Libertarian Discussion Thread II - Don't Thread on Me

[Proctopeo]

You're cute



I love Taiwan, Japan, Indonesia...literally every other asian country except for China

The DPRK?

You mean the South Manchurian Autonomous Region?

[Northern Davincia]

Anyone here like some fucking Georgeism/Geo-Libertarianism or

Geo-Libertarianism is tolerable.

[Kedri]

Anyone here like some fucking Georgeism/Geo-Libertarianism or

*Raises hand*

[Northern Davincia]

Anyone here like some fucking Georgeism/Geo-Libertarianism or

*Raises hand*

You get points for being unique.

[True Refuge]

Had an infuriating discussion with a centrist recently about the concept of the tyranny of the majority where they just kept talking about the "will of the people" without explaining why that has any inherent value.

Has anyone round here had a similar experience? It seems like some conversations about statism often turn out to be nothing more than variations on a few boring templates.

[The Liberated Territories]

Tell him "you know thats how the Nazis won the election right?"

[Northern Davincia]

Had an infuriating discussion with a centrist recently about the concept of the tyranny of the majority where they just kept talking about the "will of the people" without explaining why that has any inherent value.

Has anyone round here had a similar experience? It seems like some conversations about statism often turn out to be nothing more than variations on a few boring templates.

I get more disappointment from debates revolving around the absolute power of the state - some treat it like a god.

Tell him "you know thats how the Nazis won the election right?"

Sort of, they kept inciting new elections when they lost.

[Proctopeo]

Had an infuriating discussion with a centrist recently about the concept of the tyranny of the majority where they just kept talking about the "will of the people" without explaining why that has any inherent value.

Has anyone round here had a similar experience? It seems like some conversations about statism often turn out to be nothing more than variations on a few boring templates.

I get more disappointment from debates revolving around the absolute power of the state - some treat it like a god.

Tell him "you know thats how the Nazis won the election right?"

Sort of, they kept inciting new elections when they lost.

Nowadays we call that "pulling an EU".

[The Liberated Territories]

Had an infuriating discussion with a centrist recently about the concept of the tyranny of the majority where they just kept talking about the "will of the people" without explaining why that has any inherent value.

Has anyone round here had a similar experience? It seems like some conversations about statism often turn out to be nothing more than variations on a few boring templates.

I get more disappointment from debates revolving around the absolute power of the state - some treat it like a god.

Tell him "you know thats how the Nazis won the election right?"

Sort of, they kept inciting new elections when they lost.

ohhh so like the anti brexit folks

[Northern Davincia]

I get more disappointment from debates revolving around the absolute power of the state - some treat it like a god.

Sort of, they kept inciting new elections when they lost.

ohhh so like the anti brexit folks

Unfathomably based, my good sir.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Tell him "you know thats how the Nazis won the election right?"

Not a total majoritarian here, but the Nazis didn't "win" an election. They got seats in the German parliament, but they were never in the majority when elections were free and fair.

[True Refuge]

Tell him "you know thats how the Nazis won the election right?"

Not a total majoritarian here, but the Nazis didn't "win" an election. They got seats in the German parliament, but they were never in the majority when elections were free and fair.

They did get a majority coalition together to give Hitler the power required to achieve the Nazis' goals, so it was still technically the "will of the people", but that "will" wasn't quite the same as Hitler's intentions.

[Izandai]

Not a total majoritarian here, but the Nazis didn't "win" an election. They got seats in the German parliament, but they were never in the majority when elections were free and fair.

They did get a majority coalition together to give Hitler the power required to achieve the Nazis' goals, so it was still technically the "will of the people", but that "will" wasn't quite the same as Hitler's intentions.

In much the same way that the reality of Brexit differs greatly from what many of its supporters wanted to happen/were told would happen.

[Phoenicaea]

^in the election of '33, national-socialists had few less than 30% of the vote, they handled government and aided theirselves with rotten electoral things and menaces. that it is. i judge their electoral consensus was sort of 20%.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Not a total majoritarian here, but the Nazis didn't "win" an election. They got seats in the German parliament, but they were never in the majority when elections were free and fair.

They did get a majority coalition together to give Hitler the power required to achieve the Nazis' goals, so it was still technically the "will of the people", but that "will" wasn't quite the same as Hitler's intentions.

I'm aware they built coalitions. I'm just dispelling the myth that a majority voted Nazi.

[Izandai]

They did get a majority coalition together to give Hitler the power required to achieve the Nazis' goals, so it was still technically the "will of the people", but that "will" wasn't quite the same as Hitler's intentions.

I'm aware they built coalitions. I'm just dispelling the myth that a majority voted Nazi.

Weren't there also way way too many political parties in Germany around that time, which the Nazis capitalized on with a campaign much more focused on building brand recognition than saying anything about policy or ideology?

[The Reformed American Republic]

I'm aware they built coalitions. I'm just dispelling the myth that a majority voted Nazi.

Weren't there also way way too many political parties in Germany around that time, which the Nazis capitalized on with a campaign much more focused on building brand recognition than saying anything about policy or ideology?

I know they did massive rallies to increase recognition. I don't know if they omitted information about ideology or policy. There were lots of political groups in Germany back then and the country was divided, so I guess there were too many, but that was not the biggest problem. The economy was garbage, which doesn't really help when trying to impose stability.

[New Visayan Islands]

Y'know... I was about to say the same thing about property owners.

You're cute

yellow man bad

I love Taiwan, Japan, Indonesia...literally every other asian country except for China

Friendly reminder that the Middle East is geographically Asian.

Anyway, ever find yourself on the receiving end of brown-baiting because you identify as libertarian?

[The Liberated Territories]

You're cute



I love Taiwan, Japan, Indonesia...literally every other asian country except for China

Friendly reminder that the Middle East is geographically Asian.

Anyway, ever find yourself on the receiving end of brown-baiting because you identify as libertarian?

East* Asian smh

Why would I? I am not some white nationalist or marxist who views everything in a collectivist lens. And if it wasn't apparent, I always talk about countries in the context of their governments, which have nothing to do with race.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Friendly reminder that the Middle East is geographically Asian.

Anyway, ever find yourself on the receiving end of brown-baiting because you identify as libertarian?

East* Asian smh

Why would I? I am not some white nationalist or marxist who views everything in a collectivist lens. And if it wasn't apparent, I always talk about countries in the context of their governments, which have nothing to do with race.

People bring up race simply because criticisms of those governments have merit, so they just try to discredit the speaker with an ad hominem.

[The Liberated Territories]

East* Asian smh

Why would I? I am not some white nationalist or marxist who views everything in a collectivist lens. And if it wasn't apparent, I always talk about countries in the context of their governments, which have nothing to do with race.

People bring up race simply because criticisms of those governments have merit, so they just try to discredit the speaker with an ad hominem.

I mean the government can reflex the attitudes and beliefs of the people residing there, but generally those in power are a different breed of people.

[Phoenicaea]

^meanwhile what you claim has got a good strata behind, the matter of all nowadays reign and law (state and government) is that regent's breed is no more of different mind in front of subjects, they all commoners and lords share same ispiration and digged thoughts.

philosophically you may say you have got no commoners and lord, you have got a shared 'people's thought', the 'same soup'.

[Northern Davincia]

Imagine my rage when the Wikipedia photo of Spike Cohen has him wearing a pair of gamer earphones.
I am a lowly masochist for voting Libertarian.

[The Liberated Territories]

https://reason.com/2020/06/23/trump-wan ... ry-anyway/

Fuck Trump and the Republican Party which has unveiled itself to be the antithesis of the values it supposedly stands for.

[The Reformed American Republic]

https://reason.com/2020/06/23/trump-wanted-to-throw-massie-out-of-republican-party-but-the-libertarian-leaning-congressman-just-won-his-primary-anyway/

Fuck Trump and the Republican Party which has unveiled itself to be the antithesis of the values it supposedly stands for.

What values? It stands for nothing. If they support something, they'd automatically turn against it if the democrats were to also support it.