I get that there's a lot of misinformation out there on Trump, and I've done my research. I see past it. But I'm struggling to see how I can support him as a Libertarian. I heard Molyneux was supporting him, and I watched this video, but I still don't get it. Can someone summarize how, in theory, a libertarian can support an authoritarian statist?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw8c2Cq-vpg
You can't be a libertarian when you support an authoritarian. They may have been conservative, but they weren't libertarians.
Civil liberties are the most important aspect of libertarianism, It is fundamentally based on liberty and a libertarian would never support an authoritarian
>>69828345
Donald Trump has been a liberal for his entire life. In a short span of time he becomes republican and deflects questions about social issues, knowing that he's closer to the dems than he pretends to be.
>>69828345
Good luck have a libertarian policy when the majority of your country is composed of people who never developed liberty in their home countries.
>>69828345
He's pro-government; just not in the same way as Bernie Sanders. Libertarians are fucked this election.
>>69828753
That's not really true. You can see the trends in the world and see that a strong nationalist candidate is what the U.S. needs at the moment. Shit laws can be removed. A dead nation can not be revived.
>>69828843
God forbid if the modern leftists could ignore labels. it's so crazy you put a D infront of G.W. best president ever. put an R infont of obama literally hitler.
>>69828920
Fucking this so many times.
I'm libertarian, too. But unfortunately, and naively, libertarians don't' take into account that the people coming in themselves don't value classically liberal ideals.
All things being equal opeb borders all the way, baby. But things are not equal. Fact of life.
>>69828345
Pro tip: Ya don't
Vote for the candidate and the party that best represents you. Voting in an election is NOT a popularity contest. You don't get anything if you voted for the person who wins. Throw your vote to someone who aligns with your principles or don't vote at all.
>>69829336
Why does the US need a "strong nationalist" candidate? Other than an emotionally charged opinion, there are no facts to back up that notion. Limiting immigration and securing our borders is not a "nationalistic" viewpoint- it's common sense. But many of Trump's viewpoints are ridiculous at best. He claims we should move active military away from South Korea and stop "giving them money", when in fact they're a key geopolitical ally in the region. He claims he's going to get the gulf nations to fund a war against terrorism; it will never happen. Why would nations like Kuwait and Qatar take on a war during relatively peaceful times? We're left with Saudi Arabia (known contributors to terrorist organizations) and Iraq, exactly where we're at now, but with presumably decreased military presence. Essentially, cut and run.
>>69828345
The simple and short answer is look at who he's running against.
Also look at the lottery. People know it's a rip-off logically, but they play anyway. Because Hope.
That's why some fall for Trump. Sure, he's almost certainly evil, just like that money you spend on the lottery is almost certainly thrown away. But there's that tiny chance of winning the lottery, and nothing else you can do with that money that stands any chance of the same effect, so people go for it, because they need to hope.
And they vote for Trump because the alternative is Hillary. Sure Trump will probably be a disaster, but at least there's some hope.
With Hillary, no hope at all.
>>69829626
I goes beyond that. If you're a democratic official you know bringing in millions of peasants and offering them EBT and section 8 will give you a permanent voting base.
>>69829013
I don't think this will be a bad cycle for us - Johnson will likely hit double digits, he may even make it into the debates. This could be a great election for the Libertarian Party.
>>69829626
>All things being equal opeb borders all the way, baby. But things are not equal. Fact of life.
So is this the argument?
Seems like this is the most substantial one:
>not all people are equal
>only certain people are capable of taking part in a libeterian society
>we need walls to keep out the ones that cant or wont
>muslims, communists, socialist south americans, etc
But if this is the argument, that people aren't equal, then why be a libertarian at all? People will never be equal, and we will always need a state.
Can libertarianism exist in a world where people aren't equal in their abilities and values?
>>69830896
>Can libertarianism exist in a world where people aren't equal in their abilities and values?
It has to, because that's the only world that exists, and it does, because of all ideologies it is actually the one that puts this fact front and center instead of running away from it.
Libertarians do not demand, and do not seek, *actual* equality. That's Harrison Bergeron stuff, that's exactly what we do NOT want.
What we want is *legal* equality. We should all be equal before the law. This is why justice is portrayed wearing a blindfold.
>>69831174
>It has to, because that's the only world that exists
That's not an argument that libertarianism works in the world because the world is "the only one that exists". That's pure nonsense.
>Libertarians do not demand, and do not seek, *actual* equality.
If holding libertarian values requires a certain level of IQ, a certain temperament to value these values, and others CAN'T comprehend libertarianism, or are conditioned to want communism or sharia -- then no, libertarianism becomes a death wish if those people can't assimilate.
Is it objectively true that people from all these cultures and places we're being flooded with are not likely capable of being libertarian? Are any of the migrants in Europe going to spontaneously abandon sharia and become libertarian? Are Mexicans and south americans?
If that's something they can do, why cant they do it in their countries? Why do they have to come here to do it?
It sounds arbitrary, like we're just saying "libertarianism no matter what", but how do I argue against people who say "libertarianism came from western european peoples and cultures, and there's a reason it didn't come from anywhere else".
I don't hear anyone offering a logical response to that. It's like they're just covering their eyes and ears and saying "libertarianism 100% only option nahnahanahanahanah"
