What could possibly be better than a simple live and let live? It doesnt make any sense. Why would you want any kind of government other than the smallest possible one?
I think that for a person to be able to desire anything else there must be some assumption that he knows better than the general population. Which is always a wrong assumption to make regardless of whether it is actually true or not.
>live and let live?
We're long past the point where that is possible. The game is stacked against us and I'm simply not going to let kike billionaires live.
>>7573 A libertarian government doesn't make much sense if you want to exploit people. All human power structures end up with the most ruthless individuals at the top. "Live and let live" will never get you there, and so the structure of our societies are determined by people who have no interest in "Live and let live"
Because if you let people do anything, then they'll shoot themselves in the foot with a fragmentation grenade and you will get caught in the blast.
Also, that statement and other similar arguments imply that there is an infinite amount of desirable resources of every kind.
Yeah, if there was an infinite amount of good women, it wouldn't matter if a few were whores. If there was an infinite amount of good men, it wouldn't matter if a few were spineless cucks. But in actuality, we end up in the present day if we go on "thinking" like that.
>>7576 You cannot escape this situation through voting. Whether you vote for the puppet on the left or the puppet on the right, it makes no difference.
Human indifference to suffering and injustice is endemic. No system you can come up with will change it.
>>7578 Most countries actually arent cucked into a binary party system. Here in europe it should be possible to vote for freedom if only the citizens wanted
>>7582 Because we live in a society and people's decisions affect other people. If I'm going to be assfucked by other people's stupidity I'd rather do what I can to mitigate it.
>>7573 Because it allows non-whites to live.
All non-whites must, and will, be killed. Jews included, of course. The world is for White People only.
>there must be some assumption that he knows better than the general population
The general population is composed of retards and brainwashed drones. They must never be listened, nor have ny form of freedom. They are tools to be used against our enemies, and to be disposed soon after. The world has many subhumans alive. Genociding them all and letting only the best of the best among the White People to live and procreate is the only good option.
>>7579 Literally, yes. And it is not a belief. It is a fact.
>>7580 When i want freedom and the majority of citizens don't want freedom, they must all be killed so my will prevails above the cucked voting system.
>>7585 What a retarded example. Sounds like you could use some freedom, dont you think? Youve mistaken libertarianism for democracy. A libertarian government would obviously had to take some very unlibertarian steps to ensure that it remains one, like for example not letting the citizens cuck themselves.
>>7586 >All non-whites must, and will, be killed.
Well that sounds a bit extreme. Have you considered at least leaving them their original homelands or something? I think they have the same right to develop into a civilized society as we do. Remember that whites were retarded apes at some point in our evolutionary history too.
>It is a fact.
I mean yes, maybe, but that doesnt give you the right to make the decision for them, does it? Say if every person in your country decides to commit a genetic suicide, who are you to stop them?
>Yes, anyone who stops to think for a moment immediately knows better than the people.
I'm sure you were sarcastic, but if you stop to think at all, you *do* actually know better than most people. And it is only natural to resent people who do not think. They do not deserve the vote, and they do not deserve liberty. Useless consumers who cannot even raise children of sound mind and body should not be allowed even to occupy space in this world, and without the intervention of that false morality that allows them to persist the natural order would have rightfully weeded them out. While I'm sympathetic to libertarianism, the majority are wholly unprepared for it: to them, I would give Fascism until we've readied the human stock for something better.
Live and let live is a great system with other people who live and let live. In the real world we have assholes.
>okay dude i wont kill you in your sleep even though i can
>but you dont kill me either okay that way we can both live
>he goes to sleep
>you dont kill him
>you go to sleep
>fuk u whyte boy
>he stabs you
Live and let live has a non-degenerate equilibrium point only under an assumption of rational choice. It breaks down if you have people who are irrational and don't bother taking the logical option, or are too stupid to reason down the chain of consequences for their actions. See scorpion and the frog.
Another anon put it very well once: In the prisoner's dilemma of life, non-whites will always defect.
>>7595 I wasn't sarcastic, I said that while I watched some normalfags argue (as far as throwing non-arguments at each other goes) politics on IRC.
The only "freedom" they defended was the "freedom" to wank to porn. After that was a bunch extreme media-induced hysteria and emotional reasoning explaining why things that feel bad should be illegal and things that feel good should be legal while they labeled things they don't like "left-wing" or "right-wing".
The only news to me there was how deeply addicted to porn most people are, I didn't know it was this severe, but seeing the shitstorm gave me the thought.
>>7604 Now maybe you will start to realize just how under threat humanity is.
The way western societies are now structured as if designed by a science-fiction alien race to destroy us.
We are encouraged not to breed, to embrace mentally ill styles of life,
our way of life is now essentially a celebration of death.
>>7606 Its not exactly easy considering that nobody seems to like freedom. I know literally nobody irl that shares my opinion on the matter. Even this place is filled with very authoritarian-leaning people
>>7602 Im not advocating for complete anarchy here, obviously you need some laws for this exact reason. Drugs are a good example of something that is not any of government business yet the majority of people seems to like to keep them outlawed. Same thing goes for euthanasia or freedom of speech etc
>>7606 Right libertarians are not libertarians per se, that's why.
>>7609 >majority of people seems to like to keep them outlawed
Its amazing that those niggers who want to keep them outlawed dont get that they are working against their own goal.
Whats the problem with euthanasia tho? There are already vultures feeding off death, undertakers.
>>7613 > Whats the problem with euthanasia tho?
I think all forms of "legal murder" may have legal loopholes that allows authorities or possibly anyone else to commit murder legally. This is the major reason for outlawing the death penalty, too. It is way too easy to sentence to DP for fabricated shit or when the court system is corrupt (it is corrupt).
Remember fellas, you are only alive because it's illegal to kill you. I cannot imagine anybody taking your side if shit hits the fan, you asocial bastards lol.
>>7609 Some substances may ruin somebody's life with just one shot, heroin is one of them. Also it is argued that there are two kinds of people, ones who tried cocaine and ones who didn't, with former having irreversible craving for more even if they have good self-control. Also abusing some substances, including marijuana, irreversibly changes your neural system. There are also businesses who would directly benefit from as many people being addicted as possible, which makes forceful addictions a plausible strategy.
Of course, most problems descibed here would be largely mitigated by fixing the society from a soul-sucking machine to something else, but that's a long way away and the harm of drugs isn't restricted to genetic trash like you might believe.
So, in all honesty, I support outlawing the drugs. They probably cannot find you anyway if you synthesize them yourself from raw materials and never sell it to anyone, so I don't see much problem.
>>7614 >Drugs bad therefore drugs shall be illegal
So what they are bad for me, if i decide to cut my fucking hand off its my business and my business only and 100% none of yours
>They probably cannot find you anyway if you synthesize them yourself from raw materials and never sell it to anyone
Ah yes because anyone can do it properly with absolutely no risk of endangering themselves or the people around them with poisonous and/or explosive chemicals. Believe it or not, i did look into making the drugs myself and im almost certain i couldnt finish most of those that i did look into without harming myself or ending up with worthless trash
>>7616 Your hand is your business. A dope fiend stabbing someone for money and stealing shit because they cannot earn money because they fuck everything up and therefore nobody hires them is everyone's concern though. Something has to be done and it's out of the crackhead's hands.
>im almost certain i couldnt finish most of those
Either you get a proper training and education or you have a close friend who does that. That's how I see it. Another option is not going for complicated recipes and refining procedures. Just let it go if you cannot handle it. It is not a basic necessity and not a commodity - it is a recreation, a luxury, a privilege and maybe even a commitment, like spiritual seeking with psychedelics or something. I don't like people treating it lightly.
>>7617 >A dope fiend stabbing someone for money
He wouldnt have to stab anybody if it werent so fucking expensive because its illegal. Most drug addicts are actually highly functional and their lives would be significantly easier and, more importantly, more safe if they didnt have deal with shady dealers who may or may not cut it with god knows what
The fact that you think its the drugs fault and not the governments only shows the level at which you dont think about it yourself and only repeat what the scaremongering faggots who directly profit from the (very clearly pointless) war on drugs say.
And yes i did stay away from it and i will untill i get enough experience with chemistry in general
>>7618 >He wouldnt have to stab anybody if it werent so fucking expensive because its illegal.
>Most drug addicts are actually highly functional
I dunno about that. The thing about "falling from grace" is that you keep falling and there is really no bottom. In more concrete terms - if a druggie doesn't have to earn more, they won't and their life comes to a halt anyway. See alcolosers.
>The fact that you think its the drugs fault and not the governments
So, now it's governments fault that people want to drug themselves? OK.
I see the whole thing as an ethical problem. If you can build a community where drugs are allowed which doesn't devolve, then be everybody's guest. Hippies have shown that they can't.
As I said earlier, the fix to addictive behavior in society might make it look less scary, but as it is now, the society will see Lucy in the sky with diamonds pretty soon after all belts are off.
>(very clearly pointless) war on drugs say.
The war on crime itself may seem pointless because there will always be crime and no utopian dreams will come true ever. It still makes sense to beat the baddies down though. If and when society is ready for the full legalize, you should raise this question with real authorities, not some meme picture forum.
I have nothing else to say.
>>7619 >So, now it's governments fault that people want to drug themselves? OK.
No, its governments fault that they end up stabbing people. Your reading comprehension sucks
> It still makes sense to beat the baddies down though.
These godawful people who want to get high in the peace of their apartments. How dare they, off to prison with them, that (and the criminal record) will sure as fuck help them fix their lives. Involving the police is like the worst fucking way to combat addiction and in fact makes the problem worse by making it difficult for the addicts to find their way out
>If you can build a community where drugs are allowed which doesn't devolve
So what if it devolves. If you dont like the community, just move
>I have nothing else to say.
Pussy
>>7620 >No, its governments fault that they end up stabbing people.
So, it's the governments fault people stab each other sometimes. It's the governments fault people resort to violence. OK.
>These godawful people who want to get high in the peace of their apartments.
Is addiction a crime where you live? I don't think so. Controlling the possession itself is pretty much unenforcable, especially if you're not a nigger and don't buy the drugs.
As for the principle itself, it's complicated. It's relatively difficult to get addicted to alcohol, for example, but if you manage that, somebody has to take care of you until you rehab. The drugs are same deal, but with worse withdrawal and easier addiction. If people don't have enough rehabs, then we have a problem. If we have a problem, we have to solve it. If we see solving the problem of everybody's getting addicted by building more rehabs as the uneffective way to solve it, then we wouldn't like to do it that way at all, hence the war on drugs.
I wouldn't claim it's exactly the way of things, but it seems plausible.
>Involving the police is like the worst fucking way to combat addiction
Half of the impact of such law enforcement is to make people fear the consequences. I suppose, there is quite a number of people who don't want to even try it because of how much shit will inevitably hit the fan.
Also it's rehabs that are meant to combat addiction. Also living a fulfilling life. I guess the latter is hard to achieve, so it's not a general solution, at least at the moment.
>So what if it devolves. If you dont like the community, just move
I suppose the community of the "absolute teetotalers" would fit me nicely, but it's not how the world works. People have been drugging themselves since forever and I don't think it's fundamentally wrong. I just think most people cannot do it properly. We could have some system where you're allowed to use substances, but if you got addicted, your rights would be revoked and it would be a total pain to restore them. Also if it interferes with your duties, you would be penalized and your rights revoked.
Also I don't think it (moving to another community) is possible in general anyway.
>Pussy
I really don't see the point of discussing it here, especially provided the understanding you show is so naive. "Just move lmao". "Not your business lol". This is just unfathomable. I didn't come here to listen to your irrational beliefs, whatever-ist. You're no better than "drugs are evil, let's report everything drug related to the poliss" crazies who want to enforce their purity standards on everybody. You just want to enforce the "government should fuck off from issues" principle on everybody. Guess what, even if I stopped caring, other wouldn't. I really don't care much about all this shit. I'm not addicted, and none of my family are, even though we're not exactly happy.
>>7614 >This is the major reason for outlawing the death penalty, too
The major reason for outlawing the death penalty is mass hysteria, usually over weakness taking the cloak of morality as is extremely common today (words such as "nobody deserves to be killed!"), or a few innocent people who did get sentenced to death.
The former can be summarily dismissed as it's not an argument and is guaranteed to only cause harm, the latter does not take into account actual practicity. Is murder (unjust killing) reduced still? If it is not, away with the death penalty, if it is, then keep it.
>>7602 >in the real world
This is the most important part.
I don't know why, but normalfags seem to only consider context-proof ideas. Such a thing has never existed of course, so we end up with these stupid ideologies that tards keep screeching over day after day and often I doubt would even work ever in any situation. Ideas that can only exist in a vacuum.
Is women in power bad? I don't know. In Ancient Sparta women didn't vote and could not hold office but their financial system turned women into a privileged wealthy class which pulled all strings in politics. Any politician was simply standing in for a woman and under her compelte control. I'm going to assume that's the same thing.
The end result is these women ended up creating one of the wealthiest and most powerful military powers in history, so I think women in power worked great for Sparta. Today however, such an idea bears no benefit. I'd be 100% for females in power in Sparta, but today it makes no sense and should be illegal in any case.
I imagine the non-memer lolbertarians in this place at least have the decency to admit complete lawlessness is straight up anti-libertarian for instance.
But then you grab a normalfag, the primal beast who lives by his instincts, the most exercised of which is lust, the one who has never had a sequence of thoughts you could call sapience yet is convinced he knows everything, who spouts catchy words like "diversity" and "hatred" and watches a lot of television ads.
Ask him what he thinks about murder. Hey'll say it's wrong. Ask him what he thinks about death penalty. I think most normalfags are against the death penalty, some will probably turn murder into one of those catchy words and call it murder.
Tell them about El Chapo. Putting El Chapo in prison doesn't work, he's already escaped more than once. As long as he lives more people will be murdered by him or by one of his underlings trying to help him. Even if you're pro-drugs, his breed of drug dealing is obviously criminal even to the dumbest of normalfags.
What if we could stop the murders, slow down the whole violent drug trafficking gangs thing, by executing El Chapo? Just tell any of the many armed guards living off of tax money to put a bullet through his head. The way I see it anyone who says that is a bad idea should be executed themselves, they're as guilty as El Chapo, for they have enabled him.
Either way by any logical reasoning, the death penalty is simply a necessity. Some people just deserve to die and we're all better off for it. El Chapo is just one of them.
But try to convince the normalfags, they need a bulletproof ideal and they're never once for one fucking second going to stop to consider reality.
>>7622 >The major reason for outlawing the death penalty is mass hysteria
Frankly, I think that "masses" actually believe what you believe and that the quick and harsh retribution is the way to go, not the mercy. Or at the very least - that murder in some cases is justified. Absolute prohibition of death penalty is a rare opinion though.
>nobody deserves to be killed!
There is a bit of a difference in being killing in some gunfight/by an ordered hit or via the execution by the hand of absolute authority. The latter puts on such authority a lot of responsibility. You're better off just ordering a hit yourself and trying to get away with it.
>Is murder (unjust killing) reduced still? If it is not, away with the death penalty, if it is, then keep it.
Police statistics is difficult even if they don't juke it. The immediate results sometimes don't reflect the trends to follow, and changing the laws doesn't do anything by itself. Policing has to change too, for example. Generally the slow decline in murder rates was reported after abolishing the death penalty iirc.
>nobody deserves to be killed!
Ethically speaking, that is very much true if you think about it. If we care about each other, we realize that we form some sort of the "network of caring". Each person doesn't care for everybody, just for some chosen people, however it goes on and on until everybody is of some concern. Killing anybody would make somebody sad, possibly to the point of something akin to blood feud. Removing somebody from this network needs some serious justification that the removee is of no use and mostly harmful. Probably some people deserve it and I'm certain "justified murders" happen without involving the authorities anyway. But I think giving a proper judgement for that is hard. You really have to evaluate the person's past AND future life, make correct predictions and whatnot, and who are you exactly? A God? I suggest you don't pretend that you care that much if your sister actually didn't get knifed to death somewhere. Pretending to care won't solve the problem.
Also if you want to know my opinion, forcing somebody to do stupid shit for life is a more cruel penalty than letting them to have an easy way out. Penitentiary system is the world's most fucked up machine.
>>7617 >if i decide to cut my fucking hand off its my business and my business only and 100% none of yours
I would prefer to live in a community of people with two hands. Allowing people unnecessarily harm themselves can cause needless harm to your community.
>These godawful people who want to get high in the peace of their apartments
You could say the same thing about faggots.
<It's okay as long as they only sodomize each other in their own homes
There are standards that should be upheld. When social methods are not enough, legal methods can work to uphold these standards.
>>7625 So basically there is a certain image of a society you want to live in, and you are willing to suppress the freedoms of the people living in it under the threat of violence to get to that image?
Why do you think you have the right to do that?
>you are willing to suppress the freedoms of the people living in it
Yes. Absolute freedom devolves into anarchy and degeneracy until it is conquered.
>under the threat of violence
No, under the threat of legal consequences. For egregious violations, violence may be necessary to set an example.
>Why do you think you have the right to do that?
Because the strong rule over the weak.
>>7633 >there is a certain image of a society [that other guy] want to live in
There is an ideal society. You must realize that some societies are better than others, and so naturally one is best.
>you are willing to suppress the freedoms of the people living in it
"Freedom" on it's own is a meaningless concept. I've seen some people try to distinguish between "positive" and "negative" freedom, but even that is meaningless. All people, whether they admit it or not, whether they even know it or not, desire to live in the ideal society. All the definitions of freedom, when questioned long enough, admit that people are more free when they are brought - by force if necessary - into this society. But this goes completely against every popular understanding of freedom, which supposes that's it's all about destroying society from the inside about, as if it's a natural end unto itself.
>>7642 >There is an ideal society. You must realize that some societies are better than others, and so naturally one is best.
What a load of bullshit, the idea of muh perfect society is just part of fascist propaganda, i can debunk it right here right now:
A perfect society cannot exist cause the outcome of a particular system is influenced by a bunch of chaotic and instable factors, such as how many resources are available and the renewability of such resources.
A certain kind of society may be better suited for a particular situation compared to another kind, for example a militaristic society might work out better if there are very few resources that have to be strictly subdivided or in time of wars, while a more laissez faire society might work out better in a time of peace and prosperity.
Even if you found the best society for a particular situation and point in time, things change all the time, in a generation you utopia magically becames a dystopia cause the situation changed.
This idea of the perfect society can been used to justify pretty much everything, it's almost a religious dogma. I can tell you've been brainwashed on several levels.
>All people, whether they admit it or not, whether they even know it or not, desire to live in the ideal society.
People desires all kind of stuff, some people want to be king, some others want to be slaves, some other don't even know what they want. Why the fuck are you so sure about what other people that are not you wants?
>All the definitions of freedom admit that people are more free when they are brought - by force if necessary - into this society
Being forced into doing something is the opposite of freeedom you brainlet.
Maybe have such an inferiority complex that you like being forced into a system that other people created and brainwashed you into thinking that it is good. Maybe you are that cucked. As i said before some people wants to be slaves after all.
>>7641 >Because the strong rule over the weak.
Well thats just fucking nasty isnt it
>>7642 > people are more free when they are brought - by force if necessary - into this society
What? Are you saying that i actually want an authoritarian rule but just dont know about it?
>>7644 >A perfect society cannot exist
I said "ideal", not perfect. Maybe More's Utopia can't exist, but the best possible society (definitionally...) can exist.
>Even if you found the best society for a particular situation and point in time, things change all the time
The ideal society adapts
>some people want to be king
someone has to give these people a firm "no"
>some others want to be slaves
we would have no need to say no to such people
>some other don't even know what they want
we would be happy to explain it to them
>Why the fuck are you so sure about what other people that are not you wants?
There is vastly less variation in preference then modern society accounts for. We can start by assigning people to a role based on mean preferences. From there, we can detect their baseline happiness, and vary their role in order to optimize it.
>Being forced into doing something is the opposite of freedom
Exactly. So the very concept of "freedom" falls apart as being totally meaningless.
>>7650 >What? Are you saying that i actually want an authoritarian rule but just dont know about it?
The problem with authoritarian rule is poor authorities, not the idea of authority in general. People speak as if being in a society where you can do whatever you want all the time is the best society - but what about the society where you can do those same things, but now you are forced to do them? The two are identical, there's no meaningful way to choose between them. Authority gains the advantage (when implemented by a competent authority) because it can make people do things that make them better off, but they wouldn't do by choice. This applies to the class of addictions, waste, and extreme time discounting. It applies to the class of tragedies of the commons. It applies to the class of degeneracies, helping yourself at the expense of your brothers and posteriority. We need to deal with all of these, and only an authority will ever have the strength and desire to do so.
>>7652 LOL
>someone has to give these people a firm "no"
Absolute despotism.
>we would have no need to say no to such people
Slave empire.
>we would be happy to explain it to them
Brainwashing campaigns.
>From there, we can detect their baseline happiness
Thought police.
>So the very concept of "freedom" falls apart as being totally meaningless.
I'm not sure what you mean here.
Freedom can be described as "variation in preference" you mentioned earlier. That's pretty meaningful. Freedom as a principle means removing restrictions and creating opportunities. You just want some Singapore shit.
>The problem with authoritarian rule is poor authorities
Guarantees of any authorities being "competent" in any society: none. Authoritarian society such as yours would require them.
>We need to deal with all of these
The thing about society is once you hold unpopular opinions, you risk "we" becoming "I". Authority naturally suffers a lot when it's mistaken. The new authority may break all the old tenets entirely.
In general I just think what you talk about is meaningless. You give no criteria for the "ideal society" in the first place, so we may live in it already. You don't account for all the feedback loops society has, naively assuming some rules won't change. Well, some very specific rules don't change but they are pretty much well-known and are not what makes societies different anyway.
I think that "best possible society" cannot exist. The "better" could, in a lot of different sometimes mutually exclusive ways. If you have some "absolutely optimal" "peak performance" human-relationship-machine in mind, hold that thought, because it's you yourself who made that a task, and because it will lack something anyway.
>>7650 >Well thats just fucking nasty isnt it
No, people are not equal yet they all have their own spot in society. Strength creates a lattice for the hierarchy between people. The strong do not need to abuse the weaker people, but rather utilize them to achieve great things or to improve his strength.
>>7653 >Slave empire.
<If I am banned from eating 20 Big Macs a day, then I consider myself a slave
This is an insult to actual slaves. Just because you are forbidden to do something, it does not make you a slave.
>Brainwashing campaigns
There is nothing wrong with "Brainwashing." Society functions much more smoothly if everyone is on the same page of what is right and wrong. Conflicting ideologies of what is right and wrong is a source of tension in multicultural societies.
>Thought police.
It is not policing thought though. This is good for both the state and the person. The state will see in increase in productivity from you and you will switch to a role in society that you like better.
>guarantees of competence
Well, you would start off with a competent leader and then have him at some point delegate someone the people respect to be his successor.
>The thing about society is once you hold unpopular opinions, you risk "we" becoming "I".
Just because you currently hold a bad opinion, it does not mean your opinion can not change. People's opinions change all the time. People engaging in bad activities can instead engage in more productive activities.
>>7661 >There is nothing wrong with "Brainwashing"
Why do you think brainwashing and reasoning are the same thing? One creates a dependency upon other people's ideology while the other encourages people thinking for themselves.
>It is not policing thought though. This is good for both the state and the person. The state will see in increase in productivity from you and you will switch to a role in society that you like better.
What if what I like better goes against the state?
>Just because you currently hold a bad opinion...
He said unpopular not bad, there is a difference. Opinions are subjective by definition, so how can you objectively classify one as bad anyway?
You sound like the type of person who will defend the society of 1984.
>>7661 >utilize them to achieve great things or to improve his strength.
You are saying it as if that is a good thing. It is not.
>>7352 >but what about the society where you can do those same things, but now you are forced to do them?
The set of things i want to do is very, very unlikely to be the same set of things any authority would want me to do. In fact I would even go as far as to say that these two have very little in common.
>that make them better off
You are assuming that 'better off' is the same for everybody. It is not. You are also assuming that doing things like spending ones life on a couch smoking weed or fucking like rabbit until dying of aids (using examples because any attempt to describe that in general would end up in complete cancer) is not acceptable to the point of you having the right to drag them out of it whether they like it or not.
>We need to deal with all of these
Ones rights only reach as far as the rights of an other start. In every other case, we really dont need to deal with anything. Yes, admittedly, if we do, we will end up with a somewhat better society, but is it better universally for everyone, or only for the person at the top who makes the rules and gets to shape the society as he sees fit? And even if we did, would it be worth it?
>>7680 Tbh literally everything that has any opponents gets a fucked up version of of its name to make it seem very uncool and as far as that goes we did not end up that bad
>>7662 >while the other encourages people thinking for themselves
There is too many things to think about for everyone to make their own opinion about everything. Some things do not really have a logical reason for being right or wrong, so "reasoning" about it will not do much good.
>What if what I like better goes against the state?
I am sure the state could find someway to use what you are passionate about in their favor.
>He said unpopular not bad
I assumed he was talking about when an unpopular opinion becomes a bad one. There is nothing wrong with there being different opinions about things. There also does not need to be equality of the number of supporters for each view so unpopular opinions will indeed exist.
>>7669 >You are saying it as if that is a good thing. It is not.
Why do you think it is not a good thing? Personally, I find people coming together to achieve something greater than their parts as a good thing.
>>7669 >The set of things i want to do is very, very unlikely to be the same set of things any authority would want me to do.
You consistently assume that the only possible authority is a poor one. History regularly shows otherwise, but brainwashing by the education system makes people ignore any solution but the existing one.
>You are assuming that 'better off' is the same for everybody.
I am assuming no such thing. I am assuming that massive numbers of people don't know what is best for them, and those that do rarely put in the effort to achieve it. I am assuming that a system to determine and enforce an individual optimum is superior to the haphhazard "everyone guess and fail" we have now.
>Ones rights only reach as far as the rights of an other start.
Definitionally so. This leaves open the question of where, exactly, the boundary between two people's rights lies. Does posterity have rights? Then you can be conscripted. Does your future self have rights? Then we can ban drugs, gambling. Does the collective have rights? Then we can institute policies to prevent tragedies of the commons. You see that every proposed policy aims to help one person over another, and they can all be defended via a framework of rights, however idiotic such a thing is.
Authorities have never the same interests as you.
History teach us that the kind of people that gets to power are the ones the are prone to abuse others.
If you really think that the state is more important for you then go on the clearnet and let them track you and fingerprint you, be a good goy.
You are full of shit. I bet you would love to live in the world of Brave new world.
>>7688 >History teach us that the kind of people that gets to power are the ones the are prone to abuse others.
Have you never thought to ask why this idea is so heavily emphasized in schools, why a state based on democratic rule is so interested in defending this as the only legitimate kind of rule? If you ever actually read history, you'll find that there were (and are) good leaders and bad leaders, yet state curriculums only ever draw attention to tyrants.
>>7684 >There is too many things to think about for everyone to make their own opinion about everything. Some things do not really have a logical reason for being right or wrong, so "reasoning" about it will not do much good.
You are missing the point. There is this thing called the miracle of statistics. It basically says that if you take the average response from a reasonably large group, you will get extremely good results even when each individual in the group is not very competent. For example, the military used this method to locate sunken ships by asking random military personnel to point on a map where they think the ship may be, they then took the average of all the points and the ship was pretty much exactly there. This occurs because even when one person overestimates in one direction, another will over estimate in the other and when you take the average, those errors cancel out and leave only the good parts. This is why voting systems worked for a period of time. You don't need all the people to be experts or to comprehend everything. The only thing you need (the only caveat of this system) is the lack of global bias. If you push most of the people into a certain direction, the average is no longer good. You can thing of it as distorting the map in the example above. So by disrupting the best and most efficient way of good policy making, you are actively shooting yourself in the foot. Notice as well that reasoning does not need to be based on pure logic or to lead to right or wrong things. It is the process that is important because anything different than reasoning is bound to create a disproportionate bias in the group.
On a side note, there are also mathematical reasons for why the current most popular voting system is broken but I won't go into them now.
>I am sure the state could find someway to use what you are passionate about in their favor.
They can find as many ways as they want to but that won't change my preference for doing things which go against the state. That means that I will betray the state at the first opportunity I get for somebody that does allow me to do those things (e.g. voting because I believe it overall improves society's efficiency). That wouldn't be a problem if I was the only case but judging by today's high view of democracy, I most likely won't be.
>I find people coming together to achieve something greater than their parts as a good thing.
It is a good thing only when all the parts want to be part of the system. You can't have a sustainable system with people who want to kill themselves because of what they do or otherwise want to escape. Even if you do manage that, more efficient systems will take over yours over time.
As a small conclusion, your problems are mostly stemming from technicalities. I'm sure your image of society will work great in isolation but the problem is that we do not live in isolation. You can only achieve your image through force. Because you lack the efficiency of other systems you would need to borrow power from the future (destroying the environment for resources, forcing people into labor etc.). That means your system is inherently unsustainable. Even if you concur the earth, and especially if you concur the earth, you will only fall soon after.
>>7710 >It basically says that if you take the average response from a reasonably large group, you will get extremely good results even when each individual in the group is not very competent
Okay, let's use that process to elect the leader. This leader will make future decisions and steer his people. Then we will see the "extremely good results."
>my preference for doing things which go against the state
There must be a deeper urge behind this desire that we could extract. Perhaps injecting you into a rival state to destroy. We could even give you all sorts of cool spy equipment.
>I believe it overall improves society's efficiency
You would be wasting everyone's time though. At least with modern technology you can do online voting every night or something. I would think my people would be more efficient since they would not have to waste any of their time voting whenever anyone wanted something to change.
>when all the parts want to be part of the system
If someone does not want to be part of our country we could either reeducate them, kill them, or exile them.
>You can't have a sustainable system with people who want to kill themselves because of what they do or otherwise want to escape
Again we would just have to get rid of those people as they are being a drain on the system.
>You can only achieve your image through force
As mentioned above, this system could be voted in. Using at least some force would likely be easier though.
>destroying the environment for resources
We could do so in a sustainable way.
>forcing people into labor
People would still work without having to be forced. If all of our current laws froze, do you think that everyone would just quit their jobs?
>Even if you concur the earth, and especially if you concur the earth, you will only fall soon after.
There is still more to do after controlling the earth. There are more scientific discoveries to make. There will be more territories to colonize in space.
>>7710 >The only thing you need (the only caveat of this system) is the lack of global bias
You also need an assumption of linearity. Take counting beans in a jar: people overestimate by more than they underestimate, but not because they're biased. Apply a log before your average and you will get much more accurate results.
>If you push most of the people into a certain direction, the average is no longer good
You are assuming the distribution is unbiased in the first place. Consider that the majority of people hold no strong opinions one way or another, and instead just follow the herd. And yet these people cast votes based their herd following. This is the definition of a bias. We can quite easily survey those we know to find out what the true, unbiased distribution would be. Then work to move the world in that direction.
>You can only achieve your image through force
This is a general argument against just about anything. He could be democratically voted into power, with an amendment to the constitution making him god-king forever. This seems radically unlikely, but we won't ever see any change without people talking about that change first.
i would love to see a libertarian ethno state but to accomplish that we would need a fuhrer that is willing to step back after the groundwork is done.
everything build on the fundament we have now will burn down in no time
>>7823 >a fuhrer that is willing to step back after the groundwork is done
You will have great difficulty finding someone who is both capable enough to lead a country, and sufficiently idiotic to do something pointless like that. This is like supposing that when a human is done growing we should rip out the skeleton so that it can stand on its own. If a libertarian state can't come about on its own (it can't), why would you even think it can stand up on it's own? If you trust a leader to bring about your ideal ethnostate, giving them massive power while they do so, why do you cease trusting them when the state is built? If society has pressure points enabling it to be controlled, what's to prevent a less scrupulous leader from coming along after your fuhrer has relinquished control, and abusing those same pressure points to his own ends? And supposing that such pressure points don't exist, then how can you get your ideal society in the first place?
>libertarian ethno state
libertarianism is, supposedly, premised on letting other people do what they want. And yet this doesn't seem at incompatible with banning certain ethnicities? The trouble with libertarians is they recognize that state systems sometimes make mistakes, but also provide necessary services. So they conceptualize equivalents to state services that are, technically, not provided by the state. And yet they fail to realize that these equivalents have all the same problems as state services do. Take your ethno state: If there is in fact a mechanism to enforce that only certain races are allowed in, then the same mechanism could be abused to force people to accept members of other races. Since, despite the efforts of your fuhrer, it will be the same human beings in that state as this one, they will be far more likely to prefer banning discrimination then allowing it. So libertarianism has abolished governments, supposedly the source of our troubles, and yet solved nothing. It's like the old saying: no matter where you go, there you are.
>>7829 >If society has pressure points enabling it to be controlled, what's to prevent a less scrupulous leader from coming along after your fuhrer has relinquished control, and abusing those same pressure points to his own ends?
>tfw when no fuhrer that gently pushes and abuses your pressure points until you orgasm
>>7829 > And yet this doesn't seem at incompatible with banning certain ethnicities?
You can only have a functional libertarian society only if everybody in said society is capable of living in such society. Read: no niggers. Otherwise there is no point now is it
As for the fuhrer, if he would stay true to his original mission, we actually dont need democracy and he can stay there indefinitely. In fact, considering the ability of people to use democracy to cuck themselves, this would actually make quite a lot of sense. The ideal fuhrer would force the citizens to be free, whether theyd like it or not. (if they hate it so much, they are always free to fuck off)
>>7832 >You can only have a functional libertarian society only if everybody in said society is capable of living in such society. Read: no niggers
The is an indictment of libertarianism, if it falls apart the moment an imperfect person (read: anyone) appears. A society should be able to function with niggers around, by putting them to work and preventing inter-breeding. Killing them or kicking them out is waste of sub-humans.
>force the citizens to be free
>Libertarian dictatorship
These are oxymorons you idiot. What you want is an aristocracy, ie where the leader is devoted to the goodwill of the people. A small amount of freedom won't hurt people, but a leader that has their best interests in mind will force them to do what is best for them, even if he has to put up with whining and complaining.
>>7834 >A society should be able to function with niggers around
Why? Kick the non-black niggers too if they start acting like ones and be done with it. You dont need to do so with everybody imperfect, just the ones who pose serious danger to the rest of the citizens, where to stop them from doing so would mean to curb the rights of innocent people who dont deserve it.
Imagine you wouldnt need to ever sign anything and the only thing necessary would be a mans word. Well, if you kick out all the liers (and, more importantly, ensure that the children arent raised by a jew in a tube) then that is a thing that you can have. Obviously thats a bit too much but you get the point hopefully.
An aristocrat will do whats best for the society, that however is not what i want. I want to do what i want, not what will result in the greatest collective good. China is a good example of what happens when you put the betterment of society before all else.
These are not oxymorons. Imagine your leader tells you to do what you want and tells everybody trying to stop you to go fuck themselves. Without him, they would simply go and stopped you because it seems to be the mainstream idea that they have a right to do so. Democracy =/= libertarianism.
>>7835 >Why?
Because having people around who can do hard labour and who we don't need to feel bad about is useful, and because white people should be able to keep a bunch of dumb niggers in check. Imagine if your society was in danger of collapsing because monkeys were coming out of the forest and stealing your oranges. Well, is that the monkeys fault for stealing, or your fault for being unable to stop a bunch of monkeys?
>Imagine you wouldnt need to ever sign anything and the only thing necessary would be a mans word. Well, if you kick out all the liers (and, more importantly, ensure that the children arent raised by a jew in a tube) then that is a thing that you can have.
People are liars naturally. Spend a little time around children, they lie ruthlessly. My cousin was asked how his parents met, so he made up a story about them meeting at the side of the road. My aunt complained that they had told him the real story several times, yet here he was inventing things. That adults are so honest is because they were raised well, but there will always be a few who slip through the cracks. Niggers aren't the worst of it, since you can see them coming a mile away. Yet here's my little blond-haired, blue-eyed cousin making up stories. And I won't let you kick him out, so think up a better solution.
>Imagine your leader tells you to do what you want and tells everybody trying to stop you to go fuck themselves
As if what you do doesn't affect anyone else, or that what other people do never affects you. What if I want to stop you from doing things? Does the leader stop me, or let me stop you? You've succeeded at completely ignoring the issue at hand. The leader has to do what is most fair, which happens to also be the thing that is best for society.
>what if I'm just sitting around in my home?
Who enabled your home to be built? Who makes sure it gets power brought to it, and that you have food to eat, and that hoards of niggers can't invade your country? Everyone owes a debt to society, and you have to pay it back somehow.
>>7836 > who we don't need to feel bad about is useful
Sadly theres the rest of the world who wouldnt very likely sit around and watch anybody do that. Kicking them out is the only humane-enough solution that wouldnt cause an international catastrophe.
> a lying child
Cildren lie and thats why you need to raise them well. If you have a nation made up off people do not lie, their children will be very strongly compelled to do so too, and where thats not enough, the threat of exile should do the rest.
> Does the leader stop me, or let me stop you?
My rights end when yours start. Obviously a very clearly defined boundary would be necessary.
>The leader has to do what is most fair, which happens to also be the thing that is best for society.
Thats not true. Taking the right to vote from women would be beneficial to society but wouldnt be very fair towards the women for example
>Everyone owes a debt to society, and you have to pay it back somehow.
I dont. The house i grew up in was paid for, the one i live in now i pay rent for. Power were and will be paid for. Food i or my parents paid for every last bit. As for the niggers, i pay taxes and as a male aged 18 - 45 (or i dont know the top boundary, something around that i imagine) id probably be one of the first people to get drafted once the people in reserve run out. If i owe anything to anybody, its my parents and even that is questionable.
The smallest unit in a society is the family.
Any decision taken must be taken if it's for the benefit of the family. All other things can be sacrificed.
Drugs are bad for the family, so no drugs. Divorce is bad for the family, so no divorce. Some forms of speech such as sexuality beyond the pillow talk of man and woman are bad for the family, so away with them also. Promiscuity, infidelity, lack of arms or right to self defense at the cost of the criminal's life, and hotel prisons with no forced labor are all attacks or burdens on the family, so we don't need those either.
It's pretty simple and correct reasoning and what people have been doing for millenia, before our current era in stupidity.
>>7838 > correct reasoning and what people have been doing for millenia, before our current era in stupidity
Might have something to do with the fact that people now wont wither and die if left on their own like in the medieval times when we needed to stick together.
That logic is faulty as it assumes that everybody gets to be in a family. I wont ever have one again for example so living in a family-centric society would be pretty fucking bad for me. For me, the smallest unit of society is, well, me.
Its an interesting approach though.
>>7837 >wouldnt very likely sit around and watch anybody do that
Have you read nothing of history? The world's favourite passtime is to sit around watching minorities get beat up while doing nothing. All around the world, right now, there are oppressed groups being rounded up into camps and the world does nothing. You could say the same about not having a democratic government, that the world won't let you do that. Maybe in principle they love democracy, but they aren't willing to put anything on the line to defend it.
>Children lie and thats why you need to raise them well.
Some parents don't raise their children well. Some children had great parents, all their siblings turned out well, but they are still bad people, just because of their nature. You suppose that society needs to only be made up of perfect people to function, when imperfect people can contribute fine as long as they are properly observed and regulated.
>Taking the right to vote from women would be beneficial to society but wouldnt be very fair towards the women
It would be fair towards the people whop don't have to put up with their bad decisions though. So who do we favour, the people effected by the decisions, or the people losing the franchise? Well the women are negatively effected by their own decisions, so they're better off without the vote. This is what fairness means, balancing every positive effect against every negative effect.
>i paid for things, therefore the debt is paid
Suppose you accumulated a million dollars, and then decided to never work again, just living off of interest. Is that fair? Clearly not, since if everyone did that, society would fall apart. Money is a useful tool for distributing resources, but it isn't enough to make a good society. You need social responsibility as well. If people aren't willing to continuously contribute to society, then they need to be incentivized to do so.
>>7842 >You suppose that society needs to only be made up of perfect people to function, when imperfect people can contribute fine as long as they are properly observed and regulated.
>imperfect people
lol
Everybody is imperfect, whether it's random nigger running around, your average skinnyfat switch-buying shithead or nuclear engineer literally doesn't matter, perfect people don't exist.
Anyway, this seems like it was written by some retarded muh society wignat so discarded lol.
>If people aren't willing to continuously contribute to society, then they need to be incentivized to do so.
confirmed
who the fuck posts here, this kike thread is reminiscent of the old /pol/ ones too much
>>7616 >if i decide to cut my fucking hand off its my business and my business only and 100% none of yours
Oh really, and what if everyone in my society cuts off their hands and become unproductive, unable to work, disabled...etc because of that? Then it would surely affect me and everybody else.
See the ting with those harmful behaviors, apart from being indicators of mental illnesses (because a mentally ill individual is one engaging in self-harmful activities), is that if everyone or a significantly large enough amount of people did it, it would drastically and negatively affect your society, and thus the rest of individuals.
See it this way, if you cut your hand, you would be less able to work and thus bring less value to society, making it poorer. And if more people cut off their hands it would only get worse.
>>7876 If you really think your body belongs to the state then what are you waiting for, donate all your organs and kill yourself. How can people be so cucked?
>if everyone or a significantly large enough amount of people cut their hand
Then it means that your society deserves to die.
>>7842 >Maybe in principle they love democracy, but they aren't willing to put anything on the line to defend it.
Democracy is an inherently bad system in the sense that it encourages people to demand thisng instead of earning them, as they can always vote to the candidate offering most free things. Its dysgenic and promotes a non-functional society of parasitic behavior. About the world doing nothing about other people's problems, you have to remember that all of our resources, including time, are limited, and people would rather use them for their own benefit an achieve their biological and social needs. If they didn't, they may go extinct (maybe not in our modern society tho).
>when imperfect people can contribute fine as long as they are properly observed and regulated
I agree, to some extent. It is fine as long as whatever they contribute outweighs the costs of observing and regulating them.
>So who do we favor, the people effected by the decisions, or the people losing the franchise?
A political, social or economical change is good when it benefits every value-providing member of a society in the long run. If taking away voting rights from women makes society better for everyone, then it is a good decision. You are right about what fairness is, bur remember too much of it can be as bad as having none.
>learly not, since if everyone did that, society would fall apart.
Kek no. If everyone did this, prices would adjust to the point that it is priced in that a million dollars is the baseline everyone has. This is like thinking that printing money and giving it away will make everyone free. I agree with the rest of the point tho.
>>7843 Remember old /pol/ days when it was a mix of libertarians, natsocs, conservatives and lefties? Well most of them turned natsoc because they saw that the other systems were flawed and never could win a discussion or find good arguments to support them. Everyone became a natsoc or fascists because they saw that it was not base on false assumptions like the rest of the systems, but in truth. Its the same now, we show him what are the flaws of his systems, then he can change or just leave like leftypol did.
>>7877 No no, don't get me wrong, in no system, including the authoritarian ones you seem to disdain is illegal to cut your hand, and the government doesn't neither won your body.
It is however discouraged (to cut your hand) because it would only be bad for you and other.
>Then it means that your society deserves to die.
So if it happens in your libertarian society, should you let it just die? Same as with drugs, if everyone (or a large amount of people) starts doing heroin, should you let your society die? Then it would be extremely weak to foreign subversion and propaganda.
>Everyone became a natsoc or fascists because they saw that it was not base on false assumptions like the rest of the systems, but in truth.
Nation isn't real. Checkmate faggots.
>>7880 Of course, only because you say so.
From kikepedia itself: A nation is a stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, history, ethnicity, or psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.
Are you sure this doesn't happen in reality our dear hook-nosed friend?
>>7881 >A nation is a stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, history, ethnicity, or psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.
With that, any village can be called a "nation".
Yet we call a "nation" a giant unsightly simulacrum created by state propaganda and oppression of any ethnicities happening on the "territory" made up by arbitrary claims and enforced by a brainwashed army. Fascinating shit.
Natsoc and nationalism were invented as a way to mass control population, in particular natsoc was created as an alternative to communism(another mass control method). You have to be a brainlet to fall for it.
You see lot of that stuff on imageboards cause a lot of propaganda was spammed on them, most people that defines themself natsoc are larpers thou, there are also some reatards like you that didn't understand the meme and took it seriously.
Sad.
>>7882 Because a village is indeed a nation. A small one, and often part of a bigger nation ( sharing a lot, if not all, of their attributes) but a nation nonetheless.
Modern kiked nation-states aren't nations. They are based of old nations that earlier existed in that territory, but don't represent a nation itself. In fact in western countries ("nations-states") the government seems to be actively erase the nation the state its supposedly based on.
If they were true nations, the army and porpaganda you talk about wouldn't be necessary, and they would be able (to some yet meaningful extent) to self-regulate, without the need of a central government imposing so many laws with the threat of violence.
>>7883 (me)
I want to add that the reason nationalism were created is related to the fall of the monarchies. Before people looked up to the aristocracies and monarch, when that fell out of fashion it was needed to create another meothod of control, that sounds different but is the same exact thing.
>>7883 >that didn't understand the meme and took it seriously.
And so did Germans when most of them supported it and fought with their lives for it?
Yes natsoc can corrupted and used to evil purposed (and so can be your libertarianism) but it is not its inherent purpose neither what the people that want to implement it want to use it for (at least not in my case).
>>7886 >See? Not real. The ones we have are "kiked non-nations".
Dude, the fact that most modern countries aren't nations doesn't mean they don't exist, say in the form of villages, communities... and that they can't or haven't existed in the form of states.
>>7885 What about ancient nations, prior to monarchies? Like greek cities (with real democracy) for example?
They were indeed nations but used democracy as from of governance.
Nationalism: loyalty and devotion to a nation. Hard to believe this was created the way you say, as the already happened in nations prior to monarchies.
>>7888 By defining a "nation" as a small community you completely fall out of scope of natsoc and fascism (which deal only with monsters). You go right into the anarcho-primitivism field.
I personally like anarchists because they actually have a viable strat (based in reality), though indeed only a few can live like Amish-like communities.
>they don't exist
In a sense, I admitted that they do exist - in a form of simulacra.
>that they can't or haven't existed in the form of states
From what I know, the idea of the nation itself is the invention of Modern philosophy, i.e circa 15-16century some Yuropeen eggheads conceived the idea of a nation and some other fucks started forcing that shit.
>>7890 No I didn't define a nation as a small community, I only said that small communities can be nations. Of course you'd ideally want your nation to be big and strong and natsoc and fascism achieve this.
Unrelated to above but:
In my opinion, anarchists don't consider what would happen if a group of people organized and used coordination and specialization of tasks through a central authority to rob kill them.
>From what I know, the idea of the nation itself is the invention of Modern philosophy, i.e circa 15-16century some Yuropeen eggheads conceived the idea of a nation and some other fucks started forcing that shit.
Hard to believe, as prior to this time groups that fell in the definition of nation already existed. However I'd appreciate if you drop some info about this.
>>7887 >And so did Germans when most of them supported it and fought with their lives for it?
Yes exactly, same for the germans at the time.
Germany got cucked hard during WW1, their economy was rekt, their pride shattered. So Hitler saw an oppurnity to exploit this to get to power, he blamed the joos(like neetsoc still do today for everything) for Germany WW1 mess and all their other problems and manipulated the German people to die for his vanaglourios fantasies of power.
I bet that after he faked his suicide, he laughed at Germany getting raped by the US and USSR for the rest of his days in South America.
National Socialism was a disaster for Germany.
>Manipulating people is not the inherent purpose of nationalism.
It's how it was always used, so i say that it is it's purpose, it is a method of control like many other ideologies, people that want to get in positions of power will use everything to manipulate you, your love for your culture, your hate towards other races, your religious beliefs, look at modern neo-fascists parties in todays Europe...
I don't want to say from which european country i am from, but i see this everyday.
You can keep loving your nation if you want but be skeptic of the so called nationalistic political parties.
>>7889 >What about ancient nations, prior to monarchies? Like greek cities (with real democracy) for example?
I think the distinction the other nanon is doing between nations and cities is VERY important.
A city(small or big) is the place were you are born and you live your early life to the least, it's the place where your family and friend live.
A nation is a place full of people you have few thing in common with and local culture you don't know and of people with different interests than you.
I'm not against city-states to be quite honest, the smaller the "nation" is the better chances are that the government is doing your interests.
What i am really against are big (((federal))) nations like the US, where the government in at hundreds of km from where you live and has nothing in common with you.
>>7889 >Of course you'd ideally want your nation to be big and strong and natsoc and fascism achieve this.
I like how we have yet to see what the nation is.
The "A nation is a stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, history, ethnicity, or psychological make-up manifested in a common culture" is really vague and small communities don't scale to large communities just because you say so.
> In my opinion, anarchists don't consider what would happen if a group of people organized and used coordination and specialization of tasks through a central authority to rob kill them.
At least they would know who robs and kills them and form some real bonds.
>Hard to believe, as prior to this time groups that fell in the definition of nation already existed. However I'd appreciate if you drop some info about this.
Read all that shit and follow the links
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism <Throughout history, people have had an attachment to their kin group and traditions, to territorial authorities and to their homeland, but nationalism did not become a widely-recognized concept until the 18th century.
There you have it.
<There are various definitions of a "nation", however, which leads to different strands of nationalism
There you have it again. Every fucking retard just calls it whatever they feel like. Another reason to call it simulacra.
Ethnic nationalism is the closest to being real, though real ethnicities (as in cultural and genetic bodies) are mostly extinct right now so ethnic nationalism isn't real as well.
I coulda made a mistake with that 15-16cent date though, but I was certain the nation was invented earlier. Some other sources say so as well.
The important part of being a nation is that it is a political body. Village or even a city-state political life is almost non-existent compared to the large territory called a nation-state. And nationalism in politics means the nation forces some made-up image of a nation (not real) onto every resident. Nation-states are like empires on "minimal evilness" settings, but they are still bullshit. Natsoc and fascism would require to be a nation-state, just for the record.
>>7890 >the idea of the nation itself is the invention of modern philosophy
Of course, since mass immigration is only possible since modern times. Nobody needs to talk about nations when the idea is irrefutably obvious, only when nations began being threatened did anyone start talking about them.
>>7892 >What i am really against are big (((federal))) nations like the US, where the government in at hundreds of km from where you live and has nothing in common with you.
Real federalism is the ideal system. You get the safety and power of a large state, able to fend off attacks and bargain with other states, but you also get national autonomy, so long as powers of nation and state are strictly delimited. Sadly in the US this isn't the case, but that is merely a problem with the implementation, not in the principle itself.
>>7894 >Nobody needs to talk about nations when the idea is irrefutably obvious, only when nations began being threatened did anyone start talking about them
People were talking about kingdoms, communities and whatnot. Tribe identity was real in some cases too. Basically shut the fuck up.
>but you also get national autonomy
Being incorporated into some larger body is dangerous for a lesser body, obviously. History knows a ton of national/ethnic identities lost that way.
>that is merely a problem with the implementation, not in the principle itself.
lmao.
Just classic.
>>7895 >People were talking about kingdoms
Kingdoms get conquered, so they need to be talked about
>communities, tribes
both much smaller, easier to see. Nations require a much broader view to understand.
>shut the fuck up
no u
>History knows a ton of national/ethnic identities lost that way
by being conquered, sure. If nations agree to federate, with terms protecting them from debasement, then they tend to survive.
>>7896 >Kingdoms get conquered, so they need to be talked about
I don't see the point.
Anyway your base assumption that mass immigration has became possible only with Modern era is also false.
>Nations require a much broader view to understand.
You mean much broader and delusional fantasies.
>If nations agree to federate, with terms protecting them from debasement, then they tend to survive.
This is such a load of horseshit but I'm curious if you can give examples of such willfull federalization that preserved some identity. Something like Scotland or Wales doesn't count, since they clearly lost most of their identity.
>>7897 >I don't see the point.
People talk about things they can see. You can see kingdoms change, since it might only take a few days for a kingdom to be defeated. In pre-modern times, you would rarely see a whole nation change, since at most one tribe would be killed off at a time. But if you read ancient literature, you can observe the understanding that there is a group of people not defined by a common language or customs, but rather who share those things because of a deeper similarity.
>Anyway your base assumption that mass immigration has became possible only with Modern era is also false.
It only became at all common at least. Maybe everyone could mount a camel and ride off somewhere else, but they didn't.
>Something like Scotland or Wales doesn't count, since they clearly lost most of their identity.
They were conquered, nigger. Take the Belgians, with the separation between the flemish and the walloons. Quebec is a decent example as well, though they were originally conquered.
>>7898 >you would rarely see a whole nation change
I'd rather say that's because people didn't observe the changes that well, and also due to the fact that "communities" and "kingdoms" lacked the scope implied by "nation" definition.
>there is a group of people not defined by a common language or customs, but rather who share those things because of a deeper similarity.
Let's put it that way: the moment you say stupid meme crap like "unidentifiable deeper bullshit" you get a slap on the face.
Slap.
>Maybe everyone could mount a camel and ride off somewhere else, but they didn't.
>but they didn't.
If you say so lol.
Not really.
>They were conquered, nigger.
I remember reading that the Scotland kingdom at least emerged on its own and then entered some kind of union and due to some heritage issues at some point the crown just went to the Britain as a whole.
Also I don't see them being actually fully submit throughout any time of their history. That territory was tried by the Norse and anglos but they never succeeded in taking over.
>Quebec is a decent example as well
Well, Quebecans whine about Canada destoying their identity all the time, so it's at least partially true.
>Belgians
OK, you're shitting me.
At no point at their history did they "form the voluntary union". Basically those different people happened to be there when 1830 happened.
The federation seems pretty recent too:
<Politically the country was once polarized on matters of religion and, in recent decades, it has faced new divisions over differences of language and unequal economic development. This ongoing antagonism has caused far-reaching reforms since the 1970s, changing the formerly unitary Belgian state into a federal state, and repeated governmental crises. It is now divided into three regions: Flanders (Dutch-speaking) in the north, Wallonia (French-speaking) in the south, and bilingual Brussels in the middle.
We wanted libertarianism, we wanted freedom, but at a certain point we realized that the left will ALWAYS seek to endlessly expand government and restrict personal freedom as long as they are allowed to exist.
>>7982 Fuck, the whole thread is already in niggerspeak.
The lolbert started saying that nobody has any rights over anybody else, everyone else said that the general public is retarded and needs to be governed.
Then it became a heap of "everybody should be free" vs "we can't when there's niggers", then "power corrupts" vs "not necessarily". Basically everybody here is uneducated. Those shilling for NatSoc don't do it very well and should read Mein Kampf. Those shilling for lefty shit have derailed the topic and started arguing about the definition of "nation".
Everybody seems to forget that it's usually education that fixes these issues rather than regulation, ie. when you teach people the dangers of drugs properly they're more likely to not do drugs than if you just banned drugs. Half-way somebody was arguing about propaganda, but pretty much everything you teach to a kid is indoctrination, so you should at least indoctrinate things that are good for the society. Propaganda isn't good or bad, it's just a means to an end.
Lastly, the lolbert was arguing in favour of individuality, as in "I do what I want rather than what's best for everybody else", and "whatever I do to myself has no effect on you". Take it how you will.
(As if anybody is here to read this) I will explain, in terms of freedom, what Hitler's National Socialism was about:
>Freedom and independence of your people
This is the "National" part of National Socialism, and the meaning stems from the 1910s German use of the word, meaning "the interests of the folk", 'folk' here meaning your group sharing common ancestry, language, culture and traditions. For instance, while there is a continental "European race", which has 3 sub-races (nordic, alpine and mediterranean), there are multiple folks within that race, for instance Brits, Scots, Germans, Nords and Frenchmen, that don't necessarily coincide with current borders (Germany being the biggest example, as Germany and Austria are both countries of the same German folk but with different governments). In Hitler's case, the German elements of Austria and Poland were being oppressed by the Slavs (Czechs and Poles respectively), so National Socialism was a way to bring those people back into one Reich to stand as one, free of outside influence.
>Freedom from international finance
International Finance is the biggest enemy of National Socialism as its interests do not coincide with the folk's interests: the interests of International Finance (which mostly consists of Hebrews) are to make as much money as possible from everybody else, whereas the interests of National Socialism are to safeguard the wellbeing of the folk (this is where the "Socialism" comes in, "Socialism" here just means "making life better" rather than whatever meaning Marxism has given it).
By not relying on international finance, the economy can just go back to serving the people rather than the other way around; it can just be a way to facilitate the circulation of goods and services. Interest can be completely removed, which means that taxes which were paying for interest can be abolished and all government income can be raised from national businesses like railroads and telecommunications. There should be no private financial interests in public infrastructure, as that means that private interests can control them to the detriment of the public.
(If you want to know more about the economic aspects of the Third Reich, read Gottfried Feder's "Manifesto for the abolition of Interest-Slavery" and "The Programme of the NSDAP and its General Conceptions")
>Freedom to own property
We're not commies
>The press is free to speak, but not free to lie
If the press is working to the detriment of the people, it will be DISCONTINUED.
>Relative freedom of action and idea
While it may seem paradoxical (if you follow the mainstream narrative) that a fascist state lets you think and act freely, those in the Third Reich actually had more freedom than we do today. Because the Third Reich was such a cohesive and high-trust society, there was a much smaller need for laws outlawing things like guns, as gun violence is a LOT lower in a high-trust society with a very low amount of seedy outsiders. Have you ever felt annoyed because somebody has done something retarded and "ruined it for the rest of us"? This is seeking to prevent that on a national scale.
It all sums up to this:
>You are free to do anything that isn't detrimental to the people
>>7990 >Basically everybody here is uneducated.
Stop projecting.
>Those shilling for lefty shit have derailed the topic and started arguing about the definition of "nation".
Implying libertarianism has anything to do with the left.
>But pretty much everything you teach to a kid is indoctrination, so you should at least indoctrinate things that are good for the society
Education is brainwashing, it is today, just like it was in Nazi Germany, that's why the Hitler Youth existed, to brainwash people since they were kids, which is and was absolutely despicable, and fuck off with the "good for the society", Hitler Youth was full of political indoctrination, basically a cult with Hitler at the center.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Youth#Doctrine So many of those innocent kids died cause they were brainwashed at a young age, very sad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Youth#World_War_II <In 1944, the 12th SS-Panzer-Division Hitlerjugend was deployed during the Battle of Normandy against the British and Canadian forces to the north of Caen. Nearly 20,000 German youths participated in the attempt to repulse the D-Day invasion; while they knocked out some 28 Canadian tanks during their first effort, they ultimately lost 3,000 lives before the Normandy assault was complete.
>"The interests of the folk"
"The interests of the Nazi Party"
ftfy
>In Hitler's case, the German elements of Austria and Poland were being oppressed by the Slavs (Czechs and Poles respectively), so National Socialism was a way to bring those people back into one Reich to stand as one, free of outside influence.
Oh boi, that mental gymnastics. Hitler just want to expand his Reich that's it, he even made a deal with Stalin to split Poland in two. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact And then he proceeded to invade Russia cause he had fantasies of power, how many germans lived in Russia to justify its invasion?
How many germans were in France to justify its invasion?
How many germans died in Germany cause of Hitler expansionism?
>The interests of National Socialism are to safeguard the wellbeing of the folk.
The interests of National Socialism are to safeguard the wellbeing of the Nazi Party members.
ftfy 2
>By not relying on international finance, the economy can just go back to serving the people
Imagine being so ignorant. The purpose of economy is not to serve the people, that is was communists think, the purpose of economy is to offer a platform for the exchange of resources, products and services, it's the job of the goverment to serve the people, the economy should be independent from the goverment cause there is an abvious conflict of interests. This is why the Federal Reserve that you hate so much is independent of the US goverment, otherwise the goverment would just keep printing money until it ends up like Venezuela.
Try actually understanding how this stuff works, start by watching teh FOMC conference videos, there you go this is the Federal Reserve official youtube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/user/FedReserveBoard https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL159CD41EB36CFE86 International finance offers more competition, therefore better products and technological advancement, look at how Japan technology developed after they got out of isolationism.
Economic isolationism means becoming an outdated nation and losing to all others.
>If the press is working to the detriment of the people, it will be DISCONTINUED.
If the press is working to the detriment of the Nazi Party, it will be DISCONTINUED.
ftfy 3
>While it may seem paradoxical (if you follow the mainstream narrative) that a fascist state lets you think and act freely, those in the Third Reich actually had more freedom than we do today
It was like this:
you say something wrong, you are arrested by the Gestapo.
you dislike someone, you denounce them to the Gestapo so they get arrested.
Literally a panopticon.
>You are free to do anything that isn't detrimental to the people
>You are free to do anything that isn't detrimental to the Nazi Party
ftfy 4
>>7997 >the economy should be independent from the goverment
What would that even look like? Bare minimum, the government derives revenue by taxing the economy. Add on that much of the governments job is to regulate the economy, at least in modern western countries.
>the Federal Reserve is independent of the US goverment
"independent". It's an arm of the government, congress makes a choice not to interfere too much. It was explicitly created because free market monetary policy doesn't work, so libertarians BTFO.
I think that for a person to be able to desire anything else there must be some assumption that he knows better than the general population. Which is always a wrong assumption to make regardless of whether it is actually true or not.