Is there a more amorphous internet """intellectual""" out there than this guy...

...

This quote was from the 20s when fascism actually had a meaning instead of a generic insult. Mises is talking how the fascists in Italy managed to btfo the actual full socialist by sneaking their "cooperation of labor and management".
In this book (Liberalism), Mises then btfo the fascist doctrines, but he recognizes that choosing, realistically, a side, the commies have to be purged.

>commies have to be purged.
B A S E D

He's just following the usual trend.

Next year he's going to advocate the race war. Two years from now he'll turn SJW into means of production.

Understandable. To quote Hitler who was talking to Chamberlain, "if you remove me the german communist party will gain 10 million voters" or something like that.

How is Hoppe not just a traditionalist? He advocates for monarchy and traditional beliefs combined with laissez-faire economics, which historically a lot of traditional societis have had; they just didn't have the advanced economic theories we have now.

>How is Hoppe not just a traditionalist?
He doesnt believe in traditional nation states. He just defend that states should be run like private property. Private city-states or making the world a collection of micro-states is not traditionalist

Well if you think the guilds, corporations and various hindrance on lending are free market, sure.

I guess he may be called traditionalist if you come from Venice or Switzerland.

thanks man that is some top quality

It sounds to me like he argues for a collection of city states, which seems fairly traditional to me. Nation-states are a product of 18th and 19th liberalism; when I think about traditionalism, I think 1700 and earlier.

This is what I'm thinking of: societies like Venice or small medieval principalities, not huge Roman Empire or British Empire like institutions.

>It sounds to me like he argues for a collection of city states
Kind of,but he believes that they should be privately owned,which has nothing to do with traditional structures.
>Nation-states are a product of 18th and 19th
Nationalism has always existed.Nation states achieving its zenit in the 19 th century means nothing.

well, there's this guy

Sure, but nation-states are a product of the Westphalian system of international relations. You definitely had nations of people and national pride before, but not in the sense where every ethnic or cultural group needs it's own state. Why? Cosmopolitan empires let the nation's under them live life according to their traditional ways so long as you paid taxes and obeyed the ruler (there are some obvious exceptions here). In liberal democracy, people or their representatives vote for the laws, and minority groups' traditional ways of life can be mowed down by a simple majority vote. Thus why nation-states are more important for groups in the age of liberal democracy; the people voting will share your basic cultural values.

Hoppe wants the world to be like places like the financial sector of Dubai,with communities having full autonomy,their own laws and judges.In my opinion this has nothing to do with traditionalism,as traditionalist usually emphatizes on things like guilds,or old laws

Hmm okay, I guess we have different conceptions of traditionalism then. A collection of free city-states sounds similar to the various free cities of medieval Europe to me, or Greek city-states. I realize this has never happened on a global level, so in that respect you're right, it's not traditionalist. How would Hoppe's theories prevent guilds from privately incorporating if the monarch charters it? Would all monarchs just economically libertarian views?

>How would Hoppe's theories prevent guilds from privately incorporating if the monarch charters it?
They won't. People controling the means of production is fine by him,as long as it respects private property. If a bunch of workers choose to open a cooperative,so be it,the same would go for guilds. But for him private property is fundamental,as it is the most efficient system of production and the only way to avoid tyranny. He thinks that small countries would be forced to have laissez faire policies like the european micro nations or Hong Kong,so the most innegicient forms of production would eventually disappear.

>THE INTELLECTUALS ARE BECOMING /POL/ TIER
>EVERYONE ELSE IS JUST COMING TO THE WRONG CONCLUSIONS

why don't you form an argument?

>Molymeme
>intellectual

Strong argument right here.

Okay, that makes sense. Tbqh his ideas are reminiscent of leftist systems like Murray Bookchin's (mutualism?), minus the socially and environmentalally liberal views and the rosy Rousseau-esque view of human nature.

I mean it must be hard being a libertarian/ancap and have to watch the news everyday without starting to perhaps question your views about humans.

Paul Joseph Watson pisses me off even more. He's so sophomoric in his reasoning but you can tell that he thinks he's really hot shit. He's too young (or arrogant) to comprehend how weak his arguments really are.

>Paul Joseph Watson
Annoying as fuck. He is just a fedora that looks decent.

This. The shift to "fascism" is understandable.
Imagine liberty being your prime virtue and seeing it trampled and maligned all the time, not merely in discourse but in actual law. At some point you just want to kill socialists, so to speak.

I can see why this would happen; laws against "hate speech" (which has an ever-expanding definition), advocacy for strong affirmative action programs in jobs and schools, heavy focus on economic inequalities, increasing centralized police power as people want various social problems resolved. If you're a libertarian, things would look pretty bleak.

Trips of truth.

It's kinda jarring that a meme that used to be used to dismiss frivolous statements is now used for anything, even actual arguments.

That's the thing about memes, they take on a life of their own. They're usually used properly initially, then grow into some easily replicated monstrosity that shuts down reasonable debates, precisely because they're so easy to reproduce. "Victim-blaming" is a good example.

Also any twitter hashtag.

Great to see the image I made has been saved and reposted countless times already. I'll make sure to update one without those typos next time friend.

He was discussing with Jared Taylor how Trump was a nationalist and a socialist and he was praising that kek. So much for anarchism.

He's a True Believer, he can't reconcile the contradictions of his ideology and rather than abandon it (which he would see as a failure) he instead twists himself into logical knots so he can pretend to himself that his positions are insurmountable. It's very like how Christians talk about their "Biblical values" while routinely relying on non-Christian values for how they live their lives.

Why would anyone answer "yes"? Who is the kike who wrote this tripe.

You don't have to be a kike to dislike Hitler. Arguably, he did as much damage to Nationalism as he did to Judaism.

No you don't, and I personally hate Hitler, but stooping down to stealing his wallet is such a kikeish thing to do. Theft is unethical, and saying "it's ok because is hitler" sounds like kike shit to me.

It's a joke you incredible autist.

You don't realize he was once trying to get your views by parroting all the bullshit you believe?

If you ever liked this guy you're retarded. Period.

>dominant pol/alt-right narrative
>dominant

>GUYS WERE NOT /pol/ I SWEAR
>literally the exact same kind of posts but with a liberal bias
>pretty much just /leftypol/
lmao what a shit board

This. Altright /pol/itics are on the fringe. Nobody who is anybody takes it seriously.

As someone who also posts on /pol/ I can safely say Veeky Forums is much better. People post political question here that belong on /pol/, but most Veeky Forums content is board-appropriate.

Why don't you try to disprove his points with arguments? It shouldn't be hard.

Yelling ARE YOU KIDDING ME won't get you anywhere.

>Anyone who doesn't agree with me is automatically a Jew nigger loving cuckold leftist.
Yeah ok bud. Looks like u have some growing up to do before you realize how the world really works.

I don't even go on /pol/. I use /mu/ and /sp/. I came here because I just randomly felt like talking about history. I see this board doesn't actually talk about it though.

>I see this board doesn't actually talk about it though.

This thread is about a pseudo-intellectual, why would we be discussing history here? Go find one of the many, many threads about historical topics if that's all you care about you utter tool.

>liberal bias

this term is completely meaningless

Right and left wing rags have so over-used the word "bias" that it now means "you disagree with me because you're stupid". I'd like to say it's used strategically as a form of rhetoric, but it's not. It's a word that's slung around without any nod or concession to its definition and is therefore meaningless; think "socialist" or "nationalist". These terms have no meaning anymore. They're used to emotionally rile the opponent -- it's not even used to argue, to defend, to do anything except skate around the topic of discussion in favour of bullshit arguments usually made by bullshitting people.

And for god's sake, please note that I am accusing both raggy media, and by extension their audiences, of this bs.

>It's a "Veeky Forums is a left wing board" meme
strawpoll.me/10685093

Does this mean /pol/ will kill themselves eventually? Either by staying in that shitty little cult or by suicide once they realize how destructive Stefbot's ideology really is.

Only Americans have this problem, because your political system is wholly liberal. You have market liberal Republicans, social liberal Democrats, and ultra liberal Libertarians. Because of this, "liberal" is not a useful term in American politics, so it has drifted in meaning until now it more or less means "progressive". this drift has not taken place elsewhere in the world, where "liberal" is a perfectly sensible term, distinguished from the "socialist" left and the "conservative" right.

They will sudoku once their "god emperor" Trump loses the election. The but thirst will be glorious. I wonder how they'll rationalize it?

Butt hurt*

>The but thirst
What did he mean by this?

I'm always thirsty for butt.

It was auto correct

>but thirst
I see meme potential here

I think most people on /pol/ started out as or are still in the libertarian phase.

no narative is 'the truth' especially one thats as far anything, be it left or right, like pol

>there are actual "libertarians" on this board
>there are actual neo-feudalists (or as they like to be called "anarcho-capitalists") on this board