Literally what the fuck do Libertarians believe in?
Spare me the "LIBERTY DUHHHHH" bullshit and get to the substance of it.
They sound like retards trying to separate themselves from the lot by spouting retarded slogans with absolutely no practical basis.
"YEAHHH LIBERTY MANNNN XD XD"
dude weed lmao
Libertarian party: hipster democrats
Libertarian Policy: pretty much anything that doesn't violate the NAP (albeit not much)
Basically Alex Jones
> Good people with good intentions
> However they do not mention race/IQ, the larger problems with immigration and that integration can never work in reality
> Also believes in a system that should treat everyone equally
I will not be treated the same as a woman, a nigger or some shitskin atheist.
Proud nationalist, christian and white man.
I don't know a single Libertarian IRL that is over 20,so I dunno.
>trumpkins gettin nervous
how come trump can't get an american woman?
>muh dancing fat man
that picture is ancap
They're just useful idiots of the capitalist classes.
>yes goy free murkit is AMAZING if we offshore jobs and bring in H1-Bs we will make lots of shekels and it will all trickle down, goy! if you lose your job and starve at least you will die free :)
Same thing as the (old) republican party.
Aren't Libertarians supposed to believe in a meritocracy and therefore treating everyone equally shouldn't be part of the equation?
NAP is good baseline.
Johnson Gary
> Anti-gun
> Pro-abortion
> Pro TPP trade agreement
Literally biggest cuck within the movement.
Government will always fuck up in some way, I want it influencing me and my family in as little way as both possible and still safe. Anarchy fags are obviously way too far, and their views are basically strawman libertarianism.
this x100
I can not iterate enough how with any fringe group, even here, people want to be labeled a NatSoc or a Libertarian, but don't follow the principles
Nowadays libertarianism is for liberals who want a little more economic freedom
Trump is a liberal.
Well I do not know that much about their ideology, but I only see myself equal to another man if he does the same kind of work as me.
If I am not working and being lazy, I am not worthy of being equally treated as a man that works hard for his family and raising a family.
You get it?
That individualism is infinitely better than collectivism.
>media desperate to elect increasingly unpopular hillary
>tries to promote Libertarian Party as a legitimate alternative in attempt to siphon votes away from trump
>the convention will be the greatest attempt in modern history to explain a little-known political philosophy
>get naked on stage instead
DISCLAIMER: THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE LIBERTARIANISM MEANS, I'M NOT SAYING I PARTICULARLY WANT THIS OR THINK THIS IDEOLOGY IS SUPERIOR TO OTHERS
Libertarians believe that the only thing the state should do is:
>defend the country
>enforce the NAP
>protect property rights
Everything else that happens in society are voluntary transactions between citizens. Any of the current issues will be solved by the free market. For example immigration: there would be open borders sure, but there would be no welfare state which obviously would deter a lot of immigrants. Furthermore communities could simply choose to not have any migrants living among them, since every piece of land would be private property, so migrants couldn't possibly settle in a town without trespassing. There wouldn't be any forced association.
Whenever a problem arises, the free market would fix it. So when it comes to homosexuality: people could choose to not interact with gays, shops could choose to not sell anything to gays, thus discouraging homosexual behavior. Now if a shop doesn't care about sexuality as much, they could simply swoop in and easily conquer this demographic and make a lot of profit, eventually out-competing the aforementioned discriminating store. People would have to outweigh the pros and cons and decide for themselves what they value the most: the economically 'correct' decision, or the (from their PoV) morally 'correct' decision. The end result is obviously extreme balkanization because communities would organize themselves according the mutual norms and values — anyone who diverges is unwelcome and since you need food, water, shelter, you better conform to the norm or migrate to another community that better corresponds to what you want.
/// Pretty much this for people who does not want to read entire thread.
Im sick of libertarians, they would open up the borders flood us with muslims and do nothing to protect western civilisation.
>siphon votes away from trump
>split is nearly 50/50
1.50 has been deposited into your account.
SWEDEN NO
Stop think with your teeth old chap
By protecting the rights of the people you protect Western civilisation since the people are the civilisation.
Enjoy your erosion of liberties bra
>implying pure open borders will save your civilization from barbarians
You used to be cool, dad.
Every person owns himself, and so it is immoral to act as if you own someone else.
>pure open borders
Land which is in use will be owned by the people using it.
The issue is what right you have to stop immigrants coming to and using land which isn't in use.
I don't mind that very much
tomwoods.com
Now delete thread leaf
Not treating people equally is the problem we have with today's progressives
They lower the bar for people they deem inferior which just leads to squalor as they have no reason to compete and better themselves
If you're fascist then you're not smart enough to realize that you're useful idiot
You'll end up dying like SA that helped Hitler to get his power
Open borders are only an issue with welfarism in place
>anti-gun
Source on his anti-gun policies?
an-cap is the natural conclusion of Libertarian principles. As soon as you concede that government = bad you are already splitting hairs over how much government is appropriate and what roles it should fulfill.
We already live in a society that for the most part was minimal government oversight except for hardcore commies. The button-issues are always over where it needs to step in or step out and you would have the exact same arguments if the Libertarians had their way.
About the only issue you can get Lolbertarians to universally agree on is DUDE WEED LMAO.
>This was so offensive to me I believe it violated the NAP.
>t. libertarian at 2016 conference
Same shit, different autistic package.
>Mexican Intellectuals
...
Anti gun vp.
Bill weld is openly antigun and a neocon and Gary is mostly a snake at worst and trying to steal the Bernie vote by pandering at best
We believe that the governments only role is preserving life, liberty and property and it should not interfere with peaceful interactions between people.
Agreeing that government is bad is agreeing on something.
They also agree on free trade, less regulation, lower taxes, and guns
immigrants were imported here in the 50's when welfare was barely a thing.
Mad your savior got cheated out of a fair fight, Bernout?
nice proxy shill
Funsies aside?
The Libertarian Party of America is a fucking joke with utterly incompetant leadership. Americans talk about wanting a third party all the time, but seem to never look into history or what other countries do. Successful third parties almost always start regionally, try to split a vote between the two major parties, and then try and form a coilition with a bigger party to allow them to pass a budget and do government. Libertarian party, and for that matter green party supporters don't seem to understand this at all and seem to think if you just generate enough outrage their parties will go from carrying 0 states to holding the presidency. They're a strategically inept party and it baffles me that people put up with them.
In terms of libertarian philosophy in general, generally I see them as people that got to the first page of Wealth Of Nations, saw the bit about how great free markets were, and called it a day without reading the rest of the book.
I work with the telecom industry, the telecom industry is a monopoly/oglioopy in vertually every country, and in many cases regulations actually improve competitiveness, lower prices, and increase service. Here in leafland, people on an equivalent saskatchewan phone plan to mine save about $400 a year, and the reason why is saskatchewan is the only province in Canada with a crown carrier which has provided so much competition for our telecoms its drastically lowered prices, giving the telecom value well beyond its ability to actually make money, as it's making things cheaper for consumers AND business and keeping more money in the hands of Canadian investment.
That being said, they seem to have more of a clue than ancaps, who seem to be delusional about what happens when you don't have a state. Somebody gathers a lot of power, conquers you, and forces you to be part of a state. Libertarians were right all along about how the feds low interest rates and high public spending would help the rich.
Welfare was a thing though
Also the current libertarian party are "Libertarians", in some ways trump leans more libertarian than the actual libertarian party which is kind of rediculous.
What kind of libertarians are for mandatory vaccinations? Wtf? They just aren't ideologically consistant.
>dude private roads lmao
Libertarianism is softcore ancap.
>guns
Nope, ask Gary Johnson and leftist Libertarians that feel owning weapons is implicitly violating the NAP.
>free trade
They would view voluntary trade unions as acceptable bargaining leverage even if it becomes inflated and cripples an economy.
>less regulation, lower taxes
Everyone wants less regulations and lower taxes already, except for like 10% of the population who are full blow communists.
Libertarians by their very nature are self-defeated because people by and large have heard mentality and want to be lead. Libertarian politicians will not wish to sow the seeds of their own loss of power just like republicans so they will surreptitiously work to create problems that Libertarian policy can "solve" to keep their ilk relevant and actually increase government and spending. Libertarians like all other politicians will only pay lip-service to their values and government will keep growing because the founding fathers forgot to create political incentives for smaller government.
>defend a duopolist political system
>then bitch about working for an oligarchic industry
Leaf pls
>Libertarians
>against guns
DO THEY NOT GET THE CONCEPT OF PICKING ONLY FUCKING ONE?
Pretty informative, thanks. We don't really have a libertarian movement in the UK. Closest we have is the Greens but they only seem to be similar in terms of ineptness, not doctrine.
From where I'm sitting, there seems to be a legitimate form of libertarian ism (murray rothbard etc.) but there is a movement in the U.S. of people who are smart enough to see that the two party system is ineffective but not quite smart enough to see that simply dialing it back to the constitution isn't quite enough.
Seems like a bunch of people who would be happy with corporatism but don't have access to the relevant reading materials or need rhetoric and gusto to make political decisions.
That said though, the U.S. is a failed Jewish experiment with no culture so it's not surprising nothing intellectually worthwhile really comes out of there. I find it funny that Thomas Sowell is probably the most prestigious intellectual in America and he's both a nigger and largely ignored by the MSM.
Political ideologies always get diluted and hi-jacked and Liberts and ancaps in particular rely on ideological purity not innate in human nature to succeed.
Its a damp squib.
I don't know any libertarian candidate that has a policy against gun ownership except keeping them from the mentally unstable and "terrorists", but they don't want to use the terrorist watch list to determine if they are terrorists.
UKIP are pretty libertarian lad
They seem more alligned with corporatism desu but I might be wrong.
Libertarians are implicitly corporatists because they deluded enough to think that without regulation business will play nice and monopolies will NEVER form because, like, monopoly is an exclusive symptom of government tyranny maaaaan. Pass the bong.
I think there's a growing support for socially moderate/liberal but firmly rightwing parties and politicians.
Social authoritarianism is as unpopular as ever, and the failings of economic centrism are becoming more and more clear by the moment.
Like others ITT noted however, Libertarian parties are losing out by attempting to appeal to lefties on a social basis.
Libertarians have a ton of history on Sup Forums, and it also became a massive leddit meme. "Ron Paul Sup Forums" as a greeting to open up threads became a meme to make fun of fanatical ron paul supporters, he was basically the Trump of his time, although his supporters were even more fanatical but part of a smaller cult. Ron Paul later started the Doom Paul meme.
The 2008 crash really popularized libertarianism, along with their criticism of the federal reserve. The Libertarian movement really took hold when the US government literally plucked thousands of dollars, with an s, from every household with TARP bailouts. Then the fed increased interest rates, and as it turned out the poor couldn't take advantage of them because the rate decreases didn't trickle down to credit cards and banks were too risk adverse. Most of the money trickled to institutional investors and people with mortgages, increasing wealth inequality. However, central banks even now seeing this is happenings don't want to take their foot off the gas even if they aren't corrupt, because the problems from 2008 were never really solved, and increasing interest rates could make a ton of people default and start another recession.
The high interest rates, of course, are used to sustained low taxes and high rates of social spending. Both parties seem completely ok with the privitizing the gains/socilizing the losses model of the banks.
So libertarian movement, while existing longer than something like OWS, really spiked in popularity because of right-wing anger at the establishment. They turned into the tea party, infamously bankrolled by the koch brothers, with Ted Scruz being a fairly big figurehead in this movement, and are widely perceived as the driving force behind the US government shutdown. However the libertarians never REALLY went mainstream or took over the establishment, and the anti-establishment vote is going to Trump this election.
>not understanding that monopolies come and go naturally in a free market
Get a load of this marxist
Er, I mean "The high debt, of course, is used to sustain low taxes and high rates of social spending".
We don't say businesses will play nice.
We say they'll be UNABLE to maintain monopoly level prices, even if they wanted to.
You're having a bad time tonight
>government is a Marxist invention
Based Keynes
>an-cap is the natural conclusion of Libertarian principles
no it isn't. Government being bad means we must reduce it's size, not go full blown ancap and destroy it.
I'm a Mexican atheist living in America fucking white chicks in college. Thing is, my demographic is only increasing. And there's literally nothing you can do about it. Still hate Muslims tho.
But he's right you memespouting retard
>Questioning quads like a faggot.
Pic related. It's Ayn Rand, the jewess who invented modern libertarianism.
For those who can't read books, the basic tenet is: Fuck society, that's useless. Wealth is the only measure of merit, and determining factor of everything.
Neoliberals, libertarians and randroids are all pretty much the same jewish brood.
>I'm a person doing things and you can't stop me. Still hate Muslims though.
This is what I read, through my Libertarian glasses.
Thanks for correcting the record lol
PJW roasts him.
youtube.com
The NAP meme kills me.
This is anarchy not libertarianism.
In essence Libertarians believe that the goal of a government is to maximise individual autonomy. How to do that is up for debate which is why you have different strands of libertaianism but most agree with the premise that a government should be large enough to be useful but small enough as not to encroach on liberty's NOT THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO GOVERNMENT AT ALL. Some advocate a "nightwatchman" state.
There is confusion between Ancaps and Libertarians due to some similarity's from notions of freedom to colour schemes but they are different.
Gary Johnson isn't smart enough to know if Global Warming is man made, he said it himself.
Libertarians don't realize that capitalism is what destroyed the west.
Socialists don't realize that socialism destroyed the east.
Let's all go back to dank Mercantilism, it has literally the best track record.
...Unless you count Fascism and nazism, but both were used for short periods of time.
This. The LP just wanted to bring more people into the fold so they embraced the NAP knowing it would attract AnCaps to the party. That only didvides them even more seeing as there is one side arguing for no govt at all and the others want govt but without deficits and debt. Then there's those that simply want to reduce the scale of government, whom are the bedrock of the libertarian party.
What a spineless faggot. He's only gone full SJW now because he wants to take Bernie votes.
Anarcho-capitalism with a police force and military.
The most succesful libertarian societies have never gone ancap. But they have been minarchist in economical/governmental things and rightwing/traditionalist as fuck on social issues.
E.g. british empire during its heyday.
Don't forget Rome, in the golden ages of both the Republic and the Empire, economic freedom was remarkably high, and the role of government was limited to the military, emergency services, courts, and infrastructure.
not why they came. the came because rich people wanted them, same would happen with libercuckism.
Minimal federal government.
Radical libertarians believe in the non-aggression principle, usually spelled out as the initiation of force against another's person or property is inherently wrong. They use this one axiom as the yardstick against which all political policy and indeed all human interaction is judged.
Within the Libertarian Party there is a divide between these radicals, who are more interested in using political campaigns as a means to bring people over to their conception of libertarianism, and "moderates" or "pragmatists" who are more interested in attaining political power to effect some amount of libertarian policy changes.
There are people in the Libertarian Party who join it on the basis of its platform like one would any other party and don't realize they're signing up for a belief system. There are people that have certain exceptions, like people that believe that it's valid for a state to have a border and exclude people for immigration, there is debate about abortion, and there is a fundamental disagreement about whether the state is a legitimate institution at all. There are minarchists who believe some amount of a state is necessary to referee violations against the non-aggression principle and there are true anarchists who believe it's no one's personal responsibility to support or participate in such an institution, including by taxes.
It's a system in which individual freedoms are protected by the state, and the best way to do that is to limit the government's ability to impose on those freedoms.
The bill of rights is a good example of libertarian legislation.
less government controlling shit they shouldnt be in the first place
>Mercantilism
>The best track record
Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc, are religions about an almighty God who has no human needs; this is indicative of a culture who needs laws, because their social order is lacking, such as a mercantile society. Feudalism, by contrast, had a lot of natural social order, not very much need of a "law"; their gods similarly existed with human appetites.
Mercantilism is for impoverished countries. Legalistic attitudes are for people without social order (diverse groups). Mercantilism is what formed the modern state.
Feudalism worked for thousands of years before this.