LIBERTARIAN HERE. Try and debate me

So far i haven't heard any objective arguments against my position.

Lets see if one of you can change my mind.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=a2krXq8fw90
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Libertarianism doesn't take human bio diversity into account

still waiting on an argument senpai

Doesnt really feel like freedom if you cant own slaves

Why are you such a fucking faggot?

Not seeing what you want to debate so what is there to engage you on.

kek

>non aggression principle

Are you for open borders?

who will build the roads?

>YOU WEENIES ARE ANTI-FREEDOM
>TRUST ME SHITLORD I'M A LIBERTARIAN

how will you put tolls on highways?

...

>debate me
stopped reading

This is an 18+ board, by the way

The very concept of "private property" requires that other people be regarded as property.

No like seriously, at which point does the libertarians manage to claim to know the 'perfect ammount of freedom' a person should have.

Thats the whole problem. Different people, different needs/capacities. If you take away peoples hability to sell themselves into slavery, or indebtured labor, you are actually restricting the freedoms of people.

A real libertarian utopia would be full of people that would willingly sell themselves into slavery.

Claiming otherwise just proves ignorance of the human condition.

t. reddit

>try and debate me

On what?

Debate this

not an argument

Lolbertarian principles only appeal to whites living in the developed world who come from a middle to upper class background.
They are not universal, they cannot be universally applied. The ideals of liberty are an inherent tribal trait that some groups lack.

Libertarianism is the political ideology of the entry level thinker. A group of Libertarians could never form a functioning society unless it was 100% comprised entirely of educated and morally upstanding whites. Any aberrant elements cause the system to break down.
The Non Aggression Principle is probably the least realistic and coherent idea in any political view.

t. reddit

Do you think voting violates the n.a.p.

>not an argument
Not an argument.

da fuck is that supposed to mean?

Thank you Christianity.

youtube.com/watch?v=a2krXq8fw90

idk dude it's just a meme to call people redditors for no reason

You post this shit everyday and no one cares, you koala piss blanket.

Who will build the roads lmao

>roads

It means you have to go back.

back where?

oic.

faggots

t. reddit

Freedom is the lack of coercion. If you sell yourself there will be coercion. Your freedom is only limited by the freedom of others. Libertarianism is not full anarchism, there should be basic laws and rights and a government with limited power.

But women are property because they aren't people.

>be a lib
>own an island
>there is an endemic species living only in that island and not exist in anywhere on the planet
>that species are extremely valueable in an upcoming scientific research
>govt. wants to get/buy samples of it
>lib gaylord wants to exterminate all of them coz it's his property

1) If govt. intervenes and saves the species it's an act against the freedom of this lib. since everything on that island is his legal property

2) If govt. doesn't intervene and let the species go extinct than it means any random monopoly owner lib can decide the future of whole humanity since there isn't any population of that animal living elsewhere on the world

Checkm8.

This is an auto-rekt argument; not even our university president defended against this. I'm sorry =(

>tfw it's just an Australian shitposting because the "try" in "try to debate me" is that they're not going to respond to anything
>tfw 1 post by this ID

Tolls, they already exist and work well.

When are you finally cut-off the "dead weight" know as anarcho capitalism?

What does that even mean?

>So far i haven't heard any objective arguments against my position.

Ok here we go:

>Libertarian society
>All good because made up of libtertarian leaning people - i.e. white Anglo-Saxon/Celtic types
>Open borders because 'libertarianism'
>Your local community is overrun by fundamentalist, child raping, woman abusing, infidel beheading Muslims because of open borders
>Libertarian society ends
>Muslim society replaces it

Checkmate.

>1 post by this ID
>28 mins ago

great debate Sup Forums

>inb4 Straya just posts some upside down pictures and leaves

All political ideologues which involve universal political proscriptions are gay as fuck. Not every one wants their society and it's ethical order arranged around the interests of merchants and speculators. To my mind men of value find those interests reductive and base. Blood, beauty, power are all pursuits I find much more noble. YMMV.

As well, there is no such thing as 'freedom'. There is only ability and force. A king may use the abilities of his position to guarantee that I am free of a certain degree of antagonism by others, but it is only his ability to wield force which does this, the same with any state no matter how minimal. At the extreme of your ideals, ancapistan, there dwells a reduction to the absurd of your frivolous idealism which believes that a world can be held together peaceably by an idealism of mutual interest, like a house of cards. Absurd as this is, it is part and parcel of your own bankrupt ideology, based on it is on lovely and empty enlightenment idealisms.

Tldr, your enlightenment idealism is gay and unsatisfying, liberalism is base, low, hollow and appeals to the most reductive, lowest types of men, and freedom is nothing. There is only force.

Probably because nobody cares. Go debate someone on a forum or something.

It does, it says "let the less biologically fit die off through natural selection."

not an argument

1 post by this ID

How about we just kill everyone who isn't in agreement with our "empty enlightmenment idealisms"

kek

straya cunt

not an argument

>expecting a bunch of autistic children on a Taiwanese hat knitting forum to have arguments

Neither is that

fucking nice.

>Try debate me
>No topic

Here I give you an argument.
Your political standpoint is both superficial and artificial since you can't be bothered to give an example of your political view applied to a current/common topic, thus evading the discussion in the first place since you are also subconciously very insecure over said political standpoint.
You choose to just proclaim "I win" when you ran from the fight from the start.

Later this day you will have problems to find rest, since your own actions displayed your own shortcomings much better than any actual political discussion.

>mfw Straya is really trying to get people to argue in favor of Slavery

2 weeks ago this would have been called CTR bait

Is this a new meme or something, this same thing is posted every twelve hours?

Pollution

If it had any merit, it would have developed from a tribal society.

Libertarianism is apathy as a ideology.

>shitposting an entire ideology into irrelvancy

I swear do Australians see all the images as upside down or something what made them this way? Do they see them right side up but they're lying everything is upside down?

batman

not an argument

Libertardianism: The retarded notion that leftists will leave you alone if you don't physically remove them.

Not true, Libertarian Nationalism is a thing

Like Pinochet right?

>wanting me to debate with a leftist cuck
Pic related, it's (You).

I voted libertarian. They won ballot access in my district for the next four years. I figured I would shove one more right wing gun loving mostly white party, down the throats of the the local libfags. Praise be to kek.

Despite being bait, this thread is the perfect example why Trump won.

not an argument

What, exactly, are you hoping to accomplish with this? You expect to be taken seriously like this?

The sooner you learn to NEVER take Straya seriously is the sooner you learn exactly why threads like this make so much sense.

For one of us to debate you it would be necessary to provide for us what school of libertarianism you fall under- Johnson libertarianism is not the same as minarchism or the libertarianism of Ron Paul. But, for the purposes of having you not lambast this as "not an argument":

If you believe that the individual is somehow superior to the state, how is a society, or any self-governing collective to determine the boundary between the rights of the individual and the duties that individual owes as a citizen of that collective. In this manner government becomes necessary, does it not? And, by extension, would government not need certain powers which eclipse those which a libertarian would give it for the purposes of arbitrating cooperation between non-government corporations or agencies?

classical liberalism > libertarianism

utilitarianism > idealism in the real world

The lolbertarian philosophy is middle ground, everybody wins. Problem is, when everybody wins, nobody wins. Everybody meets in the middle and fuck that.

Why would I sacrifice half of what I stand for to make other people happy.

not an argument

I thought american libertarianism was classical liberalism since the left and democrats stole the term liberal.