/euzn/ - Eurasian

 >>/44/
on an 8values test i usually get 45 percent social 55 percent market 88 percent nationalistic 85 percent authoritarian and 88 percent traditional, i'm fascist. the scores vary sometimes if i'm too lazy to click disagree instead of strongly disagree.

You do realize those tests' sole purpose is to indoctrinate as many people as possible to the American overton's window on political theory? All they mean is choosing either cluster A or cluster B of excuses to be hypocritically on your chosen "side".

 >>/49/
Yes, I just used the political compass because the meme is cool and sums up my own political journey.

 >>/48/
Interesting, can you elaborate on what kind of fascism you admire most? What brought you to fascism?
A lot of people find it strange that a Eurasian would favor an ideology that is overtly racial (or can be racially based among other things). I think it makes a lot of sense, though, as we get to see group dynamics in a way that others don't.

> authoritarian or libertarian

> or

Libertarians, in their attempt to establish a free natural social order, must strive to regain from the state the right to exclusion inherent in private property. Yet even before they accomplish this and in order to render such an achievement even possible, libertarians cannot soon enough begin to reassert and exercise, to the extent that the situation still permits them to do so, their right to exclusion in everyday life. Libertarians must distinguish themselves from others by practicing (as well as advocating) the most extreme form of intolerance and discrimination against egalitarians, democrats, socialists, communists, multiculturalists, environmentalists, ill manners, misconduct, incompetence, rudeness, vulgarity, and obscenity. Like true conservatives, who will have to dissociate themselves from the false social(ist) conservatism of the Buchananites and the neoconservatives, true libertarians must visibly and ostentatiously dissociate themselves from the false multicountercultural and anti-authoritarian egalitarian left-libertarian impostors.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe, "Democracy - the god that failed."

I don't know, but I know this: the only reason "liberalism" holds up philosophically is that it holds up emotionally. It's like feminism, just a political ideology to grasp power on the basis of calling your opposition anti-freedom, like feminism equates all opposition as anti-woman.

 >>/56/
That's mostly because ever since the enlightenment everyone has always thought feels good = good (morally). The original argument to give women the vote was entirely emotional, yet the men who voted in favor of women's suffrage were dumb enough to think that all the new female voters would keep emotions out of the ballet box entirely (protip, they didn't). So while society collapses under the weight of all these social programs and mass migrations, they all pat themselves on the back for promoting "freedom".

 >>/55/
Hoppe makes a lot of sense, although it's a bit odd that he still calls himself a libertarian having acknowledged that strict enforcement of moral standards is required to maintain freedom. The only problem I see with his private law society ideal is that it does not account for the inherent connection between physical space and social space. If you enlist the services of a private law enforcement company and your neighbor signs up for a different one, then they are bound to come into conflict. A single private law for a small group, like an HOA, would avoid a lot of potential problems.

101996l まえせつ jpg
(118.64 KB, 576x552)

 >>/59/
> yet the men who voted in favor of women's suffrage were dumb enough
Yeah, well, top move giving those people the vote first.

 >>/64/
 >>/64/
> A single private law for a small group, like an HOA, would avoid a lot of potential problems.
You wouldn't live in a commune, only your entire house would.

 >>/66/
We already have private security enforcing private laws on behalf of groups of property owners. Unless you think that amounts to a commune, then I don't see the equivalence.

 >>/56/
> I don't know, but I know this: the only reason "liberalism" holds up philosophically is that it holds up emotionally.
I think you also have to factor in the centralization of power and government. Liberal arguments are not persuasive to people with a strong identity and close community ties, even if they are emotionally appealing. All liberal democracies have originated in the intendant class, who were originally created by absolute monarchs to break up traditional feudal loyalties and centralize their power bases.

I believe that us Eurasians should have an ethnostate where immigration is regulated such that only Eurasians can live there permanently. Media from other countries should also be tackled somehow, since it carries subversive and degenerate propaganda.
After those restriction, I'm pretty much a libertarian, and I believe in strong gun rights and private property rights. So basically: Within the ethnostate, it's free, but importing people and stuff from outside is highly regulated. This will also encourage the prosperity of local industries, since imports of e.g. materials, machines, food and other things would be limited to only those which are strictly necessary.

 >>/92/
> but importing stuff from outside is highly regulated.

> I'm pretty much a libertarian

No.

 >>/92/
> This will also encourage the prosperity of local industries, since imports of e.g. materials, machines, food and other things would be limited to only those which are strictly necessary.
Wouldn't you accept a mutual free-trade deal? If you limit imports, then other states are likely to respond in kind, like Trump is currently doing to China, preventing your local industry from growing through exports.

 >>/96/
Well then I'm not a real libertarian, only a semi-libertarian
 >>/98/
> preventing your local industry from growing through exports

Local industry is only required for satisfying local demand.
Trading with other countries, especially large countries, just makes you dependent on them. They can threaten to stop trading with you and then you're fucked unless you listen to their demands.
I would like my country to be self sufficient in all important aspects. For example: food, industrial equipment, automotive, electronics, energy, household appliances, clothing, military, and all that shit. Not having industry to supply your own people is the most pathetic state a country can be in, because it means that you can never upset other countries (like, for example, China) or risk a big upset to your supply chains. It also creates jobs and shit, unlike in shithole countries where the minimum wage is super high, nobody wants to work in a factory, and so they import all their shit from china to "save money" which kills local industry. Look what happens to Australia's automotive industry: it died because everyone wanted high wages and so importing other countries' cars became cheaper than paying the workers, so they lost their jobs. You can have either free imports or high wages, pick one.
I guess what I'm trying to say is I want isolationism. Totally free market within the country, but restricted market between the country and other countries.

 >>/92/
> imports of e.g. materials, machines, food and other things would be limited to only those which are strictly necessary.
 >>/101/
> I would like my country to be self sufficient in all important aspects. For example: food, industrial equipment, automotive, electronics, energy, household appliances, clothing, military, and all that shit.
Wouldn't it make sense to do it the other way around then? Prevent imports of necessities, but free trade in everything else.

 >>/104/
> Prevent imports of necessities, but free trade in everything else.

I suppose that is the reasonable solution. I would further propose, though, to change that rule to "ban all imports which cannot be satisfied using local industry and production". If something can be gotten locally, it can't be imported, but if local industry doesn't exist for a particular item then it can be imported. That strikes a good compromise I think.

 >>/107/
> If something can be gotten locally, it can't be imported, but if local industry doesn't exist for a particular item then it can be imported.
If you allow imports of goods that you do not currently produce, then you will disincentivize your local industry from developing production of those goods. On the other hand, if you ban imports of goods that are expensive to produce locally, then you will stifle the growth of your economy by spending more resources on production than necessary.
If you want to be independent of foreign influence then you need to tax imports of essential goods, as this incentivizes your local industry to produce those goods by raising the demand for them, and therefore the price. As local production increases, you can slowly raise the import tax to keep the prices high until the local production has fully satisfied demand, at which point you achieve economic independence and can safely allow the prices to fall again.
Mutual free trade is generally better when it comes to non-essential goods, as the ability to buy them at cheaper prices benefits both trading partners. Having an export market to sell your surplus to raises investment capital which then helps your economy to grow.
tldr; I like your goals, but you need a more balanced economic strategy to implement them.

 >>/120/
Import taxes don't do anything. They just rise the price of imported products but not enough to incentivize local production, and they also make the government dependent on imported goods.
My policy would encourage local development, because imagine if you were a guy in the hapa ethnostate who saw that all toilet paper (for example) was imported. You could make lots of money if you started a toilet paper manufacturing business because you would have guaranteed demand: people would be required to buy your products unless you ran out of stock, in which case imports could be used to fill the gap.
Here I see a problem. Someone could set the price of their non-imported goods to be really high. In this case, another separate person could see: "Look this guy is ripping everyone off, if I start my own toilet paper manufacturer I can eat into his market share" and the price would normalize.
> if you ban imports of goods that are expensive to produce locally, then you will stifle the growth of your economy by spending more resources on production than necessary.

No it won't. It will create jobs in the sector of industry responsible for producing that stuff. Yeah you might be able to get cheaper shit by buying stuff from china, but as we have clearly seen in western countries, this model does NOT work in the long term. It lets wealthy boomers conserve their money by buying low quality garbage but it makes it hard to get a real job, and instead people are scrambling for useless jobs like mcdonalds and walmart, which don't contribute to society in any meaningful way.

I also had another separate idea, which I haven't thought fully about and don't know whether it will work. The currency for the hapa ethnostate shouldn't be backed by gold or whatever useless lump of metal, but neither should it have a completely arbitrary value. Instead, its value should be defined by the minimum wage, i.e. the minimum wage is just defined as $1/hr, and that's what sets the value of the currency. The value of one dollar is one hour of unskilled work.

 >>/126/
> They just rise the price of imported products but not enough to incentivize local production
That depends on the tax rate. If you find that local production is not developing, increase the rate until it does.
> people would be required to buy your products unless you ran out of stock, in which case imports could be used to fill the gap.
This is exactly what an import tax is designed to do by making the local product cheaper than the imports.
> No it won't. It will create jobs in the sector of industry responsible for producing that stuff.
Jobs don't magically appear just because there is a demand for them. You need startup capital to employ people. The faster you can raise the capital, the faster you can create new jobs.

 >>/127/
Yeah an import tax would work if it were actually used properly. But in lots of cases, governments just keep it below the level at which it would actually work, because the tax gives them more money. When you deliberately make things more expensive, that money has to go somewhere, and the recipient of that money whoever they are is going to want to continue selling those expensive shit.
Import taxes haven't stopped chinese shit from becoming common anywhere.

 >>/132/
> Yeah an import tax would work if it were actually used properly. But in lots of cases, governments just keep it below the level at which it would actually work, because the tax gives them more money.
In this scenario you are the government, so you get to administer it how you like.
> Import taxes haven't stopped chinese shit from becoming common anywhere.
No, because they are negligible or non-existent. You can't judge the effects of a policy by what it hasn't done in a scenario where it hasn't been implemented.

 >>/132/
 >>/135/
Furthermore the taxed portion certainly wouldn't be going into china, if such non-negligible tax ever was implemented. The evul government is not the one sending all that money away, it's the consumer. Governments usually benefit whatever they do from low import tax because a chinese seller investing in your market is simply offsetting the loss made from whichever chinese fruit picker is conversely sending all his salary back home. Most "china shit" is actually sold by natives of the target country living in China, because those are the people able to effectively market to their home country.

Effect of actually having big import tax would, for one, ruin those people, and they'd have to move back home to pick strawberries instead, and the consumer gets cheap strawberries instead of cheap rearview cameras made from razed Chinese mineral deposits.

 >>/135/
> In this scenario you are the government, so you get to administer it how you like.

It is still a good idea to disincentivize the government doing retard shit, if possible.
> No, because they are negligible or non-existent.

But Muh Trump china trade war tarrifs
 >>/136/
> Most "china shit" is actually sold by natives of the target country living in China

Bullshit.

 >>/92/
There is Central Asia.