I am thinking of changing my political party to Libertarian. What are some pro and cons of this ideology?
>>78303945
>Party
Next 20 posters will prove how cringe that shit is.
>Ideology
Fairly okay unless you're Christian or Muzzie.
no funding for science shit cause muh freedumb
Pros are that they are mostly sane when you think about it.
Cons are that they are insane when they think about it.
>>78303945
> changing ideology without knowing anything about it
Seems to be a wise move.
>cons
has a lot of no-border retards
>pros
everything else
>>78303945
It's honestly the only moral political ideology.
With that said money, and morals don't tend to mix well.
You either become and anarchist, or you grow up.
>>78303945
>pros
Small government
>cons
Everything else about the party
>>78303945
con: support open borders
pro: everything else
They would be great if not for that one minor detail of destroying our country by means of nonwhite immigration.
They'll continue flooding the country with non whites. At least, they wont do anything to stop it.
>>78303945
are you for wide open borders and no guns?
then you're a faggot commie and a libertarian.
>>78304386
>Implying the private sector isn't currently leading govt in scientific and technological breakthroughs
>>78303945
inflexible
sometimes unpragmatic.
It needs "guidance" to be honest.
And it won't be obtainable unless we literally modify humanity's intelligence and get them to self regulate better.
>>78304867
This whole open borders/libertarianism meme has to end its really poisoned shit.
Real libertarianism requires a nation with borders. This isn't fucking AnCap
>>78304793
It's literally the only thing about the party.
>>78305018
There are literally no anti gun libertarians.
>>78303945
The ideology is fine.
The Libertarian party is a bunch of socialists who like weed pretending to be libertarian. If you're truly libertarian/paleocon, check out the Constitution Party.
>>78303945
Degenerate people will never vote libertarian, they want you to pay for their depravity, conservative Authoritarian is the way to go
>>78305026
>Implying a nation state isn't responsible for nearly all tech we use today
>>78303945
you might as well join LemonParty.org
>>78305189
OP asked about the party*. Which one of the leading Libertarian Party people is pro-strong borders?
*(He asked about both becomes he's a bit slow)
Pro: Limited govt, pro civil liberties, free market, non-interventionism
Con: Most party members are fucking retarded, think everything can be solved by the free market (Schools, police, fire dept, etc.), Open-borders
Just research more about the party if you're really interested.
>>78305382
There are
>>78305382
except for the nigger that won your primary you retard
>>78303945
>What are some pro and cons of this ideology?
That it's ideology based on a Utopian concept of a Government free world. kinda like liberalism where everyone lives in peace, harmony and equality. Follow truth not ideology
pros: what you like unregulated
cons: what you don't like unregulated
actual pro: low taxes
actual con: corporations run free no matter how much lolbertarians deny it
>>78305382
>There are literally no anti gun libertarians.#
Oh boy. You're in for a beating.
>>78305382
Except the one running for VP
>>78305189
Agreed, but open borders is the official stance of the US libertarian party, and I won't vote for them for that reason.
Austin Peterson was my favorite Libertarian.
I already miss him...
>>78303945
So you are considering joining a political party/ideology BEFORE knowing enough about it to be able to list pros and cons?
You're a huge fucking child and I hope you die before you vote in any upcoming elections.
A true 100% libertarian nation would be a shitshow
But moderate libertarianism is based
>>78303945
Libertarian Party's view:
>Its okay to sell heroine to kids
>its okay to fuck kids
>Mcafee murdered his neighbor
If this what you're into, then the Libertine, I mean the Libertarian party is right for you.
>>78305619
>.ky
Fuck off kentucky
Former libertarian here. There is no doubt that it's the most logically sound party. Let me do you me, let you do you. In theory, everyone lives in harmony and minds their own business. The problem is twofold: Jews and shitskins. Shitskins are too fucking stupid to contribute to a libertarian society and will always be leaches. Usually, this would just mean they die off because no work = no food. The problem is that Jews will take these shitskins and convince them that whites have stolen from them, even when it's just whites working for their own gain. This can and will happen, and has happened every time.
My point is, a libertarian society would be completely ideal, but wouldn't last unless you kill off all the Jews and niggers first.
cons: it's retarded
>>78306185
>Brazil having an issue with any of those three
>>78305956
you should take a chill pill, faggot
>>78303945
the pros is at least it's not communism
the cons is it's still completely retarded
>>78306253
Pretty sure blacks in America actually worked in the early 1900s. Weren't those worker's Unions originally by white folk to get away from blacks?
>>78306429
We only do those things after we sacrifice a virgin girl (very rare around here) to Kali Bunda, the goddess of destruction.
I really hope some moderate libertarian comes along that supports legal immigration, but not open borders, as well as legalizing marijuana and regulating it, while continuing the ban on heroine and others.
I think a slightly-right moderate libertarian would do extremely well, but would be hurt by the minority vote overall.
>we will see the age of rand paul republicans in congress
There are many forms of libertarianism and libertarians. The most classic definition is borderline anarcho-capitalism which most people of course do not like. Just because you are libertarian does not mean you have to like open borders and selling heroin to kids, I do not know anybody who is ok with either of these things. Most libertarians are really just what the conservative party used to be/should be. Smaller government with less regulations. The key word there is less not none. The core to the belief is that people should be able to do as they please as long as it doesent hurt anyone and that governments are inherently corrupt and inefficient. Yes there are alot of autists but the gop has their rednecks and crazy christians while the democrats have their socalists and dindus. Every group in the history of mankind has had their share of fucks don't let it completely dissuade you.
>>78305382
Oh fuck, I forgot about that. Politicians don't count as people.
Didn't he say he changed his mind or something?
I wonder if I can stomach voting for him.
>>78306253
This, libertarian system would only work if only like minded people were involved. Other ideologies work because of use of forced compliance, which libertarians appose
>>78305795
>actual con: corporations run free no matter how much lolbertarians deny it
I'm fine with that.
>>78306588
You should take a cyanide pill, you nation-ruining cunt.
>>78305382
There are.
Which is fucking hilarious because of the mental gymnastics involved in coming to that conclusion.
>>78305499
>socialists
how so?
>>78303945
Pros: perfect for a whites only society. 10/10
Cons: perfect for a whites only society. They support open borders, which means they are complicit in ceding political ground to brown people who want free shit and more government.
Libertarian reforms after a century or so of fascism is the only way to make it work
Naked, bearded fat guys.
>>78303945
>pro
You can be the neutral party and laugh at everyone else.
>con
None of what you believe will ever come true.
>>78303945
>Pros
Good on the market, SBO entry, taxes
Good on firearms rights and general second amendment issues
Good on cutting public sector fat
Good on fourth amendment and tenth amendment issues
>Cons
They want open borders and claim that a decreased welfare state would stop the 'bad ' immigrants from coming in,
But the welfare system is old, large, powerful and used by many- blacks and Hispanics in disproportionate amounts- it will be harder to take down than simply not letting people in.
They don't realize we need to turn our immigration system, deportation enforcement, and border to something like Australia has before tackling the welfare state, not after.
Immigrants will just vote back the welfare state within a generation.
They are wrong on the military- I believe the MIC needs to be scaled down and contractors audited to hell and back, but most military bases give a huge return on investment, and bases in conjunction with naval patrol secure our allies, interests (like cargo lines), and interests of our allies for trade to take place
They are wrong on China/PRC and 'free trade' by not realizing for the world, and especially for a government as centralized as theirs, economics, politics and the military are linked.
By validating them as economic allies while their state directs forms to cartelize, smacks down collective bargaining and product defect whistleblowers, while it takes advantage of loose currency, while it pecks at the maritime rights of our allies, and while state directed or state affiliated actors make a mockery of US based IP, and back our databases, we are actually supporting coercion and anti market actions.
They are wrong on Radical Islam- left to fester and grow in isolation it will spread and attack.
Pros
>win in every debate people actually talk about in discussions
>be consistent, not hypocritical
Cons
>unrealistic dove on international affairs, adjusting international beliefs will make you not libertarian
>prone to radicalism like anarcho-capitalism if you fall down the rabbit hole
I just consider myself a Libertarian Leaning Centrist and call it a day.
>>78305189
>Gary Johnson
My idea of a border is a truck from Mexico and a truck from the US passing each other at 50 mph
>>78307509
I disagree with this, It is absolutely a possibility but I do not think that outcome is definite. This is of course going to sound very libertarian but the system should provide a way for most people, and in true libertarian societies welfare would be minimal if any which should curb the "shitskins and dindus" problem. The whole point of a libertarian society is that people would not be able to vote for more regulations/less rights/more welfare. This is why making the US a libertarian country is essentially impossible. Minorities will just vote out all the initiatives and we will have some half assed abortion of libertarianism at best.
>>78307551
This. Its corporations or government and I choose corporations every time. Alot easier to change a corporation than a government and they are usually more beholden to their customers. Unless you have something going like we do in the US where they can lobby to make their own rules.
>>78307869
>Open Borders
reeeeeee the only libertarians who actually like that are rich jews (globalists) and liberals who are too edgy to be democrat. You can have libertarianism with closed borders. It is not the absence of regulation but the minimization of it.
>>78307854
Look up left-libertarianism. I was just as confused about that at first too since I considered libertarianism to be the pure form of American conservatism until I noticed a bunch of Bernie fags claiming to have a lot of political overlap with Gary Johnson, citing Noam Chomsky in their reasoning.
>>78303945
>Libertarian
The Libertarian party has been compromised, bought, and paid for. Bill Weld was the seal on the mortgage when they sold their soul.
It’s sad, as the Libertarian party used to sorta be a place of last resort for people disgusted with both parties. Now, it’s just a compromised puppet shilling for:
>Open borders
>Gun control
>Bad trade deals, like TPP
I never thought I’d see that day, but it happened.
>>78305592
>Implying what the DARPA scientists were doing wasn't being researched in the private sector as well
>Implying NASA didn't hire hundreds if private contractors
>Implying the government didn't hinder tech progress via the Bell Labs monopoly which punished engineers for going out with new ideas to compete against them, or trying to implement them through the company
>Implying that between big software, but data, big pharma and big ag the greatest amount of advancement came from some government agencies for a couple decades during the cold war
Get fucked. Statist scum.
>>78303945
The ideology has many great ideas to integrate into your personal philosophy but the current "libertarian party" is a compromised, clusterfucking joke.
>>78308641
The party supports open borders.
This isn't even a new stance made up differentiate themselves from Trump, I remember the trash man and his imp devoting an entire episode of Bullshit to arguing for open borders more than a decade ago
>>78306756
I also said you had to kill the Jews. Why do you think they became lazy niggers in the first place
>>78308115
>More cons
They are finally wrong - depending on the candidate - on 'deregulation'
Here's the libertarian line
>Firm A only became so rich and powerful due to coercion, fraud, graft, and regulatory capture
Okay m8, so they have an unfair advantage. They are operating stop a sum of coercive actions.Should we use the state to take them down a peg
>No that would be using State coercion which is bad
>>78308989
I am well aware and that is why I am voting Trump. What I was trying to say is that a good chunk of libertarians don't agree with it. Alot of new libertarians are just disenfranchised republicans myself Included. Not all dems agree with everything hillary says and not all repubs agree with everything donald says just like I dont agree with open borders. Libertarianism is tricky in America because of the way laws are created/changed, which I why I think our best/most practical outcome is libertarian leaning conservatives, like rand paul or cruz without the crazy and sliminess.
>>78309294
Atop
>>78308926
Yeah let's run down the list
>VP gun grabber candidate
>John "We have sadly become a party of whites and makes" McAfee
>Gary "Open Borders" Johnson
>Bob "Patriot Act" Barr
>That Hindu Atheist Muslim Autist Snowflake Libertarian
Who else am I missing?
>>78309294
Disagree here, if you are going on the absolute minimum description of lolbertardian the government exists solely to protect the nation, its citizens and enforce contracts, fraud is definitely a breach of contract. Regulatory capture shouldn't be an issue and coercion could be depending on what it is/how it was done.
>>78309818
Austin "Savoir of America" Peterson
>>78309294
2 wrongs don't make a right
>>78303945
The ideology is fine. I'm technically a registered libertarian even though I do not participate in the party anymore. The issue with the Libertarian party is it's members like the dud at the convention that was stripping on stage and the fact that the leadership of the party will sell themselves out to any Republican retread in a bullshit attempt to get a seat at the table that they will never get.
>>78303945
>67 replies
>ctrl + f + road
>0 (zero) results
C'mon /pol/
>>78310342
i like yuru yuri too!
>>78309916
Say a firm gained market share through a previous series of government contracts and decisions and now has sufficient power to deny other entrants
Should we let it be?
Or another operates its factories abroad, our use US jurisdiction, where it basically treats its workers like slaves, but sells in the US.
Do nothing?
Or we have a firm that used data the government ordered it to collect for private gain
Should it not be fined?
Or there is a Company that long existed as a government monopoly, but now exists as a quasi private corporation.
Should it not be split up?
>>78303945
they are for open borders fuck em
>>78303945
LP doesnt care bout right libertarianism. left libertarianism and SJWs are the hot shit right now within the LP
>>78310198
Consider this :
In a hypothetical polycentric common law society , those firms would be liable to pay damages or face some other punitive measure.
In absence of that, we have the state to administer justice. Why not use it to reverse or rectify actions taken by the state before that resulted in coercion?
>two wrongs don't make a right
>you can't use coercion to respond to a coercive actor
>self defense is by this logic inadmissible
>>78310471
I'm having a hard time picturing the first one, how would they deny other entrants to the market? There would be no lobbying and only bare minimum regulations, I can answer just give me more details please.
So a company like apple based in the us opens a factory in china and treats its workers in ways that would most likely be illegal in the us? desu I havent seen anything regarding this but it could go 2 ways. either they have to follow us rules while abroad which would be ridiculous in alot of cases or they have to follow host countries rules aka what they do outside of the us is none of the us govs business. the second is the more libertarian answer.
If the government ordered the data to be collected and it was obtained through legal means available to everyone else I see no issue, however if the company got access to exclusive data through working with the government that would be an issue. There should be laws to prevent both the gov and corps from obtaining and transferring certain information.
So if the USPS was privatized should it be split up? I think it should be put up for auction and the government sells to whoever whether in pieces or whole. There would be no quasi corps, either public or private no inbetween.
Sorry for the horrendus typing.
For the people that are against the open borders thing, answer the following: what can a poor immigrant do in a libertarian country with no welfare to assist them, no property of their own, and citizens fully armed and ready to defend their property?
>>78304237
poltards usually just make ridiculous examples of how companies can screw ppl in an anarchtic type society. the most legitimate critizism of the libertarian party is that most of them are open borders cucks
>>78310645
>Left libertarians
Oh you guys want to start your own co ops and communes and live out innawood s? Go ahead .
Oh you're basically Marxists that want the social services currently supplied by the state to exist in your society, to forcibly take wealth and the means of production, and to use force to stop those that will turn 'personal belongings' to 'private property' by trading them for resources?
Libertarian Socialists and Anarcho Syndicalists are basically Commies a few degrees away from Marxist Leninists.
>Slavoj Zizek, a commie who believes the state and ideology will end up being dissolved
I would like to wake up in the morning and realize that everything from food, water, gas and healthcare are provided for me by some unknown unseen entity, and that free speech is a meme
>What if the government that has the power to take everything away can take everything away as well?
>What if my speech is considered anti thetical to progress and the state? Oh well
>Noam Chomsky, anarchist
Like a gun control, wants to see social services expanded and continued
>David Graeber, anarchist
Wants universal basic income provided by the state, and a full state backed bailout of all private individuals' debts
>Howard Zinn, libertarian socialist
The social programs, unions, welfare state and public sector offices set up during the progressive era through FDR and beyond were part of 'workers uniting' and is just a taste of what Libertarian socialism strives for
>Spanish Anarchists
It's okay to threaten property owners out of their land and means of production since rent and wages are hierarchical and thus coercive.
>Etc
Don't listen to 'Special Snowflake Commies'. They are just a different flavor of the authoritarian Left.
>>78312164
Well the first issue is that most countries are still democracies so immigrants could eventually vote to change the laws. And having absolutely no welfare is pretty improbable at this point. However assuming no voting and no welfare there is the social and crime aspect, see illegal immigrants in the US and the refugee flood of EU yes I know alot of them get welfare. It is a huge security risk and most sane people don't want a bunch of randos walking around from shitty countries.
>>78303945
Pro: you never have to worry about your politicians betraying you in office
Con: it's a stupid ideology that will never work in practice because coordinated, disciplined, and aggressive groups will always dominate and control atomistic individuals
>>78303945
>of this ideology
>libertarian party
I'm sorry faggot OP but those are two different things
The """""libertarian""""" party is more like 1980s democrats
>>78303945
Pro: the Koch brothers might give you some shill money, but it's unlikely
Cons: Literally everything
>>78312278
Did you SEE the libertarian debate? The actual candidates are EVERY SINGLE BIT as cringe-worthy as the most retarded /pol/ libertarian.
>>78311990
Ok we are eye to eye on the second and third examples
As to the first don't you think monopolistic competition would still exist With no state, especially within banking?
As for the fourth, what about firms that are meant to be close with the government - like security and intelligence contractors, that after their contracts end are let go into the 'free' market?
>>78312164
If the libertarian country still constitutionally
> protects rights of non residents
>Establishes citizenship for children born of those residents simply for being on US soil
>Guarantees voting rights of said citizens
Very simple : they can vote back in the welfare state. All it takes is one generation
>>78314897
So that's why Hoppe is antidemocracy
>>78312278
>poltards usually just make ridiculous examples of how companies can screw ppl in an anarchtic type society.
Here's the thing--
>he most legitimate critizism of the libertarian party
--that the Libertarian party really is THAT insane.
I'm capital F fine with Libertarianism. The Libertarian party is as disgraceful as the worst of the Greens.
>>78313778
This.
>>78303945
>>78314564
I think monopolies are absolutely a possibility but I also believe that with fewer regulations they are less likely to occur and when they do they wont last as long. As we move forward in time more and more disruptive technology is coming out especially in the decentralization department. Which should aid in the creating of new companies that are faster and smaller with lower barrier to entry. The tech industry was first but it is coming to everything else. I believe we have psuedo monoplies now with telecom and what not because we allow these companies to write rules that benefit them and only them. Time warner should not be able to convince a county to not allow a new provider to lay lines because its "bad for the enviroment". I 100% believe banking is going to get a huge overhaul soon, look at trends with online banks and people using pay day services, someone is going to get in there.
That is a good question. Assuming the company used government data that would not otherwise be available they should not be able to use it because the data obtained is private information. As long as the data was obtained legally and is something everyone else was able to have legally I see no problem. If they are dealing in sensitive information then they should have to sign a strict NDA with the gov.
>>78314897
This
>>78303945
Expect naivety.
>>78312278
>open borders meme
illegal immigration wouldn't be a problem under a libertarian administration because there would be no welfare for them to leech off of and no jobs for them to steal.
Open borders are only a problem if you assume they're the only libertarian plank to be implemented.
>>78303945
I don't want open borders but I think the welfare state is a bigger thread than open borders.
The danish welfare state is decaying, we have a growing population and people demand even more from the state.
Our social democratic party wanted a 35% tax in the 90's, now our most libertarianish party want a 40% tax and they are getting screamed at for hating the poor.
In Denmark we can stop the muslims from getting in if we stopped giving them shit.
>>78316453
meant aging and not growing population
