What exactly is libertarianism?
pros and cons?
>>73388087
>open borders and amnesty
next
Don't worry about it. It's for true red pilled elite. You stick to your good goy kike party A vs kike party B
>>73388087
Modern libertarianism is just SJW progressivism, but with free trade
>>73388087
The goverment is evil we need free trade and open borders.
>>73388087
Libertarianism has nothing to do with open borders, only shills and leftists push that agenda. The greatest names in the literature such as Stefan Molyneux, Walter Block, Lew Rockwell, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Tom Woods, and even the father of libertarianism, Murray Rothbard are all against open borders and leftism. Too bad many many shills in /pol/ are trying to push their propaganda.
Libertarianism is, simply: all human interactions must be voluntary. There may be no initiation of force, forced integration and associaton between two individuals.
>>73388609
Citizenship in most first world countries is voluntary. You are free to renounce your citizenship and leave the private property of the country you no longer want to participate or pay taxes in.
>muh lack of stateless land
not anyone's problem but yours if most of the free land has been taken by other parties. you aren't entitled to livable land gibsmedats.
>>73388609
The issue is that libertarianism has a spectrum. There are the right libertarians like Hans "physical removal" Hoppe, and they're good guys.
But then there are the left-libertarians, which is what libertarianism as a whole as become as of late. And those guys are basically degenerate filth that just want dude weed lmao, open borders, etc. They're just SJWs but with free trade.
>>73388223
How fucking out of touch are you
>>73389573
It's easier to understand libertarianism when you realize they aren't against "states" per se as they are for (smaller) privately owned states.
Right-libertarians like Hoppe and the Mises crowd are basically advocating monarchism with modern business practices along with supporting ethical arguments.
A libertarian society would end up being a confederacy of privately owned states.
Pro private property and against the initiation of violence.
From this a libertarian is necessarily anti-state, since a state steals property and uses violence to achieve its ends.
>>73389801
This is what libertarianism is. Gary Johnson is a dude weed lmao, nobody is illegal faggot of a candidate.
We'd be better off with Hillary, desu senpai
>>73388609
>The greatest names in the literature such as Stefan Molyneux
>the literature
>Molyneux
top
fucking
kek
>>73390233
I watched 10 minutes of the libertarian debate and he was literally in favor of punishing people who don't want to bake gay wedding cakes. And this fuck claims to be libertarian.
All these leftists who have infected libertarianism need to be fucking purged.
>>73390096
See this is where this shit always loses me. One of you fucks says something like >>73388609
to which I give the earlier point and then people like you say "well lets not go CRAZY we just want less gubbermint"
Yeah, so does anyone who is right-leaning or conservative. The issue is always finding a balance to protecting social interests and personal liberty but Libertarianism always screams its extreme to distinguish itself (if you support the state you support me being murdered!) while recoiling into nebulous platitudes whenever glaring problems are pointed out about feasibility and real world application.
I also don't buy into this private/public bullshit. There is no magical barrier between the two concepts only perspective, the end result is the same whether its "the people" on behalf of "elected" government or a voluntary association of contractors agreeing to the TOS of the board of directors. Perhaps the jargon is different but its at the end of the day its inevitable kneeling to the ruling class. At least with democracy there is the semblance of fairness, justice, and representation even if its far from perfect. It has grinded along this far pretty fucking well and we wouldn't be having this lofty conversation if it was the worst thing ever.
Also I don't buy into that coercion bullshit. Nothing is free of coercion because some choices are always safer and better for you than others and harm and danger is IMPLICIT in ANY decision. Pretending otherwise is a bunch of Rumpelstiltskins preying on the desperation of the guaranteed masses. Each one of course is an individual but pretending you aren't benefiting the trends of common human behavior is disingenuous and Jewy as fuck.
Also, attacking the state is not a defense of you position. You aren't offering meaningful solutions by accusing everyone of Stockholm syndrome.
At it's core it's just an ideology that emphasizes personal liberty as the most important political good. Very strong on individual rights, and that extends to the right to do business with whom one chooses which is where muh free market comes from. As someone who values liberty more than social equality or cultural moralism, I find a lot to like in libertarianism.
As far as cons go, I think modern libertarians tend to overemphasize economic development, and use it as an argument against positions that don't really have anything to do with personal liberty.
>>73388087
It's hard to pin down Libertarianism but I can open up on the different kinds of Libertarian fields.
>anarcho capitalist libertarianism
>>73390096
As this anon said it's basically boiled down to privately owned states that operate as financial institutions, with the sole basis of them being private ownership and wider free market participation being essential to the running of said states.
This gives you maximum property rights, but as a person not owning the property you're screwed.
>national libertarianism
Basically the modern American libertarian party to a point. National libertarians believe in the state needing to run essential functions as a nation state model while not hampering and maximizing citizens freedoms and ability to participate in the state to a point that doesn't diminish these freedoms.
Ups to this is open markets, freedoms for citizens such as arms and property, ability for the state to provide functions essential to the well being of the nation (schooling use of force like military and policing etc) and a weakening of the state to deride the populace or grow against its wills.
The bad part is this most likely will grow a class that will corrupt the state and use it as its own operative.
>socialist libertarianism
Literally impossible to employ by basics of political science. The advocates say a rising commune of common workers can employ the state to nestle themselves well into it and not have it hamper societies freedoms but enlarge them, while being totally reliant on community participation to keep it from becoming a harsh mob rule or centralized force against the citizenry. This can't happen because one person refusing participation breaks down the entire systems non use of force to employ the method of running itself, and though ideas of competing but unforceful societies forming naturally in a ecosystem of sorts is thought to be possible to maintain it this leads to competing states and no longer a viable system.
>>73390814
Some of what you said is just strawmanning me.
The difference between private and public government is a huge difference. The incentive structure is completely different.
That's like saying there isn't a difference between a business run as a monarchy and a business run as a democracy. Of course they are different and the latter is so infrequent because it blows so hard.
Democracy is soft communism.
>>73390814
>but Libertarianism always screams its extreme to distinguish itself (if you support the state you support me being murdered!) while recoiling into nebulous platitudes whenever glaring problems are pointed out about feasibility and real world application.
alright, watch the full 10 hours and give me the timestamps where that happens:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3N2sNnGwa4
>>73388087
You can be a moderate libertarian. I'm a libertarian leaning right.
You can have borders, small amounts of government intervention and taxes, but still push for economic freedom and be socially liberal. Less government intervention, the better, because if the government knows how to do one thing, it's fuck everything up.
Pure libertarianism is full blown cancer, as is full blown liberalism and conservatism.
>>73392367
>socially liberal
Degeneracy is a slow march of rot. It starts with niggers performing jazz and white women dancing the Charleston and ends with a transman spic freebleeding on the corpse of a self aborted fetus. As shitty as a slipper-slope is as a fallacy, unfortunately progressive liberalism goes as far as it is allowed to go and doesn't stop until it circles back into fascism and shuts out all conservative principle.
>>73388609
>The greatest names in the literature such as Stefan Molyneux
>>73392835
It was a great idea that got high-jacked by ding-bats who didn't think their party was extreme enough. Then the left & right media did a propaganda blitz to marginalize it.
In true essence: it is supposed to be free social & business. However the righties didn't like that, because homos can marry & niggers don't get killed for looking at cops funny. The lefties didn't like it because businesses could freely dump battery acid into rivers and they couldn't take peoples guns away.
In the long run, it would never work, but it's good on paper.
>>73393313
>In the long run, it would never work, but it's good on paper.
No, the problem is that it would work in the long run but the short term change scares people.
>>73393313
>& niggers don't get killed for looking at cops funny.
back to plebbit you blue-pilled piece of refuse.
