Libertarians | Poal: Say what you want.

[–] • 3 pts

Some go by NAP (non aggression principal) and some are just "i want to fuck my gay boyfriend with an ar15 while smoking pot."

Basically the government should not infringe on your liberties unless you infringe on the liberties of others.

link

[+] [deleted] • 2 pts

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

(edited )

I thought psychopaths were 1% of the population, not counting the jewish diaspora. Maybe we're breeding them in abundance nowadays though.

parent
link

[+] [deleted] • 0 pt

[–] • 0 pt

Very well said. I am very attracted to AnarchoCapitalist/Libertarian ideals but understand they are most useful as ideas by which other ideas are analyzed. One big problem I can see with it is its rigid individualism allows for mass degeneracy. Things like drugs, abortion, and gay marriage weaken a nation and shouldn't be tolerated, but in a libertarian society those things will be commonplace.

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

If vices contain their own punishment, why do you need to ban them? (In a society with actual free speech where degeneracy can be discussed openly.)

And if they don't contain their own punishment, then you really shouldn't need to ban them, no?

parent
link

[+] [deleted] • 0 pt

[–] • 0 pt

From an ancap perspective the concept of a nation state is moot. Sure it's degeneracy, but not my circus, not my monkeys.

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

AnCap criticisms of government systems and authority are fair. However, like u/darth_biden said in his comment, a significant percentage of people are evil, power-hungry psychopaths. So then the problem with the "not my circus, not my monkeys" perspective is that it will inevitably become your circus sooner or later, so a proactive approach toward monkey management is better than a reactive one.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

This is fascinating, because I think Dunbar's number is the limit for authoritarian communities. The social bonds do a lot of the heavy lifting in the kibbutz or co-op down the way that your idiot nephew points to as an example of "communism working".

Here's the part I don't understand. Authoritarian societies, regardless or whether they're communist or fascist, are characterised by the centralisation of power, often into one position.

Now, you're right, psychopaths exist. On a long enough timeline (usually not THAT long) you WILL get a Caligula. Stalin WILL kill Trotsky.

Why do we want the power of the state concentrated into one position when, not if, a psychopath takes power?

parent
link

[+] [deleted] • 0 pt

[–] • 1 pt

Libertarianism is a broad umbrella, but at a high level it supports:

1) Little to no government.

2) The Non Aggression Principle (not initiating the use of force or violence).

3) Leaving people alone so long as they leave you alone. If they want to pretend to be a tuna sandwich-kin or worship Joseph Smith, who cares so long as they dont try to force me to go along.

link

[–] • 0 pt

We used to have a libertarian paradise in the US. It was a nightmare. Monopolies, company towns, the Pinkertons murdering union men, Laudanum could be bought over the counter, hostile foreigners (kikes) buying up the media and banks. This lead to socialism, where the government gets involved as necessary to prevent these types of problems. The commies saw that socialism was the perfect economic system (to the extent there can be one) and tried to claim socialism means stealing everyone's stuff.

Socialism, real socialism, mixed with nationalism is the only political ideology that doesn't invariably lead to predatory practices even if you assume no institutional corruption.

link

[+] [deleted] • 0 pt

(post is archived)