rooshvforum.network is a fully functional forum: you can search, register, post new threads etc...
Old accounts are inaccessible: register a new one, or recover it when possible. x


How resurgent libertarianism sprung from a lack of masculinity.

How resurgent libertarianism sprung from a lack of masculinity.

Quote: (04-13-2017 05:59 AM)Nowak Wrote:  

Libertarianism/classical liberalism is just low tax marxism.

Libertarianism is the exact opposite of Marxism, so I don't understand your point.

Marxism: The concept of class struggle in which a central role in understanding society's allegedly inevitable development from bourgeois oppression under capitalism to a socialist and ultimately classless society.

Libertarianism: The political philosophy that takes individual liberty to be the primary political value. Libertarians are classical liberals who strongly emphasize the individual right to liberty. They contend that the scope and powers of government should be constrained so as to allow each individual as much freedom of action as is consistent with a like freedom for everyone else. Thus, they believe that individuals should be free to behave and to dispose of their property as they see fit, provided that their actions do not infringe on the equal freedom of others.

As you see, Marxism concerns itself with society whereas Libertarianism protects the rights of the individual. The US Constitution doesn't mention society. The Constitution enumerates the rights of individuals. Libertarians aren't all that crazy. The founders of the United States of America were libertarians and believed in the individual. And now their faces are on our money, so it must mean they're ok.

[Image: one-dollar-bill-large.jpg]
Reply

How resurgent libertarianism sprung from a lack of masculinity.

Quote: (04-13-2017 05:59 AM)Nowak Wrote:  

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:

[Image: cat-herding.jpg]

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.

In Mexico, you definitely want to go with the private post if you want to actually receive your package or have any idea when it might arrive. I don't know of any private waste disposal companies, but I don't think the state-owned waste disposal in Morocco or Egypt are doing that great of job.

As far as the women, the hard-core social welfare has enabled the Walmart mutants to multiply while the tax-payers are not increasing their population. People can blow their food stamps on junk food. When you look at states like Colorado (one of the fittest states, low obesity) the women are pretty good. Once upon a time I'll bet the US of A had as good of women as anywhere. That's what the Beach Boys said, and they would know.

Why is the individual more important than society? Easy to ask, until you realize that collectivism tends to adopt eugenicism (why wouldn't it?) and maybe there's something about you that makes you undesirable. Maybe it's not even that you're mentally deficient. Maybe you're too smart for your own good, or especially the good of society. In Cambodia the collectivist Khmer Rouge killed mostly the educated to help make an equitable agricultural society where everyone has the education of a farm animal.
Reply

How resurgent libertarianism sprung from a lack of masculinity.

Quote: (04-13-2017 05:59 AM)Nowak Wrote:  

Why is the individual more important than society?

Society is nothing more than a group of individuals. The good of society can't be anything more than the sum of the good of all the individuals. The wealth of society is nothing more than the wealth of all the individuals combined.

Anytime someone talks about the "good of society" or the "good of the whole," it just means they want to initiate violence against someone they don't like. Why did Hitler kill the Jews? It was for the "good of the whole." Why did the Communists kill millions? It was always for the "good of the whole."
Reply

How resurgent libertarianism sprung from a lack of masculinity.

Not solid logic. The sum of a human body is simply the collection of individual cells. Who are you to agress against the common cold with your collectivist immune system. No borders!

No libertarian has ever lived downstream of an asshole.

The public will judge a man by what he lifts, but those close to him will judge him by what he carries.
Reply

How resurgent libertarianism sprung from a lack of masculinity.

I am a libertarian separatist. I don't believe that most people can establish or maintain a libertarian society. I don't believe that a libertarian society should try to save other people, especially if those people want to live in slave societies.

If I had the billions of dollars that the Kochs have, I would give almost all of it to space exploration. I would work to build a libertarian society on another planet.

What happens when libertarian voices are removed from planet Earth? Well, every country would be taken over by people like George Bush, Hugo Chavez, or Angela Merkel. With nuclear weapons, Planet Earth and everybody on it would eventually be annihilated. As far as I'm concerned, a society which tolerates those kind of leaders doesn't deserve to survive.

Then the libertarians on the other planet would be the only humans left. And they would grow richer and more prosperous as time went on. This would certainly be easier than trying to convert all the people who want to live as slaves.
Reply

How resurgent libertarianism sprung from a lack of masculinity.

^This is pure fantasy.

Where did collectivism rise from? Earth air? Earth water?

Nope. Everything you've listed above is no less nonsensical than progressives insisting that gender is a social construct.

Year 200 AC (after colonisation) your new planet would have it's own Rockefellers and its own Bushs. Or are you planning on genetically engineering a species of humans that didn't evolve from tribal patriarchies pitted against other hostile tribal patriarchies?

The public will judge a man by what he lifts, but those close to him will judge him by what he carries.
Reply

How resurgent libertarianism sprung from a lack of masculinity.

Quote: (04-16-2017 04:08 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

^This is pure fantasy.

Where did collectivism rise from? Earth air? Earth water?

Nope. Everything you've listed above is no less nonsensical than progressives insisting that gender is a social construct.

Year 200 AC (after colonisation) your new planet would have it's own Rockefellers and its own Bushs. Or are you planning on genetically engineering a species of humans that didn't evolve from tribal patriarchies pitted against other hostile tribal patriarchies?

We will always have rich and poor. The difference is that in a free market, people get rich by doing a good job, fulfilling a need, or building a better project. We would not have corporate welfare.

And hopefully, we wouldn't have the kind of "good citizens" who "just follow orders." The people who want to rule and steal are harmless by themselves. The only become harmful when they have sheeplike soldiers who are willing to follow them.

The Americans of 1776 threw tea into the Boston Harbor in protest of a tax that was THREE PERCENT. They would never have tolerated the kind of corruption and fraud that exists today in government today. People will always be taxed and enslaved in direct proportion to their tolerance for it.
Reply

How resurgent libertarianism sprung from a lack of masculinity.

Quote: (04-16-2017 08:12 AM)puckerman Wrote:  

The Americans of 1776 threw tea into the Boston Harbor in protest of a tax that was THREE PERCENT. They would never have tolerated the kind of corruption and fraud that exists today in government today. People will always be taxed and enslaved in direct proportion to their tolerance for it.

Actually my history book indicated "No Taxation without Representation". It didnt matter if the tax was 3% or 30%.
Reply

How resurgent libertarianism sprung from a lack of masculinity.

Quote: (04-16-2017 08:12 AM)puckerman Wrote:  

...
The Americans of 1776 threw tea into the Boston Harbor in protest of a tax that was THREE PERCENT. They would never have tolerated the kind of corruption and fraud that exists today in government today. People will always be taxed and enslaved in direct proportion to their tolerance for it.

Bingo. You can paint yourself as some sort of crusader if you like but you haven't picked up a sword yet or dumped any tea in the river so you're a grumbler like the rest of us.

The fundamental difference between guys like you and the rest of society is that you have built a utopian fantasy in your head and now rage against everyone who refuses to sign up, whereas the rest of us regard government taxation and representation as something we'd merely like a bit less of, thanks.

But in the binary land of the typical Libertarian, you're either a borderline anarchist or a communist, and nary is there a shade of grey to be found between.

The public will judge a man by what he lifts, but those close to him will judge him by what he carries.
Reply

How resurgent libertarianism sprung from a lack of masculinity.

Quote: (04-16-2017 12:34 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Bingo. You can paint yourself as some sort of crusader if you like but you haven't picked up a sword yet or dumped any tea in the river so you're a grumbler like the rest of us.

The fundamental difference between guys like you and the rest of society is that you have built a utopian fantasy in your head and now rage against everyone who refuses to sign up, whereas the rest of us regard government taxation and representation as something we'd merely like a bit less of, thanks.

But in the binary land of the typical Libertarian, you're either a borderline anarchist or a communist, and nary is there a shade of grey to be found between.

And you just start threads hoping to lure libertarians into arguments.
Reply

How resurgent libertarianism sprung from a lack of masculinity.

This thread is ancient, and it's the only one I've started re: Libertarianism IIRC.

Stop stalking me!

RAPE!

The public will judge a man by what he lifts, but those close to him will judge him by what he carries.
Reply

How resurgent libertarianism sprung from a lack of masculinity.

Quote: (04-16-2017 01:22 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Not solid logic. The sum of a human body is simply the collection of individual cells. Who are you to agress against the common cold with your collectivist immune system. No borders!

No libertarian has ever lived downstream of an asshole.

We live downstream of the assholes in government. Does that count? The government's sending thugs to break in doors and seize drugs could be considered an "externality" of sorts.

Libertarians do want borders. In fact, we want borders that are so strong that even the government can't cross over them.

The funny thing is, libertarians get accused at the same time of (1) believing that the individual can exist independently from society, and (2) believing that we should have a world without borders, so that the whole human race can form one unified society. Either way, the libertarian is described as out of touch with reality.

It's a little of both, though -- libertarians believe you should be able to put a fence up and keep others off your property if you want, or go onto anyone else's property you want with the consent of the owner. Yet, libertarians also believe that it's ultimately the owner's responsibility to provide for his own protection from aggression, if no one else will.

Personal freedom comes with personal responsibility, and taking responsibility (as opposed to playing the victim and asking to be rescued, the way women do) is very masculine. Much of libertarianism is about making it easier for men to take on masculine roles, for example, by permitting the carrying of weapons by which men can defend themselves and others.
Reply

How resurgent libertarianism sprung from a lack of masculinity.

Quote: (04-16-2017 01:15 AM)puckerman Wrote:  

Anytime someone talks about the "good of society" or the "good of the whole," it just means they want to initiate violence against someone they don't like. Why did Hitler kill the Jews? It was for the "good of the whole." Why did the Communists kill millions? It was always for the "good of the whole."

In fairness, though, libertarians also talk a lot about the good of the whole. When socialists point out the inequities of capitalism, libertarians respond, "Even the poor in this country have a higher standard of living than the average worker in a socialist country, because the mass production carried out in billionaires' factories enriches everyone. The clothes discarded in the U.S. by the middle class, and thereby made available to the less fortunate, are of higher quality than the clothes typically worn by the proletariat in communist countries."
Reply

How resurgent libertarianism sprung from a lack of masculinity.

Quote: (04-29-2017 10:52 PM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  

Quote: (04-16-2017 01:22 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Not solid logic. The sum of a human body is simply the collection of individual cells. Who are you to agress against the common cold with your collectivist immune system. No borders!

No libertarian has ever lived downstream of an asshole.

We live downstream of the assholes in government. Does that count? The government's sending thugs to break in doors and seize drugs could be considered an "externality" of sorts.

Libertarians do want borders. In fact, we want borders that are so strong that even the government can't cross over them.
...

So once again there is that eternal pivot from a hard and fast example to a bunch of academic blahblah.

If I live upstream from you in your libertarian world, can I or can I not use Gold Cyanidation in the course of my mining and dump the deadly toxic by-products in the river?

If not, by whose authority is the river below my acreage claimed as communal property with communal responsibilities. Gaia?

The public will judge a man by what he lifts, but those close to him will judge him by what he carries.
Reply

How resurgent libertarianism sprung from a lack of masculinity.

Quote: (04-30-2017 02:32 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Quote: (04-29-2017 10:52 PM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  

Quote: (04-16-2017 01:22 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Not solid logic. The sum of a human body is simply the collection of individual cells. Who are you to agress against the common cold with your collectivist immune system. No borders!

No libertarian has ever lived downstream of an asshole.

We live downstream of the assholes in government. Does that count? The government's sending thugs to break in doors and seize drugs could be considered an "externality" of sorts.

Libertarians do want borders. In fact, we want borders that are so strong that even the government can't cross over them.
...
If I live upstream from you in your libertarian world, can I or can I not use Gold Cyanidation in the course of my mining and dump the deadly toxic by-products in the river?

If not, by whose authority is the river below my acreage claimed as communal property with communal responsibilities. Gaia?

Poisoning the drinking water of others would be an infringement upon their personal and property rights. It would still be against the law in a "libertarian utopia" as you enjoy describing it.
Reply

How resurgent libertarianism sprung from a lack of masculinity.

What legal expectation do they have to the quality of the water as it enters their land? The water at such time as it enters your land could be defined to be yours and at such time as it enters their land could be defined to be theirs, but why are you on the hook to provide them with untarnished water? If not untarnished, what precise characteristics must the water leaving my land adhere to? What about fish? What if I don't like salmon? Am I obliged to suffer their upstream migration or can I simply net them off at my property line?

I get it, Brewdog, but this is the issue with a whole lot of other libertarians. For every small l libertarian who in reality is a minarchist, there's two rabid big L libertarians willing to not only go full retard on guys like me but also on guys like you.

The public will judge a man by what he lifts, but those close to him will judge him by what he carries.
Reply

How resurgent libertarianism sprung from a lack of masculinity.

Quote: (04-29-2017 11:05 PM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  

Quote: (04-16-2017 01:15 AM)puckerman Wrote:  

Anytime someone talks about the "good of society" or the "good of the whole," it just means they want to initiate violence against someone they don't like. Why did Hitler kill the Jews? It was for the "good of the whole." Why did the Communists kill millions? It was always for the "good of the whole."

In fairness, though, libertarians also talk a lot about the good of the whole. When socialists point out the inequities of capitalism, libertarians respond, "Even the poor in this country have a higher standard of living than the average worker in a socialist country, because the mass production carried out in billionaires' factories enriches everyone. The clothes discarded in the U.S. by the middle class, and thereby made available to the less fortunate, are of higher quality than the clothes typically worn by the proletariat in communist countries."

Here's a good way to explain the differences between capitalists and socialists. For a socialist, a society is moral if everyone lives to the age of 70 and dies at the same age. For a capitalist, a society is moral if life expectancy is constantly increasing. This might have the least healthy dying at the age of 75 and the most healthy living until 100. Of course, the capitalist society is unequal. But it would still mean everyone is living longer in the capitalist society than everyone in the socialist society. It also shows why socialism is always about destruction and not production or creation.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)