In fact, the opposite is true, because:
1. Abolishing welfare would be sufficient to keep the economic migrants out.
2. Libertarians still believe in national borders, so groups like ISIS would be kept out.
3. Wanting out of the EU is logical from a minarchist perspective, since it's just another layer of government.
I could see a voluntarist, still sort of nationalist libertarianism being feasible, but fundamentally the ideology is best suited for societies lacking a strong, collective identity.
>>55202109
>but fundamentally the ideology is best suited for societies lacking a strong, collective identity.
why is that? do you disagree with the points in my first post?
even UKIP have described themselves as libertarian. whether they actually are, i don't know
>>55202202
I do believe it can be made to work, but at the core of libertarianism is a mutual respect for each other's property on an individual, not national level.
A man could have a piece of land that goes right across the border and within the ideology the land being his would take precedence over one half of his property 'belonging' to Nation 1 and the other half to Nation 2.
There is also a more practical matter of financially not necessarily viable, but important cultural artifacts, museums etc that are very often kept around supported by stolen tax money. The French government subsidizes the fuck out of their farmers for instance simply to keep up an aspect of their culture they believe valuable which under a free market would erode very quickly.
I do like some aspects of libertarianism, but fundamentally it seems a bit more easy a fit for societies like the USA. Nationalism can be a part of your personal identity as well, don't get me wrong, but there is an aspect of collectivism to it.
On your points
>1
Agreed. The best way to help the poor of your nation is to do away with the welfare system and let them compete more freely anyway.
>2
I sort of addressed the border issue, ultimately they are just lines in the sand created by agreements between governments. You enforce them with guns, or they might as well not truly exist.
>3
Yep. Although agreements on free movement and trade are obviously something that should be striven for.
>>55202697
fair points. do you think ukip is actually libertarian, or is it just talk?
>You enforce them with guns, or they might as well not truly exist.
i was under the impression most libertarians advocated having a military
>>55201648
>Libertarians
>still believe in national borders
>not trucking in thousands of third-worlders for cheap labor
>not making a fortune smuggling child sex slaves paid for by CEO who is rich because of market fairness
>apply this to literally everything except a strong federal military to keep the ruskies in line
Why are you on /pol/? Don't you have high school finals to study for?
>>55203044
UKIP for the most part is just talk, pulled by an all charisma, if nonetheless based glorious prick.
I do hope I'm wrong about them, but the party is far too focused on a single issue, however important, to really build up a stance on other issues. Getting out of the EU is a big job, and probably the only thing that holds the party together.
>i was under the impression most libertarians advocated having a military
So long as it is primarily defensive I don't see a problem with it, but as it relates to the issue of borders it becomes a bit more tricky.
A land border by its very nature will be a line in the sand agreed between governments, and once you do away with the authority backing that line you get into an interesting situation where to preserve national sovereignty and thus potentially the individual rights of your citizenry you still have to keep around enough force on the collective, national level to protect it - but such power could fairly easily be turned right back into the usual government or aristocracy.
Possibly a solution is simply to have nukes, because no one is retarded enough to attack a country that can wage nuclear warfare.
>>55201648
>The only fair is laissez-faire
nigga please
>>55202109
You just have to be libertarian among citizens and not libertarian for shit with anybody else.
>>55203508
then i guess there's a difference between what "libertarians" do in practice, and what libertarianism actually stands for
>>55203574
ok. thanks for your well though-out answers
>>55202109
>the ideology is best suited for societies lacking a strong, collective identity.
I don't think so. In fact the opposite because a the collective identidy is not necessarily enforced.
It might just mean that the culture that will arise simply does not need to enforces it's culture.
>>55203508
>high school finals.
I get that you're trying to make a joke but it's November moron.
>>55203696
That would weaken the basis of the libertarian ideology, a universal respect for the individual's property, rights and whatnot.
If I can ignore that against a foreign citizen then I can ignore that against a foreign citizen even while he is in my country, or somewhat different citizens of my country, say, the Welsh or Northerners.
If it is not a universal, moral rock to stand on then it is a negotiable, temporary measure like any other and will crumble away pretty quickly.
>>55203833
>It might just mean that the culture that will arise simply does not need to enforces it's culture.
In that case we are onto the topic of precisely what counts as cultural propagation.
These days language is very heavily centralised, for instance, which would not be nearly as possible in a libertarian society. That and other fragmentation would lead to devolution/federalisation which on the one hand could go with your new libertarian nationalist culture pretty well, but on the other hand would go very strongly against the traditional idea of a strong, united nation.
Now only if I had that silly /int/ map of an incredibly shattered Europe.
>>55204381
>These days language is very heavily centralised
Not for english man, we still have this advantage. English is the only language not chained by an official institution. Our dictionnaries are based on reputation.
Look at the commonwealth, we are divided by accents but we all know our to communicate clearly with each other(usually if your not some nigger).
French people do not do this.
A guy from Paris will not adapt to a "common accent" to please a guy from Quebec.
>traditional idea of a strong, united nation.
You mean the ability to act as one to overcome incredible odds.
This I do believe is covered by the idea that ones persons property being attacks is actually a potential attack to all the tribe.
Therefore any rational libertarian society would have a great incentive into grouping anf acting as one to fight problems.
What you want is an heavy libertarian oriented K society with a very limited amount of r's giving the tribe the necessary inspiration to come up with technology.
>>55203822
>Communism isn't bad! Those bad people aren't really communists!
>Islam isn't bad! Those people aren't really muslims!
>Libertarianism isn't bad! Those people aren't really libertarians!
Just keep repeating "N.A.P." until it magically comes true.
>>55203966
Less than six hours ago I was tutoring a highschooler for his biology finals, but please tell me how I'm a moron.
