# Rugged Individualism, Libertarianism, and Social Darwinism



## Connor Bible (Dec 20, 2015)

You might have heard the phrase. President Herbert Hoover used it a lot during his time in office. The gist of it is that that everyone should be able to help themselves out, and not seek help from the government for economic matters. During the Great Depression, he applied this philosophy, and you can see how well that worked. Though he stressed that this policy wasn't exactly _laissez-faire_, a lot of modern rugged individualists, particularly libertarians, seem to use it to rationalize assholish behavior. IMHO, I'm okay with a smaller government, but I think that some people need a little help, sometimes for things that are beyond their control.

Just my two cents. Now it's your turn, Kiwis.


----------



## KatsuKitty (Dec 20, 2015)

Well, put it this way. If you _don't_ help out the needy, you set the stage for very expensive and violent rebellion among the lowest classes. The modern welfare state was simply a concession needed to fend off communists.

In the US, we're stuck in this half-ass zone where we don't help anyone out until they're near-death, which ultimately just ends up being more expensive than either helping them properly or simply letting them die. Without a welfare system of some sort, if you weren't born into money, all it takes is one financial disaster to permanently put you on the street. And considering we're hardly meritocratic, you end up privileging those who knew how to bullshit the best hundreds of years ago over actual ability. So that being said, there's still a middle ground that helps people in need without waste, and I view that to be replacing _this_ welfare state with a more efficient $2k yearly negative income tax or basic income for all adults. It'd be cheaper than what we do now, we can encourage saving through a carrot-on-a-stick I'd have to think up, and people would have incentive to make something of themselves since it's not enough to live off anyway. There's also other important things we need to do, like prioritising non-luxury housing and easing draconian zoning codes to reduce cost of rent.

Without a welfare system, you don't ensure the welfare of all individuals in need. Tea Party conservatives have touted just "going to your church" for help; works all fine and dandy until you realise marginalised groups like gays and trans people wouldn't have access to any help or support.

An _efficient_ welfare system ensures that _all_ who need help are provided for. Neither our current approach nor just letting people die is doing that successfully.


----------



## The Knife's Husbando (Dec 20, 2015)

Politicians, bankers and assorted suits want a smaller government for the same reason criminals want a smaller police force- so they can get away with shit.


----------



## chimpburgers (Dec 20, 2015)

I don't think it's a good thing that someone can have their financial life completely destroyed if they go bankrupt as a result of medical bills that were astronomically much higher than anticipated and where the co-pay was high too, like @KatsuKitty mentioned with all the other financial disasters that can do that. There are just some services where I believe that it's necessary to have the government intervene and provide regulation for. I can understand the initial appeal of having a smaller government, less bureaucracy, all of that and conflating that with more personal freedom but I do not find that to be the case. Yes, there are certain parts of the government that could use some reform and updating, like with the post office (I double checked and they are an independent establishment of the executive branch of the US), but does it mean that all welfare and all these benefits that the New Deal, the Great Society and others have given people should be just thrown away like that? Not in my opinion at all and I still believe that there is a necessity for a lot of the things that those helped to bring to the table.


----------



## Yaoi Huntress Earth (Dec 20, 2015)

I have mixed feelings on the Libertarian party. For every good one that could make things better, there's at least one I have to roll my eyes at. The main tip offs are if they exalt Ron Paul, Ayn Rand and/or Maury Rothbard. The thing with these guys is their belief that The Market will solve all of America's problems if we just hand America over to it.


----------



## Datiko (Dec 21, 2015)

I don't mind living in a less regulated society but I think its a social contract that has to be entered into voluntarily.  I have worked under the European Welfare state, Asian welfare states,  hyper capitalist city states, and everywhere between.  I never minded because I chose to work under the various welfare regimes and I had the mobility to leave if things became bad.   I think the Americans who want a small government and more freedom for business would go absolutely insane spending a month in a country like Singapore where you lack even the most basic of consumer or employment protections.  Living by the contract sounds great but reality depends on how well you can negotiate.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (May 31, 2016)

I really dislike social darwinism because it ignores what would really be selected for by evolution (cooperation and mutual support and altruism)


----------



## Yaoi Huntress Earth (Aug 28, 2016)

autisticdragonkin said:


> I really dislike social darwinism because it ignores what would really be selected for by evolution (cooperation and mutual support and altruism)


When you think about it, if we had a survival of the fittest, overly individualistic society, not much would really get done. People would be too busy being at each other's throats for power than working together. Heck, even a successful capitalistic society needs to have a strong customer base with money to spare if it wants to keep going. So that means fair and decent paychecks, having some concern for the workers' safety (an injured/dead worker don't have the money for your products) and make sure what you're selling isn't going to hurt the customer (you lose trust and risk dead customers). If you take your jobs away from the country that buys a majority of your products to save a few dollars, it will bite you in the ass because the majority has less money to spend and the out-of-country workers won't buy as much.


----------



## polonium (Aug 30, 2016)

The idea that capitalism means "everyone is at everyone else's throats" is a total misnomer. A properly free market would encourage cooperation inherently because of competition. You can't be good at everything, so you find the things you're best at and do those, and the things you're not going to do yourself are where you make trade with others.

The really annoying thing I find is that we've tried various types of socialism and collectivism and ended up with famines, mass murder, huge mismanagement of resources, and terrible suffering. They didn't build the Berlin Wall to keep the greedy capitalists out. But as soon as someone suggests trying actual capitalism without the meddling tentacles of government officials, then everyone loses their heads and demands a blueprint solution to every one of societies  problems before they'll even contemplate it.


----------



## Chinaman (Aug 30, 2016)

Libertarians and fascists have a very tsundere relationship as despite libertarian's aversion to state regulation and expansion, they deepdown really want "free markets" to end "degeneracy" just as fascists want controlled marketplaces to do it. They both believe capitalism, be it a faggy liberal or hard nosed conservative type of capitalism can somehow save them from slutty women and homosexuals. You know... rather than read on cultures abroad and see how other people handle those problems if you can even call them that.

Most often a libertarian will move toward fascism rather than a fascist move toward libertarian. The cognitive contradiction becomes unexcusable and it's not like you're suddenly going to giveup on being disgusted and offended by loose women and race-mixing. That's what the alt-right is at it's core. A bunch of bi-curious liberteens reading mein kamf.


----------



## Yaoi Huntress Earth (Sep 11, 2016)

I think it's the horseshoe theory when you notice how some hard free marketers will praise Pinochet like far left people praise Che Guevara mainly on the merit of what system they supported and were against.  I have a friend from Chile and he told me that many of the Chileans will tell you what a horrible time it was during Pinochet's reign. Him and his soldiers' abuse of the people, the kind that many of these free-marketers would protest if he was communist/socialist. Che wasn't as pro-freedom as the far left thinks, either, but they both gloss over it to fit their narrative.


----------



## Hui (Sep 25, 2017)

Is about as possible as time travel.


----------



## RockVolnutt (Sep 25, 2017)

Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads.


----------



## Ruminous (Sep 25, 2017)

I'm not a libertarian, but I think that libertarian utopianism is often used as a straw man to ignore the libertarian critique of our current society. The burgeoning police state. An unaccountable intelligence community practicing mass surveillance. Endless overseas war. An executive branch with dictatorial powers. Bureaucracy that stifles innovation and creates pointless overhead expenses. Social safety nets that have been implemented in a way that bolsters the dynamic of the poverty trap. All of these are rational causes for concern addressed by a movement that I too often see lambasted with "muh roads" memes.


----------



## Joan Nyan (Sep 25, 2017)

No utopia is possible, unless it is centered on the light of Allah.


----------



## Chris did nothing wrong (Sep 25, 2017)




----------



## CWCchange (Sep 25, 2017)

I think an Aleppo's idea of a libertarian utopia is the market economy of Hong Kong combined with social degeneracy of San Francisco. Too bad a couple years down the nonexistent road will lead to Mad Max chaos.


----------



## Hui (Sep 25, 2017)

I know some _kat _person here believes in this though...


----------



## Tennis Monkey (Sep 25, 2017)

Ruminous said:


> All of these are rational causes for concern addressed by a movement that I too often see lambasted with "muh roads" memes.


This is true, but if that movement is based on a belief that "less government is better" pointing out that this would create huge practical problems isn't a strawman, it's a legitimate criticism. There are responses to the various concerns you mention that don't involve the end of the state or privatising government or whatever.


----------



## From The Uncanny Valley (Sep 25, 2017)

RockVolnutt said:


> Eyes? Where we're going, we won't need eyes to see.


----------



## RockVolnutt (Sep 25, 2017)

@Uncanny Valley 
Why do you hate the blind and people with glasses?


----------



## From The Uncanny Valley (Sep 25, 2017)

RockVolnutt said:


> @Uncanny Valley
> Why do you hate the blind and people with glasses?



Are you honestly telling me you've never seen Event Horizon?


----------



## RockVolnutt (Sep 25, 2017)

Uncanny Valley said:


> Are you honestly telling me you've never seen Event Horizon?


I was trying to do a "Why do you hate roads" joke.


----------



## Euphues Evenlede (Sep 25, 2017)

I will give Libertarian some credit. Most ideologies perceive government as a legislative engine (i.e. the government exists to create and implement just laws). In contrast, Libertarianism and its anarchist cousins see the government as institutionalized, overwhelming violence used in service to the preservation of personal power. That position disturbs me. Yet it’s accurate. The primary objective of any politician must be the acquisition and preservation of his power. And what is power? So-called “soft power” can involve verbal communication, mutual trust, an internal impulse to act “justly,” but all of these can be ignored or perverted. Only overwhelming violence can make someone do as you say. Or at the very least it can give the next guy you ask a reason not to disobey.

With such a view of government, it’s no wonder why Libertarians strive to shrink or destroy the jackboot of governmental power. Where they fail lies in their refusal to realize that the jackboot cannot be destroyed. Even those who realize this still believe we can all agree to leave the jackboot unfilled. No, power will always exist, and there will always be someone willing to utilize it to benefit them and their own.

This is the reason why so many on the Alt-Right were formerly Libertarian. They saw that the only way to keep the jackboot off their neck was to put their own foot in it. Eventually every Utopian faces the same devastating impediment. To achieve his Utopia, he must become powerful enough to create it. Yet in his quest to acquire that power, he will become the very thing he has fought so hard to defeat. Thus is created an endless tragedy playing out for the amusement of gods and the powers above.


----------



## AnOminous (Sep 25, 2017)

Euphues Evenlede said:


> I will give Libertarian some credit. Most ideologies perceive government as a legislative engine (i.e. the government exists to create and implement just laws). In contrast, Libertarianism and its anarchist cousins see the government as institutionalized, overwhelming violence used in service to the preservation of personal power. That position disturbs me. Yet it’s accurate.



Without at least some partial monopoly on the use of force, as well as the actual ability to exert force, something quite simply is not the government.  Without the ability to enforce laws, they're unworthy of the name of laws.  They're just suggestions.  Anarchism is one response to that, and simply says that such monopolies on force are inherently bad and intolerable.

(How after eliminating the government they would prevent coercion and violence from uninhibited even worse actors is generally left as an exercise to whoever is forced to listen to one of these fools.)

Libertarians are more often what are called minarchists, in that they have the conception that some government functions are absolutely necessary.  They would limit government only to those vital functions and none else.


----------



## Positron (Sep 25, 2017)

CWCchange said:


> I think an Aleppo's idea of a libertarian utopia is the market economy of Hong Kong combined with social degeneracy of San Francisco.


So Hong Kong in about 20 years.


----------



## Euphues Evenlede (Sep 25, 2017)

AnOminous said:


> Libertarians are more often what are called minarchists, in that they have the conception that some government functions are absolutely necessary. They would limit government only to those vital functions and none else.


Anyone can support the laws they view as necessary and oppose the laws they view as unnecessarily harmful. Libertarians are not unique in this regard. They might believe 90% of the government to be unnecessary, but this is a difference in quantity and not quality. 90% of the government may very well be unnecessary. Even so, in order for a politician to implement the 10% he views as necessary, he will have to concede parts of the 90% that he does not in order to build a viable coalition. Libertarianism remains on the fringes due in large part to its refusal to incorporate broader policies that could create a larger coalition for them at the cost of additional government. While I admire Libertarians for their consistent devotion to the Non-Aggression Principle, politics is fundamentally pragmatic. Purity-spiraling will result in political irrelevance.

Though I suppose Libertarianism would no longer be Libertarianism if it didn't purity-spiral over minimal government and the NAP.


----------



## 2600hz (Sep 26, 2017)

The pirates tried doing this in the late 1600s. They called it "Libertalia". Obviously didn't get very far as there's no historical records that even exist. Probably imploded early on or never got off the ground.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertatia


----------



## escapegoat (Sep 26, 2017)

If pirates were involved it all devolved into syphilitic madness.

So Hong Kong in 20 years.


----------



## Antipathy (Sep 30, 2017)

Hey, I found the libertarian utopia





Ah, so free of government corruption.


----------



## oldTireWater (Sep 30, 2017)

Ruminous said:


> I'm not a libertarian, but I think that libertarian utopianism is often used as a straw man to ignore the libertarian critique of our current society. The burgeoning police state. An unaccountable intelligence community practicing mass surveillance. Endless overseas war. An executive branch with dictatorial powers. Bureaucracy that stifles innovation and creates pointless overhead expenses. Social safety nets that have been implemented in a way that bolsters the dynamic of the poverty trap. All of these are rational causes for concern addressed by a movement that I too often see lambasted with "muh roads" memes.



Well said.

I do consider myself a libertarian. I don't buy into the utopia, and I don't think that libertarian goals are very practical with the population densities we have. But I buy into it as a way to push back against those things you mentioned.


----------



## Clownfish (Sep 30, 2017)

I am of the view ideals should be used to criticize society and generate reform. Not as a basis for a society. Marx was critical of capitalism and this generated reforms. His Utopia was a nightmare when implemented as a basis for a society.

The same for libertarian line of thought. Fuck no a pure an cap society is possible. Yet the concerns of libertarians are valid.


----------



## Overcast (Sep 30, 2017)

Why would people even WANT a utopia? Life would be really boring without any conflict or strife.


----------



## Pikimon (Oct 1, 2017)

Dr W said:


> Hey, I found the libertarian utopia
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Downside: no roads


----------



## bbpoison (Oct 2, 2017)

I will buy your life for 1 dollar.



scorptatious said:


> Why would people even WANT a utopia? Life would be really boring without any conflict or strife.


 Does VR S+M mean nothing to you?


----------



## polonium (Oct 13, 2017)

A lot of the same institutions that exist in Clown World would exist in Libertarian World, except dealing with them would be voluntary. You'd have a choice of contractors to empty the bins at your house, rather than the local government demanding money off you so that they could do it. You'd pick the company that would provide the best service at the best price, and maybe whole streets or towns would club together to negotiate a better price for a bulk deal or something, and appoint some people to manage the contract, and then you've got what _looks_ like a town council except that nobody is forced to deal with it. That would be my libertarian utopia.


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 14, 2017)

polonium said:


> A lot of the same institutions that exist in Clown World would exist in Libertarian World, except dealing with them would be voluntary. You'd have a choice of contractors to empty the bins at your house, rather than the local government demanding money off you so that they could do it. You'd pick the company that would provide the best service at the best price, and maybe whole streets or towns would club together to negotiate a better price for a bulk deal or something, and appoint some people to manage the contract, and then you've got what _looks_ like a town council except that nobody is forced to deal with it. That would be my libertarian utopia.



Then you have that 5% of complete scumbags who would just refuse to pay for any of this, have piles of garbage on their property, which would attack rats and other disease vectors, so even if you were responsible and kept your own shit clean, you'd still be subject to plague and vermin from the people who didn't.

So at some point, there are still going to be antisocial people who will ruin it for everyone else.  

It would in general be better if you did have a choice in some kind of marketplace, or at least better than what you have in a lot of cities (especially the NY/NJ area) where you have one crooked Mafia-run operation that bribed the locals for a monopoly.

You're still going to have the free rider problem, or even worse, the problem where one person fucking up a local hygiene issue poisons everyone else.


----------



## Deadwaste (Oct 14, 2017)

2600hz said:


> The pirates tried doing this in the late 1600s. They called it "Libertalia". Obviously didn't get very far as there's no historical records that even exist. Probably imploded early on or never got off the ground.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertatia


the plot twist is that uncharted 4 was right


----------



## polonium (Oct 14, 2017)

AnOminous said:


> Then you have that 5% of complete scumbags who would just refuse to pay for any of this, have piles of garbage on their property, which would attack rats and other disease vectors, so even if you were responsible and kept your own shit clean, you'd still be subject to plague and vermin from the people who didn't.
> 
> So at some point, there are still going to be antisocial people who will ruin it for everyone else.
> 
> ...



That problem exists in the current system, where the government tries to use force to make people pay. If someone is being a nuisance, you would sue them. And yes, private courts existed before state ones.

Nothing is perfect, but please don't be that tiresome bore who demands every little imaginary issue gets solved before you'll even contemplate a life without Daddy Government standing over you meddling in every aspect of daily life.


----------



## SaharaSafari (Oct 16, 2017)

I ran across this old article.  The opening  paragraph is insane:



> The pre-1914 world saw no immigration issues or policies, and no real border controls. Instead, there was free movement in the real sense; there were no questions asked, people were treated respectfully and one did not even need official documents to enter or leave a country. This all changed with the First World War, after which states seem to compete with having the least humane view on foreigners seeking refuge within its territory.



It's just completely wrong.  There was the Chinese Exclusion Act and there were physical tests at Ellis Island.


----------



## Beaniebon (Oct 16, 2017)

a libertarian extreme  (ie no taxes, little to no governance, no regulations) is just like a communist extreme - in theory, they'd work but since humans are humans they wouldn't at all. In a perfect world where humans arent dumbasss or pieces of shit maybe but thats why it's considered a utopian idea; it's not possible.

And if you want to get technical we already almost had a libertarian society in early America but we got rid of that because factories hired 4 year olds to work 19 hour a day shifts for scraps and then sold contaminated food with fingers and shit in it.


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 16, 2017)

SaharaSafari said:


> I ran across this old article.  The opening  paragraph is insane:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just completely wrong.  There was the Chinese Exclusion Act and there were physical tests at Ellis Island.



Never mind that from the earliest history of the country, only white people could naturalize.


----------



## Broseph Stalin (Oct 16, 2017)

Just follow the teachings of Hoppe, Mises, and Rothbard. They're the TRUE & HONEST libertarians.


----------



## Dr. Meme (Oct 16, 2017)

lmao all these roadcucks defending having the government's fist 3 feet up their ass. 
>but muh ineffective social programs and constant police state monitoring providing me the illusion of security


----------



## Camarque (Oct 23, 2017)

I used to be a libertarian until I found out that women and minorities vote disproportionately for my money to be taken. I'm not a libertarian anymore.


----------



## ArnoldPalmer (Nov 22, 2017)

That isn't entirely correct. The Libertarian Utopia is more an oxymoron than anything. The ideal of Libertarianism, however, is similar enough to classical liberalism that pre-WWII United States would be more or less a manifestation of it, because at least then you had the option of ignoring the law in rural areas and getting away with it most of the time.

Or you could just go buy some land out in the middle of nowhere right now, if you want. Nobody's going to stop you from doing your gay marijuana enema while shooting guns there.


----------



## weirdMcGee (Nov 23, 2017)

A utopia is next to impossible to achieve due to the human element. If we one day invent a chip that would did most of the human vices of a person, it might be possible. That's it we can invent such chip. If not, all we can do is try to ma k our life on earth a bit better at a time.


----------



## Crunchy Leaf (Nov 23, 2017)

polonium said:


> A lot of the same institutions that exist in Clown World would exist in Libertarian World, except dealing with them would be voluntary. You'd have a choice of contractors to empty the bins at your house, rather than the local government demanding money off you so that they could do it. You'd pick the company that would provide the best service at the best price, and maybe whole streets or towns would club together to negotiate a better price for a bulk deal or something, and appoint some people to manage the contract, and then you've got what _looks_ like a town council except that nobody is forced to deal with it. That would be my libertarian utopia.


I live in a city, but it has a decent amount of private ways, which are roads owned by the people who live on them. The city is 0% responsible for upkeep of those roads. You know what they're like? Terrible! Full of potholes! Sometimes they're made of gravel, or occasionally dirt, in a major metropolitan area. Because people don't want to pay for it. 

Nice things are expensive. Even if you get rid of their property tax bills, I'm not sure how citizens, even citizens banding together, are going to be able to afford all that stuff. Garbage pick up, sure, that's not that bad. But roads and street lights and water? Unless they start charging membership fees, which winds up being basically taxes and then you just have a town and a Board of Selectmen. At least the coppers won't be going down to the bowling alley to round up people to make quorum in Libertarian World.


----------



## odius (Nov 23, 2017)

A libertarian utopia is one where Communists, Nazis, and statists of all sorts are executed side by side in the streets


----------



## AnOminous (Nov 23, 2017)

odius said:


> A libertarian utopia is one where Communists, Nazis, and statists of all sorts are executed side by side in the streets



Who does this?  The government?


----------



## Kyria the Great (Nov 23, 2017)

Honestly a 100% Libertarian society would obviously be chaos as there wouldn't be any structure like roads, police, fire department, sewers,etc... for public use, however as one myself there is a possible way forward. I honestly believe that government must be as effective as possible at smaller sizes as bureaucracy can get overwhelming, bloated, corrupt,  and grind things to a standstill with the machinations of the bureaucracy requiring bureaucracy to keep it going. If the Libertarian way was to be sold to the public, it would have to be sold as these services are defending the free market as without them, we have none. Another grind of have with some libertarians is much like Social Democrats, they are too inwardly focused and neglect the burden of maintaining world dominance like the United States. Fortunately, I believe that Generation Z is going to have a nice mix of moderate Libertarian values wanting as free social society and as free market as humanly possible within reason and put value into protecting what our forefathers before us built.


----------



## Kyria the Great (Nov 23, 2017)

AnOminous said:


> Who does this?  The government?



the mercenary deathsquads silly.


----------



## odius (Nov 23, 2017)

AnOminous said:


> Who does this?  The government?


A militia composed entirely of individuals banding together of their own free will to enforce the NAP, just as Ayn Rand intended


----------



## AnOminous (Nov 23, 2017)

Kyria the Great said:


> the mercenary deathsquads silly.



Sounds kind of incompatible with the Non Aggression Principle.



odius said:


> A militia composed entirely of individuals banding together of their own free will to enforce the NAP, just as Ayn Rand intended



Ah, a lynch mob.  I love libertarianism.  They always have these wonderful scenarios where, for some reason, the statists don't defend themselves or hire their own mercenaries.


----------



## Kyria the Great (Nov 23, 2017)

AnOminous said:


> Sounds kind of incompatible with the Non Aggression Principle.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, a lynch mob.  I love libertarianism.  They always have these wonderful scenarios where, for some reason, the statists don't defend themselves or hire their own mercenaries.



Well you aren't dealing with a limpdick Ancap as in my book they are weak and fail to see the bigger picture in at least some degree of structure.


----------



## Yaoi Huntress Earth (Nov 23, 2017)

Beaniebon said:


> a libertarian extreme  (ie no taxes, little to no governance, no regulations) is just like a communist extreme - in theory, they'd work but since humans are humans they wouldn't at all. In a perfect world where humans arent dumbasss or pieces of shit maybe but thats why it's considered a utopian idea; it's not possible..


This reminds me of an episode of Duckman where robots try to create a utopia based on the concerns of the average guy and it eventually falls apart. It brings up a good point that due to humanity's own foibles the perfect world for them is an imperfect world.


----------



## Dooly Tilly (Dec 3, 2017)

All government suck.... Fuck em off to living hell and replace with technological anarchy.


----------



## Yaoi Huntress Earth (May 23, 2018)

I've noticed a number of stunch Libertarians have this kind of bipolar view of the world that you either have this anarchist or super-minimalist utopia with very few rules (no regulations for businesses) or its a super government dominated one with no freedoms. I was looking at Computing Forever's latest video (I watch his How is This a Thing? segments for the stupid.) where he believed that pretty much people demanding a speed limit on a dangerous road is a slippery slope to having the government gain too much freedom-stealing power.

For every good point and legit warning they have, a number of them miss the mark.


----------



## Emperor Julian (May 23, 2018)

My primary critiques of libertarian utopia is that the power you deny the government will quickly be accumulated into other bodies of power such as corporations, local strongmen or  even crime lords. Power doesnt dissolve it simply commutes to somewhere else.
 You genrally want to get a balance in centralized vs decentralized which is where I relate to them but sadly the power dyanimic just seems to line the local up for a dicking at the hands of the 21st century equivalent of a feudal overlord who the king can't control.


----------



## Yaoi Huntress Earth (May 23, 2018)

Emperor Julian said:


> My primary critiques of libertarian utopia is that the power you deny the government will quickly be accumulated into other bodies of power such as corporations, local strongmen or  evem crime lords. Power doesnt dissolve is simply commutes to somewhere else.
> You genrally want to get a balance in centralized vs decentralized which is where I relate to them but sadly the power dyanimic just seems to line the local up for a dicking at the hands of the 21st century equivalent of a feudal overlord who the king can't control.


Their utopia would only work if everyone was a saint. There are people who don't care about "non-aggression principle" (either ignoring it, trying not to get caught or finding a loophole). I also notice occassional aspect of sociopathery in their utopian ideals. Like Rothbard saying its okay to left your infant starve if you don't want to take care of it and or the most level-headed ancap I met (who wasn't ultra naive) said that in an ancap society, someone who has a child prostution business can just be shunned and losing said business would be their punishment.


----------



## soy_king (May 23, 2018)

Yaoi Huntress Earth said:


> Their utopia would only work if everyone was a saint.


One could easily say the same for a Communist utopia.


----------



## Mr. Pickles (May 23, 2018)

Libertarians are childishly naive about the nature of greed.

Be honest, if you have a billion dollars, the Government says they need a million dollars to build a bridge they need to get across a lake in Ghettosburg, a real part of you is going to ask "What's in it for me?"

Begrudgingly, you accept.... Or you would have, but then a lawyer, let's call him Morty Goldstein, calls.

You give him 10k, and he'll tell Ghettosburg to fuck off. Give him 15k he'll put together a counter suit that allows the bridge to be built, but you have the rights to it and can charge whatever tolls you want since it's yours.

You give 15k to Goldstein, suddenly it's worth it to the mayor of Ghettosburg to seek money for re-election. Let's call him Dick Richardson.

Dick says you give him the million dollars, and he'll build it, still letting you have the rights to it, by raising taxes in Ghettosburg sky high. It's perfectly legal because Citizen's United. Goldstein tells you, the money you're giving to Dick can be written off as charity.

You get a free bridge, two million from a tax rebate, money from the people using the toll bridge, and you didn't have to do shit.

Maybe you upgrade the bridge from time to time to justify keeping the tolls high, or just because it's become a personal trophy for you.

Wait it gets better

From a combination of the high as shit taxes to pay for a bridge that people pay you to use, and just how nice the bridge is bringing up property values. You've priced ghettosburg out of their homes, some move in with relatives across the country, some become homeless.

The landlords now seeing dollar signs sell you the property. Congratulations you're the master of Ghettosburg.

You tear down everyone's home, put up mansions, tell your rich friends how great Ghettosburg is. They buy homes there, for their kids or maybe to go on vacation.

The homeless people we talked about get mass-arrested for loitering and trespassing. You don't care, they were bothering your rich friends.

Fantastic, you now have your own CWCville and no one can stop you. The cops know how rich you are and that you basically own the town at this point they're going to do anything you tell them, social programs to help those homeless people you created were slashed to pay for your god damn bridge and no one's in a hurry to encourage poor people to return to Ghettoburg.

Thus the fall of the people of Ghettosburg for want of a bridge, and the media will celebrate you as a smart and ethical businessman for it.

My point is, nothing is more toxic or deadly than private enterprise without restraint. With proper leashes, they'll make new gizmos and increase food production to help society. Without them, they'll build shitty technology, charge you three times  what it cost to build, and leave it functional enough for you to want it but crap enough that you'll pay another in a few years. As for food production, they'll up throw away edible food to prevent the poor from eating as not to threaten their monopoly on a product everyone needs to not die.


Private Enterprise even with regulation will try to find ways around the rules, but I don't think we should make it easy for them to do as they please. I'd rather my biggest problem with capitalism being buying bags of chips half-full, not the current bullshit of have eight vacamt homes to every one homeless person or forcing the sick to choose between death or bankruptcy. 

For some reason, America had its priorities backwards and started applauding for the Scrooges of the world, mistaking wealth for talent, to the most logical extreme of literally electing Donald Trump to office. Support him or not, outside of inherit daddy's money, star in a crappy reality TV show, cameo in both Ghosts Can't Do It and Home Alone 2, and start lines of failed businesses from board games to vodka, what has he ever done? Sometimes I truly believe the only difference between Trump and the average lolcow is an ivory tower to look down from.

My point is

Ultimately we can boil good and evil down to two things. Service to Others (Good) and Service to Self (Evil)

America has been tricked by shit like the Red Scare and the gospel according to Ayn Rand to think that somehow Service To Self is responsible and moral.

One cannot be fully good, or purely in the service of others, without being a literal Christ Figure full of divine powers and devoid of need, as one can't pour from an empty cup.  One cannot be fully evil, or purely out for themselves because like it or not humans are social animals and we need other people.

America is simply too selfish to survive, and we're going to pulled closer to the left alongside Europe or Canada, how painful that pull will be depends on how long it takes us to get our heads out of our asses.

I'm not saying we abandon Capitalism, but maybe we could stuck sucking its dick every chance we get.

Libertarians, simply are incapable of understanding a god damn word I just said. Seriously watch Libertarian Political debates, it's amazing the shit they come up with. Keeping the VA up with bake sales instead of tax dollars, arguing that child porn is a completely legitimate business to enter, screaming that driver's licenses are tyrannical. Dear God, it's a good thing people like Gary Johnson aren't electable for major office or I'd be more horrified of their ilk.


Anyway enough autistic screeching, I've said my peace and I'm sure I'll be called "SJW Communist Faggot" several times for it.


----------



## Hellbound Hellhound (May 28, 2018)

The biggest problem with libertarians is that they see no distinction between government actions which are burdensome upon the individual, and government actions which seek to alleviate burdens upon the individual.

They make a convincing enough case against things like the drug war, military conscription, restrictions upon free expression, etc, but their arguments against social safety nets, healthcare provisions, and laws against economic exploitation are hilariously unconvincing.

To understand the error in libertarian thinking, you have to understand what freedom ultimately is, and here there are really two main views on the subject that need to be differentiated. The first view is that we are inherently free, and that it is only through other people in society working to take away our freedoms that we can become less free (the view held by libertarians). The second view is that we are, in many respects, inherently unfree, and that it is largely through society working together to maximize freedom that we can become freer individuals.

So what is freedom? I would argue that freedom is best defined as the power that we have to make choices and determine our own destiny. A lone hunter-gatherer in the wilderness has no authority figure to lord over him or tell him what to do (libertarian utopia), but what freedom does he ultimately have? The freedom to hunt and gather? The freedom to starve to death, failing that?

I think it's pretty clear that we become freer as individuals when we use our intelligence to work together to empower ourselves, and in the end, that's all true freedom really is: power.

Thanks to modern society, I have the power to do a lot of things that I otherwise couldn't, and there are many instances in which government intervention can positively impact that. It is for this reason that a good portion of libertarian ideology is irredeemably flawed.


----------



## Thelostcup (May 29, 2018)

It happened almost 250 years ago and this is what grew out of it.


----------



## Mr. Pickles (May 30, 2018)

Hellbound Hellhound said:


> The biggest problem with libertarians is that they see no distinction between government actions which are burdensome upon the individual, and government actions which seek to alleviate burdens upon the individual.
> 
> They make a convincing enough case against things like the drug war, military conscription, restrictions upon free expression, etc, but their arguments against social safety nets, healthcare provisions, and laws against economic exploitation are hilariously unconvincing.
> 
> ...



I've never seen this argument made so well, I almost applauded irl


----------



## ToroidalBoat (May 30, 2018)

I'm not quite sure where I stand on the "libertarian" thing, but I think a government of a society and the laws they make should be at the minimum level necessary for a working society. Not entirely absent, nor an excessive police or "nanny state," but a good balance between. This can apply to other forms of government besides a republic or democracy too.

Of course people can debate what the "minimum necessary" is.

For example, businesses should have at least some degree of regulation since corporations don't always behave ethically when unrestricted by law. See: early Industrial Revolution. On the other hand, it's wrong to ban offensive speech just because it's offensive, as not everyone agrees on what is offensive (and to "identity politics," nearly everything is offensive).


----------



## Daughter of Cernunnos (Dec 10, 2018)

Malthus was wrong because cummies.


----------



## Deadwaste (Dec 10, 2018)

in a perfect, libertarian world, all of jojo has completely legal copies that are translated into english with no localization problems concerning the copyright of the names, and we all own self driving cars that work 100% of the time


----------



## Sweetpeaa (Jul 22, 2020)

Most Libertarians are ambitious young men. They don't have a need for social programs and have confidence they can ''make it''. But youth and health don't last forever. The ever scapegoated ''boomers'' are now clamouring for pharmacare and social programs because age is catching up to them. Many are former Reaganites themselves, who loved such low tax, small government policies in the 80's during their 20's as they reaped the financial benefits of it. But now they are wanting ''help''.


----------



## Orion Balls (Jul 22, 2020)

We're all screwed taxwise with the unemployment fraud happening, right now. If filling out a grant form for "front line worker pay" gets my folks an extra $3 an hour, I'm going to do it. It goes straight to them.
E- The money has already been allocated for this reason. Why not try and get it for my people who work hard without complaint?


----------



## DeadFish (Jul 22, 2020)

KatsuKitty said:


> _efficient_ welfare system ensures that _all_ who need help are provided for. Neither our current approach nor just letting people die is doing that successfully.



I've been thinking how to do that. 
Back in the day it was the local government that had the garbage trucks pick up trash.  Now these days trash collection is done via a private company. The difference is now the structure is publicly funded but privately ran where before the structure was both funded and ran by the government.

What could be done is a company could be the "privatization " of various social programs. So instead of welfare handouts via the state is be done through a private company. This over time would allow the company to usurp and replace the regular government


----------



## Sweetpeaa (Jul 22, 2020)

The ''welfare lifestyle'' in the USA has been basically a dead horse since Bill Clinton. Neo-Con's still talk about this stuff like it's 1992. People don't get free money, they are put to work by government agencies in fast food jobs or low wage as fast as possible. The real recipients of social programs are actually seniors- they are among the largest. But most people don't know that.

The ''boomers are selfish because they already have theirs'' trope is one that is greatly misunderstood. Like I said before, Boomers are actually quite reliant on government programs and they are for more especially as they even older. Many people don't even know the age range of a boomer, thinking it's someone not quite 50. The majority however are over 65 with the absolute oldest at about 76. If any group was to be a tax burden it would be them. 

Be fair to argue with me on this but Millennials (25-40 - their true age range) are more conservative than most people think.


----------



## HunterHearstHelmsley (Jul 26, 2020)

Sweetpeaa said:


> Most Libertarians are ambitious young men. They don't have a need for social programs and have confidence they can ''make it''. But youth and health don't last forever. The ever scapegoated ''boomers'' are now clamouring for pharmacare and social programs because age is catching up to them. Many are former Reaganites themselves, who loved such low tax, small government policies in the 80's during their 20's as they reaped the financial benefits of it. But now they are wanting ''help''.


I’ve heard this posited as a “gotcha” against libertarians, but I think it speaks more to how the baby boomers have always implemented policies which effectively “transferred wealth” to their generation.


----------



## The Pink Panther (Oct 18, 2020)

Hello, my fellow lolberts. It is here in which we will discuss libertarianism and the Libertarian Party.

My friends, we lolberts are a type most warranted, as we fight for the personal liberties of the common man, of which are slowly being eroded away from us not only through government but corporations too. We like economic freedoms and scarce regulations sure, but in order for us to persist, we must focus our efforts on trying to let people not be so careless as to let the corporations tread all over us too. The Patriot Act has already enabled the government to take our privacy and as more private companies take more power, the internet will be theirs as well not only on the World Wide Web, but our personal applications. We will soon be living in a society ruled through consumption and pleaing to authority and it all begins with those steps. So lolberts, we must discuss our grand plan to take back our country for what it was pre-9/11. TO TAKE BACK WHAT IS RIGHTFULLY OURS IN THE FASHIONABLE LOLBERT WAY! So come my fellow lolberts, THINK! PLAN! Don't be a sheep!

Also yeah, this is libertarianism general thread, so talk anything libertarian wise, I dunno.


----------



## mr.moon1488 (Oct 18, 2020)

Libertarianism is an ideology which only works when everyone both within and without a society are willing to adhere to libertarian "values."


----------



## The Pink Panther (Oct 18, 2020)

mr.moon1488 said:


> Libertarianism is an ideology which only works when everyone both within and without a society are willing to adhere to libertarian "values."


Or if it is not straightforward and inteaf takes a specific leaning.


----------



## Kacho (Oct 18, 2020)

mr.moon1488 said:


> Libertarianism is an ideology which only works when everyone both within and without a society are willing to adhere to libertarian "values."



The only values modern libertarians hold are smoking weed and fucking children.


----------



## Distant Stare (Oct 18, 2020)

The reason why no one is afraid of the Libertarian party is because they are a party of losers. They will never win because their entire outlook is defensive and passive. They are degenerates who larp as revolutionaries.


----------



## Was (Oct 18, 2020)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZITP93pqtdQ
		


Your political party is a Comedy Skit made reality and you will learn to love the taste of leather whether you like it or not.


----------



## soft kitty (Oct 18, 2020)

Was said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZITP93pqtdQ
> 
> 
> 
> Your political party is a Comedy Skit made reality and you will learn to love the taste of leather whether you like it or not.


Libertarians do not necessarily like or identify themselves with the libertarian party.

I prefer the GOP.


----------



## Eris! (Oct 18, 2020)

Abandon cringe libertarianism. Embrace based anarcho-fascism. The wild west was the ideal human society. Every man held judgement in his hands, and what 'lawmen' there were were no different from anybody else. They got hanged too.


----------



## Homer J. Fong (Oct 18, 2020)

Erischan said:


> Abandon cringe libertarianism. Embrace based anarcho-fascism. The wild west was the ideal human society. Every man held judgement in his hands, and what 'lawmen' there were were no different from anybody else. They got hanged too.


Based and Judge Holden-pilled.

Anyway I see no use anymore for Libertarianism, and clearly neither does The Libertarian Party itself since it's allowed itself to become a mockery of its former kooky self. Being a Libertarian from the 1990s to 2012 simply meant that you were a Republican in essentially all the important political issues and didn't care whatsoever about the stupid social issues that Democrats rally their base around. Since the left won the culture war why do I need to willfully take my small voice away from the Republicans? Why wouldn't I just want to vote in more people like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul?

I'd be happy if there were a Libertarian Party that stressed the importance of Fiscal Conservatism and backed away from heavy wasteful military spending. Alas the modern Libertarians lack any firebrand who could get people interested in the party.


----------



## Distant Stare (Oct 18, 2020)

Cardenio said:


> Based and Judge Holden-pilled.
> 
> Anyway I see no use anymore for Libertarianism, and clearly neither does The Libertarian Party itself since it's allowed itself to become a mockery of its former kooky self. Being a Libertarian from the 1990s to 2012 simply meant that you were a Republican in essentially all the important political issues and didn't care whatsoever about the stupid social issues that Democrats rally their base around. Since the left won the culture war why do I need to willfully take my small voice away from the Republicans? Why wouldn't I just want to vote in more people like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul?
> 
> I'd be happy if there were a Libertarian Party that stressed the importance of Fiscal Conservatism and backed away from heavy wasteful military spending. Alas the modern Libertarians lack any firebrand who could get people interested in the party.



The Libertarian Party is obviously fiscally conservative but social liberal by deffinition. It is also obvious that the GOP has been drifting ever more socially liberal over its existence. They no longer challenge the gay agenda anymore, and are ever more interested in diversity. Thus, it is safe to say that the GOP is slowly evolving into the Libertarian platform, but with high military spending.


----------



## A Cardboard Box (Oct 18, 2020)

I disagree with age of consent laws. Can you really put an arbitrary number on love?


----------



## Francis York Morgan (Oct 18, 2020)

Distant Stare said:


> The reason why no one is afraid of the Libertarian party is because they are a party of losers. They will never win because their entire outlook is defensive and passive. They are degenerates who larp as revolutionaries.


And everyone they run at the higher levels is a colossal retard.


----------



## Dwight Frye (Oct 18, 2020)

ITT: libertarians telling other libertarians they're not true libertarians. 

Sounds about right, and that's coming from a libertarian.


----------



## Kylie Raina (Oct 18, 2020)

A Cardboard Box said:


> I disagree with age of consent laws. Can you really put an arbitrary number on love?


I really hope this is sarcasm, children arent mature enough to consent to sex because they dont know how it will affect them later in life. They could end up with an STD or even worse, an unwanted pregnancy. Theres nothing that says you cant date or love someone before that age but the idea of those laws is that its tryna protect children from making a decision that could possibly ruin their lives


----------



## A Cardboard Box (Oct 18, 2020)

Kylie Raina said:


> I really hope this is sarcasm, children arent mature enough to consent to sex because they dont know how it will affect them later in life. They could end up with an STD or even worse, an unwanted pregnancy. Theres nothing that says you cant date or love someone before that age but the idea of those laws is that its tryna protect children from making a decision that could possibly ruin their lives


Why can I have sex with someone 6570 days old but not 6569?


----------



## Vecr (Oct 18, 2020)

A Cardboard Box said:


> Why can I have sex with someone 6570 days old but not 6569?



Because you have to put a number somewhere, otherwise the legal situation would get very confusing, with long, drawn out court cases and complex balancing tests. It's almost certainly not worth it.


----------



## A Cardboard Box (Oct 18, 2020)

Vecr said:


> Because you have to put a number somewhere, otherwise the legal situation would get very confusing, with long, drawn out court cases and complex balancing tests. It's almost certainly not worth it.


I agree. Abolish the age of consent. There's no science to it anyway.


----------



## Samson Pumpkin Jr. (Oct 18, 2020)

"Instead of the state controlling law enforcement, the courts and the national defence, the different law systems should be provided by voluntarily-founded private competitors. Money should be privately and competitively provided in an open market and personal and economic activities should be regulated by the natural laws of the market and through private law rather than through politics."

Libertarians disgruntled with their lack of economic freedom, and the pace of parliamentary reform, are forming new factions in global politics. The Libertarians are the revolutionary avantgarde of the liberal ideology, and they will not hesitate to use whatever means necessary to see their ideas of freedom and free trade instituted both in America and abroad.

Okay.


----------



## Terrorist (Oct 18, 2020)

You missed the boat by about a decade bud, all the halfwit college freshmen are based trad groypers or rose emojis now. Your moment is over.

Hoppe is the only libertarian worth reading (a society with his preconditions that is strictly hierarchical, homogenous, and socially reactionary is the only one where libertarianism would work - of course the question then becomes who will make such a society and how it'll be kept that way with minimal government).


----------



## Gapernaper Rifle (Oct 20, 2020)

A Cardboard Box said:


> Why can I have sex with someone 6570 days old but not 6569?


Why can you vote, get married, or buy a gun when you are 6570 days old, but not 6569? Because that's the age we have decided is appropriate to do these activities. So fuck off pedo.


----------



## Dante Alighieri (Oct 20, 2020)

There's nothing libertarians hate more than other libertarians. 

Ancap gang rise up


----------



## Saint Alphonsus (Oct 20, 2020)

Maybe if you spent more time increasing in virtue and less time shit posting while high, you libertarians would actually amount to something.


----------



## A Cardboard Box (Oct 20, 2020)

Gapernaper Rifle said:


> Why can you vote, get married, or buy a gun when you are 6570 days old, but not 6569? Because that's the age we have decided is appropriate to do these activities. So fuck off pedo.


Not an argument.


----------



## Zelmek (Oct 20, 2020)

Part of favoring small government is that there is an increased level of responsibility on the individual citizen to take care of themselves. You can have personal responsibility and freedom or you can have a promise of safety under a helicopter nanny-state. For liberalism to function, one must have a limit to how much responsibility the government has to take care of the people. A common line is if they're not going to put in personal effort, then government aid should be cut off from them. If they suffer for their laziness, it's not the government's responsibility. The government should only serve to enforce law and order, enforce contracts between its citizens, and protect its citizens from the tyrany of other countries wishing to force their ways upon them. Aid from the government such as welfare is a temporary luxury. When times become hard, govt aid will decrease and those reliant upon it will have to rely on charity and donations from sympathetic passerbys. It's not the role of the government to step in and try to stand in the way of people trying to get a Darwin award and perpetually feed parasites with taxes taken by force from its citizens. You cannot make sympathy into law.


----------

