/fa/ - Fashion

>>7607476
Libertarianism reflects an ideal form of government, wherein your liberties are defined, and the government cannot infringe upon those liberties.

However, this state relies on your neighbor also not infringing on your own liberties; their liberties (and their liberty to do so) going unchecked by government or some governmental form of protection.

While I'll admit that life would be cool, I guess, if we could live without need for authoritarian control, it is impossible with the large number of innately stupid people alive today. (Read: "people of color".)

National socialism, however, is a benevolent dictatorship over enterprise and individual liberty, where the state is led by intelligent and caring people who ALREADY KNOW the correct way for everyone to live, and who will be, (based off of a moral principle accepted by the people), RIGHT in intervening when an individual/group of individuals goes against the national ideal.

This state is socialistic, because it directly manipulates corporations and movements who would infringe upon the economic or civil liberty of the individual. In essence, it is a benevolent dictatorship, led by effective and intellectual people. (/pol/ would like to think that THEY ARE such people, and despite the shitposters and liberals that plague it, /pol/'s constituency is actually quite knowledgeable and reasonable. So I guess that's fair.)

The best way to attain national socialism is through creating a unifying identity for its people, to establish the "national" part of its label. Sharing culture, traits, experiences, etc. goes a long way for making the common man empathetic and sympathetic to another's cause, which strengthens the nation, and allows for true progress.

Overall, liberalism loses out to national socialism because of this concession:

>Instead of letting stupid people get manipulated into doing what's trendy, they ought to be manipulated into doing what's right.