Quote:[url=https://twitter.com/vid_icarus/status/857941988368420865][/url]
Fyre Festival dishing out libertarian reality.
Quote:[url=https://twitter.com/vid_icarus/status/857941988368420865][/url]
Quote:Quote:
This presents us with a dilemma. On the one hand, government is the problem. Socialism preys upon broken people by incentivizing their bad behaviour,thus producing more broken people to serve. At the same time, government is necessary; when your society is full of broken people, only a monopoly of force can keep their negative behaviour in check. In the ideal, realized world of Libertarianism, the negative fallout from exploitative businesses and broken individuals would be minimal, and swiftly corrected, but in the interim we’re left with questions of practicality and realistic policy – and when it comes to Libertarian proposals, which ones are going to be adopted first?
Consider the Libertarian stance on drugs: that whatever their negative effects might be, they’re not so great an evil as the state-run apparatus which interdicts them. On this question, many will agree; the War on Drugs has been an abysmal failure. But outside of political conjecture, is drug legalization a high priority? Is it a sensible policy to introduce when heroin overdoses have quadrupled since the turn of the century? Will legalizing drugs move us closer to, or further away from, the free society that Libertarians hope to achieve?
Quote: (04-28-2017 03:40 PM)debeguiled Wrote:
You are making me want to end conversations, and not just ones with Libertarians, by saying, "Am I being detained?"
Quote: (04-27-2017 05:47 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:
I've followed their progress loosely over the last 10 years but for obvious reasons they don't exactly livestream their day-to-day itinerary. In any case I'm not about to go and dredge up details of groups for the sake of convincing someone who claims that "Constitutionalist militiamen are not libertarians".
Quote:Quote:
First give me an iron clad definition of what constitutes libertarianism including your apparent denunciation of constitutionalism and then run it by three libertarians without getting into a cat-fight.
Quote: (04-28-2017 04:56 PM)Valentine Wrote:
There's nothing wrong with wanting a small government that doesn't start wars, having a pointless war on drugs and in hundreds of other ways violating their citizens' rights. But you don't have to label yourself a libertarian to believe that.
Quote:Quote:
Take the free market for example - they ignore the fact that a supercartel owns 60% of the world's wealth, so how could there possibly be a free market when there's already a monopoly?
Quote: (04-28-2017 01:22 AM)Kratomite Wrote:
...
The most retarded aspect of libertarianism is the "non-aggression axiom". Anybody who understands human nature knows we are aggressive, violent beasts. Peaceful societies without any backbone don't last long.
Quote: (04-28-2017 08:36 PM)UncleSam Wrote:
Quote: (04-28-2017 01:22 AM)Kratomite Wrote:
...
The most retarded aspect of libertarianism is the "non-aggression axiom". Anybody who understands human nature knows we are aggressive, violent beasts. Peaceful societies without any backbone don't last long.
I'm not that much into libertarianism so I'd really like to know where this whole "Libertarians have to be defenseless sheep" notion comes from.
I'm pretty sure the act of self-defense doesn't violate the so called "non-aggression axiom" unless you consider defending yourself and your property an act of aggression.
Quote: (04-28-2017 07:51 PM)puckerman Wrote:
...
While Constitutionalist militiaman and libertarians have many common goals and many common enemies, there are significant differences. Most of the militia types are very religious; while libertarians have a broad spectrum of faiths, and many don't go to church at all. The first group is also obsessed with "securing the border," while most libertarians are not. Many constitutionalists believe in Creationism and have a generally negative view of science, while libertarians are generally pro-science. A lot of militia types also want to head for the hills, while libertarians often enjoy living in modern society. Many in the first group also focus on conspiracy theories and negative gossip about the establishment (i.e, Presidential sex lives), while libertarians focus on philosophy, economics, and ideas. Back in the 1990's, some of the militia men actually supported the war on drugs; while libertarians have always opposed it. Finally, the constitutionalist militiamen are more defined by what they are against; while libertarians have a better understanding of what they are for.
As a libertarian, I consider the militia types "cautious allies." Most of the time, the constitutionalists are fighting the good fight, but there are also many pitfalls there. We would certainly be better off with a government bound by the Constitution, but the differences are also significant.
I don't associate with the militia groups as much as I used to. But I will always remember when all of them were buying generators back in late 1999. They all sincerely believed that there was going to be an apocalypse when the clock struck midnight on 31 December. Was it just wishful thinking? As you may remember, nothing happened.
...
Quote: (04-28-2017 01:22 AM)Kratomite Wrote:
The most retarded aspect of libertarianism is the "non-aggression axiom". Anybody who understands human nature knows we are aggressive, violent beasts. Peaceful societies without any backbone don't last long.
Quote:Quote:
Aggression: hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another;
-the action or an act of attacking without provocation.
Quote: (04-28-2017 08:44 PM)Jean Valjean Wrote:
The reason for that, though, is that any politician who ultimately falls out of favor is retroactively deemed to have been the bad guy. E.g., Hitler, because he lost World War II, is designated the bad guy, while FDR, Churchill, Stalin, etc. would've been deemed the bad guys if Hitler had won.
Quote: (04-29-2017 01:54 AM)BrewDog Wrote:
Quote: (04-28-2017 01:22 AM)Kratomite Wrote:
The most retarded aspect of libertarianism is the "non-aggression axiom". Anybody who understands human nature knows we are aggressive, violent beasts. Peaceful societies without any backbone don't last long.
You have to show aggression towards others to defend your own liberties and property? That surely makes the Democrats and Republicans the true tough guys of the world while the poor, feeble, liberty-minded individualists are weak.
If we don't aspire to empire building and slaying far away demons, then we surely have no backbone. I see your point that being peaceful equals being weak.
Quote:Quote:
Aggression: hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another;
-the action or an act of attacking without provocation.
It must be a sad state of affairs that so many of our active duty military don't wish to engage in empire-building either. Do we need to start vetting our military members better to ensure that they're aggressive enough or that they have the proper backbone? That seems to be the suggestion here. If they don't want unnecessary conflicts abroad, then they're not strong. But I'll personally have to disagree with this premise.
Ron Paul Awash in Active Duty Military Donations
Ron Paul raises more money from service members than all of the other campaigns combined.
https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washin...-donations
I also remember a guy once saying, "Walk softly and carry a big stick." -Teddy Roosevelt
Quote: (04-29-2017 06:38 AM)Kratomite Wrote:
...
1. It's silly to broadcast you believe in non-aggression. Other people perceive it as weakness.
2. Peaceful, welcoming societies get overrun. Look at Europe. You libertarians and your open borders have no answers for that other than "muh private property". And that's why libertarianism is rapidly becoming a moribund, irrelevant ideology.
Quote: (04-28-2017 08:01 PM)puckerman Wrote:
Quote: (04-28-2017 04:56 PM)Valentine Wrote:
Take the free market for example - they ignore the fact that a supercartel owns 60% of the world's wealth, so how could there possibly be a free market when there's already a monopoly?
Libertarians do not ignore this at all. They recognize that this a condition made possible by corporate welfare. Libertarians oppose corporate welfare.
Quote: (04-29-2017 06:38 AM)Kratomite Wrote:
2. Peaceful, welcoming societies get overrun. Look at Europe. You libertarians and your open borders have no answers for that other than "muh private property". And that's why libertarianism is rapidly becoming a moribund, irrelevant ideology.
Quote: (04-29-2017 07:39 AM)BrewDog Wrote:
Quote: (04-29-2017 06:38 AM)Kratomite Wrote:
2. Peaceful, welcoming societies get overrun. Look at Europe. You libertarians and your open borders have no answers for that other than "muh private property". And that's why libertarianism is rapidly becoming a moribund, irrelevant ideology.
Because Merkel, Hollande and the rest of Europe are libertarians? You really got me there.
Please, teach us more.
Quote: (04-28-2017 10:41 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:
I'm glad to see that you've functionally denounced all of the founding fathers, taking a Libertarian minority and functionally splitting it between the fedora wearing atheist crowd on one side and on the other side the only ones that ever got it to work sort of, ie culturally homogeneous Christians.
Quote: (04-29-2017 10:10 AM)Kratomite Wrote:
Quote: (04-29-2017 07:39 AM)BrewDog Wrote:
Quote: (04-29-2017 06:38 AM)Kratomite Wrote:
2. Peaceful, welcoming societies get overrun. Look at Europe. You libertarians and your open borders have no answers for that other than "muh private property". And that's why libertarianism is rapidly becoming a moribund, irrelevant ideology.
Because Merkel, Hollande and the rest of Europe are libertarians? You really got me there.
Please, teach us more.
Lol.
Their border/immigration policy is 100% kosher with libertarianism.
Open borders, globalization,offshoring,etc...are all libertarian wet dreams. And that's why you'll never get more than 1% of the vote.
Quote: (04-29-2017 01:37 PM)BrewDog Wrote:
If we take that route, can we say that many Republicans dislike gay marriage, therefore Saudi Wahabiism is a Republican wet dream? See the absurdity?