Why 'Libertarian' = 'Losertarian'

[waltky]

Uncle Ferd says...

... he's a Lovertarian.

 

[gipper]

I have been friends with and used to consider myself a small case 'l'ibertarian, but not an ideological 'L'ibertarian.

Doubt it, but okay.

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.

Nobody cares what a "system of ideology" can do for you. Only you can decide what you can do for you. That's the point.

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, .

If you have to force people into a war, perhaps you should reexamine the validity of that war? Possible? Hmm???

Anyway, just more collectivist nonsense. Ideas so good, they have to be mandatory.

opposing emergency powers for the government during disasters,

Private charity does it better every time. Even with all the existing federal funds, who shows up first to every disaster? The frickin' Mormons.

Charity should be voluntary. We are a charitable people.

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

State issue. Nothing the in Constitution about roads.

And I guarantee you, central planner wannabes have been around a lot longer than 1806.

Free minds and free markets win. Every time.

So much confusion in the first paragraphs, I couldn't continue.

What happens when the Federal government subsidizes something? The answer is pretty clear. When it subsidized the building of railroads so many decades ago, the result was waste and ineffectiveness. Yeah...the railroads got built and they created a tremendous benefit for the nation, but the cost and waste was exponentially more than if private enterprise had built them. This is generally true for EVERYTHING the federal government subsidizes.

At any rate, we are far past limiting the federal government. It is unlimited and clearly unconstitutional, which will result in the continued decline in liberty and individual freedom.

A better question might be how do we now control the federal government, when it is uncontrolled?

 

[Mac1958]

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.

I can understand your frustration - it seems to me that the current splintering of the GOP began when its Libertarian element (around the advent of the Tea Party) became large and strong enough to influence elections. That was the beginning of the bizarre absolutist environment in which anyone who dared to stray off path was labeled a RINO by talk radio and attacked with the same ferocity as any Democrat. Ted Cruz was essentially the embodiment, the result, of that environment.

But then came Trump out of nowhere - a guy who is/was clearly not a conservative but grabbed 40% of the party with his nationalist/populist thing. So the GOP went from a conservative absolutist party to a nationalist populist virtually overnight.

Obviously those two groups are now at each other's throats, while the rest of the party can only roll their eyes and shake their head.
.

 

[2aguy]

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.

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.

If Hilary wins the dream of limit d government and individual liberty is over.........libertarianism will just be a cooky, weird belief of a bunch of losers..as Americans get hooked on government handouts and get squeezed more and more by a growing regulatory and police state..........

 

[gipper]

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.

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.

If Hilary wins the dream of limit d government and individual liberty is over.........libertarianism will just be a cooky, weird belief of a bunch of losers..as Americans get hooked on government handouts and get squeezed more and more by a growing regulatory and police state..........

Maybe but it might rejuvenate the libertarian movement.

 

[Natural Citizen]

A better question might be how do we now control the federal government, when it is uncontrolled?

Mm. Yeah. This really is the more relevant question. Unfortunately, the more truthful and ultimate answer to this question cannot be discussed.

 

[Natural Citizen]

At any rate, the 2014 Mid-Terms were a signal that people were tired of the two Party system. We saw record turnouts. And higher third Party/Independent/Green Party/Constitution Party numbers than we've seen in modern history.

It would be foolish to think that the establishment didn't notice it and that they wouldn't react to it. I think what we are seeing now is the traditional single Party that functioned as one expanding into a single Party functioning as three. Meaning that the establishment is expanding single party control into the L Party.

It should also be understood that cultural Marxists are the true establishment. It's certainly an interesting trend that libertines are beginning to incorrectly self-identify as libertarian. Libertine, of course, is not libertarian. And I've read some rather misguided interpretations here tha further support that. So we're seeing a bit of a cultural Marxist infiltration of the Liberty movement. Which must be rejected if Individual Liberty is to be kept secure.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

You're way off the deep end. You must be confusing Libertarians with Anarchists. WAIT -- maybe I can get AnCaptnAmerica to demonstrate what "anarchos" are about.

No POLICE OFFICERS? Are you high? We love the civil/criminal justice system. Just want it to avoid treating citizens as subjects and to reform it so that it isn't used as the ONLY tool to affect societal changes.

The southern border problem is totally a GOVT created problem. There is already law to prevent the employment of undocumented workers. You could END that problem tomorrow by ENFORCING it and simultaneously embarking on an aggressive DOCUMENTATION program of the workers you REALLY want to retain. No need to Granny and Grandpa Imendez on a trail of tears. They are NOT a threat to jobs. No wall required. Libertarians WOULD end the "magnets" caused by promises of handouts, higher education, free healthcare and the like tho. No magnets, no jobs, ---- problem solved. Why haven't YOUR GUYS fix this??????

These whiny threads are worth about about a nickel.. If you can FIND a nickel anymore.

There is a shitload of difference between governing --- FROM WHERE WE ARE -- to debating "ideals". And we don't have time to be idealists anymore --- NONE of us do.....

So you are a libertarian in favor of government run police forces, secure borders, controlled immigration, and opposed to anarchy?

lol, so you want to actually win an election now by backing Johnson, or what?

roflmao

And on what basis do they oppose investment into our roads, science institutions and educational system when they support the above. Seriously, we're better off with these things as our gdp certainly wouldn't be but a friction of what it is today otherwise.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't want government to micromanage my life or to live in a police state, but throughout history government has always played a roll in these areas.

You're riding the fwrong horse in this race clearly. The GOP convention gave an emotional 8 or 10 minute produced video to Amer. Space Program and then brought on an astronaut as a speaker. WhatTF did the Dem Convention do???

The DNC outlined $TRILLs in new social spending that will PRECLUDE any substantial contributions to science and research.

What do Libertarians want? They want to END corporate welfare TOMORROW. And quit allowing the Feds to pick winners and losers in the EXISTING marketplace by pumping unimpressive tech with money and loans while their COMPETITORS flounder.

WHY? Because GE should NOT be getting a $40 tax break for every "energy efficient" appliance that they sell. Because Tesla shouldn't be the ONLY car company that reaps $Bills in govt leverage. Both BMW and Lexus CAN and WILL blow away Tesla in the Marketplace if it was a "fair fight".. Because PICKING Solyndra actually hastened the demise of their American competition.

Libertarians would RESTRICT Fed funding to things that are not NEAR market entry. The TRUE R&D on strategic GENERIC science and research. And they would create the SAVINGS to be able to broadly and fairly "fund science".. Get a clue man -- before we're INCAPABLE of recovering our technology lead in the world.

 

[flacaltenn]

I have been friends with and used to consider myself a small case 'l'ibertarian, but not an ideological 'L'ibertarian.

Doubt it, but okay.

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.

Nobody cares what a "system of ideology" can do for you. Only you can decide what you can do for you. That's the point.

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, .

If you have to force people into a war, perhaps you should reexamine the validity of that war? Possible? Hmm???

Anyway, just more collectivist nonsense. Ideas so good, they have to be mandatory.

opposing emergency powers for the government during disasters,

Private charity does it better every time. Even with all the existing federal funds, who shows up first to every disaster? The frickin' Mormons.

Charity should be voluntary. We are a charitable people.

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

State issue. Nothing the in Constitution about roads.

And I guarantee you, central planner wannabes have been around a lot longer than 1806.

Free minds and free markets win. Every time.

So much confusion in the first paragraphs, I couldn't continue.

What happens when the Federal government subsidizes something? The answer is pretty clear. When it subsidized the building of railroads so many decades ago, the result was waste and ineffectiveness. Yeah...the railroads got built and they created a tremendous benefit for the nation, but the cost and waste was exponentially more than if private enterprise had built them. This is generally true for EVERYTHING the federal government subsidizes.

At any rate, we are far past limiting the federal government. It is unlimited and clearly unconstitutional, which will result in the continued decline in liberty and individual freedom.

A better question might be how do we now control the federal government, when it is uncontrolled?

Besides locking up their ability to diddle in the Marketplace for EXISTING products, You need to focus them on their primary Constitutional duties. Like assuring FAIR elections, control of borders and immigration, and writing REAL legislation === not a blank check outline for the Minions of Morons to fill in over YEARS of unmonitored dicking with things like Dodd Frank and ACA. That creates market and economic and personal uncertainty and drags the economy.. VETO any Bill that is not FULLY FORMED when it passes Congress.

Start hacking at the Agencies and cleaning out crony Capitalism from the Dept of Commerce. Reform hiring and firing and agency accountibility. So that Congress can get a straight answer WITHOUT 9 months and subpeneas and screaming.. That's what an EXEC branch should do. .

Gary Johnson said in retrospect he could have sent home 1/3 of the New Mexico bureaucracy and NO ONE would have noticed the difference.

 

[gipper]

A better question might be how do we now control the federal government, when it is uncontrolled?

Mm. Yeah. This really is the more relevant question. Unfortunately, the more truthful and ultimate answer to this question cannot be discussed.

True enough. Though the Founders spoke often of the need to control government and if need be, by armed rebellion. The following quote is very pointed...I suppose statists today would like to imprison anyone who said the same.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Thomas Jefferson

 

[flacaltenn]

He took that position for $1/year to apply his govt expertise to the very REAL problems of getting ahead of public policy on the subject. NOT to enhance the business or benefit financially. He did it to ASSURE that when the people decide to decriminalize weed, that the processes and regulations are fair and workable. So that it doesn't become an embarrassing disaster.

He's in line to recoup money in investment. The $1 was a token gesture. He expects to make money.
Pot should be recriminalized or at least careless potheads should be jailed for life if they smoke their dope in any public setting.

You wanna run by the fine folks in Colorado or wait and see what problems ACTUALLY crop up?

And what is "a careless pothead"? Is that as dangerous as someone who intends to reward the Dem/Rep losers by voting for them in this election?

If a person in Colorado blows their pot smoke in my direction I might shoot them in self defense. Their funeral, my safety. I won't be held hostage by ignorant arrogance.
Nothing libertarian about blowing pot smoke on other people. That would be just the opposite of libertarian.

Then you simply have no concept of how to preserve maximum Liberty without resorting to force and violence. We don't want you.. There's a little thing called TOLERANCE. Even if I personally think potheads are stupid and damaged, to me that's a medical issue. Not a call for guys with guns. Or a need to fill up our jails with them.

You're not likely to be part of any solutions to the current political down spiral...

If someone attacks you and threatens harm you have a natural right to protect yourself. Very libertarian. How is that not libertarian? Why do potheads get to attack others with their THC-laden poisonous smoke?

Are there really bands of potheads ATTACKING people with poisonous smoke? Or are you riffing on some non-scientific, emotional concept of fear and hate?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

He's in line to recoup money in investment. The $1 was a token gesture. He expects to make money.
Pot should be recriminalized or at least careless potheads should be jailed for life if they smoke their dope in any public setting.

You wanna run by the fine folks in Colorado or wait and see what problems ACTUALLY crop up?

And what is "a careless pothead"? Is that as dangerous as someone who intends to reward the Dem/Rep losers by voting for them in this election?

If a person in Colorado blows their pot smoke in my direction I might shoot them in self defense. Their funeral, my safety. I won't be held hostage by ignorant arrogance.
Nothing libertarian about blowing pot smoke on other people. That would be just the opposite of libertarian.

Then you simply have no concept of how to preserve maximum Liberty without resorting to force and violence. We don't want you.. There's a little thing called TOLERANCE. Even if I personally think potheads are stupid and damaged, to me that's a medical issue. Not a call for guys with guns. Or a need to fill up our jails with them.

You're not likely to be part of any solutions to the current political down spiral...

If someone attacks you and threatens harm you have a natural right to protect yourself. Very libertarian. How is that not libertarian? Why do potheads get to attack others with their THC-laden poisonous smoke?

Are there really bands of potheads ATTACKING people with poisonous smoke? Or are you riffing on some non-scientific, emotional concept of fear and hate?

You've never attended a music event?
Ever walk down the street in a college town? Poison gas (pot smoke) in the air, all with the blessing and encouragement of the pothead-in-chief.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

It is more of a distinction without a real difference and neither of which have a snowballs chance in hell of ever happening.

No state = minimal state?

Must be the common core math.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

Of course it isn't. That's why libertarianism should be applied as a barometer.

Of course it's a straw man. YOU set up the situation where you claim libertarianism (the impossible Utopia) as the barometer, as the method to try and prove your assertion correct.

Classic straw man argument.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Of course it isn't. That's why libertarianism should be applied as a barometer.

Of course it's a straw man. YOU set up the situation where you claim libertarianism (the impossible Utopia) as the barometer, as the method to try and prove your assertion correct.

Classic straw man argument.

It's a concept. An ideology. A theory. Everything is made out of straw.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

It's a concept. An ideology. A theory. Everything is made out of straw.

It's a text book straw man argument. That can't be denied.

 

[dblack]

Of course it isn't. That's why libertarianism should be applied as a barometer.

Of course it's a straw man. YOU set up the situation where you claim libertarianism (the impossible Utopia) as the barometer, as the method to try and prove your assertion correct.

Classic straw man argument.

The straw man here is the idea that libertarianism relies on an impossible utopia. Libertarianism is just a preference for liberty, and the notion that protecting liberty is the primary purpose of government.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

[

The straw man here is the idea that libertarianism relies on an impossible utopia. Libertarianism is just a preference for liberty, and the notion that protecting liberty is the primary purpose of government.

A purpose at which it has dismally failed.

Yet the statists still cling to the fool claim that only big government can be used to get rid of big government.