>>3638 Sounds good, anon. If I may, I would suggest giving the "Strategy and Tactics" section a more-conspicuous spot, and perhaps expanding it a bit. I remember having to distinctly point an anon towards it, despite his having already looked at the list. I can't speak for other anons, but I know I'd love to see an expanded section on technolibertarianism. There's already a great resource in there which compiles a lot of the founding cypherpunk/ crypto-anarchist documents, but resources on tech privacy, cryptocurrency, and alternatives to the conventional internet (Zeronet, i2p, etc.) would also be pretty cool.

>>3654 Thats a key section actually, too many lolbergs skip the philosophy of the enlightenment and actual world history.. Which is also why they are lolbergs in the first place. Shit like Rand and Friedman is 9th grade lit at best >>3658 I'd like to add something like that, but do you have any more specific recommendations? I haven't read that much tech-cap stuff, but its usually been mostly from Agorist and ""left"" Rothbardian origin. Anyways, I'll prolly drop a draft in here tomorrow to discuss, if I get to squeeze some time outta my day that is, as I've been quite busy lately

>>3663 >Do you have any more specific recommendations? Unfortunately I'm only just starting to get into this stuff myself, but the good anons over at >>>/t/ probably could help. Stuff on cryptocurrency, meanwhile, I have no clue. There are plenty of books on the subject out there, but I wouldn't know which ones to recommend, since I know even less again about that subject. If only this site had a /biz/

God, i miss the old board

>>3793 Where has everyone vanished to now? We really need to have something like http://txti.es/monarchy for /liberty/.

>>3805 Everyone is here. Not a lot of happenings to discuss. Was waiting on >>3663 to drop a draft but it's been a couple weeks.

We really need to advertise this place a lot more. >b-b-but muh sekrit club, you'll bring reddit here! The board is fucking dead, there's nobody here anyway. How do you expect this place to grow?

>>3854 >The board is fucking dead, there's nobody here anyway. How do you expect this place to grow? In my experience, the more active a libertarian board, the more of a honeypot it is, and the more it sucks.

>>3897 You're right. It's better if there are 3 posts a day by the same 6 people saying the same things... It's not like leftypol has many active users and still retains their ideology or anything.

>>3931 Would you care to drop the sarcasm and make a proper argument?

>>3944 I think his argument is that we need more people. Idk about leftypol because the only times i go on there is to raid them.

>>3663 Any update, anon?

The terms nationalism and nation have several, sometimes mutually exclusive, connotations in the United States. For some Americans, nationalism is about waving flags, reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, singing the Star Spangled Banner at sporting events, shooting off fireworks on the Fourth of July, and acknowledging one’s existence as a citizen of a country whose historical legacy is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Alternatively, the destruction of the Second World War, largely made possible by the Third Reich’s dangerous exploitation of German nationalistic sentiment, has made the entire world uncomfortably conscious of the thin line that divides innocuous displays of pride and perilous chauvinism. Unknown to many, Nationalism is a rather multifaceted construction, and each nation’s anatomy is dependent on countless variables. Contemporary historians, political scientists, social theoreticians, and cultural critics alike continue the attempt to explain the spontaneous phenomenon that is nationalism. As proponents of liberalism – whether one considers himself to be an Objectivist, Anarcho-Capitalist, classical Liberal, or libertarian – we often find ourselves repulsed by displays of nationalism. This detestation is largely because of its seemingly statist implications. Many of us, however, are unfamiliar with the process in which nations form and what their functions are. The result is a misinterpretation of what nationalism actually is and a failure to acknowledge unrecognized nations that certainly do exist. As previously mentioned, it’s more complex than the generic definitions we devise for the terms through either observation or what we are taught in bureaucratic public schools. Nationalism is not a homogenous manifestation, and because of this, we should not assume future nations would form the same way. A nation, as an “idea,” according to the Nineteenth-century French Historian Ernest Renan, is “simple in appearance, but capable of the most dangerous misunderstanding.” Let’s clear up any misunderstanding, which may exist.

>>4264 What is a nation and how do they form? A nation, according to the American political scientist and historian Benedict Anderson, “is an imagined community.” Anderson derives his definition from earlier work provided by British historian Hugh Seton-Watson, who was “driven to the conclusion that no ‘scientific definition’ of a nation can be devised,” as nations are often immeasurable and consist of populations who do not and will not ever meet most of their fellow cohorts. Though there is some contention about when nations began springing into existence – Catholic Priest and Historian Adrian Hastings argues a form of English nationalism first arose in the Fourteenth-century – nationalism is generally regarded as a construct of the Nineteenth-century. The words “state” and “nation” are not synonymous, despite popular belief. Some theoreticians, however, argue that the creation of a state is one of the primary functions of a nation. It’s essential to understand that nations form for a variety of reasons and not every nation has the same motivations. Most of the continental European nations – with some exceptions – are bound by cultural tradition and/or ethnicity. These nations, which now predominately exist as nation-states due to post-WWI Wilsonian urgings for national sovereignty, typically share vernacular and written languages. Anderson attributes the consolidations of these languages (there were countless dialects and spoken languages all across Europe before the rise of nations) and the resulting national consciousness to the creation of “print capitalism” and the sharing of books and newspapers through private markets.Though this might explain the creation of a German, English, or Spanish nation, it doesn’t explain the European anomaly of the Irish nation. The British systematically worked to eliminate and replace the Gaelic languages centuries before the formation of nations, and if we presume that only a shared language places one within a nation, we should naturally expect Irishmen and women to be members of the English nation. However, given that we know an Irish national mentality existed before the creation of the Independent Irish Republic and a resurgence of the Gaelic language, we can logically conclude that nations can and do form through various other processes. Nations can form through a connection based on shared ethnicity. Nations can also be bound by shared religious belief. Members of the same religious communities can belong to the same nation, even though they do not necessarily speak the same language. Sometimes nations are the result of a shared “external threat,” as is the case with many previously colonized Northern and Southern American, African, Asian nations and the Irish. If an external threat can create a national consciousness, is it not possible that the commonly shared threat of statism and collectivism could create a form of anti-state libertarian nationalism, which is bound by the shared principles of private property and non-aggression? Mises’ explanation of Liberal nationalism Many of the greatest liberal writers have voiced their opinions about nationalism, including Ludwig von Mises. In his seminal work Nation, State, and Economy: Contributions to the Politics and History of Our Time (1919), Mises addresses how European liberals, motivated by the Enlightenment ideals of freedom and equality, adopted “the nationality principle” in order to grant their national contingents the individual right of self-determination and to free them from tyrannical princes. These liberal nations, which eventually became nation-states, are capable of neighboring other nations peacefully by practicing laissez-faire capitalism and promoting genuine free trade. It is only when these “modern principles of the state, in their triumphant march from West to East, reach the territories of mixed population [multiple nationalities under one state],” that “peaceful nationalism” turns into “militaristic nationalism.” Stated simply, Mises argues that only modern states with a homogenous national population are capable of practicing peaceful governance, can avoid aggressive imperialism, and evade the state-legislated oppression of national minorities. Having lived in the Austro-Hungarian Empire himself, Mises understood firsthand the issue of having a state rule over several nationalities (Germans, Czechs, Slavs, Poles, etc.) simultaneously. Twenty-five years after Nation, State, and Economy was published, Mises wrote Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State & Total War (1944) to explain the rise of the Nazi Regime to the world. Within this work, Mises restates many of his observations about nationalism, but provides a harsher critique of statism and the functions of the state. “The…state must necessarily extend its territory to the utmost,” argues Mises, because the larger the realm of the state, the more the government is capable of protecting the economic aspirations of its favored national group (Mises refers to this act as economic nationalism). Even in the face of the destructiveness of the Second World War, Mises makes it clear that it’s not the existence of nations that is problematic. Rather, it is the presence of states with heterogeneous national populations that are hazardous to liberty. Anti-state libertarian nationalism Is there a community of individuals who read the same literature, engage in similar philosophical debates, advocate for strong private property rights, support the work of Austrian economists, believe the state to be the greatest threat to peaceful people, and that all human interaction should be voluntary? Absolutely. Is it possible then that there is an anti-state libertarian nation? Definitely. Unlike other nations, however, its members are not motivated to create or take over a state in order to benefit its fellow associates. It formed, like other nations, due to the sharing of intellectual content through private markets and because of an external threat: the state. Because a state does exist and most of its citizens support the political factions that compete for control over this violent apparatus while promoting the statist dogma (that the state should have a role in both social and economic affairs), this anti-state libertarian nation is a minority nation. Like all other minority nations, it is subjected to the political will of the comparatively larger nation (statists). Until more statists choose to voluntarily join this libertarian nation (which requires they adopt the economic and ethical justifications for private property rights) anti-state libertarians can expect to have their rights continually trampled. It is of the utmost importance that the ideals which bind this minority nation continue to spread, and the private market is the best tool to ensure this happens. Mises pessimistically suggested, “it would be a fateful mistake to assume that a return to the policies of liberalism abandoned by the civilized nations some decades ago could cure these evils and open the way toward peaceful cooperation of nations and toward prosperity.” He did not, however, live to see this minority nation grow to the size it is today

>>4265 >>4299 I'm the same guy as this, and I've claimed this board. Things will continue as usual, I'll only moderate when there's bad actors, mass spam and etc.

https://archive.vn/iWsJR CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) — Planned legislation to establish new business areas in Nevada would allow technology companies to effectively form separate local governments.

>>4318 >Someone claimed /liberty/ finally. I'm super fucking happy! I'm sick and tired on lingering on /pol/

>>4340 Why do you keep posting the same guy who has nothing to do with ideas discussed on this board?

If the State is charged with protecting the property of its citizenry, then it must be categorically stated that any attempt to do so can only end in contradiction. As stated earlier, an inherent characteristic of any State is that it must lay taxes in order to fund its operations. Taxes themselves are nothing more than threats to initiate uninvited physical interference with the persons and/or property of others if they do not hand over X amount of money. Recall, threats to initiate uninvited physical interference with the persons or property of others is considered aggression. Simply stated: taxation is theft. Thus, the State cannot make any attempts to protect the property of its citizenry without first violating it on a mass scale.

>>4372 The problem is a common defense may be one of the few things a central government might be better suited for and one thing in which the stakes are extremely high. It is a contradiction, but so is getting invaded by statist aggressor nations and losing liberty until the end of time.

Americans think that the US will be improved by expanding wars, increasing the debt, and adding more tyranny when the reason the USA is crashing is because the US has wars, is in debt, and has a police state. Americans used to say that they love freedom, but now they turn around and say they need the government to give them free Obamacare, build a wall, protect the US from Yemen, wiretap their phones, arrest people for feeding the homeless, stop farmers from plowing fields, force people to get rid of dogs, ban vaping, and torture suspects. Every country has the government it deserves.

>>5016 Do you deserve the government you are currently under? What did you do specifically to deserve it? What could YOU have done differently to ensure you got the government you 100% wanted?

>this board <not having a liberty theme Do this. A Gadsden snake theme for this board.

>>5085 Seconding for a liberty theme

The world used to be divided up in small societies like Navajo tribes or the Amish. Later the European Union was started and was sold as a world with free trade, no borders, and a single currency. The problem is that the world now has a global government. The diversity among homosexuals, Christians, Buddhists, and Muslims then gets crushed and the world becomes like North Korea where you can't escape.

>>5264 >you can't escape The vast majority of land is uninhabited and unmonitored. You can escape if you're willing to leave civilization. I would do it myself if I had any survival skills.

The elites don't need you. All the infrastructure has been built and the globalists will soon have robots.

>>5287 The unwashed masses don't need the elites, plus we outnumber them. 7 billion retarded obese faggots can just zerg rush 100 billionaires and their robots, we will win.

Do Americans who think that they can survive tyranny by joining the Gestapo realize that they have to live with their consciences? Do Americans who think that they can survive tyranny by remaining silent and obedient realize that this plan failed for millions of people who were killed in Nazi Germany, the USSR, China, and Cambodia? Do Americans who think that they can survive tyranny by being rich, famous, attractive, educated, or having influence realize that this plan failed to protect people in history? Do Americans who think that they can survive tyranny by being white realize that whatever they allow the government to do to others will eventually be done to them?

/pol/ told me that Whites need to live under fascism, and that liberty is only for jews

/monarchy/ has had /liberty/ BOs in the past. & comes to /liberty/ now to request a jewel for our crown jewels. There have been grievances between us. But who knows who will wear the crown next. Give a jewel of any type (w/ a name, maybe, & pic) Examples: </hispol/ >Understood. I gift to you, the "Great Lemon" jewel discovered in Baja California, México. Is in the St Edward's Crown. </b/ >On behalf of /b/ we offer for a jewel... >Fire.

Wow. Americans cheer when they lose their rights and the state gets stronger.

>>3885 Lolbertarianisn should be the starting point, not the end. OK, we are going to begin with lolbertarianism and then move onto the policies we could add to it to make it a functional society. Just remember that we are going for long-term value of stability, not the short-term value of safety. So, starting from NWS Minarchism with NAP for it's laws. It goes without saying that I hold to the lolbertarian ideals that property and people must be physical to be legitimate, we should not recognize intellectual property nor corporate personhood. First, remove the legislature and legislative powers, political leaders should be overseers who enforce the laws as they were written at the nation's founding, not those who make changes to the laws. Second, make all the banks into a branch of the government, we print our own money, and we prohibit practices like issuing currency backed by fiat, lending on a fractional reserve system, and of course charging interest at any rate. Third, taxes, they will be charged in the following forms: - A flat percentage on every transaction using the national currency with an additional percentage for such transactions occurring across national borders. - An annual flat percentage of the value of landholdings at the time when they were acquired by their current owners. - A flat lump sum charge for crossing the national borders, both entry and exit. Fourth, the most important stuff: The laws only apply to those who fit into five requirements of "PersonHood", each defined in the strictest biological sense : - They must be Alive. - They must be Adult. - They must be Male. - They must be Human. and - They must be White. Anyone who falls short of even one of these requirements for "personhood" is a DeJure outlaw and a DeFacto slave: - They are outside of the law, lacking any rights, they have none of the law's protections, and have no accountability to law's rules. - They're legal status is equal to that of an inanimate object without sentience, meaning they fall into the category of ownable property for White Men, so any protections the law affords them would come to them second-hand from the property rights of their Masters, nothing may be done with them that their owner does not consent to. - Naturally, White boys will become their own masters once they reach biological adulthood and become White Men. - White girls will most likely begin their lives as belonging to their fathers, and later on to their husbands, who are the White Men to whom their fathers would transfer ownership of her over to. Voting and elections are unnecessary, I prefer the idea of a hereditary monarchy with only Male leaders in succession, appointing a cabinet of ministers under them, who would in turn appoint those who serve under them. I'd make it illegal for any White Man to be a recipient of anal penetration by male genitalia, they may hold most power in society but I would not permit them to be made a woman of. I am quite inspired by the civilizations of the ancient world, European culture originated there, and by extension, the greater west. Things were a lot better back then, when Men were of crueler hearts, back before the faggot philosophers of the enlightenment led us to where we are today. Instead of just talking shit about libertarianism, how about you step up to scrutiny like a Man, and tell us what you propose our nations should be? I desire an Empire, one that takes over the world in a new age of conquest wherein great legends are written and heroes are born. The White Man should have complete dominance over the planet and over all that live upon it. Give me your blueprint for a country, tell me what your government would be like, ow your political system would function, and what laws or policies you'd have.

[Expand Post]

Ideologies are useful only to summarize a commonly understood set of concepts that could be looked up, to save time and characters length when describing the way you'd run a nation. But if you just stop at the ideological label, you likely haven't thought enough about the kind of civilization you'd want to have. People who'd care about civ-building would start with an political label "X", and then begin listing the deviations they'd make from that ideology, "X, with the following changes..." If you disagree with me, don;t tell me what you disagree with, tell me what you'd replace the part you dislike with. If you can tell me what you don't like, but not what you'd do instead, I don't think you deserve to have a place in political discussions. I want /pol/ to have anons with ideas. To /pol/: If you just want a carbon-copy of the 3rd German Reich that's fine, I'll prefer almost anything to what we have now, but the only thing I ask is for you to be able to describe what that would entail. If you want National Socialism but cannot tell me what National Socialism even is, I cannot take you seriously.

>>5412 >Do Americans who think that they can survive tyranny by joining the Gestapo realize that they have to live with their consciences? >Do Americans who think that they can survive tyranny by remaining silent and obedient realize that this plan failed for millions of people who were killed in Nazi Germany, the USSR, China, and Cambodia? The Gestapo and Nazi Germany were great, what the hell are you talking about?

>>5529 Based. "Live and let live" doesn't work when people want to exterminate and replace you. The Non-Aggression Principle is worse than useless under such circumstances.