Uhhh...based libertarians?
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.