Quote: (01-26-2017 11:11 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

Whatever system we have in the West now works and I like it. There's no need to replace it with this abstract libertarian nonsense.

Sure, it's not perfect and a lot of people get left behind for one reason or another but overall it's pretty good and effective. I'm also pro-welfare and social benefits because I don't want poor/old/disabled people to struggle. Our system may need a bit of fine-tuning which is what we brought in Trump for

And while our system doesn't give people lots of safety nets compared to others, it gives people lots of chances, which I think is more valuable.

I would rather cash in willpower and my citizenship for success than roll the dice that I am born a duke—or roll the dice that millions of people don't move into my country and supplant those values for some shit that doesn't work (the limp-wristed libertarian open-borders problem).

Quote:Quote:

Well there's the fundamental difference between me and guys like you.

Yes, there is. And you likely know what it is.

Quote:Quote:

I can reference a recent system of governance that provided good outcomes for families of my cultural heritage.

And this is not it.

Why are you unable to be honest? You can "reference the recent system of governance" whose consequences have put us here, correct? Or are you now going to claim that at some point your cherished "recent" system mutated into the "horrible system of today?" Isn't this what you're bitching about Libertarians doing? Claiming that everything regarding politics should have just frozen in place at a certain point in time that they like; when in reality times change and new problems and solutions arise?

Again, nothing more than your liberal preferences masquerading as an appeal to "the community" or "patriarchy" or whatever you come up with next.

Notice how nearly every statement you make about what's "good" for the "community" or "patriarchy" leads to an argument, whether it be drugs, promiscuity, free markets, size of government; anything.

Again, your every comment re-affirms the Liberal perspective that politics is and cannot be anything more than (1) a perpetual battle; and (2) the imposition of the arbitrary preferences of whatever coalition happens to control the levers of power.

Quote:Quote:

And you can play fantasy land "what if" scenarios that assume what worked for pre-industrial pioneer America 200 years ago will fare just as well today.

This is more projection and female behavior. Can you reference anything from these comments about "what if" scenarios or even anything talking about what "works?"

It's fairly simple. You are liberal. You try to make claims that are contrary to liberalism; and every time you do, you get into an argument with some other liberal.

Quote:Quote:

Who is the more deluded?

You seem both delusional and arrogant.

Quote: (01-26-2017 02:47 PM)Different T Wrote:  

Again, your every comment re-affirms the Liberal perspective that politics is and cannot be anything more than (1) a perpetual battle; and (2) the imposition of the arbitrary preferences of whatever coalition happens to control the levers of power.

When in human history have politics and life been anything but those?

Quote: (01-18-2017 11:06 AM)godfather dust Wrote:  

I am a libertarian in regards to marijuana, if it is legal it will reduce costs of policing by hundreds of millions of dollars. It may make it harder to get for kids as well, when I was a kid alcohol was way harder to get then weed because it is generally sold in reputable establishments to people with ID, not amoral drug dealers.

Anyway that's not what this thread is about.

Libertarianism is a foolish idea. If mans nature was to be good and nice etc it would work. So would communism.

Human nature is mostly evil, everyone is a sinner. Libertarianism taken all the way, into anarchy, would last a week before the most ruthless psychopath made a claim to the throne.

The libertarian borders thing is incredibly foolish also, and being the only libertarian country would be also. This is how (((someone))) would make a country the world's bitch.

Exactly, very well said

Libertarianism leads to an atomized world that this Atheist Jewish Nazi collaborator runs today.


The OP's point, the biggest problem is most libertarians aren't MLG's like Janusz Korwin Mikke is,they are fedora fags who constantly talk about muh atheism and muh weed

Quote: (01-26-2017 02:47 PM)Different T Wrote:  

...

Quote:Quote:

I can reference a recent system of governance that provided good outcomes for families of my cultural heritage.

And this is not it.

Why are you unable to be honest? You can "reference the recent system of governance" whose consequences have put us here, correct? Or are you now going to claim that at some point your cherished "recent" system mutated into the "horrible system of today?" Isn't this what you're bitching about Libertarians doing? Claiming that everything regarding politics should have just frozen in place at a certain point in time that they like; when in reality times change and new problems and solutions arise?

So your argument is what? "Your arguement is stupid because my argument is stupid and our arguments are fundamentally the same?

Quote:Quote:

Again, nothing more than your liberal preferences masquerading as an appeal to "the community" or "patriarchy" or whatever you come up with next.

Notice how nearly every statement you make about what's "good" for the "community" or "patriarchy" leads to an argument, whether it be drugs, promiscuity, free markets, size of government; anything.

Really? I've clashed with you, Banks, and a couple of other newcomers that smack of being transitory troublemakers. Seem's like I'm not the one going against the grain here.

Quote:Quote:

Again, your every comment re-affirms the Liberal perspective that politics is and cannot be anything more than (1) a perpetual battle; and (2) the imposition of the arbitrary preferences of whatever coalition happens to control the levers of power.

The "liberal" perspective? What. The. Fuck. Ever.

Quote:Quote:

This is more projection and female behavior. Can you reference anything from these comments about "what if" scenarios or even anything talking about what "works?"

It's fairly simple. You are liberal. You try to make claims that are contrary to liberalism; and every time you do, you get into an argument with some other liberal.

So just to be abundantly clear, you're accusing me and everyone who basically agrees with me of being a feminine liberal? Same challenge goes out to you as Brewdog.
Beyond the vague abstraction of "muh freedems", tell us precisely where government begins and ends in your libertarian paradise, and how it will be funded.

I'm guessing this is where you jump ship, like all the other libertarians who like to talk shit but bizarrely come up short when asked for the particulars about how they plan to manage (or not manage) a nation (or a borderless "region").

Fire away.

Quote:Quote:

So your argument is what? "Your arguement is stupid because my argument is stupid and our arguments are fundamentally the same?

Quote:Quote:

I'm guessing this is where you jump ship, like all the other libertarians who like to talk shit but bizarrely come up short when asked for the particulars about how they plan to manage (or not manage) a nation (or a borderless "region").

This is utterly bizarre. My first comment in this thread:

Quote:Quote:

Modern Libertarianism is only the updated version of a much older tradition of classical Liberalism. Classical Liberalism was identified centuries ago by defenders of monarchy to be nothing more than the ideological defense for the seizure of the State by the monied oligarchies. Look around and ask: does that seem an accurate description of the outcome?

and my second:

Quote:Quote:

Libertarianism is rejected because it is incoherent and based on bad assumptions and falsity, not because it is too complex.

What was it you chastised Rob Banks with...

Quote:Quote:

This is why Rob so frequently ends up getting cornered before complaining that everyone is ganging up on him. In fairness everyone re-constructs other people's arguments to a degree, but while the rest of us take the content to be 95% and inject 5% of personal assumption, Rob appears to do the opposite.

Back to your post:

Quote:Quote:

I've clashed with you, Banks, and a couple of other newcomers that smack of being transitory troublemakers.

The term you're look for is "confirmation bias." Either you haven't gotten in disagreements about each of the topics or they've all been the work of "transitory troublemakers."

What was it you chastised Rob Banks with...

Quote:Quote:

A figment constructed from any number of other debates he'd had in the past. "Press five for random counterpoint".

But do not fret, you even gave yourself some advice:

Quote:Quote:

Take some advice (press seven, for "I hear what you're saying, but..."). You've got to seriously alter the way you approach not just the internet but (I'm guessing) the world. Assumption is the mother of all fuckups and you appear to have created most of your world out of assumption.

You need to go back to basics. Clear your head. Look. Listen. Hear. Smell. Touch. No preconditions. No assumptions. No ego.

And M. Night Shamalana's new movie is out!

-----------------

Quote:Quote:

So just to be abundantly clear, you're accusing me and everyone who basically agrees with me of being a feminine liberal?

No, just you. Do you realize that adding "and everyone who basically agrees with me" is pretty much definition of female behavior?

Still dodging. What is your preferred system?

Or are you solely here to white knight for Banks?

Quote:Quote:

When in human history have politics and life been anything but those?

Excellent question.

To be clear, “politics” is meant as taking place within a State, not the affairs between States.

Your inclusion of “life” is interesting. Do you essentially view everything that humans do as a Darwinian struggle? Does that “struggle” take place at the level of genes (as per Dawkins), the individual, the family, the community, the State, or what?

Yours is fundamentally the liberal interpretation of humanity, humans as atomistic individuals who exist outside of society, yet are a part of it somehow. And then they battle each other to assert their arbitrary preferences for some reason.

The alternative perspective being:

Quote:Bertrand de Jouvenel Wrote:

“Social contract” theories are views of childless men who must have forgotten their own childhood. Society is not founded like a club. One may ask how the hardy, roving adults pictured could imagine the solidarity to be, had they not enjoyed the benefits of a solidarity in being throughout their growing period; or how they could feel bound by the mere exchange of promises, if the notion of obligation had not been built up within them by group existence.

To answer your question, it seems the primary motivator for the Liberal perspective on politics is resentment (to say nothing of its justification; Leonard and I likely consider many aspects of the West similarly), but the most helpful question does not seem to be: “when in human history has resentment ceased to exist?” but rather, “How does the society deal with it.”

As in, does this society actually attempt to instill and create more resentment and conflict; and if so, why?

History can give us some perspective; but we don’t live in Greece, Rome, 16th century England, 19th century America, etc.

Quote:Leonard Wrote:

What is your preferred system?

From earlier in this thread:

Quote:Leonard Wrote:

Principles versus outcomes. This is where men have been failing. Believing that they can just write the proper words down in a piece of legislature and then hit the cruise control button and go to sleep.

But hey, you even addressed this yourself vicariously, too:

Quote:Leonard to himself via Rob Banks Wrote:

What's worse, the more negative feedback he gets the thinner that mail slit in the door gets. Less of the real world gets in and after about 3 thread pages all you'll get is "press one to hear these options again, or hang up to do something more useful with your life".

Why are you so elusive on your own politics? Why do you feel the need to simply quote an obscure passage?

Observe. I favour a nationalist government that rests in a recently proven grey area between totalitarianism and libertarianism that is as monocultural in favour of the traditional nuclear family unit popularised in the period post world war two.

Not difficult.

Your turn, unless you have a reason to obscure your allegiances.

Quote:Quote:

Why do you feel the need to simply quote an obscure passage?

To give credit to the person who wrote and because it accurately communicates the information needed.

Quote:Quote:

Not difficult.

Your turn, unless you have a reason to obscure your allegiances.

That's not a "system," that's a wish list. I do not make wish lists for the State.

Quote:Quote:

Why are you so elusive on your own politics?

You've spent the last few posts projecting libertarianism on to my comments and when this is pointed out, your response is to try and win the "argument" by attacking another way. Why would there be any expectation of good will in the future?

Obviously you're not interested in actually getting to the heart of the matter, though I'll grant you it's a very academic style of trolling you're attempting.

Make vague references to this or that and when someone counters the "argument" claim that they're projecting.

Very clever.

But it's run its course. Your particular brand of ideology is presumably so fringe that you know to reveal it plainly would mark you disfavourably.

I suppose the rest of us will be left to wonder or make our own assumptions.

Quote:Quote:

Obviously you're not interested in actually getting to the heart of the matter

LOL. As already stated (edited to make it more clear and limit the triggering of your worthless defensive ego protection):

Quote:Quote:

It's fairly simple. You are Classical Liberal. You try to make claims that are contrary to Classical Liberalism; and every time you do, you get into an argument with some other Liberal.

and:

Quote:Quote:

your every comment re-affirms the Liberal perspective that politics is and cannot be anything more than (1) a perpetual battle; and (2) the imposition of the arbitrary preferences of whatever coalition happens to control the levers of power.

Back to your post:

Quote:Quote:

Make vague references to this or that and when someone counters the "argument" claim that they're projecting.

Were you projecting Libertarianism onto my comments after the rejection of Libertarianism was made explicit?

Quote:Leonard Wrote:

Your particular brand of ideology is presumably so fringe that you know to reveal it plainly would mark you disfavourably.

The alternative perspective would be that any view that isn't based on Liberalism doesn't make sense to Liberals and presents them with a choice: try to understand (which is very difficult considering how long they've been indoctrinated in Liberal theory to the point of denying that they are even Liberal) or project malice or "a disfavourable ideology."

You've made it abundantly clear you've no interest in learning.

You're a Patriarch (of something, presumably)!

I wish you a speedy return to your people, oh enlightened one. One might think that you would indulge those other than myself the chance to bask in the glow of your transcendence, but alas it appears the rest of us dumb apes will carry on as usual.

Quote:Quote:

One might think that you would indulge those other than myself

Where are they?

Quote: (01-27-2017 12:21 AM)Different T Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

When in human history have politics and life been anything but those?

Your inclusion of “life” is interesting. Do you essentially view everything that humans do as a Darwinian struggle? Does that “struggle” take place at the level of genes (as per Dawkins), the individual, the family, the community, the State, or what?

You believe it's not? Then where does the resentment come from?

Quote:Quote:

You believe it's not?

If you believe it is, why do you not affirm that?

To answer your question, the conception of "life" as simply "a Darwinistic struggle" has many problems which renders the question open to massive misinterpretation.

First, as already stated, it isn't clear what "level" you imply this struggle takes place within (genes (as per Dawkins), the individual, the family, the community, the State, or what?).

Second, if you're trying to claim that it takes place on any and/or all levels (as Leonard stated: "Survival is the will to power") you seem to be making an axiomatic statement that is so broad as to render it meaningless; basically the equivalent of saying "Whatever happens, happens."

Quote:Quote:

Then where does the resentment come from?

Given the issues with the aforementioned concept of "life," this question demonstrates the problem.

If you want to use such a broadly defined "Darwinistic struggle" as your conception of "life" then "resentment" is logically contained within it; but so are "affection," "benevolence," and "good will."

Quote: (01-13-2017 02:27 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  

If you try to make libertarianism into an all-encompassing life philosophy, you devolve into libertinism and degeneracy.

As you may know, this is sometimes referred to as the difference between "thin" and "thick" libertarianism. Another debate within libertarianism is humanitarianism vs. brutalism, with brutalists leaning more alt-right and Red Pill in their cultural views.

Quote: (01-13-2017 02:27 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  

Also, you can't have a free country if you don't have a country This means that libertarianism can only be applied domestically, and only to citizens of the country. This is why it is so ridiculous to see so-called "libertarians" advocating for open borders and "rights" for illegal immigrants. Even in a libertarian minimal-government system, the government's job is to establish borders and protect the citizens from invaders.

Libertarians have only advocated for "peaceful people," not invaders, to be allowed to cross borders freely. Property rights are involved in immigration, because suppose, for instance, you own a parcel of land on the U.S.-Mexico border and want to invite a Mexican to live or work on your property. If the government tells you that you can't do that, and threatens to send its agents onto your property to enforce its immigration laws, then your property rights are not absolute. (In that situation, you're not violating anyone else's rights, as long as the Mexican is not committing aggression against anyone while he's on your property.)

The Mexican guest on your property need not be given a right to vote for politicians who will infringe others' rights.

Immigration also affects the global fight for liberty, because when the best and brightest flee a tyrannical regime, that regime suffers a "brain drain" and is more susceptible to collapsing and being replaced with a more liberal regime. Those disgruntled emigrants, when they're safely on foreign soil, may also use their freedom of speech to attack the regime they left, as Ayn Rand did after she left Russia.

Quote: (01-17-2017 04:26 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Quote: (01-16-2017 09:09 PM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  

Replying to various posts at once. Oh, I just realized, the way I did this probably messes up quoting-within-quoting. Oh well:
...

All of those points are good, but my question runs to their relevance in our current situation in Western Civilisation.

Libertarians (I know, I was one) have this awful tendency to argue principles and possibilities that are so far from being politically achievable that you might as well build a political movement based around what kind of arrangement the first Mars colony will be governed under.

What I'm saying is "great, those ideas are nice, now pick up the rope and start pulling in the direction of stable nationalist, nuclear family friendly government and when we're free of the spectre of left wing annihilation THEN let's talk about minarchism vs monarchism.

We don't want to get too moderate in our proposals, though. Rothbard wrote of "the excitement and enthusiasm that a logically consistent system can inspire. Who, in contrast, will go to the barricades for a two percent tax reduction? . . . The call for a two percent tax reduction may achieve only the slight moderation of a projected tax increase; a call for a drastic tax cut may indeed achieve a substantial reduction. And, over the years, it is precisely the strategic role of the 'extremist' to keep pushing the matrix of day-to-day action further and further in his direction."

So while there's a place for short-term goals, we also have to talk about the long-term goals in order to inspire the libertarian base with a vision of a much better world, and to ensure that the short-term goals we're coming up with don't undermine the long-term goals.

Masculinity means eventual violation of the NAP

I estimate that at least 40 percent of hard core libertarians are on the spectrum

Quote: (01-26-2017 09:38 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Can you ask Ron if my death metal band is allowed to practice on the front lawn of my house from 1am to 5am?

Strawman. Libertarians don't believe in allowing people to encroach upon the rights of others. Again, you're using a strawman argument to argue against ANARCHISTS when the two things are not at all the same. Next tell all the libertarians how we support people shitting in the street and starting forest fires. Because surely that's what we all advocate, right?

To a republican or democrat (socialists), anything besides a massive government boondoggle sounds like pure lunacy. "How can man exist without a government nanny to babysit him?" As far as being effeminate, it seems to me that anyone that needs a babysitter isn't very manly at all.

What is it that libertarians are whining about anyway? Like I said, we have a good system here in the West. Flawed, but good. It works way better than anything that's ever been tried before.

Roads are good, relative safety, relative freedom etc. What else could you possible want?

Quote: (04-11-2017 05:37 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

Quote: (01-26-2017 09:38 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Can you ask Ron if my death metal band is allowed to practice on the front lawn of my house from 1am to 5am?

Strawman. Libertarians don't believe in allowing people to encroach upon the rights of others. Again, you're using a strawman argument to argue against ANARCHISTS when the two things are not at all the same. Next tell all the libertarians how we support people shitting in the street and starting forest fires. Because surely that's what we all advocate, right?

To a republican or democrat (socialists), anything besides a massive government boondoggle sounds like pure lunacy. "How can man exist without a government nanny to babysit him?" As far as being effeminate, it seems to me that anyone that needs a babysitter isn't very manly at all.

My point is precisely that nobody has the same opinion on where my rights end and yours begin. Note the vaunted cries from the left for disarmament of the private citizen because all wimmins have "the right to feel safe".

Nobody as yet can define where our current system ends and libertarianism begins, and no two libertarians seem to be able to agree even in theory where libertarianism ends and anarchy begins.

The reality is that you can't have rights without a few associated responsibilities, as you accept. Yet the modern libertarian is often obsessed with the rights to the point of completely ignoring the responsibilities, and nobody is interested in listening to that guy because he simply sounds selfish and short sighted.

Quote: (04-12-2017 10:08 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Nobody as yet can define where our current system ends and libertarianism begins, and no two libertarians seem to be able to agree even in theory where libertarianism ends and anarchy begins.

Well, this is true. The republican and democrats will stick together thick and thin, no matter what. They support their party. Whereas libertarians are individualists. Libertarians don't believe in group-think. A group of libertarians can all agree on 95% of the issues but spend all night ripping one another apart over some nuance. Most libertarians aren't part of the Libertarian Party. We don't support groups. We believe in the individual and think that rights and life decisions belong to individuals.

Getting libertarians together is like this:

Quote: (04-12-2017 10:08 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

The reality is that you can't have rights without a few associated responsibilities, as you accept. Yet the modern libertarian is often obsessed with the rights to the point of completely ignoring the responsibilities, and nobody is interested in listening to that guy because he simply sounds selfish and short sighted.

I often hear the main parties refer to libertarians as selfish. Like it's some unforgivable sin. Of course I'm selfish. I care about me. Why should I have my money stolen to give to some guy across town I don't know, will never meet, and don't give one shit about? Yeah, I'm selfish. If you want to give away your money to people you don't know, then it's your prerogative. But when you lobby your government to use force to extort money from me, then that's theft. And any five year old knows that stealing is wrong. But for some reason, growing up to be a republican or democrat suddenly makes adults think that theft is ok as long as it's under the guise of helping someone "less fortunate."

Give away your own money. I'm selfish and I wanna keep mine.

I'm not debating that out current structures are far too authoritarian and greedy. They are.

What you're describing above would not be selfish unless you were determined to draw from government largess while still demanding full rights to your earnings.

Such libertarians I respect are ones that have at least a reasonable idea of how much dough they're actually planning to cough up, and precisely for what. Sadly part of the reason it's hard to be a "realistic libertarian" is because the second you say "well just a small tax would allow us to fund a legal system to enforce contract law" you're inevitably going to get bum rushed by a screaming pack of zealot morons who label you a sellout or "libertarian lite" or some other butthurt nonsense.

Quote: (04-12-2017 01:21 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

Quote: (04-12-2017 10:08 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Nobody as yet can define where our current system ends and libertarianism begins, and no two libertarians seem to be able to agree even in theory where libertarianism ends and anarchy begins.

Well, this is true. The republican and democrats will stick together thick and thin, no matter what. They support their party. Whereas libertarians are individualists. Libertarians don't believe in group-think. A group of libertarians can all agree on 95% of the issues but spend all night ripping one another apart over some nuance. Most libertarians aren't part of the Libertarian Party. We don't support groups. We believe in the individual and think that rights and life decisions belong to individuals.

Getting libertarians together is like this:

Quote: (04-12-2017 10:08 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

The reality is that you can't have rights without a few associated responsibilities, as you accept. Yet the modern libertarian is often obsessed with the rights to the point of completely ignoring the responsibilities, and nobody is interested in listening to that guy because he simply sounds selfish and short sighted.

I often hear the main parties refer to libertarians as selfish. Like it's some unforgivable sin. Of course I'm selfish. I care about me. Why should I have my money stolen to give to some guy across town I don't know, will never meet, and don't give one shit about? Yeah, I'm selfish. If you want to give away your money to people you don't know, then it's your prerogative. But when you lobby your government to use force to extort money from me, then that's theft. And any five year old knows that stealing is wrong. But for some reason, growing up to be a republican or democrat suddenly makes adults think that theft is ok as long as it's under the guise of helping someone "less fortunate."

Give away your own money. I'm selfish and I wanna keep mine.

Why is the individual more important than society? Why do more free market oriented nations like the US,UK and Australia have shit women compared to Italy,Spain,Poland or Hungary?

It's easy to astroturf feminism, via private media and private industry when everyone is an automized individual who doesn't believe in society.

Libertarians need to look at private industries that work so much better under state control. Post and waist disposal are the greatest example of this. Or in the UK with national rail and council houses.

Libertarianism/classical liberalism is just low tax marxism.