How can 'Libertarians' like Trump?

A lot of you faggets, a long with a few prominent faggets (Lauren Southern) seem to be ruthlessly defending Trump. Doesn't his main agenda - ie closing the borders, increasing police powers, and defending the nation state - directly in conflict with your ideology?

Sometimes you have to take a step back to take two forward my friend.

>Doesn't his main agenda - ie closing the borders, increasing police powers, and defending the nation state - directly in conflict with your ideology?
You do know that there are libertarians who believe in secure borders? Crazy, I know.

'Killing' leftists is more important than killing people we disagree about policy with.

It's called mutual benefit.

So what you're saying is that you do not understand the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist? I assume this is the case since all the functions you mentioned fall under the necessary functions of a minimalist government.

Better than Gary "Socialism is cool too" Johnson

AnCap ~= libertarian

>libertarian who believes in restricting free movement

Yeah and I'm a foxkin

Lol Trump wants militarized police. He's the law and order guy. How is that and a fifty foot border wall decreasing government?

You cunts are delusional and will say anything to defend Trump. Trump does not respect your rights. He's just as bad as the democrats, if not worse in that he believes in increasing police presence and spying on citizens.

Burgers using semantics to defend Trump. Face it, any self respecting libertarian would hate Trump for all but his stance on political correctness.

Trump wants social control. He wants increased police presence. He wants restriction of movement. He refuses questions on a partisan basis. He demands respect and lambasts 'defectors'.

You are all delusional twats

When Trumps opponents stop being so vile that Trump looks good by comparison maybe we'll stop making fun of the left.
Attacking the libtards furthers our goals much more than attacking Trump. Note how I'm not saying we support Trump.
If you want our help, then change the people at the top, start listening to us, and change your views on big government, your version of police states denying the 2nd Amendment to law abiding citizens, and providing complex, loophole filled tax structure that punishes your opponents while rewarding your allies.
Oh, and if you stopped lying so much people might start to believe you again.

It is crazy, because it's completely contradictory to basic Libertarian thought and philosophy, like being a Libertarian that's pro-universal healthcare, it's mutuàlly incompatible

Most 'Libertarians' are just dude weed Republicans.

pic related

Commies and SJWs are a bigger concern.

...

>How is that and a fifty foot border wall decreasing government?
Because he will cut all the other bullshit that government wastes time and money on so it can focus on the things that it's SUPPOSED to be doing like law and order. What's so hard to understand, idiot?

You leafs are a pedantic bunch.

NIce

...

I judge things by more freedom or less freedom

So school vouchers are better than no choice.
Getting rid of the department of education would be even better.

Fpbp

Both sides will continue to get more extreme. But the right is unified, the left is a disorganized mess and they have no one to blame but themselves

Can you remind me again what Obama's police looked like? Specifically in Boston.

>Leaf

don't libertarians know the total destruction of their society is just a laissez faire function of a free market :^)

>closing te borders
No, if you aren't a fucking idiot you would realize that preventing people from coming into your country without your approval is not an initiation of force, the same as preventing people from entering your home is not
>increasing police powers
No, if you aren't a fucking retard you would know that libertarians approve of police power as an essential function of government. That said, the degree of the power is debatable, and I would certainly prefer nearly no federal police power.
>defending the nation state
Literally the thing that distinguishes libertarians from anarcho-capitalists.

I don't like trump (50-50) and I'm libertarian, but it's much more nuanced than what you even attempt to address. You're the least intelligent and informed OP I've had the mispleasure of reading today

Most libertarians, like Lauren southern, do not really understand the ideology or where it's borders lie. They support trump out of fear or the totalitarian nature of the left. They're engaging in the lesser of two evils retarded bullshit like the rest of this shitty electorate has been doing for over a century

I want the government to protect my liberties, which includes enforcing the borders. Government is supposed to be a servant to the people.

Not enforcing borders is an attack against personal property.

Coercion is needed to fight coercion.

Strong government is needed to fight embedded organs of strong government.

A fire is needed to clear dead wood and prevent further fires.

Why dont people fucking get this?

BECAUSE ONLY CERTAIN PEOPLE HAVE LIBERTARIAN PRINCIPLES

This is why you NEED strong borders. All the people from the middle east and africa don't believe in libertarian principles.

libertarians are all for lower taxes, and given only two options, hillary or trump, trump is the one who said he would lower taxes, while hillary said she would raise them

easy

a libertarian society wouldn't be libertarian very long if you let in millions of socialistic subhumans who vote all that shit away as soon as they enter the country. libertarians have been take over by leftist cucks anyway

In a stateless society the border would be private property and protected via use of force.

The State is taking that role for now.

In a Stateless society, there would be no welfare, no voting for gibs, and no "rights" to X,Y, and Z.

Given the current state, those crossing the border are automatically coercing others via EMTALA, welfare, crime, and incarceration, and indirectly via birthright citizenship and voting.

To prevent that coercion, we need to prevent them from crossing, and then end up getting rid of the magnets.

We can't get rid of the magnets first, then deport, because those already here will vote those magnets back.

There is nothing preventing trump from decimating his agencies and nothing preventing congress from destroying the supposed entrenched officials

It's literally politics and fear or reprisal from the retarded electorate

>get rid of the clearly unconstitutional and immoral social security
>selfish old people campaign against you in force
>address medicare issue of runaway drug costs and moral hazard
>old people campaign against you
Repeat ad infinitum for all groups getting gibsmedats

Although to be fair to them the leftists and neocons would just reimplement those things so maybe were just going to be pulled down regardless

>FTAs are one sided corporatism
Audit them

>US foreign policy is too aggressive against non-aggressors against the US
Scale it back

>US immigration policy feeds into greater coercion

Stem immigration, remove the magnets, then reformulate the immigration policy

All are consistent with the end goal of greater Liberty .

White people don't even have libertarian principles clearly

The revolution was PURE luck

>have been taken over
The popular element of libertarianism has always been pseudo dude weed and blatant opposition to ANY government force

There's a lot about Trump that rustles my libertarian jimmies, but despite that he's shaping up to be the most libertarian president we've had in three decades. He's reducing regulations, lowering and simplifying taxes, dismantling Obamacare, appointing originalist judges, pushing school choice, lifting sanctions on Russia, and it's clear he has his eye on several federal agencies to flat out get rid of.

The big one for me is that his foreign policy approach isn't about regime change, nation building, or empire expansion. It's clear that while he recognizes a threat in ISIS, he has no interest in continuing to make the ME our little experiment in forced democracy. And when was the last time a president has called out Saudi Arabia?

So yeah, while I don't like his talk about tariffs, or his general closing borders stance, or his seeming willingness to continue the war on drugs, we'd be getting all that and worse with Clinton without any of the libertarianism.

1.) Vote for Clinton: Clinton Wins
2.) Vote for Johnson: Clinton Wins
3.) Vote for Green: Clinton Wins
4.) Vote for Trump: Clinton May Not Win

The choice was obvious, user.

Its a small sacrifice to make for not having the world fucking blown up.

>butthurt leaf is butthurt

I admit it seems contrarian. However, sometimes restriction of liberties is necessary to prevent massive loss of it. I have absolutely no doubt Islam will rob everyone of their rights, including women by a wide margine. Also, the influx of refugees is having a negative economical effect which will halt societies progress and will likely destroy freedoms. The media is lying and authoritarian too. We must fix the leaks before we are capable of true liberty again.

>fundamentally misunderstanding what a vote is
You've endorsed everything trump will do and are (millionths portion) responsible for it

this

trump is the first step to a constitutional uprising

Projection

When libertarians say this it's just as pathetic as when trumpfags say he's going to shoot for a white nation state

Borders have nothing to do with libertarianism and more importantly trump as an idea is deeply important for freedom, not the person himself. His election stands for the right to offend, to upset, to not be shouted down by moralizing masses. The illiberal forces stand against him and thats the libertarian reason to support him.

>idelogoy
You really can't into 64bit-3D chess, aren't you?

>nothing preventing trump from decimating his agencies
His appointees questioned the very existence of the agencies they were appointed to

>Tillerson
Exxon was running it's own private State Dept. and was steering US diplomatic policies for decades

>Mnuchin
Basically a bold admission that GS ran the ECB, US Treasury, and IMF for decades

>Carson
Never had a day of experience in administraing Public Housing in his life

>Pruitt
Laughed in the face of the EPA

>DeVos
Wanted to rip the D Ed from the ground-up

>Perry
Literally wanted to get rid of the Dept. of Energy and runs his state like an energy cartel

>Puzdner
Before dropping out, he was the most honest shitlord about Labor in the country about insourcing, outsourcing, automation, taxes, and regulation- he didn't sugarcoat anything and no friend of the DOL


>and nothing preventing congress from destroying the supposed entrenched officials

It's more difficult than that- From supposed "tea partiers" like Ryan to fucks like McCain, there was a general support for lopsided FTAs,mass immigration, and shitty proxy wars. The bureaucrats had support from Republicans for decades, and Republicans even helped usher most of this garbage in. Trump has to fight them as much as he fight Dems in Congress.

>unconstitutional and immoral social security
I'm not as skeptical on SS as when I was an ancap, but how is it unconstitutional?

>Medicare
No. No. No. The minute he touches Medicare, the coalition falters. The work now has to be on scaling back pressure on Russia, kicking out welfare leeches and preventing them from coming here, and then auditing our FTAs, tax policies and subsidies, the FED, and the EXIM bank.

> willingness to continue the war on drugs
I disagree with the WOD from both philosophical (it encroaches upon Liberty) and practical (it leads to greater cartel control and no discernible lessening of drug use) but now I realize drug charges are necessary to get violent niggers off the streets.

It's a shibboleth- if you're so maladjusted and not bright to carry them on you, then you're probably not the best person to have around. Once we get rid of that problem and the bean problem to a significant degree, then I would focus on loosening the WoD


>So yeah, while I don't like his talk about tariffs, or his general closing borders
Tell me, what good is "free" trade with a Mercantalist economy, and open borders with a welfare state?

>he's going to shoot for a white nation state


The idea is that we know he won't. We will. The idea is to grab his head and push our thumbs in his eye sockets until he and Congress capitulate.

...

Not going to lie libertarian Trump voter here. This is fucking hilarious watching Trump crash and burn. But in all seriousness we can't let this guy get the nuclear codes.

You need to go look up what libertarian means because clearly your are a dumb fucking idiot

Democracies always pull to the left, Trump is throwing a spanner into the gramscian long march plans of the left.
If he de-funds their institutions, cuts useless bureaucracy, loosens restrictions on firearms ownership, lowers taxes etc,
All of these things cause massive butthurt to the left and sets them back for years, it opens peoples eyes to the danger of leftist totalitarianism.
Trump is no where near as dangerous to us as the left.

>questioned
Nobody cares
>Exxon
Nobody cares
>lack of government experience
Nobody cares
>laughed at epa
Nobody cares
>wants to """rip up""" the ed dep
Nobody cares
>"""wants""" to get rid of the epa
Nobody cares
>no friend of
Nobody cares
>more projection that trump will do what you want him to do
Nobody cares
>how is it unconstitutional
Discrimination on the basis of age facially, and violates property rights among other issues
>the minute he touches medicare
No shit, that's why I talked about it

Absent from your assertions is any affirmative action to decrease power. Mere words aren't enough for me, and shouldnt be to anyone who isn't a cult follower

>cringey larping
Good for you
>argument

>Tell me, what good is "free" trade with a Mercantalist economy, and open borders with a welfare state?
It's no good obviously, but I operate now on the idea that a little bit of liberty is better than no liberty at all. Ideally I would love to dismantle the mercantilist state (which Trump, at least while campaigning, seemed to want also) and the welfare state, but I'm done with letting the existence of those excuse further curtailing of our liberties. If you open the borders and allow free trade, it'll provide incentive to also move away from welfare and mercantilism. Mercantilism can't survive with free trade, and welfare can't survive with open borders.

Now when I say I advocate open borders, that does not extend to letting people who want to kill us come in. I'm fine with Mexican peasants coming here for work, but Islamists coming here to cut off our heads is where I draw the line.

that's protectionist fascism you retard
libertarians want LESS government intervention

No. Libertarians believe in freedom underscored by less government. Want to own a howitzer? Cool. Want to shove your dick up a male ass at home? Cool. Freedom of people moving around. Yes. Want to be a Nazi? Ok. Want to be blm? Ok. Hate abortion? Fine. But you can't tell xyz they can't get one. They can do what they want. Freedom.

Libertarians are for separation of church and state. Against a police state. Against any type of fascism as a form of government.

Freedom.

No true libertarian likes Trump

Just hate him less than $hillary

No true Scotsman. I'm a libertarian that feels sorting out immigration to keep the illegals off of the gib me dats they're not paying for is reason enough to kick them the fuck out.

yep

also this
they're libertarian in name only, but when they mean liberty, they really mean they just don't like taxes and don't give a shit about anyone else

>cringey larping

>We will never expand the US to twice its size
>We will never reach the Pacific
>We will never have transcontinental rail
>We will never be able to have global communication
>We will never get to the moon
>We will never be able to have instantaneous global communication
....
>We will never be able to go back to the demographics we had just 30 years ago with a combination of immigration controls, deportations, removing magnets, and spurring the White birth rate

>libertarian in name only
Former ancap here.

With birthright citizenship in place, "rights" to food, shelter, water, welfare, and emergency room care, paths to citizenship, and ability to vote resources from others, some individuals, operating in groups, are by default going to violate the NAP.

They are going to use the power of the state to coerce others.

In the lack of a stateless society, we have to use the state to prevent this from happening.

Just like we need to use the state to fix problems states have created, e.g. through repeals and audits of corporatist policies.

I bet you think trading with the PRC is "free" trade.

I used to believe in open boarders, but you can't have open boarders and still have a nation. If you let anybody into your country what is stopping you from being invaded from within? It's a matter of National Defense and not a matter of libertarian ideals.

>one if these is not like the other
Yea, cringey larping

Anyone with an ounce of critical thinking knows that the mechanisms required are impossible

For example: I've tried explaining to retards like you why something like the wall is a drop in the bucket such that it's importance is misplaced. The illegals that are here have already had kids, and their kids have had kids. Shitskins have gained a critical mass.

Short of the worst genocide by several magnitudes in the history of the world, which not even a percent of the population would support right now, will turn the country back to white.

To add to this, the only real reason I'm libertarian instead of ancap is the fact that foreign states exist. Hopefully space will make ancap work eventually

>conflict with your ideology?
>ideology
pure ideologies can never work the the real world. It's why a communistic nor a libertarian utopia will never exist IRL. On the plus for libertarian purist ideology, at least it doesn't need the death of millions in order to begin. At any rate, what needs to happen, in the real world right now, is a major correction of a shift towards the right. Trump is the best man for the job that needs to be done right now.

So far everything he's done is in accordance with libertarianism. His rhetoric, personality, etc. is not very libertarian, but if he goes anti NSA he will become THE ultimate libertarian president.

You can be a nationalistic libertarian. I think borders should be completely closed and less government is good. Trump is also killing regulations which is good from a libertarian standpoint. The more government is a tad concerning but that is to be, there was no actual libertarian candidate besides maybe Rand who dropped out early, so it was the Trump train from there.

>dude but in the real world
Did you think this was actually an argument?

Fuck, it looks like op is treading on me.

worry about your maple syrup and faggot french language. cancuck

>war on drugs is libertarian
>social regulation is libertarian
fuck off Trump shill

>one if these is not like the other

>Advancing technological progress enormously
>Possible

>Reverting sociological conditions several decades
>Impossible

>Anyone with an ounce of critical thinking knows that the mechanisms required are impossible

High birthrates(issues that need a bit of prodding):
White Conservatives
Hispanics

Low birthrates (issues that solve themselves):
White Liberals
Blacks (thanks PP)
Asians

What we see is a bean problem, and the bean problem can be tackled with sealing the border, deportations, stopping the magnets, and making sure those here already "Get a certain message".
>For example: I've tried explaining to retards like you why something like the wall is a drop in the bucket such that it's importance is misplaced.

The wall is one component of what I listed.

>The illegals that are here have already had kids, and their kids have had kids. Shitskins have gained a critical mass.

No, I agree, that's an excellent point, and we have to deal with that with deportations, stopping the magnets, creating an unwelcome culture toward them, and incentivizing the White birth rate. In essence, we just have to get rid of policies already in place (AA, state welfare payouts, sanctuary cities, paths to citizenship, DACA, Hart Celler, 1990 Diversity Lottery) over installing new ones.

>Short of the worst genocide by several magnitudes in the history of the world, which not even a percent of the population would support right now, will turn the country back to white.

It's just a matter of decreasing spics' numbers and birthrates, and increasing Whites' numbers and birthrates. It would take a generation of dedicated effort to solve.
This.
>Become Ancap society
>States, groups, and actors that don't respect the NAP or individuality zerg rush you and take your resources

Most libertarians are minarchists, not ancaps. Border security is a function of the state.

>equates something with financial incentives and prestige to something with the opposite influences
Lmao, not even going to bother with the rest

Is there a group or forum with people like you? I'm travelling to America this year and I want to meet logical people to talk to

hey mate turns out that libertarianism isn't a single thing, and some libertarians believe that borders and restrictions are good in some cases while others believe that the closer you get to anarchism the better

being pro-borders/pro-laws/etc isn't against libertarianism, it's just a subset of it.

an example of a pro-borders libertarian ideology is minarchism, which calls for a state composing of the military, police and courts with the job of protecting national borders, preventing immediate violent action towards others, and enforcing mutually agreed contracts and laws respectively. at no point does it conflict with libertarianism.

No borders means no definable citizenry, which means no legitimate government

Open borders is anti libertarian because it goes against the very foundation of government, which is the absolute minimum distinction between libertarianism and anarchy

>Open borders is anti libertarian because it goes against the very foundation of government, which is the absolute minimum distinction between libertarianism and anarchy
yeah go and tell that to the left libertarians mate, they'll just scream something about anarchy being completely okay if you assume all elements of a society are composed of individual atoms sliding around on a flat infinite plane with forces interacting on them, reee get off my fucking land take this 5.56

i can't believe that the left libertarians, and in fact the left in general, have become so retarded that i've started willingly associating with bonafide "what do you mean i can't just throw commies out of a helicopter?" right wingers.

shit's fucked.

Libertarian nationalism. All the good stuff the libertarian party believes in but for Americans BEFORE everyone else.

>party
You fucked up bro

>war on drugs is libertarian
Never said that. I said I see the sense in it from one angle, and want it to be withered away.

>social regulation is libertarian
Welfare, Birthright Citizenship, EMTALA, and paths to citizenship- which would mean paths to ability to vote resources- are social regulation- modes of coercion.

I would eventually want to remove these social regulations, or modes of coercion.

Currently, it's best we restrict access to these social regulations, or modes of coercion, from those that would abuse them the most.

What is the issue?

t. Gary Johnson
Go read some Hoppe, you fucking disgrace.

...

It was literally an argument

You are equating progress in technology and increases in power with decreases in nonwhite populations

And I denied that comparison because I argued that the former grants power and money, and enforcing the latter results in less money and less power for the enforcer

You fundamentally dont understand incentives, you're a fucking retard, kill yourself

But bro we Thick Libertarianism nao

We apply the NAP to raccoons an fish n sheeit

Bake that cake

>You are equating progress in technology and increases in power with decreases in nonwhite populations

I'm saying the resources,skills, and administrative abilities that led to the former far exceed what is needed for the latter.

>argued that the former grants power and money, and enforcing the latter results in less money and less power for the enforcer

And I argued for getting the masses to act as blocking units for the enforcers. If they step back, their careers end for sure. If they step forward, their careers end possibly.

This is why the Civil Rights legislation passed- across 20 cities Blacks rioted and burned everything to the ground.
This is why much of the Fair Deal and New Deal passed- Coms, Socs, and Ans has unions by the balls, and were planning to turn them against the system.
This is why the veterans got paid after the Draft Riots- they were going to storm DC.

We can pressure the government similarly.

>You fundamentally dont understand incentives
You fundamentally dont understand history.

so which are you then?
a delusional communists or a lolitarian?

>resources required has anything to do with the ability or will to do something
Try again retard

Nobody is saying it's literally impossible, the point is that it is effectively impossible because of reasons other than cost

>implying you could intelligently defend whatever retarded, incoherent, set of beliefs you subscribe to
You did the equivalent of walking into a room where people are discussing something, telling them they're retarded, and then leaving while thinking you've won the day

Operating a government on relativism, which is the opposite of ideology, is only going to burn you when people pick apart the inconsistencies

it will always come down to some sort of relativism tho. Some sort of give and take. Otherwise you're just an ideologue who accomplishes nothing but theories that only work on paper.

>ass blasted media slanders Trump constantly
>surprised when foremost advocates of free speech battle against slander and lies

But you're arguing a different point, you're arguing what IS, not what should be

Every individual has some idea of what set of beliefs they want implemented. Trying to get as close to those ideals as possible is preferable individually

Libertarianism for instance, as libertarians claims, is joint and severable in that the closer you get to it, the better.

Unlike communism where they claim that without going all in, it's not really communism

Your argument is merely saying we'll never get to pure libertarianism, but that isn't a rebuttal to the argument that libertarianism is correct. The world is only relativist because people don't agree, not necessarily because the ideology is flawed

So coming here and saying we'll never be purely libertarian answers an assertion nobody has made

Open borders and libertarianism only works when you can actually discriminate against who can access your property. If the state coerces you to let niggers onto your property, then open borders is not free-movement, it is state sponsored trespassing.

>closing the borders, increasing police powers, and defending the nation state - directly in conflict with your ideology
No. There's nothing wrong with having a strong boarder, especially when you're neighboring country is a shithole. There's nothing wrong with having protection either, though we should spend more time worrying about ourselves rather than meddling with oil countries. I don't understand how Sup Forums fails to understand that not all libertarians are ancap caricatures. I just want some alphabet soup agencies gone and lower taxes.

Libertarians are useful idiots. They will be purged as soon as leftists are removed. Being a libertarian , if anything, is worse than being a liberal but better than being a commie.

>I don't understand
These people literally think the nap memes are 1:1 realistic

Larp in trump general nigger