Is being a left libertarian just being a walking contradiction?
>want less taxes and less government
>still want the same benefits as you'd get if you paid higher taxes
>>70813071
God damn it hat did weed man subsidize shitposting? Virtually everything the left does or wants is contradictory Bullshit designed to take money from people who contributed to sociaty and give to those who don't while stripping people of their rights and freedoms.
It is a shitty existence.
>>70813071
The word you're looking for is oxymoron. Examples = hot ice, dry water, silent cacophony, male feminist, thoughtful liberal, etc.
ancaps are the best walking contradiction
>>70815600
In what way?
>>70813071
They have to do mental gymnastics, but it's not really a contradiction.
What they are asking is essentially communism with more freedom. It's pure mental gymnastics.
You would receive benefits, but those benefits would be paid for by the labor of people who volunteer (?) to work. Technically you wouldn't be paying taxes and still receive benefits.
I wouldn't bother even discussing this shit. Libertarians who are pro-capitalist are reasonable. Anti-Capitalist Libertarians are insane brainwashed kids.
>>70815600
No, they're not. They're completely consistent. The question is whether or not that kind of a society would work effectively.
>>70813071
>legalize marijuana
>let fags get married
non-contradictory left-leaning libertarian
>>70815685
putting anarchism and capitalism into a single framework that is both consistent and not contradictory is an exercise in futility. its like trying to create a communist-capitalist or a totalitarian-libertarian system which is just patently absurd if you aren't already subscribed to the ideology.
>>70815858
>>legalize marijuana
>>let fags get married
Those positions are generally just socially liberal, ie personal freedom, and have nothing to do with economic stance. Are you sure you are not just a classical liberal?
>>70813071
>same benefits
Most libertarians are the payers for muh gibs not the recipients.
>>70815825
if you have to ask the question whether a system would work effectively or not you fall into the classic pitfall of there being no "true" ancap system and every failed attempt doesn't count because it wasn't a real ancap society/system. the classic example is the "communism has never actually been tried, those were not real communists etc..." that is still utilized to this day.
a system that cannot fail can only be failed
>>70815950
>is an exercise in futility
> just patently absurd
NOT
>>70816137
show me a non-theoretical ancap system in practice
oh wait
>>70813071
Nope, it's called "simple redistribution."
You cut nearly all programs and just pay everyone a stipend.
>>70816042
that mother doesn't seem very fugging hungry does she
>>70813071
>>still want the same benefits as you'd get if you paid higher taxes
I'm glad you're here to tell we what I want
>>70816194
>implying libertarians would still not take issue with a government redistributing wealth via a stipend instead of programs
>>70813071
What's wrong with this dog? It's been bothering me for a long time.
>>70813071
>want less taxes and less government
They don't want less of these. They want wellfare, more goverment and lots of faggotry.
BTW, libertarian is one of the euphemisms that left anarchists used to describe themselves. It's marxism that degraded into progressive social democrazy, but without mean state. They want a nice state.
>>70816285
Hayek thought it was a good idea.
well being right libertarian is one just a as same
>respect muh private property
>muh coercion
>>70816292
Probably just lazy or tired. I have the same breed.
>>70816174
Anarchist Spain was a totalitarian shithole.
>>70816326
im not denying whether its a good or bad idea, but a non-insignificant amount of libertarians would be against any form of centralized redistribution of wealth except for national defense.
>>70815950
principle of self-ownership and Lockean proviso.
this isn't even hard
t. tru tru ancap
>>70816400
oh yeah and Nozick's entitlement theory.
Czech'd
>>70816400
lmao the Lockean proviso is rejected by the Austrian school and any modern ancaps would disagree with Locke on that principle
unless you think ancaps would be ok with eminent domain :^)
>>70816395
That's why it's <flavor> libertarian, not just libertarian.
Libertarian is a fucked up word anyway, because it used to describe anarchists like HERE'S TO YOU, NIKOLA AND BART, but then laissez-faire types redefined it to mean what it does today.
>>70816174
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#Historical_precedents_similar_to_anarcho-capitalism
Besides, still not an argument. If there were 4chan archives and internet 1000 years ago there would be someone asking others to show them non-theoretical systems without slavery in practice. Just because something hasn't been done because of coercive forces opposing it, doesn't mean it can't be done.
Also, you're moving goalpost from consistency >>70815600 >>70815950 to viability and historical examples.
>>70816475
yes, Rothbard rejected it because it was too statist, i.e. for casual normies. It's immaterial for this discussion anyways, the proviso would only ever be used in extremely rare situations (i. e. there is only 1 source of water on the planet)
ancapism is the only moral and consistent worldview.
>>70813071
No, it's just highly inefficient.
See, in the left libertarian commune all decisions are made by consensus. As in, literally everyone that is effected has to agree or else consensus isn't reached and debate continues. There's some workarounds for obstructionists, but on the whole the goal is "polices are made because EVERYONE agrees they should be made". Otherwise it's "tyranny of the majority" and that's eeeevil liberalism.
Let's say they want to have public education in their commune. First, they have to reach a consensus about having public education in the first place. Then, they have to reach a consensus about how it will be funded. Then, they have to reach a consensus about how it will be run. Then, they have to reach a consensus about how teachers should be selected. On and on it goes, until everyone in the commune agrees with the new public education system and it becomes a policy.
Problem? Large groups of people never fucking reach consensus about anything ever. All decisions end up trapped in debate for huge amounts of time. Imagine political gridlock and then multiply it by the number of people in the commune, and that's left libertarianism.
We'll see how Kurdistan turns out in 10 years. If it ends up as anything other than USSR 2: Desert Storm I'll be pleasantly surprised.
>>70816655
You mean like how there's only one atmosphere on the planet?
"Left" denotes power that is theoretically derived and exercised from a collective, as opposed to the top-down dissemination of power from the right. Libertanarianism is inherently leftist as it seeks to abandon power structures that can be rendered or recognized as superfluous, and in doing so preserve and propagate liberty by removing entanglements upon an individual by a state.
>>70816782
The Lockean proviso is a feature of John Locke's labour theory of property which says that, whilst individuals have a right to homestead private property from nature by working on it, they can do so only "...at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others".
>"...at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others".
we have plenty of air for everyone, m8. You're trying way too hard.
>>70815334
Then explain trickle down economics, which goes against the whole idea of rich vs poor.
Rich people have money because they save more than they spend.
Poor people don't have money because they spend more than they save. We need poor people to do this to fuel the economy, but they can't become destitute.
Investments made by the rich has not "trickled" down like the theory suggests. Wealth at the top 1% of the 1% keeps ballooning, and is setting us up for disaster.
If you value putting in honest, hard work to fulfill some vision of success, that vision is far less likely to happen today than it was 60 years ago while average wages have stagnated (partly due to women's lib, double the workforce w/o doubling demand).
So what else do you suggest? You can't dismiss the regressive left for overexaggerating their woes and their sensationalism over Trump like policies all while equating Bernie to Stalin. It's intellectually dishonest.
Public services are socialist, yet firefighters and cops aren't forming bread lines. Flint, MI and it's water crisis was due to capitalistic tendencies, saving money was more important than protecting a generation from lead poisoning, who will ultimately be more of a financial burden than if they had got clean water.
Our establishment leaders want us to think there is no nuance. They want us divided and taking sides when there's much more to the picture.
60 years ago, you could graduate high school, work hard, and support a family while living a decent life with a vacation spot on the side. The likes of Bernie want to improve our public services and restore that climb to success that we once had. It's not too much to ask, unless you're apart of the Establishment and stand to lose your perks.
>>70813071
>I want the Government to not meddle in micro social affairs
>I do however want them to take measures prevent Corporate oligarchy
Power fucks can't control themselves though, if they decide to start restraining the rich they also decide it's appropriate to put muzzles on the poor.
Welfare is for boons and redistribution is cancer, but a corporation shouldn't be getting away with paying literally 0% of their income in taxes and sputtering about "muh job creator" while not doing a single thing differently.
>>70813071
Kek no.
Social-Libertarianism is a solely facilitative government - all they should provide is services.
So, welfare and labour laws are good (at least in countries without dindus) and the government should build infrastructure, but beyond that they need to stay the fuck out of our lives.
>>70816919
Plenty of air, BUT
>and as good
You missed this part.
>>70816003
Social-Libertarianism is classic Liberalism - but new names have to adopted to get away from modern Liberalism.
>>70816042
Maybe this nigger needs to stop eating all her kid's food too
>>70815950
What?
Capitalism is the only economic system that thrives in an anarchist society.
I agree with you on the rest tho f.am
>>70813071
They're just democrats who want to be special snowflakes.
>>70817101
I agree that people suffering from pollution ought to have the option to sue the polluters. Too bad the current statist system prohibits them from doing so :^)
You are digging a grave for yourself.
>>70816003
libertarianism is not necessarily an economic philosophy. it just means more personal freedom.
Being libertarian doesn't automatically means you're a "muh taxes" fag
I'm economically a centrist, slightly to the left, but believe in more personal freedom. So...left libertarian.
>>70817209
... so therefore Rothbard was wrong and the Lockean proviso isn't too statist? Or are courts somehow privatized as well?
>>70816393
Not ancap
>>70817805
I'm indifferent to the issue, capitalism kinda makes sure you never have to invoke the proviso anyway.
Everything would be private, m8.
>>70816943
Well put.
I would say though that we have become so succesful and so oppulent as a people that we are litterally starting to degenerate.
Used to be the poor amd homless could venture out into the unknown and settle new lands. Now they cant. Everything is settled.
I think we fall into the trap of caring though.
For example. A woman from trailer park :A" lives in a country where if she cant afford to feed her 3 kids and not work she will be given govornment assistance.
The girl in trailer park "B" lives in a country where if she cant afford to feed her 3 kids the govornment will not help but the surrounding community will rally to assist with her needs.
Girl "c" lives on a country where if she cant afford her 3 kids they are screwed. Nothing amd nobody will help amd they will be homless unless thwy help themselves.
I would say a mix on B and C would make a much more cohesive society than the one we have in country A roght now.
