Trump is also basically pro-LGB, so that's not necessarily a win for them.
But yeah, that speech was hilarious. There were plenty of cheers and boos. Some booed when he suggested that the border should be secured. Some booed at other various points. Some booed when he asked for their vote/nomination, and so he shit talked them to their idiot faces -- enjoy remaining a bunch of irrelevant, "ungovernable" losers who manage 3% of the vote and can't even make it on to the debate stage.
What a joke of a convention. I'd be embarrassed to be affiliated with it, honestly. They don't deserve the Mises caucus, who generally seem fairly reasonable.
They don't deserve the Mises caucus, who generally seem fairly reasonable.
The rest of the LP is still salty they got wrecked by actual libertarians, and are doing all they can to destroy them. Absolute spiteful retards, with no sense of strategy or liberty. These fucks need a crash course in actual authoritarianism versus actual liberty. They'd change their tune right quick. Naaaah, they wouldn't, since they're retarded leftists.
Sadly, they're hipster idealogues. They're so enamored with the idea of libertarianism, they don't think things through and, since they always lose, don't feel like they need an actual real-world platform. They're just like socialists (the foot soldiers, at least, since the elites do often win) in that sense. They're more about the idea than what the actual implementation would look like.
It makes sense since it takes all of like seven seconds to realize that libertarians are just money-grubbing shekel-whores who want to sit around getting high all day and doing fuck-all anything productive.
It's why they gaslight continuously about cryptocurrency, which is essentially literally just a way to turn entropy into money, that provides no value to the world. Countless terawatts of power have been burned, millions of GPUs toasted and landfilled, just to solve fake math equations that they can store on a server and claim is worth money. All of that real effort pissed away on something that is essentially imaginary.
Ask them if they'd be fine if it was made impossible to turn crypto into fiat currency and they'd lose their minds, because they know that crypto is just about stealing other people's investment, and has essentially fuck-all to do with the gay principles of 'anonymity' that doesn't even exist and probably never did.
I'm libertarian at the core, most conservatives are. But the Libertarian Party is a shitshow and there's a reason many people have abandoned it to vote Trump.
libertarians are just another kind of liberal. it's right there in their name.
you can promote liberties and free-trade within a nation, amongst a homogenous people that all stand behind the same national goals.
but you cannot be this way with the world. you must have a strong a powerful central authority to deal with the outside world and keep the barbarians from either overrunning your borders are infiltrating and subverting your government if it is some weak pussy libertarian minimum-government ready to be butchered like a pig.
keep the barbarians from either overrunning your borders
These fucking guys couldn't keep the commies from taking over their subreddit. They're not viable at all in the real world. (and this coming form a former lolbertarian.)
I went through a libertarian phase, and I grew out of it. You can only be beaten over the head with your own ideology so many times before figuring out that either you're ideologically consistent (and going to lose every time), or that your ideology is crap.
Strong central government, you mean like the kind that forces you to get injections for your safety, and protects you from enemies by giving your money to Ukraine and Israel? Yes, it's working well. Keep up the good work, comrade.
Edit: There are some salty bitches who hate the truth. Sorry faggots, but strong government will never be on your side.
Edit: There are some salty bitches who hate the truth.
Well no, you just responded with a bunch of things that were not on the OP's list of "legitimate functions of government," which everybody agrees are not legitimate, and have nothing to do with the fact that there are legitimate functions of government.
Were you one of the ones booing Trump over border security?
Shit in one hand, and wish for legitimate functions of government in the other. See which fills up faster.
Big government will always be corrupted by powerful interests and turned against you. Thinking you can control it is why we're now being milked as tax cattle.
You bleat about border control being a valid function of government, yet the government not only doesn't control the border, it's shipping people in AND taking your money and giving it to the invaders. Sounds like you're winning! Great job!
I'm not going to bother to discuss any of this with you when you seem to be having a good time putting words in the mouths of others and beating up strawmen.
So good job, you're maybe less stupid than the hypothetical debate partners you're owning.
Do you support banning guns from Marxist, criminalizing Marxist thought and suppressing all Marxist politics?
If you don't, that means you're actively supporting the takeover of Marxism. Your principles are shit. Marxists will fucking kill you and this is why Libertarianism is the political version of how "pacifism" is just self-righteous cowards patting themselves on the back and pretending their weakness is a virtue.
Hans-Hermann Hoppe is clear enough with estoppel, where someone who is credibly incompatible with a community's ability to uphold morals is to be expelled.
Who is one of the most corrupt clown in the whole history of Canadian politics.
We're talking naming the husband of someone on the board of the Trudeau foundation as head of a commission that was supposed to investigate his corruption.
And the mainstream media is Trudeau's cheerleader.
Looking past your quip, the right libertarian principles work in the right circumstances. See medieval Iceland (will source on request, Friedman's son has written on the subject). Or, the Wild West where the largest massacre (excluding govt sponsored campaigns against natives) was 3 wounded, 3 dead in a city that practiced gun control.
At the height of the British empire, the domestic government was practically a night watchman state. For example, state prosecutors hadn't been invented yet.
Not sure if true, but I heard there were floor fights on the Libertarian Party convention floor on whether or not producing child porn should be a crime.
Hopefully the Ron Paul guys are smart enough to realize their options are Trump or gay race communism, the "we want gay married farmers to be able to protect their weed field with machine guns" guys were always terminally retarded and can never be salvaged.
Despite the boos and such, Trump doing this was a win since it showed, unlike Biden, he'll walk into the lion's den if there's an opportunity to gain from it.
Plus he dunked on the retarded side of the libertarians when after stating why they should vote for him for some of his policies by saying "Only if you want to win, some of you don't want to win so enjoy your 3% of the vote"
You generally don't do these debates/shows to win over the direct person in front of you. Trump will win more buy-in and support not from the fools loudly proclaiming they will waste their vote, but from those who saw him confront them on TV.
Libertarianism is an offshoot of Enlightenment values, and Enlightenment values were the proto communism values from the French revolution which was a revolution that murdered the French royal family before proceeding to give jews full citizenship rights (thus making France the first country in Europe to give jews full citizenship rights)
Well yeah, the Libertarian Party has been pozzed for years now. Just take a look at Gary Johnson and his shillery for things like licenses and """reasonable""" taxation.
Entryists are a thing, and the sooner people understand that and therefore the very VERY real need for stringent gatekeeping, the better. Ambiguity helps nobody but those that wish to abuse said ambiguity. So why let them?
Well yeah, the Libertarian Party has been pozzed for years now. Just take a look at Gary Johnson and his shillery for things like licenses and """reasonable""" taxation.
Considering my stance is that all taxation is theft under threat of lethal force, you can take your pick on that one. Even the "good" uses of taxation is supplied through immoral means. And I don't believe in mentalities like "for the greater good", "the lesser evil" or "the ends justify the means".
But hey, a 2% income tax solely applied to land owners was enough to go to war over. I guess we really should maintain the status quo, right?
I swear, it seems more and more like far too many people ARE in fact reactionaries, not actually standing for any meaningful principles, but merely against change. And then when change does happen, you do nothing to even suggest the course be reversed!
We keep losing because you have nothing to win. When all you're looking to gain is the current status quo, in a world of compromise you will always lose. Every. Single. Time.
Considering my stance is that all taxation is theft under threat of lethal force, you can take your pick on that one. Even the "good" uses of taxation is supplied through immoral means.
Perhaps. But do you think this is even remotely realistic, to either argue for no taxation or to argue that it's theft even though it is justified?
I swear, it seems more and more like far too many people ARE in fact reactionaries, not actually standing for any meaningful principles, but merely against change. And then when change does happen, you do nothing to even suggest the course be reversed!
Correct. This is a major problem.
We keep losing because you have nothing to win. When all you're looking to gain is the current status quo, in a world of compromise you will always lose. Every. Single. Time.
OK, but what is your proposal? Argue that there should be no taxation because <insert abstract principle> and that there should be Somalia-like anarchy? You think that is a winner?
Perhaps. But do you think this is even remotely realistic, to either argue for no taxation
Yes.
or to argue that it's theft even though it is justified?
It's not justified. That's what I mean when I outright said that the ends do not justify the means. It's literally within the statement. Just because YOU are fine with taking the fruits of labour by threat of lethal force does not mean others are, no matter how many benefits you might use to entice someone to say such a thing is ever justified.
OK, but what is your proposal?
Figure it out yourself. And no, this isn't a sassy "I'm not telling you", that's literally the solution. You're so ingrained with the idea that Someone Else™ should solve your problems for you that you forget that for most of humanity, that's exactly what we did. Sure, there were always tyrants and rulers and leaders and the such that were those Someone Elses™, but it's only in truly recent times (past 100 or so years) where it's become as over-reaching as it has to the point that opting out isn't nearly as viable as it once was. And in fact, it's outright not viable thanks to things like Property Tax, which explicitly makes it impossible to live outside of the establishment.
Even now, most of your choices you make are outside the jurisdiction of the State, and yet you balk, scoff and mock at the very idea that other say "why stop there? Why allow the state to force you into slavery with more steps?" I mean seriously, what is money but a representation of labour, value and wealth? For any state to take that is nothing more than slavery. And you blindly defend it, solely because......
Somalia-like anarchy
"Muh SoMaLiA"
Ah yes, the cowardly statist recoils in fear at the concept of taking care of themselves, and turns to nations that have been shitholes far before a lack of established government. You fear the idea of standing on your own, so you choose a comfortable jail cell over a potentially dangerous freedom.
Your arguments hold no meaningful difference between gun grabbers and censors that utilise fear to convince you to relinquish freedoms, and to that I suggest why stop there? If you're so intent on giving up freedom for a false sense of safety, why stop there? Why not go all the way?
You think that is a winner?
It's better than slowly, surely, unendingly losing. Because at least that is something different. It's not just the status quo of compromise after compromise after compromise.
What's more is that your entire "argument" isn't even trying to take on my points. You know that ultimately they're not wrong. But because an ideology that is fundamentally against centralised systems doesn't offer a centralised solution to be applied to every single person, you're going to imply it's anarchists that are the utopians with these kinds of dismissals? It really is a case where anarchists say "you have your own problems and should be able to solve them how you see fit, so long as you don't harm others", and then dismissing them because they didn't provide you a solution to your problems.
It's not justified. That's what I mean when I outright said that the ends do not justify the means. It's literally within the statement. Just because YOU are fine with taking the fruits of labour by threat of lethal force does not mean others are, no matter how many benefits you might use to entice someone to say such a thing is ever justified.
You'd have no 'fruits of your labor'.
You're so ingrained with the idea that Someone Else™ should solve your problems
Excuse me? Based on what?
you forget that for most of humanity, that's exactly what we did. Sure, there were always tyrants and rulers and leaders and the such that were those Someone Elses™, but it's only in truly recent times (past 100 or so years) where it's become as over-reaching as it has to the point that opting out isn't nearly as viable as it once was. And in fact, it's outright not viable thanks to things like Property Tax, which explicitly makes it impossible to live outside of the establishment.
If you think you would be able to 'opt out' of taxes before 100 years ago, you have quite another thing coming. The most brutal treatment was always reserved for people who refused to pay taxes. And property taxes are way older than 100 years. E.g. see the taille in France.
But by all means. Please refer me to the jurisdiction that was run in the matter that you prefer. I'm fascinated.
Even now, most of your choices you make are outside the jurisdiction of the State, and yet you balk, scoff and mock at the very idea that other say "why stop there?
Well, it would mean no roads, no police, no army. Although at this point they've taken things to such extremes, that I honestly do prefer anarchy to their misrule.
Why allow the state to force you into slavery with more steps?" I mean seriously, what is money but a representation of labour, value and wealth? For any state to take that is nothing more than slavery.
This is your worst argument. Slavery doesn't just mean that your labor is confiscated, it's human ownership. Taxes aren't just 'more steps' towards your owner raping you, whipping you and selling your wife and children away from you.
Ah yes, the cowardly statist recoils in fear at the concept of taking care of themselves, and turns to nations that have been shitholes far before a lack of established government.
Good argument! It is not clear that Somalia's current state is for lack of government. But I would point you that the lack of strong states has resulted in slave raiding, mass banditry across roads, and all sorts of similar pathologies in places that were not shitholes, like England. No Leviathan means that it is a war of all against all.
If you're so intent on giving up freedom for a false sense of safety,
Do you mean to suggest that we would be equally safe with no police, no army, no roads, no law, just pure chaos?
It's better than slowly, surely, unendingly losing. Because at least that is something different. It's not just the status quo of compromise after compromise after compromise.
I might agree were it not for the fact that this will probably further shrink our chances of victory, where by 'us' I mean opponents of the regime. It's far better to seize control of the government apparatus, as fanciful as that seems, and use it for our ends.
You know that ultimately they're not wrong.
Government may be indistinguishable from piracy, as Augustine pointed out, but my argument is that the necessity for it lessens its evil.
It really is a case where anarchists say "you have your own problems and should be able to solve them how you see fit, so long as you don't harm others", and then dismissing them because they didn't provide you a solution to your problems.
And what if my problem is armed gangs of 30 men coming in, stealing everything I have and doing worse? How exactly am I to solve that? Now, I'm sure you'll come with some 'brilliant' suggestions like, well recruit the rest of your city and fight a pitched battle.
Do you think the average person is remotely equipped to do something like that? Or that he would consider it desirable to move a state where personal safety is no concern to one where you're never sure of your life?
Based on you determining that I, or any other person, needs to provide solutions to your problems, when again, the entire fucking premise is AGAINST a centralised model to force proposed solutions upon people. Shocking, I know. When the whole fucking point is that YOU should solve YOUR problems, turning to literally anyone else and saying "why aren't THEY solving MY problems?!" isn't a critique. It's literally saying it's not mine, or anyone else's place, to solve your problems for you.
If you think you would be able to 'opt out' of taxes before 100 years ago, you have quite another thing coming. The most brutal treatment was always reserved for people who refused to pay taxes. And property taxes are way older than 100 years. E.g. see the taille in France.
And that justifies it how?
Well, it would mean no roads, no police, no army. Although at this point they've taken things to such extremes, that I honestly do prefer anarchy to their misrule
Oh no! Not MUH ROADS argument. What an utterly boring and overdone argument. As to the police and army, yes, that is the idea. And it's funny because you imply that they're ultimately evil and yet you're still advocating that this evil needs to exist for no other reason that that's what's always existed.
This is your worst argument. Slavery doesn't just mean that your labor is confiscated, it's human ownership. Taxes aren't just 'more steps' towards your owner raping you, whipping you and selling your wife and children away from you.
A benevolent ruler is no less a ruler, slave. And what's more is that under actual freedom, you'd still be entirely free to band together and pay whatever levies and fees you wish. That's entirely your prerogative. You just can't force people to. And ultimately, that is what you're objecting it. It's not voluntary co-operation, you're outright advocating for INvoluntary "co-operation".
Do you mean to suggest that we would be equally safe with no police, no army, no roads, no law, just pure chaos?
Do you truly believe yourself safe right now? Because if you do, then perhaps you, personally, deserve the servitude you so eagerly seek. Also I see you there MUH ROADS. Fuck, statists really look at the failing infrastructure and say "yeah, THIS is my defence", all while ignoring that in any other discussion you would eagerly and rightfully condemn the shameful state of infrastructure in nearly every society out there, with MAYBE exception to Japan (and then ignore every other failure of Japan's government, like their rampant corruption).
It's far better to seize control of the government apparatus, as fanciful as that seems, and use it for our ends.
Not once in your life have you even voted for a member of government that you whole-heartedly and truly supported. You can lie to me any way you like about that, but ultimately you know that every single vote you have ever cast has been a lesser of, ultimately, two choices. You imply me delusional and utopian, yet here you are dreaming up the most fanciable tale imaginable all to justify utilising force against innocent people who disagree with you on how they should run their own lives.
Government may be indistinguishable from piracy, as Augustine pointed out, but my argument is that the necessity for it lessens its evil.
Again, there is no such thing as a "necessary" evil. It's a lie you tell yourself to ignore your own support of evil measures that you otherwise couldn't reconcile, by pretending that you never had any choice in the matter as you wilfully and ultimately gleefully comply.
And what if my problem is armed gangs of 30 men coming in, stealing everything I have and doing worse? How exactly am I to solve that? Now, I'm sure you'll come with some 'brilliant' suggestions like, well recruit the rest of your city and fight a pitched battle.
You balk and mock, but you pretend like that it's a viable solution. Why do you need to achieve this de facto militia via force? Why do you need to maintain what is ultimately a protection racket. Seriously, it's "pay up, or we'll wreck your shit". And you're unironically defending that.
Do you think the average person is remotely equipped to do something like that?
As an individual? Nope. But this is the problem with you fucking statists. You're so fucking broken that you don't even see how your arguments so often mirror unironic rape apologists. Seriously, is there any difference between the people who use arguments like "I'll only have to get violent if you don't comply" and "You complied so the threat of violence is irrelevant and it was consensual"? You're both ultimately abusing people for your own benefit.
Had I gone back and approached this as "voluntarism" rather than the anarchy angle (a distinction that holds virtually no difference between the two, mind you), and presented it as a flowery utopia of people helping people because most people are inclined to help one another in mutual benefit, you'd have been far more receptive to the idea. But because I pegged the reality of the state being one that operates upon the very real, ever present "do what I say or else" model, you've gotten defensive of "necessary" evil. You didn't have to. You don't even want to. But you did. You went to bat for evil of what little free will you ultimately have. And you don't see anything wrong with it either. You don't even want to second guess yourself. Because it's so uncomfortable having to come to the reality that for all your life you went along with it all because it benefitted you. You were fine with every single negative your collectivist methodology brought about, because you got yours.
Have fun Tony. Make whatever comment you want. I know anarchy isn't palatable to everyone, but it doesn't have to be. The idea that it should be palatable is ultimately just to appease delicate sensibilities that don't want to think about just how unsafe the world actually is. And I've spent my days arguing about anarchism in the past. So make unfair comparisons, turn to shitholes that have been explicitly fucked by government and tyrants, and then pretend like it's because there actually wasn't enough government. You embrace that "necessary" evil. Whatever it takes so you can have "MUH ROADS". Because remember, for every Somalia you bring up, we can just as easily point to the fucked courts of Japan, the drug lords of Mexico, the tyranny of China. Each and every single one is an explicit failure of government that, supposedly, took on the duty to protect its citizens and either failed or abused them themselves. That's the team you're going to bat for. You don't get to pick and choose. You don't get to say "well, I only support abusing people when there are benefits". You get it all. Anarchists acknowledge the truth of anarchy. And you refuse to rightfully credit government for all of their eternal failures.
Since my last post, and Trump's appearance being in the news, I did some casual research. These open-border fans are more prevalent than I wanted to admit. I have solidified that libertarians concerned with the real societies need to rebrand, ditching these cognitively dissonant jackrabbits.
I voted for Gary in 2016, and like many other small-govt. conservatives went over to Trump by 2020 upon his enacted domestic policy (reduced regulations) and improved foreign policy over the past 40 years. Without a Trump 2024, a societal environment where a libertarian revolution can happen, before national collapse, will be quashed. That is more important than a bump-stock ban or any other snags from his first term. It's beyond irritating that all parties have people that will vote to feel better about themselves, instead of putting non-trivial effort to making the best possible choice.
I was doing some thinking about how open-border libertarians were tunnel-visioned on the cons and risks of a government with strong borders. The contradiction highlighted in OP's title, between vaccine passports and open-borders, reminded me that these people aren't that deep.
The libertarian movement is heterogeneous. The retarded side gained in visibility among non-libertarians, the exception being the Ron Paul/Mises movement.
There was much cultural intermingling with retarded hippies over some social and political agreements (such as the draft). An Eternal September effect happened too, where those concerned with socioeconomic theory couldn't keep up with all the influx of dipshits that wanted only their taxes lower and to smoke weed. These dipshits had no immunity to woke contamination. Maybe someone alive during the cold war can correct me, but much of the hippie movement was the nucleus of modern America's woke culture, alongside broader cultural marxist phenomenon spanning the past century.
much of the hippie movement was the nucleus of modern America's woke culture,
At the height of the "hippie" era there were the "heads," those who only wanted to be left alone to smoke pot, drop acid, and pursue esoteric and Eastern religions, and Communists of the New Left, including such useful idiots as Tom Hayden, Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, etc. Wolves in sheep's clothing. The New Left was the prototype of today's neo-Marxist movement glorifying the ideas of Marcuse, Adorno, et. al. It was the beginning of the so-called "long march through the institutions."
A good illustration of this divide can be seen in Ken Kesey's appearance at a 1965 anti-war rally at Berkeley.
Haven't seen the speech yet, and don't know about the candidate they nominated, but I will say they've been doing better than previously, but still have a bunch of absolute shitters in the party who are there to sabotage. The Mises Caucus is pretty good, and is essentially the Ron Paul wing. They kind of took over the whole party, although there are still remnant retards, who are literally leftist statists just trying to fuck shit up because they think the actual libertarians are literal Nazis.
I'm not as libertarian as I once was, but I will defend the LP here a bit. It's a mixed bag, but there are some really good people there, as well as some retarded "libertarian" commies. Defense aside, "open border libertarians" can fuck right off, the retarded losers. Thankfully there's plenty of pushback against their ilk, and their influence is waning.
Open borders but vax-passports and mandatory tranny cocks onto your kids. ( because in order to get society to tolerate trannies, the government must brainwash children for 2 generations+)
If you want to know how fucking stupid Libertariansim is, essentially they will argue that the government mandating something is bad, but a company with government-like powers ala BlackRock mandating something is MuH fReE mArKeT jUsT mAkE yOuR oWn TrIlLiOn DoLlAr AsSeT mAnAgEmEnT cOmPaNy BrO
Trifling a bit here.
How are you and Beanie man misinterpreting that tweet so badly? Letting businesses control the goings-on in their own properties is not the same thing as implementing a vex passport (though I do understand in the real world, in regressive territory, that would effectively be the case).
In an ideal world, businesses could disallow blacks or aliens, or just specific individuals from entering.
Some people would consider that arbitrary.
You should still be allowed to disallow people with dangerous diseases (which covid isn't) from entering your doors. That is also invasive information, no?
Consider also that only hypochondriacs and regressives will care about vex status. Logical people who actually want customers won't ask for vexes.
We dont live in an ideal world. And they were checking vaccine status which was invasive as hell, not preventing you from coming in with a deadly disease.
Secondly logical people dont win against illogical people. Look how many places required vaccine passports even if majority wouldn't have agreed with it. All it takes it one dei hire in HR or management to fuck things to for everyone
Vaccine passports were a huge thing in most of the world and even if its been 3 yrs since then and people seem to have forgotten how intrusive they were and how obnoxious businesses were , they shouldn't have been allowed
How is Libertarianism compatible with the State maintaining a register with ID papers and digital ID to prove you have recieved medical treatment as a condition to enter a buisness?
Because that's the only way* a vax-passport will be implemented.
Hell, the entire argument for a vaccine passport only exists in the public debate because of WEF-guided government propaganda.
Without government and media covid-hysteria, 2020 would have been noticed as a flu harder than usual on old people and gentler than usual on kids. Maby.
the State maintaining a register with ID papers and digital ID to prove you have recieved medical treatment as a condition to enter a buisness? Because that's the only a vax-passport will be implemented.
Bull. The state does not need to be involved. Consider how consumer credit reports work. It involves communications between private enterprises.
Without government and media covid-hysteria, 2020 would have been...
No shit. That's why only idiots and regressives would care about vex status.
If someone sent explosives to terrorists, you'd call them a terrorist. Libertarians want to put guns in the hands of Marxists. Therefore they are Marxists. You said they were the "opposite"? Let's make a list.
They think Marxists should be free to spread Marxist thoughts. This directly support the Marxist cancer. That's unacceptable.
They think Marxists should be free to speak and vote. This directly empowers Marxist takeovers. That's unacceptable.
They think Marxists should be given fair and free trials. This directly supports Marxists escaping justice. That's unacceptable.
Marxists themselves don't even believe that Libertarians should have these rights.
Marxists support open borders. Libertarians support open borders. Libertarians are Marxists.
Marxists want Marxists to be heavily armed. Libertarians want Marxists to be heavily armed. Libertarians are Marxists.
Marxists support medical mandates. Libertarians support medical mandates. Libertarians are Marxists.
Marxists support an anarchy state. Libertarians support an anarchy state. Libertarians are Marxists.
Marxists support gender-bending open-air faggotry. Libertarians support gender-bending open-air faggotry. Libertarians are Marxists.
Marxists support widespread access to life-ruining society-dissolving recreational drugs. Libertarians support widespread access to life-ruining society-dissolving recreational drugs. Libertarians are Marxists.
lmao you said they were the 'opposite' and yet I find a dozen major policies they share.
Marxists outright want to ban speech, ban guns, ban political dissent, and ban any semblance of a fair justice system. Yet Libertarians actively support their efforts to seize power and implement their vision. Why would they do that? Because they're Marxists.
If you aren't actively supporting the total liquidation of Marxists, you are a Marxist sympathizer, thus just like someone who provides material aid to terrorists, you are a Marxist by proxy.
Everything about Libertarianism is just liberal faggotry. It's even in the goddamn name. They can fucking die. "Libertarian" is just the skinsuit Marxists wear to infiltrate the right, and based on the comments I saw on X on the last few days, people are waking up to what a bunch of faggots libertarians are.
Much like how "pacifists" are just cowards patting themselves on the back, "Libertarians" are just Marxists pretending they have 'freedumb' principles.
Trump is also basically pro-LGB, so that's not necessarily a win for them.
But yeah, that speech was hilarious. There were plenty of cheers and boos. Some booed when he suggested that the border should be secured. Some booed at other various points. Some booed when he asked for their vote/nomination, and so he shit talked them to their idiot faces -- enjoy remaining a bunch of irrelevant, "ungovernable" losers who manage 3% of the vote and can't even make it on to the debate stage.
What a joke of a convention. I'd be embarrassed to be affiliated with it, honestly. They don't deserve the Mises caucus, who generally seem fairly reasonable.
The rest of the LP is still salty they got wrecked by actual libertarians, and are doing all they can to destroy them. Absolute spiteful retards, with no sense of strategy or liberty. These fucks need a crash course in actual authoritarianism versus actual liberty. They'd change their tune right quick. Naaaah, they wouldn't, since they're retarded leftists.
I realized this is '16, when the LP candidate threw a historical relic in the trash on camera because It Is An IcKy GuN!!!!
I like the Mises caucus, but it’s crazy how many libertarians are so opposed to any border security
Sadly, they're hipster idealogues. They're so enamored with the idea of libertarianism, they don't think things through and, since they always lose, don't feel like they need an actual real-world platform. They're just like socialists (the foot soldiers, at least, since the elites do often win) in that sense. They're more about the idea than what the actual implementation would look like.
It makes sense since it takes all of like seven seconds to realize that libertarians are just money-grubbing shekel-whores who want to sit around getting high all day and doing fuck-all anything productive.
It's why they gaslight continuously about cryptocurrency, which is essentially literally just a way to turn entropy into money, that provides no value to the world. Countless terawatts of power have been burned, millions of GPUs toasted and landfilled, just to solve fake math equations that they can store on a server and claim is worth money. All of that real effort pissed away on something that is essentially imaginary.
Ask them if they'd be fine if it was made impossible to turn crypto into fiat currency and they'd lose their minds, because they know that crypto is just about stealing other people's investment, and has essentially fuck-all to do with the gay principles of 'anonymity' that doesn't even exist and probably never did.
I'm libertarian at the core, most conservatives are. But the Libertarian Party is a shitshow and there's a reason many people have abandoned it to vote Trump.
libertarians are just another kind of liberal. it's right there in their name.
you can promote liberties and free-trade within a nation, amongst a homogenous people that all stand behind the same national goals.
but you cannot be this way with the world. you must have a strong a powerful central authority to deal with the outside world and keep the barbarians from either overrunning your borders are infiltrating and subverting your government if it is some weak pussy libertarian minimum-government ready to be butchered like a pig.
These fucking guys couldn't keep the commies from taking over their subreddit. They're not viable at all in the real world. (and this coming form a former lolbertarian.)
To be fair, has anybody else successfully kept commies from taking over much of anything recently?
True.
I went through a libertarian phase, and I grew out of it. You can only be beaten over the head with your own ideology so many times before figuring out that either you're ideologically consistent (and going to lose every time), or that your ideology is crap.
Strong central government, you mean like the kind that forces you to get injections for your safety, and protects you from enemies by giving your money to Ukraine and Israel? Yes, it's working well. Keep up the good work, comrade.
Edit: There are some salty bitches who hate the truth. Sorry faggots, but strong government will never be on your side.
Well no, you just responded with a bunch of things that were not on the OP's list of "legitimate functions of government," which everybody agrees are not legitimate, and have nothing to do with the fact that there are legitimate functions of government.
Were you one of the ones booing Trump over border security?
Shit in one hand, and wish for legitimate functions of government in the other. See which fills up faster.
Big government will always be corrupted by powerful interests and turned against you. Thinking you can control it is why we're now being milked as tax cattle.
You bleat about border control being a valid function of government, yet the government not only doesn't control the border, it's shipping people in AND taking your money and giving it to the invaders. Sounds like you're winning! Great job!
I'm not going to bother to discuss any of this with you when you seem to be having a good time putting words in the mouths of others and beating up strawmen.
So good job, you're maybe less stupid than the hypothetical debate partners you're owning.
Look, we get it's a catch-22 with foreign policy. Leave the vapid, dramatic, copy-paste tone out of it.
Forcing a vaccine on you is foreign policy?
It's vapid to realize that big government will always get corrupted by evil people?
No wonder this country is headed down the shitter. People like you.
"Edit: There are some salty bitches who hate the truth. Sorry faggots, but ..."
Do you support banning guns from Marxist, criminalizing Marxist thought and suppressing all Marxist politics?
If you don't, that means you're actively supporting the takeover of Marxism. Your principles are shit. Marxists will fucking kill you and this is why Libertarianism is the political version of how "pacifism" is just self-righteous cowards patting themselves on the back and pretending their weakness is a virtue.
Hans-Hermann Hoppe is clear enough with estoppel, where someone who is credibly incompatible with a community's ability to uphold morals is to be expelled.
Conservatives are fucking you over too. But keep thinking you can control big government.
These are actually the “deplorable” voters. Hilary was partially right, but we weren’t the ones who are the useful idiots
Libertarian is garbage. Even Ron Paul, who is a staunch liberatarian, runs on GOP platform of conservatism, fiscal responsibility and freedoms.
"More weed for everyone" is how you get Justin Trudeau.
Who is one of the most corrupt clown in the whole history of Canadian politics.
We're talking naming the husband of someone on the board of the Trudeau foundation as head of a commission that was supposed to investigate his corruption.
And the mainstream media is Trudeau's cheerleader.
Do libertarians care for anything other then weed?
These aren't libertarians, they're stupider communists.
(True libertarianism has never been tried.)
Looking past your quip, the right libertarian principles work in the right circumstances. See medieval Iceland (will source on request, Friedman's son has written on the subject). Or, the Wild West where the largest massacre (excluding govt sponsored campaigns against natives) was 3 wounded, 3 dead in a city that practiced gun control.
At the height of the British empire, the domestic government was practically a night watchman state. For example, state prosecutors hadn't been invented yet.
It's mind boggling what we put up with.
Not sure if true, but I heard there were floor fights on the Libertarian Party convention floor on whether or not producing child porn should be a crime.
There's libertarians and there's Libertarians.
Literally just the degenerate party. Platform is entirely drugs and pedarasty.
Hopefully the Ron Paul guys are smart enough to realize their options are Trump or gay race communism, the "we want gay married farmers to be able to protect their weed field with machine guns" guys were always terminally retarded and can never be salvaged.
Despite the boos and such, Trump doing this was a win since it showed, unlike Biden, he'll walk into the lion's den if there's an opportunity to gain from it.
Plus he dunked on the retarded side of the libertarians when after stating why they should vote for him for some of his policies by saying "Only if you want to win, some of you don't want to win so enjoy your 3% of the vote"
You generally don't do these debates/shows to win over the direct person in front of you. Trump will win more buy-in and support not from the fools loudly proclaiming they will waste their vote, but from those who saw him confront them on TV.
Libertarianism is an offshoot of Enlightenment values, and Enlightenment values were the proto communism values from the French revolution which was a revolution that murdered the French royal family before proceeding to give jews full citizenship rights (thus making France the first country in Europe to give jews full citizenship rights)
Of all the reasons to despise the French Revolution, "they gave Jews citizenship rights" is an interesting one.
For the record: they did that before they murdered the royal family.
Well yeah, the Libertarian Party has been pozzed for years now. Just take a look at Gary Johnson and his shillery for things like licenses and """reasonable""" taxation.
Entryists are a thing, and the sooner people understand that and therefore the very VERY real need for stringent gatekeeping, the better. Ambiguity helps nobody but those that wish to abuse said ambiguity. So why let them?
And the solution is no taxation?
Considering my stance is that all taxation is theft under threat of lethal force, you can take your pick on that one. Even the "good" uses of taxation is supplied through immoral means. And I don't believe in mentalities like "for the greater good", "the lesser evil" or "the ends justify the means".
But hey, a 2% income tax solely applied to land owners was enough to go to war over. I guess we really should maintain the status quo, right?
I swear, it seems more and more like far too many people ARE in fact reactionaries, not actually standing for any meaningful principles, but merely against change. And then when change does happen, you do nothing to even suggest the course be reversed!
We keep losing because you have nothing to win. When all you're looking to gain is the current status quo, in a world of compromise you will always lose. Every. Single. Time.
Perhaps. But do you think this is even remotely realistic, to either argue for no taxation or to argue that it's theft even though it is justified?
Correct. This is a major problem.
OK, but what is your proposal? Argue that there should be no taxation because <insert abstract principle> and that there should be Somalia-like anarchy? You think that is a winner?
Yes.
It's not justified. That's what I mean when I outright said that the ends do not justify the means. It's literally within the statement. Just because YOU are fine with taking the fruits of labour by threat of lethal force does not mean others are, no matter how many benefits you might use to entice someone to say such a thing is ever justified.
Figure it out yourself. And no, this isn't a sassy "I'm not telling you", that's literally the solution. You're so ingrained with the idea that Someone Else™ should solve your problems for you that you forget that for most of humanity, that's exactly what we did. Sure, there were always tyrants and rulers and leaders and the such that were those Someone Elses™, but it's only in truly recent times (past 100 or so years) where it's become as over-reaching as it has to the point that opting out isn't nearly as viable as it once was. And in fact, it's outright not viable thanks to things like Property Tax, which explicitly makes it impossible to live outside of the establishment.
Even now, most of your choices you make are outside the jurisdiction of the State, and yet you balk, scoff and mock at the very idea that other say "why stop there? Why allow the state to force you into slavery with more steps?" I mean seriously, what is money but a representation of labour, value and wealth? For any state to take that is nothing more than slavery. And you blindly defend it, solely because......
"Muh SoMaLiA"
Ah yes, the cowardly statist recoils in fear at the concept of taking care of themselves, and turns to nations that have been shitholes far before a lack of established government. You fear the idea of standing on your own, so you choose a comfortable jail cell over a potentially dangerous freedom.
Your arguments hold no meaningful difference between gun grabbers and censors that utilise fear to convince you to relinquish freedoms, and to that I suggest why stop there? If you're so intent on giving up freedom for a false sense of safety, why stop there? Why not go all the way?
It's better than slowly, surely, unendingly losing. Because at least that is something different. It's not just the status quo of compromise after compromise after compromise.
What's more is that your entire "argument" isn't even trying to take on my points. You know that ultimately they're not wrong. But because an ideology that is fundamentally against centralised systems doesn't offer a centralised solution to be applied to every single person, you're going to imply it's anarchists that are the utopians with these kinds of dismissals? It really is a case where anarchists say "you have your own problems and should be able to solve them how you see fit, so long as you don't harm others", and then dismissing them because they didn't provide you a solution to your problems.
You'd have no 'fruits of your labor'.
Excuse me? Based on what?
If you think you would be able to 'opt out' of taxes before 100 years ago, you have quite another thing coming. The most brutal treatment was always reserved for people who refused to pay taxes. And property taxes are way older than 100 years. E.g. see the taille in France.
But by all means. Please refer me to the jurisdiction that was run in the matter that you prefer. I'm fascinated.
Well, it would mean no roads, no police, no army. Although at this point they've taken things to such extremes, that I honestly do prefer anarchy to their misrule.
This is your worst argument. Slavery doesn't just mean that your labor is confiscated, it's human ownership. Taxes aren't just 'more steps' towards your owner raping you, whipping you and selling your wife and children away from you.
Good argument! It is not clear that Somalia's current state is for lack of government. But I would point you that the lack of strong states has resulted in slave raiding, mass banditry across roads, and all sorts of similar pathologies in places that were not shitholes, like England. No Leviathan means that it is a war of all against all.
Do you mean to suggest that we would be equally safe with no police, no army, no roads, no law, just pure chaos?
I might agree were it not for the fact that this will probably further shrink our chances of victory, where by 'us' I mean opponents of the regime. It's far better to seize control of the government apparatus, as fanciful as that seems, and use it for our ends.
Government may be indistinguishable from piracy, as Augustine pointed out, but my argument is that the necessity for it lessens its evil.
And what if my problem is armed gangs of 30 men coming in, stealing everything I have and doing worse? How exactly am I to solve that? Now, I'm sure you'll come with some 'brilliant' suggestions like, well recruit the rest of your city and fight a pitched battle.
Do you think the average person is remotely equipped to do something like that? Or that he would consider it desirable to move a state where personal safety is no concern to one where you're never sure of your life?
Based on you determining that I, or any other person, needs to provide solutions to your problems, when again, the entire fucking premise is AGAINST a centralised model to force proposed solutions upon people. Shocking, I know. When the whole fucking point is that YOU should solve YOUR problems, turning to literally anyone else and saying "why aren't THEY solving MY problems?!" isn't a critique. It's literally saying it's not mine, or anyone else's place, to solve your problems for you.
And that justifies it how?
Oh no! Not MUH ROADS argument. What an utterly boring and overdone argument. As to the police and army, yes, that is the idea. And it's funny because you imply that they're ultimately evil and yet you're still advocating that this evil needs to exist for no other reason that that's what's always existed.
A benevolent ruler is no less a ruler, slave. And what's more is that under actual freedom, you'd still be entirely free to band together and pay whatever levies and fees you wish. That's entirely your prerogative. You just can't force people to. And ultimately, that is what you're objecting it. It's not voluntary co-operation, you're outright advocating for INvoluntary "co-operation".
Do you truly believe yourself safe right now? Because if you do, then perhaps you, personally, deserve the servitude you so eagerly seek. Also I see you there MUH ROADS. Fuck, statists really look at the failing infrastructure and say "yeah, THIS is my defence", all while ignoring that in any other discussion you would eagerly and rightfully condemn the shameful state of infrastructure in nearly every society out there, with MAYBE exception to Japan (and then ignore every other failure of Japan's government, like their rampant corruption).
Not once in your life have you even voted for a member of government that you whole-heartedly and truly supported. You can lie to me any way you like about that, but ultimately you know that every single vote you have ever cast has been a lesser of, ultimately, two choices. You imply me delusional and utopian, yet here you are dreaming up the most fanciable tale imaginable all to justify utilising force against innocent people who disagree with you on how they should run their own lives.
Again, there is no such thing as a "necessary" evil. It's a lie you tell yourself to ignore your own support of evil measures that you otherwise couldn't reconcile, by pretending that you never had any choice in the matter as you wilfully and ultimately gleefully comply.
You balk and mock, but you pretend like that it's a viable solution. Why do you need to achieve this de facto militia via force? Why do you need to maintain what is ultimately a protection racket. Seriously, it's "pay up, or we'll wreck your shit". And you're unironically defending that.
As an individual? Nope. But this is the problem with you fucking statists. You're so fucking broken that you don't even see how your arguments so often mirror unironic rape apologists. Seriously, is there any difference between the people who use arguments like "I'll only have to get violent if you don't comply" and "You complied so the threat of violence is irrelevant and it was consensual"? You're both ultimately abusing people for your own benefit.
Had I gone back and approached this as "voluntarism" rather than the anarchy angle (a distinction that holds virtually no difference between the two, mind you), and presented it as a flowery utopia of people helping people because most people are inclined to help one another in mutual benefit, you'd have been far more receptive to the idea. But because I pegged the reality of the state being one that operates upon the very real, ever present "do what I say or else" model, you've gotten defensive of "necessary" evil. You didn't have to. You don't even want to. But you did. You went to bat for evil of what little free will you ultimately have. And you don't see anything wrong with it either. You don't even want to second guess yourself. Because it's so uncomfortable having to come to the reality that for all your life you went along with it all because it benefitted you. You were fine with every single negative your collectivist methodology brought about, because you got yours.
Have fun Tony. Make whatever comment you want. I know anarchy isn't palatable to everyone, but it doesn't have to be. The idea that it should be palatable is ultimately just to appease delicate sensibilities that don't want to think about just how unsafe the world actually is. And I've spent my days arguing about anarchism in the past. So make unfair comparisons, turn to shitholes that have been explicitly fucked by government and tyrants, and then pretend like it's because there actually wasn't enough government. You embrace that "necessary" evil. Whatever it takes so you can have "MUH ROADS". Because remember, for every Somalia you bring up, we can just as easily point to the fucked courts of Japan, the drug lords of Mexico, the tyranny of China. Each and every single one is an explicit failure of government that, supposedly, took on the duty to protect its citizens and either failed or abused them themselves. That's the team you're going to bat for. You don't get to pick and choose. You don't get to say "well, I only support abusing people when there are benefits". You get it all. Anarchists acknowledge the truth of anarchy. And you refuse to rightfully credit government for all of their eternal failures.
Since my last post, and Trump's appearance being in the news, I did some casual research. These open-border fans are more prevalent than I wanted to admit. I have solidified that libertarians concerned with the real societies need to rebrand, ditching these cognitively dissonant jackrabbits.
I voted for Gary in 2016, and like many other small-govt. conservatives went over to Trump by 2020 upon his enacted domestic policy (reduced regulations) and improved foreign policy over the past 40 years. Without a Trump 2024, a societal environment where a libertarian revolution can happen, before national collapse, will be quashed. That is more important than a bump-stock ban or any other snags from his first term. It's beyond irritating that all parties have people that will vote to feel better about themselves, instead of putting non-trivial effort to making the best possible choice.
I was doing some thinking about how open-border libertarians were tunnel-visioned on the cons and risks of a government with strong borders. The contradiction highlighted in OP's title, between vaccine passports and open-borders, reminded me that these people aren't that deep.
People forget what Libertarians were like before Social Justice infiltrated them and destroyed them.
The libertarian movement is heterogeneous. The retarded side gained in visibility among non-libertarians, the exception being the Ron Paul/Mises movement.
There was much cultural intermingling with retarded hippies over some social and political agreements (such as the draft). An Eternal September effect happened too, where those concerned with socioeconomic theory couldn't keep up with all the influx of dipshits that wanted only their taxes lower and to smoke weed. These dipshits had no immunity to woke contamination. Maybe someone alive during the cold war can correct me, but much of the hippie movement was the nucleus of modern America's woke culture, alongside broader cultural marxist phenomenon spanning the past century.
At the height of the "hippie" era there were the "heads," those who only wanted to be left alone to smoke pot, drop acid, and pursue esoteric and Eastern religions, and Communists of the New Left, including such useful idiots as Tom Hayden, Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, etc. Wolves in sheep's clothing. The New Left was the prototype of today's neo-Marxist movement glorifying the ideas of Marcuse, Adorno, et. al. It was the beginning of the so-called "long march through the institutions."
A good illustration of this divide can be seen in Ken Kesey's appearance at a 1965 anti-war rally at Berkeley.
As the Zman (and Severian from Founding Questions) says: if you see a Libertarian, beat him. He will know why.
Clown honking noises intensifying
Haven't seen the speech yet, and don't know about the candidate they nominated, but I will say they've been doing better than previously, but still have a bunch of absolute shitters in the party who are there to sabotage. The Mises Caucus is pretty good, and is essentially the Ron Paul wing. They kind of took over the whole party, although there are still remnant retards, who are literally leftist statists just trying to fuck shit up because they think the actual libertarians are literal Nazis.
I'm not as libertarian as I once was, but I will defend the LP here a bit. It's a mixed bag, but there are some really good people there, as well as some retarded "libertarian" commies. Defense aside, "open border libertarians" can fuck right off, the retarded losers. Thankfully there's plenty of pushback against their ilk, and their influence is waning.
Open borders but vax-passports and mandatory tranny cocks onto your kids. ( because in order to get society to tolerate trannies, the government must brainwash children for 2 generations+)
(((Libertarian)))
(((Ludwig von Mises))) was a Jew.
The (((Mises Caucus))) is just INFILTRANTS trying to DESTROY me. BASTARDS!
lol.
Where is our resident Austrian School of economics supporter? He seems to have gone quiet lately.
The "libertarian" party is filled with dimwit faggots who only latched onto it because they like drugs.
Blame the "political compass" faggotry and the retarded, contradictory concept of "left-libertarian".
Looks like orange man was being charitable with 3-4%.
Good.
The more leftist their candidate the more that 3% sliver of the general election will steal from Democrats.
Ah, so he's of the mind that corporations are people?
My friend
mises caucus where
On round 6 of the vote, it was 49.5% for this guy, 44.7% for the Mises guy, and 5.8% for either write-in or none of the above.
On round 7, it was 60.6% for this guy, 2.8% write-in and 36.6% for none of the above
They're there, but floating around 30-40% looks like.
The Libertarian party is just as infiltrated, compromised and subverted as the Republicans.
We need a real opposition party.
If you want to know how fucking stupid Libertariansim is, essentially they will argue that the government mandating something is bad, but a company with government-like powers ala BlackRock mandating something is MuH fReE mArKeT jUsT mAkE yOuR oWn TrIlLiOn DoLlAr AsSeT mAnAgEmEnT cOmPaNy BrO
Trifling a bit here.
How are you and Beanie man misinterpreting that tweet so badly? Letting businesses control the goings-on in their own properties is not the same thing as implementing a vex passport (though I do understand in the real world, in regressive territory, that would effectively be the case).
Businesses should not be allowed to arbitrarily decide who can or can not enter and invasively ask you to prove you are jabbed or not
In an ideal world, businesses could disallow blacks or aliens, or just specific individuals from entering.
Some people would consider that arbitrary.
You should still be allowed to disallow people with dangerous diseases (which covid isn't) from entering your doors. That is also invasive information, no?
Consider also that only hypochondriacs and regressives will care about vex status. Logical people who actually want customers won't ask for vexes.
We dont live in an ideal world. And they were checking vaccine status which was invasive as hell, not preventing you from coming in with a deadly disease.
Secondly logical people dont win against illogical people. Look how many places required vaccine passports even if majority wouldn't have agreed with it. All it takes it one dei hire in HR or management to fuck things to for everyone
Vaccine passports were a huge thing in most of the world and even if its been 3 yrs since then and people seem to have forgotten how intrusive they were and how obnoxious businesses were , they shouldn't have been allowed
How is Libertarianism compatible with the State maintaining a register with ID papers and digital ID to prove you have recieved medical treatment as a condition to enter a buisness?
Because that's the only way* a vax-passport will be implemented.
Hell, the entire argument for a vaccine passport only exists in the public debate because of WEF-guided government propaganda.
Without government and media covid-hysteria, 2020 would have been noticed as a flu harder than usual on old people and gentler than usual on kids. Maby.
Bull. The state does not need to be involved. Consider how consumer credit reports work. It involves communications between private enterprises.
No shit. That's why only idiots and regressives would care about vex status.
Libertarians are just marxists that wont cheat and force the world to bend to their ideal utopia.
Libertarians are liberals who want low taxes.
how is vaccine passports libertarian?
Somehow letting businesses invade the privacy and liberty of individuals is liberty
Any fellow pettytarians here? I don't care about the rights of so-called "people" that don't care about mine.
LP continues to be a joke
They're literally the opposite.
Found the lolbert traitor.
If someone sent explosives to terrorists, you'd call them a terrorist. Libertarians want to put guns in the hands of Marxists. Therefore they are Marxists. You said they were the "opposite"? Let's make a list.
They think Marxists should be free to spread Marxist thoughts. This directly support the Marxist cancer. That's unacceptable.
They think Marxists should be free to speak and vote. This directly empowers Marxist takeovers. That's unacceptable.
They think Marxists should be given fair and free trials. This directly supports Marxists escaping justice. That's unacceptable.
Marxists themselves don't even believe that Libertarians should have these rights.
Marxists support open borders. Libertarians support open borders. Libertarians are Marxists.
Marxists want Marxists to be heavily armed. Libertarians want Marxists to be heavily armed. Libertarians are Marxists.
Marxists support medical mandates. Libertarians support medical mandates. Libertarians are Marxists.
Marxists support an anarchy state. Libertarians support an anarchy state. Libertarians are Marxists.
Marxists support gender-bending open-air faggotry. Libertarians support gender-bending open-air faggotry. Libertarians are Marxists.
Marxists support widespread access to life-ruining society-dissolving recreational drugs. Libertarians support widespread access to life-ruining society-dissolving recreational drugs. Libertarians are Marxists.
lmao you said they were the 'opposite' and yet I find a dozen major policies they share.
Marxists outright want to ban speech, ban guns, ban political dissent, and ban any semblance of a fair justice system. Yet Libertarians actively support their efforts to seize power and implement their vision. Why would they do that? Because they're Marxists.
If you aren't actively supporting the total liquidation of Marxists, you are a Marxist sympathizer, thus just like someone who provides material aid to terrorists, you are a Marxist by proxy.
Everything about Libertarianism is just liberal faggotry. It's even in the goddamn name. They can fucking die. "Libertarian" is just the skinsuit Marxists wear to infiltrate the right, and based on the comments I saw on X on the last few days, people are waking up to what a bunch of faggots libertarians are.
Much like how "pacifists" are just cowards patting themselves on the back, "Libertarians" are just Marxists pretending they have 'freedumb' principles.
Your 'Founding Fathers' were Marxists, Nazis, communists, mass shooters at the same time.
You believe in thoughtcrime?
You're literally insane. That's unacceptable.
What's the last war you served in?
Comment Removed: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Directed at user.
Comment Reported for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Comment Removed for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
No psycho posting.
So sad using 'kikes' didn't fool anyone.
Comment Reported for: Rule 15 - Slurs
Not directed at users.
Is kike even a slur in the first place?