Is it possible for National Socialism and Libertarianism to coexist within the same state?

I always imagined it something like starship troopers but more extreme. The government would leave civilians to fester in they ancap he'll holes unless they violate the government's NAP.

>to the light
What does that Light look like according to you, in general? What would a modern version of "what America was founded on" be like? How are National-Socialism and Libertarianism synthesized or otherwise brought together in a way that works?

In an all white world everything is possible fren

Attached: 1536960991055.jpg (555x555, 94.67K)

Libertarianism isn't Anarcho-Capitalism. Libertarianism is moreso a Minarchist political philosophy, rather than no state at all.

NatSoc and Libertarianism stem from fundamentally different philosophical axioms. They are intrinsically incompatible.

Dont kill, Dont rape, Dont steal- Everyone fuck off and leave each other alone to their freedoms unless threatened by a outside source then we nationalize and tell them to fuck off (Like the british) This is why America was never meant to have a standing army. It was made of the people, by the people, for the people and the power was the people.

Attached: 1200px-Jefferson_state_flag.svg.png (1200x731, 90.08K)

>What would a modern version of "what America was founded on" be like?
Protectionist trade policies, broad state autonomy, citizenship and voting rights limited to white men, minimal state interference in property rights, the yeoman farmer as the ideal citizen free to form his own communities that promote the health of his family and broader kin

Attached: 1535166124092.jpg (720x348, 36.52K)

Because Jews like Rand, Friedman and Rothbard were the ones to start shilling for libertarian capitalist nonsense.

In every way. Arguing with libertarians who are either acting in bad faith or have had their brains successfully parasitized is a waste of time. Best to kill you and move on.

>fundamentally different philosophical axioms
Which precisely, according to you, and what makes those incompatible? And are they incompatible only to the extent of a no-compromise position? Or can they not be made compatible without warping them beyond recognition, according to your definition of them?

Libertarianism is hostile jewish nonsense.

Who fuckign cares, the autism on the internet never fails to surprise me.

Attached: highres_30024550 copy.jpg (497x700, 112.07K)

Libertarianism is fundamentally materialist and places money and wealth at the heart of its belief system

Attached: 1501402376020.png (1167x1317, 172.28K)

Wishful thinking. Government would never give up power once it has it, “undesirable elimination” would be an eternally shifting goalpost.

>Don't kill; don't rape; don't steal
This would seem to be a fundamental part of virtually every political philosophy, and not particular to Libertarianism.
>Everyone fuck off and leave each other alone to their freedoms
I see, but again, it seems like this could be said for every system except the most controlling and totalitarian.

>What is that supposed to look like?
It looks like a fantasy made up in the minds of low IQ autists.

I guess she can't wait for 1945 for BSC.

>Is it possible for National Socialism and Libertarianism to coexist within the same state?

No. I understand and sympathize with Libertarians, because I understand how it can seem attractive for people who have their shit together to just say "Look man, I'll mind my own business and you do you, and if you fuck yourself up it's not my problem".

But it fails because the vast majority of people will become fuckups in isolation. And having done so, they either promote everyone else becoming subhuman (which a libertarian must allow because muh freedom) or else they simply band together and take power and destroy everything anyway.

The only way for society to survive in the long run is to have a fascist government that takes an active interest in educating and pressuring people to behave in socially conscientious ways.

I doubt it. The yellow libs would be demanding open borders, legal child sex slaves and all sorts of other weirdo nonsense. To be fair many libs do understand the flaws of communism even if it does sound good on paper, but they can never apply that same skepticism to infantile concepts like "freedom and liberty" despite them only ever leading to degeneracy, agony and all manner of perversions.

>Protectionist trade policies, broad state autonomy, citizenship and voting rights limited to white men, minimal state interference in property rights, the yeoman farmer as the ideal citizen free to form his own communities that promote the health of his family and broader kin.
So it's Libertarian insofar as it applies to whichever individual is covered by National-Socialism, in your view? And National-Socialism has an unequal influence over the Libertarian functioning of the state? I understand.

But that automatically makes the ideas wrong? Imagine a world where the Holocaust did happen---then by your logic, Hitler's state would be invalid for the purposes of analysis and modelling.