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.
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.