My Ascent From the Tar Pit of Amoral Libertarianism

[JimBowie1958]

Wow -- that IS a lot angst. And sour grapes and bad judgements.

No sour grapes...there were no grapes at all. And the only good judgement was scraping libertarianism from the heel of my boot.

I dont have time to pretend that I can plausibly live my life without entanglements with other human beings to which I have obligations and who have obligations toward me.

Take this common meme today of "No one Owes yo anything!" Well, yes, actually, they do. The government owes me Social Security, tax refunds and eligibility to Medicare when/if I ever decide to use it....I think. I have not checked into Medicare that much. My bank owes me the money I store there. etc

We all owe each other obligations; that is what the binds are that build our society together. Libertarians pretend that those bonds do not exist.

You never really DID understand the "morality side" of Libertarians.. Because you associated that with the very JUDGEMENTAL philosophy of Randian Objectivism.. SHE had opinions on morality and she REAMED the Libertarian Party for NOT being judgemental..

And calling Sanders a communist is not judgmental...and wrong?

Fact is -- it's all about TOLERANCE (and liberty).. YOU don't have to LIKE a moral choice. YOU might actually hate it ---- but if it does no harm or coercion to you --- you TOLERATE it..

Libertarianism is doing huge harm to my nation and me and my family. Libertarians are spreading this absurd lie that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. I cant tell yo how many times I have had to correct people on that bullshit, but Libertarians go on repeating it as if it were burned into stone tablets and dropped down from Heaven by the Hand of God Himself.

Libertarianism is telling other white people that they can do fine in our Identity politics world by simply ignoring it. No need to represent your own interests, why that would be racist and to accept that we have ties to each other by race, blahblahblah. The fact is that the laws are now officially discriminatory against whites, but thats OK because Libertarians dont want to think about it.

Repubs are despised because they are seen as morally judgemental and intolerant. AND "the left" would be right about that. Leftists have there own INVENTED morals -- dealing with fairness and social justice and class warfare ---- and they display similar intolerances based on their "manufactured" socio-political moralities..

Yeah, well, the libs can quickly recognize the right that some Amazon tribe has to live in its own culture of shitting where they eat and pissing in the water they drink from, but no American has any right to defend this nations cultural heritage, no not at all...unless we start shitting in our food and drinking our own piss too I guess.

You're leaving a pretty good deal. You are leaving folks who are socially tolerant WITHOUT the economic socialism of Sanders. And folks who are strict Constitutionalists and Fiscal hawks without the Amens and Cruz Bible lectures. Good luck finding a political homeland OUTSIDE -- where you won't get DEPORTED or publicly shamed for your achievements...

I really dont need or require social tolerance. IF you tell me you are OK with me having long hair, smoking weed and listening to ACDC, that is nothing to me as your opinion is none of my concern. But if you are spreading the idea that we all can take care of ourselves without community and without violating sacred obligations held since before the beginning of civilization itself, then you are doing me, my family and my nation great harm.

 

[JimBowie1958]

And the right of the minority to oppress a majority is better?

Proof you don't even know what a libertarian is. We are about the rights of individuals. That you would say this shows you're either lying to us that you were a libertarian or you're lying to yourself. That is the most basic concept in libertarianism.

And you're still O fer on moving from sweeping statements about libertarians and moving on to issues you changed your view on

roflmao,, as if what you think defines a damned thing.

Get over yourself. I think the OP has been successful despite what you might try to think about it.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

My problem with the Libertarians is, well, the libertarians. The notion of individual liberties is as essential as it gets. Unfortunately with the Libertarians, it always turns to isolationism, unfettered personal freedoms and government incapable of doing anything.

It's like it's all or nothing with those guys. Like I said, my problem with Ron Paul was never really Ron Paul, it was Ron Paul supporters.

 

[SwimExpert]

So what is my new dichotomy?

You tell us. You said you're basing things on one criterion of one issue. That is creating a false dichotomy. Either they match your one criterion on that one issue, or they do not.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So what is my new dichotomy?

You tell us. You said you're basing things on one criterion of one issue. That is creating a false dichotomy. Either they match your one criterion on that one issue, or they do not.

I can see now how you could take that as a dichotomy, much like the old joke goes "There are two kinds of people in the world, those who realize that there are two kinds of people and those who do not!"

By False dichotomy, it is generally meant that either choice winds up with the same result, hence it is a false dichotomy, not just a dichotomy.

By saying I will support only those candidates that will work to put an end to the Corporate Crony network that runs Washington, I do not see what could possibly be false about it. Presumably if we elect enough of such people they will change the current system in a few of the many ways one can destroy that network of sellouts and buyouts.

So yo have the dichotomy part of this, where is the 'False' part of it?

 

[g5000]

Ted Cruz is a liar. No doubt about it. He's the kind of liar who knows he lying, but thinks the public are too stupid to know he is lying.

Unfortunately, his base has proven his assumptions correct.

If elected, Ted Cruz is not going to "abolish the IRS". He isn't, and he knows he isn't. But he gets a big round of applause with his base every time he says it.

You'll notice you don't hear him saying that as much now that the national spotlight is really focused on him.

LOL, yeah, Hillary doesn't lie, that's why you're voting for her. Sucker

Hey, dumbfuck. First, starting your post with a tu quoque fallacy is a bad start. Then when you double down your retardation with a straw man fallacy, well, you've already shot yourself in the head.

I've said many times on this forum I support Kasich. I've also said if Cruz ends up the nominee, I may vote for him because he has one of the better tax plans even though he is lying out his ass about abolishing the IRS, and I've said if Trump is the nominee, I will leave the top of my ballot blank.

So shove a stick up your ass and call yourself a popsicle for me, mm-kay?

Thanks for being a standard bearer of everything that is wrong with Libertarians.

 

[flacaltenn]

Wow -- that IS a lot angst. And sour grapes and bad judgements.

No sour grapes...there were no grapes at all. And the only good judgement was scraping libertarianism from the heel of my boot.

I dont have time to pretend that I can plausibly live my life without entanglements with other human beings to which I have obligations and who have obligations toward me.

Take this common meme today of "No one Owes yo anything!" Well, yes, actually, they do. The government owes me Social Security, tax refunds and eligibility to MEdicare when/if I ever decide to use it....I think. I have not checked into Medicare that much. My bank owes me the money a store there. etc

We all owe each other obligations; that is what the binds are that build our society together. Libertarins pretend that those bonds do not exist.

You never really DID understand the "morality side" of Libertarians.. Because you associated that with the very JUDGEMENTAL philosophy of Randian Objectivism.. SHE had opinions on morality and she REAMED the Libertarian Party for NOT being judgemental..

And calling Sanders a communist is not judgmental...and wrong?

Fact is -- it's all about TOLERANCE (and liberty).. YOU don't have to LIKE a moral choice. YOU might actually hate it ---- but if it does no harm or coercion to you --- you TOLERATE it..

Libertarianism is doing huge harm to my nation and me and my family. Libertarians are spreading this absurd lie that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. I cant tell yo how many times I have had to correct people on that bullshit, but Libertarians go on repeating it as if it were burned into stone tablets and dropped down from Heaven by the Hand of God Himself.

Libertarianism is telling other white people that they can do fine in our Identity politics world by simply ignoring it. No need to respent your own interests, why that would be racist and to accept that we have ties to each other by race, blahblahblah. The fact is that the laws are now officially discriminatopry against whites, but thats OK because Libertarians dont want to think about it.

Repubs are despised because they are seen as morally judgemental and intolerant. AND "the left" would be right about that. Leftists have there own INVENTED morals -- dealing with fairness and social justice and class warfare ---- and they display similar intolerances based on their "manufactured" socio-political moralities..

Yeah, well, the libs can quickly recognize the right that some Amazon tribe has to live in its own culture of shitting in their own bedrooms and pissing in the water they drink from, but no American has any right to defend this nations culural heritage, no not at all...unless we start shitting in our bedrooms and drinking our own piss too I guess.

You're leaving a pretty good deal. You are leaving folks who are socially tolerant WITHOUT the economic socialism of Sanders. And folks who are strict Constitutionalists and Fiscal hawks without the Amens and Cruz Bible lectures. Good luck finding a political homeland OUTSIDE -- where you won't get DEPORTED or publicly shamed for your achievements...

I really dont need or require social tolerance. IF you tell me you are OK with me having long hair, smoking weed and listening to ACDC, that is nothing to me as your opinion is none of my concern. But if you are spreading the idea that we all can take care of ourselves without community and without violating sacred obligations held since before the beginning of civilization itself, then you are doing me, my family and my nation great harm.

Again -- you never really understood Libertarian principles. What people "owe" each other is a matter of record. And it SHOULD always be VOLUNTARY.. YOU are objecting to the "voluntary" part of it. Get it?

Take Soc Sec... There's not a practical majority of LibTs who would just CUT OFF benefits for those who ASSUMED there was a contract. And contrary to your assertions, the SS TrustFund is a cruel bookkeeping fiction. There is NOTHING of value in there. SS is running deficits since 2010 and that SHORTFALL goes back to the Treasury who then issues NEW debt for the shortfall. You and the working were robbed ONCE -- now you are being robbed yet again.

(Not the topic of this thread BTW --- but thought you should know -- start a thread -- I'll post the ADMISSIONS of what I asserted from SS Admin and CBO... .)

Future mgt of SS should INCLUDE some voluntary choices. Maybe even op-outs. Cut the bullshit about UNIVERSAL. It's long since lost the credibility to call it UNIVERSAL. Make it into an actual welfare program on NEED and fund it..

YOU would be doing great harm to yourself, your family, and your nation by ASSUMING that FORCING folks into social contracts without CHOICE or RECOURSE is the same thing as a neighborly concern or altruism..

 

[Agit8r]

Just wanted to share my personal experiences here. These personal experiences do not empirically prove anything, but some readers might find some resonance with their own experiences with ideological libertarianism and might share theirs as well.

I read Atlas Shrugged way back in high school, 9th grade. I was truly enamored with the story and the characters and I was outraged that such things could happen to a person at the hands of indifferent bureaucrats. I knew that the story was fiction, but that it was deemed believable by enough people that the novel sold well was itself damning.

My union officer grandfather, who had passed away in 68, had been my political mentor for years. And I tried to grasp the books events and themes with his voice and guidance in mind. He would have pointed out the great harms that the government had prevented would have far outweighed the harm it caused less frequently in regulating industry and that corruption was inevitable in any system. He would have told me that the Founding Fathers had a libertarian streak to their philosophy and statecraft, but that the demands of the urban modern age made much of that obsolete. But still it couldnt salve the outrage I felt, an outrage I had not felt since I read 'Uncle Toms Cabin'.

I spoke with the librarian at my high school about what I could read that would be a rhetorical response to Rands libertarian philosophy, and she mentioned a number of articles and books, which I read. Most of them were using arguments I was already familiar with. But I read one from National Review, by Whitacker Chambers who said that Rands philosophy was Godless, amoral and silly. He tempered my slow slide into Libertarianism and allowed me to pull myself out of its moral quick sand years later.

Most of my friends were libertarians of one variety or another. The Great Deracination of White Southerners was ongoing at the time and most of them felt a need to latch on to something that could replace the values of their Southern upbringing, and Rand made a very compelling and glib alternative to anything that hinted of conservatism and its familiarity with the racism of Jim Crow. We discussed Rand quite a bit though I can only remember bits and pieces of it all now.

But one thing I do remember was the insistence of my friends that one can have a moral philosophy even if an atheist, even if one had no religious institutions to guide ones moral formation. I would counter that while it is possible that children abandoned to grow up in the wild could survive and end up as civilized as the next man, but feral children have never done so without the help of their fellow man. We are a social creature, not a mere collection of independent Philosopher Kings.

Well that went on for decades with different people I would meet. From discussions with the Libertarian Party booth 'venders' at country fairs to young programmers fresh out of college spitting out the same old slogans as if no one had ever heard them before, I really enjoyed these conversations. "Everything should be allowed unless it is violent or fraudulent" was the most frequently heard Libertarian bumper sticker slogan I heard during all that time. But close to that was "The common good is no excuse for stealing a persons property to give it to those who did not earn it and do not deserve it." was another. Those are not direct quotes but a composite of the many times I have heard this from enthusiastic freshly scrubbed Libertarian acolytes.

I considered myself to be a Constitutional Christian Libertarian, by and large from the time I left the Army till this year. It was all about hypothetical utopian dreaming while Libertarians had no chance of ever getting any real political power which made it fun, but it still rubbed off on my thinking. Libertarianism was too 'pure' for actually winning an election for many reasons, from the legalization of drugs and prostitution to the deregulation of commerce. But that was OK, it only made it more fun as we would build these fantasy castles out of Dreamers Sand.


That all changed with Ron Paul's run for the Presidency in 2012. For the first time, Dr Paul was having real impact on the Republican Party, though not at the voting booth. Dr Paul was slipping in his people as delegates in states across the country, with the intention of having them vote for him on subsequent rounds if the convention turned into an open convention.

"But wait, isnt that fraud to pose as a Romney supporter while your full intent is to vote for Paul instead?" I would ask them.

"Well, yes, but it is what we have to do to change things for the better." They would respond in utterly unRandian terms.

"Isnt that what every ideological despotism justified itself with?" I would counter to silence or a change in subject.

And so I began to see that Libertarianism is as morphable as any other ideological system and Libertarians along with it all. Its principles are only as good as the next election and the needs of its promoters to win.

Then this election was the double knock out Death Punch Spinning Roundhouse Kick of Doom. Libertarians have actually welded themselves to the Preachers Kid Ted Cruz. Growing up, 'PK' was a dismissive way of referring to a preachers child that was unruly, contemptuous and a bit of a hooligan. And Ted Cruz is a PK, in spades, as he has all the ear marks to include smooth rhetorical delivery while espousing things that are just blatant lies or irrational nonsense.

Cruz can calmly sit in front of a camera interview and say that Trump has little chance of getting the nomination since 60% of the GOP has been voting against Trump and Trump still has to win 65% of the remaining delegates...even though the same logic, if applied to Cruz means that Cruz has even less chance of winning. But no, somehow the previous logic does not apply to Cruz and he has the inside track to win. The Baghdad Bob school of political rhetoric is now the reigning spin method used by all 'Die Standing Never Trump' zealots.

But the current fraud that Cruz's libertarian supporters is using to pose as Trump supporters to get on a slate of delegates while fully intending to vote for Cruz on the first open ballot is just irredeemable fully knowing that we are likely to have a brokered convention. Fraud is one of only two prohibitions for people in Libertarian philosophy, and this is fraud that not only do these people admit to, but they gleefully wallow in. They are proud that they are defrauding Trump supporters, because these people DESERVE it for not being as smart as the Cruz people and thus fraud has become a competitive tool, somehow OK if it is to beat the bad guys.

But this is not the only nonsense that I have encountered in this election from Libertarians. Most of the younger ones have completely absorbed all the Establishment anti-white racism that colleges today spew out. I have heard these morons repeat the biggest bunch of nonsense, everything from 'White privilege' to 'immigration restrictions are racism' to 'everything white people have was stolen from someone else'. And no, they wont discuss it, unlike everything else. A libertarian friend I have known for 12 years now, just told me a few weeks ago that there is no basis for wanting secure borders other than racism. Nothing more than purely racism. He tells me this even though he and I both know he has been posing as a conservative for the whole time I have known him. These 'Conservative Libertarians' are closet amoral Ends Justifies The Means slime, just like the Nazis, the Stalinists, the Maoists and every other totalitarian group that I and other Libertarians have condemned with complete moral superiority for decades. Today's Libertarians are not Conservative Libertarians, they are Marxist Libertarians; culturally Marxist with Libertarian politics.

Again, Principle does not outweigh need, and the need to avoid correcting racist ideological nonsense among today's youth is a trade off that Libertarians are making.

It is all for the common good, you see?

When you say culturally marxist, are you referring to Ayn Rand?

 

[g5000]

But Ron Paul did bend when he decided to engage in delegate fraud by putting up his supporters as stealth delegates for other candidates.

There was no stealth. Ron Paul's supporters just used the rules of the delegate system to their advantage by showing up in force at state conventions. They broke no rules, and the delegates they selected still had to vote for Romney at the national convention, but only on the first vote of a contested convention, if there was one. Which there wasn't.

That is not fraud, that is organization. A lesson Donald Trump has failed at horribly, but which Ted Cruz has learned very well.

There is no fraud this go-round either, but Donald Trump is wailing as if there is. The dumb shit thought he could bellow his way to the nomination, when it is finesse that is needed.

Ron Paul read the fine print in the rules. Good for him, especially since the rules are rigged against upstarts like him.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Again -- you never really understood Libertarian principles. What people "owe" each other is a matter of record. And it SHOULD always be VOLUNTARY.. YOU are objecting to the "voluntary" part of it. Get it?

I object to the idea that it must always be voluntary, true, but the need for a draft, for limited martial law, for the responsibilities of parenthood, of the obligations of being a child of another, the obligations to obey community passed and approved laws, etc, these things no one ever asks you and most other if they were OK once they went into law. After that we are all obligated to obey them or leave. Without that involuntary obligation our nation and society would fall apart.

Take Soc Sec... There's not a practical majority of LibTs who would just CUT OFF benefits for those who ASSUMED there was a contract. And contrary to your assertions, the SS TrustFund is a cruel bookkeeping fiction. There is NOTHING of value in there. SS is running deficits since 2010 and that SHORTFALL goes back to the Treasury who then issues NEW debt for the shortfall. You and the working were robbed ONCE -- now you are being robbed yet again.

(Not the topic of this thread BTW --- but thought you should know -- start a thread -- I'll post the ADMISSIONS of what I asserted from SS Admin and CBO... .)

There is a huge of special issue Treasury Bonds that sit in a vault in West Virginia that are the Federal Debt to Social Security and they have just started tapping into them recently. They can make up the projected SS deficit for the next twenty years or so (2035) I believe.

YOU would be doing great harm to yourself, your family, and your nation by ASSUMING that FORCING folks into social contracts without CHOICE or RECOURSE is the same thing as a neighborly concern or altruism..

They have similarities, but obviously an obligation is different than a freely assumed responsibility.

 

[JimBowie1958]

When you say culturally marxist, are you referring to Ayn Rand?

Ayn Rand was raised in the Soviet Union and her beef with the Soviets was economic and political, so I do believe that she would have been a cultural Marxist.

However, the cultural Marxism I am referring to is that of the West and its inheritance from the Frankfurt school.

 

[g5000]

Just wanted to share my personal experiences here. These personal experiences do not empirically prove anything, but some readers might find some resonance with their own experiences with ideological libertarianism and might share theirs as well.

I read Atlas Shrugged way back in high school, 9th grade. I was truly enamored with the story and the characters and I was outraged that such things could happen to a person at the hands of indifferent bureaucrats. I knew that the story was fiction, but that it was deemed believable by enough people that the novel sold well was itself damning.

My union officer grandfather, who had passed away in 68, had been my political mentor for years. And I tried to grasp the books events and themes with his voice and guidance in mind. He would have pointed out the great harms that the government had prevented would have far outweighed the harm it caused less frequently in regulating industry and that corruption was inevitable in any system. He would have told me that the Founding Fathers had a libertarian streak to their philosophy and statecraft, but that the demands of the urban modern age made much of that obsolete. But still it couldnt salve the outrage I felt, an outrage I had not felt since I read 'Uncle Toms Cabin'.

I spoke with the librarian at my high school about what I could read that would be a rhetorical response to Rands libertarian philosophy, and she mentioned a number of articles and books, which I read. Most of them were using arguments I was already familiar with. But I read one from National Review, by Whitacker Chambers who said that Rands philosophy was Godless, amoral and silly. He tempered my slow slide into Libertarianism and allowed me to pull myself out of its moral quick sand years later.

Most of my friends were libertarians of one variety or another. The Great Deracination of White Southerners was ongoing at the time and most of them felt a need to latch on to something that could replace the values of their Southern upbringing, and Rand made a very compelling and glib alternative to anything that hinted of conservatism and its familiarity with the racism of Jim Crow. We discussed Rand quite a bit though I can only remember bits and pieces of it all now.

But one thing I do remember was the insistence of my friends that one can have a moral philosophy even if an atheist, even if one had no religious institutions to guide ones moral formation. I would counter that while it is possible that children abandoned to grow up in the wild could survive and end up as civilized as the next man, but feral children have never done so without the help of their fellow man. We are a social creature, not a mere collection of independent Philosopher Kings.

Well that went on for decades with different people I would meet. From discussions with the Libertarian Party booth 'venders' at country fairs to young programmers fresh out of college spitting out the same old slogans as if no one had ever heard them before, I really enjoyed these conversations. "Everything should be allowed unless it is violent or fraudulent" was the most frequently heard Libertarian bumper sticker slogan I heard during all that time. But close to that was "The common good is no excuse for stealing a persons property to give it to those who did not earn it and do not deserve it." was another. Those are not direct quotes but a composite of the many times I have heard this from enthusiastic freshly scrubbed Libertarian acolytes.

I considered myself to be a Constitutional Christian Libertarian, by and large from the time I left the Army till this year. It was all about hypothetical utopian dreaming while Libertarians had no chance of ever getting any real political power which made it fun, but it still rubbed off on my thinking. Libertarianism was too 'pure' for actually winning an election for many reasons, from the legalization of drugs and prostitution to the deregulation of commerce. But that was OK, it only made it more fun as we would build these fantasy castles out of Dreamers Sand.


That all changed with Ron Paul's run for the Presidency in 2012. For the first time, Dr Paul was having real impact on the Republican Party, though not at the voting booth. Dr Paul was slipping in his people as delegates in states across the country, with the intention of having them vote for him on subsequent rounds if the convention turned into an open convention.

"But wait, isnt that fraud to pose as a Romney supporter while your full intent is to vote for Paul instead?" I would ask them.

"Well, yes, but it is what we have to do to change things for the better." They would respond in utterly unRandian terms.

"Isnt that what every ideological despotism justified itself with?" I would counter to silence or a change in subject.

And so I began to see that Libertarianism is as morphable as any other ideological system and Libertarians along with it all. Its principles are only as good as the next election and the needs of its promoters to win.

Then this election was the double knock out Death Punch Spinning Roundhouse Kick of Doom. Libertarians have actually welded themselves to the Preachers Kid Ted Cruz. Growing up, 'PK' was a dismissive way of referring to a preachers child that was unruly, contemptuous and a bit of a hooligan. And Ted Cruz is a PK, in spades, as he has all the ear marks to include smooth rhetorical delivery while espousing things that are just blatant lies or irrational nonsense.

Cruz can calmly sit in front of a camera interview and say that Trump has little chance of getting the nomination since 60% of the GOP has been voting against Trump and Trump still has to win 65% of the remaining delegates...even though the same logic, if applied to Cruz means that Cruz has even less chance of winning. But no, somehow the previous logic does not apply to Cruz and he has the inside track to win. The Baghdad Bob school of political rhetoric is now the reigning spin method used by all 'Die Standing Never Trump' zealots.

But the current fraud that Cruz's libertarian supporters is using to pose as Trump supporters to get on a slate of delegates while fully intending to vote for Cruz on the first open ballot is just irredeemable fully knowing that we are likely to have a brokered convention. Fraud is one of only two prohibitions for people in Libertarian philosophy, and this is fraud that not only do these people admit to, but they gleefully wallow in. They are proud that they are defrauding Trump supporters, because these people DESERVE it for not being as smart as the Cruz people and thus fraud has become a competitive tool, somehow OK if it is to beat the bad guys.

But this is not the only nonsense that I have encountered in this election from Libertarians. Most of the younger ones have completely absorbed all the Establishment anti-white racism that colleges today spew out. I have heard these morons repeat the biggest bunch of nonsense, everything from 'White privilege' to 'immigration restrictions are racism' to 'everything white people have was stolen from someone else'. And no, they wont discuss it, unlike everything else. A libertarian friend I have known for 12 years now, just told me a few weeks ago that there is no basis for wanting secure borders other than racism. Nothing more than purely racism. He tells me this even though he and I both know he has been posing as a conservative for the whole time I have known him. These 'Conservative Libertarians' are closet amoral Ends Justifies The Means slime, just like the Nazis, the Stalinists, the Maoists and every other totalitarian group that I and other Libertarians have condemned with complete moral superiority for decades. Today's Libertarians are not Conservative Libertarians, they are Marxist Libertarians; culturally Marxist with Libertarian politics.

Again, Principle does not outweigh need, and the need to avoid correcting racist ideological nonsense among today's youth is a trade off that Libertarians are making.

It is all for the common good, you see?

When you say culturally marxist, are you referring to Ayn Rand?

"Cultural marxist" is a term used by White Nationalists to describe right wingers who don't go along with the prerequisite racialist aspects of Nazism which make it the far right movement it is.

When you are as far right as Nazis are, everyone else is a Leftist.

 

[JimBowie1958]

My problem with the Libertarians is, well, the libertarians. The notion of individual liberties is as essential as it gets. Unfortunately with the Libertarians, it always turns to isolationism, unfettered personal freedoms and government incapable of doing anything.

It's like it's all or nothing with those guys. Like I said, my problem with Ron Paul was never really Ron Paul, it was Ron Paul supporters.

Yeah, it is bizarre.

There is not a single shredof evidence that the RonPaulbots ever even tried to emulate the erudite wisdom of Dr Paul at all, which normally fanbois do.

 

[2aguy]

So, vote for John Kasich. All your existential-angst solved.

Classic response.

I am talking about the internal validity of a system of thought, and you boil that down to "OK, so vote for the other guy then."

I might end up voting for Cruz, if he is running against Hillary, but Cruz is only marginally better than Hillary in his dishonesty and willingness to lie.

At least he has more pleasant lies.

But I hope to vote for Sanders or Trump in the general election, not Cruz though he will do.

Actually, until Cruz actually breaks the law he is far above hilary. Cruz is a politician.....he is going to act like a politician...hilary has broken the law over and over....and to those who will say she was never convicted......al capone was just a tax cheat then...right?

So hilary has shown that she is an actual criminal neither Trump or Cruz have gone that far.......please keep that in mind.

4 years of Trump or Cruz at their worst are better than one day of hilary...because we already know she is a criminal....to elect her and give her the most powerful position in this country, with the abillity to use the government for her own ends and against her enemies....would be betraying your beliefs......

 

[2aguy]

Thanks for that OP, JB.

Yes, the Whitaker Chambers piece on Atlas Shrugged is one of the best takedowns of Libertarianism ever written.

I read Atlas Shrugged many years ago, and found it could have been written in 50 pages or less. The reason it is such a massive tome is to pound its propaganda into the heads of the malleable through unrelenting repetition. It is literary brainwashing of the dullest kind.

I think Ayn Rand's true nature is revealed in the train tunnel scene where she justifies the death of every living soul on board, right down to the tiniest child. She was one sick bitch. I completely understand her venomous reaction to her native Soviet Union, but she let her emotions run away from her while pretending "objectivism".

Nevertheless, I have a bit of a libertarian (small "l") streak myself. It can't be helped if you are a natural born conservative who was a member of the Young Americans for Freedom who met Ronald Reagan in 1977 like myself. Reagan had his own libertarian streak. After all, he was a great friend of Bill Buckley (who I also met that same year).

But I have found hardcore Libertarians to have no sense of human nature whatsoever. Their naivete knows no bounds.

There are Libertarians who are practically indistinguishable from Green party members. These must be the ones you encountered. But there are also Libertarians who are practically indistinguishable from White Nationalists (Nazis).

Most, though, are the kind who want to End the Fed™, legalize all drugs, end all federal regulation of business, and isolationists who want to shrink our military down to the size of a cub scout troop.

I've always admired the steadfastness of principle Ron Paul demonstrated. Right or wrong (and he was frequently right), he did not bend.

Of course you lie......you put white nationalist next to nazi in order to fool the uninformed....nazi means national socialist...yes...they were left wing, not right wing and they were socialists, not capitalists....

But keep lying........I know you can't help yourself.

 

[flacaltenn]

Well shit man -- if you're promoting "martial law" --- GOOD RIDDANCE !!!

Where do Libertarians advocate NOT following "community law"?? They may be fans of jury nullification as a fringe interest, but are not chronic civil disobedients.

What ARE the obligations of a child to a parent? Are YOU defining them? Are they independent of ABUSE or ABANDONMENT?? You don't KNOW how fix those problems with FORCE and LAW..

And there is NOTHING OF VALUE in the SS T.F. No large stack of special interest bonds. The Treasury never BOUGHT any. THere ARE big accounting binders with I.O.U entries. I could show them to you. But there is nothing of value in those IOUs to raise money to fund the deficits we are have 8 years early in the "fund".. NEW money has to be raised to cover the I.O.Us for money that Congress stole from you,...

 

[g5000]

Thanks for that OP, JB.

Yes, the Whitaker Chambers piece on Atlas Shrugged is one of the best takedowns of Libertarianism ever written.

I read Atlas Shrugged many years ago, and found it could have been written in 50 pages or less. The reason it is such a massive tome is to pound its propaganda into the heads of the malleable through unrelenting repetition. It is literary brainwashing of the dullest kind.

I think Ayn Rand's true nature is revealed in the train tunnel scene where she justifies the death of every living soul on board, right down to the tiniest child. She was one sick bitch. I completely understand her venomous reaction to her native Soviet Union, but she let her emotions run away from her while pretending "objectivism".

Nevertheless, I have a bit of a libertarian (small "l") streak myself. It can't be helped if you are a natural born conservative who was a member of the Young Americans for Freedom who met Ronald Reagan in 1977 like myself. Reagan had his own libertarian streak. After all, he was a great friend of Bill Buckley (who I also met that same year).

But I have found hardcore Libertarians to have no sense of human nature whatsoever. Their naivete knows no bounds.

There are Libertarians who are practically indistinguishable from Green party members. These must be the ones you encountered. But there are also Libertarians who are practically indistinguishable from White Nationalists (Nazis).

Most, though, are the kind who want to End the Fed™, legalize all drugs, end all federal regulation of business, and isolationists who want to shrink our military down to the size of a cub scout troop.

I've always admired the steadfastness of principle Ron Paul demonstrated. Right or wrong (and he was frequently right), he did not bend.

Of course you lie......you put white nationalist next to nazi in order to fool the uninformed....nazi means national socialist...yes...they were left wing, not right wing and they were socialists, not capitalists....

But keep lying........I know you can't help yourself.

Nazis are right wing, dipshit. No matter how much of Glenn Beck's piss you drink, it does not change that fact.

And White Nationalists are just a morphing of the KKK and Nazis into one brand by Don Black.

Fucking retards. "Duuuuhhhhhhhh...Nazis are left wing 'because socialism!'" BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

You are so retarded you don't even know to be embarrassed for thinking Nazis are left wing.

Heil Diversity!

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

I can't read through a self-absorbed, narcissistic rant like the O/P's. I take this board literally that's it called the US MESSAGE board, not soapbox. But some of the follow-up comments are good.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Thanks for that OP, JB.

Yes, the Whitaker Chambers piece on Atlas Shrugged is one of the best takedowns of Libertarianism ever written.

I read Atlas Shrugged many years ago, and found it could have been written in 50 pages or less. The reason it is such a massive tome is to pound its propaganda into the heads of the malleable through unrelenting repetition. It is literary brainwashing of the dullest kind.

I think Ayn Rand's true nature is revealed in the train tunnel scene where she justifies the death of every living soul on board, right down to the tiniest child. She was one sick bitch. I completely understand her venomous reaction to her native Soviet Union, but she let her emotions run away from her while pretending "objectivism".

Nevertheless, I have a bit of a libertarian (small "l") streak myself. It can't be helped if you are a natural born conservative who was a member of the Young Americans for Freedom who met Ronald Reagan in 1977 like myself. Reagan had his own libertarian streak. After all, he was a great friend of Bill Buckley (who I also met that same year).

But I have found hardcore Libertarians to have no sense of human nature whatsoever. Their naivete knows no bounds.

There are Libertarians who are practically indistinguishable from Green party members. These must be the ones you encountered. But there are also Libertarians who are practically indistinguishable from White Nationalists (Nazis).

Most, though, are the kind who want to End the Fed™, legalize all drugs, end all federal regulation of business, and isolationists who want to shrink our military down to the size of a cub scout troop.

I've always admired the steadfastness of principle Ron Paul demonstrated. Right or wrong (and he was frequently right), he did not bend.

Of course you lie......you put white nationalist next to nazi in order to fool the uninformed....nazi means national socialist...yes...they were left wing, not right wing and they were socialists, not capitalists....

But keep lying........I know you can't help yourself.

Yes, I dont understand the 'white nationalists' = Nazi theme.

I white nationalist is simply the group of all white people that want to represent themselves as white people in our Identity Politics political system.

Dont they have the right to do that without being deemed Nazis? Sure, some of them ARE Nazis, but that does not prove that they all are.

Jared Taylor for example isnot a Nazi, and Joseph Sobran and Craig Paul Roberts are popular columnists among them, so I dont see where the Nazi come is.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I can't read through a self-absorbed, narcissistic rant like the O/P's. I take this board literally that's it called the US MESSAGE board, not soapbox. But some of the follow-up comments are good.

Well except for post #58.