WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

(post is archived)

[–] 2 pts

Libertarianism (to me?) IS: no victim = no crime (eg drug offenses) AND VICTIM = CRIME (HARSH punishments (incl death) for TREND of lawlessness). Also NO parasites (no welfare, no rehab, no "social" (incompetent) workers UNLESS the PERsON (idiot) Can and DOES PAY for them Him/her self. Personal responsibility for YOUR consequences (or your ancestors concerning YOUR life).

Others try to heap on shit like "abolish the federal reserve"....I have no fucking clue why or whether that's a good idea and WTF that has to do with Libertarians.

The Libertarian candidate for Gov in NC invited me to lunch (donated $1K to party that year). THEN, when I was like WTF when he mentioned the Federal Reserve shit, he reneged. I THINK he thought I was a doctor (worked at a hospital, so email....was...from the hospital). Then found out differently.

[–] 1 pt

Libertarianism is a shit

[–] 1 pt

Libertarianism is a mess because it has started over-complicating the idea of “liberty.”

Basically, all rights are “negative,” meaning they exist as an absence from impairment, and there are only three fundamental negative rights:

  1. Life - the ability to sustain or terminate one’s own existence

  2. Liberty - the ability to mobilize in support of that life

  3. Property - the ability to hold one’s own belongings as means of fueling the liberty to sustain one’s life

These three cannot infringe upon another’s rights to the same.

Where things get muddled by “libertarians” is in their explanations and execution:

  1. They focus on hypotheticals - debating and discussing nonsense about whether a nine year old child should be allowed to sell herself into prostitution.

  2. They fail to acknowledge that while “all men are created equal” in the view of natural rights, there are some who cannot grasp the concept at a genetic level and must be removed, one way or another: the jew with his inherent desire to enslave or the nigger with his inherent desire to engage in violence.

  3. They backpedal on the penalties for violations of rights. Since an attack on property is an attack on liberty which is an attack on life, those who would infringe on any of the three are guilty of an attack on life, and therefore should be treated as such. For example, the purse snatcher or fraudulent grifter is on par with the murderer, and thus can and likely should be met with deadly force by his would be victim.

The flaw isn’t in the idea, but in the proponents of the idea.

[–] 0 pt

Libertarianism IS leftism.

[–] 0 pt

Used to be (at least it used to heavily overlap). The modern left has drifted so far away from libertarianism in the US to where they're closer to fascism these days though.

[–] 1 pt

You have absolutely no fucking idea what fascism was. Enjoy your execution at the hands of communists.

[–] 0 pt

No, only the social liberalism. "Social" means "be liberal, except when it comes to protecting the weak", it was added by leftists to destroy liberalism. In the best 1984 tradition, they have replaced the term "social liberal" with "liberal", so that "liberal" now means the opposite of liberal.

[–] -1 pt

Still mostly attracts degenerates