I'm Touring The United States! Starting in June, I'm conducting private events in 23 American cities. Click here for full details.

Post Reply 
Is patriarchy compatible with libertarianism? If so, how?
Author Message
Jean Valjean Offline
Banned

Posts: 497
Joined: Mar 2016
Post: #1
Is patriarchy compatible with libertarianism? If so, how?
I have a question for those who have some familiarity with libertarian theory. Is there a way in which patriarchy can be compatible with libertarianism?

The view of most moderate libertarians (i.e. the group that tends to be dominant in the Libertarian Party, and therefore gets to pick the Libertarian candidates who are some of the more visible representatives of the movement) tends to be that the state should simply stop issuing marriage licenses, and treat marriage like any other contract. They also tend to believe that a spouse has a right to leave the marriage at any time -- the same way a person would breach any other contract -- and be subject to no other penalty than lawsuit in civil court. The rationale is that the individual retains his sovereignty even after getting married; he cannot sell himself into slavery.

It's unsurprising that they would take this stance, since one of the goals of privatizing marriage was to assure that gay couples would have equal rights as straight couples. Some libertarians, such as Augustus Sol Invictus, have called the Libertarian Party out for its alleged focus on left-wing issues such as LGBTTQQIAAP rights, and become black sheep in the movement as a result. The fact remains that some of the concerns and needs of straight couples are different than those of gay couples; for example, gay husbands don't need to be worry about the possibility of their spouse bearing the child of another man, the way that a straight husband might, so faithfulness is not such a big concern for them. One could come up with a long list of differences and speculate about their possible implications for how straight and gay relationships should be regulated differently.

The moderate libertarian view of marriage isn't exactly compatible with patriarchy, which calls on men to be rulers rather than merely parties to contracts. (I'm drawing a distinction between a ruler and a leader; a ruler has power to compel obedience, but not all leaders have power to rule.) And to the extent that egalitarianism (i.e. the right of women to disobey their husbands), and the inalienable individual sovereignty of women (including their right to abandon their husbands), produces marital instability and harms the institution of the family, this could ultimately work to the detriment of liberty, by making the state by default the main source of leadership and protection.

For example, when men are unable to take charge of their families and prevent their wives from abusing or neglecting the children, there is more occasion for CPS to step in. (See, for example, this list of incidents.) Mike Gannon warns that "the dictators of totalitarian regimes the world over, understand that the Family is the greatest threat to the unchecked might of the State, for it is within the sanctity of the home that loyalties stronger than any flag can command are fostered. Minds, both young and old, are at liberty to develop free of the suffocating hand of political correctness and party line."

Does libertarianism need to be compatible with patriarchy in order to be workable? In figuring that out, I think some key questions to ask are, "How replaceable are husbands and fathers?" and "How replaceable are wives and mothers?" If they were easily replaceable, then a binding marriage might not be as necessary, since a divorce would harm neither the spouses nor the kids, but rather would simply present an opportunity for the husband to trade up for a younger wife. If there is no suitable replacement for either of the parties, then specific performance (i.e. telling the spouses, "you can't break up") becomes the only remedy for breach of contract.

The next question is, "Can marriage obligations be effectively enforced by the threat of lawsuit for breach of contract?" My thought is that the wife is often judgment proof, because she wasn't the breadwinner. You can't get blood out of a turnip. So what is to prevent her from leaving her husband on a whim? Is it enough that, if she leaves, she might walk away with nothing, and have trouble finding a man who wants to support a post-wall single mom?

Perhaps the marriage contract might also specify that in the event of a breakup, the disloyal spouse loses custody of the kids. That would be a departure from current policy, which holds that custody should be determined by "the best interests of the child." Child custody tends to be a touchy issue with libertarians, who may or may not be okay with assigning rights to custody based on contract, as though the kids were livestock. But of course, if the mother is allowed to leave with the kids, then patriarchy, which is based on fathers instilling masculinity in their sons and ruling over their daughters, falls apart.

Then another question is, if you have to force a woman to stay in a marriage, is she even suitable as a wife or mother? Red pill theory holds that war brides can adjust to their situation, and that love is a combination of mutual attraction and a lack of other options, so I'm thinking the answer to that could be yes.

The libertarianism of ages past (when it was called "liberalism") was patriarchal. John Locke held, "But the husband and wife, though they have but one common concern, yet having different understandings, will unavoidably sometimes have different wills too; it therefore being necessary that the last determination, i. e. the rule, should be placed somewhere; it naturally falls to the man's share, as the abler and the stronger." Ayn Rand likewise said (on Phil Donahue's show), "A commander-in-chief of the army, a woman? I think it's unspeakable" which is another way of saying that men should be in charge.

It seems that in modern times, feminism has infected much of the libertarian movement. (Feminists' entryist strategy has always called for them to infiltrate and take over organizations that might otherwise oppose them.) So, what modifications or clarifications would need to be made in libertarian theory, in order to align it with patriarchy? I see a few possibilities.

The first is to simply regard women as children who never grow up, and therefore need to be under guardianship their whole lives. Libertarianism already has a body of theory pertaining to children, and we have records of ancient family laws specifying how women, marriage, and the family were regulated back before women were regarded as having a right to self-determination, so reverting back to that system would be fairly straightforward. Since decisions about marriage have to be made while the woman is fairly young (since SMV starts falling off when she's in her 20s), it also makes a certain amount of sense.

The other way would be to regard men and women as losing their right to self-determination once they marry. Prior to marriage, the individual would be regarded as the fundamental unit of society; but after marriage, the individual would be irrevocably fused into the family, which would become the new fundamental unit. (This would be similar to the concept in Mark 10:8-9, "And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.") The husband's right to rule would then flow from natural law, according to the Lockean principle mentioned above.

Another way is to rely solely on culture (soft power) rather than rule (hard power). That is, influence women rather than control them. Praise and shame would become tools of persuasion, as would men's red pill thinking and behavior, including unwillingness to wife up post-wall sluts. If women marry as young virgins, they are more likely to pair-bond successfully and stay loyal. All of this would require no change to libertarian theory.

Of course, a libertarian critique of patriarchy that is sometimes offered is that the husband might abuse his power. Another critique is that the same logic that would justify men's rule over women might also justify the rule of some men over other men. For example, maybe a father would claim the right to order his grown-up son around for the good of the family, or a dictator might claim the right to order around his people for the good of the nation, the same way that a husband might tell his wife what to do.

I don't think it's entirely out of the realm of possibility that some libertarians would support patriarchy. Way ahead of the alt-right uprising against political correctness, anarcho-capitalists such as Walter Block (who, by the way, believes that it's permissible under libertarian theory to sell oneself into slavery) were already telling the truth about differences between the sexes. Murray Rothbard also blew the whistle on women's lib. And of course we have libertarians like Gavin McInnes arguing that "womankind is better off in a patriarchy."

It does seem that the more radical libertarians are leading the way in being a voice for red pill awareness in the libertarian movement, although they aren't dominant in organizations like the Libertarian Party, and it remains to be seen what specific ethical framework they will propose for relations between the sexes.
03-22-2017 09:01 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Jean Valjean's post:
VincentVinturi
Off The Reservation Away
Banned

Posts: 2,488
Joined: Jul 2015
Post: #2
RE: Is patriarchy compatible with libertarianism? If so, how?
8 negative reps, called out for your bullshit, and no answer? Just this insane ramble as if you didn't see you were called out?

The link is HERE

Your posts are FICTION.

Troll
03-24-2017 12:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 6 users Like Off The Reservation's post:
Dream Medicine, roberto, DJ-Matt, realologist, kaotic, Jetset
VincentVinturi Offline
Alpha Male
****
Gold Member

Posts: 1,137
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 116
Post: #3
RE: Is patriarchy compatible with libertarianism? If so, how?
^^^
This is the first post I'm seeing from OP.

I think this is actually a great topic.

It gave me a lot of pause and I couldn't reconcile patriarchy (which to a certain degree depends on the application of unilateral force) with true libertarianism (which eschews it).

I even spent like an hour trying to respond point by point but couldn't get my thoughts together cogently enough to feel good about my reply so I trashed it.

Personally I'd love to hear what some of the other members with libertarian leanings have to say about this.

My Latest Book On How To Make Money Online By Offering A Service Check It Out Here
(This post was last modified: 03-24-2017 01:02 AM by VincentVinturi.)
03-24-2017 01:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Leonard D Neubache Offline
Innovative Casanova
*******
Gold Member

Posts: 11,162
Joined: Mar 2016
Reputation: 204
Post: #4
RE: Is patriarchy compatible with libertarianism? If so, how?
Must...

not...

engage...
03-24-2017 03:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 8 users Like Leonard D Neubache's post:
Phoenix, Off The Reservation, debeguiled, realologist, DJ-Matt, kaotic, YossariansRight, nomadbrah
TooFineAPoint Offline
Alpha Male
****

Posts: 1,415
Joined: Nov 2014
Reputation: 16
Post: #5
RE: Is patriarchy compatible with libertarianism? If so, how?
Hans-Hermann Hoppe does something similar to what OP is asking in Chapter 10 of Democracy: The God That Failed.

It's called "On Conservatism & Libertarianism". There is a pdf version online here: http://www.riosmauricio.com/wp-content/u...Failed.pdf

You'd have to read the whole chapter to get the full idea, but I grabbed some quotes from it below:

"Private property capitalism and egalitarian multiculturalism are as unlikely a combination as socialism and cultural conservatism. And in trying to combine what cannot be combined, much of the modem libertarian movement actually contributed to the further erosion of private property rights (just as much of contemporary conservatism contributed to the erosion of families and traditional morals). What the countercultural libertarians failed to recognize, and what true libertarians cannot emphasize enough, is that the restoration of private property rights and laissez-faire economics implies a sharp and drastic increase in social 'discrimination' and will swiftly eliminate most if not all of the multicultural-egalitarian life style experiments so close to the heart of left libertarians. In other words, libertarians must be radical and uncompromising conservatives.
...
Left-libertarians and multi- or countercultural lifestyle experimentalists, even if they were not engaged in any crime, would once again have to pay a price for their behavior. If they continued with their behavior or lifestyle, they would be barred from civilized society and live physically separate from it, in ghettos or on the fringes of society, and many positions or professions would be unattainable to them. In contrast, if they wished to live and advance within society, they would have to adjust and assimilate to the moral and cultural norms of the society they wanted to enter. To thus assimilate would not necessarily imply that one would have to give up one's substandard or abnormal behavior or lifestyle altogether. It would imply, however, that one could no longer 'come out' and exhibit one's alternative behavior or lifestyle in public. Such behavior would have to stay in the closet, hidden from the public eye, and physically restricted to the total privacy of one's own four walls."
(This post was last modified: 03-24-2017 01:30 PM by TooFineAPoint.)
03-24-2017 01:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like TooFineAPoint's post:
VincentVinturi, Jean Valjean
BrewDog Offline
Banned

Posts: 1,258
Joined: Dec 2015
Post: #6
RE: Is patriarchy compatible with libertarianism? If so, how?
(03-24-2017 01:01 AM)VincentVinturi Wrote:  Personally I'd love to hear what some of the other members with libertarian leanings have to say about this.
My views on marriage are personal reasons, but I'm thinking my libertarian views likely influence my viewpoint.

I don't know why two people have to go pay $40 for a license (permission) from the government to get married. It's none of the government's business who gets married in a free society. It's simply another form of taxation and regulation.

But I've never seen the value of that government marriage document anyhow. If a woman wants to cheat on me, is a document from the government going to stop her?

Yet if I have a mere girlfriend that truly loves me and is faithful, then is the lack of a government document going to make her any less faithful? Either a couple is faithful or they are not. The government sanction changes nothing.

I've never understood why anyone wants to get married. It ensures nothing except that the man will have to pay through the nose during a divorce. However, if I simply have a girlfriend I can just say, "Get your shit and get out of my house."
03-24-2017 05:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 3 users Like BrewDog's post:
VincentVinturi, rw95, Jean Valjean
Kid Twist Offline
True Player
*****

Posts: 2,636
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 32
Post: #7
RE: Is patriarchy compatible with libertarianism? If so, how?
^ Exactly.

We miss out on the old days of also the woman having the recourse of male relatives to deal with men that were with her or interested in her.

Now, you get neither, before or after. And that my friend, is the shame.

When you replace the father and family with a faceless government, that's what you get.
03-28-2017 03:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Kid Twist's post:
BrewDog
kavi Offline
Banned

Posts: 229
Joined: Dec 2016
Post: #8
RE: Is patriarchy compatible with libertarianism? If so, how?
In the West (infact in most places) Patriarcy will.not be encouraged or even supported anymore by the state. It is not that they are actively against it necessarily but that they they have other priorities relating mostly to economics and politica that frequently conflict with the patriarchal viewpoint.

We all know what these things are but to name a few :
Mindless consumerism by women to keep the economy pumping, women working outside the home, women voting to keep gov in power etc

A modern state like any found in the west is held up by these things and that is what they look to strengthen as a state (as with most entities) will always look after its own interests.

A true libertarian state would allow men to physically control women and children inc the use of honor killings, for example. Such a thing cannot exist in the west ( or anywhere infact).

Marriage is no longer a concern of the state for various reasons so we should not look to the state as an authority on it.

Regarding Libertarianism it is now only a question of he extent to which we can dominate women physically without the state stepping in, this includes womens choices in voting, spending money, relationships, having and raising children etc. As men we have the power ti force women to do as is good for our TRIBE but he state stands in the way if us exercising our god-given power.
03-31-2017 08:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
godfather dust Away
True Player
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 2,466
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 18
Post: #9
RE: Is patriarchy compatible with libertarianism? If so, how?
Who cares? Libertarianism is a utopian ideology that would concentrate wealth much harder and replace government control with corporate. It's not real. Patriarchy has thousands of years of proven history backing it.
03-31-2017 09:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 3 users Like godfather dust's post:
Kid Twist, TigerMandingo, nomadbrah
puckerman Offline
True Player
*****

Posts: 2,493
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 14
Post: #10
RE: Is patriarchy compatible with libertarianism? If so, how?
(03-22-2017 09:01 PM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  I have a question for those who have some familiarity with libertarian theory. Is there a way in which patriarchy can be compatible with libertarianism?

A libertarian society is a society in which the initiation of force is outlawed. This is actually a very simple concept when you take it at face value.

The question is how would a society be constructed politically. Who should vote? Who shouldn't vote? I don't think a libertarian society is necessarily one in which every person votes. In fact, we might be better suited if votes were given to households, instead of individuals. In this case, a father might vote for his whole family. Of course, a mother might as well.

However, I would also allow the case for a mother who happens to be widowed. Widows often complained of "taxation without representation," and they had a just cause in the suffrage movement. They were paying taxes, but had no votes.

I've often asked libertarians if giving women the right to vote was a good thing for the country. History doesn't show any example of women voting leading to positive outcomes. But I also don't think we have enough examples. Even if we hadn't given women the right to vote, it's entirely possible that the college campuses would still be as bad as they are nowadays.

That being said, I definitely think women should be allowed to serve on juries and run for office. If a woman is on trial for a crime, then she should certainly be tried by a jury that includes some women. If the voters want a woman, then they should be allowed to vote for her.

Gays are always going to be a part of society. They have always been with us and always will be. I have no problem with allowing them to enter into the same kind of contracts as straight people.

Of course, libertarians also believe in the right of any business to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Therefore, in a libertarian society, no bakers would be forced to bake cakes for gay couples. When you can't refuse service to a customer, this is called slavery.

It is hard to tell how divorce would work in a libertarian society. We could make it easy or difficult. We do know that a libertarian society does encourage personal responsibility. I suspect people would be more careful about whom they fuck and marry, but it's hard to tell.

Above all, illegitimacy would no longer be subsidized. I suspect it would be greatly reduced for that reason alone.

Libertarians are very split on the issue of abortion. I would hope a libertarian would have very few of them. Again, a libertarian society encourages responsibility. People would use other forms of birth control.

I suspect partriarchy would re-emerge in a libertarian society. A libertarian society would encourage us all to do what is natural to us. It would not enforce it in law, however.
04-01-2017 09:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Jean Valjean Offline
Banned

Posts: 497
Joined: Mar 2016
Post: #11
RE: Is patriarchy compatible with libertarianism? If so, how?
(03-24-2017 12:30 AM)Off The Reservation Wrote:  8 negative reps, called out for your bullshit, and no answer? Just this insane ramble as if you didn't see you were called out?

The link is HERE

Your posts are FICTION.

Troll

If I fucked up in some of my reasoning earlier, that's just something that happens when people are trying to devise a worldview. As Mises wrote, "A critical examination of the philosophical systems constructed by mankind's great thinkers has very often revealed fissures and flaws in the impressive structure of those seemingly consistent and coherent bodies of comprehensive thought. Even the genius in drafting a world view sometimes fails to avoid contradictions and fallacious syllogisms."

Or as Roosh noted, one opinion doesn't make a person. Everyone is going to express an opinion at some point that's wrong and then, after getting critiqued, realize, "Oh wait, I fucked up, and now I need to retract that."

I don't think I've distorted any facts in my posts, if that's what you're implying. My blue pill past did have a lot of unfortunate incidents, which I sought to find explanations for, leading to my going red pill. That's not really a contradiction, though; just an evolution.

I have a libertarian background, so in my red pill journey, I've had to rethink where I'm going to stand on issues like prostitution, which libertarians have tended to be very liberal about. If I erred, I erred.
04-02-2017 10:37 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Jean Valjean's post:
TigerMandingo
Jetset Offline
True Player
*****

Posts: 2,329
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 41
Post: #12
RE: Is patriarchy compatible with libertarianism? If so, how?
(04-02-2017 10:37 AM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  I don't think I've distorted any facts in my posts, if that's what you're implying. My blue pill past did have a lot of unfortunate incidents, which I sought to find explanations for, leading to my going red pill. That's not really a contradiction, though; just an evolution.

I have a libertarian background, so in my red pill journey, I've had to rethink where I'm going to stand on issues like prostitution, which libertarians have tended to be very liberal about.

As I recall, you claim to have married one, so this is a pretty delicate understatement.

Hidey-ho, RVFerinos!
04-03-2017 03:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Jetset's post:
Off The Reservation
Jean Valjean Offline
Banned

Posts: 497
Joined: Mar 2016
Post: #13
RE: Is patriarchy compatible with libertarianism? If so, how?
(04-03-2017 03:53 PM)Jetset Wrote:  
(04-02-2017 10:37 AM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  I don't think I've distorted any facts in my posts, if that's what you're implying. My blue pill past did have a lot of unfortunate incidents, which I sought to find explanations for, leading to my going red pill. That's not really a contradiction, though; just an evolution.

I have a libertarian background, so in my red pill journey, I've had to rethink where I'm going to stand on issues like prostitution, which libertarians have tended to be very liberal about.

As I recall, you claim to have married one, so this is a pretty delicate understatement.

I guess. Although there's a difference between thin libertarianism, which would argue, "The state shouldn't criminalize prostitution, but that doesn't mean it's moral to practice it" and thick libertarianism, which might argue, "The state shouldn't criminalize prostitution, and furthermore, there's nothing morally wrong with practicing it." Right-libertarians tend to fall more on the thin libertarianism side of the spectrum, while left-libertarians tend toward thick libertarianism.

At any rate, I'm starting to view the red pill as more important than libertarianism, since politics is just a means to a cultural end that can often be more efficiently reached by other means. Politicians have a certain amount of cultural influence, but they seem to be more reflections of existing culture rather than molders of culture. For example, Trump seemed to ride of a wave of nationalism rather than actually creating it.

Interestingly, when I tell the story of that marriage, it attracts condemnation from both red pillers and blue pillers. Red pillers say, "You should not have married a prostitute, since whores can't be converted into housewives" while blue pillers say, "There's nothing wrong with marrying a prostitute, since a woman's sexual history has no bearing on her suitability to be a good wife; but the fact that she left you after 2-3 months shows that you must have really mistreated her." Here we see the truth of A.V. Yader's remark, that "It doesn’t matter what 'it' is, because no matter what 'it' is—'it' is your damn fault."

Similarly, the fact that I was stricken by grief for months after she left also attracts condemnation from both red pillers and blue pillers. Red pillers say, "That was one-itis; you should've had an abundance mentality" while blue pillers say, "When your wife leaves you, you're supposed to let her go and forget about her rather than continuing to think about her, because that's stalker-ish and shows a desire to control her rather than let her do what she wants, as a strong, independent, and empowered woman." On the other hand, not grieving the loss of someone can get taken as a sign of having never loved them to begin with, so there's no way to win there.

Now that I think about it, I actually bent over backwards in a lot of ways to try to accommodate her, but blue pillers will never give me credit for that (I'm not sure why not; I should probably bring that up the next time they give me shit), and red pillers will condemn it as another indication of weakness, neediness, betaness, etc. Bushido noted, "Being extremely adept manipulators these bitches tend to bring out beta/omega behaviour from otherwise alpha guys - not exactly something most men will admit to." Now we know why.

The loss of a first love, or a first marriage, is a loss of innocence. Just like women become disillusioned upon finding that giving a man sex doesn't necessarily keep him around, men become disillusioned when they find that giving a woman commitment doesn't necessarily keep her around. In either case, promises are made and then broken, and society says this is okay because we live in a free country that practices free love.
(This post was last modified: 04-08-2017 01:11 PM by Jean Valjean.)
04-08-2017 01:09 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Repo Online
International Playboy
******

Posts: 3,270
Joined: Feb 2015
Reputation: 23
Post: #14
RE: Is patriarchy compatible with libertarianism? If so, how?
"Red pillers say, "That was one-itis; you should've had an abundance mentality" while blue pillers say, "When your wife leaves you, you're supposed to let her go and forget about her rather than continuing to think about her, because that's stalker-ish and shows a desire to control her rather than let her do what she wants, as a strong, independent, and empowered woman." "

I don't think either of these is accurate at all. Did any of your close friends actually tell you this? This isn't how normal people talk, this sounds like something you would only read on the internet.
04-08-2017 03:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
cascadecombo Offline
True Player
*****

Posts: 1,832
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 22
Post: #15
RE: Is patriarchy compatible with libertarianism? If so, how?
Troll
(This post was last modified: 04-09-2017 05:12 PM by cascadecombo.)
04-09-2017 05:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Vanthassel Offline
Game Denialist

Posts: 28
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 0
Post: #16
RE: Is patriarchy compatible with libertarianism? If so, how?
(03-31-2017 09:49 PM)godfather dust Wrote:  Libertarianism is a utopian ideology that would concentrate wealth much harder and replace government control with corporate.

Who told you that? Corporations are creations of government and owe their existence to the government. Diminishing government would necessarily also diminish the power of corporations (and would also tend to level wealth, not concentrate it).
04-10-2017 03:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
puckerman Offline
True Player
*****

Posts: 2,493
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 14
Post: #17
RE: Is patriarchy compatible with libertarianism? If so, how?
I find it interesting that when people on this board criticize libertarianism that they almost always resort to the same criticisms that are parroted by people like Bernie Sanders. The one below is a great example.

(03-31-2017 09:49 PM)godfather dust Wrote:  Libertarianism is a utopian ideology that would concentrate wealth much harder and replace government control with corporate.

This is wrong because there is no limit on how much wealth can be created. I can make myself richer, and it doesn't have to cost anyone else anything. Others can do it as well.

This zero-sum bullshit is the basis of Marxism, something which I thought this board opposed.
(This post was last modified: 04-16-2017 01:33 AM by puckerman.)
04-16-2017 01:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Leonard D Neubache Offline
Innovative Casanova
*******
Gold Member

Posts: 11,162
Joined: Mar 2016
Reputation: 204
Post: #18
RE: Is patriarchy compatible with libertarianism? If so, how?
(04-10-2017 03:29 PM)Vanthassel Wrote:  
(03-31-2017 09:49 PM)godfather dust Wrote:  Libertarianism is a utopian ideology that would concentrate wealth much harder and replace government control with corporate.

Who told you that? Corporations are creations of government and owe their existence to the government. Diminishing government would necessarily also diminish the power of corporations (and would also tend to level wealth, not concentrate it).

Who told you that?
04-16-2017 05:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Leonard D Neubache Offline
Innovative Casanova
*******
Gold Member

Posts: 11,162
Joined: Mar 2016
Reputation: 204
Post: #19
RE: Is patriarchy compatible with libertarianism? If so, how?
(04-16-2017 01:29 AM)puckerman Wrote:  ...

(03-31-2017 09:49 PM)godfather dust Wrote:  Libertarianism is a utopian ideology that would concentrate wealth much harder and replace government control with corporate.

This is wrong because there is no limit on how much wealth can be created. I can make myself richer, and it doesn't have to cost anyone else anything. Others can do it as well.

This zero-sum bullshit is the basis of Marxism, something which I thought this board opposed.

Can anyone point out where Puck addresses GD's assertion?

Or can Puck point out what inevitably happens in a vacuum of power? Harmony? Good will between men? Examples please.

Further, can he explain how a libertarian would use his innate power for infinite wealth creation when a less noble entrepreneur pays a thug to break both his knees and smash his hands with hammers, then bribe the cops and the judges to look the other way?

Or does libertarianism act as some sort of cosmic shield against non-voluntary bodily harm.
(This post was last modified: 04-16-2017 05:23 AM by Leonard D Neubache.)
04-16-2017 05:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Leonard D Neubache Offline
Innovative Casanova
*******
Gold Member

Posts: 11,162
Joined: Mar 2016
Reputation: 204
Post: #20
RE: Is patriarchy compatible with libertarianism? If so, how?
Because I'm bored I'm going to take a hatchet to this nonsense and open a can of worm by saying the following two posts are examples of why Libertarian theology is riddled with Gammas.

[quote='Vanthassel' pid='1546968' dateline='1491856163']
[quote='godfather dust' pid='1540294' dateline='1491014975']
Libertarianism is a utopian ideology that would concentrate wealth much harder and replace government control with corporate.
[/quote]

Who told you that? Corporations are creations of government and owe their existence to the government. Diminishing government would necessarily also diminish the power of corporations (and would also tend to level wealth, not concentrate it).
[/quote]

Note the derisive attitude from this zero rep nobody. To expound, he is saying: "That's your understanding of the matter? Who told you that? Obviously someone had to have put that in your head because you're not smart enough to come to a conclusion yourself based on evidence. If you were capable of such a thing then obviously you'd be a Libertarian. But you're not a Libertarian so I'm forced to reasonably assume you're just a dumb sheep, and as such your opinions are obviously just parroted from elsewhere. As such I must ask. Who told you that?"

Total tard

[quote='puckerman' pid='1551212' dateline='1492324181']
I find it interesting that when people on this board criticize libertarianism that they almost always resort to the same criticisms that are parroted by people like Bernie Sanders. The one below is a great example.

[quote='godfather dust' pid='1540294' dateline='1491014975']
Libertarianism is a utopian ideology that would concentrate wealth much harder and replace government control with corporate.[/quote]

This is wrong because there is no limit on how much wealth can be created. I can make myself richer, and it doesn't have to cost anyone else anything. Others can do it as well.

This zero-sum bullshit is the basis of Marxism, something which I thought this board opposed.
[/quote]

Note the response is so emotional that Puckerman completely fails to address the substance of the quote. He refers to his imaginary interpretation of GD's quote regarding a zero-sum economy, labels it as "bullshit", jumps instantly to framing him as a Communist and then attempts to shame him on the presumption that his attitudes are outside the moral imperative of the forum.

And he does this all in one sentence.

If only the average Libertarian could apply that kind of efficiency to their day to day lives, but that's where we see the Gamma creep in. See, Libertarians like Puck see themselves as economic powerhouses that are being held back from their limitless wealth creating potential by hostile government which fears them and must as such oppress them for the sake of corporations and whatnot.

However, ask them what they would do to unleash that potential tomorrow if they woke up in a Libertarian paradise and they would umm and err all day long. Better yet, ask them what they would do upon that tomorrow that they could not have done yesterday and you will get...

[quote]This zero-sum bullshit is the basis of Marxism, something which I thought this board opposed.[/i]

But fear not. When your ideology is proven fallacious on an individual basis you can simply fall back on claiming that on a larger scale you would benefit in the same way everyone else benefits (just like Communists claim...oops!). In fact, Puckerman went so far as to not just suggest but outright insist that...

[quote='puckerman' pid='1551218' dateline='1492325093']
...
If I had the billions of dollars that the Kochs have, I would give almost all of it to space exploration. I would work to build a libertarian society on another planet.
...
Then the libertarians on the other planet would be the only humans left. And they would grow richer and more prosperous as time went on. This would certainly be easier than trying to convert all the people who want to live as slaves.
[/quote]

Anyone that went to Sunday school would prick up their ears. That's right. Puckerman thinks he can create a Garden of Eden on the premise that the sum total of human nature that has led us to this point is simply a social construct, and if you put a group of libertarians in a space ship then you will be able to construct an offworld utopia free of aggression and collectivism for all time! Let's hope that pesky snake doesn't stow away and bring some seeds from a certain tree with him.

But all of this childish nonsense could be shrugged at with good humour if not for the utterly hostile gamma attitude that accompanies it.

Whether it be passive aggressive...

[quote]Who told you that?[/quote]

Or just plain old fashioned aggressive...

[quote]This zero-sum bullshit is the basis of Marxism, something which I thought this board opposed.[/quote]

Nothing betrays the average Libertarian's utter unfitness to live in a Libertarian society than their attitude when defending that same ideology.
(This post was last modified: 04-16-2017 06:21 AM by Leonard D Neubache.)
04-16-2017 06:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
nomadbrah Offline
International Playboy
******

Posts: 5,379
Joined: Sep 2015
Reputation: 66
Post: #21
RE: Is patriarchy compatible with libertarianism? If so, how?
(04-16-2017 05:13 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  
(04-10-2017 03:29 PM)Vanthassel Wrote:  
(03-31-2017 09:49 PM)godfather dust Wrote:  Libertarianism is a utopian ideology that would concentrate wealth much harder and replace government control with corporate.

Who told you that? Corporations are creations of government and owe their existence to the government. Diminishing government would necessarily also diminish the power of corporations (and would also tend to level wealth, not concentrate it).

Who told you that?

Corporations are a legal entity without personal responsibility. They're definitely protected by the government. Otherwise we would have hung the CEOs of the banks.
04-16-2017 07:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes nomadbrah's post:
TigerMandingo
puckerman Offline
True Player
*****

Posts: 2,493
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 14
Post: #22
RE: Is patriarchy compatible with libertarianism? If so, how?
(04-16-2017 07:52 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:  Corporations are a legal entity without personal responsibility. They're definitely protected by the government. Otherwise we would have hung the CEOs of the banks.

Corporations are protected by the concept of limited liability. All you can do is put the corporation out of business and dissolve it. The owners are not liable for what the corporation does.

This is different with a small business or a private company. If something happens at Uncle Joe's Corner Store, you can sue Uncle Joe for everything he has.

I can't say if corporations would exist in a true free market. I suspect it would be much different than how things are now.
(This post was last modified: 04-16-2017 05:36 PM by puckerman.)
04-16-2017 05:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Why is libertarianism equated with autism? Kurgan 102 28,405 01-15-2019 09:41 PM
Last Post: TigerMandingo
  Broadway Explorers Patriarchy in a World Where Men Have Been Exterminated gework 10 2,238 08-26-2018 02:34 AM
Last Post: Simeon_Strangelight
  How resurgent libertarianism sprung from a lack of masculinity. Leonard D Neubache 141 44,251 04-30-2017 11:18 AM
Last Post: puckerman

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | RooshV.com | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication