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

DumbDude43 said:
they're not even entirely wrong here, working as an assistant/apprentice at a real business would be a lot better for many kids than sitting in public school.

the problem of course is that when you take it to its logical conclusion you don't just end up with kids doing apprenticeships at nice local businesses, you'd also end up with kids getting exploited to hell and back by soulless corporations, which is why child labor is a can of worms that really should stay closed.
Click to expand...
The issue here isn't if it's correct, there are many positions which are correct but aren't in law (i.e. TND), it's that libertarians are aspies who can't properly message. You can advocate for child labour, but your messaging needs to be cool and sleek like a kurzgesagt video. Humans aren't convinced by the truth, we like attractive and persuasive ideas, 80%+ of convincing someone you're right is how you say your argument, not if your argument is logically sound. That dumb tweet would repulse the majority of well born people who see it
 
  • DRINK!
  • Feels
  • Like
Reactions: Jacob Schiff, Geddy Lee's Fee and See and MarvinTheParanoidAndroid
Hepativore said:
There are different "flavors" of libertarianism, but the loudest voices in the room seem to be the anarcho-capitalists, or "ancaps".

I always found the ancap obsession with the nonaggression principle to be highly idealistic, because as soon as anybody has the weapons or power to enforce their will on others there is nothing stopping them from saying "fuck the NAP" and basically using force to carry out their own personal ambitions whatever they may be. Libertarians often counter this by saying that communities can choose not to do business with or remove people that violate the NAP, but that sounds an awful lot like a municipal government in an "anarchist" society, and also who is going to stop bad actors that have built up a larger powerbase than what their local community can muster?

Then it gets into the weeds over how do you manage competing private law enforcement agencies in a libertarian society or court systems without it degenerating into gang wars, etc. I just do not see how it is workable.

There are also minarchists, I suppose, but then how do they determine what government services are and are not necessary in a "night watchman" state, and how extensive they need to be? Certain public institutions need to be extensively-funded in order to be effective, and it seems that minarchism would eventually just end up reinventing the wheel.
Click to expand...

One way in which I guess I'm pretty libertarian is I think an ideal state would mostly concern itself with law enforcement. Police to defend the people from criminals and military to defend them from hostile nations. Maybe disaster response/aid is also appropriate as that falls under the umbrella of emergency management and such.

But most aspects of the modern state where they are expected to provide positive goods for you, i.e. the government is expected to give you a job, the government is expected to educate you, the government is expected to give you healthcare, to give you free shit for whatever reason, it seems to me that these pretty much always end up being a bad idea.

I think libertarians are mostly right about this. But then where they screw up is they don't acknowledge that if the state isn't in the business of telling people what to think, other institutions will end up filling that vacuum (in the US context this is stuff like Hollywood, media, etc.). There are going to be thought leaders and institutions that tell you what to think, it's part of human nature and can't be avoided, whether it's the government or something else (used to be the church). So you need to be the ones in charge of doing that if your ideas are going to be durable, which contradicts lolberts since they don't want to tell people what to think.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Jacob Schiff, Pobblebonk, The Foxtrot and 1 other person
Mister Mint said:
It's fine to start your thinking at big L Libertarianism because living as freely as possible is a good thing
Click to expand...
It's not, which is why it is a message that attracts the worst kinds of people. People arguing for freedom for freedom's sake should be viewed with suspicion.

Mister Mint said:
But you have to consider reality and, to a degree, morality, and move from there, meaning at the end of the day you aren't going to stick with many Libertarian viewpoints because most only work in a fantasy vacuum.
Click to expand...
Lolbertarians actually don't have to consider reality, human nature, whether something is moral, or if freedom will lead to a stable society normal people want to live in. That's the problem with putting freedom above all else. Why subscribe to an ideology you believe functions as little more than a shit test for a better one?
 
The basic idea of having the minimum necessary government and laws isn't bad. Libertarianism beyond that may be a different story...
 
Samson Pumpkin Jr. said:
child labour.jpg (0_ 0 )
Click to expand...
Okay, so basically the Libertarian party is led by clowns who endorse slave labor, which is ironically not very Libertarian at all.

Are we sure these people aren't just secret Marxists? The March through the Institutions is a thing that they invented.
 
I consider myself a small l libertarian. I agree that there are a lot of lunatics who call themselves libertarians, but you’ll find that in any group. How many liberals here agree with letting prepubescent children go tranny? Or censoring media that might hurt someone’s fee fees? How many conservatives here still think D&D leads to devil worship and rock music leads to impure thoughts?

I agree with most libertarian beliefs, that doesn’t mean I’m a ride or die guy on board with all of their bullshit.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: The Foxtrot, Agamemnon Busmalis and Johnny Eastwood cash
MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:
Okay, so basically the Libertarian party is led by clowns who endorse slave labor, which is ironically not very Libertarian at all.

Are we sure these people aren't just secret Marxists? The March through the Institutions is a thing that they invented.
Click to expand...
Nah, they're true and honest fans most likely. It's just that the internet magnifies all retardation 100 fold, very easily. I doubt the people tweeting that sort of shit will ever actually go out and be active politically. No different from the right wing 'Order of the Nine Angles!' race war guys, or the Trotskyites that want a world wide violent revolution from their shitty loft apartment.
 
Political ideologies and parties are all cringe. There's no point in sticking to one thing unless you truly believe in a one party state. Everything else is a negotiation.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: DumbDude43
Like with all ideologies near the anarchist end of the spectrum:
Kinda alright as a personal philosophy to live by.
Completely useless drivel as a political system.

Living your life as a libertarian, doing libertarian things and interacting with people with said values is perfectly coherent, but the second you try to herd millions of people into following a system of values that's entire core philosophy is about not forcing people to do stuff it all either falls apart or stops being libertarian, as soon as some entity manages to reach the critical mass of concentrated power and influence decides that respecting people's NAPs is cringe, and that they'd rather just be an autocrat.

Just throwing the word "free market" around, and hoping millions of random strangers to just "compete against the tyrant" like a hivemind isn't going to happen. What is going to happen is that your ancapistan ceases to exist, and now you just live in a world where authoritarian states are called corporations.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Jacob Schiff and Angry Alt Right Nerd
Libertarianism is a Jewish ideology, created by Ashke-Nazi Jews. It promotes usury, open borders, drug use, race-mixing and "free trade". It is a subversive, internationalist ideology designed to weaken national sovereignty and racial unity.

Protectionism (and derigisme) is the traditional economic system of America. A nation must preserve its own sovernty, in terms of its borders, manufacturing, agriculture, and its currency, in order to continue to exist as a sovereign nation. And the nation itself is supposed to represent the interests of those who founded it.
 
  • Agree
  • Autistic
Reactions: PipTheAlchemist and DumbDude43
ToroidalBoat said:
So in other words, based libertarianism is more or less what the Founding Fathers had in mind for the USA?
Click to expand...
Absolutely not the founding fathers believed in government they crushed people who did not pay their taxes anybody who thinks the founding fathers would think highly of libertarianism is historically illiterate.
George Washington crushed people for not paying the whiskey tax.
When the first things we started doing when we gained our Independence was building a proper Army and Navy.
That was delayed due to a few s*** bags not understanding the need for a proper Army and whining about the budget.
Thanks dicks if it wasn't for you we would have won the war of 1812 and we control Canada which I don't know we do with Canada but we'd still control it.

America's founding principles of based on the sensibilities of Northern Europeans who evolved traits for cooperation between groups because that was beneficial to the environment they found themselves in read Kevin McDonalds the European liberal tradition
 
  • Informative
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: Jacob Schiff, PipTheAlchemist, Angry Alt Right Nerd and 3 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back