Punk rockers/anarchists and Libertarians, what is the difference?

[Ursus]

Oh look, libertarians arguing about what makes a true libertarian. Truly shocking stuff if you’ve never paid attention to the ideology’s proponents. Why can’t you guys ever agree on a definition of libertarianism?

Not sure if you're talking about me, but I never said I was a libertarian.

[Felya]

I oppose the death penalty for MY STATE, this doesn't mean I want to criminalize the use of the death penalty in other states. Why is it with the left that is so obsessed with control?

Because you are not a libertarian, but an authoritarian. You define freedom as laws placed upon the populace, via states, instead of Federal Government. You are not arguing that the left is infringing on individual’s freedom, you are arguing that freedom is defined by the state. That’s the same authoritarianism, you just shifted to a lower jurisdiction of a state... not the people...

- - - Updated - - -

It sounds like you're just fine with the government executing people as long as it's a state government doing it. You're not actually a libertarian, you're a states' rights person masquerading as a libertarian.

Libertarians do not support bans on abortion, nor do they support the death penalty, for very obvious reason. The argument for state rights is not libertarian, nor does yelling state rights display any sort of personal freedom nor independence.

The fact having states impose restrictions on what you can do with your body, instead of the federal government. Is an argument about federalism, not about liberty. What he is claiming to be libertarian or liberty, is nothing more than changing your master from the monarch to a Duke... that’s it... did you gain freedom or are you still serf?

[Bodakane]

What the fuck is it with the States' Rights fetishists anyway?

Its not the 1700s anymore.

[Ursus]

Libertarians do not support bans on abortion, nor do they support the death penalty, for very obvious reason. The argument for state rights is not libertarian, nor does yelling state rights display any sort of personal freedom nor independence.

The fact having states impose restrictions on what you can do with your body, instead of the federal government. Is an argument about federalism, not about liberty. What he is claiming to be libertarian or liberty, is nothing more than changing your master from the monarch to a Duke... that’s it... did you gain freedom or are you still serf?

Yeah, that's exactly what I was saying. He's a states' rights fanatic pretending to be a libertarian. I'm not sure why anyone would ever want to pretend to be a libertarian, seems like a very odd thing to do.

[Felya]

Libertarian here. No. we are not "far right", we hold the "live and let live" mentality.
Don't like marijuana? Don't use it, like it? Fine, as long as you are 18 or older.
Don't like video games? Don't use it, like it? Fine, as long as the games are age appropriate (if you are 18 or older idc what games you play).
Don't like the death penalty? Don't use it, like it? Fine, as long as you keep it IN YOUR STATE ONLY and don't try to impose it on other jurisdictions.
Don't like the death penalty abolitionist movement? then keep the death penalty, like it? Fine, as long as you keep it IN YOUR STATE ONLY and don't try to impose it on other jurisdictions.

How is having states define death penalty, live and let live? You can’t use that “let live” to argue that states should have the right to kill.

How is telling women what they can do with their body, live and let live? You are saying states have the right to define what people can do with their bodies.

How the fuck are you libertarian and not just anti federalist? Can you please explain the difference between a libertarian and an anti federalist? The two are not synonymous...

[Machismo]

I oppose the death penalty for MY STATE, this doesn't mean I want to criminalize the use of the death penalty in other states. Why is it with the left that is so obsessed with control? It seems it's the progressives now that want more power to the feds, not the "right". Right wingers and libertarians in general just want their state to be left alone and do not care as much to what happens in other states. It's the left that is so obsessed with giving the federal government enormous power. For fuck sakes the feds have banned the use of the death penalty as it applies to even aggravated child rape. This is just how tyrannical the feds are. They only allow states to use the death penalty in very specific types of murders. Are you happy with giving the federal government this much power? And where do you draw the line? Would you be OK if there is some supranational organization that criminalizes the use of the death penalty worldwide? Are you sure you want to live in that kind of world? It would be a freighting world for liberty and limited government if that were to happen.



It was not the libertarian right, they were religious right. Modern progressives have far more in common with the religious authoritarian than with libertarians. Most anti-sjws are right wing libertarian. We don't want to be controlled. But as of now, it's the progressives that are more controlling than religious authoritarians. It's progressives trying to pass affirmative action, trying to get the feds to ban state level death penalty, telling us how to run our abortion laws and what not. Stay in your lane, worry about your OWN state, and leave my state alone. Is all I ask of progressives. If you want to set up whatever society you want in your state, fine, just don't force those values onto me.

Ummm. if one supports freedom and liberty, that means for others, not just you... If you don't care about what happens to the liberties of others, then you don't actually give a flying fuck about liberty at all.

As for the rest of your grossly-inconsistent stances, that is on your own profile for everyone to see.

As for your last comment, you're the one who wants the government to control speech and freedom of association. You are quite literally trying to force your values onto others.

"It's authoritarian to oppose oppression."

Nope, it's quite literally the opposite.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh look, libertarians arguing about what makes a true libertarian. Truly shocking stuff if you’ve never paid attention to the ideology’s proponents. Why can’t you guys ever agree on a definition of libertarianism?

Libertarians (I'm one) love to argue. Not only that, the litmus testing is considerable, as libertarianism doesn't really allow for a whole lot of wiggle room. If you're claiming to support individual liberty, limited government, and the free markets... then it's really damn easy to point out when someone isn't supporting those things. The same cannot be said for amorphous ideologies like progressivism, or even conservatism, especially in the context of American politics.

There's also the fact that libertarians are never going to hold power, at least not in any meaningful way. That means the overall goal isn't the same as the GOP and Democrats, which is to be the majority. In reality, the vast majority of so-called libertarians are simply using that as a cover for their real political beliefs. Libertarians as a whole have simply taken the approach of, "Fuck off, you're not one of us." I think it can easily be mistaken for snobbery, but it's really simply a matter of ideological purity/consistency, and a desire to not try and be lumped in with people who don't actually give a flying fuck about the cause itself.

[Felya]

@Sole-Warrior just to make something clear. The fundamental, defining American conflict, is federalism. The second most prominent part of the civil war, was this exact conflict. Weather federal government had that much control over states. To misunderstand that as libertarian... puts you in a predicament, where one side was fighting to liberate slaves, while the other was fighting for liberty to deny liberty on state level. That’s just switching your master, not disposing of them...

It’s like pointing out that Democrats supported slavery, to distance republicans from it... but, then throw a fit, like it’s the end of the world, when statues of said Democrats are being torn down. Is this cognitive dissonance or intentional disinformation?

[Machismo]

I started out as anarchist, then moved slowly towards minarchism, but I'm starting to more and more find reason within libertarianism.

There are just so many laws and regulations and the government putting their noses where they don't belong. Cops and investigators pretending they're the lord and master on other people's properties.

The worldwide mantra of "don't do upon others as you don't wish to be done unto you" should be a good core basis of every law and regulation that exists, but there are so many that aren't even remotely related to that wisdom. They are laws and regulations that just exist for no good reason. As one positive I can at least tell that the EU Supreme court has already struck down such laws and regulations in the past.

How do you rationalize that with your undying support of an authoritarian like Trump?

[Machismo]

And to be on topic and answer the question more:

Anarchism, the modern day version of it, is more all about social-justice and communism as the core of it's virtues and ideals.
Libertarianism seems to be more about freedom, less about social-justice being forced down people's throats ad absurdum.

You do know that means you don't get universal Healthcare, social safety nets, or eminent domain you love so much... right?

[Endus]

And to be on topic and answer the question more:

Anarchism, the modern day version of it, is more all about social-justice and communism as the core of it's virtues and ideals.
Libertarianism seems to be more about freedom, less about social-justice being forced down people's throats ad absurdum.

What, exactly, is "absurd" about the idea that bigotry and abuse are indefensible and should be opposed whenever it crops up?

Because that's all social justice movements are about.

[Slant]

Could a politician just walk around today in a mall n ask people questions?

Yeah, sure. If he has a respectful conversation like Sanders did in this video. I have yet to meet a punk who isn't friendly and willing to explain what he's about. Now, he will kick your ass if you are trying to bullshit him or ridicule him, but if you actually talk with them, they're very friendly. Btw, you equating punkers to anarchists shows how little you understand of either group. Punkers can be anarchists, and often are, but they are just as often not, clearly identifying with a leftish ideology.

- - - Updated - - -

What, exactly, is "absurd" about the idea that bigotry and abuse are indefensible and should be opposed whenever it crops up?

Because that's all social justice movements are about.

Nothing. But the common attack is that social justice movements can go too far. Social justice is easy enough to get behind, but people using social justice as a platform for their own deranged views are tainting the picture here and there and make it easy to dismiss the entire concept. At least for the superficial.

[Bodakane]

And to be on topic and answer the question more:

Anarchism, the modern day version of it, is more all about social-justice and communism as the core of it's virtues and ideals.

Dafuq??!?!?!?! I mean: absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal. odes not equal the bullshit you posted at all. In fact, the actual definition is more in line with what you believe as a libertarian.

Libertarianism seems to be more about freedom, less about social-justice being forced down people's throats ad absurdum.

Libertarianism is absolutely about social justice, just a different set of morals driving it.

[Bodakane]

If you say so. I’ve heard numerous prominent Libertarians all call each other frauds because none of them can agree on what it means to be one. See you, for example, you have a rigid definition that you apply to your beliefs and if someone differs in the slightest they don’t count. It’s adorable.

There's a reason Libertarians wave flags that say, Don't Tread on Me, instead of Don't Tread on Us.

[downnola]

Nothing. But the common attack is that social justice movements can go too far. Social justice is easy enough to get behind, but people using social justice as a platform for their own deranged views are tainting the picture here and there and make it easy to dismiss the entire concept. At least for the superficial.

How is this different from any other cause or movement? There's a lot of people out there that are more interested in themselves and use those causes to satisfy their narcissism. That's not a mark against social justice, it's just whackos being whackos. If people are willing to dismiss the idea of structural racism because someone said some dumb shit on tiktok, or a student wrote an absurd thesis for their cultural study class, then they're just looking for an excuse to oppose those causes.

[Endus]

Nothing. But the common attack is that social justice movements can go too far. Social justice is easy enough to get behind, but people using social justice as a platform for their own deranged views are tainting the picture here and there and make it easy to dismiss the entire concept. At least for the superficial.

Yes, but my point is, how is it even possible to go "too far" in fighting bigotry and abuse? Even if we take it to the furthest extent possible and eliminate it completely forever, how would that be a "bad thing"?

It's a nonsensical concept. You could make a case for not kneejerking a social justice response to a situation, but that's a simple mistake made through eagerness overtaking analysis, not taking the principles "too far".

If you've got an issue with people appropriating social justice movements for some non-social-justice issue, that isn't even about social justice movements. Target your ire better.

It's a phrase that's used to try and protect a certain level of bigotry and argue it should be free from condemnation.

[Slant]

Yes, but my point is, how is it even possible to go "too far" in fighting bigotry and abuse? Even if we take it to the furthest extent possible and eliminate it completely forever, how would that be a "bad thing"?

It's a nonsensical concept. You could make a case for not kneejerking a social justice response to a situation, but that's a simple mistake made through eagerness overtaking analysis, not taking the principles "too far".

If you've got an issue with people appropriating social justice movements for some non-social-justice issue, that isn't even about social justice movements. Target your ire better.

It's a phrase that's used to try and protect a certain level of bigotry and argue it should be free from condemnation.

Easy, by focusing on social justice only for your group, at the detriment to social justice for other groups. This happens all the time and is the reason why some people view the feminist movement as not entirely pure in the original sense of that movement. Many people understand social justice correctly as a default state of "social justice for everyone." But talk to a certain type of feminist and they'll often enough say they're only out to get social justice for women. Why? Because men do not need it, they already have it. Fair enough. Could not be further from the truth in some aspects of life, though.

And because some members of these movements are stupid as a brick, once you push them outside of their comfort zone or pre-phrased buzzterms and standard arguments, they falter and it turns out they do not give a rat's ass about social justice, less understand what it means. And it turns out they want special privileges for women. Now, I'm fine with that, men have a privileged position in most areas of life. But why the stupid gain an angle to attack on "social justice" is because the other stupid don't know when to stop, when to take a look at the big picture and not forget that social justice isn't a one way street exactly. It's only one directional right now because there is a lot of social injustice going on, but be mindful that that goal can actually be attained. So when a girl walks up to a boy and says "You can't hit me back cos I'm a girl" when she punches him, that's a minor problem. When feminists think that's okay, that's a big problem. Just as the more obvious (and simplistic example).

Oh, in addition: Don't interpret emotions into my posts when there are none. Makes you look silly. Just like oversimplifying the concept and waving off "kneejerking a social injustice response" as "a mistake". That's not good enough. That kneejerked response is itself likely to be a response to a mistake, you're going to back yourself into a very dark corner of stupid if you go that route.

- - - Updated - - -

How is this different from any other cause or movement? There's a lot of people out there that are more interested in themselves and use those causes to satisfy their narcissism. That's not a mark against social justice, it's just whackos being whackos. If people are willing to dismiss the idea of structural racism because someone said some dumb shit on tiktok, or a student wrote an absurd thesis for their cultural study class, then they're just looking for an excuse to oppose those causes.

That's what I'm saying. These movements make it easy to attack them. Especially movements that harbor very aggressive speakers and figured in their midst. Whackos being whackos doesn't cut it, because that's SPECIFICALLY the argument men use all over the world and get told it's not good enough. So no, it's not good enough the other way around, either.

[Bodakane]

Easy, by focusing on social justice only for your group, at the detriment to social justice for other groups. This happens all the time and is the reason why some people view the feminist movement as not entirely pure in the original sense of that movement. Many people understand social justice correctly as a default state of "social justice for everyone." But talk to a certain type of feminist and they'll often enough say they're only out to get social justice for women. Why? Because men do not need it, they already have it. Fair enough. Could not be further from the truth in some aspects of life, though.

And because some members of these movements are stupid as a brick, once you push them outside of their comfort zone or pre-phrased buzzterms and standard arguments, they falter and it turns out they do not give a rat's ass about social justice, less understand what it means. And it turns out they want special privileges for women. Now, I'm fine with that, men have a privileged position in most areas of life. But why the stupid gain an angle to attack on "social justice" is because the other stupid don't know when to stop, when to take a look at the big picture and not forget that social justice isn't a one way street exactly. It's only one directional right now because there is a lot of social injustice going on, but be mindful that that goal can actually be attained. So when a girl walks up to a boy and says "You can't hit me back cos I'm a girl" when she punches him, that's a minor problem. When feminists think that's okay, that's a big problem. Just as the more obvious (and simplistic example).

Oh, in addition: Don't interpret emotions into my posts when there are none. Makes you look silly. Just like oversimplifying the concept and waving off "kneejerking a social injustice response" as "a mistake". That's not good enough. That kneejerked response is itself likely to be a response to a mistake, you're going to back yourself into a very dark corner of stupid if you go that route.

- - - Updated - - -



That's what I'm saying. These movements make it easy to attack them. Especially movements that harbor very aggressive speakers and figured in their midst. Whackos being whackos doesn't cut it, because that's SPECIFICALLY the argument men use all over the world and get told it's not good enough. So no, it's not good enough the other way around, either.

There’s nothing true in your first paragraph.

[Endus]

Easy, by focusing on social justice only for your group, at the detriment to social justice for other groups. This happens all the time and is the reason why some people view the feminist movement as not entirely pure in the original sense of that movement.

If you're working against equity, you're not pursuing social justice in the first place.

This is what I mean; arguing that you can go "too far" by pursuing social justice is like arguing you can swim "too high" when trying to get to the surface. Pointing out that people can get confused as to which way is "up" is just changing the argument.

Oh, in addition: Don't interpret emotions into my posts when there are none. Makes you look silly. Just like oversimplifying the concept and waving off "kneejerking a social injustice response" as "a mistake". That's not good enough. That kneejerked response is itself likely to be a response to a mistake, you're going to back yourself into a very dark corner of stupid if you go that route.

I didn't interpret emotions into anything. Blame English for being unable to distinguish between the specific "you, as a specific person" and the generic "you, as a reference to a hypothetical".

That's what I'm saying. These movements make it easy to attack them. Especially movements that harbor very aggressive speakers and figured in their midst. Whackos being whackos doesn't cut it, because that's SPECIFICALLY the argument men use all over the world and get told it's not good enough. So no, it's not good enough the other way around, either.

This is essentially just tone policing.

[Slant]

If you're working against equity, you're not pursuing social justice in the first place.

This is what I mean; arguing that you can go "too far" by pursuing social justice is like arguing you can swim "too high" when trying to get to the surface. Pointing out that people can get confused as to which way is "up" is just changing the argument.



I didn't interpret emotions into anything. Blame English for being unable to distinguish between the specific "you, as a specific person" and the generic "you, as a reference to a hypothetical".



This is essentially just tone policing.

Ok, so we agree. Great.

- - - Updated - - -

There’s nothing true in your first paragraph.

I doubt you read that far, but okay.

[Bodakane]

Ok, so we agree. Great.

- - - Updated - - -



I doubt you read that far, but okay.

I only made it that far. It is literally filled with bullshit.