Libertarian Party, why do you FAIL?

[Blitzers]

So I watched the Libertarian Party debate this weekend hosted by Penn Gillette.

I went into this with the hopes that Austin Petersen was an alternative to Trump, unfortunately I was very much disappointed. Some of his positions I agree with mostly his stance on the constitution and its restrictions on government. That being said, it seems like Libertarians have a disconnect with common sense and national sovereignty. It was a common theme throughout the debate that the #1 issue is drugs and the ability to choose whatever you want in regards to this. I personally don't care whatsoever if adults, who want to engage in this behavior, do so. I must ask the question, is the decriminalization of drugs the most pressing issue in America? I guess if your a drug dealer or a crackhead then yes, but what % of those people vote, let alone take the time to lend ear to the political scene? It also looks like the legalization of Drug use is already moving forward. Why are the Libertarians so wedded to a voting block so minute that it completely alienates any other prospective constituency? It also seems as if you're trying to attract a constituency already entrenched within the "progressive left." Please don't confuse my position with that of a D.A.R.E. Officer cause it certainly is not. I'm just pointing out that the Libertarian Party seems to highlight this issue at the expense of the ideology.

Onto the other issue, National Soveriegnty. All 3 candidates were asked if they would limit the number of immigrants to the USA, and all 3 responded, "no they would not." Austin Petersen also said, "Did the Native Americans limit the colonists, no." Is Austin Petersen correct with his statement, to a certain extent yes, but is he aware that his statement is quite a good counter argument against his own position? Obviously not. If the "natives" had the ability to do so would they? The reason why conservatives believe that we must enforce our immigration laws and even make them more stringent is because we have acknowledged historical events and learned from the mistakes of others. The colonists didn't come from Europe and assimilate the Native Culture and Traditions. Now we can lament about what happened then and tell ourselves were bad people because someone who shares the same gene pool with us did something bad a long time ago, or we can say "yeah, some bad shit went down, let's make sure it don't happen again, especially to us." If we cannot defend our National Sovereignty because of guilts of the past, then we surely are doomed as a Nation, and will be victims of a history we all are aware of.

E Pluribus Unum, my ass.

[Ivory]

Libertarians are the party of "fuck you, I got mine". The more extreme they are, the more and more it becomes about rejecting the concept of a society all together. It is just laughably crazy.

[Raev]

Libertarians are the party of "fuck you, I got mine". The more extreme they are, the more and more it becomes about rejecting the concept of a society all together. It is just laughably crazy.

Rejecting government is not the same as rejecting society at all and the only reason I can imagine you think they are equivalent is the Marxist brainwashing you must have received in what we call our educational system.

That being said, the problem with Libertarianism is that you have to have a society that is actually capable of it, i.e. one that is both sufficiently versed in Austrian economics to reject the temptation of more and more government at the voting booth and sufficiently altruistic to maintain a solid sense of community and (voluntary) charities and committees and so on. America actually checked these boxes for most of the 1800s I believe, but no longer.

[Ivory]

Rejecting government is not the same as rejecting society at all


so·ci·e·ty
səˈsīədē/
noun
1.
the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.


gov·ern·ment
ˈɡəvər(n)mənt/
noun
1.
the governing body of a nation, state, or community.


Learn ....what....words....mean.....

[Raev]

Libertarianism involves rejecting government. When you conflate that with rejecting society, it means you are the one confusing the two.

[Ivory]

Libertarianism involves rejecting government. When you conflate that with rejecting society, it means you are the one confusing the two.

Herpa derpa, apparently you think a society and country (let alone city or anything else) doesn't need any cooperative elements? :D Just "everyone, do whatever you want".

We shall all live naked in the forests!! Singing songs with one another!!! Will be a glorious society!! Who needs roads or anything else which coming together and deciding stuff as a group brings?! Overrated!

Wait...you want to make it a rule no murdering? But....how and where will you decide such a thing? For if you do that....you have formed a government (a body to govern).

Herpa derpa derpa.

Libertarians are laughably naive :P Like I said, the party of "fuck you, I got mine" :P

[Patriam1066]

If government is the only thing that compels you not to murder your fellow citizens you're a very sad person who probably isn't fit to discuss politics

[Ivory]

If government is the only thing that compels you not to murder your fellow citizens you're a very sad person who probably isn't fit to discuss politics

So your argument is we don't need any rules or laws or any collective agreements in a society....because everyone instinctively knows the right things to do and will always do them?

Sounds legit :D

[Blitzers]

If government is the only thing that compels you not to murder your fellow citizens you're a very sad person who probably isn't fit to discuss politics

thou shall not murder.

Thank you Old Testament.

[Raev]

You are simply wrong. For example, here is a quote from 'Democracy in America' written by Alexis de Toqueville after a trip to the USA in 1831.

I met with several kinds of associations in America of which I confess I had no previous notion; and I have often admired the extreme skill with which the inhabitants of the United States succeed in proposing a common object for the exertions of a great many men and in inducing them voluntarily to pursue it.

Thus the most democratic country on the face of the earth is that in which men have, in our time, carried to the highest perfection the art of pursuing in common the object of their common desires and have applied this new science to the greatest number of purposes. Is this the result of accident, or is there in reality any necessary connection between the principle of association and that of equality?

As soon as several of the inhabitants of the United States have taken up an opinion or a feeling which they wish to promote in the world, they look out for mutual assistance; and as soon as they have found one another out, they combine. From that moment they are no longer isolated men, but a power seen from afar, whose actions serve for an example and whose language is listened to. The first time I heard in the United States that a hundred thousand men had bound themselves publicly to abstain from spirituous liquors, it appeared to me more like a joke than a serious engagement, and I did not at once perceive why these temperate citizens could not content themselves with drinking water by their own firesides. I at last understood that these hundred thousand Americans, alarmed by the progress of drunkenness around them, had made up their minds to patronize temperance.

They acted in just the same way as a man of high rank who should dress very plainly in order to inspire the humbler orders with a contempt of luxury. It is probable that if these hundred thousand men had lived in France, each of them would singly have memorialized the government to watch the public houses all over the kingdom.

I know this is more than 160 characters and has some big words, but read it. America in 1830 is precisely what you would call Libertarian, and yet the people were tremendously civic minded and constantly forming associations where each citizen would work voluntarily to further the public good. Now we are like his French example: everyone just expects the government to fix everything. Contrary to Marx, Communism is a reversion to baser tribal instincts, not progress to a higher ethical order.

[Blitzers]

So your argument is we don't need any rules or laws or any collective agreements in a society....because everyone instinctively knows the right things to do and will always do them?

Sounds legit :D

I think we need planned parenthood to sell live humans to study what's really instinctive amongst "man" without the influence of religion or society. What is the natural instinctive traits of "man."

[Scrapiron]

So your argument is we don't need any rules or laws or any collective agreements in a society....because everyone instinctively knows the right things to do and will always do them?

Sounds legit :D

Congratulations Ivory, your skill in Begging The Question has improved!

[Patriam1066]

So your argument is we don't need any rules or laws or any collective agreements in a society....because everyone instinctively knows the right things to do and will always do them?

Sounds legit :D

Rules are great buddy. But why you think that Donald trump, Hillary Clinton, or Ted Cruz should be making those rules is beyond me. This isn't a question of abstract philosophy, it's one regarding the nature of a country where children drink lead but we have plenty of money to drop an ordinance on a tribesman anywhere on earth. I'm truly happy for you that you're content with the state of affairs in American politics, I'm simply not. As for instinct, mine tell me that I wasn't meant to accept that the worst people in my society should be elevated to power simply because 75% of my countrymen believe that government has a mandate to whatever it wants because they're too afraid of the consequences of change. Libertarianism isn't a rejection of civility and order; it's a rejection of the idea that the US federal government has any legitimacy when it actively chooses the interests of corporations and Wall Street over those of its citizens.

[Ivory]

America in 1830 is precisely what you would call Libertarian, and yet the people were tremendously civic minded and constantly forming associations where each citizen would work voluntarily to further the public good.

Also had child labor and no worker safety laws and slavery....

The good ol days! :D

[Ivory]

But why you think that Donald trump, Hillary Clinton, or Ted Cruz should be making those rules is beyond me.

Fun fact - the US president doesn't make the laws! Oh my oh my, did I blow your mind? This thread is a fun house of learning right now :D

[Pokesan]

dont argue with libertarians

[Patriam1066]

Fun fact - the US president doesn't make the laws! Oh my oh my, did I blow your mind? This thread is a fun house of learning right now :D

Guess you've never heard of an executive order. The point was that our government is made up of people hardly qualified to make rules governing a society.

See: levels of lead in drinking water in Cleveland and Flint. We can invade countries quite easily but fuck building basic infrastructure

[Scrapiron]

Fun fact - the US president doesn't make the laws! Oh my oh my, did I blow your mind? This thread is a fun house of learning right now :D

Ivory, it looks like you are confusing rules with laws.

You do realize that the legislative branch cedes a great deal of its rule making to various agencies of the executive branch right?

[Ivory]

dont argue with libertarians

It is like arguing with slow children....who know nothing about the world. lol

"Herpa derpa, know what would be neat? If everyones job was an icecream man!!!!!! And we all just sold each other icecream for food and a living!!" - More legit than libertarianism :P

[maskedmelon]

so·ci·e·ty
səˈsīədē/
noun
1.
the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.


gov·ern·ment
ˈɡəvər(n)mənt/
noun
1.
the governing body of a nation, state, or community.


Learn ....what....words....mean.....

mo·ron
ˈmôrˌän/
nouninformal
a stupid person.
synonyms: fool, idiot, ass, blockhead, dunce, dolt, ignoramus, imbecile, cretin, dullard, simpleton, clod; More

[Ivory]

Ivory, it looks like you are confusing rules with laws.


Lol.....learn....words...mean.....

rule
ro͞ol/Submit
noun
plural noun: rules; noun: Rules
1.
one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.


law
lô/Submit
noun
1.
the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties.

[Raev]

more marxist idiocy

You claimed that without society without government is impossible. That without the beneficent hand of government hovering over us we would be unable to form any sort of collective action and would be reduced to living in trees murdering each other.

I proved you wrong by counterexample.

That will be all.

[Ivory]

Guess you've never heard of an executive order.

Have....you? :3

Executive order isn't just "hay I gonna make new laws now k?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

[Blitzers]

Also had child labor and no worker safety laws and slavery....

The good ol days! :D

If you don't think those both still exist your not paying enough attention.

[Ivory]

You claimed that without society without government is impossible. That without the beneficent hand of government hovering over us we would be unable to form any sort of collective action and would be reduced to living in trees murdering each other..

Fun fact....did you know you can have different forms of government? -gasp gasp-

Including large councils made up of populations!!! In small groups it works, but fitting 300 million peple into a room is hard.

Dat is why we elect representatives to go into a room instade herpa derpa. So we can use smallar ruumes.

[Pokesan]

if by proved wrong he means deliberately misinterpreted for the sake of being contrary

[Ivory]

If you don't think both of those still exist your not paying enough attention.

Totes. Really, if you think about it, modern day is way worse than 1830.... things were so much simpler back then!!! I mean, I watched little house on the prairie and everyone seemed really happy!!! I get my view of history from TV too.

[Raev]

It's like you are incapable of reading anything I write. Again, you claimed that a large, active government is the only form of society. I showed you a counterexample proving you wrong. What exactly is unclear about that to you?

[Ivory]

It's like you are incapable of reading anything I write. Again, you claimed that a large, active government is the only form of society. I showed you a counterexample proving you wrong. What exactly is unclear about that to you?

Did you really? :P Your "I proved you wrong, we don't need no government" was the US with a population of 13 million lol.....

You got no idea what you are talking about haha. Your idea of the world in 1830 is by watching old westerns on TV :P

[Nihilist_santa]

Cantwell does a pretty good job of explaining the existential crisis at the heart of libertarianism and why it fails.


https://christophercantwell.com/2015/12/06/why-libertarians-are-hopeless/

[Lurikeen]

mo·ron
ˈmôrˌän/
nouninformal
a stupid person.
synonyms: fool, idiot, ass, blockhead, dunce, dolt, ignoramus, imbecile, cretin, dullard, simpleton, clod; More

+1

[Blitzers]

Libertarianism w/o secession is an impossible feat.

[Raev]

Did you really? :P Your "I proved you wrong, we don't need no government" was the US with a population of 13 million lol.....
Government gets less efficient as it gets bigger, not more efficient. Sure we are better of now than we were in 1830 . . . because we have penicilin, the Internet, cars, and so on. Not because we have bankers siphoning off trillions of dollars and Keynesians wrecking the economy.

You got no idea what you are talking about haha. Your idea of the world in 1830 is by watching old westerns on TV :P
Earlier in this thread I just quoted you a passage written by someone who was there, not a 1950s Western. I mean, if you are going to make shit up you might as well make stuff up that isn't invalidated by prior posts in the thread.

[Daywolf]

Can't say I've really liked any pure libertarian candidates enough to draw me in yet. I liked Ron Paul, but he had issues too, which were a little too far out, but we could have been better off with him nonetheless. Also his political tactics during the primaries were a bit on the side of Harakiri it seemed. Even today he speaks of the presidential race as 'what's the point, we're all doomed', like his hand is already cold enough to be prying from.

Nah, conservatarian is a bit better, maybe closer to my position as a constitutionalist compared to libertarian. Umm... here is to hoping the Don brings on Rand Paul as a running mate. He should at least be on the short list at this point, especially with his opposition and efforts against TPP. Don needs someone that better understands the system from the inside, one that hasn't been the sellout as most of them have been.

[Blitzers]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5VuyHvaqd3w

This is fucking hilarious, especially the last minute of it.

[Nihilist_santa]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5VuyHvaqd3w

This is fucking hilarious, especially the last minute of it.

Cantwell is good stuff. Guy put his money where his mouth is.