>>24551 How was there less? There's no reason to think so other than it sounds about right. We portray kings as tyrants and don't think about it. They want you not to think about it. So naturally calling them tyrants simply because just sounds about right. But did the king ever force your children to inject shit into your children? Did local lords jail everyone accused of public drunkeness? Did you have more days off in the medieval period or less? Go look it up. For 99% of people, no one fucking cared what you did in the medieval period as long as you didn't cause trouble. Nearly all draconian laws existed solely in theory. Public drunkeness or throwing shit at some guy's house who you hate really didn't see a whole ton of punishment. We tend to focus on the exceptions when we talk about how draconian it is, not the norm. Kings did a lot of fucked up shit, but I don't know how you can watch Romania and France flat out jail the opposition and say our governmental system is all that much better. We are taxed up the ass way more than the Founding Fathers of this country ever were and they rebelled violently over it. Looking purely at the results and nothing else, the best you can argue is that democracy is exactly as terrible as a monarchy, and even that requires conjecture. Saudi Arabia is a monarchy. Thailand is a monarchy. I was much more free in Thailand then I am here. Same goes for Saudi Arabia. Sucks for the migrant workers that are basically slaves but they aren't citizens so why the fuck would I care? Those countries look out for their own far better than the west does.

>>24576 >it's the only system that can last The only systems that 'last' are feudal monarchies and tribes.

>>24548 Libertarianism is just a flavor of a system to live under. It's an ideal (ideology) to strive for but not necessary every reach. Like many ideologies, it turns more moderate in the extreme parts with the reality of the existing political situation. Most right wingers shifted more authoritarian and less principled due to that sort of reality with corpos and people themselves abusing any institution they can get in and weaponize against others like freedom lovers. The best government depends on the people, culture, genetics, history, geopolitical reality, and era. Libertarianism is just an ideal for most American and freedom lovers to live under. Some turned to national socialism, Christian nationalism, magapedes, etc. to cope with the increased left wing threat to reduce the dissident right. I'm personally more of a fan of libertarian nationalism to essentially force freedom on people in the system I would want to live under with coalition and pragmatic compromises to any extremist purity of the ideology. Shit gotta be stable and prosperous in the end to have it last anyway. Either way, the decline and pressure on the older establishment and subversives in the ma(i)ga boomers benefits all dissident movements (even left wing ones) in gaining more influence in an inevitably increasing unstable societal system. Whether it is for reform, collapse, decline, or a worsening, it all is a gamble for something new from this stagnation at very least.

>>24581 >How was there less? Well, conscription was pretty much the status quo, so if your baron wanted you to fight and die for something, you had to. You were also regarded as a piece of property that was indentured to them, along with your land and resources. If you were to criticize the royalty, you would either be killed or tortured and imprisoned at best. >But did the king ever force your children to inject shit into your children? What a ridiculous argument. That technology didn't even exist and how do you know they wouldn't have it had been in their interest to do so for some reason? >For 99% of people, no one fucking cared what you did in the medieval period as long as you didn't cause trouble. Unless you happen to have the wrong view of religion, or a ruler or whatever else could be labeled as "trouble". Did you know samurai used to be able to kill a peasant on the spot if they perceived any disrespect? >drunkeness or throwing shit at some guy's house who you hate really didn't see a whole ton of punishment That's a crock of shit. Feudalism was the time with most liberal usage of sever punishment in history and it played a huge part in over-domesticating the European gene pool through dysgenic selection. https://www.medievalists.net/2024/04/medieval-executions/ >The acts for which a medieval person could be executed were various and ranged from crimes against property, to those against people, to those against cultural beliefs. >Kings did a lot of fucked up shit, but I don't know how you can watch Romania and France flat out jail the opposition Exactly, jail. In feudalism, the opposition was straight up killed. >I was much more free in Thailand then I am here. You were presumably a visitor and more freedom isn't automatically good. >Same goes for Saudi Arabia This is such nonsense. People were not freer under feudalism. They were more enslaved and the punishment for going against the grain was far worse. You are projecting something that never existed. Like I said, I used to be of the same sentiment, but reality has tempered my view.

>>24584 Systems that adapt to changes are the best for lasting imo.

>>24549 >Where did we ever get the idea that monarchies are not THE most libertarian system? Aristotle. And Aristotelian outlook still inhibits right libertarians from fully embracing it. Right Libertarians will endorse the ideology of many petty kings on the basis of decentralization, but reckon with absolute monarchy and you'll see where that narrative falls apart and why that still reigns true today in spite of Hoppe.

>>24585 OK, but with all the economic freedom we've established, people are unhealthier than ever; the world is turning dark and the environment is being degraded and destroyed. It clearly doesn't work. For the record, appreciating and upholding freedom is absolutely not wrong and I would rather start with that attitude and adjust as necessary. I've reluctantly come to concede myself that more freedom isn't always a good thing depending on the context. Libertarianism might work in a pure ethnostate with high IQ people and probably more of the mutualist one like what Proudhon envisioned and not the AnCap nonsense. Until then, it is clearly a defective ideology that serves no purpose to us ethnocentric Whites who are trying to lift ourselves up. That said, I think certain things should be taken from libertarianism and utilized where beneficial.

>>24589 >>24589 >Well, conscription was pretty much the status quo There is a whole generation of Vietboomers who are still alive living in modern democracies when it was the status quo and the whole EU is discussing bringing it back to stop le Russians for whom conscription is also the norm. >What a ridiculous argument. That technology didn't even exist and how do you know they wouldn't have it had been in their interest to do so for some reason? I don't, I just know it did happen in muh heckin democracy. The worst you argument you can make against monarchism is that, in this respect, they would have been exactly as terrible as monarchy. That's the absolute best you can argue here and, even then, baselessly, since we don't have western monarchies anymore, just eastern ones, and, while often draconian in some respects, in others respects, they somehow had looser rules then, say, Commiefornia. At worst it would be as bad, no more no less, and even that requires some assumptions on your part. >Unless you happen to have the wrong view of religion, or a ruler or whatever else could be labeled as "trouble". Did you know samurai used to be able to kill a peasant on the spot if they perceived any disrespect? *cough* Seth Rich *cough* Epstein Island *cough* Clinton kill list *cough* All this shit applies for us. Our defense has fuck all to do with democracy, it's because we have the internet. If it were up to muh democracy you would be killed for anything from racism to lolicon to uttering the N word one time. Fuck democracy. Fuck the goyim suggestion box. The only reason msm can't get away with bullshit anymore is because of the internet, the modern printing press, making it impossible. Thing is, using the printing press as a parallel, we can see a lot of the shit people use to dissent would exist with or without the aid of democracy. Everything you credit American democracy for protecting is actually protected by the 2nd Amendment. Imagine how 2012 to 2025 would have gone without the 2nd Amendment? We know based on how selectively the 1st Amendment has been employed that it's existence barely amounted to anything without fear of the 2nd to back it up. And, for the record, I would happily have that Samurai rule be a thing if the samurai would walk around Chicago, LA and Detroit. Nogs only respect fear and can't be made polite for anything but fear, so having s man threaten to cut their testicles off for smacking dey lips too loud would be a fucking improvement. Lolberts who stayed lolberts either cucked out to the left or got in the way of the right. Only Javier Milei managed to do anything with the movement. Lolberts are all talk and no success. No lolbert ever saved DreadPirateRoberts from life imprisonment. Donald J. Trump had to do that for them. You could say the same about modern monarchists, outside of one weird as fuck Russian billionare we haven't done shit, but you can't say the same about monarchies themselves. Monarchies did nearly everything in recorded history. The only political system to last as long continuously are tribal socieities and they got their fucking asses raped, often by monarchies. Meanwhile most anarchists and lolberts are hyper woke leftists who say they are those things while simultaneously demanding government expand times 1000.

Let me tell you why that is. I'm the current /monarchy/ BO. Old /monarchy/ BO was a Hoppean. We always disagreed on Monarchy. The root of our disagreement was he'd always bring up centralization. We hear it a lot today, but this dichotomy of centralization & decentralization ultimately stems back to Aristotle -- Aristotle criticized Plato for his conception of politics being too unitary. >What does this have to do with Monarchy? It is a long web of things, but to put it simply: Aristotle says Monarchy is appropriate for an economical estate (which is what Right Libertarians, esp. Hoppeans follow) -- BUT Aristotle denies it for political rule, & makes the economical estate lesser than the political state as a composite whole of many estates and independent clans together. Aristotle's conception of politics was pluralistic -- it resembles the multi-party democracies today as opposed to State Corporatist one-party states -- and in the context of monarchy, the ideology of many petty kings Homer lamented, and absolute monarchy. >Well, why not make an absolute monarchy from a libertarian perspective? it is a privatized government Aristotle makes this taboo for Right Libertarians, because Aristotle insists that it is one thing to know how to govern your estate, and another to deal with political society. In other words, the capacity for knowledge of ruling a private estate and a political state are two different kinds... Plato insisted they were the same: if you knew how to govern yourself, and your private estate, then you would be well on your way to governing the country -- but Aristotle denies this. >And centralization? Because Monarchy by Aristotle's definition is unitary, and political commonwealths are a plurality -- it is against the nature of politics, in Aristotle's terms, to make it unitary and so a monarchy... Aristotle said the same about State Corporatism or a unitary conception of politics we see today with one-party states. ... To wrap this up, Right Libertarians like Monarchy on Aristotle's terms at best, but they'd never go as far as to embrace the more pre-eminent views of Monarchy: the furthest a right libertarian can go with Monarchy is one among equals and a colleague of many petty kings, but that is rather oligarchical altogether and is not the spirit of what Homer said.

>>20543 You were always a pipeline for a reason. After a while, you realize that they'll never leave you alone and that the surest guarantee of personal Sovereignty is Racial Sovereignty.

>>24605 >Vietboomers I never said conscription was exclusive to feudalism, but by and large, it's more pervasive and overbearing in feudalism. >I don't, I just know it did happen in muh heckin democracy. So what would theoretically stop a monarch from doing the same? What would happen if the baron has a friend in big pharma who wants to make a lot of money pushing vaccines? Well, they would force that on you all the same. >while often draconian in some respects Yes, so monarchies are not inherently freer. They're inherently more oppressive. You can describe the current status quo as many things, but even in this time of relative totalitarianism, the whips on our metaphorical skin are softer than in the past. >they somehow had looser rules then, say, Commiefornia And is that always a good thing? I just looked up countries with the most STD's and it took me little time to see Thailand sitting fairly near the top. Thailand also is the STD capital of the entirety of Asia, which says a lot, both in terms of Asia's size and destination as a sex market. Another search revealed that Thailand is also very high in air pollution. They're also the leader in road deaths in SE Asia. Thailand is not a place I would ever want to live, demographics aside. >All this shit applies for us. It does, but the severity is much lower and the checks and balances are much higher. If you do something you go to court. Before, you would go straight to the block and for a much wider range of reasons. >Our defense has fuck all to do with democracy, it's because we have the internet. I have my criticisms of democracy, but no, it does help to ameliorate with some level of totalitarianism. If you don't like the gun laws in a blue state, you can move to a red state. If you don't like the drug laws in a red state, you can move to a blue state. Democracy by its nature does have a mitigating effect to some aspects of tyranny, which is why the Ancient Greeks instituted it in the first place. It of course permits excesses like what you reference, but overall, it is still a lighter hold around your neck than monarchism. >And, for the record, I would happily have that Samurai rule be a thing if the samurai would walk around Chicago, LA and Detroit. Then you're being a hypocrite, as that is inherently authoritarian. The problem is that the demographics of Chicago, LA and Detroit exist in the first place - a problem created by the indulgences of unrestrained capitalism bringing them here. >Monarchies did nearly everything in recorded history. Yes and no. Ancient Greece had a lot to do with democracy and other systems. Rome was a Republic before an Empire and that was not really a "monarchy", either and Europe and the rest of the developed world has made its biggest advances with the advent of more liberal societies. I do understand the appeal of monarchism and like anything it has its pros and cons, but you idealizing it. The irony being that AnCap isn't actually libertarian, but totalitarianism exclusively by wealth. I encourage you and any other libertarian to please reconsider what the corrosive effects of runaway capitalism has done to our people and hopefully adjust as necessary. I know we all have our ideals and like I said, the hunger for freedom is nothing to be ashamed of, but it is not at all optimal in the current era.

>>24630 >The problem is that the demographics of Chicago, LA and Detroit exist in the first place - a problem created by the indulgences of unrestrained capitalism bringing them here. It is a love of cheap labor, but you'd be fooled if you thought this was unrestrained capitalism and not a very deliberate and ideological thing. That too is Aristotle's work. The neocolonial hydra and racial caste system we see today is in line with his prescription Aristotle on a mixed or foreign racial underclass: >The very best thing of all would be that the husbandmen should be slaves taken from among men who are not all of the same race and not spirited, for if they have no spirit they will be better suited for their work, and there will be no danger of their making a revolution. The next best thing would be that they should be Perioeci of foreign race, and of a like inferior nature; some of them should be the slaves of individuals, and employed in the private estates of men of property, the remainder should be the property of the state and employed on the common land. I will hereafter explain what is the proper treatment of slaves, and why it is expedient that liberty should be always held out to them as the reward of their services. That is what we see today, with a mixed constitution not only composite in politics but also in races. ... Whereas North Korea is the most homogeneous country in this world: you might call it tyrannical, but I don't see why a race nationalist should complain if his primary concern is preservation of race -- a tyrannical regime ties people to the land, scares off foreigners, has a vast cool of labor and so no incentive to import foreigners, is usually based off Corporatist, unitary politics and so more inclined to form a cult of personality and more inclined to make the people united (and so more reason to make sure they are altogether the same in race). Your people are poor (so no foreigners want to live there and get their honey of wealth).

Because it doesn't work, there will always be someone trying to take away your freedoms and dominate your culture.

>>24609 Retard

>>20543 Frankly even though I disagree with them I think you need an IQ above 100 to get behind libertarianism which a lot of spic white-larpers muzzrats and jeets don't have.

>>24548 >Why is libertarianism good for White people at this stage? Libertarians, or at least ancaps, don't believe in civil rights. You should be free to make a closed private community/city with your own laws and be able to discriminate freely without initiating the use of force. Let me explain in simple terms since a lot of cuckchanners have flooded in recently: >only whites city >can refuse service to other races >no government to force you to interact with other races >can defend yourself from other races

>>24641 >It is a love of cheap labor, but you'd be fooled if you thought this was unrestrained capitalism and not a very deliberate and ideological thing. I reject this and it's very easy to see that the primary driver is capitalistic greed. Of course ideology certainly is a factor, but it's mostly genuine xenophilia. The market forces are demonstrably the primary cause of the movement of people into White countries. Not every explanation needs to be complex or secret to be true. >North Korea I don't think North Korea is anything that should be praised or admired. Some people have it in their heads that just because they're homogenous also means it's a good society, but I disagree. Homogeneity is only one aspect of what creates a quality society and North Korea is not a quality society. It's not an either/or proposition and we shouldn't compromise ourselves to achieve homogeneity. If we create a mediocre homogeneous society, that will also be a failure in my eyes. >>25165 >Libertarians, or at least ancaps, don't believe in civil rights. Which means that without a centralized system of law, there will be competing influences that could fracture the community. >You should be free to make a closed private community/city with your own laws So, since money will ultimately decide who has the most power in this city, what do you do when the CEO's son wants to bring a Filipina to marry and reproduce with? They have power, so it's more difficult to tell him no and that can be applied to other people. What do you do when someone wants to bring pajeet workers for their IT project? There is no centralized command, so they will be able to. Yes, other people can resist him, but the point is that there will unnecessary conflict. Also, who plans this city? Who would be the centralized command, an association of business owners? Everything they do in regards to the city will only have profit in mind, then. If you look at the closest thing we actually have to an AnCap state, which is Orania in South Africa, it's actually fairly socialized. The city council tightly regulates the city; there are communal initiatives like bike sharing and the electrical plant is owned by the town council; it's not "private". Despite this, they have had problems with inflation for housing due to some capitalistic tendencies. So in reality, AnCap is a myth. It's actually a misnomer because business becomes the state. You're not actually free and you may wind up paying more depending on how the economy goes. It's more optimal to have societal guidance of the economy than the other way around.

Other posts I want to reply to, but I have other things I need to take care of this morning, so I'll reply to them later. >>24065 >We are just less active because many people still doesn't see that taxes are the beggining of every hidden state conspiracy. I don't oppose taxes, in principle. I just don't care for the way they're implemented with it being an eternal debt that's owed by a country's people. A government does need to exist for the purposes of protecting and maintaining a society against outside forces (And legal situations that cannot be solved civilly), and that action does require money to fund it the ability to do it. >>24548 >Why is libertarianism good for White people at this stage? Because Libertarianism is a meritocracy enforced by the people rather than a council/government that can be swayed by other interests. >>24580 >and unrestrained consumerism is ravaging the environment You do realize that said "unrestrained consumerism" is only allowed to happen because a Communist and authoritarian governments are the one making said products, right? >The long history of alcohol and now other drugs in the West has done nothing but had a starkly damaging and degenerating effect on its populace. You do remember that Prohibition was one of the most crime-ridden eras in American history, right? >>24581 >We portray kings as tyrants Not all kings. >Did local lords jail everyone accused of public drunkeness? Yes, some did >Nearly all draconian laws existed solely in theory. But they existed, which is the larger problem people have. >We tend to focus on the exceptions when we talk about how draconian it is, not the norm. Kings did a lot of fucked up shit, but I don't know how you can watch Romania and France flat out jail the opposition and say our governmental system is all that much better. No one except for deluded intellectuals are saying they're "Better". In fact, people are pointing out that many of the modern aspects are much worse. A king has his own interests, meanwhile today's modern authoritarians are doing for the "greater good". >We are taxed up the ass way more than the Founding Fathers of this country ever were and they rebelled violently over it. No, they didn't rebel over taxes. That's a modern fiction created by retarded accelerationists and anarchists. What they rebelled over was the ability to govern themselves and to be recognized as their own independent people. However the crown was refusing to do that and the taxes were the final straw in what had been, up to that point, a 30 year grievance.

>>25436 >Which means that without a centralized system of law, there will be competing influences that could fracture the community. The alternative is a centralized system - what we have now. >So, since money will ultimately decide who has the most power in this city Not necessarily, a community can value something more than money. >what do you do when the CEO's son wants to bring a Filipina to marry and reproduce with? They have power, so it's more difficult to tell him no and that can be applied to other people If it's against the laws of the community he's part of, he will face the laws of the community. If the community doesn't apply its rules to everyone, leave the community and create another. Or just stop doing business with him. >What do you do when someone wants to bring pajeet workers for their IT project? If the whites-only community has no laws against this, they're retarded. >There is no centralized command, so they will be able to. Yes, other people can resist him, but the point is that there will unnecessary conflict. Ancap/libertarianism is a set of rules to attempt to solve conflicts, not a solution to all conflicts. If you're part of a private city, you've agreed to their rules, if you've broken the contract you've voluntarily agreed to, you're liable to suffer the consequences. >Also, who plans this city? Whoever they decided that should plan it. If they want to appoint someone to plan it, that is. >Who would be the centralized command, an association of business owners? Whoever they decided to be the centralized command, if it even exists. >Everything they do in regards to the city will only have profit in mind, then. Not necessarily. >The city council tightly regulates the city; there are communal initiatives like bike sharing and the electrical plant is owned by the town council; it's not "private". Is the town council part of the state of south africa? Does it have the monopoly of use of force? If not, it's private. >Despite this, they have had problems with inflation for housing due to some capitalistic tendencies. So? >So in reality, AnCap is a myth. [citation needed] >It's actually a misnomer because business becomes the state. State = monopoly of use of force. >You're not actually free and you may wind up paying more depending on how the economy goes. You'd have more freedom than in most countries depending on the rules of the community you've chosen to live in. >It's more optimal to have societal guidance of the economy than the other way around. No, it is not. If you think that economy can be "guided" by a select group of people, you're mentally retarded or worse, a communist.

>>24603 Yeah, more freedom has been shown not to be natural solution to many things as we've seen with corps and activistic subversives taking advantage to weaponize institutions against dissidents. I think the lesson is to meld whatever good stuff from libertarianism into an ideological system that's workable and benefits your political goal/people. These last many years have beem humbling for most ideological purists from the older days.

>>24589 >Well, conscription was pretty much the status quo The very basis of feudalism is that peasants don't fight. First modern conscription, where soldiers were sent into enemy territory instead of defending their land happened under French Revolution. It even triggered an uprising in Brittany which became part of France under provision (among others) that Bretonian lads would not be sent to fight abroad.

>>24603 >OK, but with all the economic freedom we've established, people are unhealthier than ever Okay. Why are you choosing to live an unhealthy lifestyle? >and the environment is being degraded and Yeah, in authoritarian countries like West Taiwan. Meanwhile America is thriving much more ecologically than when the Indians were the only people here. >Libertarianism might work in a pure ethnostate with high IQ people That's the same argument used for why authoritarian states always fail, that the people were not racially/ideologically "pure" and/or lacked a high IQ. >and the whole EU The EU is not, and has never been, an example of Libertarianism, or even Capitalism for that matter. European nations have always had some flavor of Socialism since the 1880's. >since we don't have western monarchies anymore Yes, you do. In England, Spain, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden just to name a few. >in others respects, they somehow had looser rules then, say, Commiefornia In what way, specifically? >If it were up to muh democracy you would be killed for anything from racism to lolicon to uttering the N word one time. Yet everyone is being racist on the internet and anime is the most popular mediums of entertainment at this current moment. >Thing is, using the printing press as a parallel, we can see a lot of the shit people use to dissent would exist with or without the aid of democracy. The printing press is an example of the decentralization of control over the types of works that can be published. In other words, you were depriving the government of control and handing the decisions to the people. That exactly is an example of the democratic process. >>24630 >The problem is that the demographics of Chicago, LA and Detroit exist in the first place - a problem created by the indulgences of unrestrained capitalism bringing them here. Actually, no. The reason those cities are the shit-holes they are is because of the city governments centralizing power. In Chicago and Detroit, the most blatant example of this is how all industries in those cities are controlled by the unions, who basically control a monopoly on who can work and when because of government regulations, so companies began bringing in exports from Japan because there was no such regulations there. Similar thing with California, except instead of industry laws, it's all the bullshit environmental laws, that could result in you going to jail because you accidentally killed a literal fucking mouse. >what the corrosive effects of runaway capitalism has done to our people Made the individual almost exclusively responsible on how it is that they live their lives? >>25436 >there will be competing influences that could fracture the community That's going to happen no matter what political system is implemented. >since money will ultimately decide who has the most power in this city No, it doesn't. >what do you do when the CEO's son wants to bring a Filipina to marry and reproduce with? the CEO could disown him and cut him off from his wealth, like many families have done in the past. In fact, the Japanese imperial family currently is suffering from this issue because too many descendants of the imperial lines have married "commoners", and therefore forfeited their ability to ascend to the throne. >What do you do when someone wants to bring pajeet workers for their IT project? That would be a matter for the government step in because the pajeets are a foreign people who have no place in the country. However in the instance that there is no government, then it's the job of the customer to begin getting their IT products and services from a different company. And if there is no other company, then they start up their own or make do without the service/product >Yes, other people can resist him, but the point is that there will unnecessary conflict How? >Also, who plans this city? It used to be the mortgage and construction companies who unironically planned city layouts and provided all the infrastructure. >Who would be the centralized command, an association of business owners? Trade organizations pop up all the time. >Everything they do in regards to the city will only have profit in mind, then. Yes, and? The result would be those companies doing everything possible to entice people to come to THEIR city as opposed to someone else's. >If you look at the closest thing we actually have to an AnCap state, which is Orania in South Africa What about much of the rest of the African continent, that has no formal government and is overrun with warlords? >>25637 >Not necessarily, a community can value something more than money. Not really. In fact, many of the communes that sprouted up during the 70's tried that and every single one of them failed due to it turning the community into essentially a cult/feudal establishment. >Ancap/libertarianism is a set of rules to attempt to solve conflicts

[Expand Post]

No, it's not. Ancap is anarchy, which is the complete LACK of rules and customs. >>25908 >as we've seen with corps and activistic subversives taking advantage to weaponize institutions against dissidents Aren't innumerable companies and institutions now begging for money from the government because no one is supporting them anymore?

>>26041 >No, it's not. Ancap is anarchy, which is the complete LACK of rules and customs. Ok, next time, actually try and read something about anarcocapitalism, instead of listening to some youtube celebrity.

>>20543 Libertarianism would be an ideal ideology in the west if our lands weren't so subverted by jews. The primacy of freedom and individuality is very appealing and produces great results. This appreciation of freedom and relatively free enterprise is, to a great extent, why america became so powerful.

>>20543 >/liberty/ Are you talking about the board on zzzchan?

>>20543 Am I the only one that thinks all this endless discussion about political ideology is kind of pointless? When I look at history, what I see is that a government is a reflection of the people. If a people is morally strong and values liberty and hates tyrants, then they will naturally have a non-parasitic government, without all this endless circlejerk about politics. They will even have it when they don't know what libertarianism is, like in medieval Iceland. All the political compass autism thus seems like a red herring to me, since it's just a reflection of the average character of a people. You won't magically create a libertarian paradise by imposing it on a slavish, hierarchically-minded population, which happens to be most non-whites. And conversely, a nation founded by free people will eventually fail if it's overrun by groups who have been genetically selected for authoritarianism, as you can witness in real time. In short, it seems to me that demographics is destiny, not ideology, irregardless of how much you debate about ideology. If it doesn't fit the genetically inherited average personality of a people, it won't stick.

>>26238 >If it doesn't fit the genetically inherited It's more than genetics. Compare Best and Worst Korea, or Taiwan and West Taiwan, or India and Pakistan,

>>26251 and? how different are those pairs, really? both koreas and both taiwans had dictatorships for a while and they are still far from a western democracy. asians are famously apolitical, most of them don't care that much about who's running the government or how enslaved they are, as long as they get their tendies. best korea is much poorer mostly due to sanctions and not being propped up by america, before that both of them were absolute shitholes. both koreas have a similar underlying mentality towards social organization, with chaebols and corruption in government, but best korea had outside influence from the soviets. if us and ussr support were reversed, i'm almost certain north korea would now be rich and south korea poor. i don't know what you meant with big pooland and little pooland, both seem equally shitty to me. i'm not saying genetics determines with a 100% certainty what kind of government a people will have, but more like 80% and the rest is historical accidents and geography (resources, geopolitics, etc). in the context of the same geographical area and same era, those factors will cancel out and genetics will determine close to 100% though, which is illustrated by countries where rapid population replacement is occuring. more importantly, you can't export libertarianism to any non-white country, because it strays too far from their genetics. c.f. american efforts at nation-building. there's also the fact that jews have adopted an evolutionary strategy that takes advantage of libertarian societies and cannot stably exists within them without hollowing them out, but i assume most of you already knew that.

Libertarians are retarded because free trade and immigration destroy a nation. Objectively

>>20544 heres a test (Hello, I just arrived from Discord, please bully me)

>>26152 /liberty/ was on old 8chan from the gamergate alt-lite/alt-right era. I don't believe the original is around anymore, just splinters like the one you referred to. That time was a great time to be a libertarian. We even made a cute don't step on me monster girl snek board mascot that someone drew (not the monster musume one). It's probably lost to time by now.

>>26268 There's many cases of differing governing styles affecting people from on a generational basis. Western Germans and Eastern Germans have a lot of differences due to the berlin wall split that can be seen to this day from behavior to economic outcomes. Government styles can get people to change and adapt. We've seen this happen as quickly as our own government turning everyone into faggots, troons, and nigger worshippers within one generation. The point is that the environment affects genes and vice versa. A government needs to account for these difference group tendencies like niggers being generally more violent and disruptive in a permissive society or jews being extremely subversive and tribal. Many whites and peoples from the Asia continent are generally overcivilized over generations of genetic changes molded by historic developments to the point of being more relatively docile and apathetic (especially the latter) yet conducive to maintaining or building high civilization. I'd argue there is pros and cons to being too civilized and not, in various circumstances. Libertarianism has many great aspects that is appealing to pull for as society to live under. That should be the main purpose: to live in that sort of society. An ultimately selfish one. You can get anyone to live under almost any ideology. The question is through how much cost is reasonable to get people in it and make it reasonably stable and prosperously attractive. Civilizing efforts have been made for centuries like the white man's burden, yet it's slow and often does not end satisfactory for all parties involved. Perhaps the self-sacrifice and pain is not worth it, as many have already express in this era.

>>26716 >>>/liberty/

>>26716 >snek girl mascot that's lost :( I checked my gadsden folder, but couldn't find anything like it.

Is /liberty/ BO still on the site? If not we should probably revive /liberty/ if possible. Seeing that there are more people on the site now there are probably more libertarians besides me and some anons on /v/.

>>20543 Most people make nothing but strawmen about libertarians