Libertarianism: Based or Cringe? - Thanks for reading my schizo rant

[AgendaPoster]

Lolberts are the motherfucking pinnacle of cringetopia

 

[gang weeder]

EVERYONE IN THIS THREAD IS ATTACKING LIBERTARIANISM BECAUSE IT IS AN IDENTIFIABLE IDEOLOGY. If I said: Do you agree with limited government, lowering taxes, gun rights, freedom of association, laissez faire capitalism etc. basically all libertarian position, you'd say "uh huh, TOTALLY AGREE!" The only reason you say it's cringe is because there's an identifiable group of cringe shitheads who call themselves libertarian and you don't want to be associated with them.

I think one of the big problems with libertarianism is not that those goals you named are not worthwhile goals, but rather how do we get to them. Libertarians IME seem to think it is bad to wield power in aggressive pursuit of their ideals. Whereas people of a different persuasion, I suppose you could call them "conservatives" for lack of a better term, would favor occupying state power and actively using it to whack down any other ideologies. Which I don't like the term "conservative" cause most so called "conservatives" around today are still way too cucky on this stuff IMO. But it gets my point across.

Another difference would be that libertarians IME often lack any positive vision of the good that people can aspire towards. They say you should be left alone to figure it out yourself and then they actually expect you to figure it out yourself. And they will also treat wildly different life goals as all being equally valid so long as you aren't violent towards anyone else. Like if your ideal of the good life is being an obese drug addict, as long as you can pay for it yourself, libertarians would say that's fine. Whereas a different vision would say no that's bad and you should be actively discouraged from destroying yourself through those behaviors.

I really wish someone could explain this to me in no uncertain terms, what are the Libertarians doing that's turning people away?

The better question is what do they have to offer? We can say that objectively speaking libertarianism does not offer people enough reason to support it in order to become a serious political force, based on the fact that AFAIK, no actual "libertarian party" has ever gained any significant political influence anywhere, at least not since WWII (I'm not sure if libertarian political parties even existed going back farther than that, but maybe they did, IDK).

We can say that some amount of libertarian thinking has a lot of value and has been incorporated into politics with much success for instance the Bill of Rights in the United States. But it seems to function better as just one strain of thought that is worked into a broader and more flexible overall ideology, rather than being the only thing you have to work with.

 

[The Mass Shooter Ron Soye]

It is the road to male pregnancy

All roads lead to mpreg and two-male-parent babies.

 

[WelfareNiggerQueen]

The idea of liberty. Based and not cringe pilled. I wonder how life was when liberty was alive in America. It allowed us to become the best place on the Planet until the Jews and Germans started showing up in the early 20th century and started selling us out at a more rapid speed for degeneracy and niggers after WW2.

How it is in the modern day in the form of Libertarianism. Cringe as fuck since everyone is either a spineless coward, pedo, or both. A Libertarian can't argue for why he is pro liberty since his stance is always "so be it" and "tread on me harder daddy." At most he'll argue about less government oversight then fumble the football hard as fuck when an opponent brings up toxic waste dumping. The answer they should give is to lynch the niggers poisoning the water and land and why lynching the nigger is more effective than fining the faggot who'll just absorb it as a cost of doing business.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

The better question is what do they have to offer? We can say that objectively speaking libertarianism does not offer people enough reason to support it in order to become a serious political force, based on the fact that AFAIK, no actual "libertarian party" has ever gained any significant political influence anywhere, at least not since WWII (I'm not sure if libertarian political parties even existed going back farther than that, but maybe they did, IDK).

What does Libertarianism need to offer you?

 

[Sargon's wife's son]

The father of libertarianism says you cannot enforce morality upon people
He also says what the non-aggression principle means
In his primary magnum opus he contradicts his own ideology.
Rothbard should really have just stuck to economics and the history of Economics his books on those subjects are actually fantastic.
Hans Hermann hoppe
Is basically a closeted reactionary monarchist who will spend the first 80 pages of his book advocating for monarchy and then after that making a soft disavow that he's still in anarchist for some reason

And as for the non-academic Libertarians most of them are just failed comedians
Washed up former senators
And sometimes agents of foreign governments

 

[Johan Schmidt]

People with power, will use that power, to obtain more power; over other people. Individuals are powerless against collective action, where violence is not restrained by the state. Any ideology that does not accept these two basic premise - which libertarianism does not - is fundamentally an ideology of the retarded.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

People with power, will use that power, to obtain more power; over other people. Individuals are powerless against collective action, where violence is not restrained by the state. Any ideology that does not accept these two basic premise - which libertarianism does not - is fundamentally an ideology of the retarded.

Why don't we just burn up the Bill of Rights at this point, are you even American?

 

[Johan Schmidt]

Why don't we just burn up the Bill of Rights at this point, are you even American?

I am not American. However the bill of rights is maintained by the collective action of men with guns, willing to defend it. Under a libertarian system there would be no bill of rights. There would not in fact, be nations, as libertarianism defines the very basis of nation to be coercive. They are course correct, nations are coercive; but they are also extremely useful tools and any sort of world you try and build without them, will fail. No different to trying to build the second story of the house, without the first. You live in a nation and always will, so putting your fingers in your ears and pretending that the fate of that nation does not concern you is fundamentally stupid. Because again, power centralises and always will, collective action between rough equals defeats individual action and always will.

You can be a libertarian in a town of ten, only until two people decide they want to make a country. Then you're either a dead libertarian, or a citizen.

 

[gang weeder]

What does Libertarianism need to offer you?

I don't know, the onus is on them to make the sales pitch if they want more people on board. From what I've seen so far I'm not buying.

 

[Mothra1988]

Everyone with a brain is at least moderate libertarian in some sense and wants the government to leave them alone. It's only the closeted commies with Hitler fetishes for being dominated by big strong men that decided this was a bad thing because they can't stop thinking about Hitler in a sexual way. Anyone who wants the government to control them that way whether from the left or the "right" is an extremely pathetic creature. There are certain ways that pure libertarian ideology will not work in the real world, but that doesn't mean the mindset does not have value.

 

[Agamemnon Busmalis]

Why don't we just burn up the Bill of Rights at this point, are you even American?

George Washington was extremely troubled by the suggestion that he be made King of the United States and he ultimately left office for a quiet private life in one of the most peaceful transitions of power that had existed to date. At no point did he desire more power over others, let alone tyranny.

Neither did any of the greatest Roman Emperors do the same, the descent into oppression and serfdom was driven by corrupt men who couldn't even hope to hold a candle next to Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius or Marcus Aurelius.

Anyone who thinks the strong should dominate the weak should take stock of themselves and realize it's infinitely more likely they'll be on the receiving end of oppression.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

I think dick sucking the government is pretty cringe

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

There would not in fact, be nations, as libertarianism defines the very basis of nation to be coercive.

lolwhat? That's an Anarchist talking point, Libertarianism calls for small or decentralized government, which is what the Federal U.S. government is.

 

[gang weeder]

lolwhat? That's an Anarchist talking point, Libertarianism calls for small or decentralized government, which is what the Federal U.S. government is.

Now hold up just one darn second there. Which is what the US government is, or should be?

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

Now hold up just one darn second there. Which is what the US government is, or should be?

U.S. is decentralized, it has three branches instead of one, executive, judicial and legislative.

 

[Matt Damon]

I was fine with it until I realized 95% of its followers are filthy degenerates who want government to codify their degeneracy. If it were more a principled stance by normal people who still demanded private standards for acceptable behavior and lifestyles, I'd find it much less cringe.

 

[Happy Fish]

Libertarianism is based as fuck. Libertarians are often cringe. Individual liberty is a great thing to strive for as a society, though absolutely no government (anarchy) just isn't feasible since there will always be people who will be willing to gang up and attempt to seize power and rules (laws) always appear in organizations of any size. Government intervention in people's lives should be minimal at best and libertarianism recognizes this. It leans hard toward the ideal of a free society and that is great.

Libertarians themselves tend to fall into the same trappings as most conservatives do IE just wanting to be left alone and being too lazy to get involved. Where they are different is Libertarianism seems to attract half-assed research into law while ignoring how the law currently works. Strangely if they were smart enough they could probably use this to become a subversive force within the system, but their fierce dislike and distrust of anyone tends to prevent them from ever actually gathering like minds, and their distaste of even wanting to be associated within the system prevents them from having any real impact, and usually they just get led around by grifters who want to split the vote. Ron Paul was a fucking unicorn.

 

[mindlessobserver]

U.S. is decentralized, it has three branches instead of one, executive, judicial and legislative.

Wrong. It has FOUR. The THREE branches in political philosophy is a post reconstruction imposition designed to create a modern state from the ashes of a civil war, while studiously ignoring the major constitutional problems this causes.

The United States has FOUR Branches of Government. The Federal Legislature, the Federal Judiciary, The Federal Executive, and the Federal Convention of States.

We all know about the first three, but we don't know about the Fourth. The Fourth is the Convention of States.

The State legislatures would elect their Senators to represent the Interests of the STATE. Not the people. This was papered over by legislation. Weakening the Fourth Branches hold over the Federal legislature.

The State Legislatures were also supposed to be able to set the terms of the election of electors, to choose the Federal Executive. The Electors of a State, based on population, were to be what was voted on in Federal Executive elections, not the President. So that the Presidential hopefuls would be beholden not to an amorphous voting blob of people but the collective will of the Fourth Branch. The States.

And Finally, the Supreme Court, the Federal Judiciary, could only assume the bench after approval by the Senate. A Senate that was not open to voting by the people, but appointment by the States. The Fourth Branch.

The Entire reason the US political system is breaking down is because of this retarded statement.

"The U.S. is decentralized, it has three branches instead of one, executive, judicial and legislative".

This statement is WRONG. There are FOUR LIGHTS. Not THREE. Every failure, every breakdown, can be attributed to this one simple fact that constitutionally the Fourth Branch of the US Government still has constitutional power, but by tradition and unconstitutional legislation its been deprived of its rights.

 

[Matt Damon]

The State legislatures would elect their Senators to represent the Interests of the STATE. Not the people. This was papered over by legislation.

"Papered over by legislation"? It was directly superseded by the 17th amendment, bro. You make it sound like it was some little-known surreptitious backdoor smoky room deal.

You can dislike that change all you want, but it's an extremely well-known amendment that went through the entire ratification process. There's no trickery at play.