When people criticise libertarianism for not allowing the State to compel people to pay for what otherwise wouldn't be underwritten, know that any location of actions where they will strain services such as fire insurance and garbage collection, when subsidised to prevent the in effect risk-of-strain streaming by cost and insurance premium price signals,
are induced to be suboptimally located where more risk is imposed and people are discouraged from lowering risks to lower voluntary market price signals the State silenced.
And you would in a libertarian society and especially in a full anarcho-capitalist, Lockean society, be induced to buy particular insurance as mandate for selecting property in those areas where if the market can bear such divestment of residential capital from serving ends that would imply not making that list of contracts (which the market would of course allow as alternative) that people will select such areas purchase rules to avoid negative externality from environs.
Yes the US placed an embargo on Iraq oil but do you really think the prevented China France and England from getting Iraq oil? And at gun point? I think you are confused on the term embargo. I just today saw Ron Paul say we need to befreind Iran and countries like Egypt because it will cause them to stop building nukes. Yes he specificaly said make friends. A little niaeve dont you think?
I dont recall the US pointing guns a anyone and forceing them not to sell oil. You'll have to update me. Mubarak although piece of crap, protected the minorities and christians. They are now being brutalized. A good Libertarian would want a good relationship with anyone at least on a business basis.
@mmac382 Well then you didn't attention from Auguat 6, 1990 to May 2003. Given you didn't pay attention for over a decade why are you talking the region? Protecting the minorities of other countries is NOT the job of the US. If Mubarack hadn't been a dictatorial piece of shit the Islamist might not have got the strength they did and might not be persecuting minorities. A good libertarian government would want only the absence of a bad relationship, not a good one.
@newperve No examples indicates you are not being honest with your statements. I never said the US is responsible to protect foriegn minorities. My point was a side effect of tolerating a "Dictatorial piece of shit" was the safety of the christians. The elimination of the dictator obviously exspose the piece of shit Islamic populous of Egypt. Libertarians are just chicken shit liberals in conservative like clothing.
@mmac382 Wow, you don't get a reference to the Iraq oil embaro and so you call me a liar Just because you don't know about it dosn't mean it is not true. But thanks for lifting the tone of the debate with claims of dishonest and calling me chickenshit. You are even ignorant of the subjects you bring up, the US didn't "tolerate" Mubarack they supported him. And you haven't shown that this support protected minorities, in fact US actions probably led to a lot of the persecution of christians.
The very definition of Libertarianism makes the absence of war impossible. War is not something that will go away, simply because it is within the humans genetics to wage conflicts. It is because mans psychological predisposition to do so. Libertarian’s definition of freedom will not change that. Conservatism at least acknowledges the possibilities or war and tries to address the realities of war. Of course that’s a pipe dream as well because man always finds new was to battle.
@mmac382 if some group is planning or or is "waging war," they are trying to be "government." they are using the same methods as the state (initiation of violence)
@tr00ths33k3r Your assumption that the only method of recourse is State run war is inaccurate. By far in most cases other actions are initiated in attempt to facilitate a desired outcome. Examples of said actions would be group admonishments to sanctions and embargo. Your simplification of what detemines a Governent is nebulus and without explanation. It would have been better to explain your defination of Goverment.
@mmac382 "government" is a group that claims the "right" to initiate violence. it attempts to maintain a monopoly on the "right" to use force. how can that be "libertarian" ?
@mmac382 if your "group" decides on an "embargo," who are you to say i can't trade with whoever? if you all voluntarily agree, sure.. if you want to try to make me agree because you consider me part of your "group," then you're trying to "govern" me. if you do nothing if i trade with whoever, then you're not trying to "govern" me.
@tr00ths33k3r without 'government," "war", sanctioned conflict between "countries," wouldnt even exist. how could it? conflicts would.. people would have conflicts.. but "countries" and "governments" wouldn't even exist. when there is "government," there is nothing but war, against the citizens, and against the people of other "countries" due to the blind violence "war" is... the whole point of the video.. the soldiers wouldnt even be there.
if a crazy guy came into your "neighborhood," and he blew up a store and killed X number of "citizens," and you found out he was from three neighborhoods away.. would you first, demand all of your neighbors pay to fund an operation to go find him and his buddies and remove them from their houses if they didn't? would you then go to his neighborhood, and start just running amok, kicking in everyone's doors, blowing up places you think he might be hiding, imposing a curfew on all the people?
@tr00ths33k3r War is a human run operation. Never has there been a time void of human conflict. Such conflicts need a governing body to be successful. The governing body is not responsible, people are. Your need to have a governmment to blame shows your iberal side and therefore makes you a imitation Libertarian.
@mmac382 My liberal side? I'm more liberal than any statist... and by contemporary american standards, i'm more of a conservative and more of a libertarian. There's a difference between a "war" and a "conflict" between humans.
@mmac382 "War" in a political context immediate implies that at least one "government" has "officially" declared it's going to attack some other "government" or group. If two individuals are in armed conflict, it can be said they are at war, and yes, it is a human run operation.. under the orders of a "government" usually, but anyone who "wages war" (as opposed to defends themselves or retaliates against the SPECIFIC individuals who waged against them first) is doing the same as any 'govt'
@mmac382 the difference between a "war" and a "conflict" is great.. a "war" in the sense of "a people or nation or commonwealth" engaging in full scale combat with another "people, or nation/commonwealth/country/'government' etc" via "armed forces" which are funded by "government"/taxation, etc, is not the same as a group of people who are wronged, voluntarily take up their own arms, do not force others to pay for it, and engage solely with the individuals who wronged them.
ron paul believes "majority" or "plurality" "vote" and magic document "constitution" gives him the "right" to demand everyone pay for national(ist) "defense," and initiate violence (seizure of property, kidnapping, caging) if you don't pay. hallelujah.
ron paul is a socialist, and a conservative, like all socialists, all "government," who pretends to be a liberal, and calls himself a "libertarian." if you think that makes no sense, television has brainwashed you.
Conservatives are always for more liberties than the left rationalists. If you are a libertarian you should always prefer older institutions to new ones, becouse old institutions went trough process of natural selection and hence by definition guarantee to an extent the man's natural rights. There were more liberties and less taxes in traditional monarchies than in today's mass democracies
@AtheistRightWing if you believe in "government" youre not an atheist. the belief in the state/"government" is the same as the belief in god. it is the belief that magic rituals invoke an all power being, "authority," which can alter morality. it can declare "you must pay for services, such as "protection"/"defense," and if you do not, we can break into your house, remove you by force, and cage you," and that this violence initiated by "authority" is morally acceptable or just, because it is"law
@tr00ths33k3r Maybe my name is a bit misleading. I'm more of a metaphysical materialist and determinist. I do however, recognize the utility of faith and spirituality, since they are metaphors for solidarity among members of a community. As for the state, any authority must preserve the persons from which it derives it's income (preserving capital value). It is in the self-interest of privatized governments (monarchies) to run a prosperous society, and older ones tend to be better at it.
@AtheistRightWing "authority" doesnt exist. who has the "right to issue orders" to you? who is it you ALLOW to issue orders to you? it's all in your head man! you are the only authority! "privatized 'government' doesn't make any sense
they can basically live like that if they want, i guess, if they acquire all property justly.. and that can only be done through mutual consent .. .. the only way they could ever even hope to do it is through the free market.. but THEYRE not anarchists, they would be a state, the inhabitants of which still believe in an authoritarian methods
the "governing body" must actually be in control of ALL "means of production" in order to even attempt to do that.. and i didnt mean to imply that they'd end up going to another commune, or that everything would naturally be a "bunch of communes" -- as the commune basically implies housing, food production, work, etc.. all under some "governing body".. the same damn thing.. so clearly not statelessness ..
* of course the socialist "economic theories" are complete bunkum, and clearly REQUIRE that "governing body" to remain existent to maintain that their "theories" are in place, that no one can make a profit, that they are trading equal labor, etc...
(but then are clearly not equal in rights once the losers are forced to follow suit with some.. "governing body"..) and subjugating yourself/others has nothing to do with anarchy/ism. now, if of course, the people who didnt like how it was going could just easily opt out or what have you, leave, find another "commune" to trade their labor to in return for, whatever* -well then it pretty much is the same thing as "free market anarchism" ..
I'll try to clarify.. People can choose to voluntarily collectivize, etc, only through the free market. All else is obviously just force, and therefore illegitimate... but even if they choose to collectivize and then implement some sort of "socialist" or "egalitarian" method, which uses "democracy" to control the means of production-- then the "vote" or "ruling" is meant to obviously subjugate people who could be considered "equal owners" of that worker's co-op or commune or w/e..
To think we need to "pass some legislation" to "allow freedom" or something is nonsense. if a "libertarian" still believes in "govt" he's not a libertarian. "libertarian government" is pretty much nonsense. "government" is only "libertarian" in rhetoric-- NEVER in practice... the only libertarian position is anarchism.
@tr00ths33k3r "...the only libertarian position is anarchism."
I see Noam Chomsky has influenced you but even Chomsky believes in some form of government and still refers to himself as an Anarchist (or a supporter of Libertarian Socialism or Social Anarchism). How does that work and fit with what you wrote above?
@tr00ths33k3r "...there is simply freedom vs the state."
I am a "libertarian," politically speaking, because I want the smallest, least intrusive government possible. Anarchism, as I understand it, will almost always devolve/evolve into tribal groupings which will likely assert their collective will on others. Chomsky's ideal world would require an amazing amount of self-awareness and self-control, which I do not see happening any time soon (w/o statists forcing it by removing the "self").
@rawREN "likely assert their collective will on others. " - that is "government." no one else is viewed as having the "right" (legitimate "power") to use force against you if you dont pay into their demands
@rawREN if you want, check out Objectivism and The State: An open letter to Ayn Rand, by Roy Childs, Jr... regarding contradictions of "limited government"
@rawREN we already "live in anarchy" - we always have, and we always will. "government" is a delusion. no one has the "right to rule over you by (so-called) 'authority ("govern) '" but you. no one ever even could "govern" you. the entire concept is illogical. if someone issues a demand and uses violence if i dont comply, that's not "ruling over me by right of authority," that's just issuing a demand and using violence against me. I GOVERN MYSELF.
@tr00ths33k3r "we already 'live in anarchy' - we always have, and we always will. 'government' is a delusion."
Sorry, but I disagree. Furthermore, I think this statement and your general approach is essentially deconstructivist. Okay, sure, chaos abounds and our default is self rule and sustainment, but that does not make libertarianism synonymous with anarchism.
@rawREN you disagree? so you believe you voting for someone means they have the right to "govern" (RULE over, issue orders by (imaginary) right of "authority") to ME? what's that got to do with "liberty" ? Nothing.
@rawREN if "libertarianism" isnt synonymous with anarchy, statelessness, then it has nothing to do with liberty. it's a half-assed attempt to reconcile freedom with the imaginary belief that "voting" or some magic document (constitution) gives someone the "right to issue orders" to people (authority). how can you say you believe in freedom if you believe in "government" or "authority," the "right to rule over," the "right to issue orders" etc ?
@rawREN right, well, if you still want a "government" youre not a libertarian, youre still a statist.. .. and as statism is involuntary collectivism, it is not libertarianism. the "government" is all inclusive/instrusive.. there can be no such thing as "limited govt," only "govt" and how much it demands or no "govt." if you didnt have a group claiming the power to "tax" based on 51% say so, using indisciminate violence against those who dont pay into their demands, you wouldnt have 'govt"
The "right" simply wants to "conserve" whatever institutions it views as "proper" -- the "left" wants to overthrow hierarchical positions.... but thus far, all of their attempts have resulted in a new ruling class ("government")- as both "sides" believe "government" is the way to "secure" their agenda. A "republic of laws" sounds a little better-- but just varying degree of same statist outlook.
@tr00ths33k3r "the 'left' wants to overthrow hierarchical positions..."
Your simplifications here are clumsy and doing the political concepts of left and right absolutely no justice. BTW, are you deleting your old comments? That would be a bit odd.
@rawREN theyre not simplifications. the "left/right" nonsense dichotomy is simply about rhetoric. people run around saying hitler and the libertarians are right wing, and stalin/mao/anarchists are left wing. it's nonsense. i delete for typos usually
@rawREN i dont aim to do the "left" or "right" any justice. they are both statists. even you believe in the state, and you claim you are a "right wing libertarian" no doubt or some such nonsense. if you advocate "government," you advocate enslaving people. plain and simple. if someone can issue orders to another, and use violence for non-compliance, and everyone (who is a statist) believes the violence is right and non-compliance is wrong.. they believe the victim is a slave.
@rawREN Okay, sure, chaos abounds and our default is self rule and sustainment, but that does not make libertarianism synonymous with anarchism. -- self rule is ALL THERE IS. who rules you, the "libertarian" ? who do you, the "libertarian," pick to rule you? if you want anything other than self-rule, youre not a libertarian. you want rule by another.
@rawREN again, if "libertarianism" isnt synonmous with "anarchy" then "libertarianism" has little if anything to do with liberty. how can "rule by another" have anything to do with liberty?
@tr00ths33k3r Stop with the semantics already. Is a Democrat really "democratic?" Or a Republican really concerned with the "republic?" I understand what your position is, but splitting hairs here is not helpful. In a civil society, we often agree on a certain amount of government and a Libertarian's position is the next best thing to an anarchist position. Write whatever you like in response to this, but you are not talking about 99+ percent of libertarians and their political philosophies.
@rawREN I'm dismantling YOUR semantics. No, "Libertarianism" as a "political philosophy," if it not synonymous with statelessness, is not the "next best thing" to anarchy. It's not anywhere close to being the "best" or a "good" thing.. it's still statism. If "libertarians" still want some group running around claiming to be 'central authority,' imposing statute 'laws' and such, demanding obedience and money under threat of violence, then they don't support liberty.
@tr00ths33k3r and if they don't support those things.. then they are anarchists/true libertarians, that is they support liberty. "government" is nothing but subjugation/rule/attempted control of "society" by one portion of it at the point of a gun. what does that have to do with liberty?
@tr00ths33k3r Libertarianism is not, nor has it ever been, as a political philosophy and party, about statelessness. Statelessness is Anarchy. Look up Anarchy in any dictionary and you will find it describes exactly what you are attempting to suggest Libertarianism means. If you want to argue that Libertarians are still Statists, then fine - do that, but don't pretend that Libertarianism is, or should be synonymous with, Anarchism.
@rawREN Libertarian like all other political philosophies, is subject to ones own personal views. There is no real definition of Libertarianisn other than to say it promotes less Gov and Less Gov intervention into foriegn affairs. Where it go's after that is anybodys guess. I think Libertarians are closer to Liberals because of the religious views and because of thier willingness to hide their heads when it comes to self preservation globally. Its that kind of view that alowed 9/11
@mmac382 "...thier willingness to hide their heads when it comes to self preservation globally. Its that kind of view that alowed 9/11"
Nonsense. Libertarians wouldn't have endorsed and paid for the kind of global interventions that motivated the perpetrators of 9/11. That said, I am not an isolationist and also realize that Al Qaeda has ideological conflicts with the West, as a whole, that go far beyond America's foreign policy and the West would eventually have clashed with AQ or its like.
@rawREN Oh Yes of course. The Libertarians would have just allowed Iraq to take over Kuwait and control all the oil in the region. Thats what Osama claims to be the prime motivator for his attacks. Its the Libertarians liberal complaciency that would put at the mercy of those tyrants. Nice work Libertarians
@mmac382 Libertarians also wouldn't be promising Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel, or any other country that the US Military would be at their beck and call and those countries would have to invest more of their own money in national defense. Why do you think Europe has so much money to invest in its social programs? Why did Japan and S Korea do so well after WWII and the Korean War? Oh, that's right, the US military. These points are hardly controversial, but many people willingly forget them.
@rawREN Even a Libertarian Pres would recognize the Oil supplies are a National security concern. Dont fool yourself into thinking they wouldnt do the same in Kuwait. They are all talk but push comes to shove they would probably act like the Liberals that they really are. Oh and if you take the time to watch the news, Europe doesnt have the money to support their ignorant social programs. Thats why they're all bankrupt. Your revisionist history is another liberal trait.
@mmac382 What have I "revised?" It is a well known fact that we save all of those countries tremendous amounts of money by placing our garrisons and troops all around the world, but that doesn't mean they couldn't still overspend and they obviously have. Modern day "conservatives" are the ones who are becoming more "liberal," and so-called "compassionate conservatism" is an example. If anything, I am a "classical liberal" and that is quite different than a modern day liberal.
@mmac382 Actually all the intervention has made US oil supplies LESS secure. In part because at least twice the US has lead boycotts against oil-producing nations. To claim that a libertarian president would continue to interfer in the middle east because that's been SO useful in getting oil is bizarre.
@newperve Your assesment of our oil security is after the fact. And even if true would still not prevent the US from an Intervention like Kuwait in the future. Obtaining oil is not always the main reason to get involved in the Mid East and a Libertarian would recognize the need for good relations with people like the Saudis. Ask the Christians in Egypt how important our relations with Mubarak was. We can get oil anytime we want if we just were allowed to harvest our own here in the US.
@mmac382 Even before the fact anyone could tell that pointing guns at people and telling them not to sell oil isn't going to get more oil sold. I don't recognise the need for good relations with the Saudis. I recognise the need not to completely honk off the people you want to buy stuff from but actual "good relations" aren't neccesary. What has the West gained from it's relations with Mubarak other than the hatred of islamists and more evidence of unprincipled behaviour?
nazism (finger on right side) and commmunim (finger on left side) are fingers of LEFT hand (socialism)
pro freedom is RIGHT hand (libertarianism, (true)monarchy)
its simple way to show it to peson that dont understand this - and thats why debate in whole world is limited - because people associate "right freedom side" with nazis and false "right side(that in fact is leftist system)
thats why antifa or neonazis are same controlled BulSht. and we have wars over nothing - there wont be ANY change
@tr00ths33k3r we in Poland at some point had elections of monarch - this was threating for absolute monarchic neighbours - thats why we had partitions
so monachy can mean freedom - because allso peasants allso got personal protection - thats why we were invaded
@H5N1XD all statists are basically the same ... i COULD argue that nazis are right wing (conservatives), and win... you could argue they are left wing (socialists), and win... same for stalin, mao, etc... there is simply freedom vs the state.
@xtelemasterx You guessed wrong. Do you think that "as you get older, you're more willing to accept a completely illegitimate institution "??? Are people who think that broken? Are their spirits crushed? Are their minds confused? Anarchism is the only LOGICAL position. My age has nothing to do with the state being illegitimate.. . does your age have something to do with you viewing it as legitimate?
@thirdshift47 Well, your comment proves mine, and I will explicate, since you did not. You did take your dumb pills. What I left out of the statement was that I had been a Democrat too. I voted for J. Carter (the moron) as my first presidential vote. You'd have to be absolutely dumb to be a Democrat (or should I say Dumbocrat?) these days. It was never the smart choice, but now it's absolutely off the charts stupid. Your policies are absolutely idiotic and destructive. Grow a brain.
1.)Who said that I was a member of that joke of a political party?I wouldn't vote for Obama if you paid me to(and i'm black.)
2.)It's actually quite typical of right-wingers to be leftists when it's fashionable,only to become born-again reactionairies when it becomes fashionable as well.e.g.,all of the endless number of current right-wing libertarians & neocons that were Marxist ideologues back in the 60s,now swearing by the gospel of the market agenda.
@thirdshift47 You make the mistake of classifying me as a right-winger. You would be incorrect. And I was a Democrat up till the age of 22ish. I became a Libertarian then because neither of the two big ones were correct.
And I was a kid back in the 60's. You seem quite off the mark on all issues. Odd.
You could literally spend all day naming some of today's key US conservative intellectuals that were not just leftist & leftist sympathizers,but card-carrying Trotskyites during the 60s(and by their own admission.)
And,without a doubt,the contemporary US Libertarian Party in the states is a movement with far-right roots and big plutocrat money.
@thirdshift47 I was a kid in the 60's. I was born in 58. As for the LP having far-right roots, you've never been to a LP meeting. We come from all sectors of society. And as for "far-right roots and big plutocrat money" we have people that come from the right, the left, the up the down, the inside and the outside, and you don't know what you're talking about. As for money? We don't have any. Are you insane? It's one of the biggest problems. You really need to go and get some schooling.
I guess that explains perfectly how my fellow Atlantan & former far right-wing,90s ultraconservative hero Bob Barr has finally found himself as the Libertarian nominee.
@thirdshift47 So, you firstly contend that you know everything about who we are, while actually knowing Nothing of who we are. I've been a delegate to the last two national conventions. I actually voted for Barr. I talked with him personally for almost an hour on the phone and then again at the convention. I believed he had the best chance of drumming up support. He screwed up. We screwed up. Of course, we're not as bad as the idiots who nominated then voted for Obama.
@thirdshift47 Of course, in your mind, no one can become a Libertarian. It's as if you were born that way. I'm a friend of Wayne Root, yet we have intense battles on policy. I hope he'll see the light. He is coming closer. It'll take time. I don't think he has a chance for the nomination in 12. The Convention is almost a year away. I'm anxious to see what we'll do. We won't know till Dec. But there is a swing toward the Dogmatists, the hardcore LP members. We'll see.
@thirdshift47 Of course, I'm sure with your prognostigative powers that you know already. Why not tell me and save me the suspense. You truly know nothing. I'm curious as to where you stand. Your profile is full of bullshit, just like your rhetoric.
We believe in the fundamental illegitimacy of both tyranny and liberty.We believe them to be but more lies and illusions perpetuated by civil societie's moral and legal codes.
We're not nihilists because nihilism leaves room for the affimation of values,which can be politicized and expressed in terms of freedom and control.
Notatarians--or "Nots"--also believe war & peace to be fundamentally imperialist & equally irrational agendas.
@thirdshift47 Your position is completely insane and unworkable. Unfortunately, as bad as they are, governments are necessary if only to control government. The biggest problem is that, from the very beginning of this governmental system, government greed (Hamilton and the Mercantilists) controlled the issues. We need to actually enforce the Constitution. If we don't we're all doomed. Your philosophy is a pipe dream and as devoid of logic as your assessment of the LP.
Notatarians are only illogical insofar as we use it to challenge the cold,stiff logic of the market--antimarket delmma.
We're quite logical--even totalitarian--in our consistency,though(indeed,we have no left or right wings,no moderates & no diversity of views within the system.We opt for pure dogmatism.)
Notatarians positively dispise not only government but even anarchist 'governance',& view 'security','law' & 'morality' as public-private welfare & social engineering.
Well,Notatarians positively scorn governments & markets as wholly degenerate associations.
Yet we reject socialism,anarchism & compassionate welfare politics because it equally arrests the biological mobility of the species.
That's why we inevitably support the current corporate capitalist--subservient state US business model as being the best means for bringing about the total annihilation of homosapiens,which will then bring forth the conditions for the superior man--the new man.
@thirdshift47 Odd, you don't score the internet or the computer you use to reach it. I'm sure you don't hunt or gather your food or make your own clothes. What it seems you are is a contrary.
As I've pointed out we Notatarians are contrary to the species.
Beyond that we're perhaps the closest thing to a true conservative movement active in the US,with our unabashed call for corporate dominance and such(the for-profit corporation being the clearest institutional & historically unparralled example of the will's supremacy.)
Industrial technology is simply one more indispensible tool in bringing about this radical enviromental transition in maximizing its efficiency.
Yes, that is what all Utopians say, both liberals and Libertarians. The reality is, WE ARE HERE, and a realistic ideology is one that can responsibly address that reality.
" Dizzy: My mother always told me that violence doesn't solve anything. Jean Rasczak: Really? I wonder what the city founders of Hiroshima would have to say about that. [to Carmen] You. Carmen: They wouldn't say anything. Hiroshima was destroyed. Jean Rasczak: Correct. Violence, naked force, has resolved more issues in history than has any other factor. The contrary opinion that violence doesn't solve anything is merely wishful thinking at its worst. " ~Starship Troopers
the thing is with cannibalism, its when you need it most is it hard to talk about. Like in times of peace now, we dont really need war. We don't need it. But in times of great change and revolution and fascism, we need that cannibalism, that war to sustain ourselves. You all know the story of the Donner party? how they almost starved to death in the Sierra Nevada's? They had to eat one of their fellows to survive. That doesn't mean they felt good about it, it just means they needed it.
@TheOAKitty You make a good point about extreme times when cannibalism and/or war are "needed". I think the point he was driving at in the video, however, had more to do with govt's that pursue war as a method of foreign policy. Our country has been at war, or militarily active, or "peacekeeping", for the better part of an entire century. A distinction needs to be made between basic defense, and stomping around with a big stick, smashing every hornet's nest we can find.
I love the GOP propaganda...GOP says "we are party of hard workers, who want to keep our HARD EARNED MONEY"...let's take a look at GOP presidents...Reagan, fucken movie star, he lived off of his looks, really hard working there...and GWBUSH? holy shit, this guy is the epitome of laziness and incompetencies. BIll Clinton, YALE LAW SCHOOL, Barack Obama MAGNA CUM LAUDE HARVARD LAW!!! Intelligence + hard working...Gop really stands for lawlessness so rich people can pillage without working hard
And besides, the only countries that would need to be worried about a nuclear threat would be the local countries in the region. It's not our place to go around telling people on the other side of the world how to live their lives.
Conservatives who want to legalize pot... that's about it. Civil rights: LP claims to be for, but in the end would defend corporate property owners in their discrimination. If people have rights to life and liberty, and government should protect us without violating those rights, then what is the problem of social welfare as compared to other protections, like military and courts? If all taxation is theft, then we're anarchists. If not, then what... objectivists?
It depends on what form of conservatism your talking about. Because Conservative Libertarianism is very similar to Libertarianism. But Authoritarianism Conservatism is the complete opposite of libertarianism.
The Democrats and Republicans are more similar. The right and left rely upon the same fallacy: the appeal to ignorance.
Socialism is the welfare culture, conservatism is the redneck culture. If you've seen one underachiever, you've seen them all. I read a story which reminded me of the salvation of fools through the legal process. In Japan, a crab fisher would throw back a crab with a certain design on the shell, and the design dominated by artificial selection.
In my view libertarians and conservatives are often one in the same or at least ideologically similar. In order to increase our influence we libertarians need to work within the Republican party ally ourselves with the conservatives to push out the neo-cons.
@kubaniski Libertarians and conservatives will not agree. The libertarian wishes individual rights, like gay rights or tolerance of religion, and economic policies with a limited government while the conservative wants to limit the individual rights to increase the economic policy. The neocon, like Glenn Beck, hides in the conservative ideology, and even ally to the idea of the conservative. Yes, libertarians can have some conservative ideas, like Ron Paul, but not with pure conservatism.
@NobiscumDeus1 there is nothing more conservative than minding ones own business when no harm is done, libertarianism and conservatism ate their base are one in the same. However even if we libertarians do wish to distinguish ourselves from conservatives, we must recognize that they are our best allies in the fight for restoring constitutional governance to the nation. If we continue to alienate the rest of the right then our cause will be lost.
@kubaniski The problem is that libertarians let people wish to do what they want with their own business; however, a conservative or a conservative-libertarian tries to go back to restore some old values, or some religious values. For instance, the constitution is hold by old values(values of the past). However, there are libertarians who are against this, and are more liberal in such way. That's why I presented Ron Paul as an example, as he is a conservative-libertarian(the only way to ally).
@NobiscumDeus1 What are these mystical old values you speak of? If you take a close look a social history you realize that society has changed very little over he past few centuries, it has simply become more tolerant to those who do not conform. Besides the government and society are two separate entities. The constitution from my point of view is the best thing we have going for libertarianism because it is a codified expression of libertarian governing principles.
@NobiscumDeus1 My beef is with libertarian purists who become so entrenched in ideology they alienate all the like minded persons from our cause, and the world goes on without us and instead of more freedom we get less. People are quick to attack the lesser evil approach but it gets much better results then purism. Its how the left has worn down the nation, one small nudge at a time, to the point where the party of the right has a faction of leftists(neocons).
Liberalism to me and why I'm a Liberal is about Freedom and Democracy. Liberal Democracy like America. Where people no matter they're, race, ethnicity, gender, religion, economic status. Has a chance in life to make it to be as successful as they're skills, education and production will allow.
That everyone is treated equally under law. Thats why I'm a Liberal and thats what Liberal Democrats have fought for, for over 100 years in America. Liberalism is not Socialism or Democratic Socialism.
"There are some troubles from which mankind can never escape. . . . [The anarchists] have never claimed that liberty will bring perfection; they simply say that its results are vastly preferable to those that follow from authority.... As a choice of blessings, liberty is the greater; as a choice of evils, liberty is the smaller. Then liberty always says the Anarchist. No use of force except against the invader." --- Benjamin Tucker
I wonder what true libertarians think about war in Irak, intervention in Afghanistan, or any foreign policies. It seems to me that libertarianism only addresses politics limited to their country (USA, Canada) and haven't developped deep ideas about foreign policy but I may be wrong
@johnsdeath I may not be a "true libertarian" but I consider myself more libertarian than anything else. And I'm strongly opposed to the war in Iraq because it has done nothing but drain our economy from military spending. And what do we have to show for it? Nothing but dead soldiers. Our current policy of foreign intervention is what makes the radicals that fly planes into our buildings. We would be safer if we just got out of other countries personal affairs. We back Israel WAY too much.
@kojirodensetsu i'd say everyone would be "safer" is we stopped believing in the myth of "government"... your comment is relevant, but ultimately you gloss over the entire problem... that "our economy" [which YOU speak of] is actually just the bankroll of a bunch of illegitimate thugs called the "United States Government...." -- funded through stolen money (taxes) and backed by the use of force (seizure of property if you don't comply, being labeled a "criminal" and caged, etc.)
And what about a "constitutionalist" -- ? a lot of people in america might view them as being "libertarian" or of that "cloth" -- but right in their own beloved document, "the congress" claims the "power to tax [demand money and attack you if you refuse]" --- o.O
@johnsdeath... Its my understanding and personal belief that libertarians do not want to practice interventionism or nation building. That goes against the core beliefs of libertarianism, Which would be taking tax dollars (stealing) and spending them on something that is non defense (not our soil). Even if you dont agree that it was a non-defense issue. its taking tax dollars that doesnt belong to our government to begin with. Freedom is given, liberty is taken.
@johnsdeath.... And furthermore like this video eluded to, if in the beginning we would (our Government) would at least in most measures practice libertarianism, it wouldnt be hated as it is today around the world. The only time our countries soldiers should leave our soil is to help allies who need our help and also pay us in return, or our soil is attacked for no reason. And we were attacked on 9-11-2001 because we are hated. But because our noses were where they didnt belong to begin with.
it really hasn't. Even tho I support the ideals of libertarianism I'm not so blinded by ideology to see that libertarians haven't updated their foreign policy stances from the 17-1800's. If you'd listen to alot of libertarians you'd think we'd have a weak military that's still undermanned, under equipment and unable to face the challenges of the 21st century. Alot of them are still fighting the American revolution and think the founders thought with 1 mind and agreed on everything.
What on earth are you babbling about? Do you know that in the first sentence you're contradicting yourself? You either support libertarian non-agression or you don't, but then you go on some rant about foreign policy, military and "challenges of the 21st century". As if the large majority of the "challenges of the 20th century" haven't been instigated by America itself, including its involvement in WW1, WW2 and Vietnam. Like Capnwabbit asked: "Did you not watch the video?"
Yes because Americans killed Franz Ferdinand, invaded most of western Europe in the 40's, invaded South Korea in the 50's, and invaded South Vietnam in the 60's and 70's. Dude you're a piece of work. I don't have to watch the video. I'm looking at the LP platform. There's a reason why nobody votes for this party. Nobody wants legal crack, prostitution, open borders, and a glorified national guard.
@sakonhagakure Why shouldn't prostitution be legal? It will always happen, so why can't you make the conditions safer for the workers, and take the money away from violent pimps? Look at Amsterdam. The fact of the matter is, we all have needs for sex, and some people just aren't that lucky. They will have to go looking for it in unusual places. Would you rather they haunt back alleys in the dead of night, having unprotected sex, or getting their 'kicks' in a protected environment?
@johnsdeath libertarians mostly believe in isolationism so yes they would oppose the iraq war but to only got to war if they propose an imminent threat to our country so the war in afgahnistand would be justified if they had nukes
@xHippieHunter what makes you think that if they had nukes, they would want us off the face of the earth? who are we to say who should have nukes? isn't a nuke just a way of making your country impermeable to invasion? who doesn't want that? not to mention the fact that once a county is able to weaponize the nuclear material, it still takes another 30-40 years of research to be able to get ICBM's that could strike long range targets like the US and Europe.
did you ever think that terrorism would not exist if we had not installed it in the first place? we trained Osama and his fighters in the Scottish mountains. To this day, Osama is wanted for numerous terrorist crimes but not 9/11. When the FBI was asked why, they responded that there wasn't enough evidence. i recommend watching the 2nd edition of loose change. then come talk to me about 9/11
@xHippieHunter so then why did we go after the Taliban in Afghanistan when it was directly Al Qaeda's fault? Shouldn't we be going after them instead of trying to knock off the country's dictator in the region that has nothing to do with 9/11 but has vast quantities of oil? and by your thought process... if a wasp stings you, does it sound smart to either: a. flick the stinger out and think about what you can do to not get stung again. or b. go to the wasp nest and beat it until they're all dead
i'm referencing iraq by the dictator remark. both are, in my opinion, countries under attack by the US in an undeclared war with no site in end. wouldn't you want them out of your country too if you were in there shoes?
When people criticise libertarianism for not allowing the State to compel people to pay for what otherwise wouldn't be underwritten, know that any location of actions where they will strain services such as fire insurance and garbage collection, when subsidised to prevent the in effect risk-of-strain streaming by cost and insurance premium price signals,
cannotbebothered100 1 week ago
are induced to be suboptimally located where more risk is imposed and people are discouraged from lowering risks to lower voluntary market price signals the State silenced.
cannotbebothered100 1 week ago
And you would in a libertarian society and especially in a full anarcho-capitalist, Lockean society, be induced to buy particular insurance as mandate for selecting property in those areas where if the market can bear such divestment of residential capital from serving ends that would imply not making that list of contracts (which the market would of course allow as alternative) that people will select such areas purchase rules to avoid negative externality from environs.
cannotbebothered100 1 week ago
Brilliant.
Visfen 1 month ago
Great video, I learned a lot.
ximortalpwnr 2 months ago
Yes the US placed an embargo on Iraq oil but do you really think the prevented China France and England from getting Iraq oil? And at gun point? I think you are confused on the term embargo. I just today saw Ron Paul say we need to befreind Iran and countries like Egypt because it will cause them to stop building nukes. Yes he specificaly said make friends. A little niaeve dont you think?
mmac382 2 months ago
I dont recall the US pointing guns a anyone and forceing them not to sell oil. You'll have to update me. Mubarak although piece of crap, protected the minorities and christians. They are now being brutalized. A good Libertarian would want a good relationship with anyone at least on a business basis.
mmac382 2 months ago
@mmac382 Well then you didn't attention from Auguat 6, 1990 to May 2003. Given you didn't pay attention for over a decade why are you talking the region? Protecting the minorities of other countries is NOT the job of the US. If Mubarack hadn't been a dictatorial piece of shit the Islamist might not have got the strength they did and might not be persecuting minorities. A good libertarian government would want only the absence of a bad relationship, not a good one.
newperve 2 months ago
@newperve No examples indicates you are not being honest with your statements. I never said the US is responsible to protect foriegn minorities. My point was a side effect of tolerating a "Dictatorial piece of shit" was the safety of the christians. The elimination of the dictator obviously exspose the piece of shit Islamic populous of Egypt. Libertarians are just chicken shit liberals in conservative like clothing.
mmac382 2 months ago
@mmac382 Wow, you don't get a reference to the Iraq oil embaro and so you call me a liar Just because you don't know about it dosn't mean it is not true. But thanks for lifting the tone of the debate with claims of dishonest and calling me chickenshit. You are even ignorant of the subjects you bring up, the US didn't "tolerate" Mubarack they supported him. And you haven't shown that this support protected minorities, in fact US actions probably led to a lot of the persecution of christians.
newperve 2 months ago
Watch our video "The Libertarian" on WeRockNetwork's youtube channel. Very cool.
WeRockNetwork 4 months ago
"war" is just "government" sactioned mass murder
tr00ths33k3r 5 months ago
The very definition of Libertarianism makes the absence of war impossible. War is not something that will go away, simply because it is within the humans genetics to wage conflicts. It is because mans psychological predisposition to do so. Libertarian’s definition of freedom will not change that. Conservatism at least acknowledges the possibilities or war and tries to address the realities of war. Of course that’s a pipe dream as well because man always finds new was to battle.
mmac382 5 months ago
@mmac382 "war" is a "government" "duty" (along with enslaving you.) Who is viewed as "being able to wage war" ? the private company? no.
tr00ths33k3r 5 months ago
@mmac382 if some group is planning or or is "waging war," they are trying to be "government." they are using the same methods as the state (initiation of violence)
tr00ths33k3r 5 months ago
@tr00ths33k3r Your assumption that the only method of recourse is State run war is inaccurate. By far in most cases other actions are initiated in attempt to facilitate a desired outcome. Examples of said actions would be group admonishments to sanctions and embargo. Your simplification of what detemines a Governent is nebulus and without explanation. It would have been better to explain your defination of Goverment.
mmac382 5 months ago
@mmac382 "government" is a group that claims the "right" to initiate violence. it attempts to maintain a monopoly on the "right" to use force. how can that be "libertarian" ?
tr00ths33k3r 5 months ago
@mmac382 if your "group" decides on an "embargo," who are you to say i can't trade with whoever? if you all voluntarily agree, sure.. if you want to try to make me agree because you consider me part of your "group," then you're trying to "govern" me. if you do nothing if i trade with whoever, then you're not trying to "govern" me.
tr00ths33k3r 5 months ago
@mmac382 my "assumption" is not that "the only method of recourse is state run war," my contention is that "war" is a state operation.
tr00ths33k3r 5 months ago
@tr00ths33k3r without 'government," "war", sanctioned conflict between "countries," wouldnt even exist. how could it? conflicts would.. people would have conflicts.. but "countries" and "governments" wouldn't even exist. when there is "government," there is nothing but war, against the citizens, and against the people of other "countries" due to the blind violence "war" is... the whole point of the video.. the soldiers wouldnt even be there.
tr00ths33k3r 5 months ago
if a crazy guy came into your "neighborhood," and he blew up a store and killed X number of "citizens," and you found out he was from three neighborhoods away.. would you first, demand all of your neighbors pay to fund an operation to go find him and his buddies and remove them from their houses if they didn't? would you then go to his neighborhood, and start just running amok, kicking in everyone's doors, blowing up places you think he might be hiding, imposing a curfew on all the people?
tr00ths33k3r 5 months ago
@tr00ths33k3r War is a human run operation. Never has there been a time void of human conflict. Such conflicts need a governing body to be successful. The governing body is not responsible, people are. Your need to have a governmment to blame shows your iberal side and therefore makes you a imitation Libertarian.
mmac382 5 months ago
@mmac382 My liberal side? I'm more liberal than any statist... and by contemporary american standards, i'm more of a conservative and more of a libertarian. There's a difference between a "war" and a "conflict" between humans.
tr00ths33k3r 4 months ago
@mmac382 "War" in a political context immediate implies that at least one "government" has "officially" declared it's going to attack some other "government" or group. If two individuals are in armed conflict, it can be said they are at war, and yes, it is a human run operation.. under the orders of a "government" usually, but anyone who "wages war" (as opposed to defends themselves or retaliates against the SPECIFIC individuals who waged against them first) is doing the same as any 'govt'
tr00ths33k3r 4 months ago
@mmac382 the difference between a "war" and a "conflict" is great.. a "war" in the sense of "a people or nation or commonwealth" engaging in full scale combat with another "people, or nation/commonwealth/country/'government' etc" via "armed forces" which are funded by "government"/taxation, etc, is not the same as a group of people who are wronged, voluntarily take up their own arms, do not force others to pay for it, and engage solely with the individuals who wronged them.
tr00ths33k3r 5 months ago
ron paul believes "majority" or "plurality" "vote" and magic document "constitution" gives him the "right" to demand everyone pay for national(ist) "defense," and initiate violence (seizure of property, kidnapping, caging) if you don't pay. hallelujah.
tr00ths33k3r 5 months ago
ALL "government" is SOCIALISM.
tr00ths33k3r 5 months ago
"conservatism" is only "limited government" when it's "liberal conservatism," lmfao. smh.
tr00ths33k3r 5 months ago
ron paul is a socialist, and a conservative, like all socialists, all "government," who pretends to be a liberal, and calls himself a "libertarian." if you think that makes no sense, television has brainwashed you.
tr00ths33k3r 5 months ago
Conservatives are always for more liberties than the left rationalists. If you are a libertarian you should always prefer older institutions to new ones, becouse old institutions went trough process of natural selection and hence by definition guarantee to an extent the man's natural rights. There were more liberties and less taxes in traditional monarchies than in today's mass democracies
AtheistRightWing 5 months ago
@AtheistRightWing if you believe in "government" youre not an atheist. the belief in the state/"government" is the same as the belief in god. it is the belief that magic rituals invoke an all power being, "authority," which can alter morality. it can declare "you must pay for services, such as "protection"/"defense," and if you do not, we can break into your house, remove you by force, and cage you," and that this violence initiated by "authority" is morally acceptable or just, because it is"law
tr00ths33k3r 5 months ago
@tr00ths33k3r Maybe my name is a bit misleading. I'm more of a metaphysical materialist and determinist. I do however, recognize the utility of faith and spirituality, since they are metaphors for solidarity among members of a community. As for the state, any authority must preserve the persons from which it derives it's income (preserving capital value). It is in the self-interest of privatized governments (monarchies) to run a prosperous society, and older ones tend to be better at it.
AtheistRightWing 5 months ago
@AtheistRightWing "authority" doesnt exist. who has the "right to issue orders" to you? who is it you ALLOW to issue orders to you? it's all in your head man! you are the only authority! "privatized 'government' doesn't make any sense
tr00ths33k3r 5 months ago
@AtheistRightWing the state "derives it's income" by demanding money from it's SUBJECTS, and initiating violence if a subject doesnt pay ("taxation")
tr00ths33k3r 5 months ago
choose individual liberty
MrObenauer 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
they can basically live like that if they want, i guess, if they acquire all property justly.. and that can only be done through mutual consent .. .. the only way they could ever even hope to do it is through the free market.. but THEYRE not anarchists, they would be a state, the inhabitants of which still believe in an authoritarian methods
tr00ths33k3r 7 months ago
Comment removed
tr00ths33k3r 7 months ago
Comment removed
tr00ths33k3r 7 months ago
Comment removed
tr00ths33k3r 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the "governing body" must actually be in control of ALL "means of production" in order to even attempt to do that.. and i didnt mean to imply that they'd end up going to another commune, or that everything would naturally be a "bunch of communes" -- as the commune basically implies housing, food production, work, etc.. all under some "governing body".. the same damn thing.. so clearly not statelessness ..
tr00ths33k3r 7 months ago
Comment removed
tr00ths33k3r 7 months ago
Comment removed
tr00ths33k3r 7 months ago
* of course the socialist "economic theories" are complete bunkum, and clearly REQUIRE that "governing body" to remain existent to maintain that their "theories" are in place, that no one can make a profit, that they are trading equal labor, etc...
tr00ths33k3r 7 months ago
(but then are clearly not equal in rights once the losers are forced to follow suit with some.. "governing body"..) and subjugating yourself/others has nothing to do with anarchy/ism. now, if of course, the people who didnt like how it was going could just easily opt out or what have you, leave, find another "commune" to trade their labor to in return for, whatever* -well then it pretty much is the same thing as "free market anarchism" ..
tr00ths33k3r 7 months ago
Comment removed
tr00ths33k3r 7 months ago
I'll try to clarify.. People can choose to voluntarily collectivize, etc, only through the free market. All else is obviously just force, and therefore illegitimate... but even if they choose to collectivize and then implement some sort of "socialist" or "egalitarian" method, which uses "democracy" to control the means of production-- then the "vote" or "ruling" is meant to obviously subjugate people who could be considered "equal owners" of that worker's co-op or commune or w/e..
tr00ths33k3r 7 months ago
The title should be authoritarian free-market fundimentalism/racists/homphobes/bible thumpers vs LIbertarians
Loltochapel 8 months ago
To think we need to "pass some legislation" to "allow freedom" or something is nonsense. if a "libertarian" still believes in "govt" he's not a libertarian. "libertarian government" is pretty much nonsense. "government" is only "libertarian" in rhetoric-- NEVER in practice... the only libertarian position is anarchism.
tr00ths33k3r 8 months ago
@tr00ths33k3r "...the only libertarian position is anarchism."
I see Noam Chomsky has influenced you but even Chomsky believes in some form of government and still refers to himself as an Anarchist (or a supporter of Libertarian Socialism or Social Anarchism). How does that work and fit with what you wrote above?
rawREN 8 months ago
@rawREN it doesnt,, i used to consider myself "social anarchist" ... then i realized the truth (it makes no sense)
tr00ths33k3r 7 months ago
@tr00ths33k3r "...there is simply freedom vs the state."
I am a "libertarian," politically speaking, because I want the smallest, least intrusive government possible. Anarchism, as I understand it, will almost always devolve/evolve into tribal groupings which will likely assert their collective will on others. Chomsky's ideal world would require an amazing amount of self-awareness and self-control, which I do not see happening any time soon (w/o statists forcing it by removing the "self").
rawREN 6 months ago
@rawREN "likely assert their collective will on others. " - that is "government." no one else is viewed as having the "right" (legitimate "power") to use force against you if you dont pay into their demands
tr00ths33k3r 6 months ago
@rawREN besides, chomsky is basically a communist, not an anarchist. he wants to "abolish" MY private property
tr00ths33k3r 6 months ago
Comment removed
tr00ths33k3r 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rawREN if you want, check out Objectivism and The State: An open letter to Ayn Rand, by Roy Childs, Jr... regarding contradictions of "limited government"
tr00ths33k3r 6 months ago
@rawREN we already "live in anarchy" - we always have, and we always will. "government" is a delusion. no one has the "right to rule over you by (so-called) 'authority ("govern) '" but you. no one ever even could "govern" you. the entire concept is illogical. if someone issues a demand and uses violence if i dont comply, that's not "ruling over me by right of authority," that's just issuing a demand and using violence against me. I GOVERN MYSELF.
tr00ths33k3r 6 months ago
@tr00ths33k3r "we already 'live in anarchy' - we always have, and we always will. 'government' is a delusion."
Sorry, but I disagree. Furthermore, I think this statement and your general approach is essentially deconstructivist. Okay, sure, chaos abounds and our default is self rule and sustainment, but that does not make libertarianism synonymous with anarchism.
rawREN 6 months ago
@rawREN you disagree? so you believe you voting for someone means they have the right to "govern" (RULE over, issue orders by (imaginary) right of "authority") to ME? what's that got to do with "liberty" ? Nothing.
tr00ths33k3r 5 months ago
@rawREN if "libertarianism" isnt synonymous with anarchy, statelessness, then it has nothing to do with liberty. it's a half-assed attempt to reconcile freedom with the imaginary belief that "voting" or some magic document (constitution) gives someone the "right to issue orders" to people (authority). how can you say you believe in freedom if you believe in "government" or "authority," the "right to rule over," the "right to issue orders" etc ?
tr00ths33k3r 5 months ago
@rawREN right, well, if you still want a "government" youre not a libertarian, youre still a statist.. .. and as statism is involuntary collectivism, it is not libertarianism. the "government" is all inclusive/instrusive.. there can be no such thing as "limited govt," only "govt" and how much it demands or no "govt." if you didnt have a group claiming the power to "tax" based on 51% say so, using indisciminate violence against those who dont pay into their demands, you wouldnt have 'govt"
tr00ths33k3r 6 months ago
Comment removed
tr00ths33k3r 8 months ago
Comment removed
tr00ths33k3r 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The "right" simply wants to "conserve" whatever institutions it views as "proper" -- the "left" wants to overthrow hierarchical positions.... but thus far, all of their attempts have resulted in a new ruling class ("government")- as both "sides" believe "government" is the way to "secure" their agenda. A "republic of laws" sounds a little better-- but just varying degree of same statist outlook.
tr00ths33k3r 8 months ago
@tr00ths33k3r "the 'left' wants to overthrow hierarchical positions..."
Your simplifications here are clumsy and doing the political concepts of left and right absolutely no justice. BTW, are you deleting your old comments? That would be a bit odd.
rawREN 6 months ago
@rawREN theyre not simplifications. the "left/right" nonsense dichotomy is simply about rhetoric. people run around saying hitler and the libertarians are right wing, and stalin/mao/anarchists are left wing. it's nonsense. i delete for typos usually
tr00ths33k3r 5 months ago
Comment removed
tr00ths33k3r 5 months ago
@rawREN i dont aim to do the "left" or "right" any justice. they are both statists. even you believe in the state, and you claim you are a "right wing libertarian" no doubt or some such nonsense. if you advocate "government," you advocate enslaving people. plain and simple. if someone can issue orders to another, and use violence for non-compliance, and everyone (who is a statist) believes the violence is right and non-compliance is wrong.. they believe the victim is a slave.
tr00ths33k3r 5 months ago
@rawREN Okay, sure, chaos abounds and our default is self rule and sustainment, but that does not make libertarianism synonymous with anarchism. -- self rule is ALL THERE IS. who rules you, the "libertarian" ? who do you, the "libertarian," pick to rule you? if you want anything other than self-rule, youre not a libertarian. you want rule by another.
tr00ths33k3r 5 months ago
@tr00ths33k3r "if you want anything other than self-rule, youre not a libertarian. you want rule by another."
Again, libertarianism is not synonymous with anarchism and you are clearly talking about anarchism.
rawREN 5 months ago
@rawREN again, if "libertarianism" isnt synonmous with "anarchy" then "libertarianism" has little if anything to do with liberty. how can "rule by another" have anything to do with liberty?
tr00ths33k3r 5 months ago
@tr00ths33k3r Stop with the semantics already. Is a Democrat really "democratic?" Or a Republican really concerned with the "republic?" I understand what your position is, but splitting hairs here is not helpful. In a civil society, we often agree on a certain amount of government and a Libertarian's position is the next best thing to an anarchist position. Write whatever you like in response to this, but you are not talking about 99+ percent of libertarians and their political philosophies.
rawREN 5 months ago
@rawREN I'm dismantling YOUR semantics. No, "Libertarianism" as a "political philosophy," if it not synonymous with statelessness, is not the "next best thing" to anarchy. It's not anywhere close to being the "best" or a "good" thing.. it's still statism. If "libertarians" still want some group running around claiming to be 'central authority,' imposing statute 'laws' and such, demanding obedience and money under threat of violence, then they don't support liberty.
tr00ths33k3r 4 months ago
@tr00ths33k3r and if they don't support those things.. then they are anarchists/true libertarians, that is they support liberty. "government" is nothing but subjugation/rule/attempted control of "society" by one portion of it at the point of a gun. what does that have to do with liberty?
tr00ths33k3r 4 months ago
@tr00ths33k3r Libertarianism is not, nor has it ever been, as a political philosophy and party, about statelessness. Statelessness is Anarchy. Look up Anarchy in any dictionary and you will find it describes exactly what you are attempting to suggest Libertarianism means. If you want to argue that Libertarians are still Statists, then fine - do that, but don't pretend that Libertarianism is, or should be synonymous with, Anarchism.
rawREN 4 months ago
@rawREN Libertarian like all other political philosophies, is subject to ones own personal views. There is no real definition of Libertarianisn other than to say it promotes less Gov and Less Gov intervention into foriegn affairs. Where it go's after that is anybodys guess. I think Libertarians are closer to Liberals because of the religious views and because of thier willingness to hide their heads when it comes to self preservation globally. Its that kind of view that alowed 9/11
mmac382 4 months ago
@mmac382 "...thier willingness to hide their heads when it comes to self preservation globally. Its that kind of view that alowed 9/11"
Nonsense. Libertarians wouldn't have endorsed and paid for the kind of global interventions that motivated the perpetrators of 9/11. That said, I am not an isolationist and also realize that Al Qaeda has ideological conflicts with the West, as a whole, that go far beyond America's foreign policy and the West would eventually have clashed with AQ or its like.
rawREN 4 months ago
@rawREN Oh Yes of course. The Libertarians would have just allowed Iraq to take over Kuwait and control all the oil in the region. Thats what Osama claims to be the prime motivator for his attacks. Its the Libertarians liberal complaciency that would put at the mercy of those tyrants. Nice work Libertarians
mmac382 4 months ago
@mmac382 Libertarians also wouldn't be promising Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel, or any other country that the US Military would be at their beck and call and those countries would have to invest more of their own money in national defense. Why do you think Europe has so much money to invest in its social programs? Why did Japan and S Korea do so well after WWII and the Korean War? Oh, that's right, the US military. These points are hardly controversial, but many people willingly forget them.
rawREN 4 months ago
@rawREN Even a Libertarian Pres would recognize the Oil supplies are a National security concern. Dont fool yourself into thinking they wouldnt do the same in Kuwait. They are all talk but push comes to shove they would probably act like the Liberals that they really are. Oh and if you take the time to watch the news, Europe doesnt have the money to support their ignorant social programs. Thats why they're all bankrupt. Your revisionist history is another liberal trait.
mmac382 4 months ago
@mmac382 What have I "revised?" It is a well known fact that we save all of those countries tremendous amounts of money by placing our garrisons and troops all around the world, but that doesn't mean they couldn't still overspend and they obviously have. Modern day "conservatives" are the ones who are becoming more "liberal," and so-called "compassionate conservatism" is an example. If anything, I am a "classical liberal" and that is quite different than a modern day liberal.
rawREN 4 months ago
Comment removed
rawREN 4 months ago
Comment removed
rawREN 4 months ago
@mmac382 Actually all the intervention has made US oil supplies LESS secure. In part because at least twice the US has lead boycotts against oil-producing nations. To claim that a libertarian president would continue to interfer in the middle east because that's been SO useful in getting oil is bizarre.
newperve 2 months ago
@newperve Your assesment of our oil security is after the fact. And even if true would still not prevent the US from an Intervention like Kuwait in the future. Obtaining oil is not always the main reason to get involved in the Mid East and a Libertarian would recognize the need for good relations with people like the Saudis. Ask the Christians in Egypt how important our relations with Mubarak was. We can get oil anytime we want if we just were allowed to harvest our own here in the US.
mmac382 2 months ago
@mmac382 Even before the fact anyone could tell that pointing guns at people and telling them not to sell oil isn't going to get more oil sold. I don't recognise the need for good relations with the Saudis. I recognise the need not to completely honk off the people you want to buy stuff from but actual "good relations" aren't neccesary. What has the West gained from it's relations with Mubarak other than the hatred of islamists and more evidence of unprincipled behaviour?
newperve 2 months ago
NEED HEALTH CARE ? TRY GOP NO CARE !!!
kn9ioutom 8 months ago
nazism (finger on right side) and commmunim (finger on left side) are fingers of LEFT hand (socialism)
pro freedom is RIGHT hand (libertarianism, (true)monarchy)
its simple way to show it to peson that dont understand this - and thats why debate in whole world is limited - because people associate "right freedom side" with nazis and false "right side(that in fact is leftist system)
thats why antifa or neonazis are same controlled BulSht. and we have wars over nothing - there wont be ANY change
H5N1XD 8 months ago
@H5N1XD yeah dude, "true monarchy" = "freedom" ... way to go
tr00ths33k3r 7 months ago
@tr00ths33k3r we in Poland at some point had elections of monarch - this was threating for absolute monarchic neighbours - thats why we had partitions
so monachy can mean freedom - because allso peasants allso got personal protection - thats why we were invaded
H5N1XD 7 months ago
@H5N1XD all statists are basically the same ... i COULD argue that nazis are right wing (conservatives), and win... you could argue they are left wing (socialists), and win... same for stalin, mao, etc... there is simply freedom vs the state.
tr00ths33k3r 7 months ago
Comment removed
tr00ths33k3r 8 months ago
Anarchism is the only logical position.
tr00ths33k3r 8 months ago
@tr00ths33k3r how old are you? i'm guessing teenaged or younger.
xtelemasterx 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xtelemasterx You guessed wrong. Do you think that "as you get older, you're more willing to accept a completely illegitimate institution "??? Are people who think that broken? Are their spirits crushed? Are their minds confused? Anarchism is the only LOGICAL position. My age has nothing to do with the state being illegitimate.. . does your age have something to do with you viewing it as legitimate?
tr00ths33k3r 8 months ago
@xtelemasterx
how old are you? i'm guessing adult or older Most of you guys love to use Ad hominems
ProDCloud 8 months ago
"A Libertarian is just a Republican who takes drugs."
thirdshift47 9 months ago
@thirdshift47 You took your dumb pills today? I've converted so many Democrats to the LP this year alone.
fanadfilms 9 months ago
@fanadfilms
Thank you.
Your comment proves my point.
thirdshift47 9 months ago
@thirdshift47 Well, your comment proves mine, and I will explicate, since you did not. You did take your dumb pills. What I left out of the statement was that I had been a Democrat too. I voted for J. Carter (the moron) as my first presidential vote. You'd have to be absolutely dumb to be a Democrat (or should I say Dumbocrat?) these days. It was never the smart choice, but now it's absolutely off the charts stupid. Your policies are absolutely idiotic and destructive. Grow a brain.
fanadfilms 9 months ago
@fanadfilms
1.)Who said that I was a member of that joke of a political party?I wouldn't vote for Obama if you paid me to(and i'm black.)
2.)It's actually quite typical of right-wingers to be leftists when it's fashionable,only to become born-again reactionairies when it becomes fashionable as well.e.g.,all of the endless number of current right-wing libertarians & neocons that were Marxist ideologues back in the 60s,now swearing by the gospel of the market agenda.
Indeed,it's quite typical.
thirdshift47 9 months ago
@thirdshift47 You make the mistake of classifying me as a right-winger. You would be incorrect. And I was a Democrat up till the age of 22ish. I became a Libertarian then because neither of the two big ones were correct.
And I was a kid back in the 60's. You seem quite off the mark on all issues. Odd.
fanadfilms 9 months ago
@fanadfilms
Off the mark?
You could literally spend all day naming some of today's key US conservative intellectuals that were not just leftist & leftist sympathizers,but card-carrying Trotskyites during the 60s(and by their own admission.)
And,without a doubt,the contemporary US Libertarian Party in the states is a movement with far-right roots and big plutocrat money.
thirdshift47 9 months ago
@thirdshift47 I was a kid in the 60's. I was born in 58. As for the LP having far-right roots, you've never been to a LP meeting. We come from all sectors of society. And as for "far-right roots and big plutocrat money" we have people that come from the right, the left, the up the down, the inside and the outside, and you don't know what you're talking about. As for money? We don't have any. Are you insane? It's one of the biggest problems. You really need to go and get some schooling.
fanadfilms 9 months ago
@fanadfilms
Yeah,Libertarians are ideological everymen.lol
I guess that explains perfectly how my fellow Atlantan & former far right-wing,90s ultraconservative hero Bob Barr has finally found himself as the Libertarian nominee.
thirdshift47 9 months ago
@thirdshift47 So, you firstly contend that you know everything about who we are, while actually knowing Nothing of who we are. I've been a delegate to the last two national conventions. I actually voted for Barr. I talked with him personally for almost an hour on the phone and then again at the convention. I believed he had the best chance of drumming up support. He screwed up. We screwed up. Of course, we're not as bad as the idiots who nominated then voted for Obama.
fanadfilms 9 months ago
@thirdshift47 Of course, in your mind, no one can become a Libertarian. It's as if you were born that way. I'm a friend of Wayne Root, yet we have intense battles on policy. I hope he'll see the light. He is coming closer. It'll take time. I don't think he has a chance for the nomination in 12. The Convention is almost a year away. I'm anxious to see what we'll do. We won't know till Dec. But there is a swing toward the Dogmatists, the hardcore LP members. We'll see.
fanadfilms 9 months ago
@thirdshift47 Of course, I'm sure with your prognostigative powers that you know already. Why not tell me and save me the suspense. You truly know nothing. I'm curious as to where you stand. Your profile is full of bullshit, just like your rhetoric.
fanadfilms 9 months ago
@fanadfilms
Isn't it clear?
I'm a (Not)atarian.
We believe in the fundamental illegitimacy of both tyranny and liberty.We believe them to be but more lies and illusions perpetuated by civil societie's moral and legal codes.
We're not nihilists because nihilism leaves room for the affimation of values,which can be politicized and expressed in terms of freedom and control.
Notatarians--or "Nots"--also believe war & peace to be fundamentally imperialist & equally irrational agendas.
thirdshift47 9 months ago
@thirdshift47 Your position is completely insane and unworkable. Unfortunately, as bad as they are, governments are necessary if only to control government. The biggest problem is that, from the very beginning of this governmental system, government greed (Hamilton and the Mercantilists) controlled the issues. We need to actually enforce the Constitution. If we don't we're all doomed. Your philosophy is a pipe dream and as devoid of logic as your assessment of the LP.
fanadfilms 9 months ago
@fanadfilms
Notatarians are only illogical insofar as we use it to challenge the cold,stiff logic of the market--antimarket delmma.
We're quite logical--even totalitarian--in our consistency,though(indeed,we have no left or right wings,no moderates & no diversity of views within the system.We opt for pure dogmatism.)
Notatarians positively dispise not only government but even anarchist 'governance',& view 'security','law' & 'morality' as public-private welfare & social engineering.
thirdshift47 9 months ago
@thirdshift47 To me, the absolute negativity of your positions is insane and unworkable.
fanadfilms 9 months ago
@fanadfilm
Well,Notatarians positively scorn governments & markets as wholly degenerate associations.
Yet we reject socialism,anarchism & compassionate welfare politics because it equally arrests the biological mobility of the species.
That's why we inevitably support the current corporate capitalist--subservient state US business model as being the best means for bringing about the total annihilation of homosapiens,which will then bring forth the conditions for the superior man--the new man.
thirdshift47 9 months ago
@thirdshift47 Odd, you don't score the internet or the computer you use to reach it. I'm sure you don't hunt or gather your food or make your own clothes. What it seems you are is a contrary.
fanadfilms 9 months ago
@fanadfilms
As I've pointed out we Notatarians are contrary to the species.
Beyond that we're perhaps the closest thing to a true conservative movement active in the US,with our unabashed call for corporate dominance and such(the for-profit corporation being the clearest institutional & historically unparralled example of the will's supremacy.)
Industrial technology is simply one more indispensible tool in bringing about this radical enviromental transition in maximizing its efficiency.
thirdshift47 9 months ago
@thirdshift47
thirdshift47 9 months ago
Are you stuck in the bargain book section?
"And over here, we have a special on books nobody wants, along with a nutjob ranting about a political stance nobody cares about."
TheKrysee 10 months ago
"you have to start at the very beginning"
Yes, that is what all Utopians say, both liberals and Libertarians. The reality is, WE ARE HERE, and a realistic ideology is one that can responsibly address that reality.
periechontology 10 months ago
" Dizzy: My mother always told me that violence doesn't solve anything. Jean Rasczak: Really? I wonder what the city founders of Hiroshima would have to say about that. [to Carmen] You. Carmen: They wouldn't say anything. Hiroshima was destroyed. Jean Rasczak: Correct. Violence, naked force, has resolved more issues in history than has any other factor. The contrary opinion that violence doesn't solve anything is merely wishful thinking at its worst. " ~Starship Troopers
torch1028 10 months ago
Choose free will.
ffairlane57 10 months ago 13
@ffairlane57 choosing free will is choosing ignorance. Free will is an illusion.
beyonddeadstudio 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@beyonddeadstudio "choosing free will is choosing ignorance. Free will is an illusion." wellp, youre fucked
tr00ths33k3r 6 months ago
@ffairlane57
RUSH
PensFan35 6 months ago
the thing is with cannibalism, its when you need it most is it hard to talk about. Like in times of peace now, we dont really need war. We don't need it. But in times of great change and revolution and fascism, we need that cannibalism, that war to sustain ourselves. You all know the story of the Donner party? how they almost starved to death in the Sierra Nevada's? They had to eat one of their fellows to survive. That doesn't mean they felt good about it, it just means they needed it.
TheOAKitty 10 months ago
@TheOAKitty You make a good point about extreme times when cannibalism and/or war are "needed". I think the point he was driving at in the video, however, had more to do with govt's that pursue war as a method of foreign policy. Our country has been at war, or militarily active, or "peacekeeping", for the better part of an entire century. A distinction needs to be made between basic defense, and stomping around with a big stick, smashing every hornet's nest we can find.
rmcdaniel423 10 months ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
I love the GOP propaganda...GOP says "we are party of hard workers, who want to keep our HARD EARNED MONEY"...let's take a look at GOP presidents...Reagan, fucken movie star, he lived off of his looks, really hard working there...and GWBUSH? holy shit, this guy is the epitome of laziness and incompetencies. BIll Clinton, YALE LAW SCHOOL, Barack Obama MAGNA CUM LAUDE HARVARD LAW!!! Intelligence + hard working...Gop really stands for lawlessness so rich people can pillage without working hard
dalecampbl9 1 year ago
And besides, the only countries that would need to be worried about a nuclear threat would be the local countries in the region. It's not our place to go around telling people on the other side of the world how to live their lives.
kylester816 1 year ago
Conservatives who want to legalize pot... that's about it. Civil rights: LP claims to be for, but in the end would defend corporate property owners in their discrimination. If people have rights to life and liberty, and government should protect us without violating those rights, then what is the problem of social welfare as compared to other protections, like military and courts? If all taxation is theft, then we're anarchists. If not, then what... objectivists?
etzel33 1 year ago
bang!
iamundergrace 1 year ago
It depends on what form of conservatism your talking about. Because Conservative Libertarianism is very similar to Libertarianism. But Authoritarianism Conservatism is the complete opposite of libertarianism.
FRSFreeStateES 1 year ago
The Democrats and Republicans are more similar. The right and left rely upon the same fallacy: the appeal to ignorance.
Socialism is the welfare culture, conservatism is the redneck culture. If you've seen one underachiever, you've seen them all. I read a story which reminded me of the salvation of fools through the legal process. In Japan, a crab fisher would throw back a crab with a certain design on the shell, and the design dominated by artificial selection.
riverlioness 1 year ago
In my view libertarians and conservatives are often one in the same or at least ideologically similar. In order to increase our influence we libertarians need to work within the Republican party ally ourselves with the conservatives to push out the neo-cons.
kubaniski 1 year ago
@kubaniski Libertarians and conservatives will not agree. The libertarian wishes individual rights, like gay rights or tolerance of religion, and economic policies with a limited government while the conservative wants to limit the individual rights to increase the economic policy. The neocon, like Glenn Beck, hides in the conservative ideology, and even ally to the idea of the conservative. Yes, libertarians can have some conservative ideas, like Ron Paul, but not with pure conservatism.
NobiscumDeus1 1 year ago
@NobiscumDeus1 there is nothing more conservative than minding ones own business when no harm is done, libertarianism and conservatism ate their base are one in the same. However even if we libertarians do wish to distinguish ourselves from conservatives, we must recognize that they are our best allies in the fight for restoring constitutional governance to the nation. If we continue to alienate the rest of the right then our cause will be lost.
kubaniski 1 year ago
@kubaniski The problem is that libertarians let people wish to do what they want with their own business; however, a conservative or a conservative-libertarian tries to go back to restore some old values, or some religious values. For instance, the constitution is hold by old values(values of the past). However, there are libertarians who are against this, and are more liberal in such way. That's why I presented Ron Paul as an example, as he is a conservative-libertarian(the only way to ally).
NobiscumDeus1 1 year ago
@NobiscumDeus1 What are these mystical old values you speak of? If you take a close look a social history you realize that society has changed very little over he past few centuries, it has simply become more tolerant to those who do not conform. Besides the government and society are two separate entities. The constitution from my point of view is the best thing we have going for libertarianism because it is a codified expression of libertarian governing principles.
kubaniski 1 year ago
@NobiscumDeus1 My beef is with libertarian purists who become so entrenched in ideology they alienate all the like minded persons from our cause, and the world goes on without us and instead of more freedom we get less. People are quick to attack the lesser evil approach but it gets much better results then purism. Its how the left has worn down the nation, one small nudge at a time, to the point where the party of the right has a faction of leftists(neocons).
kubaniski 1 year ago
Liberalism to me and why I'm a Liberal is about Freedom and Democracy. Liberal Democracy like America. Where people no matter they're, race, ethnicity, gender, religion, economic status. Has a chance in life to make it to be as successful as they're skills, education and production will allow.
That everyone is treated equally under law. Thats why I'm a Liberal and thats what Liberal Democrats have fought for, for over 100 years in America. Liberalism is not Socialism or Democratic Socialism.
FRSFreeState 1 year ago
Hmm I don't think it's true that some people were JUST against communism.
WanderingSeer 1 year ago
¿So..was Aynd Rand a true liebertarian or not?
digito1968 1 year ago
@digito1968 yes it was! I think objectivism is an important part of libertarian´s philosophy ...
AnarchieKrieg999 1 year ago
"There are some troubles from which mankind can never escape. . . . [The anarchists] have never claimed that liberty will bring perfection; they simply say that its results are vastly preferable to those that follow from authority.... As a choice of blessings, liberty is the greater; as a choice of evils, liberty is the smaller. Then liberty always says the Anarchist. No use of force except against the invader." --- Benjamin Tucker
CurtHowland 1 year ago
Freedom should be the goal. Libertarianism willl give us the most freedom.
gospel1234 1 year ago
@gospel1234 dont you mean liberty should be the goal
i dont want commies to be free to steal from me
JordanViewer 1 year ago
@JordanViewer yes, both, liberty and freedom.
gospel1234 1 year ago
@JordanViewer
Why are you playing with words? Liberty and freedom are the same, even if commies like to misappropriate words.
tridentmovies 1 year ago
I support Liberty.
STarCRAFT4BRITS 1 year ago
I wonder what true libertarians think about war in Irak, intervention in Afghanistan, or any foreign policies. It seems to me that libertarianism only addresses politics limited to their country (USA, Canada) and haven't developped deep ideas about foreign policy but I may be wrong
johnsdeath 1 year ago
@johnsdeath I may not be a "true libertarian" but I consider myself more libertarian than anything else. And I'm strongly opposed to the war in Iraq because it has done nothing but drain our economy from military spending. And what do we have to show for it? Nothing but dead soldiers. Our current policy of foreign intervention is what makes the radicals that fly planes into our buildings. We would be safer if we just got out of other countries personal affairs. We back Israel WAY too much.
kojirodensetsu 1 year ago 18
@kojirodensetsu If someone mugging your neighbor in the street, what would you do? Would you help? Or, would you just stick to your business?
Suarez23 11 months ago
@kojirodensetsu i'd say everyone would be "safer" is we stopped believing in the myth of "government"... your comment is relevant, but ultimately you gloss over the entire problem... that "our economy" [which YOU speak of] is actually just the bankroll of a bunch of illegitimate thugs called the "United States Government...." -- funded through stolen money (taxes) and backed by the use of force (seizure of property if you don't comply, being labeled a "criminal" and caged, etc.)
tr00ths33k3r 8 months ago
Comment removed
tr00ths33k3r 8 months ago
Comment removed
tr00ths33k3r 8 months ago
And what about a "constitutionalist" -- ? a lot of people in america might view them as being "libertarian" or of that "cloth" -- but right in their own beloved document, "the congress" claims the "power to tax [demand money and attack you if you refuse]" --- o.O
tr00ths33k3r 8 months ago
@johnsdeath... Its my understanding and personal belief that libertarians do not want to practice interventionism or nation building. That goes against the core beliefs of libertarianism, Which would be taking tax dollars (stealing) and spending them on something that is non defense (not our soil). Even if you dont agree that it was a non-defense issue. its taking tax dollars that doesnt belong to our government to begin with. Freedom is given, liberty is taken.
heybrody 1 year ago
@johnsdeath.... And furthermore like this video eluded to, if in the beginning we would (our Government) would at least in most measures practice libertarianism, it wouldnt be hated as it is today around the world. The only time our countries soldiers should leave our soil is to help allies who need our help and also pay us in return, or our soil is attacked for no reason. And we were attacked on 9-11-2001 because we are hated. But because our noses were where they didnt belong to begin with.
heybrody 1 year ago
@johnsdeath
it really hasn't. Even tho I support the ideals of libertarianism I'm not so blinded by ideology to see that libertarians haven't updated their foreign policy stances from the 17-1800's. If you'd listen to alot of libertarians you'd think we'd have a weak military that's still undermanned, under equipment and unable to face the challenges of the 21st century. Alot of them are still fighting the American revolution and think the founders thought with 1 mind and agreed on everything.
sakonhagakure 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sakonhagakure "Alot of them are still fighting the American revolution and think the founders thought with 1 mind and agreed on everything"
This is 100% true. Also, many Libertarians would consider the REAL Thomas Jefferson a warhawk, if they actually studied the history
LexPhilogus 1 year ago
@sakonhagakure Did you not watch the video?
Capnwabbit 1 year ago
@sakonhagakure
What on earth are you babbling about? Do you know that in the first sentence you're contradicting yourself? You either support libertarian non-agression or you don't, but then you go on some rant about foreign policy, military and "challenges of the 21st century". As if the large majority of the "challenges of the 20th century" haven't been instigated by America itself, including its involvement in WW1, WW2 and Vietnam. Like Capnwabbit asked: "Did you not watch the video?"
tridentmovies 1 year ago
@tridentmovies
Yes because Americans killed Franz Ferdinand, invaded most of western Europe in the 40's, invaded South Korea in the 50's, and invaded South Vietnam in the 60's and 70's. Dude you're a piece of work. I don't have to watch the video. I'm looking at the LP platform. There's a reason why nobody votes for this party. Nobody wants legal crack, prostitution, open borders, and a glorified national guard.
sakonhagakure 1 year ago
@sakonhagakure Why shouldn't prostitution be legal? It will always happen, so why can't you make the conditions safer for the workers, and take the money away from violent pimps? Look at Amsterdam. The fact of the matter is, we all have needs for sex, and some people just aren't that lucky. They will have to go looking for it in unusual places. Would you rather they haunt back alleys in the dead of night, having unprotected sex, or getting their 'kicks' in a protected environment?
thomholliday1 1 year ago
@sakonhagakure you don't understand the ideology do you?
fisharecoming 1 year ago
@johnsdeath libertarians mostly believe in isolationism so yes they would oppose the iraq war but to only got to war if they propose an imminent threat to our country so the war in afgahnistand would be justified if they had nukes
xHippieHunter 1 year ago
@xHippieHunter what makes you think that if they had nukes, they would want us off the face of the earth? who are we to say who should have nukes? isn't a nuke just a way of making your country impermeable to invasion? who doesn't want that? not to mention the fact that once a county is able to weaponize the nuclear material, it still takes another 30-40 years of research to be able to get ICBM's that could strike long range targets like the US and Europe.
kylester816 1 year ago
@kylester816 the fact that they did 9/11 pretty much proves the point of them wanting us off the face of the earth.
xHippieHunter 1 year ago
@xHippieHunter
did you ever think that terrorism would not exist if we had not installed it in the first place? we trained Osama and his fighters in the Scottish mountains. To this day, Osama is wanted for numerous terrorist crimes but not 9/11. When the FBI was asked why, they responded that there wasn't enough evidence. i recommend watching the 2nd edition of loose change. then come talk to me about 9/11
kylester816 1 year ago
@kylester816 Al Qaeda was responsible nit wit nice try
xHippieHunter 1 year ago
@xHippieHunter so then why did we go after the Taliban in Afghanistan when it was directly Al Qaeda's fault? Shouldn't we be going after them instead of trying to knock off the country's dictator in the region that has nothing to do with 9/11 but has vast quantities of oil? and by your thought process... if a wasp stings you, does it sound smart to either: a. flick the stinger out and think about what you can do to not get stung again. or b. go to the wasp nest and beat it until they're all dead
kylester816 1 year ago
@kylester816
i'm referencing iraq by the dictator remark. both are, in my opinion, countries under attack by the US in an undeclared war with no site in end. wouldn't you want them out of your country too if you were in there shoes?
kylester816 1 year ago