Nationalism

You can only enforce individual rights in a governed state and a state requires sovereign borders to function. If you are surrounded by collectivists, then you need to take collectivist counter-measures.

Listen to my subject.

Yes, that is a collectivist demand, considering the fact that someone else is paying for your security, a lot of others that probably really don't care if you're safe or not

dissentingsociologist.wordpress.com/2017/01/26/some-desultory-remarks-on-the-concept-of-universal-person/

>It just means you don't value individuals who aren't a part of the nation.
Then you are not an individualist.

Read Hegel you dip

You can't be a national individualist?

>if I reference Kant, Plato and Nietzsche enough maybe people won't find out that I'm a literal neo-nazi

OP here
Lol, I have read Hegel and I don't agree with him on a lot of things.

neolibs btfo

This is muh copy of the Phenomenology of Spirit from my book collection. Hegel was spooked.

I want a nation of libertarians and I want all non-libertarians to be excluded

Authoritarians don't deserve civilized society. They are all hypocrites who want liberty for themselves but won't afford the same to their neighbor.

Stop projecting faggot.

>If you disagree with me you are a nazi, or sometimes actually Hitler reborn.

Nice collection.

>liberty for all except people I don't like.

Hoppe is the definition of a crypto-fascist. His system can at best lead to a Pinochean dictatorship.

>unironically defending the cancer of "white identitarianism"

It's liberty for all but you lose that liberty when you actively conspire to destroy the liberty of others

>Then you are not an individualist.
National Individualist, Patriotic Patriot

Go back to your containment thread on /pol/.

I can get behind this kind of nationalism but anything revolving around
>muh national pride
>muh heritage
>preserving muh national culture (not just the aspects of one's culture held to be objectively superior, but implying that preserving one's existing culture is good in itself by default)
is spooky as hell and anti-individualistic.

i pick nationalism

wow that was hard

>21st century
>nation state at all

wew lad

It's perfectly conceivable to pick both so long as at least one of those conforms to your special snowflake not-at-all-what-it-means definition.
Which I guess this guy is doing.

Are those pics in the wrong order? It doesn't make much sense.

>anarcho-capitalism is now /pol/

Why is the left so intolerant?

>Are those pics in the wrong order? It doesn't make much sense

It doesnt make sense.
How, shoe me how it doesnt make sense

>Believing in enforcing gender roles and expression on everyone
>Calling yourself an individualist

>anarcho-capitalism
A crackt pipe dream. Anarchy is not feasible, well I mean, would an anarcho capitalist state/area say to the world "We dont believe in any laws!!", and then expect the unitededs of the world to not conquer them?

>anarcho-capitalism is now /pol/
Well yeah. When was it not?
>Why is the left so intolerant?
And so are you, if you think the leftyfaggots on Veeky Forums are going to get triggered by being called "intolerant".
It is grammatically awkward. And at first glance contradictory. While the other way around flows much better.

>would an anarcho capitalist state/area say to the world "We dont believe in any laws!!"

You don't understand anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalists believe in the natural law. We possess natural rights to life, liberty and property. Self-ownership is fundamental.

An-caps would bind together to defend themselves from all those foreign threats who oppose private property. (and we would do so more efficiently than you communist technocrats and your shitty central planning)

mad?

Don't pretend like you didn't save these images from /libtard/ general threads on /pol/ you fucking memer.

Yeah
From what I gather (from Anime) Japanese sentence structure seems reversed w/r/t English. So it's probably the translators fault for being too autistic.

>live in ancap and
>not the roads
>not the police
>not the army
No, the lack of a patent system makes research and marketing fucking stupid so the economy breaks.

what

>Anarcho-capitalists believe in the natural law. We possess natural rights to life, liberty and property.
this is the most embarrassing thing ive ever read.

Then I guess you haven't read much since you haven't read any Enlightenment texts on the nature of government

Read Locke and stop embarrassing yourself

Couldn't have said it better.

I didn't become a cultural nationalist until I found out the truth about Muslims and their barbarism.

read

mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0

>produce good that isn't scarce
>lobby the government to use violence against people to exclude them from accessing your non-scarce good therefore giving you an artificial monopoly

i thought you leftists hated monopolies?

>you leftists
Pleb.

argument?

That leftists are not a homogenous blob, to the point that they do not exist.

>Implying that people on the left support governments pandering to big business.
>Implying that private powers won't always try to use the state to manipulate the economy and get what they want.
>Implying that private companies won't just use their massive financial power to create a new state that is even more authoritarian and unaccountable than the existing state, with a private army, police force and judicial system.

How is it any more "artificial" than protection of non-intellectual property.

I've read Locke.
He's an embarrassment
the enlightenment is an embarrassment

Make one cogent argument for the mere existence of "natural rights"

>Implying that private property existed in nature before human beings existed.

this
at least anarcho-communism makes sense

>muh first person to build a fence around precisely what he needed for himself!

>implying an actual socialist utopia would do anything
It'd literally just be you working a bit less and making a bit more. That's not a huge change. Like what do you think life is like for the rich? Fuck, who do you think it is that writes all that gloomy anti-materialist philosophy?

You're not gonna do shit with a utopia. You have to look inside yourself.
>natural
>law
Unless you are Spinoza, you do not know what one or both of these words mean.

>an-caps would bind together
you realize this would effectively become a representative government right?
calling a government a corporation or a union of individualists or whatever doesn't make it not a government

Same goes for anarcho-commies with their bullshit "no rulers doesn't mean no rules" though.

I mean animals do exert ownership over territory and objects, but nothing moral/philosophical obviously. It's just "I'm using this and if you touch it I'll fight you."

You say The Hunger Games, I say The Sot-Weed Factor
You say Twilight, I say The Recognitions
You say Divergent, I say The Magic Mountain
You say Harry Potter, I say In Search of Lost Time
You say Perks, I say Women & Men
You say John Green, I say shut the fuck up
You say Cassandra Clare, I scream Thomas Pynchon!!
You say Fifty Shades of Grey, I fucken punch you in the face

92% of teenagers have turned to YA and memes. If you are part of the 8% that still reads real literature, copy and paste this message to another 5 threads. DON'T LET THE SPIRIT OF Veeky Forums DIE

non-intellectual property isn't scarce and is excludable without using the power of the state

example: you can build a fence around your land

you cannot build a fence around an idea without using the government to kill people who use your idea

>Implying that people on the left support governments pandering to big business.

Yet the left constantly tries to raise taxes on small-medium business owners and put new regulations on their businesses which prevents them from competing with the billionaire multi-national corporations

>Implying that private powers won't always try to use the state to manipulate the economy and get what they want.
abolish the state

>>Implying that private companies won't just use their massive financial power to create a new state that is even more authoritarian and unaccountable than the existing state, with a private army, police force and judicial system.

Creating a state is a violation of the NAP and thus those of the covenant would band together to kill the state-formers so to protect their property rights

Sure they are. They all hate property rights.

not an argument

It's simple cause and effect

I plant seeds in the land and infuse the land with my labor thus I'm responsible for that farmland. Since I now possess the essence of responsibility of that farmland so do I possess the subset responsibility of the responsibility to choose what happens to it aka ownership. No one else possesses that "responsibility to choose" than I because they do not possess any set of responsibility for that farmland thus giving me the right to exclude others from utilizing that farmland.

not an argument

Each member of the covenant has full self-sovereignty. No other can dictate the rules of their private property or personhood. The covenant of defense would be purely voluntary and they could choose to not contribute to the defense whenever they'd like. They would choose to contribute to the defense of their private property naturally.

>anarcho-communism makes sense

>we should equally distribute our wealth
>but everyone has to do it voluntarily

lmao, good luck with that.

Yes it is sorry.

>you cannot build a fence around an idea without using the government to kill people who use your idea
wut if you used your private army

>implying an actual socialist utopia would do anything
Nice strawman you got there. I don't advocate for a socialist utopia, I advocate for minor government reforms like universal healthcare, public education and health/environmental regulation to minimize poverty and misery, and to make sure people aren't stuck drinking poisoned water. My policies are neither utopian nor socialist, nor are they even radical.

not an argument

this is a minor point of contention between libertarians that is largely unimportant in the overall scheme of things

the Rand's of the worlds would say that is fine although she would impose arbitrary limits on intellectual property while other libertarians think that property rights only exist because of scarcity of resources so they would say that's not ok

desu I was just using your post to make a point
Not him but you are wrong.

you are him since i had two parts of that reply where i said "not an argument" so i have no idea who the reply "yes it is sorry" is coming from

>i have no idea
yes

>abolish the state
I'm a Capitalist who advocates for markets, and you can't abolish the state without abolishing private ownership of the means of production. Private powers will never allow you to abolish the state, unless you abolish private power entirely.

thats cute but ultimately very shallow and pathetic

as well as not an argument

...

>leftists

I will never not be amazed at burger's insistence on confusing leftists with liberals.

How can you call yourself a liberal when you hate private property and individual liberty?

Leftists have bastardized the term Liberal

Aw, did I hurt your feelings?
The criminal is in the utmost degree the State’s own crime.

>How can you call yourself a liberal when you hate private property and individual liberty?
He doesn't, that's the point you dongle.

You still haven't read

mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0

What does that have to do with anything I said in my pretty brief post.

>Theft is wrong

Absolutely spooked.

im not an anarcho-communist by any means, but at least they're not dithering retards like ancaps.

also:
>should
>will

recognize the distinction dude, cause ur argument doesnt follow. read the literature- they at least posit a mechanism by which this process can occur.

You might want to live with certain individuals.

>mises.org
Look you might as well have just recommended marxists.org

I have the same respect for both of those sites.

>I plant seeds in the land and infuse the land with my labor thus I'm responsible for that farmland.
I've read it all, brother.

Please give me a concrete distinction between productive and unproductive labor, and then give me an account as to why all 'private property' should not be ceded to the individual who can make most efficient use of it. Good luck intellectually dealing with scarcity without resorting to the possibility of redistribution.

By the way, I once planted fruit trees in a public park. Do you know how my efforts were referred to? As Community Service.

>marxists.org
you know they post full unedited texts of almost every major left-wing author? It's not just some site for shitty opinion pieces.

>Leftist
First of all, it's important to define what you mean by leftist. When you say leftist, are you referring to center-left Bernie Sanders types who want higher taxes and government programs, or are you referring to the far-left such as anarcho-communists and Marxist-Leninists who want to abolish private property and markets entirely? It is highly misleading to use the term leftist to refer to both the center-left and the far-left, because the two groups have very little in common in terms of their vision of society, the types of action they advocate for, and the ideas they are trying to implement. In modern times, the word liberal has become synonymous with center-left or progressive. The center-left are liberals, because many of the classical liberals did not actually advocate for laissez faire. If you read Thomas Paine or Freidrich Hayek, both liberal thinkers believed that their was a role for the state in intervening in the economy. A liberal broadly speaking, supports representative democracy, market economies and a government that protects property rights and individual freedom. The center-left fits this definition of liberal because progressives don't advocate for the abolition of representative democracy, private property or the market economy. A belief in taxation, welfare programs and government regulation isn't incompatible with liberalism or market economies, because the policies are implemented within the context of a liberal market system. The far-left on the other hand, consciously knows that they are not liberals. If you met any actual members of the far-left, they will openly talk about how much hey hate the center-left. The far-left doesn't believe in participating in electoral politics or in creating welfare programs, nor do they want higher taxes. The far-left wants to entirely abolish money itself, overthrow the existing state, and abolish private ownership of the means of production in favor of worker control of production. So when you use the term leftist, be careful that you are not grouping the center-left and the far-left in the same camp, because they are very two distinct groups.

pastebin.com/7zn44SVE

Locke btfo

What if nationalism is in my self-interest? What if I genuinely love the idea of nationalism and I want society to be structured in this way?

You can be both an individualist and nationalist, if anything you can also be an individualist and an altruist. You just have to genuinely want to be altruistic.

Exactly this.

Muzzies out.

>What if nationalism is in my self-interest?
What if the sky is a big blue elephant?

Nationalism is too abstract and intellectual for what you're describing.

Are you sure? What if I aesthetically like the idea of living in a nationalist country? What if I genuinely like the habits and quirks of my nation and I want people to follow them, and be proud of their traditionalism?
Self-interest is way more than mere sensual pleasures.

>you know they post full unedited texts of almost every major left-wing author?

>completely butchering the aggregate supply function at the end of chapter 4 of Keynes' General Theory
>unedited

It's more than sensual pleasures, but this sounds like you trying to keep hold of your nationalism despite agreeing with much of Stirner.

I don't have to agree with Stirner, and had you read him you would already know that he's the first one to admit the uniqueness of every single human being. A genuine appreciation for nationalism is competely compatible with his philosophy, as long as you're able to detatch yourself from every sort of spook attached to the ideology.

The argument here is whether that's possible, user. Given the large amount of socialist stirnerites I don't think there's any who would disagree that being an egoist and holding political views is theoretically possible, just that it's practically impossible.

Not in my case. I'm Italian and I truly love our traditional heritage: everything old I can see when walking down the streets is magnificent, everything new is bland and vulgar.
In my ideal world we would still follow our classical aesthetical standards for every aspect of society, and to do so nationalism is necessary, since it's inherently bound to what I want to promote in this society.

Nationalism is directly in my self-interest. As you can see, it's not practically impossible.

No faggot what you want is a specific aesthetic.

That's not nationalism. Also good taste.