Why 'Libertarian' = 'Losertarian'

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Sep 25, 2011
63,590
16,756
2,220
I have been friends with and used to consider myself a small case 'l'ibertarian, but not an ideological 'L'ibertarian. I have always felt that there are limits to what a system of ideology can do for you. Ideology is nothing more than a tool that if you use too much to express your own thought, the tool ends up doing all your thinking for you.

While most conservatives have a healthy regard for limited government and individual rights, Libertarians take it to an extreme, opposing a draft in time of war, opposing emergency powers for the government during disasters, objecting to any use of government funding to improve our infrastructure despite the FACT that the US government has been doing this since 1806 when they funded the construction of the National Road.

National_road_map.png


But ideologues never let actual facts stop them and Libertarians are no different. And with these guys, there is a certain mystique in always losing elections, funding and being rejected by the general population as they think it kind of sanctifies them as being right, somehow.

Back when Bob Barr was the Libertarian Party nominee and got into double digits in a few polls running for POTUS, a Libertarian friend of mine expressed dismay saying that if Barr was so popular, there must be something wrong with him. I asked him how Libertarians could ever win an election with that kind of attitude, and he replied 'We are not supposed to win elections; that is for the sheeple.' That was the final straw as I began to realize that Libertarian = Losertarian and that observation has been confirmed repeatedly over the years.

And we see this dynamic in play in the Republican party today, where a good many of the Ted Cruz supporters were Libertarians from Rand Pauls campaign after he folded his tent. Instead of bowing to the winner and taking backstage, no, they have decided that it is better to lose the election than to support a 'liberal' like Donald Trump, lol. The only issues that Trump got his 'liberal' label for was that he was in favor of keeping Social Security, using government to help people and reforming our trade agreements to benefit the American worker rather than the American corporations. Isnt this a losing position, to oppose these programs and revising these treaties? Well yes, but Libertarians are totally OK with that, no matter who else it drags down with them, like the rest of the GOP. Hence 'Losertarian'.

But the moral impact of this fatalistic vision of humanity is the most abhorrent of all. Libertarians recognize there existing no unfortunate person, as to them each and every one of us are in total command of our own destiny, no matter if you cant get a job because of age discrimination, a history of disabilities or being Black Listed. IF you cant do what it takes to succeed, in their opinion, then you are a whiner and deserve to die. The fact that even the top STEM graduates are having a hard time getting work doesnt persuade them to ease back on the inflow of more H1-B visa workers, no, if Americans cant compete with three STEM people for every STEM job, then thats their problem and they can starve. The fact that almost every Libertarian I had ever met would not have survived living in the 1800s really doesnt bother them, if it even enters their mental radar at all.

And of course this heartless attitude fucks it all up for actual conservatives who mistake these drones for a form of conservatism. But Russel Kirk and Edmund Burke would not have recognized these ass holes as conservative in any way shape or form. Conservatism is about preserving Christendom and always has been and these Johnny-Come-Lately Losertarians are nothing more than a bunch of rats who are not bad because of what they eat so much as what they get into and spoil for human consumption.

They are leaving their mark on this 2016 election so far, convincing innocent conservatives making the mistake of trusting them, to truthfully explain why they will not support an obviously conservative candidate. But with any luck, it will brand them for the alien shits that they are and the GOP will be more able to purge them from the ranks in 2018.
 
someone who isn't a libertarian tries to define what the libertarians believe... doesn't go well, does it? how do you even know what the libertarians believe? the only thing they all have in common is that aggression is forbidden, beyond that they have twice as many ideals as they have voters. but the libertarians are not against building roads, they're against using force to do it. did you purchase the land of your own free will, did you earn the money it cost to buy it, or did you confiscate the land from someone else, or did you threaten or punish those who refused to just hand the money over to you on demand? what sort of behavior is that? what sort of karma is there to come back and haunt you later on for what you've done? just because you wanted more pavement... and when the libertarians are offering you free advice on foreign policy, you should listen carefully. when they say, don't make war with that country in the middle east or else they will all go eternally jihad on your sorry ass, but then, what would a losertarian know about a hornet's nest? if they had no compassion or didn't care about you, they wouldn't say anything about it at all.
 
OP, you likely have a misguided view of what Liberty actually means as it relates to the traditional American form of governance. Respectfully.

End of the day, one is either libertartian or they're not. Its fundamental principles and primary foundation for moral code cannot be accepted and rejected piece-meal. They must be accepted together as an Indivisible whole in order to make a legitimate claim to their benefit.
 
someone who isn't a libertarian tries to define what the libertarians believe... doesn't go well, does it? .
Actually it perfectly well. Your silly response exemplifies what I am talking about.

People are not going to spontaneously group up and build a road which is why roads have been built by governments since the Persians.

People are not going to just group up and protect the public against criminals, which is why the government has police officers.

You dude like in Lala Land.
 
What are you using the word Libertarian with an apostrophe for?

It would take us to consider the Iberian Peninsula in the southwest of Europe, and especially if we are distancing ourselves from ideology.

For what reason are you using the word in that way yet using American Politics as a main reference contender?

It makes no sense. Your thoughts are caught as you so have described, in your strictly banishing and strictly brandishing ideological mind.
 
What would you spot as a point where I am misguided about?

Ha. That's a deep discussion, brother. Far too long for the time I have at the moment. I'm just popping in here for a couple of minutes. I'll jump back in here later this evening if you want to talk about it in depth.

I did, however, edit my thought there right after you responded. I'll touch on it with you when I'm back on here later if you want. As I mentioned, though, I'm just popping in here for minute.

I'll tell you, though, that I'm a libertarian purist. So you'll see a different debate from me than you likely see with most. Of course, I'm new here so I suppose i could be wrong about that. I haven't really read the board enough to se ewho is who and saying what in particular on the topic.
 
What are you using the word Libertarian with an apostrophe for?

Eh. He's just separating big L and little l. There is a difference. Policy doesn't define Liberty. Fundamental principles do.

Gary Johnson, for instance, is not a libertarian. He openly rejects Individual Liberty's most fundamental supporting principal. Which is effectively an open rejection of Individual Liberty fully. His position is one that is aggressive toward Individual Liberty.

the definition of principal

Anyway. I have to get off here. Later...
 
Libertarianism works as a barometer. But the actual application of libertarianism requires a utopia. A perfect example would mean no need for stop signs or traffic lights as everyone would magically avoid conflict.
 
What are you using the word Libertarian with an apostrophe for?

Eh. He's just separating big L and little l. There is a difference. Policy doesn't define Liberty. Principles do.

Gary Johnson, for instance, is not a libertarian. He openly rejects Individual Liberty's most fundamental supporting principal. Which is effectivelyan open rejection of Individual Liberty fully.

Anyway. I have to get off here. Later...

It wasn't clear to me. Thanks for pointing out the OP's intention.

I've been working on the various forms of capitalism, including literary capitalism, in which small and big letters modify and regulate the significance provided and taken within extended texts such as policy would be.

Nonetheless, I still am for contention that if we are to disband ideology as primary operative mode in politics, then there isn't really much difference between "this libertarian" or "that libertarian", but that there is an established and policed standard of any "useful libertarian" to be in the process of an appropriately orienting government.
 
What are you using the word Libertarian with an apostrophe for?

Eh. He's just separating big L and little l. There is a difference. Policy doesn't define Liberty. Principles do.

Gary Johnson, for instance, is not a libertarian. He openly rejects Individual Liberty's most fundamental supporting principal. Which is effectivelyan open rejection of Individual Liberty fully.

Anyway. I have to get off here. Later...

It wasn't clear to me. Thanks for pointing out the OP's intention.

I've been working on the various forms of capitalism, including literary capitalism, in which small and big letters modify and regulate the significance provided and taken within extended texts such as policy would be.

Nonetheless, I still am for contention that if we are to disband ideology as primary operative mode in politics, then there isn't really much difference between "this libertarian" or "that libertarian", but that there is an established and policed standard of any "useful libertarian" to be in the process of an appropriately orienting government.
I just said exactly that in one word; barometer.
 
What are you using the word Libertarian with an apostrophe for?

Eh. He's just separating big L and little l. There is a difference. Policy doesn't define Liberty. Principles do.

Gary Johnson, for instance, is not a libertarian. He openly rejects Individual Liberty's most fundamental supporting principal. Which is effectivelyan open rejection of Individual Liberty fully.

Anyway. I have to get off here. Later...

It wasn't clear to me. Thanks for pointing out the OP's intention.

I've been working on the various forms of capitalism, including literary capitalism, in which small and big letters modify and regulate the significance provided and taken within extended texts such as policy would be.

Nonetheless, I still am for contention that if we are to disband ideology as primary operative mode in politics, then there isn't really much difference between "this libertarian" or "that libertarian", but that there is an established and policed standard of any "useful libertarian" to be in the process of an appropriately orienting government.
I just said exactly that in one word; barometer.

Where I come from a barometer is a tool to measure the amount of rain that occurs throughout a determined period of time.

How is "that" (whatever you may be referring to) to do with any of what I mentioned in the previous post?
 
Libertarianism works as a barometer. But the actual application of libertarianism requires a utopia. A perfect example would mean no need for stop signs or traffic lights as everyone would magically avoid conflict.
Straw man.

Libertarians and anarchists will be the first to tell you that Utopia isn't ever an option.
 
how do you even know what the libertarians believe?
Yes, unlike communists, republicans, democrats, socialists, no one knows what libertarianism is. It's a secret club, and much like scientology, you don't know what it even is until you're let in the club. It's all a big mystery.

...or maybe you're just fucking stupid and there is no mystery. Of course we know what libertarianism is, you dolt.
 
someone who isn't a libertarian tries to define what the libertarians believe... doesn't go well, does it? .
Actually it perfectly well. Your silly response exemplifies what I am talking about.

People are not going to spontaneously group up and build a road which is why roads have been built by governments since the Persians.

People are not going to just group up and protect the public against criminals, which is why the government has police officers.

You dude like in Lala Land.

People are not going to spontaneously group up and build a road? I certainly hope you're right and I'm a Libertarian with capital "L". I sure hope people will discuss it first.. then get the community to perform fundraisers.... if they needed/wanted the road badly enough,they'll get it done.. even if some want to volunteer to physically help. Businesses could even get involved. Anyway, that's further down the road and even then, we may not even need roads (technology). But the idea of flat consumer tax is much more appealing to us than the methods of theft. Talk to some more libertarians one on one before claiming to know everything about them? thanks
 
What are you using the word Libertarian with an apostrophe for?

Eh. He's just separating big L and little l. There is a difference. Policy doesn't define Liberty. Principles do.

Gary Johnson, for instance, is not a libertarian. He openly rejects Individual Liberty's most fundamental supporting principal. Which is effectivelyan open rejection of Individual Liberty fully.

Anyway. I have to get off here. Later...

It wasn't clear to me. Thanks for pointing out the OP's intention.

I've been working on the various forms of capitalism, including literary capitalism, in which small and big letters modify and regulate the significance provided and taken within extended texts such as policy would be.

Nonetheless, I still am for contention that if we are to disband ideology as primary operative mode in politics, then there isn't really much difference between "this libertarian" or "that libertarian", but that there is an established and policed standard of any "useful libertarian" to be in the process of an appropriately orienting government.
I just said exactly that in one word; barometer.

Where I come from a barometer is a tool to measure the amount of rain that occurs throughout a determined period of time.

How is "that" (whatever you may be referring to) to do with any of what I mentioned in the previous post?
Barometers measure pressure. Rain gauges measure rainfall.
Libertarianism should be used as a measuring device (happy?). Absolute libertarianism requires a utopia which would render libertarianism moot.
'What would a libertarian do' should be the standard device motto to resolve conflict.
 
Libertarianism works as a barometer. But the actual application of libertarianism requires a utopia. A perfect example would mean no need for stop signs or traffic lights as everyone would magically avoid conflict.
Straw man.

Libertarians and anarchists will be the first to tell you that Utopia isn't ever an option.
Of course it isn't. That's why libertarianism should be applied as a barometer.
 

Forum List

Back
Top