![b a s e d [640x801 - 96KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/qo3TM2.jpg){kind=link}
That’s why liberty is a flawed ethos.
True liberty necessarily tolerates the insidious ideologies that seek to undermine it.
Facist theocracy is where it’s at.
No, that's not true at all. Socialism fails every single time it is tried no matter which adjective you stick in front of it. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO OVERRIDE THE LAWS OF ECONOMICS.
(((LOLbertarian))) infiltrators ARE NOT LIBERTARIANS (files.catbox.moe).
Libertarianism requires extremely conservative social values. It requires closed borders.
Without a reactionary element to its philosophy, libertarianism can never be a serious movement because it will always fall victim to O'Sullivan’s Law: any movement or institution that is not explicitly right-wing will eventually turn left-wing. While LOLbertarians may believe that they are “above” or “beyond” Left and Right, the Leftist infiltration of libertarianism (combined with the evolutionary psychology of r/K selection theory) proves that libertarians cannot be neutral.
All democrats, liberals, socialists, communists, niggers, jews, and faggots must be physically separated and physically removed from society if Liberty is to persevere.
Did you hear the part where I said “fascist theocracy is where it’s at”?
Closed borders.
Extremely conservative social values.
These are not the tenets of a society that places liberty as it’s highest social value.
Frankly I’m done celebrating liberty as it were. As you eloquently put it, liberty is only as good as the moral code that governs ones conduct.
Fascism and communism are both products of the Hegelian dialectic. It's all mumbo-jumbo gobbeldy-gook. Central planning is central planning. Fascism will fail too. Liberty is what is successful, not central planning. This has already been empirically proven. Having natural hierarchies is great, but an authoritarian central planning apparatus will fail in the long run, as it already has in the past.
Libertarianism requires extremely conservative social values. It requires closed borders.
Except that no libertarian has ever endorsed those, they are all libertines. Even Rand Paul was weak on the border and toured the USA claiming that cops were too hard on busting the color of crime.
Strawmanning again. Hans Herman Hoppe endorses closed borders. I endorse closed borders. Lew Rockwell endorses it. Ron Paul did not endorse immigration being run as a government program as it is now. Ron Paul was opposed to the welfare state. Ending the welfare states ends mass immigration because it removes the incentive for immigration. Ending the welfare state is an ipso facto closed border. Abolishing the state is an ipso facto closed border because all borders become perimeters around private property. Crossing a border illegally is trespassing which is a violation of the NAP, therefore justifying self-defense.
True liberty necessarily tolerates the insidious ideologies that seek to undermine it.
It does not, the idea that it does is a Jewish Trick.
((("I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend unto death your right to say it")))
It’s not a jewish trick, it’s a problem with the lexicon.
Liberty is the privilege, not the objective.
(post is archived)