Why I disagree with Libertarianism

Civil war that is entirely avoidable, is stupid, not silly. A century of reconstruction did the south no good whatsoever, because the problem is they are as thick as a brick and believe people like Donald Duck could never lie to them. Thankfully, even the emergency rooms are now reporting conservatives are literally shooting themselves in the foot, dying from alcoholism, and too much piss and vinegar. Donald Duck is the best thing to happen to liberals since Reagan was diagnosed, proving there is justice in this world. There is absolutely no point in discussing politics with conservatives, and every reason to encourage them to die faster and push their children away faster. Now, more people then ever know the futility of actually trying to discuss even the weather with conservatives.

They all had the finest teachers who taught them how to share their words and play nice, which is why one if five insists the sun revolves around the earth, and there is no talking to such people who have strong opinions about their own damned opinions, and rely upon their own stupidity.

 

I think you are attacking anarchism, not libertarianism

 

When almost nobody shares the party definition, our votes have been rigged and the constitution shredded, there is no difference. They are the mindless mob attempting to dignify their actions by spouting complete bullshit. With any luck, congress and the justice department will go on a witch hunt, as will Homeland Security and the IRS, and give them more than they bargained for. The pentagon is pissed, and you don't want those people pissed at you. They try their best to stay out of politics, but Donald Duck is the biggest threat to national security since 9/11. Even the fascists in the pentagon know he's a complete loser, and conservatives have lost their fucking minds, while the republican party is now in control of serving Donald Duck coffee.

 

You're making the same flawed argument so many others make. Self-reliance sounds great, but in reality in our modern world is that nobody has the bandwidth or judgement to make all the informed decisions that libertarianism wants individuals to undertake.

Just one example: salmonella infection caused by bad chicken you bought at a roadside stand. Ideally, you'd know not to buy chicken there anymore, and that seller would adjust their processes so that they weren't selling tainted chicken. Realistically, salmonella looks like other infections, and symptoms don't present until 36-48 hours after ingestion. That means you could mistake it for E-coli or something else without proper diagnosis. And without that, you wouldn't be making an informed decision about what seller you want to avoid in the future.

There are many examples. But the point is that having government inspectors and standard regulations eliminates much of the guesswork in these situations. I'd rather have that than have to rely on only own wits.

 

One in five Americans insists the sun revolves around the earth, and it is illegal to vote for Mickey Mouse. When the lights are on, but nobody is ever home, self-reliance is about as complicated a concept as they can handle. You are just confusing the poor things. You need to keep it simple, and tell them point blank that, in this country, we believe in rule of law and have the best justice that money can buy.

 

Doesn't matter if you're liberal, conservative, libertarian, socialist or whatever, everyone is just getting behind the political philosophy they think is best for the country. Calling them asswipes is just more division

 

LOL, they rigged our fucking elections, shredded the constitution, and now insist Donald Duck should be allowed to commit fraud, obstruction of justice, treason, and income tax evasion, while he trashes our government. Libertarians demanded division, insisting they were different from ordinary republicans. Fuck em all, either the democratic party grows a pair or they don't, but the idea Libertarians have anything other than divisive rhetoric is something you'll have to argue with them about. Without a vote or constitution, there can be no union.

 

You sound like them when they talk about Obama or Hilary

 

Only because there's no point in actually discussing any issues or being polite. My vote and constitution are garbage, I want them back, but nobody else seems to have a clue that their votes no longer matter, so there's no reason to be polite about asswipes. Neither Obama nor Hilary ever did a damned thing about my vote and constitution, and Obama allowed the fucking bankers to get away with destroying the entire world economy committing massive widespread fraud. Fuck em all, I have no use for asswipes who prefer to point fingers at each other and argue over the definition of stupid and who is the best example. Without rule of law, being polite is rapidly becoming old fashioned. I suggest worrying about something other than just how impolite society is becoming. We've gone way beyond the point of being polite and sharing our words.

Donald Duck is even trashing out the military, and calling for civil war, while at least half the country insists he should be above the law. I know, I know, admitting nobody is listening to you is hard in a democracy but, if it makes you feel better, we no longer have a democracy.

 

Libertarianism is just the polar opposite of communism, and it can't work because it defies human nature. People are naturally communal and altruistic, and depend on each other. On the other hand, as with communism, some libertarian ideas are good. I think the idea that money should be backed by gold or a similar commodity would bring more stability to consumer prices. I also think there are blatant cases of government overreach that libertarians highlight. I just don't think you can eliminate government to the degree that they want.

 

Libertarianism is borderline anarchism. The real problem is that Wholly is attacking some kind of composite of everything he doesn't like--the KKK, Trump supporters, nativists, racists, conservative Republicans, etc.--and calling it "Libertarian".

 

That simply is either meaningless or not true: there is a chasm a proverbial mile wide.

Anarchy, which has worked well in very specific situations, posits no government authority. Libertarians believe in a government that cannot initiate force or the threat thereof, but has a legal monopoly on the use of such tools. Libertarians believe in a government that can define "the rules of the road" for both civil and criminal offenses and enforce them. Most libertarians accord government a monopoly on dealing with issues of national defense.

Those are huge differences between anarchy and libertarian positions with enormous societal implications. You appear to have little thought to either philosophical position.

 

This is why I always laugh at socialists and commies who call themselves "anarchists"

 

Who is doing this, specifically?

 

I believe Antifa and Bamn call themselves anarchists since they got media attention. Even though they've been waving hammer and sickle flags at their rallies.
There's also plenty of ideologues who call themselves anarcho-socialists.

 

Antifa are anarchists... but they are also not "the left" (nor are they "socialists and commies")

Just anarchists.

They do happen to dislike fascism which is why they tend to throw rocks at guys on the alt-right. But yeah... They are not "the left".


Used to be they showed up at any protest, didn't matter which side, just to break windows, toss trashcans around, and torch a cop car or two... just to be disruptive. Since then they have come up with this "name" Antifa, and "direction" Anti-fascist... But still the same old anarchist disruptive shits they have always been.

It's the right wing that calls them leftists. If a left leaning group is holding a peaceful protest they would just as soon those guys stayed at home.


Of course, you've heard this before and will come back at some point and say the same stuff all over again.

_____________________________________________________


No idea what a "Bamn" is....

 

Anarchy does not mean Chaos

It means no government

Enforcing regulations and command economies without a government is impossible.

Therefore anarcho-socialism is a paradox.

 

So... Which part of my post did you not understand? Pretty much all of it?

 

Libertarianism is just as much an unattainable ideal as communism

 

Antifa is a fringe gang who's mission is to riot whenever an election is lost, or when someone with the wrong opinion comes to town. They are not anarchists by definition. Yet you say that they are.

You're the one who doesn't understand.