Question to my fellow Burgerbros:
Why does /pol/ hate Libertarians?
Or are these images supposed to mock the Tea Party?
>>71567091
bump
>>71567091
Libertarians are the most good goys, they are fine with mass immigration, unchecked globalist capitalism that takes away their jobs as long as they don't have to pay taxes. They're hyper-individualist liberals with no sense of being a part of anything bigger than themselves, but somehow due to their opposition towards Marxism they actually think they are on the "far right".
>>71567819
haha, nice
This.
>>71567091
>Why does /pol/ hate Libertarians?
because /pol/ hates liberty just as much as SJW's do
Because Libertarians have an amazing capacity to alienate people.
They scream "holier-than-thou".
>>71567819
>they actually think they are on the "far right".
well, economically speaking they are "far right" aren't they?
Also i dont think Libertarism and Nationalism excludes each other
On the extreme ends, yes, maybe, but afterall its still a nation that grants your right doesn't it
And aren't all thise Libertarians just calling for getting the US back to its roots basically?
Also, considering the mass immigration might endanger their liberty im sure they would oppose that
Then again ive got no idea how the average libertarian thinks about those kind of issues
>>71567091
>Libertarians
>Tea Party
Pick ONE
>>71567819
not an argument
for some reason non-libertarians cannot think outside of the hive-mind, in their worldview everything is either moving towards communism on the left or fascism on the right, they cannot conceive of anything else. It's like with religion, and expecting to choose between either Catholics or Protestants, and then somebody comes along and says no to both. How can you say that, that's all possibility? What about Muslims? What about Jews? No, Muslims and Jews do not exist have never existed or will never exist, for they must be either some kind of Catholic or some kind of Protestant. And that is the issue, you see?
Because most libertarians are just liberals who are too greedy to pay their taxes. They combine the least appealing aspects of both the American left and right into one autistic package.
>>71568400
pls explain
i thought Tea Party basically shared liberatrian values?
Whats the difference? are Tea Party guys just religious nutjobs?
>>71567819
Actually, most libertarians don't want open borders.
Libertarians are far right. The so called "far right" are only called that by leftists because they bear a striking resemblance to leftists and they want to distinguish themselves. Hitler was a national socialist after all. Socialism and Fascism are similar means to different ends.
Hitler viewed *classical liberalism as the greatest oppositon to Nazism, since communists were easily turned into Nazis and vice versa but not liberals.
>>71568498
>No, Muslims and Jews do not exist have never existed or will never exist,
A man can dream.
>>71568248
>well, economically speaking they are "far right" aren't they?
Only if you think not having a standing Army is "far right".
>And aren't all thise Libertarians just calling for getting the US back to its roots basically
This is like wanting to take a dead man rewind time until he only has a cough, and expecting him not to die again. The American way has its roots in Rousseau, one of the most liberal philosophers there ever was.
>>71568498
Not an argument. You're trying to say that Libertarians are black and white fallcy, yet it's equally valid to say that people in the middle are falling for fallacy of middle ground.
Libertarianism is not about buzzwording everyone as Fascists or Communists, more acknowledging that government is an immoral and hypocritical institution that always leads to infringement of individual rights.
>>71568565
one are rude inbred hicks the other understands the meaning of natural rights
>>71568565
Tea Party pretends to be the Constitutionalist party but was taken over by the GOP (read-Sara Palin). None of the original party members consider the Tea Party to be "official" any more and want nothing to do with the circus.
>>71568750
>Only if you think not having a standing Army is "far right".
wut
First of all, thats not part of economical politics at all. I was talking about the free market, which is the far right of the economical political spectrum, as opposed to a planned economy.
Second, libertarians dont oppose a standing army, in fact thats one of the only things they grant the state the right to exist for
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-watchman_state
>>71568518
Tax is theft. If I stole your money and you tried to protect it would that make you greedy? I never signed up to taxes and government programs. It's an involuntary system, therefore an infringement of liberty and immoral.
>>71568248
People think all libertarians are extremists. It's more about changing directions than it is just suddenly ripping away all government over night.
Trump's turning us into a bunch of boot lickers. Biggest reason I hopped off the train.
>>71568498
>communism on the left or fascism on the right, they cannot conceive of anything else
The "anything else" is the most prominent worldview at the moment, it completely surrounds us. We get it, we just reject it.
>not an argument
That's my line, your post is basically just "you just don't get it maaaan"
>>71568686
>Actually, most libertarians don't want open borders
Then they are statists and not real bonafide libertarians.
>>71569013
If you're a libertarian you can support Trump. You can forgive his authoritarian policies in that he wants to reduce taxation and regulation and hopefully be less of an interventionist.
I'd respect Libertarians more if they'd stop being co-opted by the GOP and be more independent.
I miss when /pol/ and /new/ were mostly libertarian and not meme spouting Trumpcucks
>>71567091
Because most of /pol/ is autists, and the political ideology that appeals to autists is fascism, which is diametrically opposed to libertarianism. Fascism is basically school shooters:the political ideology.
>>71567091
They're enablers of liberals.
>>71569199
todays "liberals" aren't liberal at all desu, and would diametrically oppose libertarians
>>71569013
Trump is the best libertarian candidate. Once this country becomes less than 50% white you'll never have another chance of achieving any sort of libertarian progress.
>>71569101
"The right of one person necessarily entails the obligation of another person or persons. If you have a right to life, I have the obligation not to kill you; if you have a right of free speech, I have the obligation not to stop you from speaking. The first half would be pointless without the second. If any given person has the right to enter the United States, who is it that has the obligation? Every person in the United States? Or only the person whose property the immigrant wishes to inhabit? Or perhaps, no one person in the United States, only the U.S. government, even if no individual in the U. S. wants him."
Also remember that even if we did want open borders, lack of welfare would mean that immigration would have far less of an impact on citizens.
>>71569161
You're thinking of the Tea Party.
>>71568974
>thats not part of economical politics at all
Sure it is, how is it not?
>libertarians dont oppose a standing army, in fact thats one of the only things they grant the state the right to exist for
Many do oppose it though, and the ones that don't are "lower case L" libertarians like Ron Paul. Libertarianism in the classic sense is basically anarcho-capitalism and no it does not make any exceptions for the state.
Libertarians aka Classic liberals are wha tthe US was founded upon. The US of today is a mibor glimpse of its glorious past. It was first fed pseudo marxism by Rooseveldt and his new deals. After that the jesus fags moved in and the corporations. The US should go back to their roots, their real roots.
>>71569161
That's within the context of US politics. Libertarianism is not confined to US politics, it's political and philosophical
>>71569000
Trips of truth.
>>71569312
Spare me the mental gymnastics. Whatever they call themselves, your philosophy allows them to wreak havoc.
>>71569101
>this nigger thinks libertarians are anarchists
Oh boy, this again.
>>71569121
Well it's not enough for me.
And I'm way more interested in how he shapes people's attitudes more than I am what he actually says. I don't trust him and that's enough for me to not support him.
>>71567091
Check bottom right corner.
>>71569478
>Libertarians enable leftists
Not an argument, and in fact it's quite the reverse. Leftists are enabled by big government having a coercive monopoly. Unless you strip away that big government, you are enabling leftists. Libertarianism is the opposite of leftism.
Also Libertarians are a fringe ideology, so it's strange you think that somehow a minority belief is enabling them.
>>71569345
Pure intellectual wankery, in practice all it takes is one land owner on the border in a libertarian society with a bleeding heart to make it a mute point, in fact one could even charge immigrants passing through and make a profit and libertarians would have no way to stop him without sacrificing their ideology.
>>71569386
>Sure it is, how is it not?
how is deciding whether you want an army or not part of deciding how you run your economy??
>Many do oppose it though,
well i guess we could argue who's a TRUE libertarian and who not, but completely rejecting a government means you're an anarchist.
And whether the first libertarians may have been anarchists or not, most libertarians today grant the government a right to exist.
>>71569787
1. What encourages people to immigrate?
2. Why is immigration far more of a problem now than it used to be?
3. What is the route of the problems caused by immigration?
4. What enables these problems to occur?
>>71569526
>he thinks "For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto" is describing something other than Libertarianism
>how is deciding whether you want an army or not part of deciding how you run your economy??
It's part of the budget and it creates jobs(military-industrial complex), also the popular view is WW2 is what brought the US out of the depression(not the New Deal) so yes, the size of your military has enormous military ramifications. Also consider that in the countries where "socialism works" it is partly due to them not having to spend a lot of money on defense because they are protected by NATO.
Because this board is filled with Millennial trash who spout meme's and do nothing about what they complain about, zero, notta, do not pass go. They even use edgelord sayings from movies, that should be clear enough for you.
So enjoy the meme's & shit post away.
>>71570214
Massive military spending and war are not demanded by the free market and are a waste of finite resources that could be fulfilling actual wants and needs
>>71570358
>not demanded by the free market
This only goes to highlight the weakness of libertarians, muh free market. Economically short-sighted. Military spending is cheaper in the long run than the alternatives.
The worst thing about these threads is that there are the inevitable low quality generalizing strawmen from both sides, as well as "people who I describe with x political term all believe this exact policy for this exact reason and I am definitely not misrepresenting anything at all".
>>71570629
>muh free market
Not an argument. The sole purpose of economic activity is to fulfill wants and needs. So yes, free markets.
> Economically short-sighted.
Not an argument. Elaborate.
>Military spending is cheaper in the long run than the alternatives
??????????
>>71570696
Did you not see the libertarian "debate" on foxbusiness? It only helped to make the image seem even more cartoonish. Hopefully in the next election there will be a stronger candidate.
>>71570629
>Military spending is cheaper in the long run than the alternatives.
how much are lives worth?
>>71570629
>Military spending is cheaper in the long run than the alternatives.
Military spending =/= actively engaging in wars
>>71570923
In the mind of a statist, human cost and individual rights infringements don't matter so long as they can inflate arbitrary GDP statistics.
>>71570856
I didn't watch it, what happened? I saw a clip of McAfee's speech and that seemed pretty cool, even if it was large on rhetoric, but that's to be expected from a short closing speech.
>>71571140
You should just watch it.
They all came off as flimsy.
Johnson kissed mcafee at one point in the middle of them talking.
Most of the questions were just pandering to the mainstream.
Equal pay
Marijuana
etc
>>71570849
Military spending protects a country from having to pay other countries for protection, who would undoubtedly charge more than the actual costs. So that's just one example, although it should suffice. But also, in our case, military spending also protects much of the rest of the world, which has been a deterrent for countries that want to invade other countries, which protects our trade deals(saving money, resources, jobs), and also saves us money for not having to resort to a reactionary response to every act of aggression, which is much more costly than the alternative. Basically the price of peace is costly but its cheaper to maintain than to destroy and rebuild. And also, military enlistment also acts as a sort of welfare for the warrior class who might have a hard time finding jobs elsewhere, but instead of them just getting money for free, it is exchange for their service.
>>71571140
Actually I don't even know you but just some random libertarian probably has a better chance at setting a better image than those 3.
>>71567091
We don't hate Libertarians, OP, just that we realize that their beloved system, much like anarchism, cannot operate successfully unless EVERYONE is willing to play by the limited rules of the game.
Since we're dealing with humans, and since humans are hyper-emotional, entitled, and generally happy to fuck over others to get ahead or game the system at every chance, true Libertarianism cannot exist and succeed.
That's all it is, an idea that in theory is good, but just won't pan out the same way in practice.
>>71571598
The government is the PRIMARY source of people fucking over other people, and has been for millennia, so I don't see your point.
>>71569746
>Thinking you can't be a libertarian leftist
>>71570923
>how much are lives worth?
Not as much as the country they are fighting for
>>71571009
>individual rights
This is what I alluded to in my first post ITT, this sort of hyper-liberal individualism that runs rampant in libertarians. These are very modern views that have their genesis in Rousseau, the Enlightenment, French Revolution. It not traditional and this is why libertarianism is not /pol/ approved. The very idea of human rights at all is highly suspect.
>>71572073
You can't, as it's an oxymoron.
How would it's existence invalidate libertarianism?
It appears that you are running out of arguments, statist.
>>71571400
>Military spending protects a country from having to pay other countries for protection, who would undoubtedly charge more than the actual costs. So that's just one example, although it should suffice. But also, in our case, military spending also protects much of the rest of the world, which has been a deterrent for countries that want to invade other countries, which protects our trade deals(saving money, resources, jobs), and also saves us money for not having to resort to a reactionary response to every act of aggression, which is much more costly than the alternative. Basically the price of peace is costly but its cheaper to maintain than to destroy and rebuild. And also, military enlistment also acts as a sort of welfare for the warrior class who might have a hard time finding jobs elsewhere, but instead of them just getting money for free, it is exchange for their service.
T. Lockheed Shill
>>71571344
>Most of the questions were just pandering to the mainstream.
Surely that is important to cover if they are trying to get people informed on the main points of discussion, and perhaps tease out the differences between the candidates?
>>71571433
That bad? Johnson has seemed reasonable int he past, and I heard he did a decent job in New Mexico as a Republican. I've seen him be a bit immature before though like rolling around on the floor faking heart attacks etc
>>71567819
I'm a libertarian and I don't want open borders and globalist capitalism. You have no idea what you're talking about. Most Libertarians are nationalists and oppose those ideas.
>>71567819
>>71568498
Believe me, us anarchist are more right wing then you could imagine.
>>71572364
Look at the IDs, you twit. I'm not the same anon
And I disagree that it is an oxymoron. One can be anticapitalist and still not want intrusive government. Centralized planning is not the only alternative to capitalism
>>71569478
The left wouldn't be able to do shit without the government at their side
>>71572116
>this sort of hyper-liberal individualism that runs rampant in libertarians
It doesn't "run rampant". That's manipulative and negative terminology. Individualism is fundamental to libertarian thought. It's also fundamental to the US constitution, the idea that a collective cannot infringe on an individual. I'm surprised you have a problem with this.
Leftists care not for individual rights. High taxes are a deep infringement of the right to keep the product of my labour as an individual, in favour of a "collective good". Socialism in general is about majority rule and common/collective "good" which is the reverse of individualism. There are countless examples in leftism of collectivism, as are in authoritarian "right wing" brands of politics.
Whether something is traditional or not is not a rational argument. It's an emotional argument. Libertarians care little for emotional appeals.
What is your issue with individual rights?
>>71569478
The left wouldn't be able to do shit without the government at their side
>>71572073
Libertarians aren't left wing economically, and don't support anything left wing except for legalization etc
>>71572819
>I'm a libertarian and I don't want open borders and globalist capitalism
How do you reconcile this? Please explain what it is that makes you a libertarian.
>us anarchist are more right wing then you could imagine
Anything less than monarchism makes you a liberal. Inb4 anarcho-monarchism
>>71567819
>fine with mass immigration
hwat
>>71567819
Any "libertarian" who supports open borders has been swindled by CATO and FEE Jews. A true understanding of libertarian principles leads one to support strong borders, along with separatism and secession, AKA even more borders.
>>71573327
>anarcho-monarchism
Vikings
>>71567091
Love these pics.
>>71573297
Generally, this.
Hyperbole is never helpful, but that's why the guy saying "this sort of hyper-liberal individualism that runs rampant" doesn't really care about reconciliation and discussion, he only cares about venting his feels against another group.
>>71573297
>What is your issue with individual rights?
The fact that you said this earlier in the same post
>Leftists care not for individual rights
That's why. Civil rights, human rights are what they say they are fighting for in just about 100% everything they do(pretty much anything besides the environment). Yet you see their blatant hypocrisy. This is what the entire idea of individual rights leads to. It is not traditional, it is a contemporary cancer upon civilization.
>“What we are against will unite us, while what we are for divides us. Therefore, we should emphasise what we oppose. The common enemy unites us, while the positive values each of us are defending actually divides us. Therefore, we must create strategic alliances to overthrow the present order of things, of which the core could be described as human rights, anti-hierarchy, and political correctness – everything that is the face of the Beast, the anti-Christ or, in other terms, Kali-Yuga.” ― Alexander Dugin
>>71573556
why is this using the jazz lead sheet font?
We don't.
>>71573421
>A true understanding of libertarian principles leads one to support strong borders, along with separatism and secession
A true understanding of libertarian principles is just hyper-individualism as I've said earlier, which is just anarchy taken to it's logical conclusion.
>“Once one concedes that a single world government is not necessary, then where does one logically stop at the permissibility of separate states? If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without being denounced as in a state of impermissible ‘anarchy’, why may not the South secede from the United States? New York State from the Union? New York City from the state? Why may not Manhattan secede? Each neighbourhood? Each block? Each house? Each person?” ― Murray N. Rothbard
>>71574296
>A true understanding of libertarian principles is just hyper-individualism
Yes I agree, what I'm telling you is that idea doesn't imply an endorsement of mass immigration. A libertarian who supports mass immigration has been misled. There's nothing individualist about immigration.
>>71572836
Hi
>>71573865
Libertarians base their philosophy around the philosophically determined concept of rights and can rationally justify every single case.
Leftists use INVENTED definitions of rights to JUSTIFY authoritarian policies. For example, "Gay rights". Libertarians don't need to talk about gay rights, what two consenting adults do behind closed doors is irrelevant. Gay rights go without saying as they are encompassed by individual rights in libertarian thought. On the left, "gay rights" means forcing other people to make cakes for gay people or employ gay priests against their will. That is an INFRINGEMENT of the rights of someone else.
Here's the fundamental difference for you. Libertarians believe in unlimited individual rights up to the point where they infringe on the same individual rights of another individual.
Leftists and the authoritarian right believe in choosing WHO has the right to INFRINGE on the rights of others. For example, a leftist finds it acceptable for their voters to infringe on the rights of the wealthy through wealth redistribution
Or a "right-wing" religious fundamentalist finds it acceptable to infringe on the right of others to free speech by pushing blasphemy laws or a dress code.
>>71567091
Because unregulated business would remove all the competition in the lobster-fishing industry. There are laws put in place with how many pots to a trawl we're allowed to have and how many trawls as well; if this were removed, it would not only destroy the ocean's marine habitats, it would also remove the competition, as one guy with a big boat, or a fleet of boats, would rake in the most cash. We've seen this , because there's only a few processing plants in maine, whereas Canada has literally ten or more times as many, and we have less people. Remember who it was that colonized America? Monarchists, authoritarian conservatives, theocrats, people who believe in social policy and restriction of liberty.
>>71573865
>>71574713
>Libertarians believe in unlimited individual rights up to the point where they infringe on the same individual rights of another individual
Anyone's right to anything is an infringement on others. Your right to private property, for example, infringes on others when you believe you can use force against someone for being on your land because you believe you actually "own" part of the Earth.
>Leftists and the authoritarian right believe in choosing WHO has the right to INFRINGE on the rights of others
And in libertarians case they believe it is the individual who has the right to infringe on others like in the example I just gave.
>>71568248
Liberty and freedom of markets was originally something that started on the left . The terms "left" and "right" appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president's right and supporters of the revolution to his left.
Anything left of center was about liberty and equality, or "inalienable rights" which are in fact alienable, because they're just made up codes.
>>71574899
>individualism
>good
>collectivism
>bad
>protectionism
>bad
>>71567091
i think you are getting confused with liberals
/pol hates liberals not libertarians
>>71575440
>Do you let strangers walk through your house? Remember, if you use force on them that's infringing on their rights!
Do you believe in the concept of ownership?
Any other examples?
Enforcing your property rights is not an infringement on the rights of others. The moral question here is, why were they on your land in the first place? Reasonable force is acceptable, since trespassing is an initiation of force in itself.
>>71575616
Correct.
I'm not going to explain Individualism vs Collectivism to you, nor am I going to explain why protectionism leads to a consumer welfare loss. It's basic economics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1sHM2FvoWQ
>>71576076
>Do you believe in the concept of ownership?
Sure. Do I believe you can own the land underneath you? I mean, legally yes, but philosophically speaking, I am not certain. At the very least, I wouldn't say that anyone regardless of race, class, or gender can own property, I favor more of a patrician/plebeian system.
>Any other examples?
"If a set of property rights leads, say, to starvation, as it well might, then the moral approval of these rights would certainly be compromised severely." Amartya Sen(Poo in Loo Economist)
>>71576966
>Do I believe you can own the land underneath you?
>I am not certain.
What are you a fucking redskin? Are you 1/64th Cherokee or something?
pic related = you
>>71576248
>muh diversity: the video
I hope you're not the same anon who says libertarians don't support immigration
"The essence of liberalism is individualism. The basis of its error is to mistake the notion of the person with that of the individual and to claim for the latter, unconditionally and according to egalitarian premises, some values that should rather be attributed solely to the former, and then only conditionally. Because of this transposition, these values are transformed into errors, or into something absurd and harmful." - Julius Evola
>>71577247
100% Cree here. I got no problem with White man.
Niggers, Chinks and Hadjis can fuck off.
>>71577247
kek, you have a point. But I was replying to the other anon who said "Libertarians base their philosophy around the philosophically determined concept of rights and can rationally justify every single case." And like you just said, the Indians surely didn't agree with the American's justification. And there are many countries such as Russia, Iran, China, Venezuala, etc that totally oppose the entire American way of thinking. The point is the Libertarian worldview can only be justified by the liberal West and basically nowhere else. And those justifications tend to be purely logical and not necessarily ethical.
Post rare gadsdens
* _ * /
vv /
/
/
/
/
/
>>71568248
It's God that grants you your rights. It's the government's job to protect them.
>>71578032
>>71575528
Based leaf. The libertarians ITT sound like total plebs tbqh.
>>71579020
>I win the argument because I say I did
Good thinking Evolaboo
>>71567091
Trump memes and the stormfront invasion have all but driven out any form of actual thought or debate from this board.
The way I see it, they think "true libertarians" support open borders and mass immigration (and other stuff we don't), and think that somehow we're one of them instead of simply libertarian if we say we don't.
I've never seen a coherent, non-meme argument against libertarianism on this board.
>>71567091
mostly because Gadsden flags are a funny meme
>>71577445
>what Evola says about liberalism applies in the real world to libertarians
kek
also,
Nietzsche > Evola
>>71579542
Well what else is there to say? It's just muh property rights, muh individualism ad infinitum, not very compelling. And that is literally a plebeian view of civilization. Kind of autistic as well. I've made several points already and I haven't even addressed libertarianism's weakness against cultural decadence and sexual degeneracy. Or how about the ethical and moral consequences of promoting the individual rights of children?
>>71572836
How can Hoppe be so based?
I don't know what manner of snowflakism it is and the name to call it, but I've never disagreed with the man, it's almost uncanny.
>>71567091
If there is to be a world order to purge the unworthy, it can only happen with the will and power of a government body. A libertarian world is one of indvidual need and mutual rights, concepts that a "great cleansing" will need to suspend if a "final solution" is achievable.
>>71580129
>Nietzsche > Evola
"The blindness of the Liberal is a direct antecedent of Nihilist, and more specifically of Bolshevist, morality; for the latter is only a consistent and systematic application of Liberal unbelief. It is the supreme irony of the Liberal view that it is precisely when its deepest intent shall have been realized in the world, and all men shall have been "liberated" from the yoke of transcendent standards, when even the pretense of belief in the other world shall have vanished—it is precisely then that life as the Liberal knows or desires it shall have become impossible; for the "new man" that disbelief produces can only see in Liberalism itself the last of the "illusions" which Liberalism wished to dispel. — Fr. Seraphim Rose
Elder Paisios of Mt. Athos—“It is not freedom when we say to people that everything is permitted. That is slavery. To improve one must have difficulties. Let’s take an example. We have a little tree. We take care of it. We place a stake and tie it with a rope. Naturally we don’t tie it with wire because that way we would injure it. With their method they would not constrain the tree; and it doesn’t develop properly otherwise. And look at the child. We limit his freedom from the beginning. When he is first conceived the poor thing is limited in his mother’s womb and remains there nine whole months. Later he is born and immediately they swaddle him in a blanket, they tie him up, as soon as he begins to grow they set a railing, etc. All of this is necessary for him to grow. It appears to take away freedom, but without these protective measures the child will die in the first moment.”
The elder said: “Freedom is good when the person can use it appropriately. Otherwise it is a disaster.”
>>71581461
>implying it's even possible for me to take Evola seriously
>How is freedom measured, in individuals as in nations? By the resistance which must be overcome, by the effort [Mühe] it costs to remain on top. The highest type of free men should be sought where the highest resistance is constantly overcome: five steps from tyranny, close to the threshold of the danger of servitude. This is true psychologically if by "tyrants" are meant inexorable and dreadful instincts that provoke the maximum of authority and discipline against themselves — most beautiful type: Julius Caesar — ; this is true politically too; one need only go through history. The nations which were worth something, became worth something, never became so under liberal institutions: it was great danger that made something of them that merits respect. Danger alone acquaints us with our own resources, our virtues, our armor and weapons, our spirit — and forces us to be strong ...
>>71581608
>>implying it's even possible for me to take Evola seriously
Guenon, then? "Individualism implies, in the first place, the negation of intellectual intuition -inasmuch as this is essentially a supra-individual faculty- and of the knowledge that constitutes the true province of this intuition, namely metaphysics understood in its true sense. It also necessarily implies the refusal to accept any authority higher than the individual, as well as any means of knowledge higher than individual reason; these two attitudes are inseparable.
Consequently the modern outlook was bound to reject all spiritual authority in the true sense of the word, namely authority that is based on the supra-human order, as well as any traditional organisation, that is, any organisation based essentially on this authority, whatever be its form—for the form will naturally vary with each civilisation.
Individualism is what sponsors the spirit of debate everywhere. It is always possible to hold discussions within the realm of individual opinion, as this does not go beyond the rational order, and it is easy to find more or less valid arguments on both sides of a question when there is no appeal to any higher principle. Indeed, in many cases, discussion can be carried on indefinitely without arriving at any solution. The real motive is not the wish to attain to knowledge of the truth, but to prove oneself right in spite of opposition, or at least, if one cannot convince others, convince oneself of one’s own rightness.
It is very difficult to make our contemporaries see that there are things which by their very nature cannot be discussed. Modern man, instead of attempting to raise himself to truth, seeks to drag truth down to his own level"
>>71581146
>If there is to be a world order to purge the unworthy, it can only happen with the will and power of a government body
what is social darwinism.jpg
>>71579968
Probably because libertarianism is a meme to begin with. It would never work.
>>71582575
>intellectual intuition
>-inasmuch as this is essentially a supra-individual faculty
how could it be anything other than individuals doing any kind of reasoning?
> It also necessarily implies the refusal to accept any authority higher than the individual
No, the metaphysical question above is pretty cleanly separable from "ni dieu ni maître"
>Consequently the modern outlook was bound to reject all spiritual authority
OK
>It is always possible to hold discussions within the realm of individual opinion, as this does not go beyond the rational order, and it is easy to find more or less valid arguments on both sides of a question when there is no appeal to any higher principle. Indeed, in many cases, discussion can be carried on indefinitely without arriving at any solution. The real motive is not the wish to attain to knowledge of the truth, but to prove oneself right in spite of opposition, or at least, if one cannot convince others, convince oneself of one’s own rightness
entertaining, and definitely true about most of /pol/'s debates
What is your point anyway? Wasn't this a libertarian thread?
>>71583222
what do you mean, would never work? would people be dying in the streets because they didn't have any gibs? Would the government collapse because it doesn't create black markets for drugs or invade other countries? I would consider the 1890s US federal government a pretty libertarian one; did it 'not work' then?
>inb4 muh roads
>tfw you will never live under minarchism
>>71567819
>Libertarians are the most good goys, they are fine with mass immigration
wrong on the first point.
What a faggot.
2 kinds of libertarians that are cucked.
1. the mainstream Ron Paul types that have been cucked by the Neocons and Neocon think tanks. They are afraid of looking racist and support their corporate master's demands for more immigrants.
2. The second type is the principled-to-a-fault anarcho-capitalist. These people treat the NAP like a religion and refuse to use violence to accomplish anything. They would rather that Western civilization got crucified than fight back against people that want to do destroy us. These type of people don't vote and they try to just avoid paying taxes and other autistic things which don't actually matter.
But there is a minority of libertarians that are not cucked and we will gladly remove kebab and throw Marxists out of helicopters. Simply put, people that don't believe in the NAP can be physically removed.
[TR1GG3R W4RN1NG]
>>71567091
/pol/ is stuck with a pervasive perception that all libertarians are as far left as the American Libertarian Party
Most people are ignorant of Mises and Rothbard brand libertarianism, which is much more radically right.
The Mises Institute and hardcore Austrians don't even recognize left-libertarians as legitimate. They see "open borders" as code for forced integration, value the extremities of free association, and see democracy as fundamentally flawed.
>>71567819
kek. this is the dumbest shit I've ever read. That's not at all what Libertarianism is about.
>>71583322
>What is your point anyway? Wasn't this a libertarian thread?
Libertarianism is just liberal capitalism taken to its extreme(which is why it is often used interchangeably with anarcho-capitalism) so by attacking individualism I'm inherently attacking libertarianism, just taking it a step further. All this contemporary debate about capitalism vs marxism are just two sides of the same individualist coin, it's merely a difference of opinion on what rights, and who's rights, are more important than others. It's the kind of absurdity you find in Mill's Utilitarianism.
>>71583736
I lean towards ancap but I would treat immigration in my community as an initiatory use of force therefore requiring retaliation
>>71583736
>implying self defense isn't allowed under the NAP
I also don't know why so many libertarians are cucked about borders since illegal immigration is an obvious case of tresspassing.
>>71583939
>marxism
>individualist
Come again friendo?
>>71567091
>There is a refugee crises in Europe and an immigration problem in America
>Libertarians believe in open boarders
>Open boarders would make both those things worse
>>71584041
They say that the "state" holds no legitimate property, so national borders are illegitimate themselves. Therefore, immigrants are not committing any aggression. Therefore we are not justified in removing them.
They would say that the problem of illegal immigration is the state itself, and we should not try to use the state to remove them because that would be an initiation of force.
They are just for fun
Live a little
>>71583736
>two strawmen that have no relation to reality
>>71583939
>Libertarianism is just liberal capitalism taken to its extreme
Libertarianism is a philosophy of government with a few specific imperatives, relating only to government. Is that what you meant by "liberal capitalism"? because I've never seen that term before
>by attacking individualism I'm inherently attacking libertarianism
Not really, collectivists could well be free-market profiteers under a libertarian government.
>it's merely a difference of opinion on what rights, and who's rights, are more important than others
you could say that about the difference between any two philosophies anon
>>71584222
>They say that the "state" holds no legitimate property
No, they (we) don't.
>>71584328
KEK
never seen that one before. Took me a second
>>71578032
>>71575440
I hope you're not a nationalist if you don't believe in property rights.
Moderate libertarian master race
5600 ROBERTS
Seem to be on both ends of the spectrum. I've met Libertarians who agree with open borders etc and others who heavily alluded to free market capitalism only working in white societies.
>>71583812
I am a left libertarian, but no longer identify as libertarian at all since the Rothbardians ruined the label for me.
The open borders thing is totally a conclusion obtained deductively by Libertarians ( such as Rothbard ) who derive an ideology from NAP which I do not subscribe to.
Small l left libertarians just want to maximize freedom, of all kinds. This doesn't conflict with tribalism or nationalism.
Freedom within the nation > freedom for all the world
>>71569716
>And I'm way more interested in how he shapes people's attitudes
>I want more people to conform to my views, polices be dammed
Some libertarian you are
>>71569386
LEL
>lies
>distortions
I'll stop taking you seriously now
>>71585153
heh
>I'm right about everything, BUT
>disagreeing with me isn't necessarily wrong
>>71567819
True...lel
>>71585301
Do you have something to say besides memetext?
>>71578032
>>71585428
oh, don't be so autistic. You probably just got here from r/4chan and think that le green arrows are "cancer".
>>71585648
So you have nothing to say? Got it.
>>71583620
>>71583886
How does a libertarian society stop immigration exactly? Suppose a guy like Soros decides to buy all the migrants a plane ticket, suppose he buys the airport and the airlines even, how to libertarians stop him without the state?
>>71584125
>erosion of classes
>not born out of individualism
>>71584363
>Is that what you meant by "liberal capitalism"? because I've never seen that term before
By liberal capitalism I basically mean, what we have now in the West, as opposed to Marxism or Fascism
>you could say that about the difference between any two philosophies
Not every philosophy assumes the existence of individual rights a priori
>>71572819
Then you're not a libertarian. You can't believe in a free market and then reject free international trade or open borders. It's not possible
>>71584363
Who the fuck are you? Do you think libertarians are monolithic? Are you trying to claim the title of "libertarian" for your own particular sect? Are you denying that cucked libertarians exist? Do you just call them a different name? Are you a dumb nigger?
>>71577569
Chink here. We blend in fine though, we don't blow shit up, or demand affirmative action, hell you hardly see anything about Asians in the news even when we represent around 10% of population, unless you honestly believe that shit about Chinese stealing your jobs. Plus we cook good food, American food in general is godawful.
>>71585718
>>>/reddit/
>>71585994
>no true scotsman
see the image in >>71579968
>>71586049
>implying I take name/tripfags seriously
>>71586139
not an argument
>>71585140
>The open borders thing is totally a conclusion obtained deductively by Libertarians ( such as Rothbard ) who derive an ideology from NAP
This, inb4
>not all Libertarians subscribe to Rothbard or NAP
Then you're just someone who prefers lower taxes opposed to high taxes, or no taxes at all. Not really a Libertarian, just a freedom memer.
>>71586049
you know we have thread IDs now right?
>>71586276
not an argument
>>71586280
the MAIN memer here is you, my delusional friend
>>71586247
>>71586296
Yeah, but I like to tell people upfront that I'm a free market fanatic.
Anyway, what's your deal with speaking for ALL libertarians? "We" are this or that. Come off it
Libertarianism is a strange brew of anti-federalism and native protectionism/ planned socialism. Something like a cantonism cum Norway.
tell me how right or wrong I'm on this.
>> 'cum' is latin for with, any retarded jokes on this please don't bother.
>>71586401
have you ever tried smoking a cigarette?
I tried and it was awful. Why do people even do it? I swear I got a lot of the smoke in my lungs but I didn't get any kind of high out of it, just a shitty taste in my mouth.
>>71586410
>native protectionism/ planned socialism
???
>>71586280
Rothbard corrected his open borders mistake at the end of his life
http://openborders.info/rothbard-immigration-about-face/
>>71586410
Anti-federalism, yes.
The rest of that shit, is ridiculously wrong. Please go to the wikipedia article on libertarianism.
>>71567091
/pol/ used to be overwhelmingly ancap. It wasn't until the ironic pro-Romney shitposting that they started to go away. Having a fascist like Trump winning on the Republican side pretty much solidified this place as Stormfront 2.0
>>71586948
Nice bait
Basically libertarians have too much faith in people left to their own devices. An unorganized and privatized roads system would NOT work as well, a non-aggression principle is a good laugh, and a free market will always tend to empower trusts and monopolies.
>>71587363
>An unorganized and privatized roads system would NOT work as well
>most libertarians don't even think roads should be privatized
>muh NAP is another myth similar to muh roads
>free market will always tend to empower trusts and monopolies
you believe this because...?
>>71587277
you haven't been here long
>>71587363
Actually as a matter of fact, a public roads system would NOT work as well, a centralized economy will always tend to empower trusts and monopolies, and you're a cock gobbling retard
>>71587363
You're repeating leftist talking points. I hope you understand that, and you're not just a normie that has passively absorbed propaganda.
>>71567819
This
Lolberturdians in full damage control already
>>71571862
That's why we have a constitution. So the highest power in government isn't a human
>>71573327
What makes this person a libertarians is e believes the U.S. government should be way smaller. This means libertarian policies for white citizens in the country but no one else. We want to be a free populace within our borders and that is all. We do not want open borders or to intervene in any foreign conflicts.
>>71586388
See>>71586319
>>71586540
Did you read that? It basically said Rothbard totally contradicted himself and betrayed all the other Libertarians, they even said it was "monstrous" of him. He refers to "totally privatized countries" when justifying closed borders. That sure sounds like the state to me. I wouldn't introduce this as something that validates what you guys are saying, that libertarians aren't for open borders. Just admit that it's a flawed ideology, you don't really want to be a libertarian. I'll forgive you.
>>71586948
>le /pol/ is libertarian meme
you know why /new/ got shut down right?
>>71587961
newfag spotted
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oezRXaRoB4
>>71574072
Save us Paul.
>>71568750
>Only if you think not having a standing Army is "far right".
We aren't anarchists. We should have an army but our army should not be in bases around the world. The army should be for our countries protection and to go to war against foreighn countries when need be. I'm tired of our country flexing their nuts across the world and I'm tired of our country playing nanny with retarded shit skins and niggers.
>>71588110
is that video supposed to represent libertarians?
>>71569312
Deutsch know better. He's right.
The world "Liberal" was stolen by the Left-commies, so people even started to use "Libertarians" for the old liberals. The same is done in portuguese here in Brazil, sometimes.
>>71588076
you're the newfag. Libertarianism died (largely) on /pol/ after Ron's 2012 defeat, and then moreso as his son revealed his Talmudic values
>>71569121
>If you're a libertarian you can support one of the most pro-NSA candidates
Fuck off
>>71587519
>>71587529
>>71587546
you can tell they're libertarians by how fast they responded
>privatized roads wouldn't work because there's not an effective way to monetize the construction and maintenance, there's not an overseeing body to ensure the roads are planned well, there'd be toll booths everywhere, and nothing is stopping someone from owning a 200 mile long tract of land between 2 cities and blocking an interstate
>NAP is common sense because you can literally do a case study of human behavior by reading anything about any era of history ever or observing modern low-income areas e.g. Chicago, Detroit.
Seriously, the NAP takes more political zealotry than even the retarded notion of a morally and politically unified Marxist populace. If you believe in it, you're intellectually bankrupt.
>free markets tend to empower trusts and monopolies because there's nothing stopping a company with significantly plural market share from creating their own frictions to keep them on top and grow even higher, e.g. intimidation, buying up competition, buying viable real estate to prevent competition, not leasing real estate to competitors, etc.
Competition is not the one size fits all solution you guys jerk it to. It's obviously vital to be left more or less in tact, but efforts need to be taken to minimize barriers-to-entry precisely because competition is so healthy.
>>71586948
Libertarians support trump because he's a nationalist. nationalism and libertarianism can co exist. In fact nationalism can co exist with just about any politcal system.
>>71588337
Libertarians don't sound off very much on this board because our entire catalog has become Occupy Democrats b8 and /int/ shitposting, but we're still the largest minority. Just look at any poll or political compass thread (that doesn't use the shitty 4-color one.)
>>71588436
your entire post is a shitpost. I'll let the tripfag respond
>>71588294
>>71587706
This sounds more like constitutional conservatism than libertarianism desu, would you use those terms interchangeably, and say that Ron Paul is both a constitutional conservative and a libertarian? Because I would only put him with the former. I think they're just stealing the word because it appeals to muh freedom memers.
>>71588643
>no true scotsman
>no true scotsman
>no true scotsman
>no true scotsman
>no true scotsman
>>71588436
What do you think it even means to "believe in the NAP"? Do you think it means we believe it's possible to have a society where no one will ever commit violence ever?
Because that's not what it means.
It's a goal that we strive for. It is the logical consequence of the idea of self-ownership. NAP means that if you believe in self-ownership, you shouldn't commit violence against other people except in self-defense.
>>71567091
Just redditors and neocons playing double agent and using the ad populum fallacy to create the illusion of popular opinion.
>>71588590
political compass threads are bullshit. I'd agree that many on /pol/ support some libertarian ideas, but overall most /pol/acks are nationalists of some variety.
>>71588590
>he doesn't believe in the NAP
>it's a shitpost
explain to me even a single aspect of the mechanism by which the NAP operates
>>71588779
your conception of libertarianism is probably an inaccurate meme then
libertarianism is like the right-wing version of communism
both on opposite sides of the spectrum but both fucking unachievable ridiculous idiocy
>>71588436
Competition is the one size fits all. There is no such thing as classes. The only thing that keeps a poor entrepreneur from becoming a rich one is the buy in price to become rich. The more regulation there is the higher that buy in price is. This is whats killing the middle class.
>>71588828
if you don't understand why I would say his entire post is a shitpost, you are probably also a shitposter
>>71588880
xdddd
>>71588779
Nationalism can go with every type of political ideology. nationalism is just putting your country first.
national libertarians put their country first but expect their government to be as small and free for its citizens as possible while telling everyone else to fuck off.
>>71588851
well no one can even seem to go beyond an approximation of what 'libertarian' means.
It is such an internally divided ideology that it lacks any unified basic programme.
>>71588880
Libertarian is on a monetary spectrum with progressivism.
Communism is on the totalitarianism scale with fascism.
>a fucking leaf.
>>71588880
You keep confusing anarchists with libertarians. The U.S. was libertarian once.
/pol/ is blue pilled goy that follow msm's lead. They argue between two sides of the same kike spectre. They can't help it though... If you have been on earth long enough, you just come to terms that most people just aren't critical thinkers.
Like look right now, the most anti federal reserve president got taken off the paper money, and these kids are freaking out, instead of celebrating the end of a cruel form of irony.
The hatred of Nazis towards the Libertarian movement is truly pitiful. That hatred isn't pitiful because it's childish and immature, but rather it's pitiful because it stems from complete, utter, and unabashed ignorance.
Neo-Nazis assume that Libertarianism is anti-nationalism. They also assume that it is against all regulation. Even worse, they equate it with Anarchism. None of these delusions are true, but they are necessary for the Nazi. They keep him secure in his bubble of ignorance, from the outside threat of reason.
>tl;dr neo-nazis are degenerate fuckwads
>>71588742
Obviously, but your philosophy relies on a healthy majority of people sharing that ideal.
How does your society handle a Bolshevik revolution?
>>71588710
>the ideology I am defending can mean whatever I want it to mean and doesn't have to be clearly defined in agreed upon terminology
Libertarians ITT
>>71589281
Libertarians let liberals fuck them in the ass REGULARLY. It does equate to anarchy in practice. Also, potholes, checkmate bitch.
The only good one.
>>71589179
Libertarianism is very clear. We want small government and minimal laws. This does not mean we can't be nationalists, it just means we don't think the government should be able to ban drugs, prostitution, gun ownership, tax people for owning land, tax people for earning money.
Why the fuck can't I build my own mansion without the government taxing the shit out of me for it? So long as i do it on my own land it shouldn't matter whats on it.
>>71589179
No, I would say all libertarians agree on these things:
>welfare should be reduced/eliminated
>military interventionism and the abroad military budget should be eliminated
>drugs are a state's issue
>the government's size (fiscally) should be reduced only to providing infrastructure, contract enforcement, law enforcement, and defense
>the US legal code, which is too large to even be enumerated in a meaningful way (seriously look it up, scholars are in wide disagreement as to how many laws there are), is too complicated and hampers the economy with red tape and punitive bureaucrats trying to make names for themselves
>>71589403
>muh POoThooles!11!11!!1!!11!!1!
Not an argument, anon-kun.
>>71589377
>the ideology I am attacking can mean whatever I want it to mean despite consensus of its adherents to the contrary
You ITT
>>71585808
>how do liberterians stop him without the state?
However the fuck they want to stop him. In a liberterian society there is no state and thus no jurisdiction. Kill him? Throw him in a cell? The people collectively decide to do what they want.
>>71589694
>In a liberterian society there is no state and thus no jurisdiction
nice b8
>>71589281
There is nothing wrong with nazis so long as they do it in other countries. Get the fuck out of america with that shit though. The only good thing about nazis is the white nationalist part.
>>71589636
>closed borders
>consensus of libertarians
>>71589694
>>/anarchism/
You aren't a libertarian if you don't believe in the State, anon. It's as simple as that.
>>71589821
did you even read my previous posts, wherein I provided a poll of libertarians indicating exactly that? I won't link it for you again
>>71583222
You just proved his point. End your life please "MAGA" spammer. Go in the Twitch IRC chat where scum like you belongs
Why couldn't have /pol/ stood behind Rand Paul for this election, like with Ron earlier? Why did /pol/ lose its belief in small government and more legal rights?
>>71589534
>This does not mean we can't be nationalists
No, you can't. Because a market that's absolutely free has no borders in it.
If you think you can be libertarian and oppose open borders, you're retarded.
>>71589988
>My entire understanding of politics is based on stormfront memes
>>71589952
Because we decided we weren't interested in being a bunch of good goys that get sold out to the highest shekel.
Fascism is the only system that can provide a strong, healthy, nationalist people. Everything else results in an eventual degradation of public morals, broken homes, and millions of shitskins flooding the country because free market and free labor.
>>71585464
is that kingseeker frampt
>>71590066
>I support this ideology but don't agree with it's core tenets.
>>71589952
We believe in all that, since we're a Libertarian board. Unfortunately, Stormfront has launched a large campaign to subvert and undermine our values.
Remove stormshills when?
>>71590146
>I strawman an ideology I have never actually read about
>>71567091
i'm libertarian and i love /pol/ even if they choose to laugh at my expense once in awhile. i don't like weeaboos or any of these whites-can-only-breed-with-whites virgins
MAGA
>>71589863
I guess I'm an anarchist then
The state sucks
>only 4% of libertarians actually support open borders
>>71589890
Look anon, if you are really this upset about being associated with open borders, then you are quite frankly, better than a libertarian. You shouldn't lower yourself to the level of one by identifying as such.
>>71590146
>I'm half irish, 2 percent cherokee, fifteen percent zionist jew, and 100 percent retarded!
>>71590402
i'm like 85% zionist jew now.
>>71590341
You molest the definition and ideology of libertarianism in your speech to fit your shitty Evolaboo worldview (not that surprising--you probably have to warp a lot of other things to agree with that guy!), but I am not phased.
I am Libertarian and don't support open borders. Most Libertarians don't support open borders. Libertarian philosophy implies that national sovereignty allows a nation to choose who it lets use its collective resources (which would exist in a Libertarian society, ie national parks and police and prison).
>>71589952
/pol/ does whatever is edgy and trump gets people too mad to pass up
same reason this place will be an MRA stronghold by next year when hillary wins and newfriends will deny it was ever decried as anti-family on here
>>71590721
lel
>>71590211
Libertarianism argues in favor of letting people engage freely in mutually consensual activity and on minimizing coercion in society.
The right to migrate can be considered a corollary of the libertarian view that people should be free to do what they please unless it violates the rights of others.
This argues in favor of not letting concerns about harms to such subjective things as racial purity, common cultures, values, and so on be a justification for opposing free migration.
No Libertarian can logically argue the case for closed borders. People have a right to live where they want, work for who they want, when they want, however they want, ect. Fundamentally, you have the right to do whatever you want as long as you're not violating the NAP.
The free migration of peoples is not in any way an aggression against you. So long as they don't physically harm you, steal your shit, ect - you have no recourse to oppose an open border policy.
Any attempt by a libertarian to oppose open borders is self defeating, since you're just reduced to saying "Well yeah, everyone has the right to do as they want as long as they don't violate the NAP, but we as a group aren't going to abide by the NAP when interacting with other groups". It creates an indefensible double standard.
>>71590796
see >>71590560
and >>71590336
Your post isn't worth the electrons it was transmitted with.
>>71585464
10/10
>>71590560
So are libertarians statists, or aren't they? Because it sounds to me like you're saying a libertarian is simply a stingy Republican. And if that's how you what to want to define it, just know that you'll always be fighting the anarcho-capitalists for that word.
>>71590899
>pretends to be libertarian
>opposes one of the most basic principles
wew lad.
>>71578459
fucking kek
>>71589952
Rand was way too faggy, the difference between him and his father is like the difference between 4chan and reddit
>>71591118
Yes, libertarians are statists by the political science definition of the word. So is everyone except for anarchists. Happy?
>>71591269
>no true scotsman
>>71590796
>Any attempt by a libertarian to oppose open borders is self defeating, since you're just reduced to saying "Well yeah, everyone has the right to do as they want as long as they don't violate the NAP, but we as a group aren't going to abide by the NAP when interacting with other groups". It creates an indefensible double standard.
This, you nailed it. How are Libertarians going to keep their countries together when they can't even keep their families together? The intellectual dishonest I'm seeing is very disappointing.
>>71589284
By physically removing Marxists.
Think of anarcho-capitalism as the goal. Some libertarians are cucked and refuse to take the necessary steps to achieve that goal, sure. Many of us understand that we have to convert or cleanse the lefties, or we will never have peace.
>His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire
>>71591400
good simile! good word choice! Nice post! Good job!
>>71591525
I didn't make any smile nigger
>>71591118
Libertarians are statists in the conventional sense that they believe nations could exist. Either way, no one should really care what an-caps deem acceptable, since they are living in a fucking fantasy world. It's a fun game to play if you want to act snide your whole life, because an An-Cap society will never exist in our lifetimes (and will probably only be possible in space, where it will function like a nation anyway). We agree where every nation needs to move, Libertarians are just practical about it while anarchists are the mirror image of communists (utopian political beliefs are for children and the mentally challenged).
>>71591695
simile, you potatonigger.
Weren't Irish writers renowned at one point? I guess that doesn't necessarily apply to their readers
>>71569000
social contract
>>71590796
Those ideals only apply to citizens of the state, who live within borders. Get the fuck out of here with your nonsense, you fucking leaf, and learn the difference between the 20 or so ideologies that are all in the same spectrum, but have vastly different beliefs regarding things like immigration. I mean, shit, have you never heard the term paleolibertarian?
>>71591695
Oh I read that wrong
>>71591784
>cry about how people are arguing in le wrong way
>make 0 (zero) arguments
>>71591943
>cry about me making 0 (zero) arguments
>make 0 (zero) arguments
>>71591993
It's still here >>71591400 nice and fresh
>>71591712
Well, it is their word though, isn't it? I mean, Murray Rothbard literally wrote the Libertarian Manifesto.
>>71591440
I am curious then to hear how you rationally justify the state, and how it can be clearly defined beyond arbitrary measures to contain it in practice to "small government" and not naturally grow into "big government" with the changing needs of the times?
>>71592117
I would pull up a bastiat quote but I don't see the point, you're here to convince yourself that you're right, not to actually debate me
