>>20543 >(Hello, I just arrived from Discord, please bully me)s Fuck. I didn't know this board censored the word "z00mer."

OP. two things. First, realize that you're not on cuckchan. Second, part of the problem is that many of the so-called "Libertarians" were never such in the first place. In fact, it's become very apparent over the past several years that you had groups using such labels as nothing more than fronts or honeypots towards advancing the Socialist revolution. Even the so called "Authoritarian Right" you see recently from the Christian Nationalists and Project 2025 is nothing more than a psy-op designed to cause more trouble. So as far as why people are so silent lately outside of the extremists, it's because people don't know who to trust.

>>20543 >2020 was perhaps their climax because a lot of them were still active on altchans Climaxes happen in public spaces. The height on online libertarianism was in the 2010s. GG, BLM, gay marriage, and other culture war topics shifted the focus of online discourse from economic to social issues. Occupy and the Tea Party were the first and last attempts at manifesting online libertarianism into the public sphere. It was always a given that 4um and Ron Paul's libertarians were culturally rightists (in the grand scheme, not in the micro where they masturbate to hentai). Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party, who people turned their eyes to instead of Ron Paul, and the subversives among Occupy were leftists, and the Tea Party filled itself with baby boomers and grifters. With Trump, things swung faster into authoritarianism. The 2000s and 2010s had drilled into the minds of many youths that capitalism and socialism were ultimately unideal prospects which lent themselves to cultural decay. Ron Paul got old, and his son had neither the staying power nor the energy of his father. The Libertarian Party continued to be the party of degenerates. Natsocs, who had always held a significant sway on imageboards alongside libertarians, had their time to shine and are still having it. Rather than living through the change from pre-Bush Junior to post-Bush Junior surveillance and conspiracy, the new generations have grown up with the fallout of pre-Obama and post-Obama. This could be seen as the triumph of the skinhead and rehabilitative Fascist movements of the 90s, who largely appealed to the uneducated masses while forming think tanks and academics of their own like AmRen. Libertarians had constant chances from the 80s to the new millennium, but they failed at almost every turn because of their own incompetence (the Libertarian and Reform Parties) or adverse media attention (Paleocons). The best thing that could have happened to libertarians was the maintenance of the status quo after 2000 (say Gore 2000 and 2004 and Hillary 2008), but change came. The best thing for libertarians to do now is to hitch themselves onto Republicans, to form a kind of coalition.

>>20543 >>20544 This is a bad censor. Z00mers are the future.

>>20543 I can't speak for 8chan since I haven't been using it that much nowadays, but the ancap movement is growing in Brazil and in brazilian imageboards, especially due to the current government with its insane taxation and corruption. Also a fuckload of youtube influencers that have been teaching people to invest in crypto to escape taxes and introducing them to anarcho-capitalism. Some highlights: >100% tax on imported goods over 50 dollars >44% tax on imported goods below 50 dollars >20-50% more tax on all firearms, which are already impossible to get a permit for >20-35% more tax on hybrid/electric cars >taxes on offshore accounts >taxes on gasoline, cooking gas, ethanol, diesel >proposals to tax uber drivers to the point where they will only be able to get 15% of what they actually earn (most of our uber drivers are STEM college graduates since there's no industry here) >proposals to tax any kind of stock action, including losses We're also under a supreme court dictatorship that basically controls the whole country to the point of writing laws and doing the executive branch's work. Elon Musk had a quarrel with the de facto brazilian king, Alexandre de Moraes over twitter censoring. A handful of comedians/journalists and youtubers that spoke against the supreme court have fled to the USA. A lot of brazilians are fleeing the country. The brazilian "right" is a very recent thing, it has existed for less than two decades, and although it is already the strongest force in politics right now thanks to Bolsonaro, it suffers from a lack of knowledge. Brazil has been under communist influence for almost a century now, every single person in this country has gone through the Paulo Freire's leftist brainwashing project known as the brazilian school and university systems. This means that most brazilian conservatives actually agree with every marxist point of view regarding the economy. So every right-leaning politician and voter thinks the following: >all we need is a strong leader that will take the economy by it's reins and save the country by imposing a strong economic plan that will finally industrialize the country! Which is the same train of thought that every leftist has, excluding woke shit. Also, we're full of monarchists, elitists and christian nationalists. And every single one of them can't answer how they'll be able to find the Chosen One to be their fair ruler.

>>20759 What even is "Christian nationalism?" I thought this was just another slur the media invented for White conservatives.

>>20766 I would explain, but the BO banned my last time I did. So. Sorry but you asked on the wrong board.

>>20767 >I would explain, but the BO banned my last time I did. <Image >>20766 >What even is "Christian nationalism?" https://archive.md/DxPLU

>>20766 I don't remember exactly what James Lindsay >>20770 said about American Christian Nationalists, but here in Brazil it's basically Christians who think that the best course of action is to impose a top-down monarchical (or not) government without the separation of church and state, punishing anyone that does not adhere to christian laws. They do not care about the economic side of the argument, only about the degeneration of culture and conservative moral values. Their main argument is that God chooses the king of a nation, and if that king is Christian, the country will automatically usher in a new golden age of traditional values and "volksgemeinschaft". They ignore or don't know about 1 Samuel 8.

>>20783 >it's basically Christians who think that the best course of action is to impose a top-down monarchical (or not) government without the separation of church and state, punishing anyone that does not adhere to christian laws. That's the gist of what the CNs are saying here in the states. However you also have some sly ones trying dupe people into the ideology by simple going: <Are you a Christian? Do you love your nation? Congratulation, you're a "Christian Nationalist". The irony is that they're trying to sell it as a "return" to American fundamentals when (1) the ENTIRE point of the American experiment was to escape the unjust rules imposed by lords, bishops, and kings and (2) the majority of the Founding Fathers were not Christian. By most accounts, only a third of them Christians in the traditional sense, like Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry. The rest either believed in a concept called "Deism" (Generally, the belief of A singular god existing but not necessarily believing it to be the Christian god) like Washington and Franklin, or were Agnostic (Believing that the existence of God can neither be proven nor denied) like Thomas Paine. HOWEVER, they did understand the importance of religion in people's lives, which is the reason behind the First.

>>20543 Libertarian here, you are right that the movement lost a lot of steam after Ron Paul. I think the biggest failure has been Covid, I mean think about it, we were living under extreme authoritarian conditions(there was a time I had to carry a document to justify why I left my house, and cops were placed in strategic points to make sure nobody was going outside), basically everything bad a government could do, they did it during Covid. This was the chance for the Libertarians and AnCaps to say "Hey we have been warning you about this, you now see why the governemnt is bad?", but they failed into convincing more people to go into black and grey markets(Agorism) or reduce government reach or anything, instead people went with the program. To be fair there was a lot of censorship and media manipulation so it was an uphill battle, but still a massive failure. The Libertarian Party, which is considered to be a joke by plenry of hardocre libertarians, endorsed mask wearing, vaccination and all that shit. Right now their best strategy is the Free State Project, in which a ton of libertarians move into New Hampshire, raise libertarian families, and vote for libertarian candidates so that, hopefully in two or three more generations(that is if they don't get invaded by illegals) can turn the state Yellow. Another thing is to replace the Libertarian Party with the Mises Caucus, which in spite of it's jewish name is much better than the LP as they are more Rothbardian libertarians than the "I am a liberal who wants to legalize weed" libertarian that make up the majority of the LP. He might have been a kike, but in 1992 Rothbard more or less wrote a winning strategy for the Republican party that Donald Trump more or less emulated and looking at the list of proposals, it's something you would have heard from 2016 /pol/. This is taken from the same article in which he lamented that David Duke lost the election in Louisiana and berated the lying media for their smear campaign against David Duke. >>20783 >I don't remember exactly what James Lindsay said about American Christian Nationalists Basically they are a reactionary movement destined to fail in order to empower the left, either intentionally or not. They are supposed to gain some amount of relevance and influence, so that the media can run a 24/7 psy-op on how dangerous they are, and why people need to vote even more liberals and democrats into power to pass more LGBTQ laws (an example of this is Agenda 2025 which the media keeps saying that Trump will implement to scare moderates into voting Democrat, even though Trump disavowed it, but the media will keep using it as a boogieman). In the case the CN actually do get into power and go full fascism by getting supreme power to do whatever they want, so they dismantle the first and second amendment to impose the CN rhetoric to "BTFO the left", but once they inevitably get replaced by a left-leaning government, all the barriers and hurdles they previously had to go over to push the pozz, have now been destroyed by the CN, so the go full pozz and any moderate who thinks that giving 3 year old babies hormone blockers is too much, will be lumped with the CN, censored and arrested. It's why James Lindsay says that "the Right is the Left's right hand".

>>20543 I remain libertarian. I'm just more caught up in racism™

>>20543 There are a couple of things at work. 1. Lolbertarianism is an ideology that only appeals to rich White boys, and only appeals to them in times of relative peace, plenty, prosperity, and safety. 2. Go look at Ameri-Kwan demographics over the past three decades. Also look at the US economy. Look at the real one. Shadowstats has some good information. Pay particular attention to trends in income and education by race and sex. What I am saying here is that White women have been aspiring to be bitter childless cat ladies--excuse me, I mean "stronk career womyn who don't need on man"--and refusing to marry or have White children to perpetuate the White race. Without young White men from comfortable backgrounds, who have never had to run for their lives from a pack of niggers, there is no one to read Rand or Rothbard. Additionally White men since the Boomers have been getting raw-dogged by the System (see also, (((globalization)))) since before they could walk. White men born since 1965 work longer and longer hours for less and less and less, because the people who said "Diversity and multiculturalism isn't a zero-sum game, the economy isn't a zero-sum game" were lying through their teeth and laughing at the rubes for believing it. White men born since 1965 will never see one thin dime of Social Security unless you get the neetbux as SSDI. Lolbertarianism has an appeal to a certain sort of high-functioning autistic principled idealist who wants very badly to believe the world is, can be, ever was, or ever could have been a meritocracy. They lack the (Hello, I just arrived from Cuckchan, please bully me)s' instinctive neural hard-wiring for race preference and kin preference, which is why they doesn't understand that in this world the only truths that matter are Blood and Soil, Borders, Language, and Culture. It's all very well to see the big picture and grasp the abstractions, but no, really, the reason you were told to "learn to code" all your life then got your Master's in Electrical Engineering and work at Starbucks as a barista isn't because Pajeet works harder than you or is more competent than you, it's because Pajeet lives in a mud hut and works for two cents a month and your rulers hate you so much that they let the (((banksters))) force you into cutthroat wage competition with him. As such, given the sudden radical demographic changes of the last generation or two, there is nobody being born who finds enough appeal in high-minded Constitutional principles, that can only apply and can only work in an affluent, high-trust, ethnically homogeneous society that no longer exists, to read The Fountainhead and write bad fanfiction of it to post on their Geocities pages. That America is as dead and gone as Nineveh and Tyre. The young White guys you're looking for mostly never got born in the first place. The ones who did manage to make it into existence are more interested in not starving to death and not getting dragged out of their cars and stomped to death by a mob of wetbacks when they stop at a traffic light on the way home from work. A slightly different sort of young White guy, one less autistic and more jock-ish, who used to be the backbone of the kind of movement you seem to want, used to join the military, but that's now all DEI all the time, all Affirmative Action all the time, all trannies all the time, and it's all so fake and gay that it fills them with disgust. I've told all the young guys in my family, and every young guy who's ever asked me for advice, don't enlist, don't serve ZOG, it will wipe its ass on you and throw you away, and you'll be taking orders from four-hundred-pound Shaneequa the whole time while you're in Asscrackistan getting shot at, guarding Drag Queen Story Time performances for the enraged locals' kids. And if you get crippled, Shaneequa's sister Keywanda at the VA will devote herself to making sure you never get any rehabilitation, treatment, or assistance. So they're all working at Starbucks too, watching their wages and hours get cut year over year as the owners hire more and more wetbacks to work for $4 an hour under the table. If you want to appeal to these guys, you need to offer them a vision of a better world, one that's more appealing than "the guys who shipped all the high-paying unionized heavy-industry jobs you were supposed to get to China and impoverished your families forever shouldn't have to pay taxes," my dude. Really. Think harder.

>>21203 >White men born since 1965 will never see one thin dime of Social Security unless you get the neetbux as SSDI. NO ONE was suppose to see their Social Security, that's how the Ponzi Scheme works. Welfare was invented as a system in 1880's Prussia, and put into law by Otto von Bismarck in order to placate the Marxists causing trouble in the country. The way the system worked was the the government basically guaranteed the public an unlimited pension the moment you turn 70, however the catch for the system was that your average Prussian didn't live beyond 45 (Let alone 65, the current retirement age). So the system "worked" because your average citizen was never going to ever actually see that money that they were paying in, but there was also the string attached that making such a system made a populace who was dependent upon the government and answered to their every whim. Japan was the first country to realize this "loop hole" and implement a nationwide welfare system for anyone and everyone who entered civil service (IOW the military). The result of this action was Japan's transformation from being a still relatively developing society to the military power house that destroyed Russia in 1905 and expanding to the point of controlling half of the Asian continent by WWII. In fact, Japan actually still has those laws in place to this day as they never actually rewrote their constitution (Just amended it with new laws), but have expanded them to also include the public sector. And the result has been that, after Japan's economic boom in the 70's and 80's, the country's economy began to crash during the 90's. This is where much of the memes about Japanese "population crisis" comes from, because the result of these welfare policies is that the older Japanese generation is entering retirement and beginning to take their money out of the system, but there isn't enough new people being born in the country to pay into the system to keep it functioning (Let alone growing). This is also ignoring factors such as how there's an entire "Lost" generation in Japan who have just resigned to being NEETs and not even paying into the system, and how the Japanese live unnaturally long lives in the first place. But what about America and Social Security? Well, this is actually Japan's fault too, but in a roundabout way. Thanks in no small part to the experiments conducted by Unit 731 (With the West buying the results of those experiments from Japan in exchange for them never having to face their own equivalent of the Nuremberg trials), the medical knowledge people had access to exploded and resulted in doctors performing "miracles" over the next few decades. To where you once had high infant mortality and the average person dying by the age of 50, infant mortality dropped to a quart of what it once was and people are living into their 80's and 90's. So more people are taking out of Social Security than putting in due to them living longer. Then there's the problem that the government expanded Social Security to include things like disabilities, and even began using it as a "temporary" funding account for their special programs (That were beyond just welfare). And the result is that you have a system that was going to fail anyway (IIRC, the original estimate were somewhere around 2050-2080), but it's failing a lot sooner than they would like it to. TL;DR, welfare is a Ponzi scheme, by the very definition of it, and it never works >the reason you were told to "learn to code" all your life then got your Master's in Electrical Engineering and work at Starbucks as a barista isn't because Pajeet works harder than you or is more competent than you, it's because Pajeet lives in a mud hut and works for two cents a month and your rulers hate you so much that they let the (((banksters))) force you into cutthroat wage competition with him. You know what, I agree. That is a problem. And it's why I don't fully believe in Libertarian policies when it comes to international markets. It creates too much instability such as what we have right now, where African and Asian countries are crucial to supplies for even domestic markets (Despite there being ZERO reason preventing us from making those supplies domestically in the first place) and it resulting in us having to placate literal dictators with a slave populace in order to have a functioning economy in our home nation. And it's circumstances like that where the government should be stepping in, with imposing tariffs on international goods and deporting illegals and aliens who overstay their Visas. Even "fellow white" nations shouldn't be trusting each other with this shit, because what's stopping Microsoft, Apple, or Elon Musk from telling the EU to go fuck themselves and denying them access to Twatter, iCloud, and/or Windows because they imposed a fine that was more than a simple slap on the wrist? They're American companies, so they're only required to follow European laws so long as they exist as a formality. >As such, given the sudden radical demographic changes of the last generation or two, there is nobody being born who finds enough appeal in high-minded Constitutional principles You sure about that? Because it seems like more and more people are digging into Classical Liberal beliefs. And to the point that even the legitimately racist Anglophiles of a century ago (Like Wilson) would have called it "Right Wing Extremism". >that can only apply and can only work in an affluent, high-trust, ethnically homogeneous society [Citation fucking needed] You forget that the Founding Father were so protective of America and what it stood for that there were arguments of even outright rejecting ANY AND ALL immigration from the European continent. Because America wasn't about "race", it was about ideals like liberty and individuality. And like I just said, even a "ethnically homogeneous society" like Japan still managed to fuck thing up. >That America is as dead and gone No, it's not.

>>20553 Actually i'd argue it's even simpler than that. You don't see them because they either by force or because of retards seizing control are all on other platforms now. (Faggit, Telegram, private Discord servers, pedodon, etc). I would bet my bottom dollar that if we ran a campaign about how bad those platforms are, they'd slowly start coming back here.

>>21208 >They don't do this to Christian Africans. They don't go attack Christian mexicans. They don't go slander Christian Arabs. Yes, they do. It's why the biggest joke going around now is that the "modern" White Supremacist in America are the Catholic spics illegally crossing the border. And why they tell niggers to STFU unless they're promoting the current political establishment.

>>20543 No. We are just less active because many people still doesn't see that taxes are the beggining of every hidden state conspiracy. Many rightwingers are falling for Trump without even giving a chance to the thought of him being just another puppet. We might not wish to join those who are freely racists instead of simply playing safe ethnocentric politics, too and the left on the other hand is vandalic and disgraced, it's quite a disheartening situation. >>21203 I do not admit you to be ever acknowledgable about what we are. At least of my vision of LibRight and what it should be. Yet I give to you: that many libertarians are actually following the classic libertarians authors about it, which are kikes... I saw their failures even before realizing it but this doesn't clean the situation much.

I've generally always been anti-authority and was always interested in various types of anarchy in my youth, but I've become a reluctant authoritarian because it's necessary. No type of libertarianism or anarchism is going to protect the environment, uplift the people or keep out non-Whites. Central control is necessary, but I think a proper state should strive not to abuse that power or lead it into excess. Peoples' autonomy needs to be respected and totalitarianism needs to be rejected.

If you read any Hoppe you'd know Monarchy is kinda based desu

>>20543 Being a libertarian is exhausting. Every post to the contrary requires telling a non libertarian why they are retarded. Most people just shake their heads at the stupid people knowing full well nothing can be said to lead people out of the darkness

>>24543 I haven't seen libertarians make any good arguments. Why is libertarianism good for White people at this stage?

>>20543 Where did we ever get the idea that monarchies are not THE most libertarian system? They are literally just privatized governments...if that even makes any sense. Feudal systems literally are government by the shareholders of the country with the king acting as CEO. You had overwhelmingly MORE freedoms in monarchist states then we do in globohomo democracies.

>>24549 >You had overwhelmingly MORE freedoms in monarchist states then we do in globohomo democracies. Complete bullshit, but I'll bite. How was there more freedom?

>>20759 Might makes right. He who beats all others into submission obviously can't do so without doing something right. He's either a great at militarism, economics, logistics, bureaucracy or some combination of the above. I mean obviously might makes right, obviously. Where did we ever get the idea it doesn't? You can't have might without being right about something and you can't win without doing it better then everyone else. Might makes right is the only moral system you can measure concreatly. You win therefore you're right. End of story. This makes sense intuitively. You don't need mental gymnastics to argue might makes right, you need them to argue otherwise. On what basis can morals exist then if not through measurable results? One can cite god, and many do, but that's no different from what the left does when they cite shit you can't observe or measure. And that's why everyone who judges morality on the basis of some invisible critera that is somehow 'immune' to objective scrutiny is a leftist. I mean think about it for two seconds. How do you have gunpowder, written language, metallurgy, a system of laws, advanced navigation and sea travel, the scientific knowledge to create all that, the healthy labor force to build all that, the philosophy and arts to encourage your people to build all that and the strength to force project an ocean away on a distant continent and somehow argue the tribals in grass skirts you're attacking are somehow 'right' or 'just as valid' as you?

>>24548 It's the only system that can last. Everything else will fall under its own weight as it has been since the beginning of civilization and only other methods are capable of bringing civilization to its end.

>>24576 >It's the only system that can last. I've seen absolutely nothing that supports this assertion. Actually, the opposite is appearing quite evidently true. Capitalism and immigration are close bedfellows and unrestrained consumerism is ravaging the environment. 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.

>>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