Post: #51

Fyre Festival dishing out libertarian reality.

Post: #52

I used to date a girl who'd go to Libertarian conventions to troll them.

She'd wait until the meet-and-greet portion, and once people started forming themselves into little circles, she'd infiltrate her way into one of the circles, and at an opportune moment ask "But what about the roads?"

Her goal was to get the entire convention discussing methods for funding private roads without onerous toll booths, as quickly as possible, without them realizing what she'd done.

That's why people say that Libertarians are autistic. They're playing a game of world building, not politics; I take no issue with this if you're playing Dungeons and Dragons, or writing scifi, but be honest about what you're doing.

No offence towards those who consider themselves Libertarian; I used to, as well. What broke me off, and had me seriously questioning things, was the other Libertarians I met IRL. The sort of men who frequent this board tend to be winners first, and Libertarians second; they agree with the principles, but they aren't about to start hassling a cop who pulls them over in some sort of unconstitutional check stop. The bulk of practising Libertarians are more the sort described in Metokur's video, "Am I Being Detained?"

My recent post "Libertarianism is an Effect, Not a Cause" is also relevant here.

Quote:This presents us with a dilemma. On the one hand, government is the problem. Socialism preys upon broken people by incentivizing their bad behaviour,thus producing more broken people to serve. At the same time, government is necessary; when your society is full of broken people, only a monopoly of force can keep their negative behaviour in check. In the ideal, realized world of Libertarianism, the negative fallout from exploitative businesses and broken individuals would be minimal, and swiftly corrected, but in the interim we’re left with questions of practicality and realistic policy – and when it comes to Libertarian proposals, which ones are going to be adopted first?

Consider the Libertarian stance on drugs: that whatever their negative effects might be, they’re not so great an evil as the state-run apparatus which interdicts them. On this question, many will agree; the War on Drugs has been an abysmal failure. But outside of political conjecture, is drug legalization a high priority? Is it a sensible policy to introduce when heroin overdoses have quadrupled since the turn of the century? Will legalizing drugs move us closer to, or further away from, the free society that Libertarians hope to achieve?

Post: #53

You are making me want to end conversations, and not just ones with Libertarians, by saying, "Am I being detained?"

Post: #54

(04-28-2017 03:40 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  You are making me want to end conversations, and not just ones with Libertarians, by saying, "Am I being detained?"

I'm using that on my girlfriend next time she starts asking me about which one of the dozens of possibilities that might avail themselves over the next several years is the best one to choose.

Post: #55

There's nothing wrong with wanting a small government that doesn't start wars, having a pointless war on drugs and in hundreds of other ways violating their citizens' rights. But you don't have to label yourself a libertarian to believe that.

Hardcore libertarians are gammas for the most part - they simply have no understanding of human nature and instead believe the justness of their principles to be able to sustain a society without noticing the current playing field and all the games being played around them.

Take the free market for example - they ignore the fact that a supercartel owns 60% of the world's wealth, so how could there possibly be a free market when there's already a monopoly?

They would gain total direct control over your life in a libertarian state and if anything the globalist elite are promoting libertarianism because then they can simply rule over the serfs with tyranny enforced by their own private military which would dwarf that of any country ever seen before.

Not only that but they ignore completely the long-term effects of a society left to it's own devices. Without a state to enforce taxes the military power of a libertarian country would quickly stagnate and they'd be overrun by any foreign power. Getting people to think long-term isn't in most people's nature so although paying towards a local neighbourhood militia is likely, funding a national-level army is not.

This is without even getting into the ways border defence, healthcare, birth rates, justice and much more would decline in such a state.

Anarcho-capitalism (no state) is simply untenable. Minarchy (minimal state) however is something that is far more realistic and achieves 90% of the goals of both libertarians and conservatives.

Post: #56

(04-27-2017 05:47 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I've followed their progress loosely over the last 10 years but for obvious reasons they don't exactly livestream their day-to-day itinerary. In any case I'm not about to go and dredge up details of groups for the sake of convincing someone who claims that "Constitutionalist militiamen are not libertarians".

While Constitutionalist militiaman and libertarians have many common goals and many common enemies, there are significant differences. Most of the militia types are very religious; while libertarians have a broad spectrum of faiths, and many don't go to church at all. The first group is also obsessed with "securing the border," while most libertarians are not. Many constitutionalists believe in Creationism and have a generally negative view of science, while libertarians are generally pro-science. A lot of militia types also want to head for the hills, while libertarians often enjoy living in modern society. Many in the first group also focus on conspiracy theories and negative gossip about the establishment (i.e, Presidential sex lives), while libertarians focus on philosophy, economics, and ideas. Back in the 1990's, some of the militia men actually supported the war on drugs; while libertarians have always opposed it. Finally, the constitutionalist militiamen are more defined by what they are against; while libertarians have a better understanding of what they are for.

As a libertarian, I consider the militia types "cautious allies." Most of the time, the constitutionalists are fighting the good fight, but there are also many pitfalls there. We would certainly be better off with a government bound by the Constitution, but the differences are also significant.

I don't associate with the militia groups as much as I used to. But I will always remember when all of them were buying generators back in late 1999. They all sincerely believed that there was going to be an apocalypse when the clock struck midnight on 31 December. Was it just wishful thinking? As you may remember, nothing happened.

Quote:First give me an iron clad definition of what constitutes libertarianism including your apparent denunciation of constitutionalism and then run it by three libertarians without getting into a cat-fight.

A libertarian believes in the non-aggression principle. A person should not initiate force or fraud in relationships and interactions. The government shouldn't either.

Post: #57

(04-28-2017 04:56 PM)Valentine Wrote:  There's nothing wrong with wanting a small government that doesn't start wars, having a pointless war on drugs and in hundreds of other ways violating their citizens' rights. But you don't have to label yourself a libertarian to believe that.

You don't.

Quote:Take the free market for example - they ignore the fact that a supercartel owns 60% of the world's wealth, so how could there possibly be a free market when there's already a monopoly?

Libertarians do not ignore this at all. They recognize that this a condition made possible by corporate welfare. Libertarians oppose corporate welfare.

Post: #58

(04-28-2017 01:22 AM)Kratomite Wrote:  ...

The most retarded aspect of libertarianism is the "non-aggression axiom". Anybody who understands human nature knows we are aggressive, violent beasts. Peaceful societies without any backbone don't last long.

I'm not that much into libertarianism so I'd really like to know where this whole "Libertarians have to be defenseless sheep" notion comes from.

I'm pretty sure the act of self-defense doesn't violate the so called "non-aggression axiom" unless you consider defending yourself and your property an act of aggression.

Post: #59

So basically there could be two implications of the "libertarians = autists" premise:

(1) Libertarians are libertarians BECAUSE they are autists. Non-autists readily realize, through their better understanding of human nature, interpersonal dynamics, etc., that libertarianism could never work;* and/or,

(2) Even if libertarianism COULD work, libertarians, being autistic, are not going to be good at bringing about a libertarian society because their autism causes them to suck at the persuasion and four-dimensional chess required for successful political activism.

The second implication, if true, is a bitter pill to swallow, much like the manosphere red pill. The manosphere's red pill awakens men to the reality that everything they were taught about how any good man can get high-quality pussy just by being a nice guy is wrong.

There are many political blue pills, but one of them is that every citizen has an opportunity to effect political change, by presenting reasoned and truthful arguments, by joining a political party, etc. In civics class, they don't teach about the need for Machiavellian deception in order to prosper in politics; if anything, they teach that the bad guy always meets his downfall in the end.

The reason for that, though, is that any politician who ultimately falls out of favor is retroactively deemed to have been the bad guy. E.g., Hitler, because he lost World War II, is designated the bad guy, while FDR, Churchill, Stalin, etc. would've been deemed the bad guys if Hitler had won. So either way, the history classes will teach, "The bad guy always meet his downfall." History is presented as a series of societal progressions to a more enlightened state, with bumps along the way that teach important lessons, but always ultimately leading up to a current time that is held to be the pinnacle of freedom, liberty, justice, wisdom, etc. To the extent imperfections remain, the system is always depicted in civics class as one in which perfection could be only one election away.

So what happens if autists are told, "You can't actually effectively influence politics, because the system, by its nature, is only open for non-autists to influence, due to their ability to outplay and outmaneuver others, including autists, who are not so skillful at that game"?

Then politics becomes just another part of life that autists have to resign themselves to not being suitable for. As more and more activities are added to this list, the question for the autist becomes, "What is my place in society? Is it just to be manipulated by those who can run circles around me with their social skills? Is it just to be used by those who are better at playing the game?"

There's something pure, noble, and innocent about a lot of autists, just like there's something pure, noble, and innocent about a lot of nice guys who think they're going to get pussy (assuming they've not being deceptive about his intentions; although girls usually know men's intentions anyway). Girls recognize this, even as their pussies dry up, when they say, "Aw, you're so sweet." The nice guy, at least, can sometimes be rehabilitated. He can play asshole game and start getting pussy.

What about autists? What are they supposed to do, exactly, given that there is not, and could never be, a comprehensive manual explaining how to handle every social situation, that could bring them to the level of non-autists? Is the answer to recognize their inferiority, and commit suicide? Or is there some useful role to play in this world?

Yet, in receiving the answer from non-autists, how are they to know that they're not being played? People who perceive naivete in others will often take advantage for their own gain. That's what the blue pill is all about, is it not -- to identify the weak, so they can be excluded from receiving benefits for what they contribute? Most of politics is, after all, about making useful idiots out of gullible, trusting segments of the population.

The black pill is the only sure way to avoid getting taken advantage of, yet its possibilities are limited because it means withdrawing from the game.

* Theoretically, it could also be that autists' weakness in social aspects of life is counterbalanced by a strength in being able to recognize truth in economic and political theory, which makes them alone the ones able to grasp intuitively why libertarianism can work, in the same way the non-autists are able to grasp intuitively the hidden truths of the dynamics involved in social interactions.

Post: #60

(04-28-2017 08:36 PM)UncleSam Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 01:22 AM)Kratomite Wrote:  ...

The most retarded aspect of libertarianism is the "non-aggression axiom". Anybody who understands human nature knows we are aggressive, violent beasts. Peaceful societies without any backbone don't last long.

I'm not that much into libertarianism so I'd really like to know where this whole "Libertarians have to be defenseless sheep" notion comes from.

I'm pretty sure the act of self-defense doesn't violate the so called "non-aggression axiom" unless you consider defending yourself and your property an act of aggression.

Yeah, try defending your personal property against 'ethnic' gangs with 10-1 numerical superiority.

Human beings have always formed into collectives to get what they want. Tribes, armies, and nations. (Or in the inner cities, mobs and gangs).

Libertarians seem blissfully unaware of this.

Post: #61

(04-28-2017 07:51 PM)puckerman Wrote:  ...
While Constitutionalist militiaman and libertarians have many common goals and many common enemies, there are significant differences. Most of the militia types are very religious; while libertarians have a broad spectrum of faiths, and many don't go to church at all. The first group is also obsessed with "securing the border," while most libertarians are not. Many constitutionalists believe in Creationism and have a generally negative view of science, while libertarians are generally pro-science. A lot of militia types also want to head for the hills, while libertarians often enjoy living in modern society. Many in the first group also focus on conspiracy theories and negative gossip about the establishment (i.e, Presidential sex lives), while libertarians focus on philosophy, economics, and ideas. Back in the 1990's, some of the militia men actually supported the war on drugs; while libertarians have always opposed it. Finally, the constitutionalist militiamen are more defined by what they are against; while libertarians have a better understanding of what they are for.

As a libertarian, I consider the militia types "cautious allies." Most of the time, the constitutionalists are fighting the good fight, but there are also many pitfalls there. We would certainly be better off with a government bound by the Constitution, but the differences are also significant.

I don't associate with the militia groups as much as I used to. But I will always remember when all of them were buying generators back in late 1999. They all sincerely believed that there was going to be an apocalypse when the clock struck midnight on 31 December. Was it just wishful thinking? As you may remember, nothing happened.
...

I'm glad to see that you've functionally denounced all of the founding fathers, taking a Libertarian minority and functionally splitting it between the fedora wearing atheist crowd on one side and on the other side the only ones that ever got it to work sort of, ie culturally homogeneous Christians.

This is the equivalent of being one of the bottom teams on the ladder and then dumping your best players because they kneeled during the national anthem in contravention of the demands of social justice, then going on to field a skeleton team with predictable results.

Pure neo-libertarian right there. Can't even get along with the people who would have been happy to leave you alone or even support you.

Ayn Rand was right that the smallest minority is the individual, and day by day it becomes clearer that Libertarians will only ever be a disconnected herd of cats... err... individuals.

Post: #62

(04-28-2017 01:22 AM)Kratomite Wrote:  The most retarded aspect of libertarianism is the "non-aggression axiom". Anybody who understands human nature knows we are aggressive, violent beasts. Peaceful societies without any backbone don't last long.

You have to show aggression towards others to defend your own liberties and property? That surely makes the Democrats and Republicans the true tough guys of the world while the poor, feeble, liberty-minded individualists are weak.

If we don't aspire to empire building and slaying far away demons, then we surely have no backbone. I see your point that being peaceful equals being weak.

Quote:Aggression: hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another;

-the action or an act of attacking without provocation.

It must be a sad state of affairs that so many of our active duty military don't wish to engage in empire-building either. Do we need to start vetting our military members better to ensure that they're aggressive enough or that they have the proper backbone? That seems to be the suggestion here. If they don't want unnecessary conflicts abroad, then they're not strong. But I'll personally have to disagree with this premise.

Ron Paul Awash in Active Duty Military Donations
Ron Paul raises more money from service members than all of the other campaigns combined.
https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washin...-donations

I also remember a guy once saying, "Walk softly and carry a big stick." -Teddy Roosevelt

Post: #63

(04-28-2017 08:44 PM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  The reason for that, though, is that any politician who ultimately falls out of favor is retroactively deemed to have been the bad guy. E.g., Hitler, because he lost World War II, is designated the bad guy, while FDR, Churchill, Stalin, etc. would've been deemed the bad guys if Hitler had won.

Hitler is designated the bad guy because he systematically attempted to murder millions of people in the ten or so countries he had taken over by 1944 or so. Leaveing aside the disputed numbers of Jewish dead, there's about 2 million Polish souls who probably didn't have much to do with the pretexts that Hitler had for invading their country and shipping them off to concentration and/or death camps because as Slavs they were deemed genetically inferior.

Stalin was one of the guys who won. Churchill and FDR didn't trust him anymore than they'd trusted any Russian ally from about World War One onward. Patton wanted to keep on rolling right through Germany and push the Russians back to the far side of Poland, and he had roughly the same opinion of the Jews as Hitler did. When news started getting to the West of the fact Stalin was going about killing forty million of his own subjects to maintain power he was rather rightly turned into another bad guy.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #64

(04-29-2017 01:54 AM)BrewDog Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 01:22 AM)Kratomite Wrote:  The most retarded aspect of libertarianism is the "non-aggression axiom". Anybody who understands human nature knows we are aggressive, violent beasts. Peaceful societies without any backbone don't last long.

You have to show aggression towards others to defend your own liberties and property? That surely makes the Democrats and Republicans the true tough guys of the world while the poor, feeble, liberty-minded individualists are weak.

If we don't aspire to empire building and slaying far away demons, then we surely have no backbone. I see your point that being peaceful equals being weak.

Quote:Aggression: hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another;

-the action or an act of attacking without provocation.

It must be a sad state of affairs that so many of our active duty military don't wish to engage in empire-building either. Do we need to start vetting our military members better to ensure that they're aggressive enough or that they have the proper backbone? That seems to be the suggestion here. If they don't want unnecessary conflicts abroad, then they're not strong. But I'll personally have to disagree with this premise.

Ron Paul Awash in Active Duty Military Donations
Ron Paul raises more money from service members than all of the other campaigns combined.
https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washin...-donations

I also remember a guy once saying, "Walk softly and carry a big stick." -Teddy Roosevelt

I don't think anyone on the alt right is calling for empire building.

My point was two-fold:

1. It's silly to broadcast you believe in non-aggression. Other people perceive it as weakness.

2. Peaceful, welcoming societies get overrun. Look at Europe. You libertarians and your open borders have no answers for that other than "muh private property". And that's why libertarianism is rapidly becoming a moribund, irrelevant ideology.

Post: #65

(04-29-2017 06:38 AM)Kratomite Wrote:  ...

1. It's silly to broadcast you believe in non-aggression. Other people perceive it as weakness.

2. Peaceful, welcoming societies get overrun. Look at Europe. You libertarians and your open borders have no answers for that other than "muh private property". And that's why libertarianism is rapidly becoming a moribund, irrelevant ideology.

Again, no two libertarians seem to be able to agree with each other.

Borders or none?
Police or none?
Military or none?

The more ridiculous of the fedora crowd would answer "none" to all of those. Ironically few of those guys seem to be armed with anything more than a reproduction katana.

One thing history does teach us is that where government is particularly limited, the individual is trumped by the clan every time, and the free-market absolutely involves violence as a commodity AND a market force.

Case in point. Take a look at the black market on drugs that libertarians are quick to point out as an example of the pitfalls of regulation and prohibition.

Do street gangs arm themselves to shoot the police when confronted? No. They're well aware that would be a death sentence. They arm themselves because the competition arms themselves and they're all willing to kill over the respective boundaries of their areas of distribution.

Yet under libertarian principles they should instead be attempting to bring the best quality product at the lowest price and allowing the consumer to decide who gets 49th through to 51st street.

Post: #66

Yes most Libertarians are afraid to take their ideology to its logical conclusion, anarcho-capitalism, because they know how mental it makes them look.

I actually used to be one until someone slapped the silly out of me way back when.

But if you believe the state is the ultimate evil (as they do) then you must eliminate it entirely. Or you're a hypocrite.

"Night watchmen" Libertarians like brewdog aren't actually true Libertarians. They're just statists who hate paying taxes, and fighting wars (but love their GI Bill).

Post: #67

I don't have a lot of beef with Brewdog. He seems to me to be a minarchist, but I hate that term myself because there are roughly five people in the world that know what it means and having to explain it is God-damned annoying.

Personally I think there's nothing much wrong with government as long as you remember that from time to time you have to kill the bastards when they get out of hand and then take their stupidity into account when you pen the version2.0 of your national constitution.

Post: #68

(04-28-2017 08:01 PM)puckerman Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 04:56 PM)Valentine Wrote:  Take the free market for example - they ignore the fact that a supercartel owns 60% of the world's wealth, so how could there possibly be a free market when there's already a monopoly?

Libertarians do not ignore this at all. They recognize that this a condition made possible by corporate welfare. Libertarians oppose corporate welfare.

Libertarianism hasn't got an answer for correcting this situation so because of that it is completely unrealistic.

And ending the Fed is sure going to change things when the cartel decides to impose it's vastly superior resources against you and because you're now a lone, atomised individual you haven't got a snowball's chance in hell of defending yourself.

Post: #69

(04-29-2017 06:38 AM)Kratomite Wrote:  2. Peaceful, welcoming societies get overrun. Look at Europe. You libertarians and your open borders have no answers for that other than "muh private property". And that's why libertarianism is rapidly becoming a moribund, irrelevant ideology.

Because Merkel, Hollande and the rest of Europe are libertarians? You really got me there.

Please, teach us more.

Post: #70

Made possible by corporate welfare? Do they realise that huge corporations like this are the ones writing the laws to provide the corporate welfare? In the abscence of government which gives large companies advantages, large companies use their influence to create that government. Which is why you need checks to keep large companies from being able to do that.

So the cycle would be:

1) Create libertarian government
2) Companies grow and gain power and influence
3) Either the companies rewrite the laws to give themselves advantages, or people write laws reigning them in. Either way, libertarian government ends.

Post: #71

(04-29-2017 07:39 AM)BrewDog Wrote:  

(04-29-2017 06:38 AM)Kratomite Wrote:  2. Peaceful, welcoming societies get overrun. Look at Europe. You libertarians and your open borders have no answers for that other than "muh private property". And that's why libertarianism is rapidly becoming a moribund, irrelevant ideology.

Because Merkel, Hollande and the rest of Europe are libertarians? You really got me there.

Please, teach us more.

Lol.

Their border/immigration policy is 100% kosher with libertarianism.

Open borders, globalization,offshoring,etc...are all libertarian wet dreams. And that's why you'll never get more than 1% of the vote.

Post: #72

It's noteworthy that nobody seems to be arguing against the premise that libertarians do act like autists/spergs.

This thread itself demonstrates that they do so. Any discussion of how libertarians behave, how they alienate people, how they are their own worst enemies, how their personalities and attitudes limit their behavior, etc. they immediately turn into a discussion about what they believe, and how it makes them morally superior, how you just don't understand the principles, how you haven't read enough Rothbard or Spooner to have a meaningful opinion on the ideology, and other diversions and distractions away from the original subject. In short: "You guys are obsessive weirdos" is instantly and reflexively countered with "You're a statist!" followed by a ten-minute obsessively detailed rant on muh principlez!.

Libertarians are generally incapable of processing nonverbal social cues and direct verbal feedback about how they go about presenting their ideas, mistaking the judgments of behavior with judgments of the ideas.

Thus Diagnosis:Autism.

I know a handful of real libertarians personally (party members, not the "small-l libertarian" types a lot of disaffected small-government/pro-liberty Republicans label themselves as) and have dozens more as acquaintances. To a man (because none are women) they are like this. Ever been to a libertarian happy hour? Yes, such things exist, and they are miserable. It's a bunch of young, bitter, humorless, ideas-obsessed loser men trying to out-lecture each other on how hairsplittingly ideologically "purer" they are. If a woman walks into the room, they'll be shocked and amazed at this development and swarm this strange, exotic creature. Eventually one contextual-alpha from the pack will elbow past the others and perform the libertarian mating dance: he'll literally back her into a corner or up against the wall by invading her personal space, hectoring her on "muh principles" without her being able to escape, believing this will impress her into sleeping with him, wholly unaware that her averted gaze into the distance is not one of longing mixed with careful consideration of his deep philosophical pronouncements but rather that of someone in an intolerably painful situation fixating on a "comfort object"...in this case, the glowing green "EXIT" sign and its promise of blissful escape.

But while autism or aspergers (colloquially rather than clinically defined) might fit, I'm coming around to the belief that it's less that than that they're simply gammas. How does one define a gamma?
1. never wrong about anything
2. others are always wrong about everything
3. always better than others, in some contrived or hairsplitting way
4. anklebiters who shy away from any actual confrontation
5. secret kings who would rule in a just and fair world
6. never responsible for their own failures or failings
7. impervious to criticism and self-analysis

And how have we been describing the "spergy" behavior of libertarians?
1. never wrong about anything - their principles are pure and perfect, you just don't understand them..."go read some Rothbard and educate yourself, moron!"
2. others are always wrong about everything - anyone not 100% on board with their own individual belief-set is dismissed as a statist (which, ironically, rejects the individuality of their interlocutor in favor of strict conformity)
3. always better than others, in some contrived or hairsplitting way - the constant demonstrations of greater ideological purity; prone to sophistry and hairsplitting and rules-lawyering to prove how others are actually wrong even (especially) when its shown otherwise
4. anklebiters who shy away from any actual confrontation - the elevation of the non-aggression principle to sacred dogma above all other principles is nothing more than the valorizing of cowardice in this context; they are aggressive with words and with condemnations, but invoke NAP the instant they provoke someone too far; similarly, they're vainglorious online tough-guys who call people names and call people out, but are obsequiously polite and shy away from any sort of actual confrontation in real life
5. secret kings who would rule in a just and fair world - "If we could just elect Libertarians..."
6. never responsible for their own failures or failings - "It's not our skeezy assholish personalities that keep Libertarians from being elected, it's the corporatist duopoly that unfairly suppresses third parties and brainwashes the sheep-like idiots who should be voting for us into stupidly voting against their own interests"
7. impervious to criticism and self-analysis - see above, and the following replies where this will be demonstrated to any reasonable observer's satisfaction.

Which is all very frustrating. I like a lot of libertarian ideas. But as noted, that the ideology attracts these types of personalities and has become identified with them works against it gaining any traction with normal people.

Post: #73

(04-28-2017 10:41 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I'm glad to see that you've functionally denounced all of the founding fathers, taking a Libertarian minority and functionally splitting it between the fedora wearing atheist crowd on one side and on the other side the only ones that ever got it to work sort of, ie culturally homogeneous Christians.

No, that isn't what I have done. I have read a lot of Jefferson's writings and have tons of respect for him. The Puritans in Massachusetts hated Jefferson and called him an atheist.

I will also acknowledge their errors. Jefferson's worst error was advocating for socialist schools. If the USA had never had a socialistic school system, I don't think we would be in the mess we are today. The Puritans also believed in socialist schools and churches, and Massachusetts was the last state to disestablish the church.

Even though I no longer believe in god, I do very much believe in marriage and family. Many cultures have had strong families without the fraud that is Christianity. Our problems are cultural and legal, not relgious.

There is also one area where constitutionalist militia men disagree emphatically with the Founding Fathers. The Constitution says nothing about the border and immigration. It specifically discusses the issue of naturalization, becoming a citizen. Up until 1900 or so, the border was wide open, which is what most of the Founding Fathers favored. So, if they want a government based on the Constitution, they need to stop having seizures about "securing the border."

And nobody has answered these questions: How do you secure the border without resorting to police-state tactics? How do you build a wall without the same wall being used to keep people in this god forsaken country? This kind of stuff is already happening.

I am not confident about America at all. I am confident that people will learn from America's history though, just as America's Founding Fathers learned from Rome. Humans will come up with something better because they always do.

Post: #74

(04-29-2017 10:10 AM)Kratomite Wrote:  

(04-29-2017 07:39 AM)BrewDog Wrote:  

(04-29-2017 06:38 AM)Kratomite Wrote:  2. Peaceful, welcoming societies get overrun. Look at Europe. You libertarians and your open borders have no answers for that other than "muh private property". And that's why libertarianism is rapidly becoming a moribund, irrelevant ideology.

Because Merkel, Hollande and the rest of Europe are libertarians? You really got me there.

Please, teach us more.

Lol.

Their border/immigration policy is 100% kosher with libertarianism.

Open borders, globalization,offshoring,etc...are all libertarian wet dreams. And that's why you'll never get more than 1% of the vote.

Half of libertarians don't subscribe to open borders and won't support the Libertarian Party because of this one issue.

And even if so, you found one issue you can equate between the European socialists and the Libertarian Party, and now that makes European politics a "libertarian wet dream?" The two things are polar opposites.

If we take that route, can we say that many Republicans dislike gay marriage, therefore Saudi Wahabiism is a Republican wet dream? See the absurdity?

Post: #75

(04-29-2017 01:37 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  If we take that route, can we say that many Republicans dislike gay marriage, therefore Saudi Wahabiism is a Republican wet dream? See the absurdity?

Is this claim that absurd? Many of them LOVE Saudi Arabia. They totally ignore the fact that all 19 of the WTC hijackers were from that shit hole.

There's a very easy way to deal with Saudi Arabia. Give them no knowledge or technology whatsoever. Buy up all their oil. What happens to the Saudi Barbarians when the oil runs out? They will go back to eating worms and insects.