Alt-libertarian thread

any other good books for an alt-libertarian (libertarian with conservative cultural values)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conservative_parties_by_country
youtube.com/watch?v=eqoxZL2U0PI&list=PLRbcQXWEJAJrVHweXrgGb5ifN93ftE5Jp
theavalogs.wordpress.com/2014/02/05/the-libertarian-case-for-slavery-by-j-philmore-pseodonym-by-david-ellerman/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

hoppe has his own book, Democracy, the god that failed, which is almost certainly better than the op book

Am I wrong in thinking that Hoppe is the only interesting libertarian precisely because he's basically a fucking volkisch thinker?

From the blurbs and excerpts I've seen he seems to think that communities DO supersede economics, and can be grounded in an ethne or a religious creed or whatever, and beyond that everything is machtpolitik.

you are not a real libertarian if you are a helicopter memelord

>volkisch
>communities supersede economics
>can be grounded in an ethnoreligious creed

none of that is libertarian, he's a traditionalist, he doesn't give a shit about the free market

Why do libertarians always become white nationalist crypto-fascists? It's like they only want limited government just so they can start their own little ones and put people in camps without opposition.

I've noticed that libertarians that get rich off crypto or having an actual business stay normal libertarians and the ones that stay poorfags turn into fascists

that's not "alt-libertarian" that's simply conservative libertarian, nothing 'alternative' about it

this. literally idolizing an authoritarian regime that suppressed liberties to the extreme just because it had a market economy and killed communists. It's like when Marxists idolize Stalin.

>you're not a real libertarian if you dont support subhuman rights

i believe in absolute freedom for european men

no free market = no liberty

larping like a czech farmer is not libertarianism

i believe in a free market for people, not subhumans and animals. do you believe in a free market for dogs?

there are many, many non-europeans more valuable than you

Yeah, you're not a libertarian if you don't support liberty. Who knew?

no one cares about what you believe in

welcome to the real world kiddo

>"tfw I'm a völkisch authoritarian ethno-nationalist but I still want to delude myself and others into thinking that I am a libertarian who cares about liberty for all people"
>"Ahhh I know! I will simply declare my political opponents and all ethnic/racial/cultural/religious groups I don't like to be subhumans/animals. HAHA FUCKING GENIUS"
>"PREPARE FOR LE HELICOPTER RIDE YOU FUCKING SOYBOI COMMIE KEKS"

>HAHA fucking soyboyleftists we're going to hang you from a fucking helicopter
>WHAT!? YOU P-PUNCHED A NAZI? B-BUT MUH FREE SPEECH, MUH LEFTIST ARE THE REAL THUGS!

Yeah get fucked. Nazi's are getting their heads smashed in m8.

>ugh nazis are so fucking violent
>HANG AND SHOOT THE BOURGEOISIE AND KILL EVERYONE WHO SUPPORT THEM, LIBERALS GET THE BULLET TOO

Who are you quoting?

most of the communists ive seen on the internet

All this edgelord fighting aside I must recommend the vast material on mises.org or perhaps a local Mises institute if you're Swedish or Brazilian. Hoppe, Rothbard, Mises himself, and Bastiat are all very insightful. Tom Woods' writings on history may very well fit you I think too.

no yids

Considering libertarianism was born in time when human rights were a distant dream and in the enviroment where they were born they ignored liberty of say niggers, I don't get why you can't be libertarian and for limiting of rights.

It's basically just a synonym for RIGHTS FOR WHITES ONLY.

Honestly, most of the crypto-fascists who start off by saying "I was once a libertarian like you" were never libertarian to begin with. They just had neo-conservative sensibilities and then fell to stormfaggotry. The main premise of Libertarianism, or really any form of minarchism, is limited government. If you go from limited government to authoritarianism/totalitarianism, it means you're fucking retarded.

>capitalism
>consevative culture values
here is your problem

congratulations, you're not a libertarian

Because any libertarian with half a brain realizes that libertarianism is an entirely white phenomenon.

>Identity politics in 2018
Some people just aren't destined for learns

>identity politics is le dumb, we should just behave like atomized individuals
>what do you mean that gives an absurd advantage to people who refuse to play by that rule and instead act like a group with collective interests?

Least autistic post in this thread.

...

Found the leftypol ITT

Found the butthurt memester

Jesus Christ I hate Americans

>brainlet who's never heard of Kemalism or the Partido Liberal

>dumb stormnigger who thinks individualism = "atomized individuals" that can't form groups

>b-but a real libertarian state has never been tried before

>hey dude these two exceptions totally disprove the fact that third worlders disproportionately vote for left wing politicians

>yeah guys let's form a group but please DO NOT idenfity with it or advance any sort of cause related to the identity we have as members of that group. That's totally counterproductive

>"I don't know what the word disproportionately means"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conservative_parties_by_country

>"I don't know the difference between collectivism and individualism."

>the political of third worlders in third world countries is a relevant thing when talking about the effects of third worlders voting in first world countries
user, I'm sorry, but third worlers vote for left of center parties in first world countries. If you want the free market and whatever else, you can't have open borders because the people you're importing are going to vote against the free market you desire.

Also, did you pick the wrong image? I've no idea what that has to do with what I said.

They're right, you know

>Stormnigger thinks I'm for open borders because I want liberal markets

I have no problem with net-neutral immigration. I do have a problem with brainlets like you who subvert the idea of liberty with collectivist identitarianism that's always poisoned with authoritarian stormfaggotry. Problems can be solved without resorting to a totalitarian state. Every single civilization that has concerned itself with ethnicity before ideology has always been shattered.

This should happen.

The transition happens because they initially see libertarianism as a tool to fight the "degenerate left." When they realize that isn't what actual libertarianism does, they swing hard into right authoritarianism.

>Problems can be solved without resorting to a totalitarian state
Who said anything about a totalitarian state?
>Every single civilization that has concerned itself with ethnicity before ideology has always been shattered.
Yes, like america in the first half of the 20th century. Totally shattered

Yeah, but who's going to do it? Commies are pasty white dudes who have never lifted anything heavier than a keyboard plus trannies, drug addicts, and assorted deviants. Are they supposed to scare anyone?

>i believe in absolute freedom for european men
the only way for that to work would for there to be be a state to define who counts as sufficiently european to receive liberty

Libertarianism isn't a "tool" to fight the degenerate left. Paramount to all libertarians is the need to enshrine inalienable rights and freedoms for the citizenry and prevent the rise of tyrannical power. Liberty and union, one and inseparable.

Anyone who's self identifies as a fascist and says that they were previously a libertarian, is a fucking moron and doesn't understand what libertarianism is.

>Commies are pasty white dudes who have never lifted anything heavier than a keyboard
The same holds true for the alt-right crowd. They are equally cringey, immature, inexperienced, and just want to be part of a group for once.

Lmao @commies that think identity politics are going away anytime soon

>Who said anything about a totalitarian state?

That's your end-goal. You'll never be able to achieve the grass roots movement to establish an ethnostate and deport millions of people based on their ethnicity, in the process infringing on their civil liberties. There's an excellent video series by a catholic reactionary youtuber that dissects the reason why the alt-right just doesn't have the possibility of reaching its goals.

youtube.com/watch?v=eqoxZL2U0PI&list=PLRbcQXWEJAJrVHweXrgGb5ifN93ftE5Jp

>Yes, like america in the first half of the 20th century. Totally shattered

Then you fail to understand the founding fathers vision of republicanism, hamiltons writings on civil liberties, or the 14th amendment. I'd expect someone on Veeky Forums to do a bit of reading on the subject before he talks out of his ass.

Commies and Nazis aren't far removed though. Both are leftist tripe, socialist garbage.

Take your horse shoe and shove it up your ass commie

Did you even read my second sentence before replying to me?

>That's your end-goal.
No?
>Then you fail to understand the founding fathers
You mean the guys whose first immigration policy was literally "only white dudes?
And even then, how is that relevant to the example I brought? Was america beofre the 60s focused on ethnicity as a main determinant of immigration? Yes. Was it devastated by that? Absolutely not. So what you said earlier is completely wrong.

>Nazis are left, I guess because they had Socialist in their title

I wish Americans would learn history, but I've given up on that wish by now.
Sent from the German Democratic Republic which is totally democratic guys

fuck off nigger, I don't agree with horseshoe theory. I look at the economic principles that the nazis undertook and I see a top down command economy that combined a planned economy with no guarantees of private property. They were third positionists, which meant they combined reactionary social policy with leftist economic policy. They were leftists, you filthy fucking socialist.

see Read "Road to Serfdom" which perfectly illustrates why totalitarian regimes always employ socialist planned economies with rescission of freedom to fully actualize their goals.

>The same holds true for the alt-right crowd
Not even remotely on the same level, unless you're mistaking the alt-right with based kekistanis or some shit like that.
Far right groups are always more focused on physical fitness. Also, it's quite telling that you left out the rest of the people I mentioned despite the fact that they constitute a significant percentage of far left groups.

>nazis undertook and I see a top down command economy that combined a planned economy with no guarantees of private property.
No. Unless you're talking about wartime economy, then you're just dumb.

>Far right groups are always more focused on physical fitness

kek

They were gearing for war.

Hitler put the german economy in 125% debt to its GDP by 1939 and oversaw the production of consumer products by mediating it through the party, meaning people like thyssen and krupp had no control over their own companies. He controlled the means of production.

a "wartime economy" somehow means that it can't be socialist or planned

>omg fascists are dangerous people fixated on violence who go around beating people up
>actually they're just weak fat dudes
Amazing double-think. Dude, I've got a far right center not far from my house. They organize boxing lessons, hiking and plenty of shit like that. Last time I went parachuting, it was basically the same people you'd found at the triump of the will conference. Setting aside anecdotes, it's a repeatedly well established link that between right wing ideas and higher levels of physical fitness.

No, dummy, a wartime economy means it's inevitable going to be highly centralized/planned.

He controller part not all.
Wartime means majority economy is producing for war and will be planned.

It's been ages since I read RTS but it's dishonest to critique Nazi Germany as 'socialist as in Communism socialism' (???) when they were preparing for war vs. not critiquing what Britain did AFTER the war for years....

American far right groups are a bunch of 56%er weaklings. Some of the far right groups i've seen in europe were some tough looking dudes.

>No, dummy, a wartime economy means it's inevitable going to be highly centralized/planned.\

>let's forget the fact that United States and all of the allied powers used bonds and contracts without infringing on the private ownership of companies and corporations. Let's also forget how the nazi party organized capital and labor together, which has always been the hallmark of socialist, totalitarian regimes.

>libertarian with conservative cultural values
"Conservative libertarians" are just engaging in attempting to naturalize their ideological presuppositions when there shouldn't even be a need to do that. At the bottom of things liberalism was based on quasi-egalitarian notions, market equilibration e.g. wages can only be exceptionally high because there must be some form of artificial barriers to entry, etc, etc. Janitors would train to become coders when the price signals direct them to, wages would always equilibrate in a real free market and no general failures, such as gluts, can emerge because factors are totally mobile and interchangeable and supply creates its own demand as long as there's not something "artificial" stoping it from happening. Once you introduce new categories, like race (le bell curve), into the analysis though all the nice pure economic concepts end up being completely irrelevant and perhaps falsified (even though they're formulated in an unfalsifiable manner). It always empirically becomes necessary to promote certain ideological notions to mitigate issues that shouldn't even arise on your own terms, nature never seems to work just like it should and the real problems have to be explained.

Negative freedom isn't in any sense necessarily contrary to "tyrannical power". You just need to rename slavery to life time protection contracts.

theavalogs.wordpress.com/2014/02/05/the-libertarian-case-for-slavery-by-j-philmore-pseodonym-by-david-ellerman/

>He controller part not all.
He controlled part of it not all? That's your rebuttal?

The Nazis expanded the welfare state and government control over the economy. This is indisputable. Out of the bowels of Mussolini (who led the socialist part of Italy and was congratulated by Lenin) came Nazism to germany, where censorship, protectionism, strong regulations on the economy, free education, and free healthcare were mandated. Leftism always supports brutalist, top-down methods of policing the population. They might be slightly "right" of Stalinism in an economic sense, but they were still a socialist, leftist invention.

>Negative freedom isn't in any sense necessarily contrary to "tyrannical power". You just need to rename slavery to life time protection contracts.

Negative liberty means the freedom from the interference of other people or governments. Slavery is an anathema of freedom. Is that too complicated for you to understand?

>foreward

>Although the Nazi Party election programs supported nationalization of major industries, the Nazi government contradicted this program by including several actual policies of privatization in the 1930s.
>Between the fiscal years 1934/35 and 1937/38, privatization represented 1.4 percent of the German government's revenues.
>Among companies that were privatized, were the four major commercial banks in Germany that had all come under public ownership during the prior years; Commerz– und Privatbank, Deutsche Bank und Disconto-Gesellschaft, Golddiskontbank and Dresdner Bank
>A recurring question in the literature on Nazi economic policy is why the Nazis refrained from implementing a policy of wide-scale nationalization of private firms [Buchheim and Scherner (2005)]
>this question is interesting since the Nazis’ official economic program and their electoral manifestos regularly included this proposal.
>It is worth noting that by REJECTING large-scale nationalization the Nazi government joined the
mainstream in Western capitalist countries, which were, in the 1930s, more given to intervention through
regulation and fiscal policy.

Then during wartime it increased, but that's understandable. And during war economy it was complete. Much like in any state that declared war economy. You are wrong calling them out when the academic discussion in itself is going on about why did Nazis refrain from nationalizations.

But if you are doing this, you should also look at what Britain did AFTER the danger was over. Much more socialist.

This line of argumentation presupposes commies are people.

>Let's also forget how the nazi party organized capital and labor together, which has always been the hallmark of socialist, totalitarian regimes.
love too organize labor by banning unions

Thread should've ended here desu

Negative liberty means the government can't do something to you. The conditions to actually exercise any right depends on conditions which aren't stipulated. The government can't stop you from saying something but you won't ever necessarily have a platform to speak.

You just assume debt peonage and lifetime servitude are not compadible with negative freedom because you live under a system which has forbiden it. If you introduce the right to alienate your entire power to labour to a corporation 90% of people would click next on the EULA without even reading the conditions they're agreeing to.

>nature never seems to work just like it should and the real problems have to be explained.
it's because of the niggers and the kikes and the spics and the welfare queens and the white trash and the self-entitled millennials and the hippies and the...
or as they like to call them - rational actors

>in October 1933, every farm up to 308 acres was declared a hereditary estate-it could not be sold, divided, mortgaged or foreclosed on for debt. With the death of its owner, it would pass to his nearest male relative, who in turn was obligated to provide an income and education for his relatives. The peasant farmer was called a bauer or peasant, an "honored title" that he forfeited if he broke the "peasant honor code"-that is, if he stopped farming.
>For its first year, the regime concentrated on a program of government grants of loan credit; stimulus bills for public works, such as road-building and forestation; and it "targeted tax cuts" to enterprises that increased capital expenditure and increased their number of employees. But from 1934 onward, the implementation of the Wehrwirtschaft, or war economy, became the model to which business and labor were subordinated and which was designed to function, not just in time of war, but in the period before war began.
>In 1936, Göring's Four Year Plan was inaugurated. This made Göring, who was almost as ignorant about economics as Hitler, Germany's economic dictator. In the drive for a total war economy, protectionism was decreed and autarchy the desire-the so-called "Battle of Production." Consumer imports were nearly eliminated, price and wage controls were enacted, and vast state projects were built to manufacture raw materials.
>Businessmen and entrepreneurs were smothered by red tape, were told by the state what they could produce and how much and at what price, burdened by taxation, and were forced to make "special contributions" to the party. Corporations below a capitalization of $40,000 were dissolved and the founding of any below a capitalization of $2,000,000 was forbidden, which wiped out a fifth of all German businesses.

>In February 1935 all employment came under the exclusive control of government employment offices which determined who would work where and for how much. And on June 22, 1938, the Office of the Four Year Plan instituted guaranteed employment by conscripting labor. Every German worker was assigned a position from which he could not be released by the employer, nor could he switch jobs, without permission of the government employment office. Worker absenteeism was met with fines or imprisonment-all in the name of job security. A popular Nazi slogan at the time was "the Common Interest before Self"!

Want me to go on?

please go on

I'm saying that forced involuntary servitude is antithetical to the idea of negative liberty. The conditions you're laying out for slavery aren't compatible with modern-day definition.

With pleasure.

>Social life too, was centralized by the Reich. Under the organization "Strength through Joy," the leisure time of the people was regimented. No organized social, sport or recreational groups-from chess and soccer clubs to bird-watching, to adult education, to the theatre, opera, and music concerts-were allowed to function without the oversight of the state. Besides the social costs of not trusting people to be able to look after themselves, there were the enormous costs of this vast bureaucracy that policed the private activities of the citizens.

>Local traditions were attacked and eliminated, private firearms were outlawed and confiscated, and the amalgamation of the various Christian churches and the elimination of Christian symbols from public places and schools was attempted. Education, too, came under central control under the Reich Minister of Education, which designed the curriculum, rewrote textbooks, and licensed teachers.

>The cartelization of industry-which began before the Nazi regime-was made compulsory, and the Ministry of Economics was empowered to form new compulsory cartels or to force firms to join existing ones. The maze of business and trade associations created to lobby the Weimar Republic for various considerations in the law were nationalized and made compulsory for all businesses.
>The Reich Economic Chamber was established on top of all these associations. It consisted of seven national economic groups, twenty-three economic chambers, seventy chambers of handicrafts, and one hundred chambers of industry and commerce. From these bureaucracies and the numerous offices and agencies of the Ministry of Economics and the Office of the Four Year Plan rained down a flood of decrees and laws, which in turn created for businesses the need on the one hand for lawyers and a legal department to understand these rules, and on the other, for a systematic regime of bribing officials.

Would you like more reasons why Nazism is Socialism?

>The conditions you're laying out for slavery aren't compatible with modern-day definition.
neither is libertarianism and you're still jerking yourself raw over it

So what you posted pertains to war economy even according to Mises
>In the drive for a total war economy
and has little do with nationalization of economy?

I mean you could be posting about post-WW2 Britain.
Why are you not posting about post-WW2 Britain?

And yet most libertarians aren't members of the libertarian party. The Libertarian party doesn't define what libertarianism is.

How is banning guns nationalization of economy about which I was postinag about I'm confused

so what? my post still stands.
he thinks socialism=1984. that's the brainpower you're dealing with here.

>Also, it's quite telling that you left out the rest of the people I mentioned despite the fact that they constitute a significant percentage of far left groups.
I left them out because they aren't characteristic of the alt-right crowd. Reading comprehension?

It means that the policies of Wehrwirtschaft were undertaken long before any military excursion, and was used to completely centralize control of all economic functions. Do you disagree with any of the points made otherwise?

>Wehrwirtschaft were undertaken long before any military excursion
Even the Mises article you quote says they were doing war economy..

Total centralization, interference, and government oversight in controlling private functions.

i live in a third world country where 3/4 of the population constantly vote for socialism,, you have no idea the impact it has on our society, some days half the country shuts down and nothing gets done because workers in the transport system are protesting, not only is everything always broken but breaking public property is a political act and you often see "protestors" with hammers breaking the fucking sidewalk.
People form hierarchies on top of hierarchies on top of hierarchies and the people on top are borderline gang members so those are the values everyone aspires to follow, college students dont want to be doctors, lawyers or engineers, they want to reach some position where they have enough power to never have to work, thats students not people who have been working for 30 years and are now too tired or looking for more status
There is so much corruption and so much theft at every level its amazing how this country is still standing, you are supposed and expected to steal if you have the chance

As such i cant help but look at libertarianism as the only possible solution, people just dont value themselves in socialism, only opportunity , if you cant use someone to get more value out of your life then that person doesnt matter

That is authoritarian government, but how is banning guns nationalization of economy?

You're a brainlet if you think slapping the word "war economy" on something suddenly makes it not socialist.

Does someone have an amazon link or pdf?

The point was proving that Nazism was a leftist invention. "Nationalization" for the Nazis was protectionist socialism.

How can't you distinct a socialist country and country gearing for war?
All war economy is somewhat planned, but not all planned economy is war economy.

Of course I admit that Nazi Germany was a socialist in their own way different from USSR. After all, democratic-socialist in Finland did fancy Nazi policies.

>if you cant use someone to get more value out of your life then that person doesnt matter
this may be the first time I've seen someone argue for libertarianism as the ideology that cares more about people than their use value