What is the deal with authoritarians and learned helplessness?

[Sargon's wife's son]

what is with Libertarians judging every political ideology when they're incapable of winning a simple political election or gaining any form of political power.
libertarianism is the ideology for smug self-assured idiot who was slightly successful in a slightly above your average middle-class person therefore they think they are the Masters of the Universe and the smartest people in the room when they're really not

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

what is with Libertarians judging every political ideology when they're incapable of winning a simple political election or gaining any form of political power.
libertarianism is the ideology for smug self-assured idiot who was slightly successful in a slightly above your average middle-class person therefore they think they are the Masters of the Universe and the smartest people in the room when they're really not

Political elections are contests in bribing voters
Only the most unscrupulous rise to the top in democracies
Political power is something that libertarians seek to abolish

 

[Sargon's wife's son]

Political elections are contests in bribing voters

very interesting you can say that until you're blue in the face you still need to win elections in order to gain some semblance of power in Western democracies.
or you can start planting car bombs but blowing people off would be a violation of the non-aggression principle.

Political power is something that libertarians seek to abolish

in the words of the great reaction a philosopher Gene Bowden no one is above the laws of God and nature

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

very interesting you can say that until you're blue in the face you still need to win elections in order to gain some semblance of power in Western democracies.
or you can start planting car bombs but blowing people off would be a violation of the non-aggression principle.

You're acting as if democratic elections are the only way to change society

 

[Sargon's wife's son]

You're acting as if democratic elections are the only way to change society

all the other ways of changing Society of violation of your so-called libertarian principles of non-aggression and non-violence so yeah.
see I'm a monarchist overthrowing the government and forcing people at gunpoint to do what I say is perfectly in line with my principles it's not in line with your principles however.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

all the other ways of changing Society of violation of your so-called libertarian principles of non-aggression and non-violence so yeah.
see I'm a monarchist overthrowing the government and forcing people at gunpoint to do what I say is perfectly in line with my principles it's not in line with your principles however.

Non-violence is not a libertarian principle.
Non-aggression simply means that initiating a conflict is not legitimate.
Accordingly, violence against aggressors is A-OK.
The strategy I personally envision for achieving a free society consists of peaceful activism alongside targeted sabotage and asymmetrical warfare.
I think the current biggest problem is that too many people don't see a need for solving the problem of the state because they fail to perceive it as a problem. That's why reporting and propagating the failures of the state and central planning are so important. The more the people see that the state just leads to poverty, chaos, war, and failure, the more unbearable it becomes, the more they are willing to risk drastic change. And at that point, the libertarian is not an evangelist, but simply someone offering the solution to the problem.

 

[Sargon's wife's son]

The strategy I personally envision for achieving a free society consists of peaceful activism alongside targeted sabotage and asymmetrical warfare.

so you're going to kill people for simply wanting a state man sounds kind of authoritarian.
so rothbard is incorrect when he said that enforcement of morality upon people is a violation of the non-aggression principle

I think the current biggest problem is that too many people don't see a need for solving the problem of the state because they fail to perceive it as a problem. That's why reporting and propagating the failures of the state and central planning are so important. The more the people see that the state just leads to poverty, chaos, war, and failure, the more unbearable it becomes, the more they are willing to risk drastic change. And at that point, the libertarian is not an evangelist, but simply someone offering the solution to the problem.

the state doesn't lead to any of those things the lack of States existing in the collapse of States actually leads to all of those things see the collapse of the Roman Empire the collapse of the centralized Chinese government and any other turbulent time in any other nations history.
I'm pretty sure murdering people for disagreeing with your political ideologies also violation of the non-aggression principle or does the father of your ideology Murray rothbard's opinion on morality not count for some reason.


for some reason Murray rothbard said air pollution is a violation of non-aggression principle but slander and defaming people is notwhich makes no sense but Murray rothbard solutions to the problems he saw with the overreach of government will always quite low IQ.

so you going to murder a large amount of people simply for enforcing the states mandates on building regulations and Taxation sounds kind of insane on my calculation of your own ideology I didn't know murdering people preemptively for disagreeing you with you on the state existing is not a violation in the end of NAP

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

so you're going to kill people for simply wanting a state man sounds kind of authoritarian.
so rothbard is incorrect when he said that enforcement of morality upon people is a violation of the non-aggression principle

I don't see how one logically follows from the other
Unless you are making the argument that merely choosing to vote in a democratic election makes you an aggressor
But I don't really agree with that, and I haven't seen anybody claim that

the state doesn't lead to any of those things

What do you think the state is?

for some reason Murray rothbard said air pollution is a violation of non-aggression principle but slander and defaming people is notwhich makes no sense

The non-aggression principle is violated by initiating a physical conflict. Air pollution causes tangible harm to real physical things. Slander and defamation don't. It makes perfect sense.

 

[Pomniman]

I think the problem with lolbertarianism at its core is that even though it has a lot of legitimate philosophical points, it's rooted in unrealistic individualist rationalist biases to the point where it fails to convincingly account for the fundamental irrationality of the human animal at large. Civilizations trend towards authoritarianism rather than liberty as the path of least resistance because the vast majority of any given population is just too retarded to survive at scale while being autonomous and self-governing.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

it's rooted in unrealistic individualist rationalist biases to the point where it fails to convincingly account for the fundamental irrationality of the human animal at large.

Do you have evidence for that?

Civilizations trend towards authoritarianism rather than liberty as the path of least resistance because the vast majority of any given population is just too retarded to survive at scale while being autonomous and self-governing.

The existence of humanity as a whole is empirical evidence that refutes your statement.
Production must logically come before predation. Any environment in which predators outnumber prey is doomed to collapse.

 

[Pomniman]

Do you have evidence for that?

This is the most hilarious possible response. Thank you.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

This is the most hilarious possible response. Thank you.

I mean it.
I see no evidence whatsoever for libertarian principles requiring some sort of change in human nature in order to function.

 

[Pomniman]

I mean it.

I know. That's what makes it so funny.

 

[Male Idiot]

So why would we try an ideology that never succeeded?

Monarchy had been working for millenia.

Nazism, communism, even liberal democracy at least managed to get coherent nations out of it.

Capitalist Libertarianism never had even that. The longest it lasted is weeks in a commune before feds busted them up.

Evidence: talk to a nigger. No, really, talk to them.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

So why would we try an ideology that never succeeded?

Every time libertarian principles have been upheld by anybody, they succeeded.
Every time libertarian principles have been violated by somebody, it caused harm to society.
I don't know what you are talking about.

Plus, libertarianism is primarily a moral/ethical standpoint.
Since you mention niggers, surely you object to robberies, yes?
Are you saying that, because there are robberies every day, the "ideology" of being against robberies has never succeeded?
Are you objecting against the "ideology" that is against robberies with the justification that it hasn't succeeded?
If so, that is completely missing the point.

 

[Male Idiot]

Every time libertarian principles have been upheld by anybody, they succeeded.
Every time libertarian principles have been violated by somebody, it caused harm to society.
I don't know what you are talking about.

Plus, libertarianism is primarily a moral/ethical standpoint.
Since you mention niggers, surely you object to robberies, yes?
Are you saying that, because there are robberies every day, the "ideology" of being against robberies has never succeeded?
Are you objecting against the "ideology" that is against robberies with the justification that it hasn't succeeded?
If so, that is completely missing the point.

Evidence? Just cite me one nation.

Robberies are deterred by a heavy presence of the Po-po. Robberies go down when Mr Csendőr used to break every bone in the gypsy's body if he was caught and threw him into the station's cell for a year. If he was uppity he got a ticket to Auswitz.
Robberies were still down when Mr Rendőr used to be able to hang offenders (read gypsies) off the bridge by his boots. The People's Republic was a place where a woman could walk home at the middle of the night. If he was uppity he got a ticket to Siberia.

Now that EU and US has said we can't lynch robbers, now there are robberies and gypsies are getting rich. Because we can't have the popo brutalize them.

Worked like a fucking charm.

If you have to defend your home, it is better than getting broken in, but the problem is that criminals were out in the streets in the first place. It is like saying that oh, good that I have to get a cast on my foot, at least it wasn't cut off.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Now that EU and US has said we can't lynch robbers, now there are robberies and gypsies are getting rich. Because we can't have the popo brutalize them.

Worked like a fucking charm.

You have no say in the matter.
In a free society, your decisions as a customer can make a difference in law enforcement.
By rejecting libertarianism, you are advocating systems in which you have no say in law enforcement, since that is typically the first thing the state monopolizes

 

[Shart Attack]

I am also someone who thinks people need to stop asking the government to solve every little problem, and I still think you sound like a fucking retard.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

I'm spotting a very common thread in reading and listening to what authoritarians and statists have to say.
Pretty much all of it is whining about perceived problems. Nothing, or close to nothing, of what they say is anywhere near a solution or an approach to fix problems.

Says the unironic lolbertarian, whose entire ideology is 100% idealism that goes against human nature.

You claim that states are the reason corporations do bad things, without realizing that corporations made it so the state can do that! Why would any strong corporation want to play by libertarian free market rules? Why would any corporation not make it so the state gives them corporate welfare and lets them squelch the competition and import cheap H1Bs and illegals? Libertarianism can't answer this without resorting to pure fantasy about human nature and ethics.

In an ideal world, government would indeed be "Daddy Government", a righteous paternal force that we its children respect and which itself has the same constraints on its behavior like an actual father has. That's just what's necessary for society, and what's most natural since the family is the building block of society.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

You claim that states are the reason corporations do bad things, without realizing that corporations made it so the state can do that! Why would any strong corporation want to play by libertarian free market rules? Why would any corporation not make it so the state gives them corporate welfare and lets them squelch the competition and import cheap H1Bs and illegals? Libertarianism can't answer this without resorting to pure fantasy about human nature and ethics.

The simple answer is that there just is not state to pay off to not go by the rules. Meaning they have no choice but to compete with better and cheaper services.
If, say, Amazon wanted to form a state through violence, they would simply lose their income from customers, so they would not get far. Plus, the militia they hire is not guaranteed to follow their plan blindly and can simply leave or fight against them, and local militias are likely to respond to the aggression.

Also,

lolbertarian, whose entire ideology is 100% idealism that goes against human nature

In an ideal world, government would indeed be "Daddy Government"

What did you mean by this
Also, your argument to human nature is dumb.
To paraphrase Frederic Bastiat, if the natural tendencies of mankind are so shit that it is not safe to let them be free, how can it be that the tendencies of the state are always good? Aren't the legislators and their agents humans too? Or do they believe that they are made out of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?