Why aren't you libertarian, Sup Forums?

Why aren't you libertarian, Sup Forums?

Attached: libertarian.jpg (720x530, 70K)

>socially tolerant
but degenerate behaviour would quickly lead to death without Mommy State to clean up after you

The leprechaun is correct.

>When you use your private wealth to buy the media, schools, and local government to push Communism and Homosexual indoctrination onto your fellow human beings

Attached: orw02xc7muqx.jpg (800x800, 55K)

Libertarians are fags. They are like cuckservatives that pretend to be redpilled. They have no viable solutions just more cuckservative views that will let hordes of brown people walk all over us.
>at least I have my constitution meme

Attached: 1473521177127.jpg (1500x1500, 202K)

>quoting the ((((Libertarian Party))))
No wonder our ideology has become a meme

Attached: 1520802441942.png (300x900, 441K)

>implying that guy is libertarian

he is a faggot, so pretty close at least.

What exactly is objectionable in that list? Looks sympatico to me.

Attached: 1521156678625.jpg (512x512, 204K)

Libertarianism is workable if you have an ethnostate or like minds as the founders had. I still consider myself a liberal.

Problem is it's a VERY fragile system that relies on high trust. Once it's infiltrated it's embarrassingly easy to corrupt. We are extremely vulnerable if not viligent.

It's like the paradox of tolerance, unlimited tolerance leads to loss of tolerence, any society that has limited boundaries has to prevent anyone not like minded out or they will eventually subvert it.

People on the left believe in:
>personal freedom
>non-interventionalist foreign policy
>tolerance of other's personal choices
>civil liberties and privacy
>ending corporate welfare

Literally NONE of this believed by the modern left

Attached: ham.png (783x768, 174K)

I agree with you, but that's not how you court Leftists. You gotta at least pretend they walk the talk.

Because it undermines traditional Anglo-Saxon values that built the west into the envy of the world.

Attached: aaaaaaaaaaaa.jpg (480x360, 11K)

>be libertarian
>small govt
>dont interfere with peoples lives
>open boarders minorities and gays spreading disease
>yfw having to enforce morality

This image is bullshit, libertarians aren't centrists.

I’m not weak

Attached: 0021A420-FFE8-47AE-BB06-0C0A5DD2F0F6.jpg (750x784, 161K)

This is what recreational nukes are for.

>>open boarders minorities and gays spreading disease
Leftists are unreachable at this point, being so far away from us ideologically. On the other hand, there are millions of conservatives that are growing frustrated with their party, and with whom we already agree on good portion of governance policies

But you are stupid.

>what is a Venn diagram
It's illustrating common ground

Attached: d'anconia.jpg (500x585, 62K)

Attached: Libertarian pol.png (1200x2597, 1002K)

Meme political ideology shattered by the degenerates running the party. Look no further than their convention

this kinda brings me back to a few years ago, nice

>personal freedom
>civil liberties and privacy
to be a faggot, a tranny, a pedo, an atheist, a feminist, a queer,...

>economic freedom
>advancement based on individual ability
to not care about having children, care for your house's looks and hygene, to rage about it because you're not competent enough (like most people) and democratically win a welfare, that you'll never get rid of, by a landslide

>ending corporate welfare
>on the left side
when was this slide from again?

>giving generously to help those in need
unless you're talking about welfare again, you can't enforce that

>separation of church and state
to destroy one of the most unifying identity of people

>respect for others' property rights
about time those rights were enforced!!

these are the only good ones:
>war on drugs
>nation building
>robust national defense
>special reatment for select corporations (to protect national products from the free market)
>government regulated morality
>individual right to keep and bear arms

Libertarianism =/= Egalitarianism
Libertarianism =/= Tolerance
Libertarianism =/= Acceptance
Libertarianism =/= Anarchy
Libertarianism =/= Secularism
None of these things are Libertarian.

Pic related

Attached: Libertarianism.png (5000x7500, 1.81M)

>NAP + TANSTAAFL
No greater Truths exist.

Attached: Free_Lunch_No_Such_Thing_TANSTAAFL.jpg (600x700, 81K)

I was until I realized all political systems are basically imposing some sort of morality on others. Libertarians have this bizarre delusion that they aren't for some reason.

I've been a left leaning moderate/centrist all my life but I've started taking a liking to some right leaning views. So why should I be a Libertarian?

effective false flagging. Lew Rockwell, yes, that's how we win hearts and minds: honoring a racist prick.

Yes. You allow people the freedom to self-destruct if they so choose, because that is not a decision you have any right to take away from them. Beware the slippery slope of "for your own good" justifications as it ALWAYS succumbs to Mission Creep.

I am.

>racist prick
A proper libertarian society based on paleo-libertarian values would unironically vote to genocide niggers.

Heinlein is an excellent introduction to people interested in libertarianism and liberty-first methods of governance.

Libertarian does NOT = open borders. There is no principle of libertarianism that requires me to let you into my house or my country. Healthy boundaries are always important, personally and politically. Good fences make good neighbors.

Genocide is not liberty-friendly. You don't fool me leaf.

The core of libertarian is maximum liberty. Anything else is a false flag to discredit libertarianism. Pro tip: you can have maximum liberty within your borders, and still keep undesirables out. But once they're in, you need to win them over, not kill them.

But you're a tremendous faggot, so you ought to be posting yourself.

>socially tolerant
Kek. Maybe basic-bitch "libertarians" maybe.

Attached: 1520674935689.jpg (750x784, 44K)

Everybody gotta stop trying to control other people. The trouble always starts when someone says, "There ought to be a law!"

yes goy, we need more "freedom"

Attached: 1519829927541.jpg (3664x2812, 2.59M)

Nice communist subversion; how much are you being paid to cuckify libertarianism?

Have you heard about the Libertarian plan to take over government and make them leave you alone?

Attached: nap-non-aggression.jpg (603x527, 59K)

Imagine being 'socially left' like a cuck soy boy the jews want you to be. lol no

>government regulated morality on the right instead of the left.
>personal freedom on the left instead of the right

So NAP would oppose bans on 2D loli since there is no actual victim for the 'crime' so to speak.

How will a Libertarian government deal with militant Marxist groups intent upon seizing power through violence?

Yes. Cartoons are harmless.

Libertarianism only works with a white majority. They are the only ethnic group with the majority favoring lesser government. Also senpais give my thread some hits. It getting lonely.

I'm actually libertarian

I might look a bit more into all this Libertarian stuff. Sounds like it might fit my desire for a more centered, rational political view point.

Because you want coporations to enslave us.

Attached: BootlickersBTFO.jpg (365x363, 80K)

The devil is in the details/definitions.

Don't make me laugh

Correct: The same freedom that would never prevent or punish a picture of Mohammed just because some people find it offensive. Strict application of principles, without exception, is a must. Absolute logical consistency without regard to individual emotional response.

Because I grew and realized Francisco was right, so I became a Falangist. Time to helicopter-ride the Marxists and the gangbangers

Left libertarianism is the original libertarianism.

Corporations cannot form a monopoly without government sanction. Regulation and protectionism under the law stifle competition and create barriers to market entry. This is not Libertarian Capitalism, but Socialist Cronyism.

they fuck up every election for the republicans, that's why

Because libertarians are idiots who will doom their own societies, so fuck you go rot in hell with the commies.

How is people defined in Libertarianism?

I came to the understanding that there will always be a boot because there always has to be a boot.

I've never been a fan of laws that punish people when there isn't an actual victim involved. If someone is smoking weed in their house minding their own business while fapping to loli 2D art I see no harm being done to anyone save the person the government would punish for doing what it deems illegal.

If anything the government is violating the constitutional rights of the person in question since they're simply 'pursuing their happiness'.

wow based!

fucking based! every man for himself!
people should be expected to look out for themselves. we should do away with all chemical labels on products, seatbelts and manhole covers. people should really know better, but they don't because they're all dumb. I don't care if people die (even my countrymen) because I'm a sociopath. bye bye mommy state

Attached: 548c8c2d-1729-4269-acca-39a46597237d.jpg (960x531, 67K)

The future is Fascist, not Libertarian. Good luck with Libertarianism when half the population wants bigger government and for you to pay for it.

None of the libertarian ideals will become a reality without forcefully removing The Fed. They aren't willing to do that, which makes them walking pigs like the red team/ blue team.

There's a reason libertarianism never gets out of the dorm room. Do we really need to go into why that is?

In what context?
AI? Abortion? Immigration?

Classical Liberal as an ideology died when local societies' peer pressure to conformity fell apart. Nature abhors a vacuum and if people aren't going enforce their normalcy on one another they'll have the state do it for them.
The Liberal movement became Social Democracy intent on enforcing it's ever expanding vision of "egalitarianism", the Conservative movement died with Europe's nobility so Social Democracy was left as the last expression of state enforced societal norms with any power, the Progressive movement in the US morphed briefly into a reactionary movement to counteract the Democratic parties transformation into Social Democracy but with Goldwater's utter defeat any hopes of Liberalism in the United States died and the Progressives became simply a competing vision of government control with only some vestigial economic policy's remaining more Liberal than the Democrats.
The point being Liberalism enabled the force that would destroy it all because people prefer to enforce their ideology on others. Outside of a Pinochet type figure disenfranchising individuals I see no reason for a century's long voting pattern to change.

Context shouldn't matter because
>Strict application of principles, without exception, is a must

>wow based!
Indeed!

>fucking based! every man for himself!
Every man *is* for himself. This includes "altruistic" helping and cooperative social behavior. See: Enlightened Self-Interest

>people should be expected to look out for themselves.
You are responsible for yourself. No one else. Only you. This means you have the complete freedom to do as you wish and the complete responsibility for all consequences you endure as a result of your choices. If you are a good person, a good friend, a mutually supportive family member, you will have allies and assistance in a time of need. No one must be forced to render aid against their will. Not ever.

>we should do away with all chemical labels on products, seatbelts and manhole covers.
Do away with government mandates and regulations which force such things, yes. Any person wishing to voluntarily buy a car with a seatbelt, or any business wishing to voluntarily label products are free to do so. There is no requirement that such things be prohibited under libertarian principles. Consider the success of Consumer Reports.

1

>people should really know better, but they don't because they're all dumb.
You don't get to decide what I should or should not know or do. I don't get to decide what you should or should not know or do. Neither of us are responsible for the poor choices of, or consequences suffered by, the other, jor should we be empowered to force anyone else to bend to our preferences. Freedom means being able to make your own decisions, even if other people think they have good reason to disagree.

>I don't care if people die (even my countrymen) because I'm a sociopath.
I do care if people die. I don't desire the death of my fellow citizens or neighbors or family. However, I do respect their right to self-determination. I do not have the right to use force to compel them to behave or choose as I prefer, even if their choices lead them to cause their own death. I will advocate and educate, I will NOT use force. This is not sociopathy, this is Respect.

>bye bye mommy state
Yes, please!

2

I generally want a degree of regulation that is contrary to the economic ideals of libertarianism, as I understand it. I don't think government does a great job of regulating abuses within the marketplace, but I don't expect better results without regulation. An example of something that demonstrates my feelings is FDA-regulated Pharmaceuticals vs Dietary Supplements.

Although there are examples of Pharmaceuticals causing harm to the public in spite of FDA regulation, Dietary Supplements are a fucking cesspit of bullshit and often unlisted drugs. They're classified as food and are largely unregulated. People can take them while unaware of active ingredients (because the seller didn't list them all), and plenty of the claims they make are baseless. A lack of real oversight makes this an industry of snake oil salesmen.

I don't know if that sort of cynicism is due for other areas of the market, but it is my observation that in this case, letting the market decide everything invites ample opportunity of abuses of the public and can result in injury and death before a bad seller can be punished or have their product removed.

Regulations are also responsible for why you have tamper-proof packaging on tylenol (post-Chicago murders), and also why drugs go through years of trials before people use them. As someone who is in the biomedical science field, I think these are generally good things, which need improvement and tweaking, but not abandonment, which seems implied by libertarianism. I think libertarianism's expectations of "personal responsibility" would demand far more technical understanding of biochemistry to properly evaluate drugs than is reasonable.

>I don't have a good argument so I'll just sound smug.

To your point on labels, most libertarians are for enforcing packages to include warnings so that people can make informed decisions. Even without that businesses sell more product in the long run by not killing their customers with poison so there is even a market incentive to add them.

Your response isn't not an argument, please explain why a citizen owes another more than the share they contribute to the common use, i.e. military, police, roads. If you fail to provide your share of taxes, the argument stands that you in fact owe me who pays for it, not me owing you gibs.

Fair points desu, but consider the other side of that argument as well.

>and also why drugs go through years of trials before people use them

means that a lot of people who might benefit from a drug and are willing to take any and all risks cannot because of regulation.
You might fall on the other side of that argument still but presenting a full picture will be to your credit

>Implying the same principle is not applied differently to different things.

Are you looking for a dictionary definition of "people" or a philosophical exploration of what constitutes a "human"? You're going to need to be more specific in asking your question if you want a more specific answer.

>Le regulation is bad meme
>Implying unrelated coporations won't do shit crony shit to destroy the competition

Why do you think chronyism can only occur through a big government? Warlords are a prime example of this.

>what Sup Forums thinks libertarians are: white
>what we actually are: Jews
couldn’t’ve said it better myself than

Attached: 1509941440732.jpg (493x957, 169K)

Libertarians are just leftists who aren't fiscally retarded