*does nothing*
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): 4DF22A073A2832BACFAF3466EAE6D9FB-24980.png (24.4 KB, 1000x412, 1000px-Food_and_Drug_Admin….png)
File (): 49531A0F3959F16D928BC37F19B5C597-271821.png (265.5 KB, 518x664, Police.PNG)
File (): 12264EEBF57904493CC7424DD4DE0DF2-822608.png (803.3 KB, 1000x1000, sundowner shark.png)
>>130612
Private Military Companies are the future. They do what Cultural Marxists governments are too afraid of.
Private Military Companies are the future. They do what Cultural Marxists governments are too afraid of.
File (): 22054433997F0E684279BD83490A5A36-19385.png (18.9 KB, 550x413, average-iq-per-race-statis….png)
File (): 4FDA2C6113FFD0CD5181042EC58DDC6C-17963.png (17.5 KB, 598x340, iq.nationality.children.im….png)
>>130612
With Theresa May cutting back the police force, I can see why. Limited numbers leave them stretched and less productive. Still, the private police are minimal and mostly just fancy port guards in the UK. If they ever do get bigger, the policing market will either face steep competition in which competing interests are set against one another with biases towards whoever is funding them or the market monopolizes with a core backer(s) that's heavily in the pocket of that backer. Theoertically it could also work like a subscription service, however that's no different from taxation. Speaking of which, US local governments have hired private police forces, but that still requires the state. General literature about private police like from Rothbard is scant and critically disappointing. Also, you got your source from the Daily Mail, a pretty shitty source, but I will give it to you. What you leave out is that both the regulation of the police force and legal system is in the hands of the state.
Also, not really again. The federal government is very great at being the driver of innovation. http://www.itif.org/files/Where_do_innovations_come_from.pdf
>>130612
>>130613
>>130620
This Jewish thing is weird. Hong Kong holds the highest national IQ, however there's no people that hold the opinion they are superior.
With Theresa May cutting back the police force, I can see why. Limited numbers leave them stretched and less productive. Still, the private police are minimal and mostly just fancy port guards in the UK. If they ever do get bigger, the policing market will either face steep competition in which competing interests are set against one another with biases towards whoever is funding them or the market monopolizes with a core backer(s) that's heavily in the pocket of that backer. Theoertically it could also work like a subscription service, however that's no different from taxation. Speaking of which, US local governments have hired private police forces, but that still requires the state. General literature about private police like from Rothbard is scant and critically disappointing. Also, you got your source from the Daily Mail, a pretty shitty source, but I will give it to you. What you leave out is that both the regulation of the police force and legal system is in the hands of the state.
Also, not really again. The federal government is very great at being the driver of innovation. http://www.itif.org/files/Where_do_innovations_come_from.pdf
>>130612
>>130613
>>130620
This Jewish thing is weird. Hong Kong holds the highest national IQ, however there's no people that hold the opinion they are superior.
File (): 7C94B1DDD31316D25E8D187A8A5CFF3E-32890.png (32.1 KB, 437x437, pesky bee flockmod.png)
>>130633
>Hong Kong holds the highest national IQ, however there's no people that hold the opinion they are superior.
>Hong Kong holds the highest national IQ, however there's no people that hold the opinion they are superior.
File (): 0764FA33C1337D34D583A94B713F58FC-408785.jpg (399.2 KB, 1170x850, wehrmacht cyborg turned on.jpg)
>>130637
you apply for a any other job there i guess, its Ancap in nature. I am pretty sure it helps if you have former campat or military experience.
you apply for a any other job there i guess, its Ancap in nature. I am pretty sure it helps if you have former campat or military experience.
>>130619
And drones. Don't forget drones. They let you kill people from the safety of an xbox controller
And drones. Don't forget drones. They let you kill people from the safety of an xbox controller
retarded losershould not vote!!!!!
>>130619
Yes then they destroy the national pride and culture of the country and the thriving culture takes over.
Yes then they destroy the national pride and culture of the country and the thriving culture takes over.
>>130633
>>130636
I don't know about Hong Kong, but Taiwan has open NatSocs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialism_Association
>>130636
I don't know about Hong Kong, but Taiwan has open NatSocs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialism_Association
File (): D2B5161A9974B8143977C55665E61069-157348.png (153.7 KB, 1440x1660, Leslie with Shades.png)
File (): 8079FD7737C653B98F7F7A2A3256D1ED-241869.jpg (236.2 KB, 1920x1080, TaiwanChineseNationalSocia….jpg)
>>130807
>>130820
Don't forget about that school in Taiwan which had a parade.
>>130840
National socialism is more efficient than international socialism and liberal democracy but only in the respect that it wastes less. It still represents a net productive deficit on the efforts of private market actors.
>>130820
Don't forget about that school in Taiwan which had a parade.
>>130840
National socialism is more efficient than international socialism and liberal democracy but only in the respect that it wastes less. It still represents a net productive deficit on the efforts of private market actors.
>>130844
In the free market, investors face consequences for malinvestments. In a planned economy, statists and bureaucrats can get away with being wasteful since they're subsidized by tax payers who can't choose not to pay taxes. If any private company that didn't receive corporate welfare or protection was as wasteful as the US Federal Government, it would be out of business overnight.
In the free market, investors face consequences for malinvestments. In a planned economy, statists and bureaucrats can get away with being wasteful since they're subsidized by tax payers who can't choose not to pay taxes. If any private company that didn't receive corporate welfare or protection was as wasteful as the US Federal Government, it would be out of business overnight.
>>130844
In the short-term, of course. We are all humans and we make mistakes. When firms make bad business decisions they suffer for it and either change their patterns for the better or go bankrupt and let new rivals take their place. When government makes a mistake it is either swept under the rug or a committee will be established which will pretend to do something for several months, find a scapegoat, and go back to business as usual.
In the short-term, of course. We are all humans and we make mistakes. When firms make bad business decisions they suffer for it and either change their patterns for the better or go bankrupt and let new rivals take their place. When government makes a mistake it is either swept under the rug or a committee will be established which will pretend to do something for several months, find a scapegoat, and go back to business as usual.
>>130848
>>130850
Monopolies do not face these magical market consequences, there are even examples of this in the real world, you see Microsoft dying out over their retarded policies and design choices for their software? Fuck no. You need to understand that on a fundamental level, corporations and governments share a similar organisational structure and are prone to the same fucking failures, since, 99% of the time, an error can be attributed to human stupidity rather than a fault inherent in a system.
Take Zimbabwe for example, their government made unbelievably idiotic choices and now they're a failed state, people and business left. There's your market consequence for government, the US specifically as an example resembles a corporate monopoly, people usually have no option but to pay taxes (buy their product) because there aren't any better places to move to (other companies to buy from). All forms of anarchism inevitably fail because we are biologically driven to form social hierarchies, families, communities, states, nations, it's an omnipresent fact of human psychology and no amount of social engineering or recreational nukes will get rid of it.
Also, it's generally a really fucking bad idea because this form of economy is the perfect environment for der jude. Also also, how do you justify giving parents authority over their children without compromising utter freedom of choice?
>>130850
Monopolies do not face these magical market consequences, there are even examples of this in the real world, you see Microsoft dying out over their retarded policies and design choices for their software? Fuck no. You need to understand that on a fundamental level, corporations and governments share a similar organisational structure and are prone to the same fucking failures, since, 99% of the time, an error can be attributed to human stupidity rather than a fault inherent in a system.
Take Zimbabwe for example, their government made unbelievably idiotic choices and now they're a failed state, people and business left. There's your market consequence for government, the US specifically as an example resembles a corporate monopoly, people usually have no option but to pay taxes (buy their product) because there aren't any better places to move to (other companies to buy from). All forms of anarchism inevitably fail because we are biologically driven to form social hierarchies, families, communities, states, nations, it's an omnipresent fact of human psychology and no amount of social engineering or recreational nukes will get rid of it.
Also, it's generally a really fucking bad idea because this form of economy is the perfect environment for der jude. Also also, how do you justify giving parents authority over their children without compromising utter freedom of choice?
>>130854
Don't mine me, just using you as a proxy for replying to this whole string of arguments we've got going here.
There's more to government than just making money. That's the prime difference between a government and a business that I've noted most libertarians and Ancaps ignore.
Don't mine me, just using you as a proxy for replying to this whole string of arguments we've got going here.
There's more to government than just making money. That's the prime difference between a government and a business that I've noted most libertarians and Ancaps ignore.
File (): EC27A63C30D0CA9D16BB3B4D7C52F702-654241.png (638.9 KB, 1190x672, 1589383__artist needed_saf….png)
>>130854
For Microsoft, there are several reasons:
1) They do in fact, like most big tech companies, receive subsidies: http://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/prog.php?parent=microsoft&company_op=starts&company=&free_text=&subsidy_op=%3E&subsidy=&subsidy_type=&sub_year=&state=&program=&agency=&city=&county=
2) Software technology is still a rapidly growing market and in such markets mistakes are often made to try to fill the demand. You could see this in the .com bubble.
3) They're not actually a monopoly. Microsoft may have captured the home PC market but they have fallen behind in other respects. Linux, an open-source software designed by a handful of enthusiasts, is used on the vast majority of supercomputers, web computers, and other function-orientated software.
The more nations there are the more freedom people have to "vote with their feet." You can see some of this in a federalized U.S. as states in the South are attracting business and professionals away from California and the Northeast. Bad decisions at the Federal level still act as a drain on everyone nonetheless. If we had a Confederacy or returned to the Articles of Confederation we would see national output increase.
There are three kinds of hierarchies: social, voluntary, and coercive. Social hierarchies are the ones we are born into and identify with biologically and culturally. They are the cohesive framework of one's people as they are family, faith, and community. Voluntary hierarchies are organizations one chooses to work for, whether a business or non-profit. Coercive hierarchies are imposed from the top down. The State belongs to this latter category alongside criminal gangs. I oppose coercive hierarchies because they are a natural detriment to social and voluntary hierarchies.
You are forgetting that Jews, by infiltrating government, have made the economy their playpen with their control and influence.
>>130855
When it comes to social issues government's mistakes are vile and long-lasting. If you try to make government steer society toward a positive end someone else will only steer it away again.
For Microsoft, there are several reasons:
1) They do in fact, like most big tech companies, receive subsidies: http://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/prog.php?parent=microsoft&company_op=starts&company=&free_text=&subsidy_op=%3E&subsidy=&subsidy_type=&sub_year=&state=&program=&agency=&city=&county=
2) Software technology is still a rapidly growing market and in such markets mistakes are often made to try to fill the demand. You could see this in the .com bubble.
3) They're not actually a monopoly. Microsoft may have captured the home PC market but they have fallen behind in other respects. Linux, an open-source software designed by a handful of enthusiasts, is used on the vast majority of supercomputers, web computers, and other function-orientated software.
The more nations there are the more freedom people have to "vote with their feet." You can see some of this in a federalized U.S. as states in the South are attracting business and professionals away from California and the Northeast. Bad decisions at the Federal level still act as a drain on everyone nonetheless. If we had a Confederacy or returned to the Articles of Confederation we would see national output increase.
There are three kinds of hierarchies: social, voluntary, and coercive. Social hierarchies are the ones we are born into and identify with biologically and culturally. They are the cohesive framework of one's people as they are family, faith, and community. Voluntary hierarchies are organizations one chooses to work for, whether a business or non-profit. Coercive hierarchies are imposed from the top down. The State belongs to this latter category alongside criminal gangs. I oppose coercive hierarchies because they are a natural detriment to social and voluntary hierarchies.
You are forgetting that Jews, by infiltrating government, have made the economy their playpen with their control and influence.
>>130855
When it comes to social issues government's mistakes are vile and long-lasting. If you try to make government steer society toward a positive end someone else will only steer it away again.
File (): B0A103296841AFB9F0C44992AF952E33-232280.png (226.8 KB, 680x940, Nazi China.png)
>>130861
>Implying the Han ethnicity doesn't have an average IQ of 108 and the only thing stopping them from going full NatSoc is the muzzle of the CPC
>Implying the Han ethnicity doesn't have an average IQ of 108 and the only thing stopping them from going full NatSoc is the muzzle of the CPC
>>130854
Well it should be noted that Zimbabwe is an extreme example, like North Korea and the Soviet Union, and even in those countries, the top leaders managed to maintain their own personal wealth for a long time while the people were in a state of extreme poverty. Additionally, in regards to your point about monopolies, while AnCap cannot guaruntee no monopolies, a state is a guarantee that there will be a monopoly, since a state is by its very nature a monopoly. Furthermore, in free markets even if a monopoly is established, it can often be toppled. This is not the case in a situation where the monopoly can get subsidies and bailouts and lobby for regulations that make it difficult to compete.
Well it should be noted that Zimbabwe is an extreme example, like North Korea and the Soviet Union, and even in those countries, the top leaders managed to maintain their own personal wealth for a long time while the people were in a state of extreme poverty. Additionally, in regards to your point about monopolies, while AnCap cannot guaruntee no monopolies, a state is a guarantee that there will be a monopoly, since a state is by its very nature a monopoly. Furthermore, in free markets even if a monopoly is established, it can often be toppled. This is not the case in a situation where the monopoly can get subsidies and bailouts and lobby for regulations that make it difficult to compete.
File (): 84962FBB1F0FE2DB6831B22ED1D34BC3-1039483.png (1.0 MB, 1700x1100, Private Death Squads.png)
Also, this thread inspired me to make this.
>>130865
I won't deny that less omnipresent government is a good thing, but complete and total removal will almost universally be a bad thing. There are a lot of good things a federal government can do for its people, regardless of the many, many bad decisions it often makes, which again can be mostly attributed to the poor decision making skills of those in that system. I don't want to say roads, but roads, subsidised and affordable healthcare, military, police and other emergency services.
Now I know what you're thinking, "Anon don't be silly, the private market could fill in those gaps", yes they could, but people are prone to move to areas with the best services, which would lead to less investment in those services in less populated areas and thus more people leaving. It's a negative feedback loop that ends with city-like enclaves surrounded by vast stretches of unutilised and uninhabited land. Government prevents this, mostly, and inefficiently, by uniformly (at least in theory) distributing resources so all its people in all areas have access to goods and services. One could also argue that by continuing to live in a country whose government you oppose, you are living in a voluntary hierarchy, you are not forced to live in the united states under its policies, at least not at gunpoint anyway, that circles back to 'vote with your feet' though, and there really aren't any better options as far as places to live go.
Without a government to infiltrate, I would argue das jude would have an even easier time manipulating people. Disney would certainly be able to snap up everything without the regulation government places on acquisitions.
>>130870
An extreme example, yes, but a perfectly valid one all the same. There aren't many states that are large enough to count as a state and still small enough to fail. As for North Korea, they are literally kept in the country at gunpoint and under intense propaganda, Kimmy does style himself as a living god, much like the emperor of Japan, so wealth is a given. Monopolies would be easier to topple without those things, but it would also be easier to create a monopoly without the regulations that keep companies in check. Not to mention a less stable market is not a good thing and leads to interruptions of goods and services as companies engage in unregulated espionage against each other.
There is no porn of Leslie Fair to speak of, why?
I won't deny that less omnipresent government is a good thing, but complete and total removal will almost universally be a bad thing. There are a lot of good things a federal government can do for its people, regardless of the many, many bad decisions it often makes, which again can be mostly attributed to the poor decision making skills of those in that system. I don't want to say roads, but roads, subsidised and affordable healthcare, military, police and other emergency services.
Now I know what you're thinking, "Anon don't be silly, the private market could fill in those gaps", yes they could, but people are prone to move to areas with the best services, which would lead to less investment in those services in less populated areas and thus more people leaving. It's a negative feedback loop that ends with city-like enclaves surrounded by vast stretches of unutilised and uninhabited land. Government prevents this, mostly, and inefficiently, by uniformly (at least in theory) distributing resources so all its people in all areas have access to goods and services. One could also argue that by continuing to live in a country whose government you oppose, you are living in a voluntary hierarchy, you are not forced to live in the united states under its policies, at least not at gunpoint anyway, that circles back to 'vote with your feet' though, and there really aren't any better options as far as places to live go.
Without a government to infiltrate, I would argue das jude would have an even easier time manipulating people. Disney would certainly be able to snap up everything without the regulation government places on acquisitions.
>>130870
An extreme example, yes, but a perfectly valid one all the same. There aren't many states that are large enough to count as a state and still small enough to fail. As for North Korea, they are literally kept in the country at gunpoint and under intense propaganda, Kimmy does style himself as a living god, much like the emperor of Japan, so wealth is a given. Monopolies would be easier to topple without those things, but it would also be easier to create a monopoly without the regulations that keep companies in check. Not to mention a less stable market is not a good thing and leads to interruptions of goods and services as companies engage in unregulated espionage against each other.
There is no porn of Leslie Fair to speak of, why?
File (): A4EA6E0D4135E08242644E56156400E8-288129.png (281.4 KB, 885x933, 1515712419215.png)
>>130888
>if it wasn't a pony
>wasn't a pony
>wasn't
>pony
nigger where do you think you are? if anything's wrong here, it's the communist catbitch!
>if it wasn't a pony
>wasn't a pony
>wasn't
>pony
nigger where do you think you are? if anything's wrong here, it's the communist catbitch!
File (): 651D0A8F9E711A2D8C175AD10D76BAA0-7156.jpg (7.0 KB, 194x259, 513664363445632.jpg)
>>130895
Someone needs physical removal.
Someone needs physical removal.
File (): 73220DB43502E3CFEBC9E3822F401B1A-38992.jpg (38.1 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault[6].jpg)
![maxresdefault[6].jpg](/images/src/73220DB43502E3CFEBC9E3822F401B1A-38992.jpg)
File (): B28283D2D6D1DADC1EE78A3C5B10C319-91996.jpg (89.8 KB, 682x1171, 1519009045976[1].jpg)
![1519009045976[1].jpg](/images/src/B28283D2D6D1DADC1EE78A3C5B10C319-91996.jpg)
File (): A75526C56D11CA3A7C6053798400813C-99330.jpg (97.0 KB, 484x750, 29a11ad5ab8afd4506207f603c….jpg)
File (): 5034E97904FA9903020E5951DC3A650C-187387.jpg (183.0 KB, 1024x1024, 1518327142212[1].jpg)
![1518327142212[1].jpg](/images/src/5034E97904FA9903020E5951DC3A650C-187387.jpg)
File (): D1D01BBB4415296804117C0D6B5DA56F-877049.png (856.5 KB, 969x1371, 1521336583301[1].png)
![1521336583301[1].png](/images/src/D1D01BBB4415296804117C0D6B5DA56F-877049.png)
File (): AB633D81932A677FF4280AF29E36816D-146787.jpg (143.3 KB, 940x420, Halo_Combat_Evolved[1].jpg)
![Halo_Combat_Evolved[1].jpg](/images/src/AB633D81932A677FF4280AF29E36816D-146787.jpg)
sora from kingdom hearts
File (): 37A50F1E77B30F97A3F0EFDEADE4D254-1001173.png (977.7 KB, 1500x2000, Starlight Glimmer (24).png)
File (): C3F01566DBE7FB6814F058354404E2AF-100946.jpg (98.6 KB, 533x800, 923b6d923ef90e568a0f8236d2….jpg)
File (): 06BA702E4D24A19A1E84926916306EA9-94953.jpg (92.7 KB, 734x800, ad12370b8251f43d6da205ed9a….jpg)
File (): BBFB546EEF83C8AAF2E5791FA50BF385-99652.png (97.3 KB, 728x686, e1b[1].png)
![e1b[1].png](/images/src/BBFB546EEF83C8AAF2E5791FA50BF385-99652.png)
undertale
File (): 1EC62FF89331967D22A7B72DD3D033DD-48345.png (47.2 KB, 330x400, NotanArgumentLeslieFaire.png)
>>130881
>roads
In the case of the countryside, it is in the interest of the inhabitants to have a corridors that connects them and the outside world. Therefore, they may choose to either hire an existing company to build and maintain a road to their locale or establish their own small road firm by pooling resources and charging a toll on travelers on that road.
>healthcare
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35217319-your-facebook-friends-are-wrong-about-healthcare
Read it.
We have subsidized healthcare in the States, it's called Medicare and Medicaid. The FDA is in bed with big pharma and keeps smaller competitors from springing up.
Nor are the socialized models of Europe better. Britain is notorious for its wait times. You are punished for being healthy by subsidizing those with unhealthy lifestyles. How is it in Australia?
>military
Ah yes, bombing goatherders in Asia is doing the world such a great benefit.
If you have an armed populace with organized militias it is practically impossible for an enemy to effectively occupy your country for an extended period of time. This isn't even factoring in PMCs and mercenary groups.
>Police and emergency services
"Rent-a-Bobby" in Britain is going quite well and is far more efficient than the public police who are quite concerned with assault cheeseknives. Why should government monopolize bringing criminals to justice?
Fire departments aren't going to stop putting out fires if a household doesn't subscribe. They would simply be charged after the fact, generally at a higher rate than a subscriber.
>urbanization
If flocking to existing cities was the norm for people, then how would new towns ever be established? Or is government responsible for this?
>b…but Jews are in business!
So you're saying that in a free marketplace of ideas you would be too lazy, or your ideas too unsound, to counter Jewish propaganda? Walt Disney himself was quite anti-Jewish but his company was subverted. Competitors with Disney are springing up. Disney can't snap them all up, and the more franchises they ruin the less revenue they'll get.
How did the Jews get control? They first targeted academia which has long received subsidies from government. Without a market need to provide important skills and reasonable philosophy, the useless and harmful ideology of social Marxism spread. Preaching social justice and socialism, adherents then went into government and encouraged the revision of laws regarding abortion, economic regulation, and public education. Now almost every American child is indoctrinated from kindergarten to college.
European countries are even worse off for not splitting powers or having effective restraints on government. Laws once intended to maintain public order are now being used to reshape this order and completely cuck the populace.
>easy to create a monopoly
https://mises.org/library/do-antitrust-laws-preserve-competition
>>130888
Get. Out.
>roads
In the case of the countryside, it is in the interest of the inhabitants to have a corridors that connects them and the outside world. Therefore, they may choose to either hire an existing company to build and maintain a road to their locale or establish their own small road firm by pooling resources and charging a toll on travelers on that road.
>healthcare
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35217319-your-facebook-friends-are-wrong-about-healthcare
Read it.
We have subsidized healthcare in the States, it's called Medicare and Medicaid. The FDA is in bed with big pharma and keeps smaller competitors from springing up.
Nor are the socialized models of Europe better. Britain is notorious for its wait times. You are punished for being healthy by subsidizing those with unhealthy lifestyles. How is it in Australia?
>military
Ah yes, bombing goatherders in Asia is doing the world such a great benefit.
If you have an armed populace with organized militias it is practically impossible for an enemy to effectively occupy your country for an extended period of time. This isn't even factoring in PMCs and mercenary groups.
>Police and emergency services
"Rent-a-Bobby" in Britain is going quite well and is far more efficient than the public police who are quite concerned with assault cheeseknives. Why should government monopolize bringing criminals to justice?
Fire departments aren't going to stop putting out fires if a household doesn't subscribe. They would simply be charged after the fact, generally at a higher rate than a subscriber.
>urbanization
If flocking to existing cities was the norm for people, then how would new towns ever be established? Or is government responsible for this?
>b…but Jews are in business!
So you're saying that in a free marketplace of ideas you would be too lazy, or your ideas too unsound, to counter Jewish propaganda? Walt Disney himself was quite anti-Jewish but his company was subverted. Competitors with Disney are springing up. Disney can't snap them all up, and the more franchises they ruin the less revenue they'll get.
How did the Jews get control? They first targeted academia which has long received subsidies from government. Without a market need to provide important skills and reasonable philosophy, the useless and harmful ideology of social Marxism spread. Preaching social justice and socialism, adherents then went into government and encouraged the revision of laws regarding abortion, economic regulation, and public education. Now almost every American child is indoctrinated from kindergarten to college.
European countries are even worse off for not splitting powers or having effective restraints on government. Laws once intended to maintain public order are now being used to reshape this order and completely cuck the populace.
>easy to create a monopoly
https://mises.org/library/do-antitrust-laws-preserve-competition
>>130888
Get. Out.
File (): 7597D090193EF57554CD6EBA22841FB5-33199.jpg (32.4 KB, 400x400, YJ0hdsbA_400x400[1].jpg)
![YJ0hdsbA_400x400[1].jpg](/images/src/7597D090193EF57554CD6EBA22841FB5-33199.jpg)
File (): 40C5CC7D27ED6CDE63D09015F84BFDEE-109152.jpg (106.6 KB, 650x452, andyburger[1].jpg)
![andyburger[1].jpg](/images/src/40C5CC7D27ED6CDE63D09015F84BFDEE-109152.jpg)
change my flag back faggots
File (): 39B3EE5D89C1E64A20D6D940080B1CD7-161385.jpg (157.6 KB, 600x600, RumfordNonGMO12ozCS-600x60….jpg)
File (): BE4448E8AE144ACDF9E1EB7845A2960D-16343.jpg (16.0 KB, 277x280, IMG_20180320_232049.jpg)
File (): 52E3E596E9C7D4687EDEF658CD208D26-36400.jpg (35.5 KB, 1280x720, TheDrs-Default-Share-Image….jpg)
File (): 39BF899216EC6E03CC4B1FFC51BA7077-231814.jpg (226.4 KB, 1575x1575, 1520500446997.jpg)
File (): 5CDE983DBCE0DF7193CF7B8AF1094FD9-1077808.png (1.0 MB, 1024x1396, 1520920981457.png)
File (): 7BEC20C04CAEEEAAB14D216E33E890DD-35692.jpg (34.9 KB, 250x250, 1472873172492.jpg)
File (): 61D4897A3B418B79FC16ADEAFBD98740-140281.jpg (137.0 KB, 1280x720, Peasant Headwear Fieldwork….jpg)
>>130919
impossible, there are no girls on the internet
QED: ur a fat fuck in a basement mad that you can't enjoy things like we can
impossible, there are no girls on the internet
QED: ur a fat fuck in a basement mad that you can't enjoy things like we can
File (): 296368BE4F278FBC3411EA2FA061C08C-649899.png (634.7 KB, 1280x1089, 114362 - artist-purplekecl….png)
File (): 343DB92DB973DBE7DD539074A19511A9-573931.png (560.5 KB, 900x1008, 59781f335b1932943678e59535….png)
File (): 3943E4D2D297A9512348C9CD1DFBD140-317271.png (309.8 KB, 1270x963, 1307593857324.png)
File (): CC2CE91CDD3650FD181E4958D2907544-371638.png (362.9 KB, 909x723, 0294 - GVGvR.png)
File (): 15B6821EDD28A11F4C415F9C8BC8B56D-300670.png (293.6 KB, 800x600, blowshy.png)
File (): 77558C2690E4828616D68739520E81B1-551027.gif (538.1 KB, 600x600, picgifs-my-little-pony-339….gif)
>>130904
>roads
Running a farm in the countryside is already a high expense low income job, I doubt they'd be able to continue running in absentia of government subsidies, let alone pay for however many miles of road to wherever, even if a bunch of properties came together to pool, that's still quite a large expense to construct and maintain. There's workarounds, like whatever company subsidising or outright footing the bill in return for exclusivity, but that's getting way into the specifics of how such a thing would work.
>healthcare
Medicare, much like you guys do, and it's as inefficient as it sounds in many respects due to retarded decisions, but I'm very biased here considering I'd most likely be dead or in (more) lifelong debt without it.
>military
That specific shit aside, a military force does protect its citizenry from external predation which would almost certainly occur if one country went ancap while others attempt to install their own authority in what they would perceive as a vacuum. As with most other goods and services in an ancap system, it's prey to gaps in service coverage.
>No profit in providing security for rural areas
>Bandits start stealing shit
>People leave for more secure areas
Even if I was armed to the teeth, I would not feel very safe and would almost certainly get overwhelmed eventually, not to mention an additional cost to the previously mentioned roads.
>emergency services
>"Armed crime is just part of living in a big city!"
Only because the police are getting budgeted to police the internet rather than the streets, more evidence of the people running a system being retarded, not the system itself being retarded.
>urbanisation
Towns are established due to exploitable resources in an area, once those dry up, there's no further reason to live there. Government prevents people less able to pick up and scatter on dime from being forced to… Well, pick up and scatter on a dime. Pursuit of profit isn't exactly a people friendly system, anarchy would leave a lot of people behind, but they don't have capital, so fuck those people right?
>jews
Disney can't snap them all up because of government regulation on how frequently they can acquire assets, which allows for smaller companies to compete on some level rather than being wiped out entirely. Also, implying ancap is completely immune to the jew, just because it is, is folly. They behave internally as an in-group at all times while externally presenting themselves as not-so-much, some would be fooled, just as they are today, government and human stupidity is not one and the same.
Also, reminder that a company, given enough time and power, can also impose a facsimile of regulation on a population. That's to say they would be able to enforce terms and conditions or completely deny the service, and when everything is privatised, that's dangerous.
Don't toe the company line? Well that's too bad, we're just gonna turn off your water. Not a productive worker? We're gonna evict you from your company sponsored shelter. Loitering like a bum? Not on company property you ain't, please leave the enclave, hope you like bandits because it's not profitable for us to maintain security outside the walls.
Companies are by definition an amoral entity, if they're not making a profit, then what is the point? They're not altruistic, it can be likened to an individual in a no holds barred struggle for self survival, it'll look after anything that keeps itself alive, but anything that doesn't is rejected. Which, like I said, not exactly people friendly. Neither is government half the time, but the point is that it's intended to be and regulations can be placed on it to make it more so while companies are not, and never will be in an ancap system since the most extreme version does away with all rules and all regulations save those an entity places on itself.
>roads
Running a farm in the countryside is already a high expense low income job, I doubt they'd be able to continue running in absentia of government subsidies, let alone pay for however many miles of road to wherever, even if a bunch of properties came together to pool, that's still quite a large expense to construct and maintain. There's workarounds, like whatever company subsidising or outright footing the bill in return for exclusivity, but that's getting way into the specifics of how such a thing would work.
>healthcare
Medicare, much like you guys do, and it's as inefficient as it sounds in many respects due to retarded decisions, but I'm very biased here considering I'd most likely be dead or in (more) lifelong debt without it.
>military
That specific shit aside, a military force does protect its citizenry from external predation which would almost certainly occur if one country went ancap while others attempt to install their own authority in what they would perceive as a vacuum. As with most other goods and services in an ancap system, it's prey to gaps in service coverage.
>No profit in providing security for rural areas
>Bandits start stealing shit
>People leave for more secure areas
Even if I was armed to the teeth, I would not feel very safe and would almost certainly get overwhelmed eventually, not to mention an additional cost to the previously mentioned roads.
>emergency services
>"Armed crime is just part of living in a big city!"
Only because the police are getting budgeted to police the internet rather than the streets, more evidence of the people running a system being retarded, not the system itself being retarded.
>urbanisation
Towns are established due to exploitable resources in an area, once those dry up, there's no further reason to live there. Government prevents people less able to pick up and scatter on dime from being forced to… Well, pick up and scatter on a dime. Pursuit of profit isn't exactly a people friendly system, anarchy would leave a lot of people behind, but they don't have capital, so fuck those people right?
>jews
Disney can't snap them all up because of government regulation on how frequently they can acquire assets, which allows for smaller companies to compete on some level rather than being wiped out entirely. Also, implying ancap is completely immune to the jew, just because it is, is folly. They behave internally as an in-group at all times while externally presenting themselves as not-so-much, some would be fooled, just as they are today, government and human stupidity is not one and the same.
Also, reminder that a company, given enough time and power, can also impose a facsimile of regulation on a population. That's to say they would be able to enforce terms and conditions or completely deny the service, and when everything is privatised, that's dangerous.
Don't toe the company line? Well that's too bad, we're just gonna turn off your water. Not a productive worker? We're gonna evict you from your company sponsored shelter. Loitering like a bum? Not on company property you ain't, please leave the enclave, hope you like bandits because it's not profitable for us to maintain security outside the walls.
Companies are by definition an amoral entity, if they're not making a profit, then what is the point? They're not altruistic, it can be likened to an individual in a no holds barred struggle for self survival, it'll look after anything that keeps itself alive, but anything that doesn't is rejected. Which, like I said, not exactly people friendly. Neither is government half the time, but the point is that it's intended to be and regulations can be placed on it to make it more so while companies are not, and never will be in an ancap system since the most extreme version does away with all rules and all regulations save those an entity places on itself.
File (): 8B6B7E70B63454C73FC0C476DEA76B56-1056416.gif (1.0 MB, 453x283, 1495990669011.gif)
>>130947
>roads
Those that are superfluous or unnecessary would disappear; others may be replaced by cheaper, low-maintenance roads. In general though there would be net savings.
I'm not sure if you're familiar with the Transcontinental Railroad, but it connected the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and was constructed by two companies. Roads as they are necessary insofar will be constructed.
>healthcare
There are charitable organizations that exist to help individuals who are too poor to foot their own medical bills. Government programs hamper them by inflating the costs of medical supplies.
>military
Although Switzerland isn't ancap, it hasn't been invaded for centuries despite having a vacant armed force during peacetime. You can't underestimate a well-armed populace acting in defense of their homeland.
>police
Patrolling a rural area wouldn't actually cost all that much, and if they need to the residents can band together for safety. The American Wild West actually wasn't as wild as it's portrayed in the movies; settlement was generally safe and sheriffs did a well enough job.
A monopolistic system of police is retarded because when it ends up becoming a mess, there is no one else to fix it. Anarcho-capitalism simply means there are multiple police forces competing to provide the best coverage and service.
>towns
So towns out in the middle of nowhere should be subsidized just because people live there? Why shouldn't people move to greener pastures if they choose? Property values always change and it's not the place of government to step in.
>Jews
Do you really think everyone would want to sell to Disney? Even if they had enough capital to buy the entire animated entertainment industry (which I doubt), as soon as the public catches on then the industry (and Disney's profits) will shrink until a better producer comes along and takes away Disney's market share.
Also, whom does the Jew fear? He does not fear government, because bribes and blackmail go far in ensuring his interest. He fears you and the general public, because if people catch on nothing will protect him from justice or at least ostracization. In an ancap society nothing could keep you from spreading the word and calling out the Jew. The alt-right exists almost entirely outside the domain of government, yet it has been remarkably successful and coordinated in its information campaign. This is why Jews rely on government measures such as censorship laws, public indoctrination, and domestic surveillance.
You do realize that companies need to place a priority on their public image, yes? Even from a non-altruistic standpoint, if they abuse their workers, mistreat their customers, or act too greedily, they will suffer as knowledgeable consumers will go to their competitors.
Also, while I don't know your political leanings, I find it interesting that NatSocs, even as they espouse eugenics and evolutionary success, are afraid of the "no holds barred" natural selection of capitalism.
>roads
Those that are superfluous or unnecessary would disappear; others may be replaced by cheaper, low-maintenance roads. In general though there would be net savings.
I'm not sure if you're familiar with the Transcontinental Railroad, but it connected the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and was constructed by two companies. Roads as they are necessary insofar will be constructed.
>healthcare
There are charitable organizations that exist to help individuals who are too poor to foot their own medical bills. Government programs hamper them by inflating the costs of medical supplies.
>military
Although Switzerland isn't ancap, it hasn't been invaded for centuries despite having a vacant armed force during peacetime. You can't underestimate a well-armed populace acting in defense of their homeland.
>police
Patrolling a rural area wouldn't actually cost all that much, and if they need to the residents can band together for safety. The American Wild West actually wasn't as wild as it's portrayed in the movies; settlement was generally safe and sheriffs did a well enough job.
A monopolistic system of police is retarded because when it ends up becoming a mess, there is no one else to fix it. Anarcho-capitalism simply means there are multiple police forces competing to provide the best coverage and service.
>towns
So towns out in the middle of nowhere should be subsidized just because people live there? Why shouldn't people move to greener pastures if they choose? Property values always change and it's not the place of government to step in.
>Jews
Do you really think everyone would want to sell to Disney? Even if they had enough capital to buy the entire animated entertainment industry (which I doubt), as soon as the public catches on then the industry (and Disney's profits) will shrink until a better producer comes along and takes away Disney's market share.
Also, whom does the Jew fear? He does not fear government, because bribes and blackmail go far in ensuring his interest. He fears you and the general public, because if people catch on nothing will protect him from justice or at least ostracization. In an ancap society nothing could keep you from spreading the word and calling out the Jew. The alt-right exists almost entirely outside the domain of government, yet it has been remarkably successful and coordinated in its information campaign. This is why Jews rely on government measures such as censorship laws, public indoctrination, and domestic surveillance.
You do realize that companies need to place a priority on their public image, yes? Even from a non-altruistic standpoint, if they abuse their workers, mistreat their customers, or act too greedily, they will suffer as knowledgeable consumers will go to their competitors.
Also, while I don't know your political leanings, I find it interesting that NatSocs, even as they espouse eugenics and evolutionary success, are afraid of the "no holds barred" natural selection of capitalism.
>>130959
>roads
And what dictates that necessity is profit, and not just breaking even either, there must be a clear profit to entice any company to want to build a road to nowhere. Either the product must be sold for exorbitant sums or the product must be acquired dirt cheap, either has its own pitfalls, and farm produce isn't exactly a booming industry.
>healthcare
Charitable organisations cannot deal with the full brunt of the medical costs of an entire country, or even a portion of it. Government programs are not the only factors for high medical costs, most pharmaceuticals actively hamper efforts to eradicate disease and ill health because it's more profitable to treat than it is to cure. Something that would be amplified a hundredfold without regulations.
>military
Switzerland doesn't get invaded because there's pretty much no reason to, there's nothing there that can't be gotten elsewhere easier. What a militia lacks is the organisation and logistics capacity of a well funded army anyway, barring the difficulty of occupying territory, militias always get steamrolled.
>police
>if they need to the residents can band together for safety.
Tell that to South African farmers. While they don't have police either, it's a fair example of how difficult self defense can be in the face of a determined invader.
>towns
Not necessarily, no, but if you've ever had to move any significant distance on a tight budget, you'd know how much of a pain in the ass it can be. Property prices only lower when there's less demand. Moving to follow work is always more expensive than settling down where there is none.
>Jews
The reasons for selling out vary from company to company, but not so much as Disney is concerned, the usual reason for them is that they stand to make more profit under Disney than they do on their own. More profit means bigger wages, if there's a risk of monopoly so be it, it's not their problem. You also underestimate just how much capital they're capable of throwing around.
The public has caught on, Star Wars is rubbish now, but Disney makes more than enough from their other departments to take the hit and not give a fuck. Another producer can't out-do Disney when Disney can just throw a measly couple billion at them and make the problem go away.
Also, there's a reason we call Jews greedy merchants, because capitalism is their game. Their effectiveness in subverting government is an indicator of the lack of moral fiber in its elected officials, not a failure of government itself. Nazi germany proved effective at ending the influence of the jew within their borders, at least for a time.
A good enough PR team can make an atrocity look like a good thing, or keep it out of public awareness entirely. And image doesn't even matter if they can knock their competitors out of business due to a lack of regulations.
Nation Socialism was never about eugenics and evolutionary success, and anyone you see claiming that all non-whites must be purged is full of shit. What they were really about was the unification of the german people, the revitalisation of its industry and economy, and generally putting an end to the poverty and exploitation of their people. And they actually managed to do it, regardless of what you think of the failures of government, it was a rare example of the will of the people being reflected in the governments policies and programs. They helped each other in highly practical ways.
That's pretty much why I don't buy into ancap, it blames all the problems of society on government when there are clear historical examples of government actually doing good. Shitty people are the problem here and relating back to the OP the FDA does actually need purging, getting rid of stuff that doesn't work is a good thing, burn the superfluous wing to the ground, but don't light the whole building on fire.
>roads
And what dictates that necessity is profit, and not just breaking even either, there must be a clear profit to entice any company to want to build a road to nowhere. Either the product must be sold for exorbitant sums or the product must be acquired dirt cheap, either has its own pitfalls, and farm produce isn't exactly a booming industry.
>healthcare
Charitable organisations cannot deal with the full brunt of the medical costs of an entire country, or even a portion of it. Government programs are not the only factors for high medical costs, most pharmaceuticals actively hamper efforts to eradicate disease and ill health because it's more profitable to treat than it is to cure. Something that would be amplified a hundredfold without regulations.
>military
Switzerland doesn't get invaded because there's pretty much no reason to, there's nothing there that can't be gotten elsewhere easier. What a militia lacks is the organisation and logistics capacity of a well funded army anyway, barring the difficulty of occupying territory, militias always get steamrolled.
>police
>if they need to the residents can band together for safety.
Tell that to South African farmers. While they don't have police either, it's a fair example of how difficult self defense can be in the face of a determined invader.
>towns
Not necessarily, no, but if you've ever had to move any significant distance on a tight budget, you'd know how much of a pain in the ass it can be. Property prices only lower when there's less demand. Moving to follow work is always more expensive than settling down where there is none.
>Jews
The reasons for selling out vary from company to company, but not so much as Disney is concerned, the usual reason for them is that they stand to make more profit under Disney than they do on their own. More profit means bigger wages, if there's a risk of monopoly so be it, it's not their problem. You also underestimate just how much capital they're capable of throwing around.
The public has caught on, Star Wars is rubbish now, but Disney makes more than enough from their other departments to take the hit and not give a fuck. Another producer can't out-do Disney when Disney can just throw a measly couple billion at them and make the problem go away.
Also, there's a reason we call Jews greedy merchants, because capitalism is their game. Their effectiveness in subverting government is an indicator of the lack of moral fiber in its elected officials, not a failure of government itself. Nazi germany proved effective at ending the influence of the jew within their borders, at least for a time.
A good enough PR team can make an atrocity look like a good thing, or keep it out of public awareness entirely. And image doesn't even matter if they can knock their competitors out of business due to a lack of regulations.
Nation Socialism was never about eugenics and evolutionary success, and anyone you see claiming that all non-whites must be purged is full of shit. What they were really about was the unification of the german people, the revitalisation of its industry and economy, and generally putting an end to the poverty and exploitation of their people. And they actually managed to do it, regardless of what you think of the failures of government, it was a rare example of the will of the people being reflected in the governments policies and programs. They helped each other in highly practical ways.
That's pretty much why I don't buy into ancap, it blames all the problems of society on government when there are clear historical examples of government actually doing good. Shitty people are the problem here and relating back to the OP the FDA does actually need purging, getting rid of stuff that doesn't work is a good thing, burn the superfluous wing to the ground, but don't light the whole building on fire.
>>130971
>roads
Should what dictates that necessity be a government official?
If I were a poor farmer in need of a road I would band together the local community, take out a mortgage to cover the cost, and have the road built. You can pay back the cost in ten years or so. If you have a bad harvest and cannot pay back you can extend the mortgage or let the bank resell the road.
>healthcare
Doctors often will generally lower their rates for poor patients, or at least they used to before Medicaid became a hassle. There are entire religious organizations (namely monasteries and convents) dedicated to healing the sick.
Without the FDA there is nothing stopping a high-minded individual from producing a cure that would render those treatments obsolete. There could be nothing big pharma could do about it other than try to copy the drug before it goes public.
>military
You need to only look at Yemen or Afghanistan to notice the success of a militia over professional militaries with the support of only part of the people. Militias are not for invasion, they are for defense.
>South Africa
Headed by a black nationalist government. If the farmers fought back effectively they would be classified as "racist terrorists" and you know it.
>towns
I won't dispute that but anarcho-capitalism doesn't promise utopia or a perfect world like communism does. If you put forth the effort and intelligence you will succeed, but there are no promises. You should look up how John Rockefeller and Charles Bronson grew up.
>Jews
They're called greedy merchants because in ye olden days interest was forbidden by the Church. Because Catholic bankers were restrained in their business practices Jews were able to get ahead and use usurious practices on the desperate. This foothold in the banking industry, combined with a high IQ and collectivist tactics due to resentment by society, enabled the Rothschilds and others to secure the levers of power. It was usually governments that borrowed from the Jews.
It was a lot easier to hush things up when people could get info only from newspapers. In the era of the internet information travels at lightspeed and it's far more difficult and dangerous to keep things hidden. Social responsibility generally brings in more profit than it costs.
Are you a National Socialist? Of course some of the things they did were good, such as the rejection of Versailles and curbing the Jews. Most of the social programs, nonetheless, were beneficial only from a military standpoint.
If people are terrible how do you trust the people in government more? Are people more virtuous because they have the levers of power, or because they were elected? Does government not extend the amount of damage a single person or group of people could do?
>roads
Should what dictates that necessity be a government official?
If I were a poor farmer in need of a road I would band together the local community, take out a mortgage to cover the cost, and have the road built. You can pay back the cost in ten years or so. If you have a bad harvest and cannot pay back you can extend the mortgage or let the bank resell the road.
>healthcare
Doctors often will generally lower their rates for poor patients, or at least they used to before Medicaid became a hassle. There are entire religious organizations (namely monasteries and convents) dedicated to healing the sick.
Without the FDA there is nothing stopping a high-minded individual from producing a cure that would render those treatments obsolete. There could be nothing big pharma could do about it other than try to copy the drug before it goes public.
>military
You need to only look at Yemen or Afghanistan to notice the success of a militia over professional militaries with the support of only part of the people. Militias are not for invasion, they are for defense.
>South Africa
Headed by a black nationalist government. If the farmers fought back effectively they would be classified as "racist terrorists" and you know it.
>towns
I won't dispute that but anarcho-capitalism doesn't promise utopia or a perfect world like communism does. If you put forth the effort and intelligence you will succeed, but there are no promises. You should look up how John Rockefeller and Charles Bronson grew up.
>Jews
They're called greedy merchants because in ye olden days interest was forbidden by the Church. Because Catholic bankers were restrained in their business practices Jews were able to get ahead and use usurious practices on the desperate. This foothold in the banking industry, combined with a high IQ and collectivist tactics due to resentment by society, enabled the Rothschilds and others to secure the levers of power. It was usually governments that borrowed from the Jews.
It was a lot easier to hush things up when people could get info only from newspapers. In the era of the internet information travels at lightspeed and it's far more difficult and dangerous to keep things hidden. Social responsibility generally brings in more profit than it costs.
Are you a National Socialist? Of course some of the things they did were good, such as the rejection of Versailles and curbing the Jews. Most of the social programs, nonetheless, were beneficial only from a military standpoint.
If people are terrible how do you trust the people in government more? Are people more virtuous because they have the levers of power, or because they were elected? Does government not extend the amount of damage a single person or group of people could do?
>>130981
>roads
The alternative is leaving people behind simply because they are no longer useful, it's an abandonment of the human quality of looking out for one's own 'tribe'. Treating a community like a bunch of numbers on a chart simply to be optimised to create a positive sum is abhorrent to me. Government at least guarantees a road for people whether they're entirely useful or not, and all it takes is a measly cost in taxes. It's been said often enough that altruism is both the white man's best and worst quality.
>healthcare
And back when they actually believed in the hippocratic oath, now most med students will tell you they're doing it for the money. I can't really argue against this point, I agree that the FDA should be purged, but I do have to question the effectiveness and stability of charity work.
>military
I don't think we've seen how effective a militia is against a full scale invasion, you can hardly say the US was swinging its full might in Afghanistan, or the Soviets for that matter. That's besides the point anyway, no militia will ever be as an effective deterrent as a well funded, well organised army. Or a nuke.
>South Africa
Unfortunately true, but not the point, they do fight back because if they don't they get mutilated and slaughtered. A rural community is especially vulnerable to divide and conquer given that they are already divided by distance. It's just a matter of outnumbering a single homestead and dealing with it before they can get help, and even then, they're using god damned signal jammers now.
>towns
That's true enough, but that doesn't imply that government hampers that idea greatly. Effort and intelligence are still rewarded these days, but the safety net is there so the risk doesn't seem so great and the damage it can cause isn't so severe. Though there is a problem with people making themselves at home in the safety net rather than using it strictly as a precaution.
>Jews
I wouldn't call myself one, but I won't deny many of its qualities appeal to me, mostly the authoritarian and militaristic aspects. Currently, I don't trust anyone in government, politics here are a fucking joke and I've been pissing away my vote for years on donkey votes and, more recently, voting far right even though I know it won't make any difference. I trust the system to work as designed, I don't trust the people keeping that system to act in people's best interests, whether for ideology or profit.
>Does government not extend the amount of damage a single person or group of people could do?
Would a corporation not do the same if morally bankrupt? Corruption is corruption, no matter what system it infests. Whether that's a senate, dear leader or even the CEO of a corporation is irrelevant.
Except Communism, Communism is for removal at all times.
>roads
The alternative is leaving people behind simply because they are no longer useful, it's an abandonment of the human quality of looking out for one's own 'tribe'. Treating a community like a bunch of numbers on a chart simply to be optimised to create a positive sum is abhorrent to me. Government at least guarantees a road for people whether they're entirely useful or not, and all it takes is a measly cost in taxes. It's been said often enough that altruism is both the white man's best and worst quality.
>healthcare
And back when they actually believed in the hippocratic oath, now most med students will tell you they're doing it for the money. I can't really argue against this point, I agree that the FDA should be purged, but I do have to question the effectiveness and stability of charity work.
>military
I don't think we've seen how effective a militia is against a full scale invasion, you can hardly say the US was swinging its full might in Afghanistan, or the Soviets for that matter. That's besides the point anyway, no militia will ever be as an effective deterrent as a well funded, well organised army. Or a nuke.
>South Africa
Unfortunately true, but not the point, they do fight back because if they don't they get mutilated and slaughtered. A rural community is especially vulnerable to divide and conquer given that they are already divided by distance. It's just a matter of outnumbering a single homestead and dealing with it before they can get help, and even then, they're using god damned signal jammers now.
>towns
That's true enough, but that doesn't imply that government hampers that idea greatly. Effort and intelligence are still rewarded these days, but the safety net is there so the risk doesn't seem so great and the damage it can cause isn't so severe. Though there is a problem with people making themselves at home in the safety net rather than using it strictly as a precaution.
>Jews
I wouldn't call myself one, but I won't deny many of its qualities appeal to me, mostly the authoritarian and militaristic aspects. Currently, I don't trust anyone in government, politics here are a fucking joke and I've been pissing away my vote for years on donkey votes and, more recently, voting far right even though I know it won't make any difference. I trust the system to work as designed, I don't trust the people keeping that system to act in people's best interests, whether for ideology or profit.
>Does government not extend the amount of damage a single person or group of people could do?
Would a corporation not do the same if morally bankrupt? Corruption is corruption, no matter what system it infests. Whether that's a senate, dear leader or even the CEO of a corporation is irrelevant.
Except Communism, Communism is for removal at all times.
File (): BA1C9217B88E9AD3BD12497609394351-225098.png (219.8 KB, 872x886, WhyGunsAreNecessary.png)
>>131001
>Roads and towns
Here's the thing, government-provided safety nets can and will be abused. When the government guarantees that people will be cared for, other people will put less effort into such care themselves because "someone else will handle it." Communities used to be far poorer than they are now but despite the strain on resources they did not hesitate to take care of each other: children would help their parents as they grew old, families would take in orphans, and the homeless could be fed at soup kitchens. Usually this was organized by the local parish which united the community in spirit and faith. This was the principle of subsidiarity. An idealized version is Ponyville.
What happens when public programs are enacted? Children are less inclined to care for their elders because pensions and nursing homes are available. Parents will not raise their kids but will put them in daycare and public schools to be effectively raised by strangers. People stop putting in time at church activities because they are content with the State helping the poor. Every element of society unravels as the only relationship that matters becomes the one between the Individual and the State.
Public "welfare" is a perversion of altruism. It satisfies the public's need to feel morally self-satisfied even if they put forth no personal sacrifice, at the cost of a slice of their income. The problem doesn't go away, it just becomes invisible; it keeps the beggars off the street but they are reduced to a life of lethargic worthlessness.
>healthcare
This ties back into it. The institutionalization of medicine has made it sterile (pun not intended) and destroyed doctor-patient relationships. Medicaid has successfully made many doctors loathe poor patients.
>military and Jews
Foreign invasions are always more costly for the attacker than for the defender. Taking a land means permanent occupation and stationing enough soldiers to prevent unrest. The more trouble the inhabitants give, the more soldiers need to be posted. Enough of an economic strain and the invading country either withdraws or collapses. Pic related.
Standing armies are a relatively modern invention, originating in the 16th century. The existence of such necessitates a strong, centralized State, and the State needs such armies to quell revolts. Armies never are limited to defensive engagements but must eventually lead a foreign operation in order to justify their cost. The United States is well-protected, not by its formidable military, but by the fact there's a "rifle behind every blade of grass."
There isn't really any benefit to having a formal military. It's a popular idea simply because people are inherently tribalistic and so they feel pride when they see parades and fancy tools of war. However, these things have no positive attributes, only negative ones as they are meant to destroy. It is better to feel a nationalistic pride in economic stature and cultural traditions.
>South Africa
I don't claim to be an expert on rural warfare, but there are effective tactics. If fighting a systematic invasion then scorched earth tactics are exercised to deny the enemy resources. If, however, one fights against raids, then the community must conduct systematic patrols and engage in guerrilla warfare where appropriate. The Afrikaners could certainly defend themselves, even if outnumbered, because they're white and fighting against nignogs. They simply can't because the government would wipe them out if they did.
>corruption
There's a clear difference. When a company is morally bankrupt we can cut ties with it and encourage others to stop doing business with it as well. This is why we don't use Facebook or Netflix. The economic pressure brought to bear will eventually force the company to submit. What will happen if you stop paying taxes toward the immoral activities of the government and encourage others to join you?
>Roads and towns
Here's the thing, government-provided safety nets can and will be abused. When the government guarantees that people will be cared for, other people will put less effort into such care themselves because "someone else will handle it." Communities used to be far poorer than they are now but despite the strain on resources they did not hesitate to take care of each other: children would help their parents as they grew old, families would take in orphans, and the homeless could be fed at soup kitchens. Usually this was organized by the local parish which united the community in spirit and faith. This was the principle of subsidiarity. An idealized version is Ponyville.
What happens when public programs are enacted? Children are less inclined to care for their elders because pensions and nursing homes are available. Parents will not raise their kids but will put them in daycare and public schools to be effectively raised by strangers. People stop putting in time at church activities because they are content with the State helping the poor. Every element of society unravels as the only relationship that matters becomes the one between the Individual and the State.
Public "welfare" is a perversion of altruism. It satisfies the public's need to feel morally self-satisfied even if they put forth no personal sacrifice, at the cost of a slice of their income. The problem doesn't go away, it just becomes invisible; it keeps the beggars off the street but they are reduced to a life of lethargic worthlessness.
>healthcare
This ties back into it. The institutionalization of medicine has made it sterile (pun not intended) and destroyed doctor-patient relationships. Medicaid has successfully made many doctors loathe poor patients.
>military and Jews
Foreign invasions are always more costly for the attacker than for the defender. Taking a land means permanent occupation and stationing enough soldiers to prevent unrest. The more trouble the inhabitants give, the more soldiers need to be posted. Enough of an economic strain and the invading country either withdraws or collapses. Pic related.
Standing armies are a relatively modern invention, originating in the 16th century. The existence of such necessitates a strong, centralized State, and the State needs such armies to quell revolts. Armies never are limited to defensive engagements but must eventually lead a foreign operation in order to justify their cost. The United States is well-protected, not by its formidable military, but by the fact there's a "rifle behind every blade of grass."
There isn't really any benefit to having a formal military. It's a popular idea simply because people are inherently tribalistic and so they feel pride when they see parades and fancy tools of war. However, these things have no positive attributes, only negative ones as they are meant to destroy. It is better to feel a nationalistic pride in economic stature and cultural traditions.
>South Africa
I don't claim to be an expert on rural warfare, but there are effective tactics. If fighting a systematic invasion then scorched earth tactics are exercised to deny the enemy resources. If, however, one fights against raids, then the community must conduct systematic patrols and engage in guerrilla warfare where appropriate. The Afrikaners could certainly defend themselves, even if outnumbered, because they're white and fighting against nignogs. They simply can't because the government would wipe them out if they did.
>corruption
There's a clear difference. When a company is morally bankrupt we can cut ties with it and encourage others to stop doing business with it as well. This is why we don't use Facebook or Netflix. The economic pressure brought to bear will eventually force the company to submit. What will happen if you stop paying taxes toward the immoral activities of the government and encourage others to join you?
File (): 05C6FA831812F589D6409BC3926ACEFA-11539.jpg (11.3 KB, 409x409, 1521151413423.jpg)
File (): F02701AC6A903AC549DEF26B0F3E33F5-308731.gif (301.5 KB, 500x319, 1516579826306.gif)
File (): BF5F40C4F6901DBCF558F1306E4D43EE-1576744.gif (1.5 MB, 500x269, 1504663857929.gif)
100 replies | 48 files | 1 UUIDs | Archived