ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

Scottie - libertarian protects life, property and liberty with organized violence (the state). Otherwise why for a state? We could all be like Robinson Crusoe with no rules on our own little island. You are confusing anarchy with libertarian. Easy to do since both are asking for gov the GTFO in modern era but huge difference. Commerce cant even commence under anarchy. You have zero rights either like socialism/communism - it's whoever is bigger/stronger has rights. In fact anarchy is closer to socialism than libertarianiam when it comes down to mechanics.

Two are mob rule one is god given rule found in Calvin, Jesus, Mohammad, and many others.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

Scottie - libertarian protects life, property and liberty with organized violence (the state). Otherwise why for a state? We could all be like Robinson Crusoe with no rules on our own little island. You are confusing anarchy with libertarian. Easy to do since both are asking for gov the GTFO in modern era but huge difference. Commerce cant even commence under anarchy. You have zero rights either like socialism/communism - it's whoever is bigger/stronger has rights. In fact anarchy is closer to socialism than libertarianiam when it comes down to mechanics.

Two are mob rule one is god given rule found in Calvin, Jesus, Mohammad, and many others.

Sort of. Anarchy is like communism insofar as it only works when fantasy is made real. Anarchy is the absence of hierarchies, and hierarchies are naturally occurring. The moment you flick the magic wand and make them all disappear, new ones assert themselves, grow, compete, and eventually dominate. The only way to sustain it is to rely on peoples’ better natures to play along. It, like communism, denies that humans are animals. It fails, 100% of the time, because it does not know how to reconcile the existence of evil. By my estimation, most people don’t.

"

CanHasPants wrote:

hierarchies are naturally occurring

People who talk about libertarianism without having read British anarchists are like people who talk about Sanders' democratic socialism without having read Marx.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

Been a long time since y'all were warriors/free market...probably after winter war you started to die. The soviets won in reality.

Sure, except for the fact that the time post WW II was an exceptional financial success here. We had a serious lack of foreign capital, so government rationed debt on foreign currency. Basically it meant that industrial enterprises were privileged via centrally planned rationing to have scarce finance capital. One needs to stretch the concept of 'free market' if you will, but the strategy proved to be highly successful at the time, resulting in high investment rate on equipment and factories. It was a mixed economy with generally high net taxation. There's a glaring difference to some developing countries today, which were economically pressured to open up their banking by international monetary institutions to get their loans. Now those countries are drowning in net debt (people generally don't make any distinction between net and gross debt).

Also, in reality the bilateral trade with Soviet Union was highly profitable for us. I'm not saying anyone here is wishing Soviet Union back. I am just saying that it is purely ideological statement how 'too much socialism' destroyed our capitalist roots. We were an agrarian society a hundred years ago, most people -those who lived at countryside- didn't even participate in any monetary exchange. The years 1945- fundamentally changed our society for good.

Personally I see market economy only as a tool, albeit quite an efficient one.

Remember lads, it's Trump Anxiety Disorder (TAD) now. "Trump Derangement Syndrome" and "TDS" are ableist slurs.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

You're simply abusing the language. "Authoritarian" and "left" are not synonymous; neither are "libertarian" and "right."

Libertarian and right are not synonymous, though very similar and in most cases compatible. The degree of adherence to tradition is a bigger factor in the "right" than to Libertarianism.

In that the left must assume authority to take what the people have produced and redistribute it - Authoritarian is the left. In the sense that people not be allowed to speak, act or purchase goods which aren't in the best interest of all (hate speech, straw ban) the left is authoritarian.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

The strong stance against abortion is prevalent amongst libertarians, for instance, when they would have the government not legislate anything else on their bodies.

Prevalent? Is this an example of you using a 40% survey result as evidence for consensus?

No, it isn't. It's like knowing conservatives tend to be more pro life than pro choice. When Libertarianism started becoming more popular, this was a sticking point for a lot of people who agreed with the otherwise laissez faire stance taken by Libertarians. Over the last decades, more people have gotten disgusted with both the GOP and the DNC and called themselves Libertarians. They decide they are such because they aren't one of the other parties, and have to be something. They share very few of the libertarian values and are often socialist light. If you poll and include these, you get mixed results.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

The most popular form of libertarianism these days is anarchocapitalism.

I don't care about popularity or being new and shiny. The most "popular" GOP senators are the RINO ones like McCain and Susan Collins, if you are asking the general public. I wouldn't call them the base of the GOP though.

How did Trump get elected? Did he get elected because there was strong, vocal support for him, or did he get elected because there was a lot more silent support for him than people expected. Beware of the noise makers, and remember the leftists were actually caught paying lots of people to shill on online forums to "Correct the Record".

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

If I survey anarchocapitalists whether the government should forbid abortions, you and I both know the vast majority opinion will be "no, they shouldn't." I think many, perhaps most, would be opposed to the practice, but they wouldn't be inclined to force that decision on others, because that would contradict their ideology.

Perhaps you should review the Libertarian "harm principle" which guides whether there should be a legal restriction on an activity. If they believe an abortion is harming someone, than they believe it should be illegal. I'm not sure how many libertarians you know in real life, or how long you have known them, as your commentary doesn't gibe with a long experience.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Which brings me to my main point. If you truly believe that using the threat of violence to influence behavior is always wrong, if you believe in true lawlessness, then you don't believe in government pushing any particular agenda.

Once again, lawlessness is not the goal. There are a limited set of laws, based on historical precedent and religious and cultural beliefs that have served society very well. Those are acceptable.

Why? Tyranny comes in many forms. A tyranny caused by violent individuals is nearly as bad as that caused by a tyranny of government. The major difference is scale. Ask the child who is locked in a room, starved and beaten for years if any laws limiting government action will make that child more free?

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

You can't be pro-abortion or anti-abortion under such conditions. You can't be pro-immigration or anti-immigration.

Under libertarianism and the "far" right you can be. Under the imaginary anarchist chaos follower you are describing, a person could be anything they wanted to be. They could be both Pro Choice and Pro life at the same time. They could be whatever they wanted to be.

Logic doesn't limit reality, and it certainly doesn't limit people. As far as cohesive political philosophies go, parties and their ideologies aren't based on logical structures. You could create one that is, if you want, but historically, it hasn't been a matter of people pulling out calculators and matrices and determining a consistent plan for government.

They have evolved from real people's experiences, what they like, what they dislike, what worked, what didn't work, what they imagine will work and so on. Politics is human foible in action. Expecting otherwise is like expecting a 2 day old baby to have fine motor skills. Assuming politics has all of society's answers is like assuming a 114 year old must have smoother skin than a newborn baby because they have had so much time for the skin to perfect itself.

Families, friends, social groups, business groups, etc are just as important to a successful society as politics. I think losing sight of that is how so many people get worked up and overly emotional about politics, religion etc.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

CanHasPants wrote:

hierarchies are naturally occurring

People who talk about libertarianism without having read British anarchists are like people who talk about Sanders' democratic socialism without having read Marx.

British anarchists? William Besham certainly wasn't an anarchist, and his original usage of the term libertarian in 1789 was more along religious lines. The original usage of the word in political terms wasn't British either, but formulated by French Joseph Déjacque in a letter to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1857, and popularized in the publication: Le Libertaire: Journal du Mouvement Social
printed in February 1861 in New York City.

The leanings of a political group and the names they call themselves vary from nation to nation. What one calls "conservative" might be the opposite of what another considers it to be.

CanHasPants is 100% correct. Whether you pull an electron out of an orbit, a fish out of an ecosystem, or a junta out of a banana republic, something else will fill the gap. Nature abhors a vacuum. It might take awhile for a new hierarchy or top predator to appear, but it is never a matter of if, but only of when.

Interesting read on Paul Manafort. Basically highlights what I talk about all the time. More power govs have the more the few can unjustly enrich themselves and more GINI index grows. Be careful what you ask for socialists. Extreme socialism is USSR - elites live in paradise - rest in misery and destitution.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/this-is-so-much-bigger-than-paul-manafort/566501/

To me anyone who takes taxes is a crook. Basically mafia extortion racket legalized. In fact it's opposite of democracy. One should be able to invest fruits of labor in what they see fit in real democracy. But these insiders take thievery to a whole new level.

Doesn't matter if you're left or right, there is no point in getting triggered about who the president is and will be.

You can't depend on the president to make your own goddamn life better, you have no choice but to pick yourself up most of the time.

If you think Trump is worse than Hitler, then leave the country. Do something for yourself, tho other places can have the same uneasiness and god forbid that it's not a third world country you're flying to. So far, though? He has been pretty fair on a couple of things even though he no candidates earned my vote on the 2016 election. For example, marginal tax rates are lower now, and that's good.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

To me anyone who takes taxes is a crook. Basically mafia extortion racket legalized. In fact it's opposite of democracy. One should be able to invest fruits of labor in what they see fit in real democracy. But these insiders take thievery to a whole new level.

I think this is a perfectly valid opinion. Not sure where I’d agree or disagree, so wouldn’t put my name to it. What would you replace taxes with?