Whats wrong with the Libertarians?

[Prince.Skeletor]

Liberterains are definition of extreme 'Social liberals, fiscal conservatives', which basically translates into selfish, isolationism, and not giving a fukk about anyone but them selves.

So you don't understand libertarianism or what isolationism is???

 

[David_TheMan]

Me and my band of rowdy commies, other capitalists, your own workers, roving armies of starving peasants, etc etc.

So I need the state, the epitome of centralized power that doesn't respect property rights or even human life to protect me from commies and thugs who would violate my property rights, to keep my property?
That sounds rather convoluted and ignorant of reality.

If your basic question is who will provide security, I would prefer private security contractors bound by local law (no state, doesn't equal no government) depending on your area also could be a volunteer security agency. Plenty of ways to go with that, which is good with me, many options at solving the problem is a good thing.

 

[hayesc0]

 

[Tate]

So I need the state, the epitome of centralized power that doesn't respect property rights or even human life to protect me from commies and thugs who would violate my property rights, to keep my property?
That sounds rather convoluted and ignorant of reality.

If your basic question is who will provide security, I would prefer private security contractors bound by local law (no state, doesn't equal no government) depending on your area also could be a volunteer security agency. Plenty of ways to go with that, which is good with me, many options at solving the problem is a good thing.

[extremely Am I Being Detained Sir? voice] hmm we won't need the government to protect the instruction that the government invented and is based around and has always maintained via force. Also pinkertons? Ever heard of them? We don't need the statist police b*stards to defend us even though that's their primary function throughout history and the present. We just need to enlist the denizens of the free market to establish more private security forces, there no many examples of these companies being havens for psychopaths or serving less than moral customers[/extremely Am I Being Detained Sir? voice]

 

[TransJenner]

As a believer in the bible I can say well deff be there soon

 

[JahFocus CS]

[extremely Am I Being Detained Sir? voice] hmm we won't need the government to protect the instruction that the government invented and is based around and has always maintained via force. Also pinkertons? Ever heard of them? We don't need the statist police b*stards to defend us even though that's their primary function throughout history and the present. We just need to enlist the denizens of the free market to establish more private security forces, there no many examples of these companies being havens for psychopaths or serving less than moral customers[/extremely Am I Being Detained Sir? voice]

 

[David_TheMan]

[extremely Am I Being Detained Sir? voice] hmm we won't need the government to protect the instruction that the government invented and is based around and has always maintained via force. Also pinkertons? Ever heard of them? We don't need the statist police b*stards to defend us even though that's their primary function throughout history and the present. We just need to enlist the denizens of the free market to establish more private security forces, there no many examples of these companies being havens for psychopaths or serving less than moral customers[/extremely Am I Being Detained Sir? voice]

I take it by government you mean the state (two different things).
That said the state didn't create property, scareness and humans did. As long a person worked or got lucky and found a scarce resource and said this is mine, that is private property. That is its origin, the thought and the community/society's recognition of the concept that ______ belongs to _______, that is all private property is. So to claim it only came from the state shows to me, you have no realistic base to what you are trying to discuss.

Yes I've heard of Pinkertons, also heard of sheriffs in the wild west who were largely private employees of the populace in unincorporated territory.

We don't need government police to defend us, well that isn't their job, but I agree we don't need them and I am sure I could show you historically that government police have always had the primary job of generating income for the state more than protecting anyone.

You asked me how I would solve security, I told you private security, you've yet to explain how this is not feasible.

I would say the state police is the haven of psychpaths and sociopaths that you are afraid of, and the current state of the US police force, across the nation, affirms that sad state of affair. If you would have me believe that having a private security service that is beholden to the law they are paid to enforce, that doesn't control the system so that they alone are responsible for investigating themselves, prosecuted by DAs who they work with, and their proceedings administered by judges who are usually former DAs, is worse than the state system implemented in western society today you are going to have to actually present a solid argument.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

The most extreme to you might be the anacap camp.
We support anarchy or the removing of the state as a whole and favor a system of government known as voluntaryism.
As for the political party and the minarchist in that, removing of the safety net might be an extreme position, but Gary Johnson doesn't believe in that and neither does his VP.

Ask away and I'll answer your questions, (everyone)

"voluntaryism" doesn't meet the needs of the nation on a basic level. The market doesn't meet all the basic needs for a functioning society.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Liberterains are definition of extreme 'Social liberals, fiscal conservatives', which basically translates into selfish, isolationism, and not giving a fukk about anyone but them selves.

They're worse than that.

Most libertarians I know are right wingers with sheer apathy towards social issues, not necessarily support for progressive ideas.

 

[David_TheMan]

"voluntaryism" doesn't meet the needs of the nation on a basic level. The market doesn't meet all the basic needs for a functioning society.

Depends on what you mean by nation.
If you look at a nation and think of the state, or the apparatus of power, then of course it doesn't it is the antithesis of the state.
If by nation you talk about the people, then I disagree.

As for the market, the market itself is simply a name for the actions taken by individuals in a society/community etc. So how the market which is society fulfilling its material needs via voluntary trade, doesn't meet the needs for that very same society, I don't know how you can make that claim.

 

[Tate]

I take it by government you mean the state (two different things).
That said the state didn't create property, scareness and humans did. As long a person worked or got lucky and found a scarce resource and said this is mine, that is private property. That is its origin, the thought and the community/society's recognition of the concept that ______ belongs to _______, that is all private property is. So to claim it only came from the state shows to me, you have no realistic base to what you are trying to discuss.

Yes I've heard of Pinkertons, also heard of sheriffs in the wild west who were largely private employees of the populace in unincorporated territory.

We don't need government police to defend us, well that isn't their job, but I agree we don't need them and I am sure I could show you historically that government police have always had the primary job of generating income for the state more than protecting anyone.

You asked me how I would solve security, I told you private security, you've yet to explain how this is not feasible.

I would say the state police is the haven of psychpaths and sociopaths that you are afraid of, and the current state of the US police force, across the nation, affirms that sad state of affair. If you would have me believe that having a private security service that is beholden to the law they are paid to enforce, that doesn't control the system so that they alone are responsible for investigating themselves, prosecuted by DAs who they work with, and their proceedings administered by judges who are usually former DAs, is worse than the state system implemented in western society today you are going to have to actually present a solid argument.

1. Private property as understood by most "ancaps(aka nerds/nazis)" is a very modern concept, as of course, is the appeal to natural law itself. Totally absent from prehistoric ruins, classical civilizations, medieval Europe, etc etc. The best example you weirdo fukks have is literally the American west, which besides you know, being set on the backdrop of genocide, was widely settled upon government funded infrastructure, under the protection of government armed forces, and in response to government promised property rights

2. Please don't own me with logic. I will literally start crying if you point out my fallacies

 

[David_TheMan]

1. Private property as understood by most "ancaps(aka nerds/nazis)" is a very modern concept, as of course, is the appeal to natural law itself. Totally absent from prehistoric ruins, classical civilizations, medieval Europe, etc etc. The best example you weirdo fukks have is literally the American west, which besides you know, being set on the backdrop of genocide, was widely settled upon government funded infrastructure, under the protection of government armed forces, and in response to government promised property rights

2. Please don't own me with logic. I will literally start crying if you point out my fallacies

1) You made that up out of thin air and you know that. Private property as understood my most libertarians (minarchist and anacaps) is the traditional concept of private property. Which is nothing more than ownership and management of the resource in question. As for the appeal of natural law, that is also incorrect, some libertarians don't even argue from a natural law perspective. So you literally just created a strawman to support your absurd contention to justify your ignorance of what you are talking about, you know that right?

The american west isn't used as an example for everything though, its very rarely used as a model to be honest. It does serve a very good purpose of showing some of the flaws with regard to the state vs. free market policing. As for trying to blame Libertarians for the genocide against native americans perpetrated by the US government, literally makes no sense and it shows you can't even take the time to setup a logical argument about libertarians. Again creating a strawman argument to bolster your sense of righteous indignation. Pretty funny to see.

2) So are you admitting you have no logic in your argument?

 

[iFightSeagullsForBread]

They're the most smug motherfukkers you'll ever come across.

Despite their war cry of "muh freedumb!" they're p*ssy.

 

[Tate]

1) You made that up out of thin air and you know that. Private property as understood my most libertarians (minarchist and anacaps) is the traditional concept of private property. Which is nothing more than ownership and management of the resource in question. As for the appeal of natural law, that is also incorrect, some libertarians don't even argue from a natural law perspective. So you literally just created a strawman to support your absurd contention to justify your ignorance of what you are talking about, you know that right?

The american west isn't used as an example for everything though, its very rarely used as a model to be honest. It does serve a very good purpose of showing some of the flaws with regard to the state vs. free market policing. As for trying to blame Libertarians for the genocide against native americans perpetrated by the US government, literally makes no sense and it shows you can't even take the time to setup a logical argument about libertarians. Again creating a strawman argument to bolster your sense of righteous indignation. Pretty funny to see.

2) So are you admitting you have no logic in your argument?

Please give me examples of capitalist property rights and relations anywhere widespread before roughly 1600 ad. And arguing that property rights exist in a vacuum separate and independent from the state, and thus didn't arise because of the state's protection, is the definition of appealing to natural law.

Smdh I ask you nicely not to point out my fallacies and here you go, calling my strawman. Again, please don't own me with your extremely spectrum logic knowledge. It's unfair and frankly unacceptable

 

[JahFocus CS]

Can we also talk about right-wing libertarians absolutely hijacking and b*stardizing the libertarian (i.e., anarchist) tradition?