When did Libertarianism become Marxism?

When did Libertarianism become Marxism?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=xwk78AnbZ6s
youtu.be/QsBT5EQt348
twitter.com/AnonBabble

gross

When the first post is also the best post

Just because someone calls themselves a libertarian doesn't mean they are one.

How the fuck are either of those good things?

please tell me this is fake.
please.

Any shit eating cuck who makes such disgusting posts should be forced to share his gated fucking home with rapeugees.

why are twittersphere posters such cucks. is the social reinforcement really that important?

Sometimes you gotta bite the bullet and wait til your wife is 9 to fuck her.

-Muhamad

Who is this cuck? He tweets about the alt-right a lot.

Libertarians were always globalists/Marxists

Most are just to dumb and oblivious to understand how similar they are. Their hatred for national sovereignty comes from the same vile leftist roots

why is increased welfare for refugees worth ANYTHING?

Kek

The left is so fucking dumb. Did exposing Trump make him lose too?

based Spencer

Brown people are our superiors. ask any libertarian or modern leftist

hers is genuine
i think his is tongue-in-cheek

...

Libertarianism doesn't necessitate open borders you fucking retards. The primary job of the government is to protect its people from foreign powers. If anything this means that protected borders are vital.

If you want open borders you're not a libertarian, you're just a goddamn moron

OY VEY GASSED ON THE SPOT BELIEVE IT GOYIM !!!

Libertarianism was co-opted by Marxists.

see Bill Weld endorsing Hillary before the election.

>... worth the increased risk of domestic terrorism
WHAT?

>Inviting homeless people to live in your home is worth the risk of robbery or murder.

Have fun trying to expose literal ghost. Nobody with a brain will admit out loud they are "Alt right" or any other form of it.

Still doesn't make libertarianism marxist, you dumb cunt.

>be libertarian
>believe in open borders
>migrants vote for a bigger state
>even less libertarian support

can a woman actually be a libertarian

Technically, but very unlikely

>letting terrorists do it for free is worth hundreds of people fucking dying
Jesus fucking Chriist Glasshole

No, they confuse the term with libertism

Libertarians are too autistic to understand something so basic. Also they support the destruction of society anyway, as long as they can larp about playing fallout irl

Yes women can be autistic. It's just less likely

Print it and give it to libertarians next time they gather.

Tell the child of that Polish truck driver that his dad had to die because the free movement of people is, in theory, economically adventageous.

Most people who call themselves libertarians aren't libertarians.

that doesn't even make any fucking sense

how much longer do we have to wait for dotr

>isis aren't true islam

i believe it was a joke but he got some support so he rolled with it

You should read his twitter.

He believes this stuff fully.

you sure is not a pol troll acount?

This is correct. Libertarian Americans should want the government to do 4 things:
Keep a standing military
Protect the border
Facilitate foreign trade
Arbitrate disputes between states

That's about it

>Libertarianism doesn't necessitate open borders

Of course not, neither does being a Republican necessitate being a shabbos goy, but the reality is that most are and most libertarians support immigration because the philosophy was largely influenced by Jews whose primary focus is on materialism, hence why it is an almost exclusively economics focused ideology. Many, like Ayn Rand, also had anarchist leanings which causes them to view all state power as anathema without consideration for the fact that it is an unfortunate necessity in the real world.

Like to see that spineless faggot say it to the faces of the victims families

>Most people who call themselves libertarians aren't libertarians.

Who are the real libertarians then?

The major libertarian think tanks all support open borders.

>Keep a standing military
>Protect the border
>Facilitate foreign trade
>Arbitrate disputes between states
all of that without taxes

I'm 55 yo and have always considered myself a libertarian. This year, the meaning has divided to the point that I am now a right leaning centrist (whatever the fuck that means exactly).

>I don't think Abortion is a man's issue, unless it's his kid.
> Vehemently pro-gun
>Believe you should have pride in your heritage (Every race and sub group should, if they have anything to be proud of)
>Don't believe there should be personal Fed Income tax.
> Believe in personal freedoms
>Pro drug legalization

I see immigration as a direct threat to my personal freedoms, as well as the freedom of others. I think all immigrants should be vetted thoroughly, and be put on the way to citizenship, or be sent home in a timely manner.

The term libertarian doesn't mean shit anymore.
Like alt-right, everyone jumped on the train.

Here's how you resolve it as a libertarian. Taxes are theft right? So your stolen property is going to fund people who didn't even pay into it. Now what happens to an economy when anyone is allowed to just come in and steal everyone elses property? How does that facilitate a free market? You have to get rid of taxes before you consider getting rid of borders. It's not feasible otherwise.

youtube.com/watch?v=xwk78AnbZ6s

he's a hologram.

>Kevin Glass has covered politics and policy in Washington, D.C. for eight years. A graduate of Colgate University, Kevin has served as Assistant Managing .
>Colgate University,
lol

Friedman would be considered a "real" libertarian. Open borders can hypothetically work without a welfare state. That's what I'm guessing the think tanks say
That's a very fair point. It's a very selfish ideology by and large. However, human nature is inherently selfish, so it works best. Also with the right cultural background a libertarian society can be both productive and moral

>The term libertarian doesn't mean shit anymore.

I hate to break it you, but it isn't that it lost its meaning, rather it never meant what you thought it did.

First of all, it has never been much of a political ideology as it is almost exclusively economics focused. The free market is held as so sacred that things like immigration restrictions are seen as sin.

Ayn Rand had a huge impact on the movement. Go look up how she felt about immigration restrictions. Like most Jews she was vehemently pro-open borders because she knew that if you allow for immigration restrictions people like her likely wouldn't have been allowed in (go research the composition of the CPUSA, it was dominated by Eastern European Jewish immigrants).

Once you realize that the movement was led by Jewish thinkers the opposition to nationalism, immigration restrictions (and by default support for multiculturalism), and nearly exclusive focus on materialism makes much more sense. These qualities allow for Jews to operate within western society and have much in common with the left (which was also largely shaped by Jewish thinkers). The goal is to create a society in which Jews can operate without with fear of gentile backlash.

If you want a minimalist government, but support nationalism and such you are most likely a classical liberal and not a libertarian.

All libertarians are ancap because I say so: the thread.

>without a welfare state
No it won't unless you place no value on your culture. Open borders means a bunch of chinks or rich Arabs can come in and take over so long as they have money. Are you really OK with that?

there are 5 times as many autistic men as there are autistic women.
really makes you think.

>increased welfare
>libertarianism

You're talking more trade policies than immigration there, and a lot of Libertarians don't support free trade with countries without a free market since it's obviously unfair.

>Friedman
Always count on a kike to stab you in the back if there are sheckles to be made.

>Look, for example, at the obvious, immediate, practical example of illegal Mexican immigration. Now, that Mexican immigration, over the border, is a good thing. It’s a good thing for the illegal immigrants. It’s a good thing for the United States. It’s a good thing for the citizens of the country. But, it’s only good so long as its illegal.

>That’s an interesting paradox to think about. Make it legal and it’s no good. Why? Because as long as it’s illegal the people who come in do not qualify for welfare, they don’t qualify for social security, they don’t qualify for the other myriad of benefits that we pour out from our left pocket to our right pocket. So long as they don’t qualify they migrate to jobs. They take jobs that most residents of this country are unwilling to take. They provide employers with the kind of workers that they cannot get. They’re hard workers, they’re good workers, and they are clearly better off.

No country has a free market. Show me a prominent libertarian who has opposed any of the free trade agreements our country has signed.

No, culture in a open borders country is the single most important component. And rich foreigners wouldn't "take over" anything.

Although I would say the single biggest problem with an open borders libertarian society would be the immigration of niggers and muslims.

A lot of new members to the LP, especially brought in by AP are for enforcing current border law. With a decent amount wanting the wall.

You'd be ignorant to believe there would ever be a case where legislation would be passed that would open the borders up completely. What every libertarian wants is efficiency. If something doesn't work then don't do it. You don't need 5 departments doing the same job.

>foreigners wouldn't "take over" anything

Are you saying that Jewish immigrants from the early 1900's haven't come to dominate media, entertainment, education, and the government? Are you saying that these Jews haven't had a huge hand in transforming society?

Do a little research on who the major thinkers are for the big transformative movement during the past 100 years.

I remember being subbed to Julie way back. She was when I first realized just how fucking retarded the Libertards actually are. They're just shitlibs who are 'too cool' to admit that they're shitlibs. What's weird is that she used to get grouped up with right wingers like Aurini, or Benard Chapin way back in the day.

This just in: autists can't detect sarcasem

That point was made before many of the programs and services we have now. Where you can get benefits and handouts, etc much easier in some places without being caught.

I believe when he said that it was actually true. The type of people and the benefits have greatly changed over the past 25 years.

So turning the country into Mexico and undercutting low skilled American workers is great for the country because it means a few extra sheckles in your pocket?

Are you aware of the political leanings of mestizos?

I think he's exactly correct but with a couple caveats. There certainly are positive aspects of illegal immigration, namely good cheap labor. The negatives include taking jobs from Americans, drug cartels, illegals using public services, and Mexicans being on average dumber than white Americans.

The only relevant one in a society sans welfare state would be the last point. A lower average IQ does no good for a country.

I'm tempted to believe that the Cuck meant "being run over by a jihadmobile is a fair price to pay to secure a better life for fipthy ignorant mudslime savages" because that is at least somewhat coherent.

"Increased welfare payments to refugees is worth the increased risk of terrorism" would be even further batshit tier, especially as aleppotarian

>The only relevant one in a society sans welfare state would be the last point.

Their political leanings and cultural values have no bearing? Are you proposing to deny them voting rights? How are you going to preserve your libertarian society when non-libertarians move in to work there? Your only criteria is that they support themselves. What is to stop hordes of immigrants of any skill level from coming in, accepting lower wages, and taking over?

>muh assad gassing

Reminder no evidence exists to support Assad gassing anybody, evidence does exist of terrorist rebels loading hell cannons with cannisters. If he's 20 years old and shooting at the Army than he is a terrorist, if he's 5 then Tell Glass that if she didn't want to get shelled and considered collateral damage maybe mohammad and abdul shouldn't have made her and her kid sit in the same building they're firing RPG's and machine guns out of.

Whatever happened to rational self interest? That Syrian woman is not my problem. My family, neighbors, countrymen are, in that order.

Recognizing there's a moral dilemna is an acceptable first step. The Marixsts are the ones doing the no-platforming and shouting "That's Racist!" at the 2nd one.

I'm well aware of Jewish influence in America. But I would argue that the control they have was gained has been because of an overexpansive government. The group that controls banks has a major hand in government, media, and entertainment. Once you have some major banks you can get protection from the government via favors and laws. The laws in this country have allowed for a few hands, many Jewish, to control most finances, government, media, ect.

youtu.be/QsBT5EQt348

This animated Youtube video starts very far away, from human population growth, but gets to the question of why are we helping refugees and the third world in general anyway.

I still disagree, but I now know what the position I am disagreeing with actual means and why people think that way.

Worth watching, just don't get into it prepared to hate it, you can hate later, after you've seen and understood it.
Remember, its always a good practice to read and hear opposing views, to clear your own out.

And what prevents this in a libertarian society? The united States wasn't always like this. The power and size of government at both the federal and state level was much smaller, but over time it grew despite the attempts to install safeguards.

How will your free immigration, free market society prevent creep and cultural/political change due to immigration?

I think that popular analyzers are now fully aware of the "ghost votes", after Brexit and Trump happened.
People who hold unpopular views, and when polled they won't share them, and they keep them to themselves out of shame or fear, but when it comes time to actually vote, they will cast their votes for that shadowy position.

Soon we will have new methods of polling and new analysis and statistics that account for that shame vote, for the people not admitting what way they think and vote, and we will see how big the Alt-right actually is.

I mean, if you are in University, and there is some poll asking for political affiliation, would you admit, knowing it might cost you open hostility against you or even trouble with your university career?

Exactly this.
A free, democratic libertarian society can only work as long as you have the numbers on your side. And when you have open borders, you will eventually NOT have the numbers on your side, even if your society has no welfare or gibs for migrants.

(((Julie Borowski)))

Well that's the problem with an open borders country in the world today. That's why I'm a libertarian, but not an advocate of open borders. Immigration is way easier than it ever used to be, and immigration of savages from places like Africa is way up.

Jews are a special case, their culture of economic success combined with their tribalistic practice of hiring their own, and promoting their own, led to these pockets of jewish "professions".

Fact: a jew is, on average, more likely to hold a prestigious, successful career like dentist, surgeon, lawyer, banker, etc.
Fact: a jew will likely accept another jew as his partner in business, or employee, and so on.

Jews just try much, much harder to achieve these good professions, and so they do; its a cultural thing. Also jews are genetically more intelligent than most other clusters. Twice as intelligent as some african clusters!
And they have that us-against-the-world complex, are very tribal, a defensive reaction against historical precedence, so they help other jews enter any niche that they have "conquered".

You can't apply the same standard to the muslim ethnicities, since they are all of lower intelligence genetically, and their values have nothing to do with economic success, they value family (extended family) and faith much more, and will rather have a shit job than waste time and effort advancing themselves, as long as they can keep their family fed. Also they aren't tribalistic towards their own ethnicity, they are instead tribalistic towards their religion, so they will hire a muslim of another ethnicity over a non-muslim of their own. Though of course because of the first point they will rarely be in a position to hire anyone, since they don't succeed much economically.

Libertarianism still exists, we just don't call ourselves that anymore in the US as the movement was hijacked by communists. Places like in Poland where they have KORWIN as their libertarian party are very far right groups, and yes that includes immigration.

Anyone screaming "AYN RAND/MISES/ETC WAS A JEW1!!!1! YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN ALL ALONG!1!!!1!" needs to be gassed. Going "well that's Jewish" is every bit as dishonest and asinine as when leftists go "well that's racist" as if that magically proves a point or constitutes an argument, which isn't surprising as most of the people who scream that the most vehemently every time someone mentions libertarianism or free markets are themselves left wing infiltrators who will do exactly to the alt-right what they did to the LP in America.

The actual, right wing libertarians are already breaking away from the communist horseshit in droves, and the leftists are keeping in their little corner of irrelevancy where they teeter between voting for a leppo or Jill Stein.

this triggers the statist.

forgot pic

Wasn't Ayn Rand a libertarian?

>And what prevents this in a libertarian society?
A strict constitution, preferably one that is unable to be amended. The US has been so successful for so long because its constitution maintained individual rights and Christian whites were the majority.

Consevative leaning libertarian here. Why do you faggots think open borders is a libertarian ideal? Most of us believe in very limited government EXCEPT for cases of national security and border control. Our citizens should have be free to live their lives as they please. I could care less about the comparative level of freedom of citizens of other countries. If they want to immigrate here they need to prove that they can adapt to our culture and national identity and offer something society needs. None of this is at odds with libertarian values.

>Wasn't Ayn Rand a libertarian?

Not according to her, she actually hated most libertarians. But people bunch her in with them as she spoke highly of free markets.

That shitty political compass site was made by a 'left-libertarian' that wanted to pretend it's a real thing.

...

Not sure if you have read the Constitution and compared it to the state things for the past 100+ years, but it failed to prevent the federal government from swallowing up the states.

Many libertarians cite her as inspiration. She had a big impact on the movement as it is stands today whether or not she was one herself.

>No country has a free market.
Well dramatically less of a free market. E.G. it's unfair for the US economy to do business with China since they're a commie hellhole that ironically outlaws unions and can just force people to work for pay and at rates the US can't match.
>Show me a prominent libertarian who has opposed any of the free trade agreements our country has signed.
Forget how everyone up and down the political compass was having a big shitfit about TPP?

"Libertarian" was originally an anarcho-communist term. It was appropriated by Rothbard for anarcho-capitalists the same way Marxists appropriated liberalism from classical liberals.

Well from what I've heard her say in interviews about how her objectivist utopia would operate, it really looks like how Locke describes his idea of the Night-Watch State: A police force, an Army and a judicial system.
But I might be wrong.

This is wrong

Libertarianism has open borders advocates because they're retards who think government using force is equivalent to government initiating force.

More recently it's because the moderate leftists are jumping off the sinking Marxist ship like rats.

Julie borowski is an entry level pleb

>necessary in the real world
More like: necessary in the world we have right now. It does not follow that we will always need borders, but as long as there are aggressive states and retarded hordes of shitskins, the borders are necessary to protect enclaves of freedom. It may very well be true this issue never goes away.

It should be noted that the aggressive states and retarded hordes are a creation of the state.

You mean the pro life catholics who work that came 30 years ago, or the scum that have came since our welfare programs continued to increase.

>friedman
>libertarian
Lmao

Try mises you fucking pleb

Disgusting image op

None of us are suggesting there should be no taxes - but government needs to be lean, efficient, and transparent so that every tax dollar can be watched and achieve maximum effect.

It's sort of like how the majority of christians don't actually practice christianity

All libertarians are deep down cultural marxists

Capitalists only care about profits and muh GDP.
It's equally subversive and materialistic as marxism.