What do you guys think of libertarians?
Do libertarians in your experience resort to fascism when their property is in danger like ancaps do? Or are they more honest about militia's and a bit of police and there of the small state?
What do you guys actually think of the small constitutional republic that they espouse? Will a small state survive against a communist revolution or go full fascist to protect its interest? Or will it stay small but there will be loads of libertarian militias?
right wing libertarians will flock to the fascist crowd the same way ancoms will flock to the ML crowd when shit hits the fan
*leftcom
wat
We are talking about rightist American "Don't Tred on Me" lolbertarians and not real libertarians, right? They are half-witted idealists who think that oppression is a function of der gubbermint. It has always been populist idiocy supported and funded by the same economic powers that supoort every other toothless liberal ideology.
thanks for the cute grill op
I like their social policy and foreign policy, hate everything else.
depends, do you mean right libertarian or left libertarian?
pic rel was btw a bretty srs thing with arschbürger forum, rips pärs
people here implied libertarian left and anarchilddie are synonymous terms, but ain't chomsky declared one?
now what would be the point, I mean ain't communist much scarier term and name than an analchist?
as long as they oppose the US&A/Washington system I'd support whoever can topple the wall street regime, divide and conquer following what che or dugin has said
my desire is to see the US&A nuked same way they treated Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Tricity of desolation - Washington "D.C.", Jew Jewrk and San Francisco
i am from eastern europe and I want the atlantist continent gone, see I think Ron Paul would have been idea for total isolationist state, till you'd starve and eat each other
this for all blood of those redskins killed in racial genocide
Fan of some basic liberties. The constitution could use some trimming like repealing the 19th
Fuck off, cunt.
Libertarians are just confused fascists.
It really comes down to the break where we start using l versus L.
Anyone who uses l to describe themselves as a libertarian hates fascists. Anyone who uses L to describe themselves as a Libertarian is willing to work with them.
It sounds stupid and convoluted as fuck, but it's how we differentiate the guys who are there for philosophical/moral reasons and the guys who are just there to say "fuck the government lol" and join the Libertarian Party.
...
also are you willing to work with MLs against fascists the same way the US allied with the USSR?
I don't get in any conflicts unless it realistically advances liberty.
Which pretty much makes me a pacifist that no one bothers killing since I perform an important function that no one wants to do electrical work.
Useful idiots for corporate America.
But honestly I'd work with a bunch of progressive faggots if it got a bullet lodged in the federal/state government's abdomen.
...
mfw tankies also advocate for temporary dictatorship to achieve their goals but will condemn right-libertarians for saying this may be necessary
In all honesty I like them, because I'm actually a libertarian too, but I happen to think that socialism is the best way to achieve a free society. That's the real goal, and it's one that socialists and libertarians ought to share. Free markets, planned economies, soviets, etc. whatever your preference is, they are all a means to an end, and that end is the creation of a society that maximizes personal freedom for the largest number of people possible. There are real enemies out there, people who share a different goal, one other than freedom. Islamists, fascists, traditionalists, these are the real enemies. Libertarians and socialists are both ideological children of the French Revolution and that's fine by me.
The only issue I have with them is when they see the means as more important as the ends (basically they see maintaining free markets as the goal, regardless of whether or not they actually promote freedom), but communists and other lefties do this too.
ahistorical, in many manners of the word.
call the right-wing "libertarians' propertarians to avoid all this confusion. The name suits those ahistorical fucks better anyways.
I like you. I just want to point out that a lot of us see the ethics and philosophy behind what we're doing as important E.G. the means because we try to live by what we preach. I'll share my weed with my friends all day long because I want to, and will be charitable in my personal life for my local community, but I don't want anyone telling me how to distribute my resources.
We honestly don't care in the cases that usually get thrown out there. It's like the "you're not an anarchist" argument that gets thrown at AnCaps. Okay fine, I'm not an anarchist, for all intents and purposes though, normalfags are gonna consider Christian AnCapistan to be anarchy so I don't really give a fuck about historical connotations. I'll use the term Voluntarism instead if it hurts your feelings that much.
We actually suggested that over on /liberty/ and it caused one of yah to sperge the fuck out over the use of the word "property" because… fuck I don't even remember what it was.
Use whatever words you want. Just remember that you're using different words when you come on over to shitpost. It becomes clear what you think about us when you use terms like "personal property" and "neoliberalism."
Neoliberalism is the closest we've gotten to true lolbert fan fiction world.
We just think you're dumb because you want to preserve social hierarchies but you want to claim to be an individualist. It's an oxy-moron, and this is why we say you aren't anarchist. You loose the entire heart of it. And Markets aren't better at allocating resources anyway, Sears split their company into competing divisions and the result was that the company tanked. And besides that, there's market socialism. There's no reason to be ancap if you're really interested in individualism.
The funniest part for me is that Marxist and "left-anarchist" use the definition of property John Locke came up with, while you guys use the definition that feudal land owners came up with to justify feudalism. Doesn't that show you which one of us is REALLY the individualist?
Most larger companies are barely surviving by suckling on the government teat, m8.
I'd like you to quote the "feudal land owner" that we got our definition from.
Sage because I don't really want to argue right now. Too busy being pissed off at Porchmonkey for removing /n/ from the headlines and lying through his fuckign teeth.
Use whatever words you want. Just remember that you're using different words when you come on over to shitpost. It becomes clear what you think about us when you use terms like "personal property" and "neoliberalism."
Whoever go mad over the propertarian shit is an idiot. Your political philosophy centers around the concept of property. I find it hard to believe that it was a socialist who got upset over this
The term "neoliberalism" wasn't coined by us socialists and it although we are strongly opposed to it, it is not a derogatory term.
en.wikipedia.org
Personal property is used to differentiate property used personally from private property where value is produced and the only thing that it has in connection to the capitalist is a piece of paper while the workers actually use it and labor.
Go tell your friends to propose propertarian. It avoids confusion and as you know, libertarian was as an anti-capitalist position.
Those work the mills, ought to own them.
I
They did this a long time ago. I'm sorry your market economics have failed every time they were introduced by that isn't my fault.
alternet.org
The fact that it was a big "monopoly" or whatever, says nothing about the fact that when these divisions were set up to compete with each other, the company tanked. It generally performed worse than every other centrally planned company. And this has been repeated with every previously centrally planned company(big or small) that this was tried on.
I don't have any specific one, but feudal land owners previously used "land ownership=property" as justification for feudalism. That was until like I said, Locke brought the discussion up.
It's funny the cognitive dissonance you guys go through, you LOVE John Locke but he got his theory of property ALL wrong. You LOVE Adam Smith but his theory of value was completely wrong. Is Murray Rothbard the true philosopher of individualism? Ayn Rand? Or maybe you guys just don't understand individualism. You can try and justify social hierarchies all you want but the fact that you want to preserve outs you for the neb-feudalist fanatics you are.
Well, although I'm strongly opposed to your leanings, I prefer you propertarians from /liberty/ way more over fucking Holla Forumsacks. Some of you are actually pretty friendly.
Glad we're on similar terms. I'll make sure to pass a joint or acid tab when we gotta deal with the next group of NEETSocs trying to take power.
Another example I can think of is how monopolies always appear in unregulated Capitalism. Companies that are big will merge out of mutual interest, and then they can just over produce to drive their competitors out of business. What stopped that WAS government intervention in the form of anti-trust laws that was repealed by said Neoliberals we hold so much disdain for.
This is agreed though.
I ain't gonna get into the whole monopoly and centralization of power thing right now. It's not worth the time you and I would both end up wasting trying to change no one's opinion.
We don't really want to preserve the current social hierarchy, we just hate libertines who are the main group of people trying to smash social hierarchy in our relevant social circles. Social hierarchy is an organic thing based on mutual respect, and you can have different folks on different sections of society with relatively "equal" hierarchy, but we just think of humans as naturally hierarchical beings. Some people like to lead, some people like to be lead, some people get stuck leading even though they don't want to. In an "organic" social hierarchy, you still have to show respect for your subordinates in order to have effective communication, otherwise you're doomed to failure.
inb4 spooks
Fuck.
No that's socialism. Co-ops exist and are more efficient than normal businesses with shareholders who aren't involved in the labour process. The issue with you and why you aren't an individualist, is because you want to preserve institutions of hierarchy, which is completely different than hierarchies based on mutual respect which are part of anarchist ideology. If we need a leader, we will pick one. But don't tell me because someone was born with wealth they are more of a leader than someone without.
You unironically were posting the socialist calculation problem as a sort of "SOCALIZISM DEBUNK3D XD", I don't think you're in any position to be telling anyone here about economics.
LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM MASTER LIBERTARIANISM!!!
VIVA EZLN, BIJI ROJAVA
FREE ATURAYE
ASSYRIA FOR ASSYRIANS
AREPS AND KÜRTS PLS GO :DDD
When did I mention rich families?
I never claimed that.
racial socialism is a living mistake
Then why would you be a capitalist? If someone is born in an ancap society to a family of rich landowners it is essentially the same as being in the line of a feudal lord. Something like 70-75% of the people on the "Top 40 richest people" had a lot of money to start off with white 15% had always been that rich. That is hierarchy.
It's fine if you want to be ancap, but don't delude yourself into thinking you're an individualist.
*while
...
What's raised by the first generation is almost always destroyed by the third generation.
Even in today's society it tends towards a standard deviation, at least here in the USA. Most people rise out of the fifth and fourth quintiles of wealth into the third quintile, but an equally large number of people fall out of the first and second quintiles of wealth down into the third quintile while being replaced by those from the third quintile at about equal rates.
I get that this meme is popular, but the difference between "you're fired" and "ok I'll disembowel you on a pike, peasant" is quite large. It's about as disingenuous as USSR bantz.
At the risk of going muh gubment…
Muh gubment.
Collusion with politicians. Pic related.
Aight, whatever.
I don't get how you don't see "born with 10 million dollars can invest in 15 things" is inherently in a higher position of hierarchy than "born with nothing I have one loan from the bank and if it fails I loose everything".
I recommend you read Capital!
No ones worried about lobbying because corporations could just do what they please. They could import as many people are they want from third world countries to work in sweat shops or just outsource jobs like they're already doing. I have no idea how you can wrap your head around this stop. Wealth has always concentrated at the top.
I see how it's inherently different, but the system is generally self-correcting.
The 10 million dollar brat and the 10 dollar brat see the same movie at the movie theater and sit in the same chairs eating the same popcorn.
NO!
Cause the 10 dollar brat even if he can afford to go to the movies, he won't go to the same theater as the million, who'll most likely have a private theater.
Or are you to enforce only 1 type of cinema?
Who cares about mobility between quintiles? This is basically saying that families will fluctuate between upper-middle and middle class over a few generation.
It's very unlikely that the super rich, as in, people with hundreds of millions, will fall out of the very top of the top income quintile. The feudal lords will not be the people making a few hundred thousand a year.
The 10 million dollar brat can build his home movie theatre.
Not to mention he doesn't have to be worried about not having the money to pay for health care, water, electricity and all the other essentials that would now be private.
I understand where you're coming from but when you put a price on human life all you have is commodities. You loose the humanity in it. I like to think socialist are arguing form an ethical viewpoint and not one of efficiency.
There was a time where I think an-capitalism may have worked(and that's a few hundred years ago when we first started seriously colonizing the United States) but with the advent of global capitalism it's a non-solution(imo)
Here you go friend
youtube.com
...
Because corporations corrupt the government we should get rid of the government. Makes perfect sense.
But really, do you think that if the government draws back, that a power vacuum can exist? Where the government retreats corporate power will make itself felt instead.