Will the Trump tarriffs end up fucking us?

where does our brass, lead, and copper come from?
I'm beginning to think neo-mercantilism wasn't such a good idea.

Attached: 2b506408f2d97f66aa7206a25b42baff11ec5205e3069276da7b10570d0f2200.jpg (2048x1239, 612.03K)

Other urls found in this thread:

duckduckgo.com/?q=where does U.S. brass, lead, and copper come from?&t=ffcm&ia=web
minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/copper/mcs-2013-coppe.pdf
mises.org/wire/who’s-protected-tariffs
mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over
de.wikisource.org/wiki/Waffengesetz_(1938)
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

ore from mines dug up by jews probably

How they came to such a conclusion about society reflects their own unstable mind.
That image was clearly made by an angsty tranny. You don't even have to try to read these people.

Attached: Polan.jpg (682x450, 81.94K)

There is nobody more transparent than anti-freedom nutters. They are the quickest to strawmen, the least educated and philosophical, the least politically active, and generally, they hold some form of cuck delusion about whatever magical utopian ideology they're patron to despite being willing to do nothing to achieve said ideology. These are of course generalisations, but they apply to NEETsocs, commies, NAZBOL GANG, and several other groups in mostly equal measure. That said, there are people who believe in national socialism, et al and aren't retarded, who can make good on discussing politics and other related topics without resorting to shitposting, buzzwords, paranoia, and robotic spam, but they are a dwindling minority on this site in the last two-ish years. We're in a long tunnel.

It helps to remember these are usually the same blackpill fags going 'turn your guns in goy the government has tanks you won't fight' in literally every thread. They don't even care that they stick out because self-awareness is the virtue of someone who needs to think.

duckduckgo.com/?q=where does U.S. brass, lead, and copper come from?&t=ffcm&ia=web
Holy fucking shit that was difficult. I expect compensation for my five seconds of labor. Bitcoin is accepted.

worthless moron

minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/copper/mcs-2013-coppe.pdf
That's another five seconds of labor OP's paying me in Bitcoin for. You see that, OP? This faggot's reaching into YOUR pocket by being a stupid faggot. Pay up. I expect 10 bitcoin cents or ash ketchum's or whatever they're called in the mail by Wednesday.

I agree.

And thus we see how lolberturdianism dies, with its inferiority and cuckoldry.

It's to counter the argument that nobody should criticise gays and trannies for being degenerates because it's none of your bussiness, thus completely ignoring their cancerous effect on the society which even non-degenerates are part of, dipshit.

I doubt you'll find libertarians who'll defend gays and trannies from criticism here and there are plenty of them who'll be the ones who' call them out on their behavior, with some even basing their theory on that, like Hoppe, for example. The actual argument would be that you're free to dissociate with them and leave them to their own demises, proving that their degeneracy is harmful the most clear way but that'd only apply to a society where people are free to dissociate with each other and not being forced into one big "collective".

You're talking to a nigger who's literally so dumb that he thinks libertarians are anti-freedom of speech. Just ponder that for a second. These are real human beings, who are this stupid in real life.

JUST

Yeah, and national socialism means Richard Spencer. Reported for sub-70 IQ.

Tariffs, in the long run, always end up fucking over the consumer to the profit of the local cronies who asked for it, most often because the locals cannot or are unwilling to compete with the foreign market in some way. Money that is forced to stay local due to tariffs ensures that prices don't come down faster since there's not as much incentive to improve; additionally, other trade goods that may not have a tariff may not be ordered in further quantities since a greater portion of profit was directed toward the "protected" class of crony capitalists. It may be that the entire point of driving home these shenanigans is to drive down the price of non tariff charged items (from lowered demand) to the benefit of those who profited from cronyism.

Henry Hazlitt wrote of the above here.
mises.org/wire/who’s-protected-tariffs

In general, with the exception of objective law (don't hit, don't steal, don't defraud) whatever a government sets out to achieve, it will do the exact opposite. Gun control ban attempts gave gun manufacturers a shot in the arm from enormous spikes in demand. Wars on drugs left columbian drug lords as more powerful than some governments. Common core to raise standards lowered everyone's bar to a sub 70 IQ nigger. The non-voluntary state is your enemy.

Attached: lolbergs' concept of free speech.png (641x815, 89.31K)

Nope, the government of the USA is just fucking shit at all.

You want gun ban, you want drug ban, you look at Singapore. They do it and thoroughly.

The US government exists to make money, they lack morality and the will to get things through.

Are you okay? Whole lot of projection there buddy.

I dunno, the lolberg does quite a lot

Most lolbergs are retarded enough to have nothing against fag marriage; not only marriages are sanctioned by a third party, God via proxy of a priest, or a statesman, so state sanctioning a union between two people should be against the very principle, and secondary, marriage exists to create a stable environment for offspring, sodomites are incapable of creating it

Because war on drugs is waged by DEA against CIA assets.
Duterte's implementation seems to be going much more smoothly.

Richard Spencer is totally all about that faggot.

If we are quoting twitter lolbergs, let's post the gay twitter nazis.

inb4 not our nazis

Are you retarded?


That literally isn't true. You do realize most lolbergs are social conservatives, and don't fit the low-effort strawman Eric Stryker fed you, right?

Yeah, that's exactly what lolbergs say.

Nazis (and their yid brothers) argue by strawman.

But if you bring up the bad nazis, they will say they are not nazis.

They never, ever own up to their mistakes.

Is there any other kind?

What the hell does a voluntary state even look like? You have armed men in uniform come to your house and take your money, maybe make you lick their boots a little? Maybe build a community democracy shrine with a ballot box for prayers votes to be turned in? Have a bake sale to support invasions?

Nice logical fallacy, McFake and McForgery.

Honestly, I can see the idealistic virtues of NatSoc, and if someone wants to buy into that for their personal life or their own society, more power to them. However, this site is full of utter shitbrains who are incapable of talking about or arguing in favour of NatSoc without making a mockery of themselves. But that won't change my views away from libertarianism, won't affect what I believe in any way, won't turn me into one of their hilarious caricatures they have to argue against in order to have a point, and won't help them achieve anything in real life, so it doesn't hurt my feelings. It is funny, though.

The "not your bussiness what happens in people's bedroom! They're free to fuck whoever they want and deserve the same rights!" spiel is the most common argument for gays and trannies. In fact, it's repeated so often in their defense ("it doesn't involve YOU so why do YOU care you fucking homophobe?") that I don't believe for a second you aren't familiar with it.

Most lolbergs are against marriage as a legal institution that state uses to hand out privileges. Whether to allow it as a church ritual is up to the church and its priest, while otherwise a contract between these people has nothing to do with you unless they are trying to interact with you directly. And many libertarians, again, would not want to do anything with a couple of fags regardless of some bigger fag in the government sanctioning it or not and therefore would refuse any interaction, cooperation or contracts with the members of the group. Just like many would with autistic obese strawmanning children.

It was posted, responded to and it all turned into a shitshow. Again. There are many people in the world calling themselves "libertarian", even "libertarian socialists" or other leftists exist, yet you don't draw an equation between the two, for an obvious reason that they are completely different and actual libertarians can clearly explain that these fags are nothing more than another brand of leftists hijacking another popular term, all while remaining leftists before all.
Libertarians will tell you that any "rights" are either privileges granted by the state or an extension of property rights, granting you rights to speak, create and act the way you want to as extension of your rights to your property and limited by it. But you seemed to only imply that libertarians use this assertion, so if you don't, i don't think that libertarians have much to do with the debate.

Every time I meet a person calling himself "libertarian" (or any other variation on that term), he says something entirely different from all the others, and I don't mean "well we aren't a hivemind" kind of different, but "We have absolutely nothing in common" kind of different. Fuck, in fact, let's take YOU, for example. You tell me that a proper lolberg would have nothing to do with faggots, yet the Libertarian Party of Russia is massively pro-faggot. To this you will argue that they aren't the TRUE libertarians, but they obviously present themselves as such, and it therefore should come as no surprise that an attack on their position will be an attack on "libertarians" because that's what they call themselves and how they are generally regarded. It should thus come as no surprise to see a meme mocking pro-faggot libertarians, even if you think that no such thing exists.

Your argument on the topic is also flawed, see here:
This implies that just because you refuse interacting with a group, said group will have no effect on you. In reality, said group can easily have an effect on your surroundings (and thus you) and on the laws of your country, thus clearly impacting your life. In fact, it does not even need to be imposed by government – even their private initiatives, such as plastering homo propaganda on every billboard in sight or opening a gay club near where you live will have noticeable effect on your life, even if there is no direct contact between you and the fags in question.

Not him but…
This is because the only thing that connects libertarians (classic, ancaps, ancoms, etc) is the shrinking of government and growth of liberty. They all differ in what they are going to do with the liberty. So there are gay lads that want to get rid of money, or the capitalists who want to run mercenary groups. The only thing that connects these is the lack of government regulation.

I agree, the term has become really broad. I've been using the term in the context of the board though, not in terms of normalfag vision.
Not necessary, a proper lolberg wants nothing to do with marriage, as it is a legal construct, while support or opposition to gays is more of a moral matter, not economical or political one. I just pointed out that rejection of fags is not uncommon among the libertarians, especially on this board.
I'm not much into Russian politics but i'm pretty sure they aren't even registered so it's basically a shapeless movement so abundance of leftists would show up a lot more. Unfortunate but Russian politics is such a shitshow i don't even want to mention it.
It's not a matter of devotion to a group of some status symbol, but rather the acceptance of non-intervention principle and application it to the broad specter of situations. A leftist that actually just wants to help people(workers, poor etc) and is actually not authoritarian(assuming we can call him leftist at this point) could have more in common with an ancap than some libertarian party member that's in there for the weed because the leftist, despite wanting to aid the poor, doesn't view theft as a means to his goal(so he starts a charity NPO, for example), while "libertarian" neocon will sell out the moment anyone will offer him anything.
Again, i have pointed out that this cannot be properly applied to today's society due to forceful integration of all its members into a united organized structure. It's done via taxes, social security, laws, rules, authority figures and even the currency they use. With all these things, of course a tranny living off of your money does impact your life and it spreading its diseases costs you not only its medical checks but the appearance of other such parasites as well. If this wasn't the case and we actually had freedom of association(and dissociation), you could've organized into a separate localized society that would reject any contact with any group you'd deem unfit. Such goals could easily find support among concerned people and you'd probably find easier and happier life among them. That's basically Hoppe's concept of covenant communities.

I don't know how your twitterfag is and I don't care. I don't see any "legit libertarian argument" either, unless you assume anyone who invokes the magic words of "free market" is now a libertarian.

How would I know? Ask OP.
If I see a guy choking on dick, and choose to simply turn away and not interact with the pair of homos, I can still clearly hear the fag swallowing cock. He's still part of the surroundings.
"Not interact" and "physically remove" are different things.
Not all countries in the world have such laws, yet faggotry is still being promoted there. Government imperatives like these help fags, but to say that without them they wouldn't get any influence would be untrue.

This pic actually implies that this point is made not just by a random libertarian, but by an ancap, which is a lot more specific and so it seems like it's just another retarded strawman.
Assuming there is a gated community that limits those who are allowed to enter it physical removal after breaching the agreement is perfectly valid.
No country would allow you to create such a community and anything close to "physical removal" is castle doctrine, which applies only on your own property. You've actually given a great example of this - you see guys fucking on a street so you want to isolate yourself from them and to do that you could try to"
a)kill them, resulting in commiting murder and going to jail or being shot by the police
b)ask the owner of the roads you use to forbid that, which won't happen because the road is either government owned or is controlled by government contractor who's not going to listen
c)ask them - doesn't really work
d)create a gated community that would have its own inside rules that it'd require its members to follow - aside from doing that being hardly possible because of all public infrastructure being controlled by the government, it won't allow you to organize even if you manged to create an independent settlement with all the basic necessities supplied, as it'll want to tax you, control your decisions and will not tolerate competition in running people's lives, resulting in attack on it under the name of multiple charges: from gun manufacturing and tax evasion to breaking laws and its own due process(the one that involves their own courts), and would result in your society being overrun by overwhelming forces of government agents, as it was done with much less radical attempts before. So, you're not only economically limited to accepting what the government and its big industries offer you but are also legally obliged to not step outside of the controlled space they've created. Even if you manage to acquire some walled district and try to modify it to your needs(already within government standards and regulations), government will not allow you to manage it yourself, forcing its own legalities on your communities, introducing limitations and removing restraints you try to uphold, so your first attempt of physical removal or conflict would introduce officials in it, messing all things up.
Basically, your best bet in that situation would be to limit the contacts, i.e. choose a job where your boss won't allow any fags, drive yourself and pick proper places and isolate yourself from them within these constraints, even if this is inconvenient and does look like fleeing from the problem rather than coming up with a proper and reliable solution but that's just the sad state of things with current states today and there's not much more that we can do about it, until something changes the balance of things once again.

Sorry if it's not very comprehensive, i'm a bit tired and need sleep so i'll have to go now.

The premise of such an isolated community is confined to the realm of fantasy and wishful thinking, as I can assure you no such thing is going to happen, as such an isolated community will itself form a government upon reaching sufficient size so as to enforce the values due to which it was created in the first place. Alternatively, it will be eliminated by a different isolated community due to resource competition.

Seeing as how living in such a community is not a possibility, wouldn't it thus make sense even for a libertarian to try and fight against the elements that impact his life negatively despite those elements not being present in his idealised society, simply because said idealised society will remain just an idea?

But they can't do it for Nazis and (((anitsemits))). Glaring double commie standards. Every time you finger to state they took your arm with abuse and misuse of authority (who would've thought huh?) .

Try harder, spermutt.
Reported again for ban evasion. Why don't you do some more gook monkey babble for us?
Sucky sucky GI save me please cry on TV? Lol

WEW


It is likely not a gook but some mutt who racemixed in the rice field and is now stuck there. Happens all the time.

Yeah, and there's no way an armed citizenry could ever stand up to the feds. We should just give up our guns now and start bootlicking. Even if this bald assertion of yours was true, it isn't an argument, and does nothing to contradict the points that have been put forward. By saying this ideal can't exist instead of addressing the arguments, you're implicitly saying that the arguments are valid if this ideal can be attained.

Yeah, it does, and that's what most of them do, same way lots of WNs vote republican instead of sitting back and waiting for Magic Mustache Man to rise from the dead and lead them.

Also, side note:
This isn't just wrong, it's Marxism. Going to war over resources is only something that really happens outside of democratic regimes that spend other people's money, because the war will almost certainly be more expensive than the spoils. This is one of the reasons why the democratic 20th century was so bloody, whereas war in the feudal Middle Ages, in which war was funded by kings' personal treasuries, consisted of low-intensity skirmishes, or one army parking outside the castle of another army until one side ran out of food and a treaty was signed.

Since when did Tricky Dicky ever call himself a national socialist?
Oh wait it is just spermutt out of one of it's sperg shells.
Don't worry, GI won't orange you again.

Is Ausmod a saboteur?

We will never be freech. Stay mad.

Consider that spergook finally melted down after being called out for saying feeding a country doesn't help it win wars and calling all white people "barbarians" with it's google translated gookbabble, the ban is due.
Next ban should be for lolberturdians.

Tricky Dick is a self-avowed white nationalist, not sure if he's a nazi.

Libertarianism and freedom are the bedrock of Zig Forums, stay fucking mad, yid.

I was banned for spam (a nonsense reason), and I will call anyone white niggers if they use the word "woke".

You nazi LARPers will never ever win.

>(((lolbergtarianism)))
back to /liberty/ with you kike

You sure showed me, man.

Libertarianism and freedom are the bedrock of 4chan Zig Forums and it carries over here.

Nazism, that come later.

Though mercantilism i.e. capitalism with national interests are indeed better than globalism.

This premise, though unlikely, is at least theoretically possible and has precedent. Isolated communities staying as such and not getting rolled over does not have precedent and I don't see how they would be sustainable even in theory. You're mixing apples and oranges.
You didn't address my argument either, thus, I take it, from the logic you used, that you accept that your ideal is literally impossible, even in theory. As such, your arguments are invalid by default, as they argue for an impossibility.
I assume you meant "rarely" instead of "really" since I don't think you'd be so retarded as to say that democracies don't go to war over resources
That is both untrue and works with the false premise that the only resource of worth is money.
Personal treasuries that were filled by people's taxes. How the hell else do you think royalty got their money?
They were less bloody because there were less people, there wasn't mass manufactoring of weapons so actually equipping troops was more expensive, and because a significantly larger percentage of populace needed to stay at home to produce food, to name a few reasons.

Yeah, freedom for kikes
braindead, probably some mutt iphopping


Yeah I remember when I was a lolberg shitposting on Zig Forums 6-7 years ago. Unfortunately times have changed.

Nothing has been changed.

It's not like Nazi LARPers actually own the public discourse.

You really do believe everything you read on nu/pol/, don't you? Can you understand these words or should I make an unverified infograph to convey my point in a more comprehensive, child-friendly fashion for you?

The irony.
Another report for ban evasion.


Can't you see it has to hop IP with every post?
Either actually autistic or a dedicated paid shill. BO did good but not enough.


Founded by Jews or not, it has been completely coopted. Just like any wignats or low IQ skinhead gang.
The thing is though, they are still explicitly WOKE I love to use this word, it triggers spermutt on the racial question.
Lolberturdianism is race blind, and up until the first exodus you lolbergs still tried to deny the JQ. You really think we forgot about that?

WEW

Attached: assburger.jpg (282x179, 6.68K)

Funny how the nazi get triggered by the word Nazi.

Fuck is "freech"?

Yep, the nazi LARPer is a white nigger.

Hitler spits on you.

The Nazi LARPer, attacking skinheads, while talking like a nigger.

It reminds me of this scene from Er ist Wieder Da!

I pity the aryan soul, now it is so stained by judaism and junglespeak that it cannot help but speak in jew and nigger words.

Damn son I haven't heard that in a long while. I thought those fuckers got scattered to the wind, I guess not.

Attached: Serious discussion.jpg (640x408, 17.46K)

Hardly apples and oranges. The core idea–that ideals are worthless just because the end goal is hard to attain–is very much the same, and that's what I'm addressing here.
They do have precedent, several actually. I'm intentionally not invoking them because it's a lazy way to argue; everything is "without precedent" until some pioneer sets the first precedent. If your only reason not to support something is lack of precedent you're just saying you're too afraid to try new things and want to stay in the safety of the overton window.
What argument did I not address? Your argument was to ignore the idea of a propertarian society because there are no examples of it, which I very much addressed.
Yes, I meant that democracies were the only regime to ever bother doing this.
It's hardly untrue, it's practically tautology. War is always a net loss of resources, and I'm not just talking about money, I'm including all things in that. It's the reason that the ooga-boogas tribes in Africa who always went to war with one another never got anywhere, and the Euros who favored trade and cooperation were able to build up enough surplus wealth to conquer most of the world.
You're missing the fundamental difference between monarchies and democracies. The monarch sees his realm as private property and treats it as such. He wants to preserve it in the long run, and to that end is willing to accept a lower payoff now in favor of a higher payoff later. The democrat is only in control of the nation for a short period of time, and has no incentive to preserve the nation's productivity in the long run, because the short run payoff is the only one he will receive. Thus, even though both are nominally collected by taxes, the monarch's treasury is "his," and spending from it is a personal drain on him, whereas the democrat's "treasury" belongs to other people, and he harbors no sacrifice from spending it. Ergo monarchs, and by implication, private property owners, are more frugal, less likely to throw resources into destructive conflict, and more likely to seek cooperation.
I'm not just talking about raw kill-count, I'm talking about the tactics used and the nature of war as well. The idea of total war and murdering civilians wholesale in regular battle was much less common under monarchy and came about from democratic regimes–Sherman burning Atlanta being the prime example. Medieval wars were usually between the King of X and the King of Y, and their personal forces. Democratic wars are between the country X and the country Y, with all of the increased collateral damage that implies. This is getting somewhat away from your original contention however, which is that isolated communities would degrade into constant warfare. I suggest you give this a read: mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over

Just imagine getting permabanned for spam and then hopping IP with EVERY post.
As said, either paid for or freech/intl,

Attached: 6bf047cd89093731a7b6652d4d4c26cb92e9b3812be4544c2540a08c7178f6ac.jpg (433x433, 36.52K)

Does freech even still exist?

Reported again for board destroying.

The org might be dead, but the members sure live on. Consider how spermutt gets off from saying retarded things then get curbstomped, I am quite confident the sperg menace never ended. Even evolved, quite frankly.

threadly reminder

Attached: spermutt exposed.png (1343x3083, 409.05K)

What fucking menace and what fucking curbstomp?

Don't worry, spermutt. "We" have a lot of ricemixer in our ranks too. But learning gookbabble shoddily is crossing the line.

Shoddily? What a joke.

I double dare you to speak as well as I did.

Sorry spermutt, I don't claim speak nor understand gookbabble. So I don't run around claiming things without third party reference.
You on the other hand…
I guess this is the difference between aryans and orange'd banana republic monkeys.

Vietnamese is actually my native language so I do know my shit.

Bring your 3rd party, or even 4th party or 5th party, it would be the same shit.

It would take a vietnamese writer to challenge me.

Sure thing, spermutt.
Reported again.

Attached: 15 D chess.gif (1343x3083 125.39 KB, 409.05K)

I am not arguing it is hard to attain, I am arguing that it is literally impossible. This sort of mentality is why leftists keep trying to estabilish communism, despite the ideal being literally impossible. If your ideal literally cannot be achieved, then it is a shit fucking ideal.
Any community adhering to certain values will need to either start enforcing those values after the original pioneers die out and the community grows to a sufficient size, or face losing their values as the new generation will have plenty of people disagreeing with said values and seeking to subvert them. Another argument is that should the community choose to remain small in order to avoid this dilemma, another, bigger community will simply conquer them.
That's simply not true. Even if we discount oil fields and similar high-gain resources and only talk land in general, consider: the cost it took for Turks to conquer Anatolia might have been high, but they have been taxing the land ever since. Centuries worth of taxes have already paid the cost of the wars over the territories hundreds of times over. War has thus been incredibly profitable in the long term; more profitable than any sort of trade agreement, as those tend to be temporary, whereas you will keep taxing that land forever, unless somebody else takes it through war.
Are you reffering to the fucking Brits? I hope you do not actually imply that Bongs favoured cooperation – they invaded quarter the damn world simply because they figured that TAKING spices from India is far cheaper than BUYING them, and that's just one example. If anything, the British empire is a perfect example supporting my point, as war for resources was the main cause of British expansionism.
Actually, I agree with you on this, since I've always been a proponent of monarchy over democracy, and I agree with your take on the difference of values and incentives, however monarchs have, historically, also been prone to wars of conquests because, again, wars can be immensely profitable, ESPECIALLY in the long term.
A lot stemmed from different technological levels.
This stemmed from the appearance of nationalism. Medieval and early modern peasants weren't concerned with their nationality – they cared little which monarch ruled over them (they did care a lot about his religion, however). Murdering peasants during conquests would thus simply mean you killed some of those obedient serfs generating your income, so it wasn't done. With the appearance of nationalism, however, that stopped being true and the conquered peasant started being unruly. Now, that alone would not be that big an issue, as some peasants can't do much, but it became used as a casus belli by other powers to dismantle your nation, as well as becoming a fifth column ready to aid the enemy against you. With this change of the game board, slaughtering civilians became entirely logical and even necessary if you wished to bring long term stability to your country. This is thus not a democracy/monarchy thing. If you do not believe me, just look at what late Ottoman Empire did to its minorities.

Why do you report me?

For a moment I thought I was at the half chan.

I have also given mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over a read and I must said I found it almost comical in its naivety and idealism. Its very premise is that
which, really, just renders the entire argument pointless, as this premise is false (I did read the rest of the paper, however, so do not tell me I discarded it too quickly). This premise is literally the same as the one communists have, about proper communist society having the worker have these proper values and all that bullshit, and just like communism, it simply will not work due to the same reason – you cannot change the nature of man. The paper argues that the majority of people in an ancap society would have some sort of inherent desire and respect for a free market and for the rule of law. They would not. Or rather, they would have it, but only as long as it benefited them, and would be willing to immediately throw it out the window should a better deal come their way (which, in a way, is also a free market of sorts, ironically enough. Free market of ideas).

Let's take the example of the city of New York, that the paper describes.
Is the author unfamiliar with the very concept of gangs? Does he imagine that they are formed by some hardline ideological core seeking to rebel against society? The "ideology" of a gang is "we want take other people's shit because it is easier for us to take that it is to earn (be it through lack of skill, laziness, or even job market situation". That's really all the reasons a gang needs to exist and it will be a very convincing pitch to recruit people with. After all, why should Tyrone work a year in an assembly line to save up for a TV, when he can just break in and rob some guy he doesn't even know and have enough money for two TVs in a single night? The notion that crime needs an "ideological support" to exist is thus laughable – all it needs is a promise of wealth, which it something that it can always, ALWAYS offer.

moving on:
This assumes that the criminal gang would literally be a private company with known bank accounts and assets, which I hope you can see is plain ridiculous. It also assumes that the gang has no ways to influence its surroundings – a private judge can be bought, intimidated, or even killed. A bank has no reason to freeze a client's assets just because he's unpopular – why would it do that? A bank that would declare it'll freeze nobody's assets even if he's a baby killing cannibal would immediately gain a competitive advantage, as it'd provide an assurance that you will always be able to reach your money, regardless of what happens.

finally, the paper even admits its position to be flawed, albeit grudgingly:
I argue that it is not just theoretically possible, it is practically certain as your system's safeguards are laughable. Should the gang be able to have sufficient power to dominate its community (which, seeing as how all that stands before it is "people want to be lawabiding and they'd sue" is practically a given), it's immediately become a government in its own right. Brutal, corrupt, and exploitative, but it might evolve into something akin to our current government in a few generations. We'd be back where we started, only with a lot more nations (due to there being a lot more gangs), which would then, thorugh centuries of warfare, again coalesce into bigger nations.

Of course, we needn't be worried about any of this, as this state of ancap society is not going to ever come about.

ban evasion, sperg and autism.

I'm banned for a stupid fucking reason, and what fucking autism?

Reported again.

How is that autism?

Do you think I should accept a stupid ban?

...

the argument in that picture is retarded. They literally made 50 china lakes ever. They made around 1 million MG34/42s and there are 5 china lakes in private ownership in the US (that we know of) ;)

It was a pretty bad example, I admit.
I was poking every angle to expose spermutt. So thats the best I could do.
The point remains though

So where's a single example of a civie owning a MG34 in Nazi Germany?

Find me a law that said it was banned 1938-1945 in NSDAP Germany for Germans.
Reported again.

Find me a single picture evidence of a german civie owning a MG34 in Nazi Germany.

This is Nazi Germany gun laws:

None of this mention SMG or machinegun.

Attached: Reichsgesetz_1938.jpg (735x680, 404.92K)

So where is the law that said Germans are not allowed to own full auto weapons?
So they weren't regulated for Germans.
Find a law that said they were then the case is your.

Why should I? I know it was not banned.
Reported again.

Where is the laws that say they can?
Proof?
So where's the proof it's not banned? If it's not banned, why did not a single civilian possess it?

And since you can't speak German quoting you this link wouldn't help either.
de.wikisource.org/wiki/Waffengesetz_(1938)
You can try. I will just keep on reporting you for spam.

Prove it, kek.
Reported again.

I don't see a single mention of machinegun in that.

No picture of it? Does the Holocaust happen because some jews say it does?
That's a legit argument. People own camera and thus they take pictures.

It looks like spermutt actually thinks most laws or all laws concern themselves about what is allowed and not what is regulated/banned instead.
Even the 2A basically means it BANS the infringment of gun rights. Not that it allows guns. Because that is what laws are, what is "verboten", not what is "erlaubt".
But you can find proof for your claim first that Germans under Hitler weren't allowed to own machine guns.
I only have the actual laws that existed. Sorry I can't find selfies for your autistic mind.

Just kill yourself, spermutt.

The 2nd amendment says ARMS, which means EVERY weapons, INCLUDING guns.

I have proof of it, the non-existent picture of any civie owning a MG42 in Hitler's regime.
Where does the actual laws say that you can own machinegun or SMG?

Why? For speaking the truth?

I can find nothing more disgusting than you here.

Where are the words being twisted here?

That yid say german civies can own MG in Hitler's regime, I ask for proof and I got none.

That is twisting word?

One last report, BO, I promise.

Their laws didn't forbid it, you fucking spastic. You are the lowest IQ monkey I have seen in quite a while.

Actually, yes it's true.

If you say Unicorn exist, you should have a proof for it.

You can find more images of american owning MG42 than a german civie owning MG34.

Where did it say that?

And if the laws didn't forbid it, why didn't anyone own it?

Judging from the thread, you are.

This is also a claim, you sperg.

Well? Why didn't they?

muh warrior nation
Yet no one fucking owned a MG34?

Epic troll

Attached: 1458370815612.png (600x598, 504.23K)