Libertarianism is it worth it? - I think its not

[Archie_Kimkicker]

With the possible exception of the Hoppean strain of thought, Libertarianism lives in a fantasy land rife with left-wing premises such as the blank slate theory of human nature.

 

[Guns of the Gaytriots]

IMO, the "An Appeal To Heaven" flag is much better

While the pine tree does indeed not hurt to look at and is a better designed flag, I think the snake is better at getting the message across.

 

[Sargon's wife's son]

What is particularly baffling in people who hate libertarians is that they themselves obey the ground rules of libertarianism at least 99% of the time in everything they do.

My arbitrary definition of libertarianism is libertarianism said every single libertarian ever all of your arguments are basic Christian moral ethics and also the basic building blocks of any functioning society congratulations you figured out how society functioned on a macro level and you're trying to extrapolate it onto every other aspect of society.
Grow up and adopt A real ideology like republicanism national socialism fascism or monarchism hell even classical liberalism is a real functioning philosophy that actually can govern a society you are a delusional utopian moron

Libertarianism isn't a political system. What he was describing is how various aspects of libertarianism interact with each other to form a cohesive ethical theory for mitigating conflict over scarce resources through property rights. Even if you argue from the standpoint of pragmatism or of practicality, whether it is possible to get rid of the state or not does not change whether libertarian ethical theory is useful in terms of deciding any number of questions. Libertarianism as an ethical theory can imply the rejection of certain societal arrangements and an endorsement of some other, theoretical, imagined societal arrangement, but the likelihood, or lack thereof, of whatever imagined societal arrangement a libertarian chooses to endorse does not discount the possibility of applying that ethical theory to a nonetheless imperfect societal arrangement. I actually think you have a rather utopian way of thinking, where you believe that a theory fails unless it manifests itself as a perfectly instantiated ideal political order. I have to wonder if the person bandying around this term utopianism isn't making utopian demands on the world around them.

You see there's no practical application for my low IQ philosophy but it is just as valid as political systems that actually create viable forms of government therefore your argument is not valid libertarians argue like leftists because they are inherently a leftist philosophy born out of the boredom and lack of things to do created by the industrial revolution which was only possible thanks to monarchists and liberals creating stable systems of government.

I like to call these philosophies post industrial philosophies because only with the advent of industrialism could someone come up with such a monumentally stupid idea such as anarchism libertarianism and communism

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

It's baffling to me how many misconceptions can be packed into one rant
Libertarianism is not a post-industrial "philosophy born out of boredom", its roots trace back centuries to the natural law tradition of thinkers like John Locke, the Enlightenment era thinkers of individual liberty, the Scholastic philosophers of the Middle Ages, and you can make a good case that Jesus of Nazareth was a proto-anarcho-capitalist (cf. Gary North's books on that if you are curious, I haven't read them yet myself). Libertarianism is not a product of idle minds, but the result of serious attempts to solve problems of justice, property, and governance in ways that respect human dignity and autonomy
Throwing around accusations of utopianism is, again, a misunderstanding of the very premise of it. Libertarians do not assume a perfect world. Precisely because of human fallibility, libertarian ethics have the goal of minimizing (ideally avoiding, if everyone obeys them) harm by limiting coercion (with only retaliatory, retributive, restitutive, and punitive coercion being bueno) and the concentration of power (of humans over other humans). A system of voluntary exchange, property rights, and non-aggression is not about creating a utopia, but providing a framework that minimizes conflict, aligns incentives, and discourages exploitation

The systems you mentioned, "republicanism national socialism fascism or monarchism", are ideologies that inherently rely on violence, central planning, and suppression of dissent to function. They assume that society is better off being managed by a self-appointed elite, in spite of the huge pile of historical examples of how centralized power leads to tyranny, inefficiency, and human suffering. By contrast, applied libertarianism decentralizes power and emphasizes voluntary cooperation, which - shocker - is how humans naturally organize themselves when not coerced otherwise

all of your arguments are basic Christian moral ethics and also the basic building blocks of any functioning society

This here is probably the most unintentionally hilarious bit of your post
You've unwittingly highlighted the strength of my arguments with that statement
Yes, the principles of individual responsibility, respect for property, and peaceful cooperation are timeless and universal, foundational to functioning societies
Now what libertarianism does is go further by applying these principles consistently and without exception, no special pleading for the state or ruling classes, no governments being "legitimated" to violate the very ethics they claim to uphold

Once again, everybody who throws the "utopia" accusation or the "naive" insult around has missed the point entirely. The very point of libertarianism is recognizing that freedom and responsibility are the building blocks of any moral and sustainable society

 

[Lowlife Adventures]

Now what libertarianism does is go further by applying these principles consistently and without exception, no special pleading for the state or ruling classes, no governments being "legitimated" to violate the very ethics they claim to uphold

There's a reason the principles you mentioned aren't applied consistently and it's that there's a point where certain people are powerful enough to ignore non-coercive solutions and get away with it ("nature abhors a vacuum" as the earlier comment said). Power imbalances are inevitable and a belief system that tries to eliminate power imbalances will be considered more utopian than one that tries to figure out how these power imbalances can be beneficial. Edit: Is it special pleading to recognize that it's not feasible to be totally consistent with the principles you stated?

Also, is it even such a bad thing that these principles aren't applied consistently? Because of how hard it is to coordinate very large groups of people, complex societies will necessarily have authority figures and hierarchies. Is it worth sacrificing the benefits of complex society just to be totally consistent with the principle of always avoiding coercion? I'm not sure it is.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Power imbalances are inevitable

Imbalances of influence, wealth, and ability will occur naturally, and there are good points to be made that these are actually good things
What libertarianism challenges is coercive power imbalances, i.e. the ones where one person or group uses force or threats to control others without their consent. This distinction is crucial because voluntary relationships are not inherently oppressive. An employer and an employee may have unequal roles, but as long as their relationship is mutually agreed upon, no coercion exists.

tries to figure out how these power imbalances can be beneficial

This is precisely what libertarianism does. By rejecting involuntary coercion, individuals are free to organize in ways that best suit their circumstances, fostering cooperation and innovation without imposing to-down authority.
Every system of belief that embraces coercion as "inevitable" risks enabling abuses of power under the guise of authority. Just look at history for gigantic piles of examples of how centralized authority has been anything but "beneficial" to those subjected to it.

Also, is it even such a bad thing that these principles aren't applied consistently?

Yes. Not applying principles of non-coercion consistently means that you get arbitrary enforcement. Once exceptions are allowed, who gets to decide when coercion is acceptable? Governments? Rulers? Elites?
The problem with inconsistent principles is that they open the door to abuse, undermining the very "complex societies" you value. Consistent application of those principles isn't a weakness, it's a safeguard against the tyranny that arises when authority is left unchecked.

Is it worth sacrificing the benefits of complex society just to be totally consistent with the principle of always avoiding coercion?

The complexity of society arises from voluntary exchange, specialization, and innovation. All of these flourish best when individuals are free to act according to their preferences, without aggressive coercion. I reiterate, authority and hierarchy are not inherently problematic as long as they are voluntary/consensual. A manager in a company has authority over employees, but this is a voluntary arrangement. The same principle applies at larger scales. A complex society can organize without coercion if individuals have the freedom to choose how they interact and associate.

a belief system that tries to eliminate power imbalances will be considered more utopian

Again missing the point. Libertarianism does not assume perfection or seeks to eliminate all conflict (although we must recognize that the "ground rules" of libertarian ethics would have made it possible for every single conflict since the dawn of mankind to be avoided). Libertarianism seeks to minimize harm by creating a framework in which interactions are based on consent rather than aggressive force. Eliminating every imbalance is not the point, the point is ensuring that those imbalances don't become mechanisms for exploitation.
Libertarianism does not ignore the challenges of power imbalances and complex societies, it addresses them by providing an ethical and practical solution, unlike the coercive structures that have failed again and again throughout history

 

[Dyn]

Libertarianism is not a post-industrial "philosophy born out of boredom", its roots trace back centuries to the natural law tradition of thinkers like John Locke, the Enlightenment era thinkers of individual liberty, the Scholastic philosophers of the Middle Ages, and you can make a good case that Jesus of Nazareth was a proto-anarcho-capitalist (cf. Gary North's books on that if you are curious, I haven't read them yet myself). Libertarianism is not a product of idle minds, but the result of serious attempts to solve problems of justice, property, and governance in ways that respect human dignity and autonomy

shut up faggot it's a dumb ideology for teenage trust fund pedophiles and dogfuckers and nobody respects it

 

[Rome vs Judea]

I read this quote once and it sums it up completely

Libertarianism is the ideology for young guys that know the system is fucked, and want to go against it but without any negative stigma of something that could be considered "hateful" and have them ostracized by their community.

Ultimately libertarianism, even the good faith variety, fails because it tries to apply a one-size-fits-all simplified ideology to a world that is anything but simplified and universal. Ultimately this is the failure mode of all childish ideologies, even if there are certain parts of them that have value.

It's the system's approved third option and poses zero threat to them. Being a lolbertarian just means you are a liberal fag who can only think in terms of economics because that can't be considered racist by anyone.

Nothing about libertarianism works in a multicultural society ravaged by marxism. Libertarians are relics from 1960 living in a fantasy land of a White super-majority, well behaved minorities, a decent christian common culture and a media supporting the nation's well being.

Total Jewish ideology btw, just like Marxism/Communism

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

shut up faggot it's a dumb ideology for teenage trust fund pedophiles and dogfuckers and nobody respects it

Baseless insults. Libertarianism is about personal responsibility, the right to freely associate, and the principle of non-aggression. Of course no idea is free from misinterpretation or misuse by individuals, but such things don't discredit the entire philosophy.

I read this quote once and it sums it up completely

I disagree with that quote. The idea that libertarianism is a "childish ideology" because it seeks a simplified approach is nothing but a misunderstanding of the philosophy. Nobody is trying to simplify the complexities of human society. Instead, libertarianism is based on universal principles because human rights and personal freedom are not situational or dependent on the complexity of society. Abandoning this principle in favor of more coercive, centralized, harmful systems is what constitutes failure.

It's the system's approved third option and poses zero threat to them.

This is hilarious. I guess I would agree with you if you count non-anarchist libertarians as libertarians - which I don't. The consistent libertarian must be an anarchist. I will happily join you in mocking and ridiculing "libertarians" who believe that such a thing as a nightwatchman or minarchist state are possible or desirable.
Libertarianism directly challenges the coercive power structures that prop up the state, and the fact that everything that falls under the definition of a state is impermissible is one of the very first conclusions of libertarian legal/ethical philosophy. Like, there is no special pleading, there is no exception, there is no divine right to rule, there is no democratic legitimacy, there is no Allah or Yahweh, there exists no way to legitimately/permissibly engage in aggressive coercion without directly violating the absolute core of libertarian philosophy.

The second quote, I believe that is a distraction. Libertarianism is about individual rights and voluntary cooperation, not the race or culture of those involved. If you posit that negros can't do it, then the obvious solution is to physically remove and ostracize them from polite society. Regardless, every group of people, regardless of background, can coexist peacefully if their rights are respected. Although I guess it would make things easier and more convenient, libertarianism does not rely on or presuppose or require an idealized, homogeneous society. What it does is offer a framework for all individuals to live freely and cooperatively, without being subject to state-imposed authority.

Libertarians are relics from 1960

I honestly don't understand what kind of argument this is supposed to be. Look, it's current year, therefore timeless principles don't matter? Are you one of those communists who believes that math is racist because it was "invented" by white people centuries ago?
The problems of today which libertarianism tackles head-on (coercion, violence, state overreach) are as relevant today as they were thousands of years ago.

 

[Baguette Child]

Honestly, it is infuriating and annoying that the "people" who criticize libertarianism get it so fucking wrong, yet they act so confidently and with such smugness as if they had it figured out

So what subreddits do you mod and how large is your fedora?

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Total Jewish ideology btw, just like Marxism/Communism

Retard argument.
Do we now stop using numbers like 2 and 4 because they were made by Arabs?
Are we using Roman numerals now? Oh wait, no, the Romans were also child molesters.
What do we dooooo

 

[Dyn]

but such things don't discredit the entire philosophy.

Yes they do so.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Yes they do so.

If you discredit an entire philosophy based on the actions or beliefs of a few individuals associated with it, then congratulations
Literally every ideology, theory, or system would be discredited
Let's go reject socialism with no argument other than Stalin, and condemn all religions just with their extremists
If you don't think that philosophies should be judged by their core principles and their capacity to promote a just society and instead believe that they should be judged by the worst examples of people who misuse or misunderstand them, then that says hell of a lot about you and absolutely nothing about the philosophies you're trying to discredit

 

[Dyn]

If you discredit an entire philosophy based on the actions or beliefs of a few individuals associated with it, then congratulations

Nobody but smug reddit pedophiles are associated with libertarianism.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Nobody but smug reddit pedophiles are associated with libertarianism.

Nothing but evil (read in Null's voice) DAAXXING, mass shooters, and people who make valuable and cherished members of the human species commit suicide are associated with Kiwi Farms.
See how easy it is to play guilt by association? See how absolutely meaningless it is to literally everyone who knows better?
If you have nothing better to say, don't post

 

[Dyn]

Nothing but evil (read in Null's voice) DAAXXING, mass shooters, and people who make valuable and cherished members of the human species commit suicide are associated with Kiwi Farms.
See how easy it is to play guilt by association? See how absolutely meaningless it is to literally everyone who knows better?

Name one person who's a libertarian and not a smug reddit pedophile.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Name one person who's a libertarian and not a smug reddit pedophile.

Thomas DiLorenzo

 

[Frederica Bernkastel]

Libertarianism is about personal responsibility, the right to freely associate, and the principle of non-aggression.

One of the problems in this world is there are a lot of people who just don't have the intelligence to do these things. Kiwifarms, if anything, should be a good reminder of that.

 

[Dyn]

Thomas DiLorenzo

He's a smug reddit pedophile for sure.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

One of the problems in this world is there are a lot of people who just don't have the intelligence to do these things. Kiwifarms, if anything, should be a good reminder of that.

The fact that some people lack the intelligence to engage with these principles doesn't change the fundamental value of those principles.
The question isn't whether everyone can grasp every nuance of political philosophy, it's whether society is structured in a way that allows people to live freely and without coercion. Catering to everyone's level of intelligence is not the goal, the goal is to ensure that people are free to make their own choices as long as they don't harm others.
In a truly free society, those who refuse to respect the rights of others are dealt with swiftly, either through forceful self-defense or through the appropriate societal measure, with no excuse for their behavior

You know how all those contemporary statist systems do home raids for calling politicians knuckleheads? Or January 6 imprisonments? While letting child molesters, rapists, terrorists run free?
In a libertarian society, the former is legal and the latter would very likely be shot on sight