Uhhh...based libertarians?
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (72)
sorted by:
Also, Open Borders and Free Trade.
Fuck off, lolberts.
Yeah, lolbertarians are most definitely not the answer.
What is then? Seething about it on the internet for years on end?
There's a difference between Libertarianism and Koch Brother's Corporately Sponsored Reason Magazine Libertarianism.
Open Borders between countries is not acceptable, especially when you have corporate colonization efforts.
International free trade can't exist when you have governments weaponizing their trade in order to facilitate colonialism and imperialism.
It's not "free trade" when the government institutionalizes massive subsidies into law to facilitate a single corporation to benefit, the same way telecom and finance are not free markets.
It's not a free and voluntary movement of people, when a corporation agrees to make a plan between two governments to forcibly remove a swath of people from one government to lower the burden on that socialist government's welfare state, in order to transplant them into a corporate colony where the other government is guaranteed to get voters.
While there is certainly an impetus on both governments and corporations to see this movement, you can't say with a straight face that it isn't voluntary. It's not free, but with how poor enforcement is, it may as well be unfettered.
The colonization effect you refer to is just people who can acquire a better standard of living than they're leaving, even if it's worse relative to the standard they're moving to. Of course they'll take that deal. It doesn't need a nefarious scheme, because it's simply the best option.
International trade should mostly exist in the space where autarky is impractical or highly inefficient, based on geography and resource distribution. A nation grows wealth when it doesn't bleed value.
Voluntary as in the concept of a contract. Yeah, it's voluntary when some asshole volunteers to squat in your house and shit on your carpet, he volunteered to do that. You were the party that didn't get a choice.
So, when someone steals your money to bring someone into your house to squat in your bedroom and shit on your carpet... that's not voluntary. Your house is being confiscated so it can be turned into subsidized slave barracks.
Put it like this. If you invite someone to your house, does that give your guest the right to drive through your neighbors yard because it's shorter? No. That's trespassing: hippity-hoppity. So if your guest crashes through your neighbor's yard, and your neighbor shoots them, is that wrong? No. Hippity hoppity.
This is one of the things that bothers me about the border. You have people who's property is on the border who can't do anything about illegals crossing, not the border, but their land. They should be building their own barbed wire entanglements. Hell, the government should be paying them to build barbed wire entanglements. If a horde of people is pouring through your property without permission you make them hippity fucking hoppity the fuck back to Guatemala, I don't care if Koch Foods Inc sent you. The McKloskeys did nothing wrong.
You don't get it. There's not supposed to be a deal. The reason there's a "deal" is because a massive corporation (a public business and legal construction of the government) made a deal with a Socialist fucking state to take X amount of the Socialist government's population to eliminate the pressure on that government's bloated welfare system.
If those Leftist governments didn't deport their populations to corporate colonies, their government would collapse form internal tension and economic malfeasance. So, they traffic people out of the country for political reasons to these public corporations who create plantations where everyone works and spends most of their time. This will include bribing the local government to control them, and then putting all of their illegal colonists into public housing and public accommodation.
The deal should never have been allowed at all. There shouldn't have been an easing on the Socialist welfare state's burden. There should not have been an offer from a public corporation. If you want to come to America, you shouldn't be offered anything except the luxury of becoming an American. No gibs. No corporate gibs, no government gibs, no charity gibs. No gibs.
I don't believe in Isolationism, but if we did that the Isolationists would have thought they had banned immigration. The strongest driving force of deportations is economics. As soon as it looks like Americans might not pay for illegals to work, they leave. If you stop paying illegals to come here, then they won't come either.
This is why public corporations that participate in these schemes should be actively fucking dissolved.
International trade exists because autarky is always impractical and highly inefficient.
All that reactionary attitude and I still gotta bat you on the nose for embracing socialist economics.
You unintentionally hit on the overarching problem with libertarianism. Incidentally, it's the problem with all ideologies that ignore basic human nature.
It is a deal, as much as an unattended $20 is.
Libertarianism didn't build public corporations and welfare states.
You're missing my point. If someone wants to come to America, that can't be part of a human trafficking scheme.
People who want to come to America need to earn their way in as individuals.
I know what you're saying, but my point is, they don't come here for public corporations or the welfare state. They come here because the nations they built never developed very far, and they're poor.
Efforts to stop them are a bit out of line with libertarian ideology, at least as it used to stand.
Americans individually will pay bottom dollar for labor. So you have to flex a little authoritarianism to make something like this happen. "Guy's Remodelling", picking up 4 random Mexicans on the corner each morning, isn't a public corporation. It's just a supply and demand thing.
They absolutely come for the welfare state, that's a driving factor for mass migration in Europe, but it's also a factor in the US. The primary factor in the US is a corporate plantation which gives them an effective welfare state.
It's called "controlled opposition".
This is a supply and demand thing, but it's a different problem you have the wrong direction for a solution. They literally can't hire people legally without incurring huge costs. American labor is over-priced because of all the protectionism that makes sure no one can afford it. This drives up use of illegal labor as well as automation. If it were legal to pay Americans a simple wage with no massive legal and regulatory barriers in place, there would be no issue.
This is why California is doing everything in it's power to destroy the "gig economy". They want everyone to be paid $25 an hour with a massive corporate benefit scheme at an incredible cost that will destroy all but the largest businesses who will get subsidies, tax-breaks, and write-offs to stay afloat. They want only corporate slaves, and for everyone else to be a politically and economically dependent underclass made loyal by welfare state slavery, grateful that Amazon finally gave them a chance after being on a wait-list for 2 years.
If legal American labor was allowed to compete with few restrictions and mandated "benefits", the competition would be too stiff for illegals to want to come. Instead the government ensures that they create conditions that incentivize the largest businesses to import as many millions as they can carry.
Like I said, if you want to create even worse mass migration, increasing the cost of legal American labor is the best way to do it.
To be fair, "open borders" was a heavy split within the party for years. I'd wager it was mostly libertarian for borders, while the anarcho side was more anti-border, but dwelt within the libertarians as a way to progress their agenda.
You're against free trade? Is that really a conservative position?
I'm against policy that destroys our middle class, and these two forces were probably the most destructive. I wouldn't call myself conservative, though free trade always struck me as a trojan horse slipped into conservatism by neocons.
I don't see how free trade would destroy the middle class. Maybe we have different definitions
Free trade lets people accustomed to living in dirt and shit produce goods at prices that American workers and manufacturers can't compete with while maintaining a high standard of living.
Part of the problem is that we implement free trade while letting the other side use tariffs, which isn't free trade at all.
Free trade is you both drop trade barriers and compete with one another on a level playing field (no currency manipulations or tariffs), or you resort to tariffs until the other side relents.
If we had real free trade then we would either drop regulation that hurts competition or have the other country agree to adopt them. You can't trade equally when you have vastly different legal requirements on manufacturers, different monetary policy, etc.
That's why it is simpler to use tariffs to control things and be independent of any other system. You can only do free trade on a 1 to 1 basis with a similarly advanced country, or you will get undercut by slave labor as you mention.
You are thinking "Free
TradeMarket" the fundamental right to buy and sell goods without government intervention. The core of what makes "capitalism" good.They are talking "Free International Trade" that incentivizes dirt cheap foreign labor and goods over local goods. The core of what allowed unaccountable Corporations to dominate the world.
The language gap between liberterians, lolberterians, and conservatives is not that much better than the one between conservatives and communists.
I can't say I really hear people use the phrase "free trade" outside of international trade policy. When talking about domestic trade, it's usually phrased as "free market".
It get's interchanged frequently on patriots. I've interjected into this same miscommunication dozens of times over the last two years.
There's an ever growing amount of people who have never paid much attention to foreign policy, and the libertarians are right, "free trade" has been pushed as a neocon position in the past, as if it was equivalent to free market. It's not uncommon for this debate to get derailed by misunderstanding. It's also not uncommon for some conservatives to still think free trade is a good idea.
Free trade is a misnomer, if I enslaved an entire country, forced them to make products which you buy for cheap, where is the freedom? Free trade can only occur when both sides of the trade have the same human rights. Alabama can freely trade and compete with California because they are bound by the same constitution. No American can freely trade with China because their constituents are not free, they are forced.
Because these are your competitors in the global marketplace: https://allthatsinteresting.com/cage-homes-hong-kong Are you willing to go live in a filthy cage to keep your advantage?
"But if you can compete with a guy living in a coffin-sized cage then you just suck and you need to git gud!" - Nobody who says stuff like this has had to work with a bunch of Indians. Companies will happily hire three completely incompetent street-shitting Pajeets for pennies on the dollar to replace a single competent white guy, it happens daily and it doesn't put them at a competitive disadvantage because competition does it too, because the managerial class is filled with insane, malicious psychopaths who will literally set the your grandma on fire to make a few bucks, and they'll be gone by the time the disastrous consequences of their decisions catch up with the company they previously infested.
Everybody benefits from competition. If rather just have stuff that's cheaper than work a shit job for minimum wage. I wouldn't even consider myself middle class if I made minimum wage.
And you know what, those jobs that you like so much might not even go over seas if the Republicans would grow some balls and deregulate some shit.
Conservatism is suicide.
Free trade =/= letting in whoever the hell you want.
Into what?
Please define "free trade".
Is it "free trade" when Good X is produced in Country A and imported into Country B because Country A allows toxic chemicals to be dumped into their water supply and Country B doesn't?
Is it "free trade" when Country A's politicians say "we're going to put a lot of workers producing Good X out of work", enact policies to do so, and production of Good X moves to Country B as a result?
Is it "free trade" when multinational companies are effectively determining which country to produce good in based on what kickbacks they get from the local government?
Do people here have to be conservatives?
Are monarchists acceptable?
Bourbonists, yes. Orleanists, no.
Give me three examples.
No need, as you were unable to produce three examples.
Both those things have been heavily debated in libertarian circles lately. A lot are agreeing they are low priority if not outright utopian fantasy. There are plenty of other libertarian stances that are worth fighting for without getting butthurt about those.
That's good to hear. The utopianism is what ultimately turned me off to it. It defies basic human nature, even if they get market capitalism correct. Hopefully, they'll get to the questions of virtue and self-control, and whether liberty can exist without them.
Ron Paul is a Christian and has said many times that a religious, educated populace is the only one that can truly practice liberty.
Yes, and in the absense of that, libertarianism is very poor fit. It has no solutions for restoring or maintaining a virtuous population. The open borders thing just adds insult to the naivety, but I'm glad it's falling out of favor.
This is truly based.
I have never seen a state libertarian party be this based.
Most real libertarians are "based", but the Libertarian party isn't the answer. It's controlled oppo filled with AnComs that just want legalized drugs.
Props to the state party seeing how terrible they did in the election trying to win over some converts, but they should be trying to take over the GOP.
The LP will be completely taken over by the Mises Caucus by the end of 2022. We can use it to spread the message of liberty and put electoral pressure on the Republicans to force them closer to defending liberty. Compare this to the Republican Party, which neutralized the Tea Party in less than 2 years, turning it from the Ron Paul Revolution into BoomerCon Paul Ryan BS.
The Mises Caucus recently took over NH, CA, CO, and the greatest change, NV. We already had some great stuff coming out of Kentucky. The takeover is going well.
I'm a full believer in having a true libertarian in the executive office, and some semblance of the uni-party in Congress for checks and balances.
Ron Paul was a great candidate for this reason. That and against the Fed.
Edit: This is given the 2-party system. It's near impossible to even win the presidential, but at least that's 1 seat vs. however many required in the House/Senate to have non-trivial effect.
A libertarian as executive wouldn't be able to get anything done. At best he could dismantle things that the next executive would reinstate.
I'm not hopeful enough to think there'll ever be a Congress that accomplishes positive goals in the legislative branch. Therefore, the best I can hope for is a deterrent, and one who can use whatever presidential powers there are (like yanking armies out of foreign nations, etc.)...not that it'll happen either, but maybe less improbable than winning N many congressional seats.
I've never seen any political party be this based.
I had a big thing written up, but eh.
TO BE FAIR, when conservatives/Republican voters try to actually do something they get put on watch lists, canceled, and/or arrested whereas leftists just get accolades, maaaaaaybe a mugshot at worst.
But then again, things are at this point since conservatives didn't do anything earlier for whatever reason
edit: leftists also get nice cushy jobs in government and academia
The line for what gets you put on a list skews hard against AnCaps and Libertarians.
A group of Communist terrorists attacked the University of Wisconsin's Sterling Hall building with a VBIED and killed a janitor inside. They fled to Canada, were given a protected status so that they couldn't be returned to America and be potentially executed, and in the end, the worst fate one of them had was facing 7 years in prison. He lived in Madison, WI until his death selling hot dogs and being unapologetic that his act of terrorism was morally imperative.
A man who believed that Science shouldn't be paywalled walked into his University's server room and downloaded the entire contents of it's academic papers into a USB stick, then proceeded to upload them to a academic paper sharing site. He is currently sitting in a federal prison and was sentenced to 40 years.
A swath of the Weather Underground terrorist group have become college professors.
The guy who invented Silk Road was slandered as creating a site solely for the purposes of selling drugs, and has been hunted and prosecuted about as hard as Osama Bin Laden would have.
The government knows who is a bigger threat to their power, and it ain't the pinkos.
That is actually good. I hate disparate impact. Honestly it will take voluntary charity type work to help those on the lower end of the socio-economic ladder.
I agree with all of those.
Quite the double edged sword you got there libertarian
Repealing the Civil Rights Act is dumb. People don't realize it yet, but that is one of the few legislative protections afforded to Christians. Wake me up when Libertarians decide whether they are for or against open borders.
Wow, that make AOC look like she actually earned her degree.
Comment Reported for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Comment Removed