negative results would likely be worse).

>>267181
>le homo
most homosexuals are so because of trauma. this is fixable by therapy, purpose and care. others are so because of biochemical issues, which can be medicated. true gays, the ones born with a modified brain structure, are no problems, as they have normal sexual desires, but projected on the same sex.

> individuality
as long as the collective is simply the collection of the individuals, no individuality is lost. but when a few claim controll over the collective and the collective becomes a mandatory thing, your individuality is bashed into the mold of the collective norm. this is deeply unhealthya nd harms mankind

>>267184
A society owned by the Jews is deeply unhealthy and harms mankind. Do you have any better alternatives? Is there any alternative besides whites banding together to free themselves and recognize only the righteous whites deserve rights?

>>267275

the jews are a provable detriment and therefore just and necessary to fight. they mean harm regardless of wether you are alone or not. it is in the common intrest of every individual to fight them. their provable nature and the provable value in the fight make the truth unnecessary of additional enforcement beyond proposal and the prevention of ridicule. measures of subversion are detrminental to any individual.

>>267282
Aye. So if Nazis hate Jews, what's the problem with going full Nazi?
What, do you not like the way Hitler wanted to nationalize industries he deemed vital to the function of the state? Or the way he made those Hitler Youth camps to give kids an un-cucked Cub Scouts experience?

>>267299

> full Nazi
the problem is in the unprecise formulation of the laws and lack of actual systemic accountability by the volk. Natsoc relies too much on the good will of the gouverment, which would bring it down as soon as a less competent or less good meaning fuehrer is put in place.
it also uses blunt tool laws that negatively effect non degenerate behaviors and misses some degenerate behaviors beside the jews.
the enforced normality in natsoc is to high and threatens inovation and the development of the spirit ( mlp fim would be seen as degenerate, burschenschaften that enforce physicaly permanently damaging rites of belonging would be seen as generative, etc.) and new benefitial technologies that fall outside of the norm.
Natsoc has to many arbitrary elements left and fails to find the deeper truths behind their search for perfection.

> nationalization
vital sectors should of course be nationaly oversighted and sectoraly supported to secure sovereignity, but a complete nationalization should only take place if publicly harmfull behavior is observed. the free market is better suited for efficiency in the case of honest behavior. organizations nationalised by necessity shall not be forcefully kept alive with taxes and should insted have to compete with private firms for the best product.

>Hitler youth
an un-cucked scout system similar to the hitler youth, but more decentralized and less focused on uniformity beyond the necessity of generation, fitness and learning would be preferable. The volk needs to keep its vigilance to fight possible internal tyranny and subversion. the truths of generativity can stand on their own and don't require indoctrination ( unless an existing indoctrination must be broken; but this should not be necessary in young children, as they are still in their formative years)

Ill answer as a former lolbert who became natsoc. Because once you discover there is an underlying amd core principle, or truth to the world and that it is within all of us, amd manifests itself differently within all of us, you begin to realize the short comings of even the "based libertarianism".

Number one Human society tends towards states. Which is something that seems to be agreed upon here. But not just states, largely authoritarian ones. Historically, the most sucessful states have also been those who were able to exert authority over their nation so that they could better manage it. I dont personally care about what a bunch of druids did in ireland centuries ago. We can all agree that mankind tends toward male dominated society yet matriarchal societies in Africa and other parts of the word exist. Luckily though in ACTUAL National Socialist thought, authoritarianism would not be 100% guarenteed. Though in the modern day we would need such a state to help up with how deep we are in this modern shit hole. We also know humans are prone to work in commander/commanded positions where they either take orders or give them. Which actually isnt an inherently bad or unexpected thing. Hierarchies are natural and expected even in Libertarianism. The libertarians just seem to not like the hierarchies when it says you need to contribute to the nation. Which brings me to my next point.

2. Humans and nations. Humans first banded into tribes, then cities, then empires. All toward a common goal, the preservation and welfare of the shared community. Over that time a history and bond is formed. A bond where every cog must be working. Lazy people are not liked because they leech and are self absorbed. Sacrafice is the foundation to civilization. The man gives up for his family, the family for the city, the city the state, and the state for the rest of the nation.

3. The difference in people. Clearely people act differently and different nations and cultures will respect this. Just as such, if two completely different communities are expereincing problems, two different solutions will be needed. Some solutions may have to go outside of qhat may be acceptable for a libertarian and what they deem "moral".

Which brings me to 4. The morality.
Libertarianism has always been more utilitarian, or consequentialist in its moral views. Consequentialism is wrong. Full stop, and morality trumps freedom. Only the moral are free and even in your "based" libertarian societies, youd need to exercise control over an individual which breaks consistency. Homosexuality and race mixing must be crushed, and hoping for the private police force or the citizenry just agreeing because "muh peovate prospect" ignores how humans think RIGHT NOW.

Libertarianism would need everyone realizing and agreeing that homosexuality is wrong and must be removed. Most people dont. In National Socialism, its banned whether the strasserist likes it or not and the world view ACCEPTS that a majority of people will just be lemmings anyways.

>>271239
>Libertarianism has always been more utilitarian, or consequentialist in its moral views
I disagree strongly. Libertarianism has historically been rooted in a deontological approach to ethics, from Rothbard to Bastiat all the way back to the Spanish Scholastics.

>>271243
Why do you think that? No judgement here from me. But please elaborate on that statement.

>>271561
I'm not really the best person to explain it, but the jist is that the libertarian ethic of property rights is strongly rooted in natural law theory, which essentially dictates that there exists universal laws regarding what is good for man, and that man can discover these laws through reason. Libertarians that base their case in property rights and nonagression as good in and of themselves are applying natural law to build a legal system of property rights. Read this excerpt, at least sections 1 and 2, if you want a more thorough explanation of what I'm trying to convey.
https://mises.org/library/introduction-natural-law

>>271575
If you read rubbish like that you will for ever have noodles in your noodle. The problem with lables is that over time the meanings change. FAG is a prime example. Libertarianism (NOW) is just US turd-think. It has nothing to do with European Anachist thinking past or present. An even then it is such a broad church they never agree on anything. Some anarchists belive in universal bi-sexualism. Some just think throwing a brick will change the world. Some belive in both.
It is best for individuals to lay out their fundamental thinking and ignore lables altogether.

>>271611
"Fundamental thinking"? What do you mean?
Do you think all individuals will "Lay out what they really think", when leftists know if they plainly explain their bullshit in plain english without decades of indoctrination and obfuscation it'll sound as absurd as it is?