https://www.irs.gov/publications/p17
Ctrl-F. You'll find the lines are there.
Not a prank, those lines are actually in the publication.
5k
Which is more than enough to buy a whole car outright at...
CAPITOL CITY MOTOR COMPANY, ONE BLOCK OFF TWO THIRTY FIVE ON THE STATE FAIR SIDE OR ONLINE AT APPROVEDBYJOEDOTCOM.
(Anyone from central Iowa knows that voice.)
you even said it above that you want it to be every kind of debauchery
No, I said it IS.
I'm gonna spell this out for you again:
Libertarianism as an ideology gives ZERO FUCKS about the community. It is an ideology that is 100% focused on the individual's exercise of liberty, in accord with John Stuart Mill's harm principle:
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
-John Stuart Mill
The community is a non-entity. Mill only cares about harm against one individual by another individual, either through will or negligence. It is an ideology that inherently ACCEPTS the tragedy of the commons. The distributed, theoretical harm to many through the commons is NOT harm.
Abortion is a thorny issue in a Mill framework because harm could go both ways. But pretty much everything else social conservatives get irritated about (gay marriage particularly) is perfectly kosher under Mill's harm principle.
You have no problem with moral wrongs, so long as those committing them are willing to tolerate the moral wrongs YOU want to engage in.
Yes.
That is literally the foundational principle of libertarianism.
So stop trying to steal our word.
Hillary Clinton and Tipper Gore
The only reason you think they're not on your side is because you're so fixated on abortion and gay marriage that the entirety of politics in your eyes becomes a left-right line between the degenerate and the virtuous.
From my perspective, the only difference between a social conservative and an authoritarian democrat is tax policy.
And I'm on the side of the social conservatives only because they don't want to tax me.
why so called "libertarians" should not be considered as allies
YES. Absolutely correct. We are not ideological allies. We're frenemies.
THE ONLY THINGS YOU AND I HAVE IN COMMON IS THAT WE BOTH WANT LOWER TAXES BY CUTTING SPENDING, WE BOTH WANT TO GET OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST, AND WE BOTH WANT TO BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
That's it.
cultural libertarianism
This is a bullshit term used by hypocritical conservatives trying to square the circle.
socially conservative policies
ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH LIBERTARIANISM.
There is nothing libertarian about social conservatism. You say you want to ban abortion and gay marriage. But it doesn't end there. It never ends there. You inevitably go Jack Fucking Thompson. You go after vidya, magic cards, D&D, and eventually even deffmetal.
THIRTY FUCKING YEARS I'VE LISTENED TO YOUR SIDE'S LIES. YOU KEEP TRYING TO WEASEL IN AND TAKE OUR LABEL BECAUSE YOU NEED OUR VOTES. BUT YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN WHAT WE BELIEVE IN AND WE WILL NEVER BE MORE THAN ALLIES OF CONVENIENCE.
I'm willing to side with social conservatives against FUCKING COMMUNISTS. But don't call yourselves libertarian, cuz anyone who wants to ban shit is no libertarian.
Hoppeans
The last two centuries have taught us two things:
That the Germans need to shut up about philosophy, and learn to chill the fuck out.
I'm blocking you now for a week because I'm done reading your self absorbed bullshit.
The same reasoning that you would use against drugs, or that Hoppe would use against homosexuality, is the same reasoning that was used against me and mine in the Satanic Panic.
I don't hate moralizing prigs.
But I fucking despise moralizing prigs who claim to be libertarians.
Because they're hypocrites.
Libertarianism fully realized produces an ugly world. But that's a foundational problem with the ideology, it's not something you can fix by being selective about the definition of liberty.
YOU need to discard the idea that you are a libertarian. You're not. And that's okay.
You're a Heinleinist, you believe that liberty comes with responsibility. The libertarian does not; libertarianism is detached from ANY civic responsibility or obligation to the community beyond tolerance.
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.
Hoppe is a libertarian
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.
Rothbardian and Hoppean
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.
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.
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.
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.
Still works better than the same old shit the UN has been trying.
Forty odd years of shoveling money into that continent and all it's done is prop up a dozen or so dictators and their private militias.
And the leaders who AREN'T in power from a junta are still as corrupt as Chicago aldermen.
Nothing
Nothing?
I wouldn't say nothing would persuade me.
But nothing one could reasonably expect would.
what do you make of this comment by Trump
From about 1965 to 1995, American high schools essentially froze their vocational programs. When they finally acknowledged that the world has changed, they spent another 20 years trying to figure out how to catch up.
The problem is the school districts. Yes, I understand this goes back to home-rule principles but it has multiple consequences.
In the face of the technological changes occurring in the 20th century, the ONLY practical way of schools keeping their vocational programs competitive would have been to specialize and open enroll. This did happen... but only in the very largest metro systems that control multiple high schools under a single district.
Districts with a single high school (including poor and rich districts in major metro suburbs as well as rural schools) couldn't specialize and so had to hand vocational skills off to community colleges and universities.
Had there been a stronger state level top down education system, high schools could have moved to a residence model with subject matter specialization (as is the case in some European countries). So in a given state you might have some arts high schools, lots of technology high schools, medical and law preparatory high schools, etc.
As it is, a person has to go to community college to even learn how to drive a goddamn truck.
Part of the problem is of course that America picked 18 as age of majority instead of 16 like most of Europe. That causes problems for running boarding style high schools.
Clearly you have never joined a nullsec corp in EVE Online.