Why is there no National Capitalist movement? It seems like the best of both worlds? The strong culture and protection of nationalism and the freedom and rights of free markets. Should we become National Capitalists?
>>535437171>protection of nationalismWhat does this mean in practical terms, memeflaggot?
>>535437171You need a resource rich cuntry with uniethnic rules. An America 2.0. Start settling wypipo to Greenland
>>535437281In practice, this means that the Russians have to leave, the property is divided among the Kazakhs, and in the meantime, the Caspian region has been bought up by oil and gas companies affiliated with the West, but that's okay.
>>535437171there is its called "republicans"jeets are very welcome there.
>>535437171Capitalism and free markets are completely antagonistic you brain dead troglodyte subhuman.
>>535437171Because state capitalism (which is what national capitalism is) is a contradiction in terms. >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3sa7J-i8ZY
>>535437281Regional private security companies that are interwoven in the local community.>>535437500Republicans are neither nationalists, nor capitalists.
>>535437614What would these companies actually do?
>>535437539What? Idiot.>>535437568state =/= nation>>535437673Everything a government does but far cheaper, more effectively, and with less destruction of natural rights, security enforcement, rights enforcement, dispute resolution etc.
>>535437171ive seen this thread posted years ago
>>535437755If you believe that a nation is just a people/race and not necessarily a state, then what meaningfully separates "National Capitalism" from anarcho-capitalism? This just opens the door for subversion by traditional conservatives who will ultimately sabotage any attempt to reign in the state.
>>535437171>>535437362Peter Thiel funded this thread
>>535437949it's a meme internet ideology
>>535438002If you're talking about "National Capitalism" then you'd be correct.
>>535437755Competition in free market leads to true price discovery and reduction in profit margins, whereas capitalist systems always corner and monopolize markets and erect rents by rigging prices to maximize profits. Many industries due to scale and complexity lead to natural monopolies in which the start up cost of capital development keeps new competition out especially with the market already established; sometimes laws get rigged on top of this to choke competition out even more. Peter Thiel, a true capitalist who under stands competition is for losers, openly advocates cornering markets to put up rents in his book Zero to One. Bluntly, you are a retarded meme spewing faggot who is is economically and historically illiterate. Go read some Michael Hudson or Braudel instead of being faggot brainwashed by decades of globalist Jewish propaganda.
>>535437171because money has no homeland or creed
>>535438070there is already national capitalism (united states)anarcho capitalism is a meme. you're trying to sound intelligent I can tell
>>535437949>then what meaningfully separates "National Capitalism" from anarcho-capitalism?A kind of Anarcho-Capitalism which is structurally Nationalist, not in the sense of we need a giant state to make sure everyones an Australian, but doing all the functions of Nationalism through the market rather than the state, which I think would be far more effective to the ends of real nationalism, that is nationalism which actually serves the nation and the communities and families that compose it. For instance, let loose private community defense squads, integrate them with regional defense forces, and higher up national defense forces, if a dispute arises arbitrate it privately, wars would be mostly eliminated, and in their rare occurence it would be mostly the military contractors that die, this is only one example.
>>535438079Ok then i'll redefine capitalism to be free markets then, you're playing semantic games. What matters is the culture of a people and how they prosper through freedom and structure.
>>535438354Hickey mouse lala land bullshit, shut the fuck up faggot. 2015 called and wants its flat earth of political theory back
>>535438494You are a gay retard who doesnt understand that markets under capitalism naturally globalize and will throw around billions of subhumans to cheapen the labor market and smash cultural homogeneity. Utter philistine, no retard branch of ideology is just the derivative diarrhea of WEF ghouls more.
>>535437983You are going to have to grapple with Thiel's ideas sooner or later, wether you like it or not times are changing, I am offering an opposite alternative to Thiel's technocratic corporatism, I'm advocating a true pure free market, where the nation is built from the bottom up by private communities instead of top down feudal control
>>535438508>>535438584Nonsense, the WEF wants carbon taxes, I want to abolish all climate change taxes. You are mad because National Capitalism is a viable idea in the modern world.
>>535437171Politics trough states is coerive and so is a contradiction to capitalism and free markets.
>>535438946National Capitalism not State Capitalism.
>>535439198I guess. If you really had national capitalism the you would also not have a nation anymore since people would be free of that fantasy.
>>535438127>there is already national capitalism (united states)There's no such thing as national capitalism, in much the same way as there's no such thing as a squared circle. You're either baiting or you're a retarded pseud.
>national capitalism>lost of posts describing it>picrel
>>535439388What the fuck are you talking about? Does a nation exist? Does capitalism exist? Then national capitalism can exist.>>535439459Based.
>>535439348Why? Nations have distinct cultures, peoples, etc
>>535437171Why would capitalists be nationalists? Mass immigration is profitable to them
>>535439541If you read the post I was responding to then you'd know that they were using "national" in the statist sense.
>>535439580Calling it one nation would be a bit arbitrary because there wouldnt be a unifying coercive power but instead decentralized largely independent contracts and local circuumstances. It would be some sort of free lands. National anthems and flags would be a historical artifact because there wouldnt be a reason for this kind of forced propaganda anymore. People would be more characterized by their individuality
If you think about this nonsense a little more, it makes sense that the Jews were always the national capitalists before the creation of the State of Israel.fuck it im out
>>535437171National Capitalism is an oxymoron. Capitalism by nature is globalist and in the West supports mass jeet and beaner immigration.
>>535437171Pure capitalism can't be national, it deterritorializes by default.
>>535439837Exactly.
>>535437171capitalists don't care about nation they care about money that's why they're capitalist. the current international capitalist alliance will never allow nation and blood to take priority over profit and economic growth
>>535439837Capitalism tends to be globalist in so far as it improves welath and trad. It would be immigration by invitation only because every piece of land would be owned privately, so you could expect a whole lot of less immigration and in so far as there would be immigration it would be consensual instead of being forced by the state.
Guys read the classics, Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe. Explains it better than I can.
>>535439985Why would the capitalists ask consent though? Their primary motivation is profit not consent of the governed, thats what capitalism is about
>>535440071>Why would the capitalists ask consent though?Because the basis of capitalism is voluntary transactions.>Their primary motivation is profit not consent of the governed, thats what capitalism is aboutThere would be no state, so there also would be no "governed" to consult. And the "will of the people" is a spook that implies group ownership, which is a contradiction.
>>535440071The moment capitalists stop asking consent and act coercively they become politicians, feudal lords, monarchs, not capitalists.
>>535440191There will always be the governed, if there is no state then the wealthiest or the most violent groups will take power, no state at all is a temporary thing historically because it sucks a lot when you dont have a state (monopoly on violence)>>535440204I disagree, feudal lords and monarchs had duties to their paesantry, that came with the deal and they had obligations to the church aswel, capitalists are only loyal to whatever makes the most money
>>535440317>There will always be the governed, if there is no state then the wealthiest or the most violent groups will take power, no state at all is a temporary thing historically because it sucks a lot when you dont have a state (monopoly on violence)Historically incorrect.>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSFggz9fhGw>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2LbGlXSbRo>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8Re6l1-qFw>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh5CRdOHGO8
>>535439605How? If i was in a sizable private security company for a particular region, I would be very careful with who i let in, only few of the most skilled and local people would be allowed to immigrate so as to not destabilize the business or the consumers and citizens of the area.However, if you are a statist ruler, you can import hundreds of thousands into your local region, and you will never have to shoulder the cost, you bear no responsibility, you are immune, and the taxpayer will shoulder every single cost to their businesses and risks to their society.
>>535440514>posts examples that support my point completelyHuh?
>>535440317>capitalists are only loyal to whatever makes the most moneyYes and inside a consent framework thats a good thing. It means general success
>>535440645In what way do they support your point?
>>535440642But you are not someone with huge amounts of capital so why would your opinion matter? Capitalism is about making profit and mass immigration makes large profits to the capitalist oligarchy. You are imagining a monarchy where you are the king
>>535440514There is also the free city of Prospera that exists today, i predict many small capitalist micronations will appear more and more, some will be good and some will be bad, but they will all have to compete with eachother in the free market.>>535440418Free state project in NH, we already started 10+ years ago.
>>535440684I said>if there is no state then the wealthiest or the most violent groups will take power, no state at all is a temporary thing historicallyThen you proceeded to post examples of this phenomena, to be fair I'm not too familiar with Cospaia and Acadia but the other two are good examples
>>535440710>Capitalism is about making profit and mass immigration makes large profits to the capitalist oligarchy.How do capitalists make profit? They do it by providing services that their customers want and are willing to pay for. How is this a bad thing?
>>535440710Why would the scale of business matter.Your line of think is absurd and ingrained into you by the so called nationalist statists.Consider sanely for a moment, you are the owner of a large business on the nation scale that controls border security.If you cause damages to various business and property owners in your country, they can sue you into oblivion or at least attempt to, you cannot even attempt to sue the government for immigration damages currently.Are you going to import 10's of millions of immigrants? That would be an insane business decision, the market uncertainty it would cause is catastrophic, the damages would be catastrophic, the damage to the very fabric of culture which is able to be so productive in the free market would be highly damaged, it would just be insane, your business would immediately collapse and be replaced by a more competent company. No one would pay you for such a shit service, but currently you're forced to pay for mass immigration via taxation.
>>535440662What consent framework? Capitalists put data centers up in the US even though only 7% of the local populace wants it and the rest opposes or strongly opposes it. There is no incentive in capitalism to ask for consent, thats a hinderance to making money. There needs to be a built in mechanism or atleast a strong philosophical reason why the capitalist would all of a sudden completely change their modus operandi
>>535440847Iceland and Cospaia lasted for hundreds of years, how is this any less stable than a state? Nazi Germany lasted for only 12 years, the soviet union lasted 69 years, by your own logic this refutes all statism.
>>535440896He thinks privatized international communism is capitalism, as for our generations, its all we know. But central banks along with BIS controlling the money flow isn't capitalism. Its central planning, in unelected private hands.
>>535440964Capitalist? You know OpenAI received 500 billion dollars of taxpayer money from the state? If that is a free market to you you are a clueless statist.You think the state asks for consent? This is silly.
>>535441056Yep, the private-public central banks are the root of all destruction.
>>535440964The collective "local community" has no right to tell companies what they can or can't build on land they don't own (and can't own since collective ownership is bunk).
>>535440896Their customers can be anywhere in the world, thats what free market means, it doesn't matter if the local population is fucked in the process, thats why all billionaires support mass immigration for example and offshoring. If there is more money to be made then they will do it. In your wild west example for example the big shot train track builders brought in tons of chinese and black labor because the white laborers were complaining about the wages>>535440959Scale of the business actually matters a lot because the larger a business becomes the more removed from the local community they are>you are the owner of a large business on the nation scale that controls border security.There is no incentive to have a business like that in the first place so its kind of hard to imagine and if there were I cant imagine how that business would not become the state in a long enough timeline>If you cause damages to various business and property owners in your country, they can sue you into oblivionIf I'm the border security then presumably I have lots of guns and manpower though, if there is no monopoly on violence to stop me then why would I care about being sued? I'd say like Cornelius Sulla ''Dont quote laws to men who bear arms''>Are you going to import 10's of millions of immigrants? Consider the fact that every billionaire that exists in the west supports mass immigration, are they not capitalists?>the damage to the very fabric of cultureWhy would culture matter to a capitalist though? I'd argue capitalism incentivizes getting rid of culture because it can conceivably stand in the way of making money, culture unites people in a way that can be a hinderance to that>it would just be insane, your business would immediately collapse and be replaced by a more competent company.It would not, all billionaires in every western country support mass immigration because it is a good short term business decision for them, housing prices go up, wages down
>>535441384Its not about money. Money is a tool for ideological agendas. The immigration agenda is part of the jacobin/bolshevik idea of a united world where nationalism is destroyed, all workers of the world "united". You know full well that the immigrants are a net negative for everyone, the tax cattle and the nigger merchants who brought them in.>Frank W. Notestein played a foundational role in establishing the Population Division of the United Nations, serving as its organizer and first director from 1946 to 1948>In 1955, Notestein advised India's Minister of Health on population policies>The United Nations Population Division published a report titled "Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?" in 2001, based on projections from the 1998 Revision of the World Population ProspectsThey literally made policies to breed the bioweapon used against you and the idea of nationalism
>>535441047Nazi Germany was succeeded by a state and the Soviet Union was succeeded by a state though. The Age of the Sturlungs in Iceland was constant warfare among the chieftains about who gets to become the state and the time period previous to that Iceland was a fiefdom of the king of Norway if I remember correctly. States can be unstable for sure but having no state is horrific in every instance that I'm aware of, there are places in the world right now that have no state, in Yemen, Somalia, Sudan and in some parts of Myanmar. Dont get me wrong it would probably be exiting but you'd have to quickly become a very very hardcore person to protect your property and family etc>>535441084It makes perfect sense for capitalists to lobby with 100 million dollars to get 500 billion in taxpayer money, this is why you need a state thats not capitalist in my opinion.
>>535441351Sure, thats why I'm not a capitalist, it means merchants can fuck your enviroment as much as they want, offshore industry and welcome hordes of brown people for quick buck. For me a merchant has no right to do any of those things, this is where we differ philosophically. For you the merchants money matters more than the nation does but I dont agree with that. For me you ought to have responsibilities to your nation regardless of how much money you have, infact the more you have the more of an example you should be because if you are wealthy you are by definition in some kind of leadership position
>>535441505>Larry McDonald, a Democratic U.S. Congressman from Georgia and chairman of the John Birch Society, was a anti-communist who frequently accused powerful elites of orchestrating a "New World Order". He claimed the Rockefeller family and their allies were working to establish a one-world government that merged "SUPERCAPITALISM and COMMUNISM" under elite control, often citing the Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission as key instruments of this conspiracy.>McDonald was killed on September 1, 1983, when Soviet fighter jets shot down Korean Air Lines Flight 007 near Sakhalin Island after the plane strayed into Soviet airspace. He was en route to Seoul to attend a ceremony marking the 30th anniversary of a U.S.-South Korea defense pact. The incident, which killed all 269 aboard, was widely condemned, with U.S. officials calling it a barbaric act. While some """conspiracy theories""" suggest McDonald was targeted due to his anti-globalist stance>Jeffrey Epstein was a member of the Trilateral Commission, an elite policy forum founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller to foster cooperation among business, political, and academic leaders.Epstein described the Commission as “some spooky stuff” and compared it to the Illuminati, recounting that Rockefeller justified its creation by emphasizing the need for stable, long-term influence from businessmen rather than short term politicians.
>>535441384>Their customers can be anywhere in the world, thats what free market means, it doesn't matter if the local population is fucked in the process,If the company is aggressing against the local population, then that wouldn't be permitted under a libertarian social order. However, the local population merely being displeased at these developments is insufficient to establish that any actual aggression has taken place.>thats why all billionaires support mass immigration for example and offshoring.Because it's cheaper and this allows them to increase their customer base in the first world, and even open up new markets in poorer countries.>If there is more money to be made then they will do it.If there's money to be made then that means that there's real demand for those products and services.> If there is more money to be made then they will do it. In your wild west example for example the big shot train track builders brought in tons of chinese and black labor because the white laborers were complaining about the wagesThe Transcontinental railroad was funded in part by the federal government, so it wasn't even entirely private. And since labor is an actual cost, if the wages were too high, then the railroad would be deemed too unprofitable to bother building and all those resources would be used for something else. White people can always work elsewhere if they feel they aren't being paid enough. And if no worker is willing to replace them at a lower wage, for better or worse the railroad won't be built.
>>535437171Because capitalism is inherently jewish and globalist.
>>535441384You are raising some interesting points, but most of them are answered by modern Anarcho-Capitalist theory.You are asking many questions about how different bureacracies and business structures would be maintained in Ancapism, an excellent book on this is "The machinery of freedom", it describes how all these different kinds of organizations can be structured in Ancapism and examples of ones that already exist, even if you're not an Ancap you'd probably find it interesting just to know about how types of systems are formed.But I will answer a few of your questions>Consider the fact that every billionaire that exists in the west supports mass immigration, are they not capitalists?Are those billionaires highly encouraged to support mass immigration by the state? The answer is obviusly yes. I think you don't quite understand something called public-private partnerships, in the modern world, the state is not only a monolith, it has infected economies and businesses via state corporatism, it is less easy to tell one from the other, but the effect of the state is clear.>If I'm the border security then presumably I have lots of guns and manpower though, if there is no monopoly on violence to stop me then why would I care about being sued? I'd say like Cornelius Sulla ''Dont quote laws to men who bear arms''In Ancapistan we would have a private competitive legal system, even though our moral theories are rigid, we would allow competition of their intepretation, if you feel like your security company or legal system has screwed you over, you should be able to hire a new one, these would tend towards the same outcome anyway, but, when there is a dispute, you can actually contest it and try to get a fairer outcome, obviously this involves different enforcement companies etc.
>>535437171because nationalism and capitalism are fundamentally incompatible without significant state intervention to keep the capitalists from sinking the whole nation for a .05% boost to their profit margin.
>>535441505Immigrants are not a net negative in the short term for the top 1% wealthiest, wages go down and housing prices up. They are the ones who pay wages and own tons of property, there is a direct tangible benefit for them in importing as many people as possible.>They literally made policies to breed the bioweapon used against you and the idea of nationalismSure, there is an ideological component involved aswel but why does every billionaire support mass immigration? I just dont believe every single one of them supports this agenda necessarily, they just support their personal wealth increasing and other people can get fucked in the process. I dont believe merchants should run a country, I believe they should be controlled because of their incentive structure. I believe that even without jews we would be in a similar predicament as we are now, capitalists and communists agree on a united world, a united world is good for business
>>535437171>free marketsthat cannot exist. psychos up top will make a deal to fuck everyone over. for example trump and xi meet and go "ok how about we fuck everyone and we up top all win? deal?"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartelideals/rules/ideologies/laws apply only to pleb
>>535441384>Why would culture matter to a capitalist though? I'd argue capitalism incentivizes getting rid of culture because it can conceivably stand in the way of making money, culture unites people in a way that can be a hinderance to thatHow does that make any sense? How would it be economically beneficial to destroy a culture? Surely it would only be economically destructive, do you think destroyed dysfunctional cultures are more economically productive? I think history shows the exact opposite, even in businesses today, the microcosm of workplace culture is extremely important even if underemphasized, a good healthy culture brings about far more productivity at all scales, a beaten down depressed people dont tend to be very productive. I'm guessing you haven't read much about the practical side of businesses and economics, which is fair, not everyone has to.>It would not, all billionaires in every western country support mass immigration because it is a good short term business decision for them, housing prices go up, wages downBusinesses that only think in the short term usually fail, businesses that think in longer term usually succeed. Except that the state has reversed this and caused the exact problems we see today, they throw out a bunch of central bank and taxpayer cash for the issues of the day. No one gives a shit what happens in 10, 20, 30 years, because the politicians and bureacrats will be long gone by then, or just purely unaccountable, of course this causes all kinds of problems for all kinds of sectors of society.
>>535441931>then that wouldn't be permitted under a libertarian social order.Then you would need to form a hierarchy that protects that right by using violence if necessary or in other words a state, capitalists dont care about social order or the local population>White people can always work elsewhere if they feel they aren't being paid enoughThis is why I dont like capitalism, white people have gone through like a hundred year process of trying to make working conditions tolerable in the west, there should be some rights not just go work elsewhere if you dont like it and we will bring in brown hordes to work for cheaper if you dont accept being half a slave, I just dont like that kind of attitude
>>535441972And you're saying the state doesn't do that 10 times worse? That's just false and wishful, delusional thinking. Capitalism is not perfect, it is just infinitely superior to statism.
this is just a jew tyechnique to give a refuge for jews to fuck us in the ass in the name of capitalismhow much money has been funding private companies? You know what communism is? Its when jew McLeary takes our money for his profits. Its when we have to pay to repair the damage done by the free market. We fund their profits. Free market is codeword for stealth communism.Only united citizens under the banner of the state can force justice on the free market jew. Many things have indirect costs and consequences which are currently paid by citizens so companies can profit. Everything is kept superficial so people do not see that they re being scammed. Socialism is to repair these injustices. To count was the free market isnt smart or careful enough to count.Free market = jewing without consequences.Everything is about balance and anyone who says otherwise is here to fuck you overWho is going to pay for all the garbage companeis have shit in oceans rivers etc? All the waste resources for making useless bullshit. Companies profiting on your back is socialism;, just for the benefit of a few jews instead of humanity, you pay for them, you just dont know or see it.>>535440642>Howyou are a retard and not worth engaging with, learn more
>>535441602>It makes perfect sense for capitalists to lobby with 100 million dollars to get 500 billion in taxpayer moneyYes, and the only way to reduce that is to reduce the state, since the state is always the tool of theivery.
>>535442217Voluntary transactions are communism? What a stupid falsehood.
>>535441940>Are those billionaires highly encouraged to support mass immigration by the state?Could be in some cases but they also clearly have a financial incentive>I think you don't quite understand something called public-private partnershipsI believe i understand it very well, a capitalist oligarch lobbies with 100 million to get 500 million in guaranteed profits, its actually very simple when you look into it>In Ancapistan we would have a private competitive legal systemLmao this was genuinely hilarious way of framing it since in anarchy there is always a huge amount of violence between competing factions about who gets to fill the power vaccuum and become the new state, I never heard it framed like that before>we would allow competition of their intepretationIf you dont have a mechanism to enforce what you allow or dont then it doesn't matter what you allow or dont allow, the wealthiest and the most violent will decide for you, thats how it eventually ended up working during every anarchy in historyI might look into that book if there is a PDF or an audiobook online though, its kind of interesting how ancaps seem to get everything wrong about the hominids that we are and history in general
>>535442332yes. because thezy are not enlightened. they are being abused. if they knew what it entailed they would ask for their share to make up for all the crap. and if they dont pay for it their children will. now tlel me, regardless of how voluntary everything is, how you build a civilization, noy only not planting trees that of which you will not see the shade, but if you cut the existing trees ?thats not a civilization. thats cutting it in pieces for a few jews.btw by saying most people want it, you are arguing for democracy instead of what is right.
>>535442399>YOURE NOT ENLIGHTENED SO TRADING IS COMMUNISMTotal schizo
>>535437171>Nationalism>government and society dictated by the Epstein classPick one retard
>>535437171There can’t be such a thing because capital is inherently international and there’s lots of money to be made by buying and selling overseas, as companies follow their own incentives they will naturally push for international integration (globohomo).Moreover the interest of capital is diametrically opposed to the wellbeing of the nation, they want to form monopolies to increase prices, manipulate politics to get more money etc…Capitalism is international and subversive, that’s why jews are the best at it.
Oooh, an effort thread.Oh, but the premise is retarded and OP is a memeflag.
>>535441602>Nazi Germany was succeeded by a state and the Soviet Union was succeeded by a state though.That's irrelevant. Especially when defacto anarchist societies have lasted way longer than them. You can't assert that anarchism is inherently more unstable than statism when there are anarchist societies that have lasted longer than *many* failed states.>The Age of the Sturlungs in Iceland was constant warfare among the chieftains about who gets to become the state and the time period previous to that Iceland was a fiefdom of the king of Norway if I remember correctly.You clearly didn't watch the video. Because if you did you would know that this unacceptable level of violence from the civil war that led the Icelanders to accept the rule of the Norwegian sovereign, the average amount of killings, on a per capita basis, is roughly the same as the murder and manslaughter rate in the statist US lol.>there are places in the world right now that have no state, in Yemen, Somalia, Sudan and in some parts of Myanmar.Somalia had a communist state that collapsed due to how dysfunctional it was. And funny thing is, the lives of the average Somalian actually improved compared to when they were being ruled by a state lol.>Dont get me wrong it would probably be exiting but you'd have to quickly become a very very hardcore person to protect your property and family etcYou're assuming that there would be no demand for security services.>Sure, thats why I'm not a capitalistFigures.>it means merchants can fuck your enviroment as much as they wantGood, fuck the environment. We should be making the world more suitable to humans and human development. Not sacrificing humanity for the sake of the icebergs.>offshore industry and welcome hordes of brown people for quick buck. Oh no, people willing to do jobs for a lower wage which lead to cheaper products which wouldn't exist otherwise.(cont.)
>>535440642> How? If i was in a sizable private security company for a particular region, I would be very careful with who i let in, only few of the most skilled and local people would be allowed to immigrate so as to not destabilize the business or the consumers and citizens of the areaWhy would companies that don’t give a shit about their customers beyond the transaction care if they import thousands of Jeets to undercut them? They can just move. The modern corporation derives strength from being an internationalist entity that has access to worldwide markets. They can just pack up and leave, and they do! Theres no loyalty, that’s why they are ok with replacing the local population.
>>535442452totally right. and you are the total retard who ignorant of basic shit so keep your mouth shut.
>>535442480Stated it better than anyone else ITT.
>>535442139>How would it be economically beneficial to destroy a culture?Culture binds people together and when people come together they can have political power or power to negotiate better wages for example, thats inherently bad for business because you cant lower your costs as much as you want to maximize profit.>do you think destroyed dysfunctional cultures are more economically productive?Not long term no but dysfunctional cultures produce more money to the oligarchs because dysfunctional cultures are unable to resist getting fucked.>a beaten down depressed people dont tend to be very productiveChina had been very productive even though their workers have been treated pretty badly and yes yes I know the state was involved, its just an example on how I think you might be exaggerating on workplace culture and worker happiness>Businesses that only think in the short term usually fail, businesses that think in longer term usually succeedI actually agree with your last paragraph completely but the underlying incentive structures I'm talking about dont go away regardless of states failure to reign in the merchant class
>>535442392>Lmao this was genuinely hilarious way of framing it since in anarchy there is always a huge amount of violence between competing factions about who gets to fill the power vaccuum and become the new state, I never heard it framed like that beforeWe already have competing legal systems, they're called nations, we also have 1 system they can all appeal to, called international law, but its not even enforced by government, yet they still in many cases peacefully arbitrate disputes, for you to scoff at this is just ignorance on your part, the world doesnt erupt into war every week because we have competing legal systems, we have dispute resolution systems that get better over time.Here you go this is the full bookhttp://www.daviddfriedman.com/Machinery%203rd%20Edn.pdfAlso there are basically infinite books on Libertarianism at Mises.org i highly reccomend Hoppe.
>>535442480Capitalism exists in every nation, does that make every nation somehow international? Of course not, the only way you can get around it is by defining the state as the nation, which is a myth.
>>535442284I dont even disagree with this either, ofcourse a state is by definition a protection racket but in a world where you might have external enemies and internal problems you in my opinion need a monopoly on violence. The first and primary purpose of the state is to deter internal and external threats. The question is what kind of protection racket do you want
>>535442480once the money is balanced everywhere on erath they will intentionally create poor places to enricher another and ocne that place has been made rich they will cut it into pieces to make themselves richer and they call this "equality excvept they take a cut everytime this happens, dont mind the unspeakable amount of total human suffering in the processevil is at work and you either kill them or they ll kill you. dont you get principles to fight the international demon who has none, they wont stop until all the air, all the water, all the dirt, all transactions, all acts, all sex, all laughs, all breaths belong to them, and then they ll fight each other to be the only one ruling that and by then the earth will be a pile of ashes and everyone will have been made miserable in the processbig part of the probleme is psychopathy/sociopathy, whoich has no incentives to think about that, and is always too late, waiting for consequences to have become so big they cannot be ignored anymore, fucking up efficiency in the process waiting the last moment to make the proper decisionsyou know how share holders/board of direxctors hire a piece of shit ceo once the company has already become successful, built by the last president, who has sold the company to shareholders? THe world is like this. They didnt built the world, they couldnt if they tried. The ceos are paid by the new shareholders who bought it to cut it in pieces for short term profits The world has turned into a public company.
>>535442456I'm sorry are you saying that Epstein wasn't literally a government agent?
>>535442539Prove it, National Capitalism is inherently superior to Neoliberalism and National Socialism.
>>535440964In so far as data centers really produce noise that is disturbing to locals it is a violation of the provate peoperty eights of the locals. In so far as power companies do not want to refresh their power delivery contracts with locals in favor of datacenters there it is just but that doesnt mean that locals arent rightfully indignant and that this rightfully smears the reputation of the power companies doing that. This in turn might lead to some reduced success of the power companies. On the other hand if there was no coercive state funding of the data centers then it wouldnt be such a problem.
>>535440964A conesnt framework is any contracts and relations that are based on consent (voluntary) as opposed to coercion.
>>535442772everyone already proved it but when you ru nout of counter arguments you just call people bird names
>>535437171That's just feudalism.
>>535442546>Corporation destroys country and packs up and leaves to the next country, does it again and again until the whole world is destroyed thereby destroying the entire world economy.Does this seem like a good long-term business strategy to you? You are literally a moron who knows nothing about economics, arrogantly speaking as if he does. All to defend your satanic god the precious state.
>>535442580No argument suck my dick frenchie commie.
my spelling is rip
>>535442541Anarchism is by definition unstable, there is no monopoly on violence so people are going to seek to fill that vaccuum which inherently means competition between different factions on who gets to become the state IE they murder each other for power, thats what anarchism is, it means instability.>if you did you would know that this unacceptable level of violence from the civil war that led the Icelanders to accept the rule of the Norwegian sovereignYeah that was my point when we started this discussion, I said that anarchy is a temporary thing and then a state will assert control, in this example it was the king of Norway, your point about the US is great though, some have indeed described US as anarcho tyranny>And funny thing is, the lives of the average Somalian actually improved compared to when they were being ruled by a state lol.Definetly, you would rather have your local clan run things than communists, I wont argue about that, I'd pick that option in a heartbeat too but that local clan has hierarchy and has a monopoly on violence in a particular area, it became the state>You're assuming that there would be no demand for security services.No actually there would be an incredibly huge demand for that, then I'd argue people who run these security companies would clash for power and eventually assert themselves as the state just like what happened in Somalia
>>535442772>Prove itI don't need to, it's retarded. You have to convince me that it isn't. Which you can't, because:>It's retardedNational Capitalism is like having an airline that only operates from one airport so it can only take off from and land at that one airport. Capitalism is international by its' inherent nature, nationalising it is retarded.
>>535442899ur the commie who wnats to take state money to fund private profit you can suck your own dick faggot
>>535437171Because Capitalism hates regulation inherently because it's regulation that protects people from the excesses of those who accumulate wealth and power.Nationalism always devolves into authoritarian means to maintain it's goals, and that ends up with regulation.I guess you could claim shitholes like Russia are National Capitalist, but I can't think of a good reason why you'd want to be like them.
>>535442803Yep, statists, for some evil reason, really hate being able to sue and defend themselves from evil large corporations, and then will claim to be against business, either they are insane or just lying.
>>535442676Yes, those competing legal systems would eventually assert themselves on the populace and become states, there would be people willing to defend their system with weapons. The most effective system of organizing people into armies to succeed in defending their legal systems and sovereignity is a state>Here you go this is the full bookI'll bookmark that
>>535442885> Does this seem like a good long-term business strategy to you? No, but this takes decades to happen at t which point the people who perpetuated this will be long dead or building doomsday bunkers/planning their escape into space like Musk, Thiel, Zuckerberg etc. The whole notion that they’re particularly concerned about the companies health decades after they retire is based on older ideas of legacy that no longer apply to the most powerful people on the planet, who view all those under them like cattle. Like im not sure i can make it clearer to you.
>>535442955>>Prove it>I don't need toI accept your concession.
>>535441696>>535442541>For you the merchants money matters more than the nation does but I dont agree with that.The nation is a spook, and money is good because it's an instrument of trade rather than coercion.>For me you ought to have responsibilities to your nation regardless of how much money you haveThis, for any of the dumb faggots ITT that think "collectivism is when group", this is proper collectivism, now please stfu forever about how libertarianism is bad because you can't everything yourself. Now to address your point, there's no collective mind, therefore there's no collective interest. The nation is a spook and you have no obligations toward it.>>535442142>Then you would need to form a hierarchy that protects that right by using violence if necessaryYes, there are things such as rights enforcement agencies and private arbitration that can do that.>or in other words a state,Wrong because these would be entirely voluntary services.>What if they become coercive.Unlike the state which has "authority" and the ability to guarantee its revenue in the form of tax. Rouge firms would quickly lose their customer base and funds, and those same funds would be redirected to their competitors. Now they've got less resources and several other better resourced firms as adversaries.>capitalists dont care about social order or the local populationThey do care about money, and the best way of getting money in a capitalist social order is to trade services that are more attractive than their competition.>This is why I dont like capitalism, white people have gone through like a hundred year process of trying to make working conditions tolerable in the westMost of that is due to technological advancement. Not regulations. The few "regulations" that are important can be established through private arbitration and market competition.>there should be some rightsRights can't be established on the basis of arbitrary whim. Which is what positive rights are.
>>535442803>On the other hand if there was no coercive state funding of the data centers then it wouldnt be such a problem.Here is where we agree, we just fully disagree on the solutions, your solution is to disband the state if I understood you correctly or atleast significantly weaken state power and my solution is to stop merchants from running the state
>>535442976The fuck are you talking about, i dont want the state to have any money, therefore the parasitic state corporations will starve, fuck off.
>>535442885Also the economy does very good in the short term because they rigged it in their favor with easy access to credit and infinite money printing by the Fed. They are investing heavily in AI so they don’t have to worry about shitskin incompetence but still get the benefit of them destroying white cultures
>>535437171Capitalism is very Jewish
>>535437281That your shit can't be usurped by a foreign nation, obviously, moron.
>>535440769This, big time. Many more will pop up and some will be seastesds.
>>535442955> Capitalism is international by its' inherent natureI disagree. A citizen can own and control the means of production for domestic production/consumption even if the state regulates the flow of goods and capital in and out of the nation. This actually isn't very difficult to understand. Check your skull for recent trauma.
>>535443257> A citizen can own and control the means of production for domestic production/consumption even if the state regulates the flow of goods and capital in and out of the nation.In this case the state is intervening in the free flow of commerce. It’s state capitalism aka what China has
>>535443007Bro, a fully private system will also have defense, and historically decentralized armies punched well above their weight vs centralized armies, ask the soviets, the americans etc, you are trying to ridicule and poke holes in a system i don't think you've even read much about.Take even Wagner in Russia, they were the most effective military in the Ukraine war by far, they were making gains, and then Putin the 'Russian' bureacrat put a big limit on Wagner, and they are stuck at stalemate ever since, study after study private systems beat state systems, history is going towards it.
>>535443295Mercenary armies will never be able to defeat the sheer manpower and firepower advantage of an actual state military maintained by levees and conscripts who can be recruited and trained in large enough numbers to actually matter. It’s why France during the French Revolution was so successful in defeating its foes who on paper had stronger militaries.
>>535443019How many times do i have to point it out to you fucking statist idiots? Wake up, they dont give a shit about long-term because they are a quasi-state entity, and the state doesnt give a shit about long term, because they are unaccountable, and bureacratic, here today gone tomorrow politicians will never ever give a shit about any kind of long term economic future, in fact they are incentivized to steal the future and destroy it, it is systemic, stop being fucking stupid.
>>535443295Historically decentralized armies were also very prone to being bought off by forces seeking to divide and conquer.
>>535443102Yes the fucking FEDERAL reserve, the public-private partnership.
>>535443424>Wake up, they dont give a shit about long-term because they are a quasi-state entityThey wouldn’t give a shit regardless. The people in charge don’t care about the cattle underneath them beyond what they can get out of them. The state merely supports what they were already planning on doing.
>>535443208based seasteadbro
>>535443424> politicians will never ever give a shit about any kind of long term economic futureThis isn’t true though, Chinas rise proves this isn’t true.
>>535443072>there's no collective mind, therefore there's no collective interestThere are groups of people and groups of people have group interests, we aren't like crocodiles who just hang around on their own majority of the time, I categorically disagree with hyperindividuals on the very nature of humanity itself, thats like saying a wolf pack doesn't have collective interests which is simply wrong, I dont know what else to say about it, we dont exist in a vaccuum>Yes, there are things such as rights enforcement agenciesKek, allright well isn't that just a local state though? Presumably they would need to have a monopoly on violence in a particular area to be able to enforce anything>Wrong because these would be entirely voluntary services.I would argue there is a clear financial incentive for your rights enforcement agency to become a protection racket though IE a state>Rouge firms would quickly lose their customer base and funds, and those same funds would be redirected to their competitorsSure, in an anarchy the best protection racket eventually becomes the state, if the state/protection racket has loyalty of its people and genuinely offers a valuable service like protection from internarl/external threats the customers IE citizens will fight much harder to protect it>best way of getting money in a capitalist social order is to trade services that are more attractive than their competition.Best way is actually to offshore labor to foreign countries so you dont have to pay as much in wages, fill the country with the people who dont demand any workers protections/unions and deracinate the local population so they are unable to resist, capitalist globalism 101>Rights can't be established on the basis of arbitrary whimCollective consensus is not an arbitrary whim in my opinion
>>535443417Bro you statists are so fucking imbecelic it's annoying, afghanistan literally destroyed the USSR and kicked America out humiliatingly, be quiet and read man you don't know what you're talking about in any way.
>>535442941>Anarchism is by definition unstableAnarchism is defined as the social condition of nonaggression. The reason anarchists oppose the state is because by its very nature it's an aggressive institution, and should it cease to aggress it would cease to be a state.>there is no monopoly on violence so people are going to seek to fill that vaccuum which inherently means competition between different factions on who gets to become the state IE they murder each other for powerOdd that this didn't even happen in the wild west, Arcadia, Cospaia, and most of Iceland's existence.>thats what anarchism is, it means instability.It actually means no rulers. Which is not the same as no rules.>Yeah that was my point when we started this discussion, I said that anarchy is a temporary thing and then a state will assert controlBased on the number of failed states, I've got to conclude that states are only a temporary thing because they just are.>your point about the US is great though, some have indeed described US as anarcho tyrannyMy point is that the whole justification of the state being necessary to bring order to chaos is bullshit. If the state can't actually reduce the level of violence, why is it necessary? And anarcho-tyranny is a contradictory term for selective prosecution.>I'd pick that option in a heartbeat too but that local clan has hierarchy and has a monopoly on violence in a particular area, it became the stateSomalia isn't ruled by principled libertarians adhering to a philosophy. The abolition of the state is a necessary but insufficient condition of anarchy. You need to change the philosophy of the day for it to work.>then I'd argue people who run these security companies would clash for power and eventually assert themselves as the state just like what happened in SomaliaFirms have a financial incentive to not cause unnecessary conflicts since war is expensive and few would willingly fund a war.
>>535443608Afghanistan is a religious theocracy they have a state run by Imams like Iran lol
>>535443640Compared to the USSR they were practically Ancaps, decentralized military etc, stop being stupid.
>>535443295I could point out some centralized army examples like Napoleons Grand Armee, Alexander the Greats Phalanx, Caesars legions and Genghis Khans tumens. I do agree with decentralized command though, delegation of power is extremely important, I'm not someone who believes a single person should micromanage everything in an army or a state. An effective state has a robust system to appoint trustworthy governors who run things locally just like an effective army would. Your examples however are armies made up by states, anarchies dont have any armies and if they do they quickly become the state which is my point>Take even Wagner in Russia, they were the most effective military in the Ukraine war by farWagner was created by the FSB and worked solely for the russian states interests, Wagner also sent men to battle on 2 weeks training straight from prisons and beat people to death with sledge hammers, I just dont really like that kind of thing and yes the russian military has also commited atrocities but if you have an armed group of tens of thousands without a state then its just upto the guy running the private army, he could be a great guy or a straight psychopath, without a monopoly on violence its extremely difficult to stop such a ''business'' if it gains more ambition
>>535443734> Compared to the USSR they were practically AncapsHow? They had mandatory Islamic tithing. You can’t just claim something is true.
>>535443875Bro, it was very very low, and regardless, the military structure was extremely decentralized, in many cases there wasnt even a command structure, like many guerrilla wars, youre being silly.
>>535443570>There are groups of people and groups of people have group interestsPeople join groups to better achieve their own individual interests, not to serve the group for the sake of it. Just look at the mess of drama the collectivist dissent right gets into all the time for an example.>we dont exist in a vaccuumNot one denies this.>Kek, allright well isn't that just a local state though?No because you're not funded through aggression.>Presumably they would need to have a monopoly on violence in a particular area to be able to enforce anythingYou could have a private city that provides its own private police as a package deal. Or you could have a private security subscription service that isn't tied to any particular location. Or you could have a volunteer neighborhood watch. Or you could defend your own property by yourself without limitation from state edicts, if you wanted to. There are various options.>I would argue there is a clear financial incentive for your rights enforcement agency to become a protection racket though IE a stateIt's possible, but much more difficult than you make it out to be. If fact, it would just be easier to provide a competitive service.>Sure, in an anarchy the best protection racket eventually becomes the stateThere's no guarantee that this will happen. Unlike the state which inevitably becomes corrupt because there's no incentive to not exploit their subjects and no real checks and balances from independent firms to make sure they don't exploit their monopoly.> if the state/protection racket has loyalty of its people and genuinely offers a valuable service like protection from internarl/external threats the customers IE citizens will fight much harder to protect itAnd if it doesn't serve the customers, it loses all its funds.(cont.)
>>535443871My only point was Wagner was more privately run than the standard Russian military, and was extremely effective because of it, it was obvious when they weakened wagner that it weakened russia's war capability
>>535443075I think that the state is the accumulation of power that can be abused. Merchants in their role as merchants can at most refuse a trade or contract, the state on the other hand can and does use initiation of aggression and create arbitrary rules unilaterally, breaking consent.
>>535437171>Why is there no National Capitalist movement? It seems like the best of both worlds? The strong culture and protection of nationalism and the freedom and rights of free markets. Should we become National Capitalists?it's too late for thatit's as if a man who stole all your money (communists) started to LARP as defenders of private property and lead the fight against those who want to steal all your (their) moneycommunists are hypocritical shit-buckets yet not even they would go so far, as it would guarantee that even their top supporters turn against them
>>535443570>>535444082>Best way is actually to offshore labor to foreign countries so you dont have to pay as much in wagesYou forget all the bullshit taxes and regulations that make the natives unemployable.>fill the country with the people who dont demand any workers protections/unionsWhy would you need to do that if you've outsourced all production?>deracinate the local population so they are unable to resist, capitalist globalism 101And democratic states have the incentive to do this in order to bring in loyal voter cattle. Companies at use them as labor to provide services people actually want.>Collective consensus is not an arbitrary whim in my opinionImagine being unironically consensus brained lol. You'd be right that is can't be strictly classed as whim because the collective has no mind to desire anything.
>>535437171Capitalism is inherently globalist. Profit is the ultimate mark of success in capitalism and importing cheap labor and outsourcing to slave tier countries is perfect capitalism.
>>535443628>Anarchism is defined as the social condition of nonaggressionYet every period of anarchy seems to bring extreme violence with it, correlation or causation? Yes a state is an aggressive institution by definition, its a monopoly on violence, the first job of the state is to protect the populace from external and internal threats so it has to be an aggressive institution to some degree>Odd that this didn't even happen in the wild west, Arcadia, Cospaia, and most of Iceland's existence.It did happen, the wild west was basically in a constant state of warfare with rival cattle barons, indians and various other factions, it wasn't peaceful and just like we talked about earlier Iceland was in a constant state of civil war before the state re-asserted itself, I thought we went over this, I cant comment on Arcadia and Cospaia because I have never heard of them.>It actually means no rulers. Which is not the same as no rules.Yeah it is, if there is no law enforcement which requires hierarchy (state) then there is no law kek, I dunno I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot here>If the state can't actually reduce the level of violence, why is it necessary?The alternative is security competition within the state between different factions like what happened in Iceland until the state re-asserted itself. I agree though, an incompetent state should not be allowed to exist, I just believe that instead of having no state you should have a state that has a purpose that aligns with your groups collective interests>Somalia isn't ruled by principled libertarians adhering to a philosophyPrincipled libertarians are an extremely small minority of people, they wouldn't rule in any anarchy simply because of the numbers and their hyperindividualism, its baked into the ideology to not sacrifice anything for any collective good, in your opinion collective good doesn't even exist if I understood correctly
>>535437171man idk about all this shit i think immigration and globalism is inherent to all forms of economies/systems, the big problem with capitalism though is i don't think it ever accounted for women entering the workforce equal to men, mainly because of technological advances were strength/durability is not a factor in the work, which makes all these seemly natural systems unnatural, which in turn destroys the birthrate etc. i dont think adam smith or early capitalist even recognized women might be pushed in all sectors of the workforce. all im saying is i hate women and i blame them for the current failings of the system
>>535437171National Socialism basically is National Socialism. Hitler's Reich wasn't socialist at all despite its name.
>>535437171National Socialism basically is National Capitalism. Hitler's Reich wasn't socialist at all despite its name.
>>535444082There have been studies done on unconcious biases and vast majority of people have them, we evolved in hunter gatherer societies where the collective good was a matter of survival for hundreds of thousands of years, people are born into groups whether you like it or not, we can easily catogorize people based on the allele frequencies in their DNA, simply by looking at people you get a pretty good estimation what group they belong to.>Just look at the mess of drama the collectivist dissent right gets into all the time for an example.Sure, we exist in a period of anarchy as of now if you will, there is no state to represent our interests so we have to fight among ourselves on who gets to be the representative and who doesn't, luckily not violently but if there was zero guardrails I could see it devolving to that and then things would be decided with weapons like it was done in the mongolian steppe during Genghis Khan, in Japan during sengoku jidai or in any other anarchic piece of land.>You could have a private city that provides its own private police as a package dealSo a city state?>Or you could have a private security subscription service that isn't tied to any particular locationPresumably they would have a headquarters somewhere which incentivizes having the locals on your side atleast somewhat, logistically it would make the most sense to provide security for the people that are closest>Or you could have a volunteer neighborhood watchAn army for a small state?>If fact, it would just be easier to provide a competitive serviceYeah in anarchy the competent eventually make up the state and incompetent get killed or sidelined. For example in the mongolian steppe Genghis Khan won because he offered people social mobility, stability and was a great commander
>bleb trying to think how to take back powerthis thread is hilarious. you'll all get culled when robots take your jobs
>>535444483>all im saying is i hate women and i blame them for the current failings of the systemWhy? Most women are against this shit. Feminism was a jewish construct. Women are just as big of victims of judaism as men are, probably even more so in a lot of ways. Kikes want you to hate women so that you won't care when they inevitably pimp them all out.
>>535437171nazbol gets us fucking corps for importing immigrants and being greedy too. plus it deports all the immigrants and keeps the country strong.
>>535437171Seems a bit contradictory, nationalism would mean a focus on protection domestic industry while capitalism would mean they would have to fend for themselves.
>that flag
>>535438127USA isn't that nationalist regardless of what side is in charge and their markets aren't that free. Maybe compared to most of the world but still, it's a very diverse country, taxes are high and punitive, regulations are everywhere and not even prostitution is legal.
>>535444098But Wagner also caused a lot of internal instability, it seemed like it was becoming a parallel structure of power in Russia>>535444122So what is the solution in your opinion then? I would argue that it is to fix the state rather than disband it>>535444261>Why would you need to do that if you've outsourced all production?Well I didn't exactly mean literally 100% of the production and in a service economy there isn't a lot of production anyways, also a constant stream of immigrants raises housing prices and the oligarchs are the largest property owners, the immigration waves directly make their assets worth more>And democratic states have the incentive to do this in order to bring in loyal voter cattleYou could say that, I dont believe in liberal democracy, I'm a national socialist>You'd be right that is can't be strictly classed as whim because the collective has no mind to desire anything.Collectives have things that are objectively in their interest like safety for example and yes vast majority of any collective does desire that
>>535437171Hush bert.Murray rothberg was a Jew your entire philosophie is Jewish. Anybody in their right mind wouldn't even engage in conversation with you.> go fix your potholes..
Capitalists are all traitors. Firstly because they tend to simply choose to betray the state for money, secondly because they asset the right to trade with hostile powers, third because capitalism undermines net production which means it undermines national defence.
>>535437171Like others have said, those protections would have to impede the freedom and rights of the free market to be effective.Ideally, we'd have as much nationalism to protect society of the country by restraining capitalism with the remainder being fully free. However, at that point, it'd just be a mixed economy/somewhat socialistic. Like all gay things, it's a balance and it'll depend on the changing circumstances of a given country. Ideally, ideological governance should change accordingly.
>>535444298>Yet every period of anarchy seems to bring extreme violence with it, correlation or causation?Every period of nonaggression, was a period of aggression? And a lot of criminal violence still occurs within the state, so to present the state as the be all end all solution is ridiculous.>the first job of the state is to protect the populace from external and internal threatsWhich it fails to do on a routine basis. In fact, more often than not, it is the threat to the populace.>it has to be an aggressive institution to some degreeYou're conflating aggression with violence. These are two different concepts. Aggression is defined praxeologically as the initiation of a conflict, a conflict being mutually exclusive/contradictory actions. Me using violence to end a conflict isn't aggression provided I wasn't the one to initiate the conflict to begin with. Rights enforcement agencies must use violence against aggressors, granted, but rights enforcement agencies need not aggress against anyone. The state, on the other hand, is defined by its aggression.>It did happen, the wild west was basically in a constant state of warfareDidn't watch the video. >Yeah it is, if there is no law enforcement which requires hierarchy (state) then there is no law kekThe state isn't defined as hierarchy as such. If that were the case, then the corporations you so hate would also be classed as states, this definition clearly isn't commensurate. The state is an aggressive hierarchy whose aggression is excused by its "authority."> I dunno I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot hereBecause you refuse to understand my answers and you have a ton of erroneous preconceptions of the nature of anarchism.(cont.)
Op seems to be confused, he seems to believe that companies literally can't do something that would be a 'bad business decision' in a free market. Not only that is not correct but it's confounding abstraction for the sake of theoretical exposition with reality. The main issue are the cornerstones of Austrian theory, which are uncertainty and subjective valuation. Companies act in theory to maximize profits but we don't know what that involves, and we don't know what the individuals operating the companies think that implies. Individuals that operate a company don't act on what 'is' more profitable but what they believe it is. So if the individuals that operate a company believe destroying a culture will be more profitable then they will attempt to do so even if the market proves them wrong in the long term. Another point are subjective valuations which at the end of the day are the only reason companies exist in the first place, if many individuals value destroying a culture a lot (like Jews) then they will do so even at the expense of money.The thing about cultures is that you can't really put the egg together again once is cracked ,if a company or group of companies attempts to destroy it but eventually the market proves them wrong there's no guarantee that culture will go back to the previous state of things
>>535437171Nationalist capitalism always ends up in billionaire pedophiles blackmailing each other.Pol Pot
>>535445168Every period where there is no state which is the definition of anarchy was a period of brutal violence yeah or atleast all those I'm aware of were>And a lot of criminal violence still occurs within the stateSure, that is a failure of a crumbling state, figures like Bukele stomp crime and the state is doing its primary job as a protection racket, safety from internal and external threats, internal being the psychopaths and the antisocial among us who only care about their own individual wellbeing or form a parallel state structure like the mexican cartels or MS-13 in El Salvador>Which it fails to do on a routine basis. In fact, more often than not, it is the threat to the populaceRight now in western countries sure, that is absolutely the case, a clique of international finance has taken control, the state has been subverted to serve their interests rather than the collective interests of the nation>Me using violence to end a conflict isn't aggression provided I wasn't the one to initiate the conflict to begin withSo therefore a group of people who band together to form a state to protect themselves from internal/external threats is legitimate, no? If so then I fully agree with you but I presume you didn't mean it this way>Didn't watch the video.I dont need to watch a 15 minute video on the United States during the 1800s, I've read western history for like 20 years because I'm very interested in it, I'm decently well read on the expansion to the west coast and manifest destiny plus its side products>The state isn't defined as hierarchy as such. If that were the case, then the corporations you so hate would also be classed as statesIf they become protection rackets which are a monopoly on violence in a particular geographic area then I dont see the difference and also I dont hate corporations I hate that the merchant class is in charge because of their disposition towards profit maximizing
>>535444298>The alternative is security competition within the state between different factions like what happened in Iceland until the state re-asserted itself.How is there competition within the state if there's no state to begin with? And how is the Icelandic state "reasserting" itself if the state is ruled by a foreign sovereign? That's a new state being "asserted" not an old one being "reasserted." It feels like you have some Platonic conception of the state where the concept itself is "reasserted" whenever a new state is established.>I just believe that instead of having no state you should have a state that has a purpose that aligns with your groups collective interestsThere are multiple reasons why this can't happen. A) the state takes its subjects for granted since its revenue is guaranteed, so there's no incentive to serve the "greater good." B) it's a monopoly that doesn't have to worry about competition out competing them, giving them even less of an incentive to serve the "greater good." C) since there's no group mind to consult, the leaders have to interpret what the collective wants, naturally they'll do it to their own personal benefit, and even if they're entirely good faith, without an external market, they're unable to evaluate the value of their policies.>Principled libertarians are an extremely small minority of people, they wouldn't rule in any anarchy simply because of the numbers and their hyperindividualismYou're acting like a man made fact (people not believing in libertarian principles) is a metaphysical given, an immutable fact of reality. This is not the case, people can change their minds, so we gotta up them numbers.>its baked into the ideology to not sacrifice anything for any collective goodFollowing libertarian principles doesn't entail any sacrifice unless you're a thief or a thief by proxy.
>>535437171Nationalism caused two world wars and capitalism is making people mentally ill as we speak as they drown in debt, slop, spiritual void and becoming easily replaceable in the job, housing, dating markets not a fan of your proposition to be quite honest senpai
>>535445605>Every period where there is no state which is the definition of anarchy was a period of brutal violenceExcept for all the historical examples I've cited of course. :)>internal being the psychopaths and the antisocial among us who only care about their own individual wellbeingOnly caring about your individual well-being doesn't make you a criminal, that's a package deal fallacy. Performing aggressive actions (in the praxeological sense) is what make you a criminal.>mexican cartels or MS-13The reason the cartels exist is because of retarded prohibitions of drugs btw.> a clique of international finance has taken control, the state has been subverted to serve their interests rather than the collective interests of the nationThe state is only following its criminal nature, it doesn't need to be subverted to be evil.>So therefore a group of people who band together to form a state to protect themselves from internal/external threats is legitimate, no?It's not possible to "voluntarily" form a state any more than it is possible to "voluntarily" rape someone, it's a contradiction in terms.>I dont need to watch a 15 minute video on the United States during the 1800sYou clearly do.>I dont hate corporations I hate that the merchant class is in charge because of their disposition towards profit maximizingCorporations and capitalism are based on usury. Where do the capitalists get their profits or "surplus value?" They collect the interest on the products they produce. To be anti-merchant, is to be anti-capitalist.
>>535445615>How is there competition within the state if there's no state to begin with?Because there is a power vaccuum, every time there was anarchy in a particular geogprahical location there was security competition between rival centers of power looking to become the state>And how is the Icelandic state "reasserting" itself if the state is ruled by a foreign sovereign? Why would the foreign sovereign matter? I guess if you want to frame it in a different way then anarchism was so weak that it was unable to resist a foreign sovereign IE protect the populace from external threats, thats correct too>That's a new state being "asserted" not an old one being "reasserted."I meant from more of a birds eye view that a state as a concept was reasserted but I should have been clearer, english is not my first language so I cant communicate as well as I'd like to>It feels like you have some Platonic conception of the state where the concept itself is "reasserted" whenever a new state is established.Yeah thats what I was going for there, what I tried to convey is state as the opposite of an anarchy in the context of this discussion, state as an institution not any particular state government>A) the state takes its subjects for granted since its revenue is guaranteedI disagree with that, this is why we have philosophy and statecraft in general, a purely extraction based state is a tyranny which is obviously inferior to a state where there is some type of social contract based on natural law, in nature all communal animals do have an incentive to serve the greater good of their herd/pack/tribe>it's a monopoly that doesn't have to worry about competition out competing themYes it does, the external threat part I have been talking about are other nations, for example in Finland in the 1940s there was an incredibly high incentive to serve the greater good for both the populace and the governmentNot enough space to write on this bitch
>>535437171Because what every true capitalist wants are cheap slaves and to screw over your own workers to pay them as little as possible. Screwing over your own workers is easiest when you import almost slave like foreign workers.
>>535446187I refuted the two examples I was familiar with you cited though, they were periods of extreme violence>Only caring about your individual well-being doesn't make you a criminal, that's a package deal fallacySure not necessarily, it makes you antisocial or psychopathic but it is possible to not be a criminal and be either of those things>Performing aggressive actions (in the praxeological sense) is what make you a criminal.If you have a dangerous neighborhood and you form a neighborhood watch militia to protect the people in that neighborhood, then demand a fee from people in the neighborhood to fund the weapons etc is that inherently aggression? In this case the neighborhood militia is preceeded by dangerous conditions that necessitates its existance, its a response to ongoing aggression and a solution to bring safety to a particular group of people, I would argue its not aggression its common sense.>It's not possible to "voluntarily" form a state any more than it is possible to "voluntarily" rape someone, it's a contradiction in terms.Vast majority of states were formed by warriors coming together to protect whats theirs, their women and private property so I fully disagree, the state can ofcourse lose its legitimacy but its not inherently illegitimate in my opinion, its a hierarchy thats necessary for a community to thrive and protect itself>To be anti-merchant, is to be anti-capitalist.Sure, I am anti capitalist obviously, I dont see how someone would not be if they dont own a huge amount of capital and dont have to suffer the consequences of capitalism
>>535437171That’s just fascism with more words.And we have it, but only in an imperial context with transnational capital at the center and Zionism as the ideological core to justify it.
>>535446209>Because there is a power vaccuumPower vacuums only occur when there's an instrument of political power (i.e. the state) and no one is in control of it. This can't happen when there is no state.>security competition between rival centers of power looking to become the stateThe problem there is that you need the philosophy of anarchism to be the philosophy of the day for it to be implemented. The same is true of states btw, if the philosophy of the day isn't statism good lack establishing a state.>Why would the foreign sovereign matter?Because the state isn't being "reasserted" like you claimed it was.>I guess if you want to frame it in a different way then anarchism was so weak that it was unable to resist a foreign sovereign IE protect the populace from external threats, thats correct tooActually that's incorrect because the sovereign didn't conquer the land in a conflict, the small political establishment there agreed to be ruled by him in exchange for security. Iceland was philosophically compromised by Christianity.>Yeah thats what I was going for thereSince you're a Platonist, it makes sense why you'd take the collective as the standard of value.> a purely extraction based state is a tyranny which is obviously inferior to a state where there is some type of social contract based on natural lawNatural law dictates that it's objectively wrong to aggress against others. It's literally impossible to form a state in accordance with that standard. Also, I don't remember signin' no damn "social contract" with the government of aussie land, why do they have a say over the use of my property?>in nature all communal animals do have an incentive to serve the greater good of their herd/pack/tribeThat's not collectivism because they derive personal benefit from their association with the group. They'd be collectivists if they had no interests other than the interests of the group. This is clearly not the case with human beings.(cont.)
>>535446680Why call it fascism though? Do you think whats going on now is what Mussolini was working towards? Its clearly not fascism, its international finance jewry parasiting off other nations
>>535446209>Yes it does, the external threat part I have been talking about are other nationsHang on, if competition between states gives them an incentive to government well. Wouldn't it be better if we then broke them up into little mircostates that competed against each other? And if that's possible, why couldn't private firms do it?>>535446616>I refuted the two examples I was familiar with you cited though, they were periods of extreme violenceYou refused to look at the evidence, then you declared that you were correct about the things you already thought. You didn't refute anything.>If you have a dangerous neighborhood and you form a neighborhood watch militia to protect the people in that neighborhood, then demand a fee from people in the neighborhood to fund the weapons etc is that inherently aggression?It would be if they were forced to pay for the services. If on the other hand they refused, and the neighborhood watch just didn't provide their protection services for their property, that wouldn't be aggression.>Vast majority of states were formed by warriors coming together to protect whats theirsThey were formed by warriors, but not to protect their property, rather it was to expropriate the property of others.> its a hierarchy thats necessary for a community to thrive and protect itselfI've given numerous examples of alternatives to state aggression for protection.> I dont see how someone would not be if they dont own a huge amount of capital and dont have to suffer the consequences of capitalismBecause I know of objective natural rights, and the only social system compatible with it is capitalism.
>>535446995Fascism = nationalist capitalism Thats the definition of fascism u absolute moron. Fake money, scams, wars and robbery, industrial military complex running on debt and bonds.They fucking voted for it.Doesn't matter if the Jews do it or Thyssen Krupp, Siemens, Porsche, Volkswagen do it The cuckslave npc workers always end up empty-handed for the upper class to enjoy a luxurious lifestyle with stem cell injections and whatnot
>>535446945>Power vacuums only occur when there's an instrument of political power. This can't happen when there is no state.Then why did it happen every time historically when states broke down?>The problem there is that you need the philosophy of anarchism to be the philosophy of the day for it to be implementedWhich is never going to happen, when people think of anarchy they think about calling the cops or fire department and nobody answers, thats not desirable to anyone and anarchism is not a competetive system to protect a group of people from other states, you'd basically need to force everyone on the planet to become part of this niche idealogy for it to have any chance of being implemented long term>The same is true of states btw, if the philosophy of the day isn't statism good lack establishing a state.States existed before philosophy, a hunter gatherer tribe is a proto state where you have both responsibilities to the collective and rights as a member of said tribe, the chief and his strongest warriors were the government>Actually that's incorrect because the sovereign didn't conquer the land in a conflict, the small political establishment there agreed to be ruled by him in exchange for security.So being part of the state was preferable to the people in your example of anarchism done correctly?>Natural law dictates that it's objectively wrong to aggress against othersI really dont know what to even say to that, perhaps watch an Attenborough documentary about any animals anywhere in the world>Also, I don't remember signin' no damn "social contract" with the government of aussie land, why do they have a say over the use of my property?Yes I would also argue that the state of Australia has lost its legitimacy, it has been subverted by its domestic merchant class which has aligned itself to international finance, you dont have any obligation to be loyal to it in my opinion and anarchy would be preferable to the current state of Australia
>>535446945>They'd be collectivists if they had no interests other than the interests of the group. This is clearly not the case with human beings.No, collectivism means group interests go above individual interests not that there are no individual interests at all
>>535444920I think the solution is going towards consent societies, contracts, agreements, etc and reducing the coercion. This means systwmatically reducing state influence and extent until it pretty much vanishes as acoercive organ and it might remain as some remnant that is purely volitional. Erly thinkers like Ludwig von Mises was in favor of a minumal state but this also was show that it can degenerate into a maximal state. So my current position is somewhere close to anarchocapitalism but with a primacy of voluntarism which means that commies can have their commie societies but only with consenting individuals, even though I think its dumb and think I know that it will fail. Basically each individual has the same rights as a nation state, is fully souvereign.
Capitalism can't survive without importing third world cheap labour, so this doesn't make any sense.
>>535446995Fascism is what capitalism requires once it collapses due to its own contradictions. Of you look at Weimar Germany, many of the state’s institutions were privatized and then controlled by party loyalists, which lubricated the machine. National capitalism is a stupid idea anyway because:1. Capitalism requires infinite growth and always funnels wealth to the capital owning class.2. We have an international global market. The parts manufactured to create a single phone are made in 30 nations in a global supply chain for example.3. When it fails, a drive toward fascism is necessary because reality needs to be managed and propagated by the ruling class to prevent a class conscious uprising against the capital owning class who use and create crises to consolidate further wealth + power.It’s a stupid system for chattel slavery, especially when financialized like our current neoliberal approach.
>>535437171>Freedom of movement >Freedom of association >Nationalist The opposite, capitalist is denial of nationalism.Capitalist countries can only end as open borders multicultural societies that are rules by multinationals
>>535447405>Wouldn't it be better if we then broke them up into little mircostates that competed against each other?This is such a stupid hypothetical, you're not inhabiting the real world with these suggestions, whats going to happen when you turn places with thousands of nuclear weapons into tiny microstatelets for example? How would ''we'' achieve that? No offense but this kind of fantasism belongs to the sci-fi department in a book store not in discussion about real life politics>You didn't refute anything.You tried to claim that the old west and Iceland during age of the sturlungs was non violent which is simply factually incorrect, then I advised on you being wrong about this fact>It would be if they were forced to pay for the services. If on the other hand they refused, and the neighborhood watch just didn't provide their protection services for their property, that wouldn't be aggression.But they would presumably have checkpoints at the end of the street which would protect you regardless, obviously you can move out of the neighborhood and go into the woods where there are nobody if you want, you could probably do that in Australia too, just go to the outback and dont partake in society at all>They were formed by warriors, but not to protect their property, rather it was to expropriate the property of others.Yeah for protection, state is a protection racket which I have said repeatedly>Because I know of objective natural rights, and the only social system compatible with it is capitalism.Right, I dont think this conversation is going to end up anywhere productive to be honest, our world views are simply fundamentally opposites of each other, it has been interesting though even though I cant relate to your world view at all on any level whatsoever other than being on agreement that the current western states are terrible
>>535447477>Then why did it happen every time historically when states broke down?Because the vestiges of the state still remain. The only way to truly extricate them is to adopt a philosophy on the societal level that rejects it.>Which is never going to happenPeople said the same thing about Democracy and representative government.>when people think of anarchy they think about calling the cops or fire department and nobody answers, thats not desirable to anyoneThat attitude can be changed.>anarchism is not a competetive system to protect a group of people from other statesYeah, there's no way an insurance company could anticipate the risks posed by states and use its global capital to finance deterrents, or if push comes to shove, pay mercenaries to protect its assets and the assets of its customers.>you'd basically need to force everyone on the planet to become part of this niche idealogy for it to have any chance of being implemented long termYou can't literally force someone to believe something, all you can do is negate their judgment. And again, people in times past said the same thing about Democracy.>States existed before philosophyAh yes. People literally had no conception of how the world worked at all prior to it being written down.>a hunter gatherer tribe is a proto state where you have both responsibilities to the collective and rights as a member of said tribe, the chief and his strongest warriors were the governmentYou're not making a good case for government when you're equating it to man's natural starting point of poverty and destitution.>So being part of the state was preferable to the people in your example of anarchism done correctly?The Icelanders at the time thought it was a good deal and they had been subverted philosophically by Christianity anyway. I'm not saying that their system is perfect or that every choice they made is the right one, nor would you say the same about the states that you even defend. (cont.)
>>535447477>>535448090The point I'm making is that a society is capable of remaining stable without a strong central government, and that it's dumb to dismiss anarchism on the assumption that without a central state things would necessarily devolve into chaos.>I really dont know what to even say to that, perhaps watch an Attenborough documentary about any animals anywhere in the worldNatural law is not the law of the jungle. Natural law is the only non-contradictory system of conflict avoidance and resolution which is know by means of reason applied to the facts of reality.>you dont have any obligation to be loyal to it in my opinion and anarchy would be preferable to the current state of AustraliaWe finally agree on something. :)
>>535447552I disagree categorically, I'd be ready to resist communists having a state in my country with violence if necessary, its not dumb its extremely dangerous and I have family members who experienced that first handhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_the_Ingrian_FinnsYour position is to sit on the fence and allow any evil, any degeneracy and any calamity, its not only wrong its immoral
>>535448294I think you are confusing things. Initiation of aggression is violation of consent so it would also make sense to aid in self defense in my consent framework. On the other hand if they really consent to swlf destruction, like assissted suicide then there is no problem, but this obviously requires a high standard of consent to be sure that no murder is taking place.
>>535447513>No, collectivism means group interests go above individual interests not that there are no individual interests at allWhy ought I sacrifice my personal interests in favor of the spook collective. Answer this without appealing to self-interest.>This is such a stupid hypothetical, you're not inhabiting the real world with these suggestionsThat's because it's a hypothetical, by definition it doesn't involve the real world.>whats going to happen when you turn places with thousands of nuclear weapons into tiny microstatelets for example?A) Under natural law no state ought to own nuclear weapons, since owning one in that context is a threat to innocent property owners. Thus, those states would be afforded no protections. B) you underestimate the difficulty of storing and maintaining nuclear weapons, not just anyone could do it.>How would ''we'' achieve that?Gotta be firm on the philosophy and push up them numbers.>You tried to claim that the old west and Iceland during age of the sturlungs was non violent which is simply factually incorrect, then I advised on you being wrong about this factI cited videos as evidence which you refused to watch and then asserted that I was wrong without addressing the claims in the videos.>But they would presumably have checkpoints at the end of the street which would protect you regardlessThat sounds like a covenant community. So it's probably a condition of the contract when you buy property there that you need to pay for the NW. That's not an aggression.>Yeah for protection, state is a protection racket which I have said repeatedlyStealing isn't protection.>Right, I dont think this conversation is going to end up anywhere productive to be honest, our world views are simply fundamentally opposites of each otherYou're a Platonist, so I guess its inevitable.
>>535448294There is also a good argument to ba made that assuming they (communists and symathisants) made a cpntract that once the promises of the contract turn out to be not at all fulfilled pr serioisly misleading to conclude that fraud was taking place, that the contract is void and that the offending party needs to pay repararions or more. It really depwnds.
>>535448294It actually isn't an aggression to physically remove communists and socialists from a libertarian social order. Should they resist, then violence can be used. :)
>>535437171Its called mercantilism & imperialismWorld is moving toward this system again
>>535449167Cleptocratic dictatorship is the current model every oligarchy is trying to establish. USA turned into a banana republic, their latest victory. Europe averted yet another identitarian takeover, let's see how long they can stand.The only solution is to abolish hard property rights like Bakunin said.
>>535451151AbenomicsMonetary Easing2.7% inflationWhere is the helicopter money?Another trickle down effect fata Morgana?Capitalist alt right libertarians my ass.Fucking thieves. I wouldn't be surprised to see Elon musk on his knees getting point blank shot in the neck. It might very well happen during my life time.
