Being libertarian because you want to smoke pot versus not trusting a authority that has the power to ban it at the state/federal level. My aggravation since being a high schooler is how the former became the household definition, because the mode averaged person has an allergy to cynicism for some gods' forsaken reason. These naive idealists, coinciding with single-issue fuckwads, are so invirtuously useless for society that the proggie NPC has a point when he paints a libertarian as a social loser living in fantasies. Then we have anarcho-capitalism, a designation stemming from humans irresistible urge to subdivide into counterproductive tribes, to be divided and conquered by the outside culture. Any hypothetical minarchist state and ancapistan would be indistinguishable in practice.
Paleoconservative/paleolibertarian would be great brands if they weren't syllablistic vomit doomed to irrelevancy to the average Westerner. Would someone notable start a movement that isn't complete anathema to social marketing, but not so vague as to be amorphously inclusionary? I propose the axiomatic party. Principled yet without delusion, unique, and only slightly more grating to pronounce than "Democratic" or "Republican". I suggest taking a lesson out of Heinlein's History and Moral Philosophy class, sticking to uncomfortable, unambiguous social truths as a serious science. Of course the conditions in Starship Troopers were different, where hard men emerged out of truly hard times, and not bread and circuses limbo we're stuck in.
If my axiomatic ideal were attempted in my lif, neurotypes and grifters would just pervert the meaning like they did to liberalism. Principled will be confused with being a dense zealot. But really, libertarianism needs to rebrand.
libertarianism, like paleoconservatism is just another jewish gatekeeping psyop to keep you on the plantation. they are both rooted in individualism, liberalism, progressivism. designed to put up an attractive screen of smoke and mirrors to keep you from nationalism. Nationalism is what they fear and what makes a country strong and resilient to their infiltration and subversion.
Whenever I hear libertarianism I think of this:
-Murray Rothbard’s The Ethics of Liberty
I don't think in any case the state now forces parents to feed their children. The state steps in when they don't. Often by feeding them, but also they sometimes take children from their parents. If the parents have effectively abandoned the child, by refusing to feed him, you're taking nothing from them by removing the child.
So yeah, umm you don't compel parents. You get someone else to take care of the kids.
Are you saying nationalism is opposed to individualism?
Individualism is bipolar. To some it's independent thought, individual responsibility and consequences, and to others it's a free pass to degeneracy.
The 1800s and 1900s proved that nationalism can be subverted just as easily as any other social system if there aren't foundations of redoubtable first principles instilled in the populace. Some theories are at odds with nature (communism, progressivism), but any system with potential still requires a virtuous populace willing to spill blood to defend it.
Utilitarian libertarians for the most part support controlled borders.
Nationalism and libertarianism aren't competing ideologies. Libertarianism is based upon anti-government political principles. Nationalism is a cultural principle, not a political ideology.
The state is not the nation.