Libertarianism: The Official Thread Of Freedom As An Ideology.

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
They do make perfectly reasonable points... but miss a whole lot of ones less related to very "here and now" of recent media narratives instead of considering the issue in full.
You can embrace the ideas proposed by even most reasonable pacifists all you want as your country. But in no way, shape or form it will guarantee that you will avoid war. If anything, its the opposite.
The Romans had the other half of the equation. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Just because you don't want war, doesn't mean no one else will, and if you are unprepared for war, mentally or materially, that only makes those who think of it want war with you more, in expectation of a relatively easy victory. As the current case of Russia, or slightly earlier ISIL show, even trade and prosperity coming from peace only go so far, when not all cultures are as materialistic as current western one, and as such are perfectly willing to start wars despite the massive trade sanctions that it will result in. That's where the dreams of pacifists die. Other societies that disagree with them, oh the irony. Brought down to the same level as all the other ideas for a perfect world.
Yeah, I note that the video isn't making that claim though. The video isn't saying "don't have a military" or "don't fight back" or even "don't fight wars". It's saying war sucks and there is no way to avoid it sucking, so it's never a solution, just sometimes a necessity.

Personally, I'd go almost never. Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia is the one exception that sticks out to me of a war that made the world better than before the war, and even then it was initially defensive.
Pacifists are the stepping stones of more martial societies on the road to empire. The only form of pacifism I have the remotest respect for is armed neutrality, the NAP given teeth (essentially militaristic liberals). As I understand it, that ideology is built around the term "don't step on me, or I will kill you."
And this is what a libertarian is generally on the side of.

Also, I'm not sure if you are from Europe, but a liberal isn't a libertarian in the US. A European liberal is more similar to US libertarians than US liberals (who are more like a British Labour party).
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Yeah, I note that the video isn't making that claim though. The video isn't saying "don't have a military" or "don't fight back" or even "don't fight wars". It's saying war sucks and there is no way to avoid it sucking, so it's never a solution, just sometimes a necessity.

Personally, I'd go almost never. Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia is the one exception that sticks out to me of a war that made the world better than before the war, and even then it was initially defensive.
Well that's the other part of the equation. War may suck, but losing wars can potentially suck much more. And likewise so can "peace at any cost", as some have a whole lot of imagination to make the most of *any* cost.
And this is what a libertarian is generally on the side of.

Also, I'm not sure if you are from Europe, but a liberal isn't a libertarian in the US. A European liberal is more similar to US libertarians than US liberals (who are more like a British Labour party).
I'm well aware of US leftists appropriating the term. And no, in many European countries libertarian also distinguish themselves from liberals, being more ideologically minded ones, while "old liberals" tend to be establishmentarian centrists slowly drifting to the left according to Conquest's law.
 
Pacifists are the stepping stones of more martial societies on the road to empire. The only form of pacifism I have the remotest respect for is armed neutrality, the NAP given teeth (essentially militaristic liberals). As I understand it, that ideology is built around the term "don't step on me, or I will kill you."

Careful, you sound like an uncivilized barbarian heathens promoting unlawfulness and violence the audacity...
 

Simonbob

Well-known member
More or less another ex-libertarian bitching about libertarianism video. Might be of interest to some.


Interesting.

It pretty much sums up why I moved on from being a Libertarian. It's a pure utopianism, and most humans just can't think that way.

Very nice theory, and it doesn't do as much damage(directly) as Communism, but that doesn't mean it works.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
So anyway, the Libertarian Party just got back to being a libertarian party from it's woke stupidity over the weekend.

EDIT: I should say that this happened during the Libertarian National Convention.

Big summary:
The Mises Caucus just swept the seats, and is incredibly motivated.
The Abortion plank got removed from the platform entirely (as it used to be a while ago).

Good things are coming. I'm actually pledging to the national party for the first time in a while.
 
Last edited:

Free-Stater 101

Freedom Means Freedom!!!
Nuke Mod
Moderator
Staff Member
So anyway, the Libertarian Party just got back to being a libertarian party from it's woke stupidity over the weekend.

EDIT: I should say that this happened during the Libertarian National Convention.

Big summary:
The Mises Caucus just swept the seats, and is incredibly motivated.
The Abortion plank got removed from the platform entirely (as it used to be a while ago).

Good things are coming. I'm actually pledging to the national party for the first time in a while.
Good. One of the things that has always held the movement back is taking a hard stance in the abortion debate, there entire argument is that it's a matter of a womans 'liberty' to be able to have one while ignoring the fact that it isn't just that simple and your ignoring the reason why its controversial.

Instead of taking an active stance of yea or nay the entire Libertarian platform should be neither pro or anti, yet argue for the overturn of the basis of Roe Vs Wade to put this complex issue back into the peoples hands so they themselves can decide the issue over a supreme court edict which either bans or promotes abortion.
More or less another ex-libertarian bitching about libertarianism video. Might be of interest to some.


Not me he is only rehashing dead arguments I acknowledge the Libertarian movement has it's problems but the ideology is sound.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Instead of taking an active stance of yea or nay the entire Libertarian platform should be neither pro or anti, yet argue for the overturn of the basis of Roe Vs Wade to put this complex issue back into the peoples hands so they themselves can decide the issue over a supreme court edict which either bans or promotes abortion.
I agree with the majority of what you say, but federalism is always an iffy subject with libertarians, so best for the party not to take a stance on Roe also. Basically, there's two arguments. One goes "All decentralization is good", the other goes "No, I don't care how government is limited, I just want it limited." Both sides have decent points so far as strategy, so there's no need to alienate people.

Obviously, I'm not a fan of Roe personally, but I don't want the Libertarian party taking a stance on it either, as it's just a great way to weaken the party.
 

posh-goofiness

Well-known member
I agree with the majority of what you say, but federalism is always an iffy subject with libertarians, so best for the party not to take a stance on Roe also. Basically, there's two arguments. One goes "All decentralization is good", the other goes "No, I don't care how government is limited, I just want it limited." Both sides have decent points so far as strategy, so there's no need to alienate people.

Obviously, I'm not a fan of Roe personally, but I don't want the Libertarian party taking a stance on it either, as it's just a great way to weaken the party.
Why would federalism be a problem with Libertarians? There are issues that should be the sole purview of a locality, then the state, then lastly and only lastly the federal government.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Why would federalism be a problem with Libertarians?
Basically because this here is a misconception to libertarians:
There are issues that should be the sole purview of a locality, then the state, then lastly and only lastly the federal government.
Basically, all government is a necessary evil at best. I really don't care what uniform they wear when the bust down my door, I only think it's easier to reduce at a local level.

So federalism to a libertarian is just a step towards getting rid of whatever is federalized. But by the same logic, I'm very happy freedom of speech, for example, isn't a federalized thing. Same with 2A, etc. I don't want people able to violate rights in some locales, I'd rather everyone have access to freedom.

So for pro-choice libertarians, getting rid of Roe isn't a success to them, as they consider it a right (though I disagree with it being a right).
 

posh-goofiness

Well-known member
Basically because this here is a misconception to libertarians:

Basically, all government is a necessary evil at best. I really don't care what uniform they wear when the bust down my door, I only think it's easier to reduce at a local level.

So federalism to a libertarian is just a step towards getting rid of whatever is federalized. But by the same logic, I'm very happy freedom of speech, for example, isn't a federalized thing. Same with 2A, etc. I don't want people able to violate rights in some locales, I'd rather everyone have access to freedom.

So for pro-choice libertarians, getting rid of Roe isn't a success to them, as they consider it a right (though I disagree with it being a right).
Ah, I see what you're getting at. I suppose to the purists, it's a problem. At a practical level, though, it's the most successful system for retarding the size and scope of government. Granted, we've expanded it heavily now but for the first 100 years or so it did a good job. Government is evil but since it's not one we're getting rid of any time soon, it's the best tool to implement Libertarian goals we currently have.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Ah, I see what you're getting at. I suppose to the purists, it's a problem. At a practical level, though, it's the most successful system for retarding the size and scope of government. Granted, we've expanded it heavily now but for the first 100 years or so it did a good job. Government is evil but since it's not one we're getting rid of any time soon, it's the best tool to implement Libertarian goals we currently have.
Yeah. Note I agree with nearly everything you are saying here, federalization is almost always a step forward. But there is a definite dislike of federalizing away rights that I think needs to be kept. Basically, federalism isn't a goal in and of itself, but a very useful tool IMO. Sometimes it's best not to use it though.

As for the party platform, I think it's the right choice. One of the big Mises Caucus things they are doing right is being fairly gracious in victory. They want a united liberty front to get successes. So big barriers like this? Probably a bad idea.
 
not sure if this is off-topic, but when did cultural appropriation become a bad thing, especially to globalists? If you say Cultural appropriation is a bad thing you have to say which racism is a good thing leads to race separation is a good thing, which leads into total isolationism is a good thing, which leads to "Trade and Diplomacy is like literally genocide guys." Doesn't that go against everything a philosophy like globalism (or anything that isn't year zero primitive tribalism) stands for? Even as far back as the bronze age cultures traded with other cultures and blended certain technologies and customs into their own if it was seen as beneficial or at the very least benign. Without Cultural Appropriation of some kind, we'd all be stuck in the stone age.
 
Last edited:

Captain X

Well-known member
Osaul
not sure if this is off-topic, but when did cultural appropriation become a bad thing, especially to globalists? If you say Cultural appropriation is a bad thing you have to basically say that race separation is a good thing...which means racism is a good thing which leads into total isolationism is a good thing which leads to "Trade and diplomacy is like literally genocide." Doesn't that go against everything a philosophy like globalism (or anything that isn't old fashion backwater primitive tribalism) stands for? Even as far back as the bronze age cultures traded with other cultures and blended certain technology and customs into their own if it was seen as beneficial or at the very least benign. Without Cultural Appropriation of some kind, we'd be all be stuck in the stone age.
It's part of keeping people separated as part of the whole divide and conquer thing. And yeah, they've demonstrated that they are very much racist and are tapping into that aspect of people, much as Hitler did in Germany toward the Jews. They're not only keeping everyone separated, they're giving them a common enemy to pretend to be united against while still keeping in their own lane.
 

ShieldWife

Marchioness
not sure if this is off-topic, but when did cultural appropriation become a bad thing, especially to globalists? If you say Cultural appropriation is a bad thing you have to basically say that race separation is a good thing...which means racism is a good thing which leads into total isolationism is a good thing which leads to "Trade and diplomacy is like literally genocide guys." Doesn't that go against everything a philosophy like globalism (or anything that isn't year zero primitive tribalism) stands for? Even as far back as the bronze age cultures traded with other cultures and blended certain technology and customs into their own if it was seen as beneficial or at the very least benign. Without Cultural Appropriation of some kind, we'd all be stuck in the stone age.
Only when they can use it to be anti-white. Hatred of white people is one of the strongest motivations for leftists/globalists and so if white people use something from another culture, it’s evil and oppressive. If ”people of color” do it, then it’s fine.

On face value, it’s completely inconsistent, but when you look at the actual motive (anti-white hatred) then it’s entirely consistent.
 
Only when they can use it to be anti-white. Hatred of white people is one of the strongest motivations for leftists/globalists and so if white people use something from another culture, it’s evil and oppressive. If ”people of color” do it, then it’s fine.

On face value, it’s completely inconsistent, but when you look at the actual motive (anti-white hatred) then it’s entirely consistent.

The white hate is ironic considering the lion share of the leadership of this philosophy is white people. Plus how do these people plan to gather resources without trade some stuff is only primarily available in white countries.
 
Last edited:

Scottty

Well-known member
Founder
Only when they can use it to be anti-white. Hatred of white people is one of the strongest motivations for leftists/globalists and so if white people use something from another culture, it’s evil and oppressive. If ”people of color” do it, then it’s fine.

On face value, it’s completely inconsistent, but when you look at the actual motive (anti-white hatred) then it’s entirely consistent.

Shieldwife is spot-on here, I think.
With the SJW crowd, the desire to denounce and blame white people for something - anything - comes first, the particular accusation, whatever they can find or invent, comes as a result of that.
It is, in fact, because they hate (other) white people.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top