Has right versus left moral fagging become an endless cycle that achieves nothing?

[Wally Paulnuts]

Humanity is a religious species, and in a post-god world the commandments of the state are sacrosanct.

Also, I'm incredibly gay.

 

[LurkTrawl]

It's true though.

Government will exist. Someone will control it and its monopoly on force.

Even if you believe that the proper role of government is to be hands-off, which is a reasonable viewpoint, that means you need to be the one holding the government gun so that you can then sit on it and not use it. If you refuse to take it and let someone else have it, then they'll use it to do things you don't like.

Sure, that's why I'm not an anarchist.

But the solution to that, is to make government smaller and keep it that way, but the prevailing retardation of "we need government to get ever larger to solve ever larger problems, that stem from having a larger government" seems to be an endless and inevitable positive feedback loop after a certain threshold.

You know, until it all comes apart at the seams like it currently is in the U.S. as it's unsustainable in perpetuity. What's happening in the U.S. politically, while it is contextually unique for us with tech and whatnot, isn't on the whole a new phenomenon.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

The whole "my team verses your team" dichotomy has been a thing since Ancient Rome.

It will never get tired.

 

[gang weeder]

Sure, that's why I'm not an anarchist.

But the solution to that, is to make government smaller and keep it that way, but the prevailing retardation of "we need government to get ever larger to solve ever larger problems, that stem from having a larger government" seems to be an endless and inevitable positive feedback loop after a certain threshold.

You know, until it all comes apart at the seams like it currently is in the U.S. as it's unsustainable in perpetuity. What's happening in the U.S. politically, while it is contextually unique for us with tech and whatnot, isn't on the whole a new phenomenon.

Yes, and what's the only way for the government to be "small?" If it's staffed by people who think it should be small. This is the irony of libertarianism. Their philosophy requires that they be in charge, which they adamantly refuse to even try to accomplish.

 

[Alex Hogendorp]

It's literally the reason he won, you tryhard /pol/ack. Jesus, him coming out against NAFTA was a huge deal because people in the Rust Belt blamed it for eliminating their factory jobs. Here let's look at his victory map:

View attachment 5391501

His path to victory was literally Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa. The only non-Rust Belt state there is Iowa, which is mostly Corn Belt farming. Indiana is both Rust Belt and Corn Belt. Those states are not Mississippi. He didn't win them because they thought he was in the KKK. Those same exact states voted for Obama because he made the correct economic argument. US elections, when they're not fucked with, are won over the economy period.

I don't think you even live in the United States. You don't, do you? lol

I am also convinced Donald Trump is actually the true winner of the 2020 election and Joe Biden cheated. I can go over many evidences of election interference such as dead voters and miscounted ballots to prove it. I'm not a huge Trump fan or anything (I was in 2017 though) but I know so many people who depend on Donald Trump to fix their problems despite his flaws. But Trump Derangement Syndrome especially amongst the congress and corporations just come to show that any form of resentment for any narrative even if you're not that based makes you the evil person in their eyes.

 

[LurkTrawl]

Yes, and what's the only way for the government to be "small?" If it's staffed by people who think it should be small. This is the irony of libertarianism. Their philosophy requires that they be in charge, which they adamantly refuse to even try to accomplish.

Kind of hard to do in a democracy where the majority of people continuously want the government to be ever larger.

Which is the chief problem, that I already mentioned. It's a mindset that seems to be prevalent and for many people when engaging in this topic, I just get responses like this one in return when talking about it.

A large part of the reason I'm increasingly bowing out of talking politics, when expressing the sentiment that smaller governments cooperating rather than having one large central government would work better for the people, I inevitably just end up feeling like I"m talking with a brick wall and have as much to show for it afterward.

Could the zeitgeist be changed towards a majority libertarian mindset? Maybe. But I'm just one guy, and actual libertarians due to fucking anarchists, progressives, and chomos all basically taking a turn at running the LP ruining the term to the point most people think of age of consent laws when the political philosophy is brought up, have trouble even identifying as one in public let alone trying to convince people who think bigger=better en masse that we'd be better off with a system more designed around local needs and cooperative effort rather than a catch-all centralized system for convenience and expediency.

Until there's some reason for the public consciousness to shift away in large enough numbers from the concept that tax dollars and truncheons can solve any and every problem a civilization can have, and that the best way to direct that is to have a large entity to control it, there's not really any point in even trying. Or at least, that's the opinion I've slowly come around to over the past few years talking about it with people both irl and online.

So, yeah, I guess the biggest admitted problem with libertarianism is that it's not popular. The actual issues of "how do you get the U.S. government to be small" is a much more complex matter with a short and long answer. Short version being "lol, lmao even".