Libertarian Party discussion

puckerman

Ostrich
Gary Johnson is again running for the nomination of the Libertarian Party in 2016. His leading opponent is John McAfee from Tennessee. While you may not have heard of John McAfee, you probably have heard of his anti-virus software.

I suspect Johnson will win the nomination again, but it's hard to tell what will happen at the convention in Orlando.

What does everyone else think?
 

Penta Sahi

Kingfisher
puckerman said:
His leading opponent is John McAfee from Tennessee. While you may not have heard of John McAfee, you probably have heard of his anti-virus software.
John McAfee is certifiably crazy. Just Google up "John McAfee Belize" for a taste of what he's been up to the last decade or so. If even a fraction of that stuff is true, he should be in no position of political authority over anyone.
 

T and A Man

Pelican
Gold Member
This forum has definitely heard of John McAfee.

His retired life of non stop partying and seven live-in whores bring delight to many.
 

Ghost Tiger

Ostrich
Gold Member
McAfee has a wild lifestyle, but that doesn't seem to bother libertarians who seem almost exclusively interested in talking about legalizing illicit drugs, cybersecurity, and cryptocurrency... in other words... weed, hacking, and Bitcoin. In which case, McAfee seems like their perfect candidate. Plus, he seems to be able to self-finance, like Trump. And he has powerful name recognition and indisputable cybersecurity credentials. Cybersecurity seemed to be a winning issue for Carly Fiorina in a few of her stump speeches and media interviews. In any event, the libertarian school of thought isn't going to gain popular traction until it resolves its issues with border security because libertarians are essentially open-borders with some long-winded academic explanations attached. Ron Paul's notorious "blowback" theory is not only wrong, him saying it out loud got him smacked down hard by Rudy Giuliani in a Republican leadership debate, and rightly so. In the era of Emperor Trump and afterwards, open-borders arguments are going to die on the vine. Thank God.
 
Who the fuck cares about Libertarian nominations?

It's irrelevant for all intents and purposes. They will never WIN, so it's completely non-consequential. Any discussion on the matter is pointless, unless it's purely for entertainment purposes.

The last President of the US who was neither Democrat or Republican was Millard Fillmore (1850-1853), who was a member of the Whig party.

That means it's been over 150 years since a non-dem and non-rep won the oval office. Short of a complete government restructuring through revolution, I don't see any third party ever being significant in this country.
 

Handsome Creepy Eel

Owl
Gold Member
The truth is that Libertarianism is just a healthy method for problem-solving that other ideologies are supposed to lean towards. It is not an independent ideology and to treat it as such is simply foolish. For example, there's no such thing as a country without borders, but a country with borders will benefit from providing economic and social freedoms to its citizens.

Libertarianism's problem is that most of its proponents view it as something more - a religion to be used in virtue signalling similar to SJWs. This automatically undermines their movement and repulses people from it.

Similar to alt-right and other failed movements, over time it has become overtaken by people who blindly stick to ideology and live in ivory towers, obsessed with showing off how they're smarter and nobler than everyone instead of working on practical solutions that could further their goals. For an example, just see Rand Paul and Reason Magazine's cucking during this campaign.
 
A commentator on Vox Day's blog had a beautiful summary of libertarians.

"Libertarians are drawn to their beliefs in large part because they think that starting on a completely level playing field, they would come out near the top. Many of them are right--they tend to be intelligent and well-educated. But their pride in their own ability makes them unable to sympathize with the fact that most people need social support of various kinds."
 

Samseau

Owl
Gold Member
MMX2010 said:
A commentator on Vox Day's blog had a beautiful summary of libertarians.

"Libertarians are drawn to their beliefs in large part because they think that starting on a completely level playing field, they would come out near the top. Many of them are right--they tend to be intelligent and well-educated. But their pride in their own ability makes them unable to sympathize with the fact that most people need social support of various kinds."
This is a reductio with no basis in reality as far as I am concerned. I see Libertarians as those who want a strong, beautiful society, so they need a state that isn't constantly trying to hinder the beautiful and strong.

As for taking care of the weak, it should be done via charity not government redistribution as it is notoriously corrupt and inefficient with resources.
 

Libertas

Crow
Gold Member
Ghost Tiger said:
Ron Paul's notorious "blowback" theory is not only wrong, him saying it out loud got him smacked down hard by Rudy Giuliani in a Republican leadership debate, and rightly so.
It's not wrong, it's just incomplete.

Much like most of the libertarian philosophy itself.

And I don't think Rudy the crossdresser got the better of him there at all.
 
MMX2010 said:
A commentator on Vox Day's blog had a beautiful summary of libertarians.

"Libertarians are drawn to their beliefs in large part because they think that starting on a completely level playing field, they would come out near the top. Many of them are right--they tend to be intelligent and well-educated. But their pride in their own ability makes them unable to sympathize with the fact that most people need social support of various kinds."
What a hilariously meaningless trite piece of crap that comment was. Pretty much anyone can write something like that. It's nothing more than a rephrasing of the leftist status quo.

Let's translate this weasel-wording, shall we? "Their pride in their own ability makes them unable to sympathize with the fact that most people need social support of various kinds".
-->
Most people are lazy, pathetic, parasitic whingers ("needy"), who should be entitled to rob ("get support from") able people and control how they live their lives. If those able people resist this enslavement ("fail to sympathize"), they will be gunned down to set an example to others. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

Just because this pithy leftist comment fits your attitude on the subject, doesn't make it a "beautiful summary of libertarians".

In fact I've found this to be a trend in "critiques" of libertarianism. As though simply spitting out some dismissive comment is rebuttal of their ideas. If anything this trend should attract people to libertarianism. They're clearly onto something if "rebuttals" of their ideas are nothing more than expressions of contempt.
 

Ghost Tiger

Ostrich
Gold Member
Libertas said:
Ghost Tiger said:
Ron Paul's notorious "blowback" theory is not only wrong, him saying it out loud got him smacked down hard by Rudy Giuliani in a Republican leadership debate, and rightly so.
It's not wrong, it's just incomplete.

Much like most of the libertarian philosophy itself.

And I don't think Rudy the crossdresser got the better of him there at all.
Rudy may be a crossdresser, but Ron Paul got pwned by him at that moment in the debate. Listen to the applause at 1:26 in the video below:


I watched that live and I myself wanted to punch Paul in the face for saying that, and so did a lot of Americans I know. What Paul and his libertarians fail to appreciate is that Islam has been attacking us for over 1400 years.


This 1400 years of theft, rape, and murder is not a result of fucking "blowback", it's a result of the fact that Islam is a death cult with delusions of world domination, and we're standing in their way. Bin Laden chose September 11 because it commemorated the victory at the Gates of Vienna by the Christian armies led by King Jan III Sobieski on September 11, 1683 when they repelled the invading Islamic hordes. So I guess it took 318 fucking years for that particular piece of "blowback", but they fucking started it bro. Libertarians like Ron Paul are just too damned autistic to grasp the reality of the threat. Just listen to Paul mumble and stumble through his answer in the beginning of that video. What a fucking cuck nerd. Rudy should have stormed over there, given Paul a wedgie and snapped a towel on his ass. What a fucking asshole.
 

Libertas

Crow
Gold Member
I know, but he is absolutely correct that the West should not be taking out secular dictators in the region that keep these people in check, that the West should not be arming these "rebels," that the West should not be funding these "rebels," and that the West should not be training these "rebels." That is taking a bad situation and making it catastrophically worse.

The region actually did seem to show some signs of promise in the latter 20th century until the West went in there and turned it into an unstable hellhole by funneling money, weapons, and training to Islamists. The important thing that Ron Paul missed was Saudi Arabia and others sponsoring these people with their Wahabbism.

Applause doesn't mean shit in a debate. You know that. Trump's been booed and his cuck opponents cheered to the rafters.
 

Ghost Tiger

Ostrich
Gold Member
Libertas said:
I know, but he is absolutely correct that the West should not be taking out secular dictators in the region that keep these people in check, that the West should not be arming these "rebels," that the West should not be funding these "rebels," and that the West should not be training these "rebels." That is taking a bad situation and making it catastrophically worse.
True enough, but the answer isn't to put our heads in the sand and act like they DON'T want to steal from us, rape our women, and kill us. The answer isn't to pretend we somehow deserve their hatred because it's just "blowback" over something bad we did to them. The answer, in the words of the beautiful and wise Ann Coulter, is to invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity. Make the Middle East Great Again!

Libertas said:
The region actually did seem to show some signs of promise in the latter 20th century until the West went in there and turned it into an unstable hellhole by funneling money, weapons, and training to Islamists.
Ummmm... hey bro... at what point do we begin to BLAME THE FUCKING ISLAMISTS? Let's compare Iranian women before and after the filthy mullahs took over, shall we?



Sure you can hate Carter for being a detestable fucking cuck and "funneling money, weapons, and training to Islamists", but he would have been just as happy to do that for the Shah as he was for Islamists. The point is, Islam took over and turned the place to shit. That's on Islam, not Carter. Just like communism took over Cuba and turned the place to shit. That's on communism, not JFK. Savvy?

Libertas said:
Applause doesn't mean shit in a debate. You know that. Trump's been booed and his cuck opponents cheered to the rafters.
You're using misdirection to avoid the relevant issue, namely whether or not Ron Paul the autistic blowback theorist got pwned, or not, by Rudy the crossdressing patriot in that debate. It is on this point, I think, that we disagree.

Anyone else out there in the forum have an opinion? What say you men? Did Rudy legitimately smack him down? Or was that applause astroturfed as my esteemed friend Libertas proposes?
 

Samseau

Owl
Gold Member
Ron Paul was wrong, but Giuliani didn't have much of a rebuttal other than "That's absurd!" and outrage. It wasn't much of a smackdown at all. The applause was meaningless.
 

Libertas

Crow
Gold Member
Ghost Tiger said:
Ummmm... hey bro... at what point do we begin to BLAME THE FUCKING ISLAMISTS?
I blame both, that should have been made very clear by now. Hence Ron Paul not being "wrong," just "incomplete." He sees one part of the equation but does not see the other. It's much the same with libertarian philosophy in general.

You're using misdirection to avoid the relevant issue, namely whether or not Ron Paul the autistic blowback theorist got pwned, or not, by Rudy the crossdressing patriot in that debate. It is on this point, I think, that we disagree.
No, your emphasis was on the applause as somehow being evidence that Rudy was right. As Samseau remarked, he just virtue signaled and said what the stacked crowd wanted him to say, therefore making the applause irrelevant as any kind of evidence whether or not Giuliani "smacked him down."
 

Ghost Tiger

Ostrich
Gold Member
Libertas said:
Hence Ron Paul not being "wrong," just "incomplete." He sees one part of the equation but does not see the other. It's much the same with libertarian philosophy in general.
I fail to see how you could "complete" Paul's theory to make it not "wrong". He says they attacked on 9/11 because of blowback from our modern incursions into their region. There's nothing to add, there is only a statement to delete. That is NOT why they attacked us and so the statement is wrong. Completely wrong.

No, your emphasis was on the applause as somehow being evidence that Rudy was right. As Samseau remarked, he just virtue signaled and said what the stacked crowd wanted him to say, therefore making the applause irrelevant as any kind of evidence whether or not Giuliani "smacked him down."
OK I defer to both of you. I remember the moment differently due to the emotion I felt at the time. You guys are right... Giuliani is a bit of a pompous cuck in there and he IS probably wearing Victoria Secret undergarments at that very moment. At the time I watched that with some buddies, that crack by Paul lit the room on fire with rage, so when Giuliani interjected we were all like, "Go get him!" But fair enough, he didn't. I concede the point.
 

Libertas

Crow
Gold Member
Here's what it comes down to, much like in any crime. What do the police look for? Motive, means, and opportunity.

Now, we know the Islamists have MOTIVE. We know what the Koran says. We also know that it's made worse by the "youth bulge" in the region. This is what the "blowback" theory from dissidents like Ron Paul does not see. It ignores motive. So in that sense you're right, it's not WHY they attacked us.

What the cucks and neocons (like Giuliani) ignore are MEANS and OPPORTUNITY. This is where the HOW comes in.

Osama bin Laden's network was created and funded in large part by the CIA and others in the 80's. They were given weapons, money, and training. That embyro grew into what attacked. You essentially took goat herders with AKs and allowed them to become a somewhat sophisticated war machine.

Without this kind of support, the Islamists might not have succeeded in their recruitment, organization, and ultimately, operations. Maybe they might have anyway, but it was made a great deal easier for them.

Lo and behold, same shit right now in Iraq, Syria, and Libya.
 

Ghost Tiger

Ostrich
Gold Member
Libertas said:
Here's what it comes down to, much like in any crime. What do the police look for? Motive, means, and opportunity.
That was a great response. But we're past the police stage. Police are investigators, not prosecutors. Prosecutors look for mens rea and actus reus. Islam has both, and so they're guilty. The CIA et al acted irresponsibly and so you have actus reus, but you have no mens rea, so they don't share guilt. That's what I'm getting at. Paul's theory implies we share guilt. We don't. And furthermore, he absolves Islam of guilt. Islam is guilty as sin. Paul's just wrong.

But your comments were brilliant by the way. Well done.
 
Ron Paul is very wrong that the US attacking them is why the Muslims are being terrorists. He might be right that they could only have mobilized that with CIA funding/Islamic excuses about the West attacking them. The end result is similar in that we should be more libertarian- but we have to be really wary of the Muslims.
 
Top