Post: #51

(01-13-2017 02:27 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  Also, you can't have a free country if you don't have a country This means that libertarianism can only be applied domestically, and only to citizens of the country. This is why it is so ridiculous to see so-called "libertarians" advocating for open borders and "rights" for illegal immigrants. Even in a libertarian minimal-government system, the government's job is to establish borders and protect the citizens from invaders.

Dead on.
(Sorry to split this from the previous post, but I ran into size limits. I thought this part was so important I really wanted to give it a call out.)

Even all other issues aside, libertarianism across national borders has never been logical. It has been used mainly as a rationale for allowing corporations and very wealthy individuals to have zero loyalty to their home nation which undoubtedly played in a big role in enabling their success. This is a big division in the Republican party right now between the nationalists in the Trump wing and the old guard. The old guard will blame all trade/employment issues purely on taxes and regulation, and assume the only way to help is to have a race to the bottom on taxes with all other nations. Nationalists assume that big corporations owe something to their home country and will support the ideas of tariffs, borders, less H1B, etc.

Post: #52

(01-15-2017 12:39 PM)Swoldier Wrote:  This is the same rationale men used to justify slavery. You do realize that man, as used in that passage, refers to both men and women, right? Libertarianism contradicts "patriarchal systems" precisely because it holds Man as autonomous beings. Women may not possess these characteristics to the degree that men do, but to simply say that they do not possess these characteristics at all is absurd.

It's a false equivalence to always treat gender/sex equality with the same logic as racial equality. Those are very different things. Biologically, socially ... big difference. IMO, you can make an argument that, controlled for education/opportunity and culture, men of different race and ethnicity in aggregate ought to come out with close to the same results. Men and women on the other hand, are biologically predisposed with much different abilities, much different preferences, and different roles to which they are well-suited. While individually some women, given the opportunity, could prosper in roles more traditionally male, in aggregate women aren't going to have anything close to equal results unless you are utterly bastardizing all fairness in the system.

Post: #53

(01-16-2017 11:24 AM)Edmund Ironside Wrote:  

(01-15-2017 12:39 PM)Swoldier Wrote:  This is the same rationale men used to justify slavery. You do realize that man, as used in that passage, refers to both men and women, right? Libertarianism contradicts "patriarchal systems" precisely because it holds Man as autonomous beings. Women may not possess these characteristics to the degree that men do, but to simply say that they do not possess these characteristics at all is absurd.

It's a false equivalence to always treat gender/sex equality with the same logic as racial equality. Those are very different things. Biologically, socially ... big difference. IMO, you can make an argument that, controlled for education/opportunity and culture, men of different race and ethnicity in aggregate ought to come out with close to the same results. Men and women on the other hand, are biologically predisposed with much different abilities, much different preferences, and different roles to which they are well-suited. While individually some women, given the opportunity, could prosper in roles more traditionally male, in aggregate women aren't going to have anything close to equal results unless you are utterly bastardizing all fairness in the system.

How is that a false equivalent?

This is what Murray Rothbard, whom Jean quoted, wrote:

Quote:Man has rights because they are natural rights. They are grounded in the nature of man: the individual man's capacity for conscious choice, the necessity for him to use his mind and energy to adopt goals and values, to find out about the world, to pursue his ends in order to survive and prosper, his capacity and need to communicate and interact with other human beings and to participate in the division of labor.

Do you deny that women possess these characteristics? I don't think you do. But that's what Jean's argument is: because women do not possess these characteristics, and therefore are no different than animals who also do not possess these characteristics, they ought to be treated as property by men who do possess these characteristics. How is that any different from what slaveholders thought?

Post: #54

^I do not think that women should have zero rights and be treated as property. (However, if you gave me a binary choice between that and what we have now ... )

I was just reacting to the comparison to race, because making a false comparison between race discrimination and sex discrimination is something that liberals do a lot. Just as I said above, when you are looking at aggregate outcomes and social policy fairness, race and sex are two very different things. Each should be argued on their own merits. Drawing comparisons between the two is mainly a SJW trick to shame non-racists into supporting feminism and feminists into supporting racial policies. The assumption that if you are a sexist you are also a racist, or at least the same as, is part of their religion that should be attacked at every opportunity in my opinion.

Post: #55

So, the premise of this thread is that any man that wants to keep his own wealth to himself and doesn't want the government to incessantly fuck with him his entire life must be a huge pussy.

Well, call me a huge pussy then. You're a big manly man, aren't you?

Post: #56

Libertarianism kills leftism in young men like antibiotics kills germs and for that reason libertarianism is great and should be encouraged. The one takeaway from libertarianism is the fundamental focus on logic and rationality. This is very important, because using logic and rationality eventually leads to doing away with all leftism delusion, since leftism simply does not have a moral or rational argument.

Libertarianism would cease to exist the day it became reality and that is the irony. Day 1 after the anarchist revolution, gangs begin to form along ethnic lines and instead of bargaining as nice libertarian free traders they just take your shit. That story HAS been played out, it is called the history of human beings, we did not begin as countries or people, we began in a state of anarchy.

That's also why I was a libertarian because I understood that the stateless society would very quickly become the feminist-less and socialist-less society. I just didn't like the idea fully of the will to power, having been brought up as a moderate citizen.

Of course, it is currently in vogue for centrist-liberal men to call themselves libertarians, the Gary Johnson type.

Post: #57

^ I believe your theory hold mostly true for wayward men with no relevant family structure (single mothers) who find themselves relatively adrift in political waters.

It's a step up from leftism but not a reasonable solution to any of the problems we face in Western Civilisation today.

By focussing on restoring the nuclear family young men can skip the "libertarian phase" altogether.

Post: #58

Edit: Double post

Post: #59

(01-16-2017 06:47 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  Libertarianism would cease to exist the day it became reality and that is the irony. Day 1 after the anarchist revolution, gangs begin to form along ethnic lines and instead of bargaining as nice libertarian free traders they just take your shit. That story HAS been played out, it is called the history of human beings, we did not begin as countries or people, we began in a state of anarchy.

This.

However, I think you're confusing libertarianism with anarchy. True anarchy cannot exist, because the minute that government ceased to exist, a new group of people would fill the vacuum. It is physically impossible to have a society with no leadership, hierarchy, or rules.

Libertarianism does not mean no government (anarchy), it means small government. Some libertarians like to call themselves "minarchists."

You can be a libertarian and believe in a strong, powerful government, as long as that government doesn't infringe on the rights of its citizens. As a libertarian-leaning conservative, I want a strong government that will win wars when necessary and protect the country from invaders. I just don't want the government to meddle in the private lives of citizens the way our current government does.

Post: #60

Replying to various posts at once. Oh, I just realized, the way I did this probably messes up quoting-within-quoting. Oh well:

Leonard D Neubache: "But worse, there seems to be among them an extreme focus on decrying all obligations to society while claiming an infinite number of rights to be protected apparently by some sort of imaginary divine good will between all men." Interesting you say that, given that libertarians are often described as paranoid gun nuts who think the government is out to get them. Libertarians believe in the use of force to defend rights; they just don't trust in the goodwill of an autocrat or a democratic majority if it is allowed to monopolize the use of force.

"Civilisation is only possible through state." Maybe, but the state can be run as a for-profit rather than as a non-profit entity. Monarchy is a step in that direction, by allowing the ruling family to derive profit from the state, and treat the country as a long-term investment rather than plundering it as much as they can before vacating their leadership position when their four years is up. But that need not be the final step toward a more capitalistic system.

"If the state (minimal as it is under such a libertarian arrangement) can use it's minimal powers to strip you for example of your fatherly right to control your daughter's behaviour before she demonstrates adult capacity then she will exercise her libertarian right at age 16/18 to do as she pleases and you will set your society down the path that has led us to where we are today." In a libertarian world, a father who wanted his daughter to live a healthy, moral, and happy life under male leadership would probably marry her off in her early teens. A marriage that occurs when she's still a young virgin whose SMV is at or near its peak creates a win-win-win situation for husband, wife, and father.

Libertarianism would in some ways make it easier for fathers to control their unmarried daughters, and husbands to control their wives. Slutty women wouldn't have state-imposed child support or state-provided welfare payments to fall back on, in the absence of a husband or father paying their bills. This would give women an economic incentive to behave themselves. (Radical libertarianism holds that men have no obligation to provide for their kids; Rothbard, for instance, writes, "the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die." However, a private marriage contract could create such an obligation, enforceable through arbitration, for as long as the wife remains faithful and loyal.)

In a libertarian world, there also would be no state-funded education, so perhaps we'd see fewer girls becoming college sluts.

MOVSM: "Take for example, subsidies. An abomination for libertarians. But when American airlines that receive no subsidies have to compete against Arab airlines that do, in national interest conservatism must step in to solve the problem." In doing this, Arabs are giving consumers free money, so they're either being charitable by giving up some of their profits, or they're robbing Peter to pay Paul, by make some other sector of their economy less competitive in order to pay for that airline subsidy. Maybe they have to raise the price of the oil they sell, which prompts Americans to buy more Priuses or do more fracking to obtain cheaper energy from domestic sources. In the end, they're not getting a free lunch.

If the Arabs are thinking they can lower airline prices longer enough to drive the U.S. airlines out of business, and then jack the prices way up, that won't work too well, because new competitors can always form and enter the market, putting them right back where they started.

Kid Twist: "I jumped ship a while back because I saw Libertarianism as being a clear precursor to a one world economic system, which necessarily contradicted nation states." A global economic system does have the advantage of making war less likely, though, as nations become interdependent. For example, Japan backs down from provoking China because it doesn't want China to cut off the supply of rare earths for its electronics industry. I'm not sure it would've been possible for the great powers to have broken up their empires after World War II (producing an explosion in the number of sovereign states in the world, which nationalists should be in favor of), if they hadn't been able to continue getting resources from those countries through international free trade.

"Freedom and order must be considered at all times, realizing that most are irresponsible or not disciplined enough for extremes of 'freedom' and thus order must be instituted as a way to form society and its direction." Yeah, but who will guard the guardians? What will assure that the state's leadership, whether democratic or autocratic, doesn't suffer the same cultural decay as the rest of society? Sometimes decadence spreads even more quickly among the ruling class than among the rest of the populace.

goodburger: "Libertarianism and limited gov. are a gentleman's agreement between like minded people and when that agreement exists it's probably the most robust system out there. But when the cultural cohesion breaks down so does the system, especially when the core principles are weaponized against them." Liberty works best when the culture is good, but when the culture is bad, liberty still gives the minority an opportunity to break away from the culture and do things their own way. E.g., they can home-school their kids, or even retreat behind the walls of a traditional religious community.

John Michael Kane: "What they fail to realize is that with universal suffrage, women will ALWAYS vote en masse for massive, Big Daddy government. That automatically means that Libertarians will never be in power." A large minority of women voted for Donald Trump, even though he supported repealing Obamacare, overturning Roe v. Wade, etc.

Leonard D Neubache: "a gay couple walk down the street in matching bikini thongs": A libertarian society might be less tolerant of that than our current society, since streets would be privately owned. We usually don't see gays wearing bikini thongs at malls and other privately owned venues, because the owners would kick them out, out of deference to their other customers' wishes.

Kurgan: "Most of the libertarians I know are weirdos." Yes, weirdos have more reason to be libertarian because liberty will give them more freedom to find a niche somewhere in society where they fit in.

Rob Banks: "Now, libertarianism means gay sex orgies and "weeeeeeeed, man."" The weed issue is important because of the sheer number of otherwise law-abiding people affected by criminalization. Because of this, Republicans or Democrats could probably bring a lot of Libertarians into their fold by accommodating them on that one issue, but I guess it's too much to ask. So who's really being unreasonable in their refusal to yield to political reality?

Different T: "The argument can easily be made that it is actually a preferable globalist strategy to follow this “2 steps forward and one step back” approach (even if a “3 steps forward” would likely be immediately successful) for reasons such as plausible deniability, scape-goating, and anchoring." What if the elites want us to think that by knocking them back a step, we've played into their hands?

nomadbrah: "Libertarianism would cease to exist the day it became reality and that is the irony. Day 1 after the anarchist revolution, gangs begin to form along ethnic lines and instead of bargaining as nice libertarian free traders they just take your shit." There seems to be an assumption that without the state, gangsters would be the largest organized group of armed men. There are a lot of armed security guards out there, though, which demonstrates that firms and individuals are willing and able to invest a lot in protecting their persons and property, to make up for the inability of police to be everywhere at all times. Companies like Executive Outcomes have also had impressive outcomes in combat against warlords.

Post: #61

Quote:What if the elites want us to think that by knocking them back a step, we've played into their hands?

Sensible idea would be to look back at previous instances of "knocking them back" and then see how those instances were ultimately framed and the subsequent path since.

Post: #62

Quote:John Michael Kane: "What they fail to realize is that with universal suffrage, women will ALWAYS vote en masse for massive, Big Daddy government. That automatically means that Libertarians will never be in power." A large minority of women voted for Donald Trump, even though he supported repealing Obamacare, overturning Roe v. Wade, etc.

GOP women tend to be married, hence they don't want their husband's earnings to be taxed to serve the whims of single women. Less women are marrying now than ever, hence the desire to get more Free Stuff. Women with a college degree voted for Clinton 51-44. Non-white women with a college degree swung for Clinton an outrageous 77-18.

Some interesting reading on exit polls: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/...xit-polls/

A small minority of women who vote for lesser taxes and individual freedoms aren't going to stem the tide of their more statist sisters. Women (with few exceptions, mostly white married women) love Big Government. It gives the Goodies. It gives them meaningless make-work jobs. It prevents them from marrying a beta male that isn't all that sexy.

The only way Libertarians ever come to power is by repealing the 19th Amendment, ironically destroying one of the fundamental tenets of Libertarianism: That everyone is equal as long they don't trample on the rights of others. Throughout the history of the world, only one group of individual has shown widespread interest in Libertarianism as an ideal, or classical liberalism for a better word: White men. Baring a boost in white birth rates in developed nations, Libertarianism is headed for the dustbin of history. With few exceptions, minorities place precious little weight in individual rights. They are all about the collective. There's no white version of the NAACP, and never will be. Being interested in individual rights over collectivism only matters if you have the numbers to defend your position from a group who is hostile to your world view.

I've seen no indication that women and non-white minorities have any interest in abandoning the Big Government model. Please provide evidence that Libertarianism can make in-roads into these groups that for as long as they've been in majority-white nations, have shown an interest in government restraint? Being a Libertarian is a full-time job writing articles that nobody will read except for the Amen-choir of like-minded. The only place where Libertarianism might actually take roots would be a place like Iceland, where there's a small homogenous population of white people. Everyone is pretty much family. That will not happen in a mixed society like the United States where factions fight for more government, not less. The only question that remains is how much government goes to who through taxes and regulation.

Bottom line is, Libertarianism as a political philosophy is interesting (only as a theory), but completely unable to be implemented in reality. Conservatism lead by strong patriarchs that are invested in their families, encouraging their daughters to get married, have kids and strong sons to protect and provide are the only way forward.

Post: #63

(01-16-2017 09:09 PM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  Rob Banks: "Now, libertarianism means gay sex orgies and "weeeeeeeed, man."" The weed issue is important because of the sheer number of otherwise law-abiding people affected by criminalization. Because of this, Republicans or Democrats could probably bring a lot of Libertarians into their fold by accommodating them on that one issue, but I guess it's too much to ask. So who's really being unreasonable in their refusal to yield to political reality?

I couldn't agree more. I think drugs should be legalized and regulated like alcohol, as I have been saying in the "Drug Policy" thread. My comment was more about the attitude of some left-leaning "libertarians" who think libertarianism is all about drugs and hedonism.

Post: #64

(01-16-2017 09:09 PM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  Replying to various posts at once. Oh, I just realized, the way I did this probably messes up quoting-within-quoting. Oh well:
...

All of those points are good, but my question runs to their relevance in our current situation in Western Civilisation.

Libertarians (I know, I was one) have this awful tendency to argue principles and possibilities that are so far from being politically achievable that you might as well build a political movement based around what kind of arrangement the first Mars colony will be governed under.

What I'm saying is "great, those ideas are nice, now pick up the rope and start pulling in the direction of stable nationalist, nuclear family friendly government and when we're free of the spectre of left wing annihilation THEN let's talk about minarchism vs monarchism.

Post: #65

(01-16-2017 06:26 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  So, the premise of this thread is that any man that wants to keep his own wealth to himself and doesn't want the government to incessantly fuck with him his entire life must be a huge pussy.

Well, call me a huge pussy then. You're a big manly man, aren't you?

Quote:RE: How resurgent libertarianism sprung from a lack of masculinity.

Please read it carefully before getting emotional.

Post: #66

(01-17-2017 04:32 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(01-16-2017 06:26 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  So, the premise of this thread is that any man that wants to keep his own wealth to himself and doesn't want the government to incessantly fuck with him his entire life must be a huge pussy.

Well, call me a huge pussy then. You're a big manly man, aren't you?

Quote:RE: How resurgent libertarianism sprung from a lack of masculinity.

Please read it carefully before getting emotional.

Perhaps us libertarians just aren't intelligent enough... So please break it down into the simplest terms...

Why do you think that libertarians - the MANLIEST OF FUCKING MEN THAT HAVE EVER EXISTED - are somehow weak little bitches? I think we all deserve an answer. thanks.

Post: #67

I said in the initial post that the resurgence in libertarianism was driven by weak, disempowered men (MGTOW types) flocking to it in a desperate attempt to disengage from a society that treated them as second class citizens.

As for being "the manliest of fucking men that have ever existed", don't forget the lotion and the kleenex.

Post: #68

Leonard, I agree with you that modern libertarianism (Reason Magazine, etc.) is for pussies. It is ridiculous to be against all forms of hierarchy. The "non-aggression principle" is also ridiculous. Aggression and combat are a part of who we are. There are times when a preemptive first strike is tactically the best move. The whole open-borders thing is also ridiculous. Modern libertarians believe that the U.S. Bill of Rights should apply to everyone on Earth, not just American citizens, which is completely ridiculous. You can't have a free country if you don't have a country.

However, this doesn't mean that anyone with libertarian ideas is automatically a pussy who lacks masculinity. Lots of libertarian-minded people (although they might not describe themselves as "libertarian") believe strongly in personal responsibility, self-sufficiency, and traditionalism.

Like I said earlier, I think there is a big difference between "libertarianism" (the political philosophy) and "libertarianism" (the all-encompassing life philosophy that is worshipped like a god).

Post: #69

As I continually seem to need to specify. I said the resurgence in libertarianism was due to feminine MGTOW attitudes. I never said all libertarians are pussies, but some of them obviously have a pretty big chip on their shoulder.

What I will say and continue to say about those ultra masculine Daniel Boon wannabes is that they, like the sissy newcomers, are living in fantasy land.

They should strive for achievable wins in the general direction of their ideals rather than sitting at the far back row bitching about how the the entire world is failing to have a collective epiphany and abandon all human nature in favour of a glowing new future where all of mankind holds to the high-principles of non-aggression and voluntaryism.

Heaven forfend the Left breaks the back of the Right, mopping up the libertarians will barely rate as an afterthought.

Post: #70

(01-17-2017 09:54 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  They should strive for achievable wins in the general direction of their ideals rather than sitting at the far back row bitching about how the the entire world is failing to have a collective epiphany and abandon all human nature in favour of a glowing new future where all of mankind holds to the high-principles of non-aggression and voluntaryism.

I couldn't agree more. These types of libertarians are basically the same as leftists. Anyone who believes we can abandon human nature and end violent conflict is an idiot. That is the kind of shit dumb hippie leftists believe.

Post: #71

(01-17-2017 09:54 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  What I will say and continue to say about those ultra masculine Daniel Boon wannabes is that they, like the sissy newcomers, are living in fantasy land.

This made think of something I read recently. I was recently reading the book of "The Godfather" (having seen the movies several times, never had read the book) and in a foreward to the book, it was postulated that the Godfather represented a sort of changing of the guard of American mythology, from the western cowboy type to the gangster.

I actually found that pretty interesting when you think about the ideals of those two different worlds and maybe a transition in the type of person who succeeds in our society. (The Godfather was published in 1969, with a story that starts at the end of WW2.)

The cowboy hero is independent, self-reliant, honest, struggling alone or among a small number of people in a big natural world against other small numbers of people or nature.

The mob boss hero is connected, political, dishonest, cunning, an organization builder, not relying on physical prowess (mainly) but on dealing with people.

I like cowboys more. Cowboys would be a lot more libertarian than mob bosses. But cowboys struggle as civilization encroaches.

Quote:A long time ago came a man on a track
Walking thirty miles with a pack on his back
And he put down his load where he thought it was the best
Made a home in the wilderness
He built a cabin and a winter store
And he ploughed up the ground by the cold lake shore
And the other travellers came riding down the track
And they never went further, no, they never went back
Then came the churches then came the schools
Then came the lawyers then came the rules
Then came the trains and the trucks with their loads
And the dirty old track was the telegraph road

Then came the mines - then came the ore
Then there was the hard times then there was a war
Telegraph sang a song about the world outside
Telegraph road got so deep and so wide
[Dire Straits - Telegraph Road]

Post: #72

Your OP is a good post, and I do get the patriarchal perspective you present. But...

Why are you so concerned with labels? "Libertarian" or simply "conservative" are labels you are placing on groups of people. I'm not against labels, but labels should never define the individual.

Your principles should drive the type of people/group you associate and empathize with, not vice versa. What liberals tend to do is group up and say we like this guy or that guy and hate these people or love those people because they're with or against us. The beauty of the Right is we don't make it about identity with group(s). It's about ideas and principles.

The rise of the libertarian movement (Is it a resurgence? I didn't know it had surged before?) spoke more to the state of the two party system than it does about libertarianism. The same driving force that caused the libertarian movement is what caused Trump to be elected.

In the 80s if you were an anarchist you sided with the left. That same person now is alt-right. The person hasn't changed, the culture and political parties have. (there's a quote behind this but I can't remember it.

Don't get too caught up in labels. I do get more annoyed with libertarians who say right or left doesn't matter it's about the conversation than I do with straight up hard-line republicans. That I can agree on.

Post: #73

delete

Post: #74

(01-17-2017 10:52 AM)heavy Wrote:  ...
Your principles should drive the type of people/group you associate and empathize with, not vice versa. What liberals tend to do is group up and say we like this guy or that guy and hate these people or love those people because they're with or against us. The beauty of the Right is we don't make it about identity with group(s). It's about ideas and principles.
...

Conservatives, or Republicans, or libertarians, or whatever you cant to net them in as have been utterly tricked by this idea you've just espoused.

I walk into a conservative gathering and use the word "anti-federalisation".

Chaos ensues. While the Left is busy co-opting the Right's kids, the Right is saying "Johnny, you don't have a tribe, you have principles".

It's a beautiful notion, and one doomed to failure. The biggest trick that's been pulled on traditionalist Westerners is that identity politics is bad. It's not. Just because I identify as a patriarch of a traditional nuclear family doesn't mean that I'm planning on rounding up everyone who isn't and gassing them.

Why do you think the left mobilises so well. They are a pack of weak freaks but they beat us so often BECAUSE they use tribal politics. Why do you think they were so desperate to jump on Roosh's meetups with both feet? What was it about that concept that scared the living hell out of them, from the highest levels to the lowest?

A single principle can unite people, but add another and you will suddenly see division. Add another and there will be more division still. By the time you have a dozen principles in play your support base will become nothing but a bunch of bickering special interest groups.

The left has one principle that it holds above all others. "Win".

And until Trump played that very same game against them they were indeed winning.

Don't go back to the dark days of the Cruz's and the Romneys. "Principled losers" as I will now refer to them as. Tribe up. Fight. Win.

Post: #75

Often the biggest supporters of libertarianism are those who have never really experienced it. To live in a country where the state is very small is tough going and life is hard. In such a society there are losers and winners, and fair enough if you are a winner then your life isn't going to be difficult but if you are at the bottom and you lose then your life is going to be hard. I fully understand that a libertarian society is simply a law of nature and is simply natural, as a society where no one loses isn't what nature intends, however I am not ashamed to admit that life in a non full libertarian society is much easier.