>>4342 Some deleted posts. Some politics is permitted on /v/ and some is not. https://archive.vn/2nEYy https://web.archive.org/web/20041206110350/http://www.nazi.org/party/theory/

>>4342 I mean it's not entirely contradictory. >>4264 >>4265

No, fuck this gay shit. "Nation" is only an excuse for the state to extert control over population and a corruption of tribal instinct of humanity due to the fact that our brains are created to living in small communities. Organisation of populace towards work for the sake of a nation is cancerous and unworthy of even considering. Because at the end of the day, it is not the work of the individual for the individual, nor the work of the individual for his actual community. It is the work of individual for the individuals standing at the top of society for no actual benefit of him or his true community. Any support that the state can provide will always come at the stripping of individual's freedoms and molding him into an instrument of the state rather than helping him realise his own potential for the benefit of his and the community. Claiming that there can be anything more important than the rights of an individual is against THE CORE of libertarian thought. People should not for the society, people should create a society in which it is good to live in. And the fact that you even consider government fucking handouts is insulting.

>>4346 Ara~ is share ownership 'government fucking handouts?' I think not. I was suggesting that public property ownership be split into shares and given to the people, 1 share for 1 citizen. >Claiming that there can be anything more important than the rights of an individual The rights of the individual cannot be sustained without a collective that will defend them. This is why Eugenics is important. I cite the fall of the USA as support for my argument la~ >>>/vox xe/

>>4430 >The rights of the individual cannot be sustained without a collective that will defend them. This is why Eugenics is important. I cite the fall of the USA as support for my argument la~ The idea of giving the state the power to control the genetic makeup of the population is the most ridiculous option you could come up with. You're literally giving an entity that does not fucking care about you and wants nothing more to rule over you, the power to decide what will be the future genetic makeup of our species. If you think that a state, especially in modern times would geniuently try to create a healthy species, and wouldn't be diverted into breeding a slave species for itself, then you are incredibly naive. If a government isn't corrupt at first, then it will fall into corruption later. The arguments that are made against democracy in pic related are the exact same arguments people were making about monarchy in the past. It's not that democracy degenerates into corruption, it's that EVERY state degenerates into corruption. If the people weren't complaining about politicians, they were complaining about the nobles or the church. It's always the same shit. It doesn't matter what checks you'll put for the state to not take away your rights, it will happen eventually, because the state is not your friend, it is not a tool for betterment of society. State is a tool of power and nothing more. Nothing else matters to the state, and nothing else will matter to the people who make up the state. At worst its a necessary evil, at best it isn't necessary at all and we are all being deceived. By arguing for state-mandated eguencis, you are arguing that individuals should be controlled in their breeding by the state, which immediately violates several freedoms that an individual should posess, but let's say that it is done for the means of improving the life of people at first. It will be used as a tool of the state against its people sooner or later, no matter what you do. Because this is the simple nature of the state, it will always enroach on your rights because its very existence is based around ruling over you. As for USA, the only reason why USA is dying is because it is reaching that point where state starts to really enroach on people's freedoms. It is the natural development of any country, and the politicians have learned to use what divides people to destroy their individual identity and put them into camps against each other. Black vs White Left vs Right Jew vs Goyim Republcan vs Democrat It is not the problem of the fact that USA was wrong with its individualism, or that there needs to be a collective protecting the right of the individual. It's the problem of USA not going far enough and not crippling the state even more so that it cannot create its own collectives to divide and conquer.

>libertarian >socialism >national retard as fuck

>>4454 Libertarianism is a worldwide movement but it needs nationalism and practical mercantilism to protect itself from foreign statist scum and abusive trade practices.

>>4463 Protectionism is bullshit in general as it just artificially increases prices-but when you're competing with countries that use slave labor and subsidy as a tactic for trade abuse you have to respond in kind unless you want to end up completely economically dependent on them or mogged by them.

>>4342 National socialism and other movements within Third Positionism are based on the idea of the inevitability of the state; it is a collectivist ideology that views the individual not as his own being but as being one part of a unified body. If I were to describe it in three words they would be: >Duty >Unity >Authority Something that is decidedly antithetical to libertarianism and individualism.

>>4471 This. The moment you put a group over an individual you aren't really a libertarian anymore. The whole point of libertarianism is the fact that people aren't just cells in one big organism, but are individuals with their own motivations and goals. None of the three values that 1b3216 pointed out can be a part of libertarianism. >Duty An individual does not have any duty towards the state, simply because the state is not his friend. It's not a head of a harmoniously working organism, but a collection of individuals with their own motivations which profit off of other individuals by taxation or repression. Therefore, you believing in duty towards your state is pushing your ass wide open so that others can fuck you better. Ideas such as nation are simply rhetoric that the state uses to explain away it's repressive ways. The state is not your friend, and at best is a necessary evil. >Unity The idea of unity is completely against the ideas of libertarianism, because libertarians believe that the driving force behind a well organised society is competition between individuals or at least entities owned by individuals. Both in the terms of ideas as well as economics. >Authority Once again, libertarianism believes that the only person who has rightful authority over an individual, is the individual themselves. The idea of crashing libertarianism together with the ideologies of a bunch of commies, whose only differentiating part in their way of thinking from other commies, is that they're nationalistic and racist, is fucking ridiculous.

>>4475 Just let them start their own ethno-communes and hopefully, they will leave us alone.

>>4345 I like you. >>4346 States will always exist to some degree due to the need for collective defense. Are you an anarchist? Anarchy is just a state of war. >>4471 >>4475 >>4477 None of you seem to grasp the concept proposed by OP but are simply projecting. I know, innovation is hard, but you know there is no single best way of organising a society, just better ways, and yes, any society will have an organisation or you have anarchy and anarchy is war. Individualist ideologies will always lose against collectivist ideologies unless the individuals ideology recognises (and acts on) the need for collective defense against internal (would be tyrants such as the FED, FBI, IRS, ect) and external threats (foreign powers, UN, WHO, CCP ect).

>>4501 The early USA, for reference, was a White Nationalist Libertarian Confederal Republic.

>>4501 Lol yeah everyone is projecting, we aren't pol so we dont have much else to do. Anyways, theres a big difference between a confederacy and national socialism. He didn't mention defense at all in his post , it was literally Publicly owned property. You can have a "shared" defense without the need of ultimate authority over a people. >anarchy is war Whats the difference between voluntary action and anarchy? Its an ancap board, pretty sure anarchy is required.

>>4501 You are wrong in many ways, first of all, libertarianism already has a threat that it stands against, no matter whether it is anarchist or otherwise. It's called "The state". Even if you are a minarchist and consider the state to be a necessity to some extent, you still look at it as a necessary evil, something that is like playing with fire and wanting to keep at bay. The idea behind libertarian organisation is the idea of voluntary organisation. You do the shit you want, you associate with people you want, you trade with people you want to buy from as long as you aren't violating anyone's rights. The government at best merely watches that people won't kill each other, but even then a lot of responsibility is levied onto the individual who is better off having some guns in case he wants to defend himself. This isn't some pipe-dream either because we know that people easily and voluntarily form organisations and hierarchies when left alone. While obviously, violence does happen, this is to be mitigated by maybe, perhaps a minimal state depending on what libertarian you ask and a right to self-defense. And as >>4508 said, there is a difference between a confederacy and national socialism. Not only that but the very idea of allying oneself to a heavily state-based ideology influenced by socialist thought is retarded. We are literally the opposite.

Americans scream tyranny is wonderful, but Americans are unable to explain why Cubans try to escape even though Cuba has gun control and free medical care.

>>4342 https://www.amren.com/ >White Nationalist Libertarianism was the guiding principle of the USA's founding.

>>4854 I couldn't care less about your obvious hypocresy and your deeply self-contradicting ideology but post more Entartete Kunst of cute tasty-looking hucow anime girls that make me wanna cum

>>4855 ...can't even spell. White Nationalist Libertarianism was the original ideology of the USA. EAT IT.

>>5010 This >>4855 HURR

>>5010 That's not the same shit as the garbage that is National Socialism, and even then it has its own problems.

What do you think of: https://patriotfront.us/ ?

No country in history has ever hated freedom as much as the USA does. You know that all hope is lost when you talk to 5 Americans in one day and one says that the Bill of Rights should be repealed, another says blacksmithing should be illegal, one swears wearing fur should be a crime, one says private charities should be outlawed, and another says bump stocks must be banned. Disgusting.

>>5408 >blacksmithing should be illegal Who the hell has a problem with blacksmithing of all things? And Why?

>>5409 >Who the hell has a problem with blacksmithing of all things? liberals want us disarmed and vulnerable to antifa/blm terrorism

>>5010 >White Nationalist Libertarianism was the original ideology of the USA I'm not certain the Founding Fathers as a group had any shared ideology beyond independence from foreign rulers. Sure some of them could have been called "White Nationalist Libertarians" but some others wanted Washington to be King of USA

Americans think living in a socialist police state is normal, but freedom is not some textbook theory. There are still some Americans alive today who will tell you that freedom is better.