https://www.lp.org/news-press-releases-libertarians-press-congress-on-doma-dont-ask-dont-tell/
With them electing a non Mises candidate, I thought I would dig for their official stance on an issue that had a very socially engineered public discourse surrounding it. Ron Paul was right that don't ask don't tell was a fine policy. Our pre-boomer ancestors knew faggotry oft enough resulted in degenerate behavior outside the bedroom. This policy made the point to fuck who you want, but dont be a retard with no opsec, or a narcissist who puts oneself before your fellow servicemen. Also, don't engage in witch-hunts.
I utterly despise how the gay agenda was actually a thing, not the bugbear we made fun of . This goes beyond letting Peter Thiel and Dave Rubin sex up their husbands; even then I have mixed opinions on both of them I didn't have 6 years prior. The self-righteous, dogmatic language the lgb-t-map+ "community" embraces to force their preferences without responsible society's consent should be reason enough to fall back to early 20th century policy. Doesn't matter what the movement is, such tactics cause societal collapse, just waiting for the inevitable trigger.
Point is, right-wing libertarians really need to find a new label that also separates them from the soccer-moms for Bush/Trump. That the hippie LPUSA suffers from so much Gramscian damage that they would lend any lip service to what is substantially and morally bankrupt has invalidated the uniparty alternative. If for the simple reason that there is no right to serve in the military, only equal opportunity to all civilians.
After reading atlas shrugged in high school i briefly got interested in the libertarian party. Then I actually looked at them and even as a teenager realized these guys were a bunch of unserious wankers.
So way head of you buddy, I've been ignoring them for decades now.
If I were a right-wing libertarian I'd probably just call myself a Hoppean .
I remember reading a debate in Reason magazine around 2008 or so between (I think) the CEO of Maxwell Semiconductor and the CEO of Whole Foods regarding the role of business in shaping social policy. Maxwell CEO took the old-school "I don't give a shit about social policy; I just want to make money for shareholders" position, and the Whole Foods CEO took the position that it was desirable (and profitable) to use one's market position to "nudge" people toward desired social outcomes. That the Whole Foods CEO "won" the debate was unanimous among that crowd.
They've been leftists for awhile.
Fun fact I had someone in my casual social group call Hoppe a 'nazi' and I immediately knew 80% of their personality.
Had a similar thing happen to me except with Ayn Rand.
I’ve been meaning to read some Hoppe along with Rothbard. Haven’t read Reason in a long time. Doesn’t surprise me
Hoppe's really easy to get into since his book is just a collection of essays, many of which say much the same thing. Can probably get the gist of what he advocates by reading ~20 pages of his work.
Libertarians seem to have a gene that whenever they see a poll at 10% support they have an unavoidable urge to revert to one of two arguments that seems to be a random coinflip in their head . The "But what if the child consents" argument or the "Borders aren't real" position.
I'm not saying love the LP. Especially now.
But they've had, at least, two major coups since 2011; one good, one bad.
As a smaller party, they go through a ton of changes. Reaching back to retarded shit from 2011 is meaningless. The LP was good for a couple years after the actual libertarians took over, then got couped again by the gays, unfortunately.
2011 is irrelevant. The LP is still shit, but shit from back then is meaningless; it was a completely different party.
Heterosexuality will always be the norm. They can get upset about that but that is just a fact. People are free to live how they want as long as they don’t hurt anyone but the state we are in is crazy where it is vastly over represented in media and sadly so many young ppl see it as the trendy thing. Some churches ignore the Bible so they can get worldly kudos.
Shame they are electing non mises candidates. Isn’t their current candidate some lefty? Does he even give lip service to a smaller govt?
I thought of myself has a libertarian when I was young. Eventually I realized there are three types of people that will seriously argue against age of consent laws and those three types were anarchists, pedophiles, and libertarians.
Fuck the libertarian party
Nowhere in scripture is an age mentioned and unlike Aisha, Mary's husband is not put forward as the perfect man that every true believer should emulate, so your non-sequitur isn't even relevant here.
Libertarians are just closet Islamists. Their pedo positions combined with endjng foreign aid to Israel makes it clear who runs the party.
Libertarians in real life are the biggest douchebags I’ve ever encountered.
I definitely agree about voluntarists. I was actually explaining minarchism to someone last week
You can coexist with homos as long as you make it clear they're merely tolerated. Once you cross the line to accepted or celebrated, you're fucked and there's no coming back.
Every third party is infiltrated because there is no way the state is going to let serious competition gain even a smidgen of power. If any third party wants to become serious contenders, they're gonna have to overcome this hurdle first. The Mises Caucas is the only group I can see making strides towards that goal.
An even better reason to ignore them: libertarians are retarded.
These idiots are blaming the Democrats today for supporting the social policies that libertarians supported back in 1971 when they founded the LP USA.
Libertarians in 1971: Support abortion on demand and any form of relationship between 'consenting adults'.
Retards: crickets
Democrats in 2024: Support abortion on demand and any form of relationship between 'consenting adults'. (Actually, 1971's libertarians were even worse, since they believed in abolishing marriage, a 'slavery contract', altogether.)
Retards: Woke! Snowflakes! NPCs!
That's sufficient proof of their retardation. Additional proof abounds for those who need it. They debate such things as:
These aren't points of any contention in any sane society. He who seriously considers the merits of decriminalizing child labour and the sale of drugs to children, or of abolishing driving licenses, belongs in a loony bin.
The 'national libertarianism' or 'libertarian nationalism' in some of these comments is equally retarded. There is no point in a 'heterogenous society of White people' if it's governed by this cancerous, dysfunctional ideology. One may as well say that a 100% White commune writ large in which everyone is some sort of drug-addicted Antifa tranny is somehow desirable. It's like saying that the CHAZ-CHOP could have been great, but only if it were White-only. That makes a parody of White nationalism: it's Hollywood White nationalism.
Libertarian ideas have the reverse Midas touch: they turn everything that they come into contact with into excrement. 2024's Democrats? Arguably still saner than these freaks.
Libertarianism is heterogenous and goes much further back, at least to Bastiat in the early 19th century.
The more important part was that such policy should not be decided at the federal govt. level, which is almost what the Trump appointees achieved by repealing that piece of judicial activism. Some libertarians believed in the way the US handled the issue before Roe V. Wade was amended in the early 90s was ideal and consistent with Rand's objectivist philosophy, where sentience and/or heartbeat is the strong determining factor in which an abortion is illegal or immoral. This contrasts with abortion at any time including after birth, or pro-life that begins at conception.
Yes, government shouldn't be involded with legislating morality, only enforcing contracts.
Such laws were always enacted after child labor was on its way to extinction. I'm pretty sure the more paleolibertarian stance is ensuring economic conditions where a free-associating society will never desire child labor, or would be penalized (i.e. risk ostracization from a polity)
Rigorously defined libertarian-ism is decentralized law. Privatized or public roads aren't a pure, solved issue.I would certainly like more stringent license testing procedure so fellow commuters would drive faster and respond quicker. This is harder under the current system where transporation on govt/crony engineered national highways is an assumed human right.
Maybe they were booing the premise or presentation of the topic, I'm not sure.
I believe the earlier commenter's point could be better expressed as 'any functioning governing system requires shared, learned values/virtues that are vigilantly uphold by constituent members'. This isn't unique to libertarianism. It's over-simplified to say 'white-only allows this principle to work', but this heterogeneous libertarian society roughly describes 19th century USA (relative to rest of world), depending on time and place. Moving on, Hoppe makes it very clear that certain behaviors will see a person excluded or otherwise punished by their polity. However, if John McAfee want's to do cocaine on his own independent property, so long as he can upkeep the property and not harm others on his property. Gong in depth with how he could be punished is beyond the scope of this comment, but could include violent retaliation by other polities (who again share common understanding on certain universal rights) or a cessation of trade.
I could have made a post compiling and making a case for the right kind of libertarianism, but I assumed enough of this message board realizes certain observations of libertarians have merit. Working off that assumption, I just felt like venting about a certain example touching two topics (lpusa and brainwashing language technique) of which real-world occurrences really peeve me.
Why the hell should you need a driving license when you don’t need a horse license or a boat license or a bike license or a scooter license or a ride-on mower license or fireworks license or a gun license? Because a bunch of Luddites in 1900 were scared of cars and envious of their rich owners?
>Boat license
Several states mandate safety courses before you can legally operate a boat. Florida, for example, has a card to prove you took a course. It might as well be a license.
>fireworks license
There are municipalities where fireworks are illegal, with an exception for permitted displays, which is effectively licensure but per-event rather than per-person.
>bicycle license
There are/were counties that required registration for each bike.
IMHO, of the ones you listed only fireworks make sense to have a restriction. Owing mostly to the fact that you aren't in constant control (or even line of sight) of the device. Car accident or what not, there's no question of who was operating the vehicle. Personal responsibility is assured. Firework could light a house blocks away on fire and you'd never know it. The lack of accountability after the fact reasonably justifies adding some accountability before the fact.
Horse license: How many horse accidents were there in the past? Who even owns a horse today? Are horses routinely crashing into each other? Clearly doesn't require regulation.
Boat license: How many horse accidents were there in the past? How many people own a boat today? Are boats routinely crashing into each other? Clearly doesn't require regulation.
Bike license: Same as above.
Ride-on mower license: Now you're going to ad absurdums. How many fatalities have they caused? You may as well have just said that the guvmint will one day force people to get a license to breathe. (You libertarians wouldn't support said license because muh guvmint, but many of you would support companies charging people to breathe if they could: thankfully, companies haven't worked out a way to charge us to breathe.)
Gun license: There should definitely be gun licenses.
This is obvious retardation. First, Luddites would need to have exercised significant power. When did Luddites ever have that, anywhere? Second, said Luddites would have to be making public policies based on fear and envy. You sound like a Left-Wing retard: muh xenophobia, muh homophobia, muh technophobia. Of course, you libertarians are cut from the same cloth.
Your comment almost reads as though it's facetious. But you really are serious. Thanks for making my point. The reverse Midas touch I just wrote of has completely blinded you to reason.
Libertarianism is a poison pill. Its whole design is to weaken good people's defense against evil people. Once evil people have enough control, then they flip to authoritarianism, counter to libertarianism, and now good people are too weak to stop the evil.
Freedom to commit evil simply leads to evil oppressing good. Freedom to commit evil must never be allowed. People think good and evil is subjective but it's not. It's pretty easy to know what has a good outcome for a society and what doesn't. Evil people just try to confuse people so they can more easily commit evil.
Fuck libertarianism. It's a trap.
It wouldn't work here either. Even white people can be dicks. Any ideology that requires 100% willing participation is a pipe dream. Like communism, as soon as a small group of people refuse to participate, the entire thing collapses.