Turns out there's no Libertarians

[Caolela]

What's the data on woke independents?

What's the data on meme spewers?

[Dug]

What's the data on meme spewers?

Studies show at least one in this thread

[Glorious Leader]

And there are degrees of the restriction of freedom. Restricting movement onto private property is not equivalent to literally murdering someone for being alive. If you think those are fundamentally the same thing, you may need to address that.

Private property does not require government enforcement, it can be enforced by the person owning and occupying his property. Take me, for instance. If you come onto my property without my permission, and intend to harm me, I will shoot you until I am certain the threat is gone. Then, depending on my mood, I may call the emergency services to come gather up your remains. Then again, I may not. The changing hands and protection of private property does not mean the government is needed.

The institution of private property is far more pervasive and invasive. Okay in and of itself it doesn't literally kill you but it restricts your freedoms in many far more sinister and pervasive ways than that. For the record people do die in the name of private property, so this argument that the government can kill you theirfore their can be more tyranical institutions than private property ignores the fact that the government can kill you over private property. Restricting your right to free movement does not exclude the possibility that the government will murder you if you don't obey. Or worse support the owners of that property on a large enough scale to murder millions.

Private property does indeed requirement government enforcement unless youre willing to accept a society of endless vendettas which would ultimately lead to enforcement of ownership through a defacto government anyway. You will eventually shoot everyone who could challenge your property and then you could claim theirs and your new found abundance would put you in power. Welcome to government. Even the rothbardian conception of private property enforcement is just sneaking in government by another name.

I don't really care that you think you own that property I'm going to get a mob together and take it from you who's gonna stop me? You can try but I have a mob and besides that this individualist notion of every man for himself property is fucking mythological bullshit. It never worked like and it never will. The concepts of "ownership" have no meaning without a government to define exactly what that means. Who owns what? What claim do they have? Is it merely force? Well theirs your government. And why do you think your claim is greater than any one others? Who resolves disputes between honest individuals? FORCE is required to institute private property and ultimately that force becomes the power, becomes the state, becomes the government. You may be in favor of some endless vendetta government where the law of the land is the law of keep what you kill it but you can't escape also being governed by it. Unless your some mythological Robin Caruso on an island by yourself.

[Caolela]

Studies show at least one in this thread

And that would be you.

Thx for playing.

[Machismo]

The institution of private property is far more pervasive and invasive. Okay in and of itself it doesn't literally kill you but it restricts your freedoms in many far more sinister and pervasive ways than that. For the record people do die in the name of private property, so this argument that the government can kill you theirfore their can be more tyranical institutions than private property ignores the fact that the government can kill you over private property. Restricting your right to free movement does not exclude the possibility that the government will murder you if you don't obey. Or worse support the owners of that property on a large enough scale to murder millions.

Private property does indeed requirement government enforcement unless youre willing to accept a society of endless vendettas which would ultimately lead to enforcement of ownership through a defacto government anyway. You will eventually shoot everyone who could challenge your property and then you could claim theirs and your new found abundance would put you in power. Welcome to government. Even the rothbardian conception of private property enforcement is just sneaking in government by another name.

I don't really care that you think you own that property I'm going to get a mob together and take it from you who's gonna stop me? You can try but I have a mob and besides that this individualist notion of every man for himself property is fucking mythological bullshit. It never worked like and it never will. The concepts of "ownership" have no meaning without a government to define exactly what that means. Who owns what? What claim do they have? Is it merely force? Well theirs your government. And why do you think your claim is greater than any one others? Who resolves disputes between honest individuals? FORCE is required to institute private property and ultimately that force becomes the power, becomes the state, becomes the government. You may be in favor of some endless vendetta government where the law of the land is the law of keep what you kill it but you can't escape also being governed by it. Unless your some mythological Robin Caruso on an island by yourself.

For the record, I am willing to accept a society of nearly endless vendettas.

If you think you can take my property, be my guest. You are welcome to try, and you may die in the process. Either that, or I may die.

[Milchshake]

What's the data on meme spewers?

I believe that Lolbertarians are in the same quadrant a libertarians.

[Deleted]

This is surprising to be honest. To me it seems strange that some people want to give away the power to make their own decisions and pursue their own happiness to someone else. It's the bottom left especially that I dont get. If you think you're such nice people, who don't you do volunteer work and give to charities? Stealing other peoples stuff and giving it to someone else doesn't count as helping.

[Glorious Leader]

For the record, I am willing to accept a society of nearly endless vendettas.

If you think you can take my property, be my guest. You are welcome to try, and you may die in the process. Either that, or I may die.

Then youre ultimately accepting government as well. Albeit one based around keep what you kill. So long as force is required to maintain "ownership" (which has no conception without state) then you are admitting government in merely one with a different name and flavour.

You shot me. You won. Congratulations youre the new government. I hope power suits you.

It should be pointed out once agajn this conception of property without government is completely a historical but even as an academic exercise its hollow.

[Machismo]

Then youre ultimately accepting government as well. Albeit one based around keep what you kill. So long as force is required to maintain "ownership" (which has no conception without state) then you are admitting government in merely one with a different name and flavour.

You shot me. You won. Congratulations youre the new government. I hope power suits you.

It should be pointed out once agajn this conception of property without government is completely a historical but even as an academic exercise its hollow.

It's good to be the king. Hail to the king, baby.

[Kraenen]

There never have been. They're Republicans who don't want to identify as Republicans.

There are actually tons of libertarians - they are socially liberal and economically conservative.

[Milchshake]

There are actually tons of libertarians - they are socially liberal and economically conservative.

That quad is mostly empty. Tons more at the cluster (0.0,0.5), economically ambivalent, and in the middle of social conservatism.

[Adam Jensen]

There are actually tons of libertarians - they are socially liberal and economically conservative.

Maybe I should have put a /s next to my post. But I was being mostly facetious due to the fact that so many people claim to be "libertarian" while staying true to each and every single part of the Republican platform.

But yes, I know there are some actual libertarians out there.

[want my Slimjim]

I despise those democrats that believe in the myth of the Free Market...

The free market isn't a myth. It's real and would work better
Today then the Democratic system that we have which is leftwing socialism

[minteK917]

Libertarian never existed, because nobody even lived in it, its science fiction philosophy books for college students like Ayn Rand. Adults grow out of it eventually, human never existed and will never exist in a system where everyone is left alone in an individual state, we are genetically engineered to work as groups. The more refined our group is becoming, the more perfectionist we get.

For example. Its really only a matter of time before the US gets single payer, it was just a matter of tasting coverage. People are realizing you all save money if the government doesent have to bail out all the bankruptcy free market causes, because doctors are sworn to heal everyone in need no matter their coverage. Just wait til the boomers die or when they are all in the range of 70+, that legislation will fly right out the door, its not even possible to question if.

[Lenonis]

The problem with Libertarianism is that it requires being entirely sociopathic to take to any significant degree.

When you remove any and all rules, regulations, and governments, then you result in millions if not more of dead bodies.

As I proved when I argued with a Libertarian when discussing the FDA -- he admitted he's be willing to have millions of people die if it meant that drugs wouldn't be tested or quality controlled by any third party. It was...really amazing when he finally admitted it.

[Caolela]

The problem with Libertarianism is that it requires being entirely sociopathic to take to any significant degree.

When you remove any and all rules, regulations, and governments, then you result in millions if not more of dead bodies.

As I proved when I argued with a Libertarian when discussing the FDA -- he admitted he's be willing to have millions of people die if it meant that drugs wouldn't be tested or quality controlled by any third party. It was...really amazing when he finally admitted it.

I'm not surprised at all really. It's similar to many chats I've had with them. And they've never met an out-of-control corporation they didn't like - until someone they know gets hurt or killed by some corp's defective or dangerous product, toxic waste dumping, and any number of other things they'd love to see "unregulated".

[Xirrohon]

Roger Stone had lots of political influence on Trump. There will be some Libertarian like policies for sure.

[Jastall]

Is anyone surprised? They're the hippies of the right. They talk about how cool it would be if thing X was done (or in their case, likely undone) without thinking much about how to do it, why it's there and what the consequences of removing it will be.

[Bullettime]

Not sure why anyone would be surprised. Hell, most libertarian policies are pretty much impossible without literally becoming complete sociopaths. I'd argue most who identify as libertarians are just actually modern Republicans/conservatives who don't want to be grouped in with the religious right.

[Kellhound]

The free market isn't a myth. It's real and would work better
Today then the Democratic system that we have which is leftwing socialism

Free market is an economic concept, democracy is a political concept, you are comparing apples to oranges.