Old thread 404'ed and i want to keep this going.
Cruz supporters and NeverTrump+NeverHillary flocking to Libertarian Party.
Libertarian Party increases a spike in new membership rates.
Google searches for "Libertarian Party" spike massively.
The Fire Rises. The time for Liberty is now.
Dump Trump. He is an authoritarian statist.
Drump Bernie. He will not get the nomination, and Hillary is a lying neocon.
DO NOT VOTE HILLARY. DO NOT VOTE TRUMP.
RESOURCES : http://www.lp.org/
Austin Petersen : http://austinpetersen2016.com/
Gary Johnson : https://garyjohnson2016.com/
John McAfee : http://www.bealibertarian.com/
NEWS : Has Trump Dissatisfaction Made the Libertarian Party More Attractive? : http://reason.com/blog/2016/05/04/has-trump-dissatisfaction-made-the-liber
PANIC: Google Searches for ‘Libertarian Party’ Surge Following Trump Win : http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/05/04/google-searches-libertarian-party-surge-following-trump-win/
Libertarians hope that #NeverTrump and #NeverHillary give them a boost : http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2016/05/libertarians-hope-that-nevertrump-and-neverhillary-give-them-a-boost.html/
The GOP Goes Full Authoritarian: Now the Real Libertarian Moment Can Begin : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/the-gop-goes-full-authori_b_9840686.html
Libertarian Gary Johnson: May I have a word with you, #NeverTrumpers? : http://hotair.com/archives/2016/05/02/libertarian-gary-johnson-may-i-have-a-word-with-you-nevertrumpers/
Libertarians Say 'Brave' Ted Cruz Should Endorse Them, Not Trump : http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-05-04/libertarians-say-brave-ted-cruz-should-endorse-them-not-trump
>>73127535
inb4 libertarian party becomes pro middle east intervention
Oh ya free market fuck me in my ass hole
>>73127535
> $0.02 USD has been deposited to your paypal account
> Thank you for your efforts on behalf of the Hillary 2016 Memetics PAC, a subsidiary of The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. GS (NYSE) $160.01 -0.06 (-0.04%)
>>73127666
Absolutely, Satan. That's why I'm a #Clintoris
>>73127535
i like john mcaffee but i'm voting trump. he's a non-faggot libertarian, unlike bitter randlet
>>73127813
who the hell would shill for anyone for two cents? oh wait. ! Trump supporters.....
>do
>it
>for
>free
>>73127813
No one is being paid to shill for Hillary. It's a Republican-funded lie and a pathetic attempt to smear her campaign.
I want Mcafee to be Trumps VP so badly
when will libertarians take responsibility for this
No one is being paid to violate the non-aggression principle to shill for Hillary. It's a Republican-funded lie and not an argument but a pathetic attempt to smear her campaign.
>>73127995
trump's been the 4chan candidate since day 1. you reveal as yourself as a shill
>Libertarian Party
Why is this meme ideology still alive?
>>73127535
> $0.02 USD has been deposited to your paypal account
> Thank you for your efforts on behalf of the Hillary 2016 Memetics PAC, a subsidiary of The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. GS (NYSE) $160.01 -0.06 (-0.04%)
>>73128299
>that pic
fucking kek
>all those Trumpcucks
>>73128595
a bunch of kikes
Who is your favorite?
>Gary Johnson
>John McAfee
>Austin Petersen
>Jesse Ventura
>Ron/Rand Paul
>>73128595
I can just look at this image and tell that all but maybe two of these people are jews.
>>73128577
No one is being paid to shill for Hillary. It's a Republican-funded lie and a pathetic attempt to smear her campaign.
>>73127535
>Divide and conquer
Libertarians are not that stupid. Opposing Trump would give the nomination to Shillary and she is very obviously satan in flesh and bone.
>>73128399
>courts somehow exist without taxes
>muh roadz can't be funded by taxes
Suck a gorillion dicks nigger
>>73127535
>not hiring McAfee as secretary of cybersecurity
>not hiring Rand as secretary of homeland security
Trump will unite the right wingers and libertarians
>>73129731
>nomination to Shillary
Dude she has the nomination.
>she is very obviously satan in flesh and bone.
Sure enough, can't argue with that. If there's any reason to vote for Trump it's Hillary. Hmm where I have heard that logic before? Oh yeah, every presidential election of my life.
Trumps put the coup d'grace on the right wing of the war party, now's the time to start capitalizing on that. It's time to take down the other wing - Shillary.
How do I know if I'm a libertarian?
>>73130629
No one is being paid to shill for Hillary. It's a Republican-funded lie and a pathetic attempt to smear her campaign.
>>73130793
Does this make sense to you?
>>73130811
Riiiight.
>>73131679
That doesn't make sense to me at all. In fact it seems a bit nuts.
>>73127535
>#nevertrump movement moves to libertarian party
>libertarian party starts supporting Israel's wars
OY VEY!
>>73129153
Ron Paul
he was so perfect
>>73130793
Do you like having stuff?
I really can't decide between peterson and mcaffe. What are the pro's and con's of eachm and why should I support one over the other
>>73128649
>south park reference
HAVE AN UPBOAT!
>>73133302
Butthurt statist detected.
>inb4 he confuses libertarians for an-caps.
>>73129153
Of all time? Ron Paul, absolutely.
This time? Gary Johnson.
>>73133419
i actually dont really care about libertarians
i just fucking hate that show
its even worse than family guy
>>73133562
Fair enough.
>TFW libertarian but despise Jews
What do /pol/?
Unironically going to vote for Johnson this time around because my state will swing blue regardless. May as well try to bump Libertarians up to the 5% threshold
>>73133756
Hate them I guess. As long as you don't use government action to infringe upon their rights, and only show your hatred by doing things like boycotting all their products, and teaching people why you hate them then you're fine.
>>73134132
So no final solution is what you're saying?
>>73134330
No. No final solution.
That only creates a world in which you risk victim of genocide.
>>73133130
Peterson
Pros:
>Well Spoken
>Upholds the constitution
>As close as you can get to a Ron Paul conservative
Cons:
>Israel-loving, zionist dick sucker
>More fit for the Constitution Party
>Literally a talking bumper sticker
>Literal SJW on social issues
>Too young to hold public office
>Only thing to his name is a writer for some website.
>Pretty much a LINO.
>Against the NAP (Non Aggression Principle)
>Got owned HARD by Tom Woods
McAfee
Pros:
>Based as fuck
>Has an interesting history full of twists and turns
>Helped pioneer virus scanners and stuff
>Knows his shit about tracking patterns of terrorist cells
>Has been a libertarian even BEFORE the libertarian term was coined
>Expert in cyber defense and knows damn well that wide surveillance of the people doesn't do shit.
Cons:
>Not a good role model for the American youth or the general public. (Especially with his avatar of him posting a pistol to his head)
>Has a pretty bad criminal record.
>No word on the movie about his fucked up, yet interesting life yet.
>Absolutely no record or history of holding political office
BONUS:
Johnson
Pros:
>Has prior political experience as governor of New Mexico
>Vetoing the shit out of many bills whilst pissing off the political elite in government as governor.
>Very healthy man
>Successful businessman
>Has a libertarian-ish record
Cons:
>Shot himself in the foot on the Stossel debate by wanting to force people to serve gays
>Questionable (or lolidunno) stance on gun control, although it's hinted on being very liberal
>Has shown his more SJW-ish side in the previous debates.
>Uses Pathos more than Logos to bring his side across half-most of the time (see his CPAC argument regarding the legalization of drugs)
>>73129153
>ron and rand
>same principles
WIthout an authoritarian stance on immigration, Western people and values will die as will libertarianism along with it.
>>73128176
>>73128005
>5c has been deposited into your account
>>73129153
Stand with Rand mother fucker. Though I do really like McAfee. I mean, he lived with 7 women at once, and at least two actively tried to kill him.
>>73134589
No. If we remove the welfare state, then immigrants in search of gibsmedats will not come to the USA, and only hardworking immigrants who take responsibility for their actions and want to pursue the American dream will come.
>>73127535
>Hillary
>neocon
>>73134990
If you look at her voting record, then yes.
>>73135027
>neo
New
>con
Conservative
>>73135111
You have no idea what neocon ideas are, do you?
>>73129563
they're all jews you shitbrain
>>73135220
>neo
New
>con
Conservative
Please explain to me how the word "Conservative" in any possible way describes Hillary?
Neocons are people who pretend to be classical conservatives, but side with the dems. You can't call a dem a neocon any more than a nigger can call a white guy an "Uncle Tom".
>>73134466
Johnson is socially liberal enough to not fly off the handle with the SJWs but not degenerate enough to actually make them happy. The rest of your cons basically boil back down to restating your first pro - he has real political experience. He's won elections, he's governed a state for 8 years successfully, he's actually implemented e.g. legalization and dealt with the delicate political situations and made it through without getting crucified by the media (they tried their damnedest in many cases!) and the other vested interests that hate our guts. He's a *politician.* I know it's a dirty word, but that's the truth, that's his big strength. It's easy for anyone with a relatively high eq and a basic sense of morality to become a libertarian, it's very difficult for anyone with the same qualities to be a (successful) politician.
We'll never be 100% happy with his positions. But we can be dead certain we'll be a lot happier with the way he governs than any alternative.
>>73134880
That still leads to a multiracial country instead of a unified nation. Every hear of the Putnam study?
>>73129731
>Libertarians are not that stupid.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
FAGGOT.
>>73135396
You do know the neocon movement was started by the democrats, right?
>>73135577
You know subversion is always initiated by the enemy, right?
>>73135513
If all the people are hardworking and driven by a common goal and share similar values, their race doesn't matter.
People must be allowed to succeed or fail based upon their own merits and be judged on those merits alone, not things like race, gender, religion, idealogy, etc.
>>73135577
>democrats
Try jews
>>73127976
K so you're voting for shit? Have fun without economic logic
>>73135771
>>73135697
It doesn't matter, the point is that she holds values in line with the neocon school of thought.
Perhaps she isn't an actual professed neocon, but that's not what he was trying to say. He was simply pointing out she vites like a neocon, supports things neocons support, and generally acts like a neocon.
>>73135757
That's nice in theory and all but really, have you read of the Putnam study?
What happens to unique cultures and peoples if the whole world is seen in strictly economic terms? What toll will a diverse society have on the individual and the levels of trust experienced in that society?
Diversity harms social cohesion and trust, even in middle and upper-middle class neighborhoods.
>>73127535
>Encouraging people to divide the vote for Hillary
If you TRULY believe that Trump is as bad as Hillary then go ahead and vote McAffee (but you're a fucking cuck). Otherwise all your doing is giving Hillary a vote.
>>73128009
Or you could not have trump on the ballot at all
>>73135513
>That still leads to a multiracial country instead of a unified nation.
>Because the US is a WHITE NATION.
mfw when that trolling that hard or that stupid
>>73135389
Eh, the chick on the middle right and the guy under Benny boy don't look very jewish but wikipedia says they are.
>>73136046
>It doesn't matter
Yes it does.
Learn your nomenclature.
>and generally acts like a neocon
A key quality of neocons is "con"
>>73134466
thanks for this!
>>73129153
Petersen
>>73136066
Only after stormfags and sjws spend generations teaching people to think in these terms.
Ultimate social construct right there.
I have contempt for the average (ignorant) voter and for the idiotic immorality of this country. All a result of Liberalism (by the concept of liberty, not neo-liberalism). The average dipshit American who lies in the larger cities like New York and Sacramento has ruined 'democracy'.
Why would I support your ideology?
I'm not even for any of the candidates, nor associate with either establishment party, but why would I agree with your assertion that people should have more personal liberty?
>>73136046
Seriously, it's like calling Jamaal a wigger.
Morally I want to vote for Petersen.
But Trump has the balls and will crush Hillary.
What a conflict.
>>73136193
The US essentially was a white nation before the immigration act of 1965.
At least a nation with an explicitly white identity with a internal, smaller and segregated nation of blacks as well.
There's no reason for us to be importing Indians, Afghans, Pakis, Chinese or Mexicans.
>>73136539
Because if people don't have liberty, it will necessarily be that someone else rules over them, by extension over you and, if you consider most people to be idiot, then I see no reason to exclude your would be ruler from that general characterization.
Or do you expect that you would be the one to make those decisions which you believe the government ought to do for the people, or perhaps someone who thinks like you?
>>73136066
if the color of skin is the only thing that can be considered "diverse" about a community, then contact and conflict theory no longer apply. The conflict seen in the purnam study is a result of different cultural values, not race. You're collectivist view is just as wrong as any other form of collectivism.
People are individuals, and while steryotypes often hold some truth, they should not be treated as gospel
>>73136525
So you think there's no biological predisposition to naturally identify with and trust people of the same stock as yourself?
Wow.
>>73136525
Based Washington.
Fuck that faggot Dubois and his talented ten percent, if Washington had had his way many of this nation would have a whole lot less problems.
>>73134466
i'd be more comfortable with Gary Johnson as president because of his experience as governor but i hope McAfee gets the nomination, i think he'll get a lot of votes because he's pretty well known.
>>73127535
Libertarians are as deluded as commies
>>73137088
>The conflict seen in the purnam study is a result of different cultural values
>citation needed
Even if we were to assume that those divisions are due to a clash of culture, we must then take this supposition to its logical conclusion, which is that in order to eliminate the conflict, either one or both culture have to die in their present form in order to be replaced by a new global mono culture.
Once again, diversity will be invoked in order to engage a process which will spell the end of diversity.
>>73136539
>I'm not even for any of the candidates, nor associate with either establishment party, but why would I agree with your assertion that people should have more personal liberty?
Because, however much you loathe your fellow man, you are in the end all one class to the law.
Should you not have more liberty yourself?
Allowing the idiots more liberty for a couple generations is really a small price to pay for just that.
BUT BONUS
When they have more liberty, the really dumb ones are a lot more likely to kill themselves. I know you and I won't live to see it but if you have any desire for a better future, that should factor in as well. More Darwin awards means fewer stupid people next generation.
You can't hold a man down without staying down with him. But you can get up and let the damn fool wander off and drown himself. ;)
>>73137370
Libertarians aren't necessarily an-caps.
>>73129727
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/21/hillary-pac-spends-1-million-to-correct-commenters-on-reddit-and-facebook.html
>voting for open border libercuckians
>>73136978
>I see no reason to exclude your would be ruler from that general characterization
And if my would be ruler achieved said position by his own merit? Through competent leadership and guile?
>Or do you expect that you would be the one to make those decisions
Not I. I am aware that in my current state I do not contain all the qualities of a leader of a nation, nor do I have the merit to achieve it.
>which you believe the government ought to do for the people
I am not trying to imply a socialist Nanny state is desirable.
>Perhaps someone who thinks like you?
Thinks like me in that not all humans are created equal, that some are more capable than others, yes. And that not every person cares enough or works hard enough to be considered equal, or to have the equal amount of power in affecting the government.
>>73137370
Surely this year will be the year they turn it all around.
>>73137411
>Even if we were to assume that those divisions are due to a clash of culture, we must then take this supposition to its logical conclusion, which is that in order to eliminate the conflict, either one or both culture have to die in their present form in order to be replaced by a new global mono culture.
Now here in lies the problem. For that to occur would require a violent replacment of the cultures, at which point the government can act to defend itself and it's people.
And if it doesn't use violence, then fight back by not supporting the multiculturalist. If ypu don't like what they have to say, then don't listen to them, or explain to people why their wrong, you don't need to take my mo ey to have the government do it. Fight your own battles, don't be a bootlicker who cucks himself put to government authority, never acting on his own.
>>73137723
Not having authortian border policies doesn't mean being an open borders cuck. A nation still has a right to restrict who comes to it.
Go read some Hoppe nigger.
>>73137740
>And if my would be ruler achieved said position by his own merit? Through competent leadership and guile?
Why would I ever believe that this is what would happen? More likely than not, the ruler would be at the service of a cabal of interested parties and would then use the great power of the government to obscure the fact that they're the one deciding what the policies are going to be.
Cunning and guile are also characteristics of the interested men, who will have no problem using the government in the furtherance of their own interests. The smaller the government, the smaller the chance of it being useful to anyone, even to those who would use it for their corrupt purposes.
>Thinks like me in that not all humans are created equal, that some are more capable than others, yes.
People have no intrinsic or absolute value. They only have value for a purpose or for someone who would use them or their services. If starvation wage is what someone is capable of earning, let him. Let the market decide.
Only when the government interfere does the market value of people get distorted.
>>73137448
I understand what you're saying in theory, but as I see it, the left (who are considered to be more 'socially liberal) are only gaining more and more traction, gaining more influence and followers.
Especially when they rule in academia and media. It was once said that "You repeat a lie often enough and eventually people will repeat it."
Considering the moral decay the left has caused, I'm not willing to stand by and let it happen. It may be their liberty to do so, but if it affects our culture negatively at large (which it has) then I see it as a failure on providing more liberty to the common man.
We can see in history that this has been the case frequently. Rome, Germany, France, all great nations that succumbed to moral decay because of personal Liberty. Without moral values of discipline, loyalty, and piety, we decay.
Any Empire throughout history had those values, not liberty. The only case in which the two coincided was the rare first few years of the American Republic, and that was because it was run by men of objectiveness and merit who knew the importance of those values.
What I'm trying to say is, it is not common or likely that one can combine both.
>>73137844
I didn't say that the government was the entity that had to destroy the cultures. I said it was required in order to put an end to the conflict, since the different cultures were its cause.
>>73136965
>There's no reason for us to be importing Indians, Afghans, Pakis, Chinese or Mexicans.
The only part of your post that makes any sense to me. And I agree. We should definitely not be importing people, and unfortunately that's not a very bad description of what our government has been doing.
I think it's important to focus any ire around that where it belongs, however. On the government, not immigrants.
>>73137190
Where you're thoughts are losing touch with reality there is to be found in the word 'stock.' This has such a wide range of possible meanings and I think you're mixing them rather promiscuously.
But you prove me wrong. Tell me that full-sisters are always of the same 'stock.'
>>73137326
Truly one of the greatest minds the USA has been blessed with, and ironically enough in $current_year still one of the least appreciated.
Here's another based old black gent. Hey, I thought we were a white nation anon? Where did all these black Americans come from?
>>73138685
Oh I understood that, my point was that the government doesn't need to be the one to stop the conflict, people can do that in their own.
And even then, a nation should be allowed to restrict access to it's country. But that doesn't mean it has to be authortian about it.
I'm not for multicultralisim or open border by any means, I just don't believe the solution is the government
>>73129153
Ronny is the OG, I would've voted for Rand if he was still around. Peterson is my current main man, but Johnson might be okay.
>>73138965
Me neither. But is there any value in ending the various culture by having them meet and more or less condemn them to either fuse together or see one of them triumph over the other?
What does it achieve? Were the different culture not good enough to begin with? Do we know for a fact that the new culture will be better?
See, it was never about multiculturalism. Rather, it was about people wanting to move into rich countries because they were rich. Multiculturalism is the story that was sold to the native population in order to make them believe that this migratory pattern was a good thing.
>>73138855
Let's be honest, most of the
>america
>white
Memes are correct. We've always had great amounts of diversity, the problem nowadays is that welfare causes our minorties to no longer have to be responsible for that actions.
If you can get paid for just living, you no longer value personal responsibility.
>>73138855
"Your" not "You're"
Stock as in ancestry. Read up nigga.
>>73138678
>I understand what you're saying in theory, but as I see it, the left (who are considered to be more 'socially liberal) are only gaining more and more traction, gaining more influence and followers.
Well the SJWs have gotten extremely bold and extremely... extreme. But they are creating a backlash as well. Most of the people that consider themselves 'liberal' would still be shocked and repulsed by a lot of the SJW shit.
I think it's a fallacy that you can expect the government to be effective at fighting moral decay, honestly. The best we can hope for from it is to stay as far as possible from the issue.
Moral decay is effectively fought by pointing out the consequences when they occur, and by teaching positive alternatives, not with morality police. Again, the best that can be done is simply to make sure that we don't wind up with tax money FUNDING the degeneracy we are trying to fight.
>We can see in history that this has been the case frequently. Rome, Germany, France, all great nations that succumbed to moral decay because of personal Liberty.
That's a very neat summation of modern history, but I don't believe it's very accurate.
>Any Empire throughout history had those values, not liberty.
Empires through history have been nasty things that did violence to others for a period of time and then succumbed to their own corruption. We should have higher aspirations than to be an Empire imop.
Austin petersen, all day every day
>>73138429
>More likely than not, the ruler would be at the service of a cabal of interested parties and would then use the great power of the government to obscure the fact that they're the one deciding what the policies are going to be
What is Napoleon, Julius Caesar, Otto von Bismarck.
These men rose to the occasion, and did grand things. Are you saying they were controlled by cryptic Jewish cabals? Who's interests were these men furthering but their own?
The reason they were great is that they accomplished things for their nation. They did it because they sought to find glory in their actions. They weren't interested by money as far as I can see.
>The smaller the government, the smaller the chance of it being useful to anyone, even to those who would use it for their corrupt purposes
I am not advocating small or large governments. I could care less the size, so much as the effectiveness of its rulings. A government with almost no power is nigh useless, and allows people to degenerate morally, or delve into anarchy.
>People have no intrinsic or absolute value
They do based upon their merits.
>They only have value for a purpose or for someone who would use them or their services
Then you would have us be slaves to an economy, where our only use is for that of what creates the most revenue? How is that any different from Corporatism, the 'special interests' you claim to be against?
>Let the market decide
The 'market' does not care for a people or a nation or consequences. It is a part of the problem, such as corporatism
>Only when the government interfere does the market value of people get distorted
And, considering corporatism, one can see why.
>>73139309
Seventy years ago Americans imprisoned other Americans because they had kind of squinty eyes and a penchant for ritual suicide. A hundred years ago people were up in arms about all those folks with greasy hair and a proclivity for pasta. Around the same time a great suspicion was also floating around of steely-jawed sausage-lovers with an overwork fetish. Fifty years before that they were scared shitless of rice-loving manlets with yellowish complexion. Ten years before that they were butt-blasted about the curiously skinny potato farmers who happened to be Catholics. A hundred years before that they hadn't become Americans yet.
Americans have always been suspicious of new waves of immigrants, but within a few decades the melting pot assimilates them and they become pretty much indistinguishable from everybody else save for a funny name and possibly some distinguishable physical features. Even when the US was overwhelmingly white it was not by any means homogeneous, nor were the disparate populations all over its vast territories more similar to each other than neighboring nations in the Old World were. Give it a few decades and all the now-newcomers will be joining in with everybody else to question whether we should really allow the next wave of immigrants to come here.
>>73140037
>Well the SJWs have gotten extremely bold and extremely... extreme
Agreed. Moral decay from their Liberty, as it seems.
>I think it's a fallacy that you can expect the government to be effective at fighting moral decay, honestly
I agree a bit, however I do believe that the government can take effective steps to curbing or discouraging it.
>Moral decay is effectively fought by pointing out the consequences when they occur, and by teaching positive alternatives, not with morality police
This is achieved through a disciplined society, such as the one the Japanese boast. (Though I acknowledge they are not perfect.) And they are hardly liberal.
>That's a very neat summation of modern history, but I don't believe it's very accurate.
Perhaps not entirely, however one can very much see that the collapse and sudden revitalization of those nations came after society realized the importance of the aforementioned values, and that overarching liberty led to societal collapse and destruction of social cohesion.
>Empires through history have been nasty things that did violence to others
So has a country of supposedly liberal values, i.e. the US. No country or people are perfect, but I do not see why liberty is better than a disciplined Meritocracy.
>We should have higher aspirations than to be an Empire
But you have put forth that individuals and their liberty is more important than the society. How can a society function when all are almost entirely concerned with their own selves? We can see that now is the case.
It is a simple fact that we are social animals. We operate off of social contracts. And in order to make the most of them, people must make sacrifices, in order for society to improve. As I see it, at least.
>>73127535
>Dump Trump. He is an authoritarian statist.
so am I
