So why do some of you hate Libertarians...

So why do some of you hate Libertarians? Whats wrong with having The government stay the fuck out of your personal life and having them stay the fuck out of the free market? Enlighten me.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=HmfQmkad_2Y
youtube.com/watch?v=Tb8cErokGFs
youtube.com/watch?v=Q_toYr_Hcdo
youtube.com/watch?v=VgbFBlPOemE
twitter.com/AnonBabble

I wouldn't mind libertarianism catching on more in the republican party, but the libertarian party is a joke that helps Hillary, and I've got no love for Open-Borders Johnson.

OPEN FUCKING BORDERS

You can't build a libertarian society by importing people who are not and will never be libertarian.

Guys, Im talking about just the principles of Libertarianism, im not talking about the fucking party, yes its a huge joke, im aware.

toss out the open borders and I'd be alright with it

although it seems a lot of libertarians are just dude weed lmao

It's great. Bring us back to the role government played in the 1870s. Stay the fuck out of my life, monopolies are a false devil, welfare is theft, pollution is perhaps a violation of property rights and might need to be taxed, but over all leave me alone. Also people are kinder to each other when there is no government safety net. You reap what you sow.

Yes I agree open borders are an atrocious idea that would kill this country further. But I dont think most people who identify as Libertarian hold that view, if they do than my mistake. The ones I have spoken too oppose that leftist bullshit.

And problems like monopolies can be solved with a healthy free market, plus when government gives alot of power to a corporation that usually creates a monopoly.

...

Libertarianism is just as Jewish as Marxism.

Thanks for the input.

Enlighten me.

Open borders are consistent with libertarian principles.

The people are today not responsible enough to handle unmitigated freedoms. There's also the clause in the Constitution about "Promote the General Welfare" part which could mean that things that people may want to do, like own a tactical nuke, or get diagnosed with HIV and not have to inform people, aren't promoting the general welfare of the nation.

I see true Libertarianism as selfish and cold hearted towards people's common humanity. They only care about the individual rather than the group. They are automatically anti-populist and anti-nationalism with a nasty penchant of promoting open border policies.

...

I'm starting to see it that way too.
Both were started by Jews as was Neoconservatism.

Ramzpaul summed it up pretty well.
Libertarianism has become fucking clown town.
Come to the alt right.
youtube.com/watch?v=HmfQmkad_2Y

Give me a 100% white country and Im on board

I believe in personal freedoms as long as they dont infringe on other people freedoms or hurt them, So having HIV is obviously something you should tell people because that would infringe on their safety. And they can want to own a nuke as much as they want, will they? fuck no.

I would consider myself libertarian. However, I am for strong boarder control.

This ones actually kinda funny

Free market is a meme. When you trade with a economically hostile power, you are working against the interests of your nation, especially when they are trying to undermine your currency and your manufacturing. Not to mention that by trading freely with a power that is NOT free, you are tacitly supporting that regime, so in effect your "free market" helps steal the liberty of those citizens suffering under that regime - while undermining the liberty of your own country.

Free market, in a world where everyone is a perfect conscientious actor with no ulterior motives, would maybe work. But we don't live in such a world, and that's not a bad thing, but simply reality. Protectionism is not evil, it's good sense, and it must be adapted to fit an economy's needs. Sometimes you need a lot, sometimes you only need a little. Protectionism should be seen as a tool of the market, not an enemy.

autistic teenagers that are as annoying as bernouts

>"Sir this is olive garden"
Every time

open borders
muh roads
no health care or research spending

but libertarians are way better than neocons

ideally yes, but pragmatically no
this is one of the few places the government should be in charge of considering the current situation

Such feels from this response. Either people are compassionate and don't need government, or people are "greedy, callous, and self-interested" and should not be holding government positions. Which is it?

because it doesnt work. grow up

I do agree that Protectionism is necessary

Long story short libertarianism is just another word for feudalism or oligarchy. All the resources inevitably concentrate in a small handful of families who are defacto kings and everyone else is their slave.

How the fuck does this even make sense

Libertarian = NAP. Those imported people can't do shit bc there is no government or welfare system to cradle them

That is defined as paleo-libertarian, kind of like Rand Paul.

the hidden and not so hidden globalists within

> The gubment should stay out of our personal lives.
> The gubmemt should define marriage for us.

Fucking lolbertarian movement

Do you think its better for the state to control those interests? In that case everyone will be equally miserable.

This is the most retarded shit I've ever heard. Competition will prevent any of that from happening. Your public schooling has indoctrinated you well

...

Because they're unpragmatic and autistic ideologues jerking off to unrealistic fantasies of a government free world. It's no surprise that their movement did gain traction from a boring novel essentially about self-importance

> The gubmemt should define marriage for us.

Libertarian != Republican. Idk how you shills come up with your arguments

>> The gubmemt should define marriage for us.
wat

>Because they're unpragmatic and autistic ideologues

Gary Johnson IS pragmatic and gaining media attention. Try harder, two-party shill

The weak fear competition and seek solace in a big government. This is true whether you're a fascist right wing or a fascist left wing.

The strong have the most to gain from a fair, equal, free market.

Nice meme bro. How can the de facto kings sustain their wealth if everyone is poor? People need to have enough money to buy their products/services. Worst comes to worse, we're back to subsistence farming which is the universal standard of human life.

So at least experiment with it, see how it goes - see what needs to be done in order to make people get prepeared, maybe that will happen on the go.

Can't be pussy-ass boi and use the same system forever, already two candidates failed so much and America is voting for Trump...

>Those imported people can't do shit bc there is no government or welfare system to cradle them

Right, because no one who is employed could possibly espouse statism, I mean our current situation just magically appeared out of the ether.

You seem to think this is an issue of personal situations but I'm telling you it's cultural. Savages don't just walk out of shitholes, get jobs mowing the grass, and suddenly become diehard capitalists.

So, you agree it's retarded to boo Austin Peterson for not wanting people to be able to sell heroin to 12 year olds? Or allowing the legally blind to get a license?

Personally, I'm against drug legalization for recreational use and I have never supported gay marriage. People have never had these kinds of freedoms in the past when the citizenry was more homogeneous and less crime ridden. I highly doubt you want to see the results of modern America left to it's own devices.

>Which is it?
There's a balance to everything. Libertarians just go to the extreme most of the time. I said nothing about anyone not holding a government position but I did say I don't believe a greedy mindset only concerned with self preservation is good for the nation as a whole. I can't have a President that says Fuck everybody else, it's about me alone.

It said a lot about the Republican establishment crowd at the debate booed Trump when he said he didn't want people dying the street because they can't afford health insurance.

The same could be said in reverse. The government is de facto the strongest player in the field, of which libertarians are jealous because it is government that controls the market. Perhaps we already have a free market, libertarians are simply dissatisfied with the result because they are not the ones in total control of it. They believe they should be rewarded for strength they do not possess.

>So at least experiment with it, see how it goes
I feel that way much more strongly with Trump. Free trade and interventionism isn't working so let's go the populist and nationalist route.
Trump is outside of the two party system but he's simply on the ticket. The GOPe hates what he will do and that's a good thing.

Yes the legally blind shit would infringe on the safety of other drivers so yes its retarded. And as far as drugs go, obviously dont sell them to minors but im not against the majority becoming legal for adults. some that generally just make everything about a person worse would stay illegal but weed? come on

Well ultimately the government passes certain laws that limit and hurt the market.

Before the expanse of Obama care and medicare/medicaid, Minnesota had $60/ month health insurance plans that covered most major incidences. When 95% of people somehow afford a monthly cellular data plan, they can afford this kind of private health insurance. People won't die in the streets. They never have, they never will in America, even with no welfare.

>So why do some of you hate Libertarians?

This completely depends on how you define libertarian. It's not some set-in-stone ideology, there are right and left libertarians just as the democrats and republicans don't represent strict ideologies.

The left libertarians are nutjobs who hug the marxist spectrum and push "progressive" ideas. Right libertarians can go from "dude WEED" to "smaller gubmit", although all libertarians tend to be a little "dude weed". The inherent problem with libertarianism today is that it's not helping us at all. Politicians will sometimes listen to libertarians and take a couple ideas they already liked then use buzzwords like free market, efficiency, fairness or some other bullshit. Meanwhile we continue to have a welfare state punishing successful people and subsidizing idiots who breed like rabbits. The 2 opposing ideas create the perfect storm to fuck over a nation and destroy it. Then you have the so-called right wing dipshits pushing anarchy. They'll always tell you it's the best or most moral system and put it in some unrealistic scenario where it works. Of course, some question why anarchy is considered left wing if it's all about freedom, and there are left wing anarchists too. The answer is that anarchy in it's destruction of institutions gives marxists the perfect opportunity to install their system. The right wing anarchists promote an idea that can't work, any society that lacks leadership and self-preservation instincts just gets taken over by another.

So while I don't hate libertarians, the ideology promoted is either as foolish as marxism or gets co-opted when convenient to push self-destructive policies like no borders.

>some that generally just make everything about a person worse
It's ruins that person, their productivity and ability to make a living, drugs affect personal relationships with family and friends, and affects one's health. There are only three aspects of a person's life that can affect their well being: health, finances, and relationships. Drugs affect all three to some extent or another.

I'm on the fence about weed. Cigarettes are just as unhealthy and they're legal so I can see leaving the issue up to the states and allowing states to determine whether or not it's legal. The feds should have no more say.

>They never have,
Homeless people die every night and day on the streets of LA, DC, and NY among other cities in America. Trump was talking about those at the very bottom of the pile, the ones the average Joe tends to forget about.

I agree with you, drugs like meth should continue to be illegal, but I dont see weed as a very detrimental drug. And yes states should ultimately decide whats legal at what age.

>implying that there will be any competition in the absence of a strong central government
>implying that the oligarchs won't just divide things up among themselves when there is no one to keep them in check

Look, your magical competition fairy is just a figment of your imagination. You think that just because you yourself are naive and completely honest, everyone else is too. Sadly, it's a jungle out there, kid. That's why we put together a central government to protect us in the first place

>Yes the legally blind shit would infringe on the safety of other drivers so yes its retarded.

In a libertarian society the cost of insurance for a visually-impaired driver would be prohibitively expensive, as would be the legal liability following a crash. It's not necessary for the state to deny a license to this group, market forces would quickly achieve the same result without the implied threat of force present when the government is involved.

so your telling me you dont buy into competition between companies?

Interesting how these are the most democratic and welfare burdened cities in America.

We don't.

True libertarianism is absolutely based.

In fact as a contract is not limited by ideology it can be unbounded; even the most ludicrous nationalism is compatible with libertarianism that could make Hitler and Evola wet themselves in fear.

Libertarians are retards who can't in2economics
Federalism is literally the perfect setup but will never exist, just like libertarians will never be a thing

There is no open borders in libertarianism.

>Free Market somehow makes Trade Embargoes not a thing
Kill yourself

...

>There is no open borders in libertarianism.

Border controls are a state-imposed restriction on the free movement of goods, people, and labor.

...

...

...

...

Ultimately, politics are downstream of culture. As the culture degenerates, so will the politic outlook of the day. As much as many in the libertarian movement detest right wing evangelicals and Christians as a whole, the moral system of Christianity has been the backbone of western society for centuries. When people believe they must be decent, moral people to adhere to their faith, they're more likely to do so than the irreligious. First you allow gay marriage, then it will be polygamist marriage, and sooner or later, pederast marriages because "we're not hurting anybody".

Almost all major cities are leftist and democrat run in America. Liberals and minorities flock to the safe huddle of the city and the resources of the government. More self reliant people and those with the enough resources, live in the rural and suburban areas of towns. There are still plenty of poor people in the woods that are on welfare. Go to West Virginia or Arkansas or East Tennessee. White people in poverty are on govenment assistance too.

>gaining media attention
>10%
K..KEEP ME POSTED

youtube.com/watch?v=Tb8cErokGFs

youtube.com/watch?v=Q_toYr_Hcdo

youtube.com/watch?v=VgbFBlPOemE

You want two football teams to play a game without referees, and for them to judge the game themselves based on who is willing to sink to cheap shots first. You are asking for anarchy or another dark ages, is what you are doing.

Without a strong authority, things fall apart.

I'll say it again; there are no open borders in libertarianism.

You cannot simply walk onto peoples property/ covenants without permissions, how open those permissions are is up to the contract but the idea that "open borders" exist in a contractual society is nonsence, "borders" are statist nonsense and are generally piss poor at stopping any human filth from crossing.

>The same could be said in reverse. The government is de facto the strongest player in the field,
By force and aggression.

>of which libertarians are jealous because it is government that controls the market.
No jealousy and unlike ancaps libertarians accept that the government will control the market. There's few other mechanisms that ensure an equal and fair playing field.

>Perhaps we already have a free market, libertarians are simply dissatisfied
With big bank bailouts? With cuts to big business tax but not small business? When the left side progressively adds more government programs that require more finances?

But I digress, this isn't even close to the real evidence that this is not a free market.

Affirmative action isn't just tolerated by western governments, it's promoted when it should be penalised for the practice that it is: redistribution of opportunities in the name of equality of outcome instead of fair competition for equal opportunities. It's the practice of ensuring a white man needs much higher standards (if at all) than a woman of colour to achieve the same position, and it's only used against the younger generations, of whom 88% actively disagree with affirmative action (MTV 2014).

That's even at the best of situations, in reality if a position is marked as a diversity hire and no candidate is both strong enough and meets the current definition of diversity, no one is hired and the role is filled "internally." Because we all know there'll be hell to pay from the hag who decided it was a diversity hire if a white man finds his ways to a pathway leading to success.

And this is a free market? This is democratic? This incentivises strength? This somehow discredits strength?

No, this is socialism rotting capitalism from the insides and it's single handedly the most important issue facing the west.

>They believe they should be rewarded for strength they do not possess.
Indeed?

Keep the fear, your cowardice of me is all I have.

The vast majority of libertarians are for less border controls as they believe it infringes on the free market. What they fail to admit is that unwelcome people are considered invaders and should be removed.

>there are no open borders in libertarianism... SYKE! There totally are

...

heheheheheheheheheheheheh

...

He is. Turn on your television. He only needs 15% to to get into general debates.

You two-party shills are the worst

Lol, who would want to sell you a nuke? That's suicide for the person manufacturing and selling them. Also assuming we just end up at some extreme hypothetical with no road leading there in the first place.

>All libertarians are ancaps

Keep attacking that straw man

...

Not an argument. I've clearly shown how this is not the case, by locking your door every night in your nigger infested shithole you simply affirm my position.

>You cannot simply walk onto peoples property/ covenants without permissions, how open those permissions are is up to the contract but the idea that "open borders" exist in a contractual society is nonsence, "borders" are statist nonsense and are generally piss poor at stopping any human filth from crossing.

Semantics aside, libertarianism = more brown filth in my and your country. I know you don't give a shit about that but over here we liked it better when it was whiter.

(Speaking of, I have family from all corners of the British Isles so I'd appreciate it if you didn't cuck up my ancestral homelands with your diversity and tolerance bullshit.)

>that first video

>libertarians are so fucking devoid of human compassion that they have to provide staged examples of it in pictures to even convince themselves of it.

AnCaps and Lolberts are used interchangably by the founders of AnCap who stole the term libertarian from lefties.
A proper distinction is anarchists and minarchists. But minarchists would simply be lolberts who don't take their ideology to its full conclusions.

>, but pragmatically no
Even pragmatically, do you want the best laborers in our markets or do you want to protectionism to drive down demand for goods and services that laborers need and we still don't have the best labor force.

You act like the government and police will disappear. Peoples safety will still be protected.

>who stole the term libertarian from lefties

You do know that lefties stole the term liberal first, right?

>But minarchists would simply be lolberts who don't take their ideology to its full conclusions.

Minarchists don't follow the NAP, so try harder

> Semantics aside, libertarianism = more brown filth in my and your country.

I don't see how that's the case, at the absolute worst you'll get more brown hordes in half the country, all you have to do then is wait until they collapse and justify some roman republic style "defensive war".

>people think libertarian is the same thing as an-cap
Every time.
It's like you people don't even realize that america was originally a libertarian nation

Let's look at it this way

The candidates for president and vp for the Libertarian Party think that gun control is a necessity or "needs a conversation".

Statism in "freedom's" clothing.

nice, appreciated.

Firstly, libertarian isn't an-cap
Secondly what is it with germans and hating on freedom? Every time there's a libertarian or ancap thread a german is spamming. I think I finnaly understand why you all always seem to pick the leader who take away all your rights and fuck you over as much as possible

...

...

>I don't see how that's the case, at the absolute worst you'll get more brown hordes in half the country, all you have to do then is wait until they collapse and justify some roman republic style "defensive war".

Problem is that the brown hordes can vote.

And as fun as the latter might be a society with stable security at the national level is preferable to one that requires collapse followed by violent wars every few years just to purge the filth who we immediately let back in.

He can't provide a good argument without contradicting himself, so he resorts straw-mans and ad hominem