Libertarian Discussion Thread

[The Liberated Territories]

He'd probably do a stellar job. At grabbing guns.

COUGH

Anyway, it seems like the media has changed it's tune. I am now seeing more and more articles criticizing both Jill Stein and Gary Johnson, saying the third party is terrible, etc. Perhaps it is the final act of desperation to secure the most support for one of the top two candidates in the final hour. I'm not privy to the conspiracy theories, so I can only assume.

Here is the type of articles I am talking about:

http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2016/10 ... s_gar.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opin ... story.html

The Chicago Tribune endorsed Johnson, so I'm not sure why you're complaining about them.

They still allow opinion pieces. I guess that is their choice but...there has been more people at the podium bashing 3rd party candidates lately. Doesn't matter which podium.

[Intermountain States]

I mean, every media outlets have been pick and choosing whatever gaffe or fault a candidate has and hound him/her for it. Be it Aleppo or the capital "c" in emails or the tax evasion. It's been going on for every election, it just feels like it increased on Gary because he's getting more media coverage.

You know, I want that number of Trump's accountant once I have to do my taxes.

[Darjihad]

I mean, every media outlets have been pick and choosing whatever gaffe or fault a candidate has and hound him/her for it. Be it Aleppo or the capital "c" in emails or the tax evasion. It's been going on for every election, it just feels like it increased on Gary because he's getting more media coverage.

You know, I want that number of Trump's accountant once I have to do my taxes.

I don't. I want that deadbeat scumbag welfare state parasite Donald Trump to pay his fucking taxes. All of them. He lost nearly a billion dollars making stupid investments, I didn't. Why do we have to be taxed to socialize the losses of people who suck at handling money, be they some crack head on food stamps or some dipshit running for President?

[Intermountain States]

I mean, every media outlets have been pick and choosing whatever gaffe or fault a candidate has and hound him/her for it. Be it Aleppo or the capital "c" in emails or the tax evasion. It's been going on for every election, it just feels like it increased on Gary because he's getting more media coverage.

You know, I want that number of Trump's accountant once I have to do my taxes.

I don't. I want that deadbeat scumbag welfare state parasite Donald Trump to pay his fucking taxes. All of them. He lost nearly a billion dollars making stupid investments, I didn't. Why do we have to be taxed to socialize the losses of people who suck at handling money, be they some crack head on food stamps or some dipshit running for President?

Come to think about it, you can argue that Donald Trump is a welfare king.

You would think the GOP would against voting for a self-admitted welfare king as their nominee.

[Darjihad]

I don't. I want that deadbeat scumbag welfare state parasite Donald Trump to pay his fucking taxes. All of them. He lost nearly a billion dollars making stupid investments, I didn't. Why do we have to be taxed to socialize the losses of people who suck at handling money, be they some crack head on food stamps or some dipshit running for President?

Come to think about it, you can argue that Donald Trump is a welfare king.

You would think the GOP would against voting for a self-admitted welfare king as their nominee.

You are making the assumption that there's any one left in the Republican Party that knows what having principles feels like. There's a guy running for governor here in Missouri as a Republican that in any other year might pique my interest but since he has not renounced his membership in the Republican Party nor devoted any campaign resources to defeating Donald Trump I'm afraid he can't be trusted with ethical decisions.

[The Liberated Territories]

Somewhere down the line it seems that Darjihad got whacked with the cynicism stick and now believes every person in government is a bloodsucker.

Mind you, that's a mature viewpoint to hold. Much more than the belief that the government can do no wrong, a belief that caused the deaths of millions of people. Certainly when it comes down to whose morals are stronger, I'd rather be viewed as a nutty paranoid prepper than have blood on my hands because I supported a government program that innocent caused people to die/be jailed/whatever.

[The Liberated Territories]

Also, let's not forget that programs such as eugenics were originally pushed forward by progressives, yet once their program is shown to cause mass suffering, it is immediately abandoned so that progressives aren't on the wrong side of history. What have classical liberals done in comparison? Perhaps they supported Mr. Coolidge's decision to grant Native American's rights. Certainly I'd want to be on the side of the old time liberal Republican Coolidge instead of the more progressive Roosevelt, whose crowning achievement was rounding up millions of Japanese-Americans and putting them into concentration camps.

[Mattopilos]

Also, let's not forget that programs such as eugenics were originally pushed forward by progressives, yet once their program is shown to cause mass suffering, it is immediately abandoned so that progressives aren't on the wrong side of history. What have classical liberals done in comparison? Perhaps they supported Mr. Coolidge's decision to grant Native American's rights. Certainly I'd want to be on the side of the old time liberal Republican Coolidge instead of the more progressive Roosevelt, whose crowning achievement was rounding up millions of Japanese-Americans and putting them into concentration camps.

I think that is the inherent problem in both progressive and reactionary attitudes: they can both have their views and their actions simply for the sake of changing and for the sake of staying the same, respectively. Liberals have that problem, and I think the most logical/rational way to look at things is never to be fully 'progressive' or fully 'reactionary'. I like change, but only when it benefits me, as much as I only like something to stay the same if it benefits me.

[Darjihad]

Somewhere down the line it seems that Darjihad got whacked with the cynicism stick and now believes every person in government is a bloodsucker.

Mind you, that's a mature viewpoint to hold. Much more than the belief that the government can do no wrong, a belief that caused the deaths of millions of people. Certainly when it comes down to whose morals are stronger, I'd rather be viewed as a nutty paranoid prepper than have blood on my hands because I supported a government program that innocent caused people to die/be jailed/whatever.

Nah. I just hate socialism. If there was a way to stop people from breathing the oxygen my lawn produces without paying me royalties I'd enact it.

Donald Trump needs to be treated with the same disdain as any one else asking for a handout.

[Darjihad]

Also, let's not forget that programs such as eugenics were originally pushed forward by progressives, yet once their program is shown to cause mass suffering, it is immediately abandoned so that progressives aren't on the wrong side of history. What have classical liberals done in comparison? Perhaps they supported Mr. Coolidge's decision to grant Native American's rights. Certainly I'd want to be on the side of the old time liberal Republican Coolidge instead of the more progressive Roosevelt, whose crowning achievement was rounding up millions of Japanese-Americans and putting them into concentration camps.

I think that is the inherent problem in both progressive and reactionary attitudes: they can both have their views and their actions simply for the sake of changing and for the sake of staying the same, respectively. Liberals have that problem, and I think the most logical/rational way to look at things is never to be fully 'progressive' or fully 'reactionary'. I like change, but only when it benefits me, as much as I only like something to stay the same if it benefits me.

Depends on how you define problem. Millions of welfare dependents starving to death because welfare is eliminated is a problem for those starving to death. I'm only inconvenienced that there isn't a play-by-play video... "Look at that lazy piece of skin-wrapped shit. His family is going to ask us to pay for his funeral too the deadbeats..." Then we're robbed of even engraving the tombstone we paid for. "Here lies Lazy MFer. Even his funeral was a handout."

That's a problem that solves itself. No need for government intervention.

[Germanic Templars]

Somewhere down the line it seems that Darjihad got whacked with the cynicism stick and now believes every person in government is a bloodsucker.

Mind you, that's a mature viewpoint to hold. Much more than the belief that the government can do no wrong, a belief that caused the deaths of millions of people. Certainly when it comes down to whose morals are stronger, I'd rather be viewed as a nutty paranoid prepper than have blood on my hands because I supported a government program that innocent caused people to die/be jailed/whatever.

Nah. I just hate socialism. If there was a way to stop people from breathing the oxygen my lawn produces without paying me royalties I'd enact it.

Agreement on second sentence but wouldn't go as far as the third sentence.

My question is why you hate socialism?

[Darjihad]

Nah. I just hate socialism. If there was a way to stop people from breathing the oxygen my lawn produces without paying me royalties I'd enact it.

Agreement on second sentence but wouldn't go as far as the third sentence.

My question is why you hate socialism?

Quick answer: It rewards, thus perpetuates inefficiency. I can see taking care of the physically and mentally handicapped, but treating able-minded and able-bodied people to free rent on the bottom rung of Maslow's hierarchy of self-actualization? No. Let them stay in the wild, else put them in a welfare zoo. "Look at that loser. He chose cooking meth over flipping burgers."

[Washington Resistance Army]

Agreement on second sentence but wouldn't go as far as the third sentence.

My question is why you hate socialism?

Quick answer: It rewards, thus perpetuates inefficiency. I can see taking care of the physically and mentally handicapped, but treating able-minded and able-bodied people to free rent on the bottom rung of Maslow's hierarchy of self-actualization? No. Let them stay in the wild, else put them in a welfare zoo. "Look at that loser. He chose cooking meth over flipping burgers."

To be fair, you can make a lot more money cooking meth than flipping burgers in our country

[Darjihad]

Quick answer: It rewards, thus perpetuates inefficiency. I can see taking care of the physically and mentally handicapped, but treating able-minded and able-bodied people to free rent on the bottom rung of Maslow's hierarchy of self-actualization? No. Let them stay in the wild, else put them in a welfare zoo. "Look at that loser. He chose cooking meth over flipping burgers."

To be fair, you can make a lot more money cooking meth than flipping burgers in our country

For every Walter White type meth cook there's thousands of toothless, emaciated dipshits living in their toxic sludge until they blow themselves up. They all think working at McDonald's is beneath them.

We're constantly told bullying, belittling, and shaming people is harmful. Okay, premise accepted. Why not then bully, belittle, and shame losers. Those that are personally responsible for their lack of motivation and metamotivation to self-improve, to earn respect and dignity?

[The Liberated Territories]

Also, let's not forget that programs such as eugenics were originally pushed forward by progressives, yet once their program is shown to cause mass suffering, it is immediately abandoned so that progressives aren't on the wrong side of history. What have classical liberals done in comparison? Perhaps they supported Mr. Coolidge's decision to grant Native American's rights. Certainly I'd want to be on the side of the old time liberal Republican Coolidge instead of the more progressive Roosevelt, whose crowning achievement was rounding up millions of Japanese-Americans and putting them into concentration camps.

I think that is the inherent problem in both progressive and reactionary attitudes: they can both have their views and their actions simply for the sake of changing and for the sake of staying the same, respectively. Liberals have that problem, and I think the most logical/rational way to look at things is never to be fully 'progressive' or fully 'reactionary'. I like change, but only when it benefits me, as much as I only like something to stay the same if it benefits me.

Yes, ofc. Liberalism is not immune to identity politics, as you say, but support for either conservative or progressive issues should be on the basis of whether it helps or harms the ultimate liberal goal of liberty. In this way, (moderate) liberalism tends towards to the center ground, whether that type of liberalism is Rawlsian or Friedmanic. Even more radical liberalism though cannot be solely put into one end of the spectrum or another, I.e. You can't really clump Gary Johnson and Donald Trump under the same label of far right.

[The Liberated Territories]

Hillary Clinton wishes to drone Julian Assange

You can justify voting for her anyway you want, just not from a civil liberties standpoint.

[Darjihad]

I think that is the inherent problem in both progressive and reactionary attitudes: they can both have their views and their actions simply for the sake of changing and for the sake of staying the same, respectively. Liberals have that problem, and I think the most logical/rational way to look at things is never to be fully 'progressive' or fully 'reactionary'. I like change, but only when it benefits me, as much as I only like something to stay the same if it benefits me.

Yes, ofc. Liberalism is not immune to identity politics, as you say, but support for either conservative or progressive issues should be on the basis of whether it helps or harms the ultimate liberal goal of liberty. In this way, (moderate) liberalism tends towards to the center ground, whether that type of liberalism is Rawlsian or Friedmanic. Even more radical liberalism though cannot be solely put into one end of the spectrum or another, I.e. You can't really clump Gary Johnson and Donald Trump under the same label of far right.

As a lifelong welfare recipient and advocate for further socialization of the private sector economy, Donald Trump is much more further left than most of us.

[Darjihad]

Hillary Clinton wishes to drone Julian Assange

You can justify voting for her anyway you want, just not from a civil liberties standpoint.

Wow.

There will be a lot of mysterious gas line explosions in America under Czarina Clinton.

[The Liberated Territories]

Hillary Clinton wishes to drone Julian Assange

You can justify voting for her anyway you want, just not from a civil liberties standpoint.

Wow.

There will be a lot of mysterious gas line explosions in America under Czarina Clinton.

Im more surprised such a self proclaimed liberal would dron someone for their freedom of expression. Arguably it doesn't really exist in Great Britain but I would doubt the limeys would be too happy with Clinton flying drones over London just to kill a whacky Aussie.

[PaNTuXIa]

Hillary Clinton wishes to drone Julian Assange

You can justify voting for her anyway you want, just not from a civil liberties standpoint.

what the actual fuck.

Can't wait to see the clinton-loving MSM defend this.

[USS Monitor]

I think that is the inherent problem in both progressive and reactionary attitudes: they can both have their views and their actions simply for the sake of changing and for the sake of staying the same, respectively. Liberals have that problem, and I think the most logical/rational way to look at things is never to be fully 'progressive' or fully 'reactionary'. I like change, but only when it benefits me, as much as I only like something to stay the same if it benefits me.

Depends on how you define problem. Millions of welfare dependents starving to death because welfare is eliminated is a problem for those starving to death. I'm only inconvenienced that there isn't a play-by-play video... "Look at that lazy piece of skin-wrapped shit. His family is going to ask us to pay for his funeral too the deadbeats..." Then we're robbed of even engraving the tombstone we paid for. "Here lies Lazy MFer. Even his funeral was a handout."

That's a problem that solves itself. No need for government intervention.

Except it's really not a problem that solves itself. People won't just quietly lie down and die. They'll steal stuff and turn violent trying to survive. Even if you take up arms to fight back, they'll still do damage on the way out. The world just doesn't work the way you want it to.

[Old Tyrannia]

I think that is the inherent problem in both progressive and reactionary attitudes: they can both have their views and their actions simply for the sake of changing and for the sake of staying the same, respectively. Liberals have that problem, and I think the most logical/rational way to look at things is never to be fully 'progressive' or fully 'reactionary'. I like change, but only when it benefits me, as much as I only like something to stay the same if it benefits me.

Depends on how you define problem. Millions of welfare dependents starving to death because welfare is eliminated is a problem for those starving to death. I'm only inconvenienced that there isn't a play-by-play video... "Look at that lazy piece of skin-wrapped shit. His family is going to ask us to pay for his funeral too the deadbeats..." Then we're robbed of even engraving the tombstone we paid for. "Here lies Lazy MFer. Even his funeral was a handout."

That's a problem that solves itself. No need for government intervention.

*** One-week ban for trolling and advocating death. *** Hopefully you'll come back from this one a little wiser, because as it is you're on a dangerous track.

[Mattopilos]

I think that is the inherent problem in both progressive and reactionary attitudes: they can both have their views and their actions simply for the sake of changing and for the sake of staying the same, respectively. Liberals have that problem, and I think the most logical/rational way to look at things is never to be fully 'progressive' or fully 'reactionary'. I like change, but only when it benefits me, as much as I only like something to stay the same if it benefits me.

Yes, ofc. Liberalism is not immune to identity politics, as you say, but support for either conservative or progressive issues should be on the basis of whether it helps or harms the ultimate liberal goal of liberty. In this way, (moderate) liberalism tends towards to the center ground, whether that type of liberalism is Rawlsian or Friedmanic. Even more radical liberalism though cannot be solely put into one end of the spectrum or another, I.e. You can't really clump Gary Johnson and Donald Trump under the same label of far right.

Of course. After all, all my comment focused on was left and right, and not authoritarian and individualistic.

[Germanic Templars]

Hillary Clinton wishes to drone Julian Assange

You can justify voting for her anyway you want, just not from a civil liberties standpoint.

what the actual fuck.

Can't wait to see the clinton-loving MSM defend this.

"This just in; Wikileaks reports show that Clinton wants to drone Assange. However, our reports show that this is a fabricated lie from the owner of Wikileaks."

That is how I see it going.

[Nest la connerie]

Depends on how you define problem. Millions of welfare dependents starving to death because welfare is eliminated is a problem for those starving to death. I'm only inconvenienced that there isn't a play-by-play video... "Look at that lazy piece of skin-wrapped shit. His family is going to ask us to pay for his funeral too the deadbeats..." Then we're robbed of even engraving the tombstone we paid for. "Here lies Lazy MFer. Even his funeral was a handout."

That's a problem that solves itself. No need for government intervention.

*** One-week ban for trolling and advocating death. *** Hopefully you'll come back from this one a little wiser, because as it is you're on a dangerous track.

What in the really real actual fuck?

I am posting around a ban, in neon blatant disregard of your bullshit ruling and your inept application of the site rules. You've got rules against advocating criminal activity yet you're not running around shutting down socialists whose very philosophy advocates theft and violent social upheaval.

I did not advocate death any more than the law of gravity does to people who fall out of a plane without a parachute. Hey look at the dumbass that didn't prepare for the consequences of his actions.

Someone starving to death because they won't work to support themselves is nobody's fault but the lazy parasite. I advocate nothing but that dipshit changing his self-neglecting mindset and actions before it kills him.

I am asking for a second opinion of this ruling from someone who isn't retarded.