Lolberts are part of the problem. They accelerate Deleuzian territorialization by dismantling institutions of order and authority, then act surprised when leftists step into the vacuum and erect similar institutions but with inverted values oriented towards chaos. It paralyzes the right from acting and creates an inherent power asymmetry that guarantees failure. The libertarian/authoritarian axis is a false dichotomy; even the most radical libertarian wants to impose his ideal political vision on the rest of society, but the lolbert's refusal to wield power ensures the impossibility of such occuring.
I am expanding the original post to acknowledge the answer to the regressive problem, and to state that libertarians will accept what we do to our enemies as said groups are threats.
Libertarianism of any variety, cultural or financial, has no answer to the inherent bad faith of the left.
It is an unviable ideology on its face simply because of that. Any ideology that is unwilling or unable to severely and violently gatekeep its society, is not one that will survive into the future.
The problem with libertarianism is that it cannot defend its population from subversion. There are people and groups who do not care about money and cannot be persuaded, they will destroy a society that is totally reliant on praxeology and debate to change people's minds. The reason marxism gets off the ground is that it removes any dissenting opinions first. Libertarianism presupposes those who are ideologically opposed to them are non existent. Plato (maybe Aristotle) even talked about how a society had to be culturally (racially) homogeneous or it would eat itself alive (weimerica), and that was assuming that the government's authority to physically remove subversives was a given.
Without a sterile, ready-made society, a libertarian state would be immediately subverted by the Soroses of the world. The reason it worked back in the 1700s, was because they had culturally homogeneous society, where in people had a strong sense of morality, social obligation, and personal responsibility; their leaders were not corrupt corporate puppets, and had the best interests of the people in mind. That doesn't exist anymore. People do not have what it takes for actual libertarianism, it's a pipe dream that requires an authoritarian state to proceed it in order to prepare/defend the people.
though this does not involve tollerating anything legitimately questionable
How is that different than what we have now?
I find all promotion and "acceptance" of homosexuality to be "legitimately questionable" and I don't think it should be tolerated anywhere. But maybe you think "bobby has two faggot dads" is just fine to put in public school libraries and be given to children as assigned reading.
And what exactly is a "predatory monetary practice?". Lootboxes?
Everyone has different lines and a true libertarian is just an anarchist because he would say there aren't any lines.
I did mention extremist propaganda, and I should note that I expect fags to be made to comply with bans against extramarital relations like everyone else.
As for predatory monetary practices, I do mean shit like lootboxes and camhoes, and I also oppose the overpricing of software.
You're being just as intellectually dishonest as a communist here. What you appear to want isn't actually libertarianism, and if you wanted libertarianism then you would have to acknowledge the LIBERTY of others to do stuff YOU DISAGREE WITH.
Libertarianism is a solipsistic ideology. It does NOT care about the health of the community AT ALL because the needs of the community is subordinate to the rights of the individual.
IS THAT A PROBLEM? Sure. It's why libertarianism fails.
What you seem to want is HEINLEINISM.
Which is fine. But don't call it libertarianism, cuz it's not.
Prohibitions against gays are perfectly compatible with the Rothbardian and Hoppean schools of libertarianism which emphasize the right of free association and free exclusion and the right of the property owner to set standards of behavior that encourage the long-term health of the community because it's in the best interests of the property owner. Hoppe in particular spends a lot of time criticizing the idea that libertarians cannot place any sorts of restrictions on behavior and in his book explicitly gives an example of a society that bans gays.
In distinct contrast, a society in which the right to exclusion is fully
restored to owners of private property would be profoundly unegalitarian, intolerant, and discriminatory. There would be little or no "tolerance" and "open-mindedness" so dear to left-libertarians. Instead, one
would be on the right path toward restoring the freedom of association and
exclusion implied in the institution of private property, if only towns and
villages could and would do what they did as a matter of course until
well into the nineteenth century in Europe and the United States. There
would be signs regarding entrance requirements to the town, and, once
in town, requirements for entering specific pieces of property (for example, no beggars, bums, or homeless, but also no homosexuals, drug users,
Jews, Moslems, Germans, or Zulus), and those who did not meet these
entrance requirements would be kicked out as trespassers. Almost instantly, cultural and moral normalcy would reassert itself.
Since Hoppe is a libertarian, he sees this realized as the property owner setting standards of behavior that residents would agree to through contract law: those standards would be made available to you in advance in the form of a contract, and you would have to agree to them prior to taking up residence.
It should be noted that lolberts have a seething hatred of Hoppe and call him every name in the book simply because he wants to allow property owners to discriminate on any basis they so choose.
The two are so intellectually incestuous I don't see why you bothered to distinguish them as separate "schools" when they were really just two blokes that nobody agreed with (besides u apparently). They both share a tiny little gay-bashing island in a sea of libertarians who think they were haters with a suspect understanding of liberty.
WE HAVE a school of thought that arrives at exactly what you want. It's Heinleinism; Service Guarantees Citizenship (Would you like to know more?). But it's not libertarianism, so don't call it that.
What qualifications allow you to so definitively make that claim? He proposes stateless societies wholly based on self-ownership, property rights, and contract law. In what way is that incompatible with libertarianism?
And why are you so quick to spurn and insult potential allies?
It is not necessary to be libertine to be libertarian. But the maximum stance a libertarian can take on libertinism is "it's not my thing". Anything less permissive is hypocritical. If you think the libertinism of the individual should be subjugated to higher needs of the community, YOU ARE NOT LIBERTARIAN. Fullstop.
There is no intellectually honest out from that. To be libertarian is to be tolerant of shit you don't like even if you know it harms the community.
AND I SAY THAT fully acknowledging that libertinism is bad for the community. It's a failing of libertarianism, and why we have to move AWAY from libertarianism as a foundation and towards Heinleinism.
I like not having to watch out for used needles left by the homeless who shoot heroin in the street. And for the police to have some way to punish people who shoot heroin and/or leave used needles in the street. If that makes me Tipper Gore (or Hitler like the last guy called me) then so be it.
FWIW I agree with you most of the way, but muh free drugs open borders lolbertarians set back the movement for decades. Thank years of astroturfing by big business interests that just wanted us to support Republicans' low-tax no regulations free-trade agenda. Crackpot sovereign citizen types haven't helped things either.
The American Individualist's best bet right now is to ally with the right-wing and push for decentralization (state rights, removing federal powers). At least micro-state alliances with shared values are better than a giant empire working for Globohomo. As the other comments point out you'll never convince some people to stop being statist, and if enough people want to impose their will on you through state power, you need stronger control of state power to stop them and protect your freedom. That or balkanization. You just need to remind our potential allies here that you'll fight against the authoritarian commies as hard as they will and impose whatever efforts are needed to keep them from regaining power. That you're willing to meet in the middle and don't insist on a fairy-tale land where everyone lives and lets live and doesn't need to practice eternal vigilance against subversion.
I think you'd also find that with smaller demographically homogenous states, the desire towards anti-statism will lessen because you'll be with "your people" and tend to agree on what's a private freedom vs. legitimately questionable. Whatever government you impose will naturally feel libertarian.
Libertarians...are you fucking kidding me? Get out of here with that fucking hippie conservatism.
It's moderates that were removed. Libertarians just got caught up in the pushbroom effect and thought, because they're all delusional, it was about oppressing them.
Lolberts are part of the problem. They accelerate Deleuzian territorialization by dismantling institutions of order and authority, then act surprised when leftists step into the vacuum and erect similar institutions but with inverted values oriented towards chaos. It paralyzes the right from acting and creates an inherent power asymmetry that guarantees failure. The libertarian/authoritarian axis is a false dichotomy; even the most radical libertarian wants to impose his ideal political vision on the rest of society, but the lolbert's refusal to wield power ensures the impossibility of such occuring.
To put it more bluntly OP...
Where libertarianism and authoritarianism collide, authoritarianism always prevails because it does not limit itself.
I am expanding the original post to acknowledge the answer to the regressive problem, and to state that libertarians will accept what we do to our enemies as said groups are threats.
Then they're hypocrites and their ideology collapses like a house of cards.
I'm gonna make some wild accusations here.
I think, you think, that WWII was an ideological war and that America was championing liberty and libertarianism.
And if that is what you think, then I think you need to stop being a deluded Jefferson fanboi and grow the fuck up.
Libertarianism of any variety, cultural or financial, has no answer to the inherent bad faith of the left.
It is an unviable ideology on its face simply because of that. Any ideology that is unwilling or unable to severely and violently gatekeep its society, is not one that will survive into the future.
The problem with libertarianism is that it cannot defend its population from subversion. There are people and groups who do not care about money and cannot be persuaded, they will destroy a society that is totally reliant on praxeology and debate to change people's minds. The reason marxism gets off the ground is that it removes any dissenting opinions first. Libertarianism presupposes those who are ideologically opposed to them are non existent. Plato (maybe Aristotle) even talked about how a society had to be culturally (racially) homogeneous or it would eat itself alive (weimerica), and that was assuming that the government's authority to physically remove subversives was a given.
Without a sterile, ready-made society, a libertarian state would be immediately subverted by the Soroses of the world. The reason it worked back in the 1700s, was because they had culturally homogeneous society, where in people had a strong sense of morality, social obligation, and personal responsibility; their leaders were not corrupt corporate puppets, and had the best interests of the people in mind. That doesn't exist anymore. People do not have what it takes for actual libertarianism, it's a pipe dream that requires an authoritarian state to proceed it in order to prepare/defend the people.
This is the exact opposite of reality. Libertarians are literal retards. They can wake up and fall in line, or they can fuck off.
How is that different than what we have now?
I find all promotion and "acceptance" of homosexuality to be "legitimately questionable" and I don't think it should be tolerated anywhere. But maybe you think "bobby has two faggot dads" is just fine to put in public school libraries and be given to children as assigned reading.
And what exactly is a "predatory monetary practice?". Lootboxes?
Everyone has different lines and a true libertarian is just an anarchist because he would say there aren't any lines.
I did mention extremist propaganda, and I should note that I expect fags to be made to comply with bans against extramarital relations like everyone else.
As for predatory monetary practices, I do mean shit like lootboxes and camhoes, and I also oppose the overpricing of software.
Then it's not libertarianism.
You're being just as intellectually dishonest as a communist here. What you appear to want isn't actually libertarianism, and if you wanted libertarianism then you would have to acknowledge the LIBERTY of others to do stuff YOU DISAGREE WITH.
Libertarianism is a solipsistic ideology. It does NOT care about the health of the community AT ALL because the needs of the community is subordinate to the rights of the individual.
IS THAT A PROBLEM? Sure. It's why libertarianism fails.
What you seem to want is HEINLEINISM.
Which is fine. But don't call it libertarianism, cuz it's not.
Prohibitions against gays are perfectly compatible with the Rothbardian and Hoppean schools of libertarianism which emphasize the right of free association and free exclusion and the right of the property owner to set standards of behavior that encourage the long-term health of the community because it's in the best interests of the property owner. Hoppe in particular spends a lot of time criticizing the idea that libertarians cannot place any sorts of restrictions on behavior and in his book explicitly gives an example of a society that bans gays.
Since Hoppe is a libertarian, he sees this realized as the property owner setting standards of behavior that residents would agree to through contract law: those standards would be made available to you in advance in the form of a contract, and you would have to agree to them prior to taking up residence.
It should be noted that lolberts have a seething hatred of Hoppe and call him every name in the book simply because he wants to allow property owners to discriminate on any basis they so choose.
Hoppe called himself a libertarian. That's not the same as being one.
The guy spent 25 years growing up in German before coming over to the United States and beginning to talk about liberty. I'm going to stand with his actual libertarian critics and question whether he really understood the concept.
The two are so intellectually incestuous I don't see why you bothered to distinguish them as separate "schools" when they were really just two blokes that nobody agreed with (besides u apparently). They both share a tiny little gay-bashing island in a sea of libertarians who think they were haters with a suspect understanding of liberty.
WE HAVE a school of thought that arrives at exactly what you want. It's Heinleinism; Service Guarantees Citizenship (Would you like to know more?). But it's not libertarianism, so don't call it that.
What qualifications allow you to so definitively make that claim? He proposes stateless societies wholly based on self-ownership, property rights, and contract law. In what way is that incompatible with libertarianism?
And why are you so quick to spurn and insult potential allies?
Because liberty and libertarianism doesn't mean jack if you only mean liberty to do the shit you approve of.
You, and him, are quite literally as bad as Tipper fucking Gore in my eyes.
It is not necessary to be libertine to be libertarian. But the maximum stance a libertarian can take on libertinism is "it's not my thing". Anything less permissive is hypocritical. If you think the libertinism of the individual should be subjugated to higher needs of the community, YOU ARE NOT LIBERTARIAN. Fullstop.
There is no intellectually honest out from that. To be libertarian is to be tolerant of shit you don't like even if you know it harms the community.
AND I SAY THAT fully acknowledging that libertinism is bad for the community. It's a failing of libertarianism, and why we have to move AWAY from libertarianism as a foundation and towards Heinleinism.
I like not having to watch out for used needles left by the homeless who shoot heroin in the street. And for the police to have some way to punish people who shoot heroin and/or leave used needles in the street. If that makes me Tipper Gore (or Hitler like the last guy called me) then so be it.
FWIW I agree with you most of the way, but muh free drugs open borders lolbertarians set back the movement for decades. Thank years of astroturfing by big business interests that just wanted us to support Republicans' low-tax no regulations free-trade agenda. Crackpot sovereign citizen types haven't helped things either.
The American Individualist's best bet right now is to ally with the right-wing and push for decentralization (state rights, removing federal powers). At least micro-state alliances with shared values are better than a giant empire working for Globohomo. As the other comments point out you'll never convince some people to stop being statist, and if enough people want to impose their will on you through state power, you need stronger control of state power to stop them and protect your freedom. That or balkanization. You just need to remind our potential allies here that you'll fight against the authoritarian commies as hard as they will and impose whatever efforts are needed to keep them from regaining power. That you're willing to meet in the middle and don't insist on a fairy-tale land where everyone lives and lets live and doesn't need to practice eternal vigilance against subversion.
I think you'd also find that with smaller demographically homogenous states, the desire towards anti-statism will lessen because you'll be with "your people" and tend to agree on what's a private freedom vs. legitimately questionable. Whatever government you impose will naturally feel libertarian.
I do not agree with open borders because of election fraud, crime, and to stop undesirable groups from entering.
They are not free to preach, as they have been physically removed, so to speak.
Libertarians...are you fucking kidding me? Get out of here with that fucking hippie conservatism.
It's moderates that were removed. Libertarians just got caught up in the pushbroom effect and thought, because they're all delusional, it was about oppressing them.