What are /r9k/'s thoughts on libertarianism? Is it approved by this board?
UGH its fucking terrible
It is a meme viewpoint.
>>27453912
It has some nice ideas, but the open borders and all drugs allowed is bullshit
I'd be able to take libertarians more seriously if they weren't autistically obsessed with "muh state."
t. NRx curious about incorporating anarcho-capitalism into a theory of neo-feudalism
>>27453912
this about sums up my feelings on libertarianism
>>27453912
Do we really need this same thread everyday?
>>27453912roadsoadsget rekt
>>27453912
No, it's moronic
There's no difference between wage slavery and normal slavery. There's no fate worse for a human being than to have his rational self overridden and and to lose control over the work that he does to survive. Prove me wrong.
>>27453912
I like it, but you have to take any political view with a grain of salt. No one platform taken to its extremes will work effectively. There are some good Libertarian ideals that work well though.
I like it
Gsgeg
>>27453912
I support it. principally because society should be organized to stay out of the way of independent, hardworking people who're trying to get on with their lives, and shouldn't waste it's time or public money supporting lazy bums like me.
>>27453912
>libertarian thread
>posts authoritarian shill flag
Stop doing this senpai
Don't step
>>27453912
Its what makes china strong
also the only political movement that seems to think Constitutional rights are always to be respected, instead of things to be respected only when they align with the party's ideology, as both the Dems and GOP seem to think
Most of its advocates would be worse off, stupid people.
It's the only non-meme ideology.
I used to be fairly into it, but it seems pretty intellectually bankrupt and pointless.
Firstly, it has to be recognised that the vast majority of libertarians are middle or upper-middle class white males. Yes in part they're drawn to it because it's a movement with actually positive values and a degree of intellectual rigor, but a big part of what draws them is that they were essentially born 'winners' in society and so they assume that the values they were only able to exercise because of systems of power and economics well beyond their influence, are somehow extendable to others and would allow the poor to thrive in a libertarian system. These libertarians are essentially just defending their own economic interests and remaining oblivious to the obvious contradictions of their values - for example most would like to achieve political success on the national level, which implies borders, implies economic protectionism on some level, implies limiting influence to the borders of that nation, etc.
Secondly, it's a completely 'idealistic' system. While libertarians always suggest that the free market can achieve practically anything, most of them aren't concerned with reforming things towards libertarian values in a decentaralised way, in fact most of them way to somehow gain the heights of power and just start shutting things down. There are exceptions to this like that dude with the open-source 3D gun, and people promoting and investing encryption - but most libertarians want to achieve their success in non-libertarian ways, and they can never succeed because everyone will always push against values contrary to their own economic interests.
TLDR libertarianism is more a fashion statement than a serious, coherent ideology.
It's alright but economically fucked
>>27456345
>implies economic protectionism on some level
Libertarians are pretty much the only defenders of free trade around these days, anon
>>27456390
Yeah but the question is - how are they defining 'free trade'?
By definition 'free trade' policies are implemented by GOVERNMENTS or some sort of coercive force. The contradictions and hypocrisies and obvious stupidity of the ideas arises even on the definitional level. Terms like "free trade" came about in a context of HUGE national governments and various international bodies working to build treaties which be definition set terms and conditions governing trade. A national government cannot simply say "Ok trade is now free", beacause this obviously ties in to all sorts of other issues like border protection, internal regulation, insurance, compatibility of products, what money is being used to trade and who prints it or where it comes from, etc.
>>27456515
>this obviously ties in to all sorts of other issues like border protection, internal regulation, insurance, compatibility of products, what money is being used to trade
those are all regulations that Libertarians want to cut. That's a core part of the platform. And a government certainly can decide to say "Hey, bud. I'll get rid of my tariffs if you will". Or do so unilaterally, for that matter.
Free trade is removing barriers to commerce that the government itself put there.
>>27456571
>And a government certainly can decide to say "Hey, bud. I'll get rid of my tariffs if you will". Or do so unilaterally, for that matter.
As I've already tried to explain, this is impossible - if all tariffs are removed this doesn't mean a free trade is occuring, the government continues to exist, it continues to influence policy (so say the government bans installation of certain products in homes because they're a fire-hazard, this limits trade), it still has borders which limit travel (a part of trade), etc. These are just simple examples but there are thousands more.
That's before we even get to the issue of "game theory" and why this can't simply be won on a national level, because it's like a family having a family meeting, deciding to let anyone onto the family property and into the home to use the bathroom, etc. Even if they succeed at coming to this consensus, no other family in the neighbourhood is going to be crazy enough to implement the same policy, and so THIS family gets ruined, their house gets trashed, while the other family homes continue to function and thrive.
>>27453912
Libertarianism is the supreme ideology
Statists niggers can suck my cock for all i care
