Watch me destroy Libertarianism in a single post

Watch me destroy Libertarianism in a single post.

Are guns bad or are the people using them bad?
Are governments bad or are the (( people ))) running them bad?

*Mic drop*

M A D M A N

KEK nice argument

Goverment should have no oversight over gun ownership, nothing stops a goverment from going bad except the people and all the weapons in civilian hands gives you reason for deadly force should a minority try to force itself upon the majority.

how will they ever recover?

Well it's a good job Adolf had support of the people then.

Can someone with an audience shill this please? We need to put this autistic manchild ideology to bed and get on to real solutions.

>Are guns bad or are the people using them bad?
>Are governments bad or are the (( people ))) running them bad?
Government based on force will always be morally wrong. While guns do really depend on the acting of individuals.

So is this arguing for or against libertarianism? I get the impression it is against but it makes a ood argument for.
Libertarianism is small government. If governments can be filled with bad people wouldnt you want to limit their power by keeping them small?

>Government based on force will always be morally wrong
Can you prove this? Or do you just feel it? It's impossible to have any society of agreed standards which is not based on force. Even your ancap utopia would be based on force.

Wouldn't you want to limit the power of potential criminals and terrorists by legalising only the least lethal weapons? Enjoy your flintlock pistols and butter knives.

Watch This Guy ANNIHILATE Libertarians With This One Simple Trick!

Governments are bad.

The second amendment is not about protecting yourself from other citizens so that is a false equivalency.

*mic drop*
/thread

>Guns are bad.

I don't think this is an apt comparison. A government is an institution and a gun is an object.

All gummint are based on force, hence all gummint bad. Now you are starting to understand our Founding Fathers. “That gummint which governs least governs best.”

>self defense is not about self defense
Damn, you got me. Check mate.

I didn't say that, you fucking degenerate.

no you're fucking retarded, government in its current state is morally wrong as it's taxing for the purpose of wealth redistribution without consent. If you can't see how that morally wrong you need to larping and kill yourself.

Checkmate Atheists!

Evolution - Has Science Gone Too Far?

Governments are just a tool, to be wielded for good of evil. No different than a gun.

or*

you are dumb. Are you a kike? You just make stuff up and put words in other peoples mouths. False equivalencies and strawmen is all you have. I bet you cant even define "libertarianism" without looking it up

>is rape bad or are the people raping bad?
>Checkmate atheists!

>government in its current state
Where did I say that I approve of government in its current state? No, precisely it is run by ((( bad ))) people.

>literally call them out in the first post
>get called a k**e
lol

Nice, so we're just stripping the definition of 'tool' to suit your argument.
I don't know how I'll ever recover
Retard.

No worse than what pic related did to the global view of nationalism and national socialism, faggot.

>is sex bad or is sex without consent bad
Fixed for you

OK WTF
This is Sup Forums
We all know the jews control everything
They control everything via corruption
Any and all governments can and will be corrupted by the jews
Therefore, the only system that can not be corrupted and controlled by the jews is
NO SYSTEM AT ALL

Never said hitler was bad, just wish the next one allows his people unregulated arms ownership.

>definition: tool
>a thing used to help perform a job
A gun is a tool used to kill people. That can be done in self defense or to murder, steal etc.
A government is a tool used to keep order in society. That can be done for the good of all its citizens or to exploit the many for the few.

Go ahead goyim
Make yourself a nice government
I'm sure your dream fascist Christian ethno state will be completely free of jewish corruption

>the free market leads to healthy outcomes like single parenting, pornography and drug addiction
Most people are like animals and they do not deserve freedom. A child isn't given absolute freedom because it would probably end up dead pretty quickly. The masses cannot be given absolute freedom until they have proven themselves responsible enough. Nothing in the current state of society says that people are responsible enough for their freedom. Otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess.

Except that, unlike the gun, the government is -
always - the initiation of violence.

*Respectfully puts mic back in its stand - because not a degenerate and understands the necessity for the respect of other peoples property *.

It was most likely temporary and it's important to remember that there were still many traitors in their midst. If the peace had continued, I have no doubt that right would have been restored.

The line between what can be considered aggression or not is too blurry to make it the absolute definition of good or ill in a society. The non-aggression principle is asinine and those memeball threads prove that quite well.

Can speech be aggression? What about threats? Do you have to wait until the knife is in your chest before you are allowed to defend yourself? Right now, a softer form of aggression which would not be considered a violation of NAP is poisoning our people.

Every day, every single animal on this earth is initiating violence against other living things. It must to survive. How cowardly and unnatural to defy such an obvious and apparent truth.

"too blurry" Only because you need make it that way to fit your bias.

"Aggression" is too vague, you are obfuscating.

I specified "violence".

"Knife in chest"

DUH...

And how exactly is this (((softer))) form of aggression able to enacted upon "our people"?

Ape not kill Ape...

Man not animal...

You not smart...

Ok, so at which point between someone holding a knife and stabbing are you allowed to intervene? What if a group surrounds your house?

I was actually a libertarian for most of my life and I know all of the arguments. In reality if you are honest with yourself, you will find that the definitions are entirely subjective and unsubstantiated.

...

>implying apes don't kill other groups of apes literally ALL the time for resources or reproduction
Uh, you should read about chimpanzees

>implying humans without governments haven't always done the same

Wow, it's like you don't even live on this planet.

>Are guns bad or are the people using them bad?
Guns are bad for good people in the hands of bad people. Guns are bad for bad people in the hands of good people.
>Are governments bad or are the (( people ))) running them bad?
The people running the governments are bad and have therefore made the governments bad for good people. If good people were to rule, then the goverment would be bad for bad people.

What exactly are you trying to say?

I think you pretty much summed it up. What isn't to understand?

tldr:
>Guns are bad for those who get them used against them (ie everyone from criminals and tyrants to saints and innocents)
>Governments are bad for those who get it used against them (ie the people)

>What isn't to understand?
How in the world is this an arguement against libertairianism?

"stupid question number 1"

Well...given that holding the knife is the first step before stabbing someone... ... ............duh.

"stoopid question numer 2"

Are they invited?

I also was a libertarian - for about 3 weeks before I realized that it was a contradiction. You cannot advocate for the NAP and then argue for even a small government.


They dont need to be substantiated (I assume your speaking of the NAP and its lack of historical precedent.) to be correct.

Slavery pre -1850, was wrong, because it is immoral -which is to say that it violates the concept of individual rights.- not because it was up to that point, "unsubstantiated".

>the people using them bad
>the (( people ))) running them
you literally answered your own questions.

It's a level 1 argument user, you see much better arguments all the time on this site. Why spend your time arguing with a libertarian anyways, if you have the stoop to that level of stupidity and explain that you can do bad things and good things with guns and government you have already lost. That's self explanatory to anyone with half a brain, why not make arguments that matter and arguments that are smart. That argument takes all of 5 seconds from conception to understanding with very little effort. Weak

The people using them are bad
The people running them are bad

Great, thanks for reaffirming my classical liberal beliefs! I need guns to protect myself from bad people and government needs to be restricted so bad people can't be tyrants!

>Implying that I was implying any of that.

Wow, its like you cant read between lines.

A gun is an object in which you shoot and in which you can defend yourself. A government is a body of people that force other people to do what they want.

A gun may be used to force someone to do something but a government always forces people do thing otherwise it doesn't exist.

Literally the 2nd amendment is not about self defense per se. Look up why sawed off guns are illegal, and you'll find out exactly what the amendment does.

This IS a smart argument because Libertarians are always crying about muh gun rights and it turns their own logic back against themselves.

Yeah, I don't read chimp. Try making a coherent post next time.

Good people need guns to defend themselves against bad people with guns.

Good people need government to themselves against bad people with government.

w
o
w

>smart
You're being ironic right? A smart argument isn't so easily dispelled. It's at least somewhat convincing to the untrained eye. There is a false equivalence between a government and a gun you see. A government always uses forces upon its host while a gun uses force at the will of the user. I pity you.

A gun requires a person to pull the trigger. A government requires a person to set the laws and enforce them. What the fuck is so hard for you brainlets to understand?

That might be the most leftist thing I've ever read. Don't protect me from myself. If freedom means anything at all it means the freedom to fail.

"dont read chimp"

Sorry. I thought I could more easily convey the concept of human rights if I spoke in what I presumed was your native language.

Should have tried dindu.

You're an idiot. All you did was prove you can ask questions, which is not an argument. Heres a (You)

>you can do bad things and good things with guns and government
Amazing how untrue this is. Thing is, you can hurt people with guns and you can hurt people with government.

The illusion that any of the two can be used for "good" stems from the belief that it would do "good" for the "good guys" if they were used to hurt the "bad guys". Who decides who these "good guys" are? who decides who these "bad guys" are? Right now, the jews obviously. But that might change. What makes you think that someone else would ever do a "better job" at discerning what good and bad is?

Wow. It's almost like libertarians WANT less government FOR that SAME reason

>who decides
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. The vast majority of the time it's blatantly obvious who the good guys and the bad guys are.

Yeah, you heard it here first. Parenting is left wing. Mom! No I won't tidy my bedroom!! WHAT ARE YOU, A STATIST?

>Reductio ad absurdum
Nanny stating adults as if they are children is absolutely a leftist thing to do. You were advocating protecting people from themselves.

>Otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess.
Another complete falsehood. We would never be in this mess if the people who rule didn't use the government to force their idea of good and bad on us.

> The vast majority of the time it's blatantly obvious who the good guys and the bad guys are.
Yes it is. Those who want to force onto others their idea of good and bad, through for example the state or other compulsion, are bad.

Look around you. Modern society is fucked. The vast majority of these people do not deserve their freedom to be abhorrent degenerates. They are destroying the future for all of our children. That is not their right.

I'm perplexed that the true brainlet can't tell the vast difference between the way in which a government exist and a gun exist. I can use someones money I stole and I can use your wife. Does that make me bad for cucking you?

>Let's make unnecessary rules that won't apply to the people who would actually follow the law to save the retards that won't any way.
Your approach is extremely leftist. It's reminiscent of how a democrat controlled city is run.

You define good/evil as the imposition of force. I've demonstrated that the imposition of force is natural and in fact core to nature. My view of good/evil is what is natural vs what is unnatural (And you will see that pretty much everything here claimed as "degenerate" is that which goes against the natural order).

How can you define that your interpretation of morality is objective? You can't. At the very least, mine is rooted in reality and what already "is". Yours is a fabrication of mental gymnastics which you are trying to impose on the world.

I lol'd. Gonna take a break for some fika, keep the thread alive will you?

sorry cant go just yet
>How can you define that your interpretation of morality is objective?
My definition of morality is literally that it is entirely subjektive, and that you therefore shouldnt push it onto others by force.

Modern society is fucked cause the government has control over your freedom of association and the (((MSM))) spreads degeneracy.

If you had freedom of association you could reject degenerates from your private property.

You do not currently have freedom of association as you are forced to make cakes for faggots or pay hundreds of thousands in court fees even if ur not found guilty.

>Your approach is extremely leftist
Not an argument. That just means you define the left/right divide purely in terms of "force" which it demonstrably is not.

You have to go back.

I wasn't arguing, only pointing out that the logic that you are using is why places like Baltimore suck ass.
I'm not sure what the answer is, but it's not using the government to suppress anything.

We are arguing that everyone should have guns to defend themselves.

We also argue that no one should have ultimate government power as not everyone has ultimate government power. By definition, government power is reserved to few people.

This is seriously a leftist SJW tier argument. I am disheartened to see this kind of stupidity in our right wing allies.

That's a tautology. How can you know?

You wish for enforcement of morality, something which has led to our current society (you could literally just as well be a communist), i want us to not enforce morality. You know your opinion on morality? would be nice if you could live by it. But you can't, cuse ur in a society where another morality is forced on you. Wouldn't it be nice if you were free to live life however you wanted with likeminded people? but nope you can't, cuse someone who thinks exactly like this:
>, mine is rooted in reality and what already "is"
has decided that everyone needs to follow his specific idea of morality

You maybe don't realize it, but you are just like the jews- except youre not in power

Has there ever been a form of government that was mostly hands off? A sort of "you do you" type policy where force was only used to ensure that it's citizens didn't trample on each other's rights?

>using the government to suppress degeneracy and destructive influences couldn't possibly have a good outcome
Yeah, that's why the USA became a paradise after the civil rights era abolished anti miscegination laws

*its

Yes, violence is natural to animals.

Man is not merely an animal. We are something more.

If you wish to reduce mans morality to the level of mere animals (only the strong survive.) then dont complain when someone stronger than you invariably comes along and takes your woman, child, property -life.

Hence the concept of individual rights. Which still isnt understood.

You have to go back.

Christ, stop begging, beta. It never ceases to amaze me how autistic you faggots are. Just because you are a Libertarian/Democrat/Republican doesn't mean you get to stop thinking for yourself and just tow the party line. Stop trying to trick people into thinking libertarianism is another "party" people have to just fall in lock step with. It's not. There are degrees with gun ownership. There should be no oversight beyond a background check that merely makes sure you're not a violent criminal. That's it.

The spread of degeneracy isn't because of a hands on approach of the government. They ALLOW it.

Do you think that was more due to the lifting of suppression, or due to the type of suppression being lifted?
For instance, if it were irish instead of blacks that were suddenly made equal under the law.

Conservatism is the best vehicle for libertarian anarchism.

>something more
Yeah, the exact same logic that leads "men" to chop their dicks off. There is nothing wrong with being what you are.

Not really because their argument is that big govt power corrupts anyhow. Which is wrong, it's totally us fellas who've invented corruption singlehandedly.

>rape
>being okay in any context
>actually implying people who aren't anti-government are pro-rape
Are you okay? Do you have brain damage?

>my people have been getting kicked out of just about everywhere for the last few thousand years
>It's totally not our fault though
If everywhere you go smells like shit, check your shoes.

The type of suppression being lifted. Not all freedoms are equal, some lead to destruction. Is it freedom to allow an addict to drink himself to death, or freedom to allow some whore to fuck hundreds of men, spreading STDs, to die childless and alone in a house of cats? Some forms of ((( "freedom" ))) are shitty.

Not always. For America, we need to work within the system unless the government strikes first. Use the establishment against itself. You might want to take a few notes from Trump.

Hi I will anser ur question
Guns are not bad
Governments are bad
Nobody ever said the answer had to be the same for both
U r retarded

Eye am intreegued.

Remember that Armed State Enforcers are the people who will force you to give up your rights. The women, non whites and freaks will vote to have your rights (free speech, gun rights, search and seizure rights, etc.) taken away but the Armed State Enforcers, most of whom are white males will be the ones coming to murder you for resisting. DO NOT WASTE YOUR ENERGY ON THE FREAKS, WOMEN OR NON WHITES BEFORE YOU DEAL WITH THE STATE ENFORCES. Compared to the State Enforcers, the rest of the crowd is a bunch of LARPers. The SE's are not LARPing. They will kill you for simply wanting to keep your neighborhood white. Pick your targets wisely and remember who really has the ability to use force.

>Is it freedom to allow an addict to drink himself to death
arguably yes. One way to think about freedom is self-determination. If the drunk is determined to die and the state prevents it, they are asserting ownership of him (in so far as when you own something you are free to destroy it .)
>or freedom to allow some whore to fuck hundreds of men, spreading STDs
This is in no one's best interest. Something should be done here.
It has always surprised me that we don't have laws against knowingly spreading disease.

Pretty clever.