Libertarianism Is A Joke

Has this form of government been successfully practiced anywhere?

LOL, libertarianism isn't a form a government, it's a philosophy based on the non-aggression principle. :rolleyes:
Libertarian as government is not functional as an ideology, since "non-aggression" is impossible.

If you speak in a public place, you create sound waves which enact "aggression" upon ears of another without consent, so only way to practice "non-aggression" on others is to commit mass suicide, like voluntary human extinction movement.

This why correct form of government is not based on non-aggression, but affirms the right of Godly rulers to guide less godly people via legislation, unless they learn to be Godly of own free will and not need to be legislated so harshly, but if they choose to live apathetic and immoral, then is right of state to legislate against them.

Many aspects of "libertarianism" are therefore heresy against God and nature, and merely the product of unsophisticated and materialistic minds.

Correct governmenit "libertarian" for the Godly, but "authoritarian" for the immoral, essentially.
 
Has this form of government been successfully practiced anywhere? If so, where?

Here's a conversation featuring a Libertarian that shows why it's such a failure...



Once you've seen this, let's discuss.


Making your own choices, being responsible for your own life? That's just a joke to you, huh? As if that's ever going to happen. I'm sure you're right, you probably do suck at making your own decisions
 
Has this form of government been successfully practiced anywhere?

LOL, libertarianism isn't a form a government, it's a philosophy based on the non-aggression principle. :rolleyes:
Libertarian as government is not functional as an ideology, since "non-aggression" is impossible.

If you speak in a public place, you create sound waves which enact "aggression" upon ears of another without consent, so only way to practice "non-aggression" on others is to commit mass suicide, like voluntary human extinction movement.

This why correct form of government is not based on non-aggression, but affirms the right of Godly rulers to guide less godly people via legislation, unless they learn to be Godly of own free will and not need to be legislated so harshly, but if they choose to live apathetic and immoral, then is right of state to legislate against them.

Many aspects of "libertarianism" are therefore heresy against God and nature, and merely the product of unsophisticated and materialistic minds.

Correct governmenit "libertarian" for the Godly, but "authoritarian" for the immoral, essentially.

Non aggression is anarchy, not libertarian. We don't believe in no government, just minimal government. I want government to be a referee, you want it to be a kindergarten teacher. The problem is that while a kindergarten teacher is more advanced than her students, government isn't more advanced than the citizens. They just control us with guns
 
The libertarian movement used to be about smaller more efficient government but in the last ten years or so it has been taken over by the pot heads.
So what, in your estimation, are the current Libertarians all about now?

Now wait a minute, I thought you were talking about libertarians. Now you're talking about Libertarians? Please clarify, the answer is entirely different
 
I never understood their anti abortion stance .
There is no libertarian stance on abortion, some libertarians are "pro-choice", some are "pro life" and some don't give a flying fuck about the issue , it depends on how the individual libertarian interprets the application of the non-aggression principle to the question.

I thought they were ANYTHING GOES !
As usual Timmy you thought wrong.

Hey! “anything goes “ would be a great libertarian slogan!

Anything goes, as long as you're not infringing of the rights of others to do the same.

Those are entirely different
 
Nothing, it's a silly talk show call in video with a bunch of hamsters trying to create an infotainment piece to feed the confirmation bias of a target audience and given your reaction, it worked.

If you want to learn about libertarianism, read the works of serious libertarians, if you want to be an ignorant sheeple keep letting videos like this one formulate your opinions for you. :dunno:
Address my entire OP.

Where has libertarianism worked in the world?

Point me to a country where it has.

Been there, done that... you still don't get the fact that libertarianism isn't a form of government nor has it dawned on you that most people in the world already operate by the non-aggression principle in their dealings with other individuals, which means they share foundational principles with libertarians, even if they don't realize it.

Apparently the matchbook cover you received your political science and philosophy education from didn't include that part.

Do yourself a favor stop relying on YouTube to expand your horizons and pick up a book, preferably one that isn't designed to reinforce your strongly held opinions about the world.

"Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal" -- Murray N. Rothbard
So basically, it hasn't worked anywhere in the world.

Got it.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Yes, leftists do hate America. Not everyone deems us a failure that leftists do though
 
Nothing, it's a silly talk show call in video with a bunch of hamsters trying to create an infotainment piece to feed the confirmation bias of a target audience and given your reaction, it worked.

If you want to learn about libertarianism, read the works of serious libertarians, if you want to be an ignorant sheeple keep letting videos like this one formulate your opinions for you. :dunno:
Address my entire OP.

Where has libertarianism worked in the world?

Point me to a country where it has.

Been there, done that... you still don't get the fact that libertarianism isn't a form of government nor has it dawned on you that most people in the world already operate by the non-aggression principle in their dealings with other individuals, which means they share foundational principles with libertarians, even if they don't realize it.

Apparently the matchbook cover you received your political science and philosophy education from didn't include that part.

Do yourself a favor stop relying on YouTube to expand your horizons and pick up a book, preferably one that isn't designed to reinforce your strongly held opinions about the world.

"Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal" -- Murray N. Rothbard

While libertarians support minimal government, we don't support optional taxes, we don't support voluntary police or military. We support criminal and civil courts and they aren't voluntary. NAP is an anarchist principle
 
Has this form of government been successfully practiced anywhere? If so, where?

Here's a conversation featuring a Libertarian that shows why it's such a failure...



Once you've seen this, let's discuss.


I have met some very smart people who are libertarians. I have a relative who is libertarian he is an actuary. 750 score in math section on his sat. Bachelors in mathmatics and MBA. A member of mensa high IQ society.

I'm a Democrat and disagree with him on a lot things but he is the brains in our family.
 
Has this form of government been successfully practiced anywhere? If so, where?

Here's a conversation featuring a Libertarian that shows why it's such a failure...



Once you've seen this, let's discuss.


Libertarianism is doomed to failure because people do not want to think for themselves or be held accountable for their own actions. They want the government to tell them what to eat, what to think and what to do.

But I will continue to vote for them and support them, as I will always support smaller government and more personal freedoms...two things neither major party supports.
 
Has this form of government been successfully practiced anywhere?

LOL, libertarianism isn't a form a government, it's a philosophy based on the non-aggression principle. :rolleyes:
Libertarian as government is not functional as an ideology,
LOL, another joker that doesn't understand that there's no such thing as "libertarian government" anymore than there's such a concept as "Socratic government". Libertarianism by it's very nature doesn't seek power over others, our sense of morality and justice is developed enough to know that we're not wise enough to make the best choices for other individuals, only the individual can do that. Personally I don't need or want government to make decisions for me, the only thing I need it for is to protect my life, liberty and property from immoral, aggressive miscreants and those that think they're wise enough to decide what's best for everyone else and want to use force to implement those decisions.

since "non-aggression" is impossible.

Impossible? That's odd since every interaction I have with other peaceful people doesn't involve the initiation of force and that practice is evidence in the vast majority of people that I've come into contact with.

If the impossibility of non-aggression is how you operate in your daily life then perhaps you need to do society a favor and work on your own sense of morality and how you treat others.

Of course statists seem to think that those the wield the levers of power in government aren't subject to the same moral standards as the citizenry which is insane and has caused nothing but misery and death since the institution was first conceived.
 
Has this form of government been successfully practiced anywhere?

LOL, libertarianism isn't a form a government, it's a philosophy based on the non-aggression principle. :rolleyes:

No, that's anarchy

Er..ummm anarchy is the absence of authority, eschewing the initiation of force against other peaceful people (aka the non-aggression principle) is just generally accepted moral behavior; they're two completely independent concepts.

Non-aggression doesn't obviate self defense or the defense of others; which is the whole point of having government, i.e. to protect you from aggressive a-holes that want to violate your life, liberty and/or property, unfortunately what we have invariably ended up with is government that routinely initiates force against the life, liberty and property of peaceful people because as Lord Acton said "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" and people somehow getting convinced that government doesn't have to abide by the same standards of morality that individual citizens do.
 
Has this form of government been successfully practiced anywhere? If so, where?

Here's a conversation featuring a Libertarian that shows why it's such a failure...



Once you've seen this, let's discuss.


Libertarianism is doomed to failure because people do not want to think for themselves or be held accountable for their own actions. They want the government to tell them what to eat, what to think and what to do.

But I will continue to vote for them and support them, as I will always support smaller government and more personal freedoms...two things neither major party supports.

Nonsense.

People want to think for themselves and be held accountable for their own actions. They don't want the government to tell them what to eat, what to think, or what to do.

Libertarianism fails because it's reactionary, naive, and sophomoric; it's an inane anachronism whose dogma has no place in the 21st Century.
 
Nothing, it's a silly talk show call in video with a bunch of hamsters trying to create an infotainment piece to feed the confirmation bias of a target audience and given your reaction, it worked.

If you want to learn about libertarianism, read the works of serious libertarians, if you want to be an ignorant sheeple keep letting videos like this one formulate your opinions for you. :dunno:
Address my entire OP.

Where has libertarianism worked in the world?

Point me to a country where it has.

Been there, done that... you still don't get the fact that libertarianism isn't a form of government nor has it dawned on you that most people in the world already operate by the non-aggression principle in their dealings with other individuals, which means they share foundational principles with libertarians, even if they don't realize it.

Apparently the matchbook cover you received your political science and philosophy education from didn't include that part.

Do yourself a favor stop relying on YouTube to expand your horizons and pick up a book, preferably one that isn't designed to reinforce your strongly held opinions about the world.

"Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal" -- Murray N. Rothbard

While libertarians support minimal government, we don't support optional taxes, we don't support voluntary police or military. We support criminal and civil courts and they aren't voluntary.
There is no "we", you can speak for yourself with respect to what scope, span and level of decentralization of government you prefer or what your opinion is on any given public policy question is but you don't speak for all/most of libertarians, there is no approved gospel or priesthood that dictates what the specific positions are (and that includes the LP).

NAP is an anarchist principle
LOL, say what? What do you think the foundational principle(s) of libertarianism are?

Do you even know what anarchism is? Perhaps the fact that some libertarians self identify as anarchists is what is confusing you?

"The immoral use of force is the source of man’s political problems. It is rather strange, that unless one has a criminal mind and no respect for other people and their property, no one claims it’s permissible to go into one’s neighbor’s house and tell them how to behave, what they can eat, smoke and drink or how to spend their money.

Yet, rarely is it asked why it is morally acceptable that a stranger with a badge and a gun can do the same thing in the name of law and order. Any resistance is met with brute force, fines, taxes, arrests, and even imprisonment. This is done more frequently every day without a proper search warrant." -- Ron Paul
 
Has this form of government been successfully practiced anywhere? If so, where?

Here's a conversation featuring a Libertarian that shows why it's such a failure...



Once you've seen this, let's discuss.


Libertarianism is doomed to failure because people do not want to think for themselves or be held accountable for their own actions. They want the government to tell them what to eat, what to think and what to do.

But I will continue to vote for them and support them, as I will always support smaller government and more personal freedoms...two things neither major party supports.

Well people who don't agree with Libertarianism certainly fall into the category

That's the reason they don't like Libertarians, they're too afraid to make their own decisions
 
My biggest issue with the Libertarian platform is the eschewing of borders.

As far as individual liberties are concerned I find no fault.

It's not the government's or anyone else's business what I choose to do in my personal life as long as I don't violate the rights of others in the process
 

Forum List

Back
Top