I think i can safely say that anyone who denies libertarianism is a traitor to virtue and the foundations of America.
>>27289888
I agree with this very
Sad times
The foundations of america suck dick
The enlightenment was a mistake
>>27289888
>rand
Kek. Lolerbertianism is what is ruining this country.
>>27290527
>Lolerbertianism is what is ruining this country.
kys
libertarianism is part of the ideals that this country was built up upon
>>27289888
While what you are saying is true the average american is already a traitor to everything the country was founded on and is looking for as many free handouts as they can get while putting in the least amount of effort.
Libertarianism only works in an environment where people aren't fucking retarded and this is America we are talking about.
The freedom of the individual should be prioritized, but the freedom of business entities often times works against those freedoms.
>>27290715
EHHHHHHHHHH WRONG
The "American School of Economics" that America historically followed is based on protectionism, not globalism
America historically had strict controls on obscene acts & language, which are not protected by the 1st Amendment
>>27290454
1vs1 in the capitol rotunda fgt
i'll rek u w/my freedom fists
'merica
Libertarianism is incredibly optimistic and juvenile.
>>27291273
Enjoying the Jew cucking, lad?
we need a government because pic related
>LOLberterians
Just the Right Wing's Communism wherein everyone is perfect and people will naturally behave a certain way 100% of the time with no corruption whatsoever.
>>27291352
You don't really believe that companies act with your best interests in mind, do you?
>>27291529
No, of course not, they do what the government wants, not what the people want.
>>27291583
No they do what is best for their profits within the limits the government imposes on them.
>>27291273
>>27290527
Brainwashed statist sheep baka.
>>27291605
You don't really believe that the government acts with your best interests in mind, do you?
>>27289888
>Randlet
Nice try you fucking nigger
Rand isn't even half the Freedom Fighter Ron is.
>>27291583
But this is exactly what libertarianism is all about. It works under the principle that companies actually give a shit about the people they serve.
Protip: They don't. They only care about the capital you provide.
This is what's wrong with libertarianism. It opens the door for companies to give you the shaft, in fact, moreso than any other government ever could.
>>27289888
America is finally going the way of socialism, and I could not be happier.
If you are a libertarian, I suggest you leave the country. We're already on the way to taking away your guns. There will come a time when parroting your appeals to crony capitalism will not be legally tolerated, and you won't have a way to fight back, roach.
>>27291665
I don't expect it to cater exactly to my whims if that's what you mean, but it has to act with at least some of my interests in mind, otherwise it would cease to function.
>>27291273
No it isn't. It's basically just being a reaganite conservative but with a few left-wing positions on certain social issues and more avdvocating for leaving things up to the individual states than the fed.
Democracy and liberalism is a blight on humanity's progress. Democracy allows for the idiotic majority to decide what's best, leaving progress in a constant state of disarray. Liberalism and the quaint love of cheeseburgers and "muh freedumb" is just allowing laziness, apathy, and western degeneration.
Only the superior ways of authoritarism and state controlled manufacturing under a strong leader can lead mankind into a greater cause than stuffing its face with freedom fries and liquid obesity, or as Amerikans call it, "Coca-cola".
>Ich mache nur Spass!
>>27291681
Since when do people willingly give money to companies that "give them the shaft?" That's called the free market. You treat your customers like shit, and they don't give you any more money.
Why not post this on /pol/?
>>27289888
Whatever you say, you little faggot. The truth is, now little punks like you are the traitors.
http://www.infowars.com/homeland-security-report-lists-liberty-lovers-as-terrorists/
This is a NEW America. The "constitution" has been Penn-n-Teller TRASHED. You and all your little lolberg friends are getting put on a list. The police is militarizing. The state is preparing for civil unrest in America. We're ready for you, scum. Because we're going to jack your taxes so far up your ass that you'll be shitting little hammers and sickles for days. You think NEETs are going to be eaten up? The state is going to DEVOUR you (it's the only way we'll ever deal with the deficit).
And if things do suck for me? No big deal. I'll get a job with the police. I'd love to crack your faggot plebe heads with a police baton, and I've always wanted to beat a dirty subhuman nigger's brains in. Tear gas ftw! WE RUN THIS COUNTRY NOW
>>27289888
I think democratic socialism a la Bernie would be more marketable if it was relabelled as something palatable to retarded Americans.
Since Libertarianism stole the term "liberty" and lures in retards who think that it sounds good, socialism should rename itself Freedomism/Freedomtarians.
You don't hate FREEDOM after all, do you?
>>27292014
>what is a monopoly
>>27289888
checked by the way.
>>27292014
It's not the customers that companies treat like shit, they love their little cash cows, it's the employees that actually keep the company working.
>>27292104
the freedom of being forced to pay for lazy niggers' health and education. sounds great
>>27292104
>I think democratic socialism a la Bernie would be more marketable if it was relabelled as something palatable to retarded Americans.
This wouldn't be a bad idea. Bernie isn't a socialist in any meaningful sense. He just uses the term to appear anti-establishment.
>>27291352
So many memes. Chomsky is a pragmatic anarchist. Safe spaces are a meme and don't actually exist.
>>27291352
your parody seems like you are parodying the parody.
like its so much of a strawman it seems like you are trying to make a strawman of somebody else's idea of strawman.
>>27292274
>He just uses the term to appear anti-establishment.
you're right, and it turned out to be a retarded move. with that label attached to him, he fucked himself over, because now he's seen as either too "pie in the sky" or a scary commie.
>>27290940
This desu.rest assured this comment is one-hunderd percent original.
>>27292272
So does the liberty of having to pay "protection money" to 15 different private security firms who claim to have jurisdiction over your neighborhood and getting to eat hamburgers made out of human meat harvested from private prisons
>>27291918
Lking authoritarism and wanting strongmen in power falls just short of being a cuck, though. You want a big man to dominate you and tell you what to do and you're happy sucking his dick just because he's a good master.
>>27292203
>>27292324
>>27292324
every post besides these three and this one is retarded
especially OP
>>27292181
the state
the state is a monopoly
>>27292424
I was wondering if anyone would take the bait! Didn't translate the German, did ya?
>>27292432
thanks anon, im just here to check these mad trips yknow.
>>27292454
kek, completely fell for it. I guess any german sentence just sounds like seig heil to foreigners
>>27290940
>>27292395
Which is why ancap is the answer
Why did anti-libertarian shills infiltrate /pol/ recently?
>>27293402
Sorosbux perhaps
>>27293402
/pol/ has been anti-libertarian for some time.
>>27293432
Is Soros the new Cultural Marxism?
Is there a name for an ideology that promotes pure libertarianism but individualism as well? As in
>let people do their thing, and do your own thing
>if someone wants to stop you from doing your own thing, fuck them up
>if doing your own thing implies stopping people from doing their own thing, do it, but face the consequences; an eye for an eye
>no regulations, no laws, no state, no ethics, just absolute individual freedom and the subsequent social darwinism that ensues
Even if it's unrealistic, is there a name for this?
>>27293526
George Soros. A jewish billionare who paid Black Lives Matter protestors in Baltimore to "protest" during the Black Lives Matter riots in Baltimore this past summer. He funds a lot of left wing semi-extremist groups. Worth reading up on. And yes, he's very much on board with cultural marxism and all of it's other varieties.
>>27293526
>/pol/ has been anti-libertarian for some time.
No, /pol/ as a whole hasn't been, only the faggot shills and idiot newfags. /pol/ is still libertarian.
>>27293831
Why did /pol/ start discussing him so much so suddenly? What did he do to catch /pol/'s attention while going completely under the radar until a few weeks ago or less?
>>27293531
"Pure libertarianism" or anarchism means everyone is free to do what they want *under the condition that they don't infringe on anyone else's liberty*. If you infringe on someone else's liberty you are violating the non aggression principle and therefore libertarians/anarchists can and will stop you. (anarchism is the furthest extent of libertarianism btw)
If you leave that out and say just do whatever you want... that can only be described as nihilism but that's really no different than the world we live in. The people in control of the world do exactly that, they do whatever they want as long as they can get away with it. Which is authoritarianism, the opposite of libertarianism. Not "pure libertarianism" as you say but rather the complete opposite. So what you described is nihilism and in practice usually or always manifests as authoritarianism.
>>27293914
I understand. So, the only reason why anarchism is supposed to work is because of the NAP? And taking that away just makes it easier for micro states to form?
Either way, the NAP isn't that far from what I mentioned. If you do what you want but infringe on another's freedom, he can and will stop you. The important thing is that you CAN choose to infringe on his freedom if you wish to do so. Nothing's limiting you.
>>27294195
>I understand. So, the only reason why anarchism is supposed to work is because of the NAP? And taking that away just makes it easier for micro states to form?
Anarchism/libertarianism just means you can do what you want as long as you're not infringing on anyone's freedoms. That's also what the NAP means. As for how it would work in practice... it just requires that people be willing to stand up for freedom. You see someone's rights being infringed upon? Go fuck up the aggressor. Saying that anarchism/libertarianism works because of the NAP is kind of inaccurate because people absolutely will violate the NAP. More accurate to say that anarchism/libertarianism IS the NAP, and that it will work if enough people are willing to defend the NAP.
>Either way, the NAP isn't that far from what I mentioned. If you do what you want but infringe on another's freedom, he can and will stop you. The important thing is that you CAN choose to infringe on his freedom if you wish to do so. Nothing's limiting you.
That sounds more like you're just saying what people are physically capable of. Of course you're capable of doing something that is immoral, that violates someone else's rights. The stance that people should be "allowed" to do whatever they want, even violate other's rights, is nihilism. The stance that people should be "allowed" to do whatever they want EXCEPT infringe on someone else's natural rights is libertarianism/anarchism/NAP. Even in a libertarian society where most people respect the NAP, it's not like the universe or God is going to force you to obey the NAP. Rather, people that believe in the NAP will enforce it by preventing people from violating it and punishing people who violate it.
Same thing with any other rules or laws. You can break the laws of your country even though you'll be punished.
>>27294195
Also, specifically what differentiates what you said from libertarianism is
>no laws
>no ethics
The NAP is the law and ethics of a libertarian society. There's no law besides the NAP, and no state to enforce the NAP; rather, anyone and everyone can enforce it and is encouraged to enforce it.
>>27290527
This country is far from Libertarian. Are you fucking stupid? You're legitimately insinuating that Rand is pro-establishment. Kill yourself.
>>27294386
The guy you're responding to is a shill or a troll. No one here is actually that stupid.
>>27289888
>traitor to virtue
Implying these people were ever virtuous in the first place.
>>27294312
>You see someone's rights being infringed upon? Go fuck up the aggressor.
What if I don't want to intervene and believe that the person who's getting his rights infringed upon should stand up for himself?
If people defend the NAP only when their personal rights are being endangered, would it still work?
If a militia or micro-state forms, with the aim of taking away people's freedom, then they would get shut down since people would protect their personal rights by forming a temporary association to defend the NAP.
>something that is immoral
What I'm saying is, can anarchism work without an underlying ideology like a moral or ethical system? Can't we say "you're free to do what you want with no limitations, but if you try something that bothers other people, you should be ready to fight in order to enforce your own views".
>violate other's rights
But if they do, they get stopped (or succeed, but if they try it on a large scale, they get stopped eventually by a large amount of people who don't want their freedom to be taken away). How is it nihilistic? It's just devoid of morals.
Isn't it somewhat closer to anarcho capitalism? If I'm not mistaken, anarcho capitalism doesn't follow a moral or ethical system, but says that whoever tries to violate another person's private property will be dealt with accordingly depending on the victim's resources.
>>27294521
>What if I don't want to intervene and believe that the person who's getting his rights infringed upon should stand up for himself?
Some would argue that by not intervening, you are neglecting your moral duty. However, under the NAP and libertarian values, you have the right to choose not to intervene, even if it's not the morally right decision (unless, of course, you are responsible for that victim being in that situation, in which case it is your duty to help them).
>If people defend the NAP only when their personal rights are being endangered, would it still work?
Depends. You're asking if it would work in practice, not what it actually means, so it really depends on the situation. If no one ever defends anyone else's rights, no one ever helps each other, then I think that society would be pretty quick to collapse whether or not it's a libertarian society.
>If a militia or micro-state forms, with the aim of taking away people's freedom, then they would get shut down since people would protect their personal rights by forming a temporary association to defend the NAP.
A militia could exist in a libertarian society if it exists only to defend natural rights/the NAP. If said militia or state takes away people's freedom then that's not in accordance with libertarianism or the NAP, so in order to maintain the libertarian society, someone would have to stop that militia/state.
>What I'm saying is, can anarchism work without an underlying ideology like a moral or ethical system?
Anarchism/libertarianism is all about natural rights/NAP which is a moral/ethical system, so what you described really isn't libertarianism/anarchism.
>Can't we say "you're free to do what you want with no limitations, but if you try something that bothers other people, you should be ready to fight in order to enforce your own views".
That's not libertarianism.
>>27294521
>But if they do, they get stopped (or succeed, but if they try it on a large scale, they get stopped eventually by a large amount of people who don't want their freedom to be taken away). How is it nihilistic? It's just devoid of morals.
Get stopped by who? The people who they are wronging? Then it's only if the victims are strong enough to defeat the aggressors. By other people? Why would those other people help? Because they believe in the NAP and libertarianism? If a large group of people all favor freedom because of natural law and defend it for that reason, that's libertarianism. If they band together and defend their own personal freedom and work together only because it benefits them personally, then that's just a symbiotic relationship and basically makes them a clan.
>devoid of morals
So morally nihilistic.
>Isn't it somewhat closer to anarcho capitalism? If I'm not mistaken, anarcho capitalism doesn't follow a moral or ethical system, but says that whoever tries to violate another person's private property will be dealt with accordingly depending on the victim's resources.
Anarcho capitalism is a combined ideology of anarchism and free market capitalism. The definition you gave is just free market capitalism, which is the economic side of anarcho capitalism. Anarchism means no hierarchy, and that's just different wording of libertarianism/not violating others' liberty.
>>27290715
g e t f u c k e d
All of America's greatest leaders acknowledged the virtue of a strong state with people who did their civic duty to it.
Libertarianism is immature, naive, and fantastical.
>>27294705
>you are neglecting your moral duty
I don't believe in duty nor do I uphold a moral system. I think people should base their views of what's good and bad on whatever benefits them, first and foremost.
>(unless, of course, you are responsible for that victim being in that situation, in which case it is your duty to help them
That makes sense. So the NAP says I wouldn't be compelled to intervene unless the victim was placed into this situation by my actions?
Where do you draw the line between actual responsibility and minor influence on an event? I'm nitpicking here, I suppose.
>If no one ever defends anyone else's rights
Unless they were being endangered as a collective.
In which case, wouldn't it just lead towards a fundamental form of social darwinism? Society wouldn't necessarily collapse if threats to the community itself were handled accordingly.
>That's not libertarianism
Yet I still don't get why you're calling it nihilism. Is it for the lack of a more appropriate term?
>basically makes them a clan
So, tribalism pretty much?
I won't address your other points since they make sense and answered my questions
>>27294873
>I don't believe in duty nor do I uphold a moral system. I think people should base their views of what's good and bad on whatever benefits them, first and foremost.
Then you're a moral nihilist, I've already said that. If you don't uphold a moral system does that mean that if you see an innocent whose life is in danger, and you have the capability of very easily saving that innocent's life with no danger to yourself and no significant negative repercussions for yourself, you would not act?
>That makes sense. So the NAP says I wouldn't be compelled to intervene unless the victim was placed into this situation by my actions?
Correct.
>Where do you draw the line between actual responsibility and minor influence on an event? I'm nitpicking here, I suppose.
If the victim would not be in that situation if not for your actions, then you hold partial blame and are therefore obligated to help the victim.
>Unless they were being endangered as a collective.
Then they are just defending themselves.
>In which case, wouldn't it just lead towards a fundamental form of social darwinism? Society wouldn't necessarily collapse if threats to the community itself were handled accordingly.
Then that makes it essentially a clan/tribe.
>Yet I still don't get why you're calling it nihilism. Is it for the lack of a more appropriate term?
Saying that nothing matters morally, there should be no ethics, everyone can do whatever they want even at the expense of others is moral nihilism.
>So, tribalism pretty much?
Exactly.
>>27295035
>If you don't uphold a moral system does that mean
It just means that I don't feel compelled to do things out of principles, ethics, a sense of duty, you name it. I don't believe in a higher authority than a man's own judgement: I guess Stirner describes my stance on morality quite accurately. If you want to do something, you shouldn't ask yourself questions about whether it's right or wrong to do it. You either do it or don't after having weighed the benefits and drawbacks of that action.
>if you see an innocent whose life is in danger, and you have the capability of very easily saving that innocent's life with no danger to yourself and no significant negative repercussions for yourself, you would not act?
First of all, is there a reason why you think I should feel compelled to act in that situation?
If such a situation arose, I might act, if only because it wouldn't cost me anything, but I'm also a firm believer in the idea that one should be able to defend himself and take responsibility for his own life. I can't really answer
>that makes it essentially a clan/tribe
I didn't know I was a tribalist. Tribalism is pretty much a mutually beneficial association of individuals with no other rules than the preservation of this symbiosis, then?
By the way, what's your stance on this issue? Are you an anarchist? If so, which type of anarchism do you subscribe to?
>nothing matters morally
Do you disagree with my claim that morality is a baseless construct?
