Why Libertarians have more integrity and intellectual honesty than Republicans and Democrats

[mrktjobs]

Actually, "libertarians" are more like adolescents who scream "STAY OUT OF MY LIFE! I DON'T NEED YOU! GET LOST!" and then, admit, quietly..."eh, but can you take me and my friends to the mall first?"

Similar to the "libertarian" who drives on the roads we all chipped in for. Or the "libertarian" who calls the police when he sees shifty characters outside his door. Or the "libertarian" who assumes that the person helping him on the phone with his software issue learned without a teacher, etc.

[MabusZero]

mfw OP can Triforce.

[a46475]

Axiom?

[ftorresgamez]

"There are restrictions on everything."

You're begging the question, N. It's not that PP should be restricted because everything else is restricted, that's circular. You're only restricted by the rights of other people, i.e. you cannot steal.

"I believe in consensus"

Consensus only means rule of the mob, the 50% plus one. The concept of rights serves to avoid such pitfalls as every individual is the same in his right to liberty and property, no "consensus" required.

[N0g0dzN0masterz]

"The libertarian favors the right to unrestricted private property and free exchange... hence a system of laissez faire capitalism"? unnn NO... that's not all true some libertarians may, not all. Private property as defined in our time is a form of aggression. Private property is the right to force people out of a given area. Even if the given area is not been occupied or been used by its "owner". In fact this a topic of much debate among libertarian to this day.

[dubified89]

@N0g0dzN0masterz "Private property is the right to force people out of a given area" So you'd be okay with it if I just walked in the room while you're having sex or going to the bathroom? And if you locked the door to keep me out, that would be you aggressing against me?

[N0g0dzN0masterz]

@dubified89 I said even if that area is not been occupied or been used. I was pretty clear.

[dubified89]

@N0g0dzN0masterz The bottom line though is that if you think about it, everyone believes in property rights of one form or another.

[N0g0dzN0masterz]

@dubified89 I never said that was not the case. My point is that, "unrestricted private property" is not favored by libertarians. That is a liberal concept, libertarian concepts of property are based on occupancy and use going back to Proudhon. The concept of private property that M. Rothbard is speaking of, is an aristocratic one. No libertarian favors that.

[dubified89]

@N0g0dzN0masterz It's not unrestricted. Your system is property restriction via majority rule. If the majority are your rulers than it's not anarchy as anarchy means 'without rulers'.

[N0g0dzN0masterz]

@dubified89 I know what Anarchy means. How ever I don't get what you are trying to get at. You speak of my system, what system is that? Anyway all I was addressing was the notion that libertarians favor the right to unrestricted private property. That's just not the case.

[SunlitTrollFilms]

@N0g0dzN0masterz Private property as defined in our time is a form of aggression? Get fucked. What dip shit came up with that idea. off of what cereal box did that come?

[N0g0dzN0masterz]

@SunlitTrollFilms If you are trolling fuck off. If you are too stupid to comprehend what I wrote... I can't help you there. Is actually not that hard to understand. example IF I am a land lord I can force you out of my property. Even if that property is not been used. Like a large lot of land that you could use to sustain your self. That = aggression. What write does anyone have to keep a person from been self sufficient. Really? how fucking hard is that to understand?

[ftorresgamez]

@N0g0dzN0masterz ,

"Private property as defined in our time is a form of aggression. "

Defined by whom?

"Private property is the right to force people out of a given area."

No, it's the right to keep property. Forcing people out of a "given area" is simply an extension of the right to self-protection, if the 'given area' happens to belong to you.

"Even if the given area is not been occupied or been used by its "owner"."

If you don't use your car, does that mean it ain't yours? It has AREA.

[N0g0dzN0masterz]

@ftorresgamez " If you don't use your car, does that mean it ain't yours? It has AREA." If I am not using a car how? like if I live it parked for years on the street? Or if I'm not using the car because I'm sleeping or working? even though this argument does not apply. Because I was referring to land. If you are parking your car and going to work you still are going to use it later so it is still been used. If you abandon your car you will probable not see it again. further more.

[ftorresgamez]

@N0g0dzN0masterz "Or if I'm not using the car because I'm sleeping or working?"

Does it matter? Remember, you're using Proudhon's definition: Property is what you use, not what you possess.

"If you are parking your car and going to work you still are going to use it later so it is still been used"

Same with land, N. You can't have it both ways.

[N0g0dzN0masterz]

@ftorresgamez I give "Private property" that definition based on what I see and understand. Also reading Proudhon (the original libertarian).

The claim that is an extension of self protection would be correct if you are speaking of an area that you are actively using ie farming or building etc. But does not apply if you are not actively using it. Like banks owning fore closed homes that they will never use. They just restrict access so they will have serves and peasants. or people in debt.

[ftorresgamez]

@N0g0dzN0masterz "But does not apply if you are not actively using it. "

Same with the car example, N. Again, you can't have it both ways and you cannot apply Special Pleading arguments, unless you want to tell me you're a Marxian polylogist as well: "MY logic is just as valid as YOUR logic!"

[N0g0dzN0masterz]

@ftorresgamez I'm not having anything both ways. I was only speaking to the idea that all libertarian believe in unrestricted private property. That is not true. I do not hold the position that land is only yours if you actively use it. I'm saying that there are libertarians who do. I do believe in private property but not the notion of it been unrestricted. There are restrictions on everything. I believe in consensus and a whats the best for the social welfare as well as the individual.

[GodOfTheInternets]

Smugg, smuggerty smugg.

Libertarians fuck you!

[MadLordDave]

Well what about gangs of highwaymen, pirates, rowdy city states, things that flourished and wrecked havoc on society before the state stepped up and dealt with them... and just because the state can be proven to cause poverty does not mean there would not be more poverty without the state, living standards are higher than they have ever been before.

[MadLordDave]

A very simplistic view that would create anarchy. Governments took over the world by force because individual people are nowhere near being productive or strong enough to resist. If the world was all Libertarian right now it would be re-conquered end of the decade. "You can't be aggressive man" "bang your dead and your stuff is mine, dumb neo-hippy"

Modern day governments prevent the poor from getting too rowdy conversely a Libertarian world would breed gangs of poor people armed to the teeth.

[Dirge987]

@MadLordDave "a Libertarian world would breed gangs of poor people armed to the teeth."

Seeing how every actions state - welfare, inflated fiat currency, licensing laws, regulations, taxes, minimum wage, war on drugs, zoning segregation, lack of decent education - increase the rates of poverty as well as put financial stress on the lower and middle class, means that most poverty is caused by the state itself. Eliminating the state would therefore have the opposite effect of what you assume.

[faithofjudas]

I stopped watching at "...war, especially modern war, entails the mass slaughter of civilians..."

This immediately demonstrated to me that the creator of this video has a laughably poor understanding of history, and current events. I no longer had any desire to continue watching, nor will I pass this along to friends.

get your hyperbole in line

-signed a libertarian, and war vet (who never killed a single civilian, either directly, or by proxy)

[Floridanon407]

@faithofjudas Mortars, JDAMs, Hellfires, Tomahawks, mk-19s, Napalm, MK44, Nuclear weapons, anthrax bombs proposed by Churchill, cobalt bombs considered by the US in Kora...

Dresden; Nanking; Nagasaki; Hirosima; Fallujah; blockade/sanctions of Iraq; the Contras; US support of MEK, PJACK, Jundullah; millions dead by starvation in China, Bengal, Greece, Germany, Africa via blockades; millions starved to death in Russia and Ukraine...

I could go on, but do I have to?

[faithofjudas]

@Floridanon407 nah that's alright. you sufficiently demonstrated your ignorance just fine already.

[Floridanon407]

@faithofjudas Just keep pretending like the US isn't firing missiles into innocent men, women, and children on a near daily basis in Pakistan and Yemen.

Keep pretending that the US didn't starve over a million Iraqis to death under Bill Clinton and then displace 5 million while killing another million under his successor.

Keep pretending that the vast majority of deaths caused by WWII weren't combatants

Modern war is, and is fought with weapons of, mass murder. Libertarians are antiwar

[faithofjudas]

@Floridanon407 Just keep pretending like the history of warfare doesn't extend past 1939, and then you might make some sense.

even then, you really don't.

[faithofjudas]

@Floridanon407

you cite direct fire weapons, such as JDAMs, Mk19s , and Hellfires as though they are/were used indiscriminately. As if they COULD be used indiscriminately.

[faithofjudas]

@Floridanon407 Even mortars require an on the ground observer to call in the shots, they are never, literally never, fired without a ground troop calling for their fire on a specific target, or reacting to incoming mortar rounds. If their are civilians killed, who is responsible? the men using them as shields? or the men defending themselves?

[Floridanon407]

@faithofjudas In the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan, it's the fault of the US/NATO soldiers for being the aggressors/occupiers in the first place. The response of levelling a structure with innocents inside because they happen to be in the vacinity of someone firing on occupiers makes it worse.

[faithofjudas]

@Floridanon407 You then cite nuclear weapons, which have only been used twice operationally ever (and which were arguably more humane than the likely alternative) and indeed, the weapons you specifically named were NEVER used. You then discussed weapons that didn't even exist, or named things that can, and always are, directed towards military targets. I am not claiming that civilians are not killed, and far too many.

[Floridanon407]

@faithofjudas For a "Libertarian" you seem to be woefully uninformed as to what Libertarian ethics are and how the only consistant position is one in favor of nuclear disarmament. Nuclear weapons, both in their purpose and use fit perfectly with the total war mentality of obliterating cities and mass, targetted, civilian killings. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were both unjust and unnecessary.

White Phosphorus has been/is used on residential areas by the US and Israel numerous times.

[faithofjudas]

@Floridanon407 "White Phosphorus has been/is used on residential areas by the US and Israel numerous times." not by the US since vietnam. Try again.

"For a "Libertarian" you seem to be woefully uninformed as to what Libertarian ethics are blah blah blah..."

Oh, my bad. I didn't realize this was a religion. I thought it was an intellectual position. Clearly, I was mistaken. I will sacrifice my reason to the greater group ethic. That's what you're asking for, right?

[Floridanon407]

@faithofjudas Keep pretending like your government issue costume is magic and imbues people with the right to kill innocents and call it collateral damage, knowledge of philosophy or law, political insight, and exception from those same laws which go misunderstood

This isnt a matter of theory these are facts, blockades are war, ~1,000,000 were killed as a consequence of the 2003 invasion, DU causes birth defects and radiation poisoning, and the nuclear bombings were posturing not humanitarian

[Floridanon407]

@faithofjudas Libertarianism is a moral philosophy centered around the rights of the individual that follow from an individual's self-ownership.

From that self-ownership comes uncompromising individualism, property rights, and the non-aggression principle.

If you don't understand and accept that one is at best a person who takes Libertarian positions on issues but does so from temporal preference or utility, or like you -- a warmonger in a costume who calls himself "Libertarian."

[Floridanon407]

@faithofjudas As for napalm, tell the incinerated Vietnamese and Korean villagers that they were legitimate military targets, unless your definition for that is "targetted BY a military."

JDAMs in just Iraq have been used on non-military targets in Fallujah, Najaf, and much more.

Mark-19, a belt-fed grenade launcher, need I say more?

As for Hellfires and tomahawks, are Pakistani funerals and wedding parties and Yemeni village elder councils "military targets" now?

[faithofjudas]

@Floridanon407 Yes, you do you fucking moron. What do you think a belt fed grenade launcher is for? You clearly don't even have the most rudimentary understanding of how warfare is conducted. Even 10 minutes playing a video game would expand your level knowledge a hundred fold. I'm done discussing this with you. It's like trying to discuss calculus with a third grader. At least the third grader has a legitimate excuse for his ignorance. You're just a child dressed up like an intellectual

[faithofjudas]

@Floridanon407

But 'modern war' as in, anything in the last 30 years, is very, very specifically designed to NOT kill civilians, often to the detriment of the safety of our own troops. In fact, if the monstrous aberrations of WWI and WWII are ignored, the trend of warfare from the beginning of recorded history till today is one of increasingly REDUCED civilian harm. You need to read up on your history, you're laughably ignorant.

[Floridanon407]

@faithofjudas Designed not to kill civilians? Again, you might want to remind the coward in arizona piloting drones on the other side of the planet to blow up Yemeni, Somali, and Pakistani civilians multiple times a week of that fact.

[faithofjudas]

@Floridanon407 and what of Fallujah? I was there. in 2004/05 and again in 2006. I worked there on and off again in 2008, and drove through it frequently in 2009. Were you there? I didn't think so. So what is it you think you know about that city and the battles fought there? I'd love to be enlightened.

[Floridanon407]

@faithofjudas I know depleted uranium was used there in such abundance that there are horrific birth defects due to pre-natal radiation poisoning several times a week in Fallujah.

I know White Phosphorus, a chemical weapon outlawed by the US itself was used.

I know an aggressive, occupying, imperial military resolved to sweep through that city after US hired and infamous mercenaries got killed by people who didn't want mercenaries in their country after going on a joyride.

[faithofjudas]

@Floridanon407 one million Iraqis did NOT starve to death due to the blockades. Cite your source, you buffoon. Hell, even Saddam didn't claim this happened, nor did Al-Queda when they were still recruiting locals. They each knew how ridiculous a claim that was, and never bothered with it. If they know it's a preposterous notion, and they are both known for wildly exaggerating their claims, why don't you, I wonder?

[Floridanon407]

@faithofjudas The Secretary of State at the time herself admitted and shrugged off the death toll of 500,000 children, and to repeat that was just the children who starved to death or died from dirty water or lack of medicine.

And it was absolutely cited by "Al Qaeda." It was in Bin Laden's 1996 "Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places."

[faithofjudas]

@Floridanon407 then displaced another 5 million? how many people do you think live in that country?

you realize that by now in your world America has forcibly removed something like 20% of the country's population, right? You don't think at least ONE reputable journalist, or one objective and quantifiable census somewhere would have noticed that? You're going to have to find at least one legitimate scholarly source in order for any rational person to take such hyperbolic nonsense seriously.

[faithofjudas]

@Floridanon407 Modern war is an excercise of extreme caution around civilians, since most of the enemy 'troops' are directly recruited from civilian populations. Causing harm to them has an immediate, measurable, and direct negative impact toward the strategic goals. So not only does your claim lack any legitimate backing, it also lacks a motive, and in fact, the motive runs the exact opposite. If you were a lawyer presenting a case like this, you'd be kicked out of the courtroom by now.

[faithofjudas]

@Floridanon407 saying libertarians are anti-war is asinine. Everyone is antiwar. newsflash, there are extremely few true villains in the world, twisting their mustaches in evil circles while plotting pointless destruction.

[Floridanon407]

@faithofjudas "Everyone is antiwar."

Bullshit, Conservatives and "Liberals" love war. They love it so much that there's now actually a term for the amateur video clips they pass around, post on blogs, and stroke their jingoism to - "War Porn." They love war, everywhere and all the time, provided that the person in the White House is from their political party, and the ex-trotskyist Neoconservatives love it so much they don't care about the CinC's party.

[Floridanon407]

@faithofjudas If you want to understand the Libertarian ethics regarding war and modern weapons of war, google "rothbard war peace the state."

[faithofjudas]

@Floridanon407 so now that I've laid out specifically why you're ignorant and a fool on every claim (unless I missed one or two, you fired so scatter-shot that it's probable I did) are you going to address any of these specifics, or just continue to rant about other random shit? I think you need to learn how to think critically, analyze data, and form coherent arguments. Don't worry, it's not really your fault. Our public education system has been systematically failing for decades.

[faithofjudas]

@Floridanon407 a blockade/sanction is NOT war, though arguably it is a tool of warfare, so I suppose I can allow this. But what alternative do you suggest? At least assuming the justification for hostile action is present. I'm not discussing specifics, though apparently you are, and then expanding a perceived specific injustice to encompass the entire spectrum of possible uses for that method. This is a logical and argumentative fallacy, and again, further demonstrates your mental lack.

[Floridanon407]

@faithofjudas Oh, by the way, blockades are classed as an act of war, just like no-fly zones are. So you're incorrect on that front to.

[COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY]

libertarians are pseudo fascists that favour agency over structure. They believe in negative rights, eg. the right NOT to have pay taxes for a welfare state. The libertarian preaches about liberty, but that agency can and does also result in detriment. Freedom has a price, someone has to pay for their freedom

[ProIndividual]

What a fantastic video.

[magiccat12]

A republican wants the government to leave him alone. A libertarian wants the government to leave everyone alone. Libertarians, unlike republicans, understand that if you support the right to intrude into other people's lives, you are inviting them to intrude into your life.

[schmoborama]

Interesting but how do liberatarians expect to pay for fire departments and garbage collection? How do you expect a society to function, having one foot in total anarchy? ( literal anarchy, not 'insanity' ) I used to be an anarchist, until I learned that it will just not work, unless we consign ourselves to live in caves and huts.

[bitbutter]

@schmoborama "how do liberatarians expect to pay for fire departments and garbage collection?"

I expect that this would happen much the same way as private fire services work right now. Google "Fire-Fighting for Profit" to read about one very successful example.

"I used to be an anarchist, *until I confused appeals to ignorance for knowledge*"

Fixed it for you. The fact that you can't imagine how X can be achieved without gov, doesn't mean X cannot be achieved without gov.

[schmoborama]

@bitbutter

"until I confused appeals to ignorance for knowledge"

Don't be a fucking cunt. You preach for a system that is NOT proven to work as well as our current systems IF AT ALL, and you call *me* ignorant?

The reason that anarchy will not work is because humans will always group together, just like wolves do. That's why we have societies in the first place.

Dumbshit.

[bitbutter]

@schmoborama Your ignorance, on it's own, isn't the problem here (we're all ignorant about something or other). The trouble is that you've confused your ignorance about questions of the form: 'how X would work without gov' for _knowledge_ that 'X cannot work without gov'. This is called an 'appeal to ignorance', formally.

Your swearing and name-calling give the impression that your comments are the product of emotion rather than reason. This hurts your chances of successfully persuading people.

[schmoborama]

@bitbutter

No, obviously my swearing comes from not having heard the term "appeal to ignorance" and feeling insulted. Appreciate the clarification.

But you're wrong. I'm not saying 'it won't work without govt', I'm saying Anarchy won't work, and I gave logical reason. You could give me an actual reason that I'm wrong instead of just saying I'm wrong.

[bitbutter]

@schmoborama "But you're wrong. I'm not saying 'it won't work without govt', I'm saying Anarchy won't work,"

Anarchy means without rulers, which means without government. So yes, you have been saying 'X won't work without government' whether you mean to or not.

The 'reason' you've offered so far is: Humans are social, therefore statism. You'll have to flesh that out if you're hoping for a rebuttal, at the moment it's just a non sequitur.

[schmoborama]

@bitbutter

Oh gee can I respond to you here? bitbutter you're a fucking lying CUNT. Just because your argument was becoming unglued, you BLOCK me - like any lying PRICK would - *then* you respond to my comments with BULLSHIT, KNOWING FULL WELL THAT I COULD NOT RETORT.

Go FUCK yourself you pathetic, STUPID, sociopathic, shit-eating, cock-gobbling bullshit-artist.

[ForAVoluntarySociety]

@schmoborama Humans are inherently social and empathetic. Therefore they don't need to be forced to cooperate. This is why many Anthropologists, Economists and Sociologists advocate Anarchistic societies. I believe you confuse the difference between the State and society. Society is humans peacefully interacting with each other in common interest. Government is a small group of people who claim sole rule over a given geographical region and use the initiation of force to enforce their rule.

[schmoborama]

@ForAVoluntarySociety

"Humans are social - they don't need to be forced -"

You're talking about an instinct, which does not know how to keep the country healthy.

"you confuse State and society. Society is humans peacefully interacting -"

And a state maintains a civil society.

"Government is-"

You confuse Democratic Government with Monarchy and Dictatorship.

"use force to enforce their rule"

Yes, rules voted in by free people, and are an advantage to *everyone* except criminals.

[romeodiscos]

@bitbutter I live in a county where you can take your own trash to the county dumpster or pay a private service to pickup your trash we pay 10 dollars a month for pickup also many counties with smaller populations have volunteer fire departments most of america is rural