Libertarian Party discussion

puckerman

Ostrich
Samseau said:
LeeEnfield303 said:
puckerman said:
Do all of you Americans who scream about "the border" know anyone who has tried to immigrate to this god-forsaken country legally? I know a lady who spent YEARS trying to get her fiance/husband here legally from Jamaica. She was also scammed by several people who allegedly provided an "easy way" to get a visa. In many cases, he was just trying to get a visa for a short time. But they wouldn't give him one because they feared that he would overstay the visa.

It's also a red herring. More Mexicans are leaving than coming. Who can blame them?

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/
If this is a 'godforsaken' country, you are sure welcome to leave any time you like. Who could blame you?
Yes Puckerman's lack of logic is quite revealing. Never would have guessed. Contradicts himself then appeals to some lame sob story.

Here's a better question for open borders: How is America supposed to fix every shithole in the world? We gonna let everyone in here and destroy 250 years of hard work? Yeah no thanks you can leave if you don't like it. There has to be an orderly processing of new people to the country in order to preserve law, order, and prosperity.

Anyone who disagrees with this isn't a libertarian because they aren't interested in preserving liberty.
There's a good chance I will leave. And people are renouncing American citizenship more than ever.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertw...-renounce-their-u-s-citizenship/#54ef9c94a6e6
 

Samseau

Owl
Gold Member
puckerman said:
Samseau said:
LeeEnfield303 said:
puckerman said:
Do all of you Americans who scream about "the border" know anyone who has tried to immigrate to this god-forsaken country legally? I know a lady who spent YEARS trying to get her fiance/husband here legally from Jamaica. She was also scammed by several people who allegedly provided an "easy way" to get a visa. In many cases, he was just trying to get a visa for a short time. But they wouldn't give him one because they feared that he would overstay the visa.

It's also a red herring. More Mexicans are leaving than coming. Who can blame them?

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/
If this is a 'godforsaken' country, you are sure welcome to leave any time you like. Who could blame you?
Yes Puckerman's lack of logic is quite revealing. Never would have guessed. Contradicts himself then appeals to some lame sob story.

Here's a better question for open borders: How is America supposed to fix every shithole in the world? We gonna let everyone in here and destroy 250 years of hard work? Yeah no thanks you can leave if you don't like it. There has to be an orderly processing of new people to the country in order to preserve law, order, and prosperity.

Anyone who disagrees with this isn't a libertarian because they aren't interested in preserving liberty.
There's a good chance I will leave. And people are renouncing American citizenship more than ever.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertw...-renounce-their-u-s-citizenship/#54ef9c94a6e6
So Libertarians won't vote to save America, and they'll be the first to jump ship after doing nothing to save the country. Great people.
 
redbeard said:
Scorpion had an epic post a while back saying something along the lines of "libertarianism is lack of values, neomasculinity is the set of values we need."

Someone should find it...
Libertarianism is not a lack of values, it's just a very small set. It's a pretty easy social rule to understand: relate to each other by agreement rather than compulsion. Beyond that, it makes no prescriptions, so "being a libertarian" is a pretty empty thing if that's your main value system, which it almost never is.
 
Phoenix,

Your reply doesn't at all counter-argue what Scorpion said about libertarians, specifically their inability to compel others to follow a specific truth means they always get overrun by more aggressive forces, like Christians or Muslims.
 

El Chinito loco

Crow
Gold Member
Phoenix said:
redbeard said:
Scorpion had an epic post a while back saying something along the lines of "libertarianism is lack of values, neomasculinity is the set of values we need."

Someone should find it...
Libertarianism is not a lack of values, it's just a very small set. It's a pretty easy social rule to understand: relate to each other by agreement rather than compulsion. Beyond that, it makes no prescriptions, so "being a libertarian" is a pretty empty thing if that's your main value system, which it almost never is.
I've heard Tom Woods describe libertarian values as basically living as "do no harm to others" with the nonaggression principle as the fundamental basis.

I've actually made an effort to understand libertarianism better. I started reading some Rothbard and I admit it's pretty interesting. There's a lot of what Rothbard talks about which makes total sense especially with his criticism of modern economics as an academic discipline. He made a sound case against central banking that is very relevant today.

I also listen to Tom Woods who is one of the few libertarians i've seen who can actually debate specific issues in a pretty cogent manner. He's a well spoken Harvard grad and he's also fairly red pill about many things.

I still think libertarianism has many inherent problems but Rothbardian libertarianism is the closest to a sensible version of it.
 

Handsome Creepy Eel

Owl
Gold Member
El Chinito Loco, I think libertarianism is a great philosophy by itself, but the people who populate it are (sadly) overwhelmingly aspies and other sorts of mentally/socially maladjusted people. This leads to:

A) giving libertarianism a bad name, meaning it will never catch up and become popular
B) extreme vulnerability to infiltration by trolls, secret agents and other nefarious forces
C) circle-jerking on internet forums and blogs instead of taking concrete action
D) no concept of compromise, fanatical all-or-nothing mentality and virtue signalling


The insane talking points that we've recently witnessed at the Libertarian national convention are a very good illustration of that.
 

El Chinito loco

Crow
Gold Member
Handsome Creepy Eel said:
The insane talking points that we've recently witnessed at the Libertarian national convention are a very good illustration of that.
From what I gather many individuals have glommed onto libertarianism as this free for all political philosophy.

This means that for some people it encompasses every single degenerancy and ideal that is counterculture to the mainstream. Any movement that portrays itself as such will attract a massive number of degenerates.

I also never liked Ron Paul. I've always felt he's a completely fucking joke. I don't like his son either who exposed himself during this cycle as a low EQ hobbit.

I feel the same about guys like Bernie Sanders who adopt a faux libertarian stance and always have from the start.

These are all old man demagogues trying to write their way into the pages of history on the backs of an alternative political philosphy and disatisfied voter demographic.

Unfortunately they are the ones who represent this other side of politics which is counter establishment. I attribute this to the stupidity of the American mainstream in general. It really is extremely stupid.

Libertarianism will have to go a long way to filter out these retards and I really don't see it happening. Even some respected individuals love Ron Paul and it's really unfortunate.
 
El Chinito loco said:
Handsome Creepy Eel said:
The insane talking points that we've recently witnessed at the Libertarian national convention are a very good illustration of that.
From what I gather many individuals have glommed onto libertarianism as this free for all political philosophy.

This means that for some people it encompasses every single degenerancy and ideal that is counterculture to the mainstream. Any movement that portrays itself as such will attract a massive number of degenerates.

I also never liked Ron Paul. I've always felt he's a completely fucking joke. I don't like his son either who exposed himself during this cycle as a low EQ hobbit.

I feel the same about guys like Bernie Sanders who adopt a faux libertarian stance and always have from the start.

These are all old man demagogues trying to write their way into the pages of history on the backs of an alternative political philosphy and disatisfied voter demographic.

Unfortunately they are the ones who represent this other side of politics which is counter establishment. I attribute this to the stupidity of the American mainstream in general. It really is extremely stupid.

Libertarianism will have to go a long way to filter out these retards and I really don't see it happening. Even some respected individuals love Ron Paul and it's really unfortunate.
Murray Rothbard called these types "modal libertarians", he also didn't much care for them either. Link below has a good description and a comparison to modern "modal conservatives".

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2003/04/ryan-mcmaken/the-modal-conservative/
 

El Chinito loco

Crow
Gold Member
Chevy Woonsocket said:
Murray Rothbard called these types "modal libertarians", he also didn't much care for them either. Link below has a good description and a comparison to modern "modal conservatives".

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2003/04/ryan-mcmaken/the-modal-conservative/
When he's talking about modal conservativism i'm pretty sure he's also referring to Milton Friedman. Rothbard seemed to have a particular distaste of Friedman which was totally warranted. Friedman seemed to be just an elite shine box boy version of modal conservatism. I've never seen a man with such a horrible track record of getting things wrong consistently praised so highly by the establishment and ivory tower academia.

He spent his entire career sucking off the establishment and creating economic models to justify neo-con expansionist foreign policy while preaching about "non interventionist" neoliberalist free market principles.

He's a jingoistic fuck tard who pretty much agreed with every war since Vietnam and he has millions of mainstream conservative acolytes who look at him like he was Jesus. I seem to recall he also did a legendary flip flop on supporting the Iraq War and W's policies.

Friedman's policies have been a disaster in the developing world as well as right now in the U.S. economy where they are used as a linchpin for central bank monetary policy.
 

GlobalMan

Hummingbird
Gold Member
Gary Johnson is truly laughable, his responses and reasonings (and triggering) in this interview are in fact worse than your typical progressive liberal, at least those types have a convoluted reasoning as a base, Gary doesn't even have that. A really despicable display.

 
The worst libertarians and anarchists are those who think their political viewpoints justify pedophila. One Facebook poster's argument began, "Pedophila is not a crime!"

What he meant was, "Pedophila, colloquially defined by the poster as the desire to have sex with children, isn't a crime." That the legal definition isn't that, and that most people don't embrace the poster's definition, wasn't considered important.

That guy was so creepy I almost emailed the Facebook exchange to every elementary school and middle school principal within fifty miles of his home.
 

Slim Shady

Ostrich
Gold Member
Staunch libertarians are hamstering that just because Johnson isn't Libertarian enough does not mean that you should vote for Trump, who is a "statist".

Let's play Devil's advocate. What are Trump's most statist policies? The one I hate the most is his support of the Patriot Act which Krispe Creme is a big fan of.

He thought TARP was a good idea, but this was much before he was running. Of course it is right that TARP as a much better fix in the short term than what would have happened without it, but it is the very fact that bailouts will happen that screw the utility/risk functions and allow for regular recessions to take place. These recessions keep the bankers solvent because of bailouts and allow them to reap higher returns through speculation in the up years.

On the pro side, he's against exiting NATO, which Ron Paul has been against since atleast the late 80's (I have watched his old speeches).

Trump wants to reform the TSA, and he wants to reform the tax code. These two points are huge in my book. The more he does on these the better.

With regard to border security and illegal immigration, there will be 4th amendment violations with the deportations. But nobody else seems to be proposing a solution! It is a doozy of a problem to solve this and adhere to the letter of the constitution. The only way would be to declare war on Mexico through congress, and deport all Mexicans as foreign agents! Then even legal immigrants would be deported. And the. What about Guatemalans and other nations? What about the Canadian border?

Ron Paul wrote an essay a few days ago about his stance, which has been consistent, that a border is a bad idea because it will eventually be used to keep people IN than out. For example if you have upset the IRS or if you are Brock Turner or if you owe child support/alimony payments. This is a scary and very real possibility. The reason I still respect Ron Paul is because he has legitimate counter arguments.

So this is a good parallel discussion to have. I think that Trump will be much more libertarian than people think, leaving most issues to the states, I certainly hope that he comes around on the Patriot Act. War must be declared on Islam and the Muslim ideology must be put on the same plane as Nazism and Communism to keep out newcomers, but the principle of freedom means that my phones should not be tapped. On the other hand, it will be no worse than what is happening right now.
Thoughts?
 
I don't debate libertarians in policy any more. I just point out that they're less than two percent of the population in every country. That means that for libertarians to become 60% of the population in any country, every libertarian has to convert 29 non-libertarians. And for every libertarian who fails to convert any non-libertarians, another libertarian has to convert an extra 29 non-libertarians.
 

Rush87

Ostrich
What is Aleppo? Well Gary's fucked. It will be interesting to see who his votes go to. They are conservative leaning after all, so it seems 'optimistic' at best for the MSM to say they will go to Clinton...
 

Slim Shady

Ostrich
Gold Member
Slim Shady said:
On the pro side, he's against exiting NATO, which Ron Paul has been against since atleast the late 80's (I have watched his old speeches).
I mean't to say that he is FOR exiting NATO, which Ron Paul has also been for. This is a good thing.

----------

With regards to GJ supporters, most of them are so dogmatic or embarrassed by the beating Trump gave Rand Paul that they will stick with Gary despite their best judgement. But there is a chance that some of the new guys who supported him because they heard of "small government" principles for the first time and decided to vote for the "sane and nice" guy will come over to Trump.
 
^ Such a fucking sperg. You can see it in his weird hunched-over eyes-darting everywhere when he speaks. Fucking crazy angry expressions which he can't control, or doesn't feel the need to control, on his face when he gets triggered. I'd might even vote for Hillary over that piece of shit.

My guess is that he's just controlled opposition of some sort.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
Bill Still has a very good Youtube channel. He's a true libertarian, who run for party leadership in 2012. He makes a good case here of Johnson being controlled by banking interests through a callable loan on debt he's run in his campaigns.



If you're not familiar with Still, here is one of his best pieces, a must-see essay on the history of the Fed system and how it relates to the Wizard of Oz, which he establishes, is an allegory of the corrupt central banking system:

 
MMX2010 said:
The worst libertarians and anarchists are those who think their political viewpoints justify pedophila. One Facebook poster's argument began, "Pedophila is not a crime!"

What he meant was, "Pedophila, colloquially defined by the poster as the desire to have sex with children, isn't a crime." That the legal definition isn't that, and that most people don't embrace the poster's definition, wasn't considered important.

That guy was so creepy I almost emailed the Facebook exchange to every elementary school and middle school principal within fifty miles of his home.
So, some guy on Facebook represents libertarians? Is THIS your argument against libertarians? Some guy's Facebook post?

Get a fucking life. You deserve the government you've got.
 
Top