|
Kinda weird to use the term "excommunicated" eh?
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2023 14:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 05:03 |
|
|
Elizabeth Sandifer is right and the alt-right is a religion in search of a god.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2023 15:03
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Kinda weird to use the term "excommunicated" eh? Given their all-but-open embrace of clerical fascism, nah not really.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2023 15:25
|
|
|
Used to be that Libertarians were fine with other people taking drugs.Nitrousoxide posted:Kinda weird to use the term "excommunicated" eh? The libertarian party isn't a very unified thing, so all they can really do is announce to the rest of the movement their desire that others refuse to associate with another.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2023 16:22
|
|
|
God could you imagine jrod's takes on the covid vaccine? I don't know why I'd never considered it, but it would have been *wild*
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2023 18:38
|
|
|
Caros posted:God could you imagine jrod's takes on the covid vaccine? I don't know why I'd never considered it, but it would have been *wild* "Obviously no vaccine should be mandated but everyone should be free to develop their -own- vaccine if they wanted to, and then there would be free competition on which method offers the best immunity and the whole thing would be solved within 7 months. In fact my dentist gave me a shot of colloidal silver and other than my skin turning gray, I found the effects of my long covid to be just harrowing instead of paralyzing after 3 infections."
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2023 19:43
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:"Obviously no vaccine should be mandated but everyone should be free to develop their -own- vaccine if they wanted to, and then there would be free competition on which method offers the best immunity and the whole thing would be solved within 7 months. In fact my dentist gave me a shot of colloidal silver and other than my skin turning gray, I found the effects of my long covid to be just harrowing instead of paralyzing after 3 infections." Not bad, but can you work in something tacitly endorsing eugenics and/or race science?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2023 20:19
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Not bad, but can you work in something tacitly endorsing eugenics and/or race science? The disease seems to, for whatever reason, impact Jews less than day blacks. Therefore COVID provides opportunities for reverse-eurv. Letting Jews move things between vulnerable communities who would choose, if they wanted to, to stay inside
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2023 20:48
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Not bad, but can you work in something tacitly endorsing eugenics and/or race science? The obvious eugenics response would be that immune systems are a biological thing so let God sort 'em out, never mind all the immunocompromised folks, but this doesn't feel sufficiently libertarian as opposed to just garden variety right wing nuttery. The freedom of the market is a good starting place, though, since it is tacitly racist in not acknowledging all the systematic racial imbalance in society, i.e. minorities couldn't really work up a vaccine in their kitchen. But then this runs counter to the idea that libertarianism at its core is a marketplace, so if my dentist tells me they have to shoot horse juice up my butthole and that'll stop the plague, by Gum that's my choice and gently caress you. It's oddly egalitarian-seeming in how it works out on paper, though of course in reality it would be a massive disaster.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2023 20:54
|
|
|
"Covid disproportionately affects naturally low IQ populations, and the proliferation of vaccines would inevitably upset the natural order of the free market which cannot function when the bottom IQ quartile encroaches on more nornie population. "
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2023 22:27
|
|
|
Message is much better than most Libertarian state party Twitter accounts. Execution? Unclear. https://twitter.com/LouisianaLp/status/1712860410703904983
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 18:37
|
|
|
Lets wait to see what rights get enumerated there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 23:36
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:Lets wait to see what rights get enumerated there. "but, in dog years..."
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 23:47
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/LouisianaLp/status/1712938261541240907?t=s4QpAW2gzN457sl5dfeteg&s=19
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 09:45
|
|
|
I appreciate the Libertarians that at least take their beliefs to the logical conclusion. Like I don't agree with them necessarily but it's easier to try to find common ground and try to persuade each other. Which explains why Lisa Frank Furry Libertarians offend other Libertarians more than anyone else lol. Constitutional Libertarian: "Noooooo you can't just go and use Liberty as an excuse to get into whatever benign degeneracy you desire!" Magenta Libertarian: "Hahaha homebuilt fursuit printer go BRRRRRRRRRRRR"
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 15:51
|
|
|
Ask them how they feel about a black family moving onto the block.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 16:52
|
|
|
"The Civil Rights Act is the real racism, racism is a collectivist ideology, in a free market people would be allowed to be racist but they wouldn't be because it would reduce the pool of people that would buy or rent in the area, and house prices always reflect rational preferences if you ignore all recorded history."
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 17:16
|
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:Ask them how they feel about a black family moving onto the block. They might be fine with it. An actual honest libertarian should be. They are not hard to find because they are rare. They are hard to find because once the third braincell reactivates they become some flavour of leftist instead. And that is why the only well known honest libertarian is Grimes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 17:18
|
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:Ask them how they feel about a black family moving onto the block. "Their presence reduces my property values which is an act of violence against my possessions ipso facto they have violated the NAP"
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 05:15
|
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:Ask them how they feel about a black family moving onto the block. If you literally asked them that they would insist they would have no problem with it, and likely twist it back on you by observing how leftists get really fixated on race. Libertarians, on the other hand, are above such condescending attitudes and directly believe there's no such thing as groups, only individuals. Thus any undue concern or focus on the well being of minorities gets portrayed as being very patronizing and actually out of touch (they believe the people deepest down the woke hole are privileged white people, particularly women). In contrast libertarians are going to come off as 'friendlier' to minorities by insisting there's no need to speak on their behalf. Then whatever is left of their little friendly mask slips a bit further down when they start rambling about how actually showing any kind of solidarity towards minorities is what is holding them back by selling them short. And for a group of people that 'don't like to make it about race' they sure have a lot to say about how leftists treat race in society.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 05:34
|
|
|
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yhe0LgQDgNg There's a Tuttle Twins cartoon out NOW, (OK nevermind it's been out for a while) and I just watched a review of it. Kinda like Libertarian Magic School Bus Libertarian version. Highlights: "I may not be entitled to food water or shelter but that doesn't mean I can't work for it! Rights aren't the same thing as needs." (this was said by a CHILD) "Did you know liberals cannot give a specific legal definition of hate speech? Therefore any kind of hate speech laws go against free speech!" A toy factory that has workers agitating for better wages, but when they get paid as much as the you designer she quits in protest. The inferior workers cannot match her radian genius and inevitably agree to take a pay cut to be able to re hire the designer in time for her to invent a new toy for some big conference. Cuba before the revolution was happy and free, then the revolution happened and everyone was communist and sad. The grandma is of course a Cuban refugee that can always insert how horrific communism is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2023 00:26
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:
I watched this a while ago. It blows my mind that someone made those tuttle twins videos. I take comfort only in the knowledge that the tuttle twins franchise is for adults who buy it to give to kids who will be bored and confused and ignore it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2023 01:05
|
|
|
Late to the party I guess. This guys review was pretty entertaining, the bitcoin episode was so upsetting to him he couldn't even do a bit on it. One good point he made about this media is the kids are what a Libertarian thinks a child will act. It's funny how the author of the books is so concerned with leftist indoctrination and yet makes a cartoon where the kids have to produce "knowledge juice" by parroting libertarian talking points. Also the mean girl in the show has a giant portrait of Karl Marx in her living room which is based as gently caress. Panfilo fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Oct 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2023 01:25
|
|
|
Sharing is caring? Sounds like commie BS to me. Children gain 30 social credit points for repeating this opinion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2023 18:56
|
|
|
Apparently that show was also the most successful crowdfunded kids shows to date . That video is a pretty good watch if you have the time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2023 19:59
|
|
|
regressives why do things have to be woke and political! *crowdfunds a childrens cartoon where lines of their ideology are out right spoken*
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2023 20:08
|
|
|
Barrel Cactaur posted:Sharing is caring? Sounds like commie BS to me. Children gain 30 social credit points for repeating this opinion. Sharing is fine so long as it is voluntary and that you understand that it is not a natural right to have people share their health care with you even if you desperately need it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2023 20:43
|
|
|
"Well, think about what you've done under Karl's Angry Eyes"
HootTheOwl fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Oct 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 13:30
|
|
|
I used to be a Libertarian, and for a while had the 'well they have a decent idea, they're just not very practical' opinion. What gave me the 'not very practical' part was seeing them try to actually win offices - they got on the ballot ran candidates for every office in my state as part of a drive for increased ballot access. The local candidate for the Soil and Water Conservation board was on a local messageboard, and I found a Libertarian running for that a bit surprising, so I asked how she would apply LP principles if she won, since it seems kind of out there. She couldn't come up with an answer at all, she was in a 'well we'll burn that bridge when we cross it' mindset. I think 'as a [party], what would you do differently from the others if elected' is probably the most softball question you can ask a candidate for office, and she couldn't manage that. Was a real eye opener, so I wasn't really surprised a decade or two later when 2016 elections rolled around for the "What's Aleppo?" bit. But hey, maybe they're just idealists and we can separate the decent idea from that. What got rid of the 'decent idea' part was watching the libertarian response to smoking bans and restrictions. Burning carcinogenic chemicals and releasing them in someone else's face is pretty obviously an act of aggression under the NAP, but pretty much every libertarian came down hard against the idea of any regulation of smoking, and also sneered at the idea of any kind of lawsuits for damages from such smoking. This really destroyed the idea that you could solve problems like pollution and fraud with lawsuits the way libertarians say would work. Proving damages is difficult to impossible, and the very people who should be on the side of non-aggression instead enthusiastically embraced smoking all over the place and ridiculed the very idea that it could be harmful to anyone but the smoker. It undermines all of the ideas of how to settle problems without using regulations or licensing. There's other 'this doesn't work' stuff; notably the idea of handling all crime by allowing victims to sue for damages falls flat since it's already done in the US, but poor criminals don't have any assets to sue for and rich criminals use their assets to foil suing them; but smoking is really the one that captured the problem for me. What really sealed the deal was paying attention to history and how much Libertarians like to talk up the 19th century US as a bastion of freedom. The fact is, in that time frame the US was an aggressively expansionist warmaking state that practiced genocide on a large scale, and practiced race-based slavery for part of the time period and extreme racial discrimination after abolishing slavery. This really didn't jump out at me at first since US school history tends to paint the US in a positive light - "oh we fought the Indians some when they were on our land, and the Trail of Tears was one unique really bad thing. Somehow we got a bunch of land from Mexico. Slavery was bad, then it was gone after the Civil War so we can forget about it." But with a better appreciation of actual history, 19th century US (and especially the Confederacy) should be absolute anathema to a libertarian philosophy - things like aggressive war, slavery, and the government forcibly relocating, reeducating, and starving people should be glaring violations of the NAP, but they're just treated as minor hiccups that aren't even worth noticing. It says a lot about the perception and priorities of libertarians that they would treat these major violations as something barely worth noticing and certainly not worth paying attention to. This didn't really kick in for me until later, though it's a big one now. I think it's interesting that I didn't really need outside information beyond 'non-whitewashed US History' for any of these conclusions - it's not some hate campaign by outsiders, it's all just listening to and watching what libertarians get up to and choose to say.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 16:54
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:"Well, about what you've done under Karl's Angry Eyes" Lmao YES. I was trying to find the part where Tuttle Dad reassured his kids that nobody really agrees what Hate Speech actually is and runs counter to the first amendment but I couldn't remember in the video where I heard it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 17:03
|
|
|
Pantaloon Pontiff posted:I used to be a Libertarian, and for a while had the 'well they have a decent idea, they're just not very practical' opinion. Thing is, a lot of those supposed contradictions just loop back to libertarian 'government bad'. Slavery? That's a Democrat problem, not a libertarian one. Genocide? Democrats, again. Recessions, inflation, and civil strife? That's all the fault of the Federal Reserve, going off the gold standard and government policies that forced businesses to racially integrate against their will.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 17:08
|
|
|
Pantaloon Pontiff posted:
Very enlightening recollection. Thanks for sharing it. I once dates a libertarian girl back in the Dubya days. Very smart and fun, but came from a familiy of Ukrainian emigrés from the USSR so VERY anti-communist, which directed part of her response. That lasted until she decided to go to college (which only slightly changed her perceptions) and join the local student Libertarian group (which IMPLODED her libertarianism with ruthless efficiency.) Being directly exposed to the average libertarian had her swinging left so hard that the only real tenet she retained was that firearms should be legal and available....in case any of the creeps she met at the Herman Hoppe fanclub decided to get frisky. More recently, a libertarian friend from my RPG group also fell out of the nest post-Trump. According to him, 90% of his contacts and forum peers just went full MAGA and shat on him because he was the only drip going "Emmm, guys, maybe the tyrannous hand of Big Government isn't cool just because it's being used against groups we hate? And doesn't building a wall impede the free flow of people and ideas and goods we value so highly?". This one just went 'nothing matters, gently caress all politics' instead, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 18:03
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:Thing is, a lot of those supposed contradictions just loop back to libertarian 'government bad' That doesn't work when the libertarians brought up '19th century US' as an example of an example of good government either entirely on their own or in response to 'is there an example of a real-world government you like'. It's an actual, not a 'supposed' contradiction if I ask the guy with a party name based off of liberty 'is there an example of a country or other government that comes close to your principles in action' and liberty-named guy chooses to name a country that engaged in outright slavery and aggressive war for profit as his example. You can't just handwave away 'everything bad this government does' when you offered it as an example of a good one in the first place. (It's even worse for the small-but-not-tiny portion of libertarians who will name the Confederacy as something to be admired, when that was a country founded explicitly to promote and protect slavery, but confederate-defenders are a minority while 19th-century-USsers are all over the place).
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 18:27
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:More recently, a libertarian friend from my RPG group also fell out of the nest post-Trump. According to him, 90% of his contacts and forum peers just went full MAGA and shat on him because he was the only drip going "Emmm, guys, maybe the tyrannous hand of Big Government isn't cool just because it's being used against groups we hate? And doesn't building a wall impede the free flow of people and ideas and goods we value so highly?". This one just went 'nothing matters, gently caress all politics' instead, though. Trump is by far the most libertarian president in modern times if you rank 'most libertarian' by 'implemented or attempted to implement the most pieces of the Libertarian Party platform', which I think says a lot about what libertarian ideals mean in practice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 18:46
|
|
|
Well, to be more specific, points in time libertarians seem to be fond of: -The time before the sixteenth amendment was passed, as income tax was not a thing yet the country got on just fine which proves to them that income tax is a big scam. -The time before the nineteenth amendment as they make it a 'states rights' issue and are quick to point out that several states already gave women the right to vote before it was ratified anyway. -Anytime before the gold standard was abolished, some go back further and yearn for a simpler time before the federal reserve existed. The Libertarian solution to smoking is that any business is free to have their establishment be non-smoking. If second-hand smoke was such an issue then the market would drive demand for smoke free establishments. They also like to appropriate the civil rights movement by demonstrating how boycotts are a better way to encourage businesses not to discriminate, and by using the big bad government it just drives away business and healthy competition. I think DEI is their new boogeyman these days though I don't even know if that's really government related or empty corporate virtue signaling at this point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 19:02
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:Lmao YES. I was trying to find the part where Tuttle Dad reassured his kids that nobody really agrees what Hate Speech actually is and runs counter to the first amendment but I couldn't remember in the video where I heard it. It's refrenced in this video they cut him off before he says anything other than "fun fact, no court has ever defined what hate speechis"
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 19:35
|
|
|
And smoking is the least ridiculous Libertarian solution, because hypothetically you could avoid it. You could ban smoking from your home, never go to businesses that permit it, not work for any company that permits smoking inside. In the same sense that you could "choose" not to get your hand mangled in your workplace's hand-mangling equipment or "choose" to own your home (ie be rich enough to have real choices these things). In theory it could be solved by individual action in some kind of perfect universe where economic coercion doesn't exist. But then you get into things like industrial air pollution and their solution is to sue polluters for damages for injuring you. And not just in general, you have to prove specific damages by specific people or companies. So you have to -wait until you get lung cancer -somehow determine after the fact which particular particles caused your cancer -trace those particular particles back to the particular factories that emitted them -and then you can sue and try to prove they did it And then there's even more distributed air pollution, like say, poisoning from leaded gas. You can't sue the oil company or the gas station or the car manufacturer because it's not their responsibility how their customers use their products. Just like if someone shoots you, you can't sue the firearm manufacturer that made it or gun store that sold it. So if you want to sue because you got lead poisoning, you'd better have a record of every motorist who ever drove past you and how much lead they contaminated you with. And then, hopefully, after they pay out those lawsuits they stop buying leaded gas in enough numbers for oil companies and car manufacturers to stop making leaded gas and car engines that need it. So impossible, even in a perfect libertarian world where nobody was economically coerced to breathe lead fumes at work, there's no way to avoid breathing it and no practical way to hold anyone financially liable for it. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Oct 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 19:42
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:Well, to be more specific, points in time libertarians seem to be fond of: I used to be a libertarian, I know what they say they are fond of. The point you seem to be missing is not what things they value (or say they value), it's looking at what valuing those things over other things says. The fact that they consider a general partial federal income tax (state income tax was fine before the 16th amendment) a bigger deal than the 100% tax on all property, income, and future children that slavery imposes says a lot. Similarly, 'oh, no Federal income tax' is a bigger deal than 'oh, no Federal government invading other people's land and property (a 100% tax) and killing them to annex it, then forcibly relocating them to marginal land where their culture and language is suppressed (another rather high tax)'. When you talk about liberty and make a statement like "Oh, the US was really free in the time when there was no Federal income tax but there was a 100% tax on everything for Blacks, and aggressive warfare and genocide against Natives", the part after the 'but' (which they usually keep quiet) is really damning about just what 'liberty' means to you, and what groups it counts for. If you can ignore something as gross as slavery, genocide, and profit-driven warfare as long as it's against the right people and consider only that one particular type of tax isn't allowed at one but not all levels of government, your vision of liberty is not what most people mean. Again, this isn't a 'supposed' contradiction, this is a very direct and clear one. quote:The Libertarian solution to smoking is that any business is free to have their establishment be non-smoking. If second-hand smoke was such an issue then the market would drive demand for smoke free establishments. This isn't consistent with the NAP, and therefore is damning to the idea that libertarians have good, if impractical, ideas. The government is supposed to present force or fraud, and poisoning someone qualifies as force under their definition. The fact that they actively support initiation of force when it's a thing they like (and there's profit involved, of course) is a fundamental philosophical contradiction. VitalSigns posted:But then you get into things like industrial air pollution and their solution is to sue polluters for damages for injuring you. And not just in general, you have to prove specific damages by specific people or companies. In addition to the practical problems you outlined with the system they endorse, there's a more fundamental philosophical problem in that poisoning someone is an initiation of force under libertarian philosophy, and preventing force or fraud is supposedly one of the purposes of government. They should be in favor of smoking bans and pollution controls if they're consistent with their stated principles, because those fall under one of the few things government is supposed to intervene on. While the practical problems are a reason to blow them off as real-world solutions, I think the philosophical issue really undermines the idea of 'they may not be practical, but they have some good principles' - abandoning something as core as non-aggression is a pretty big deal. Pantaloon Pontiff fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Oct 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 19:52
|
|
|
It's a contradiction with their PR about freedom, but their actual philosophy is more about getting to be an rear end in a top hat with "freedom" as a socially acceptable justification. I like smoking so I should get to do it whenever and wherever I want and gently caress everyone else. I hate masks so I shouldn't have to wear one even if a business owner makes rules about it on his own property so now we need big government to interfere with his property rights to make him stop doing that. I think there's a good number of people who fall for the freedom arguments at first but then, like you, detect these contradictions and become disillusioned. Also see: every Libertarian community ever failing because someone wants to set out donuts in their yard for the bears, and if hungry bears rip apart your house looking for donuts well that's not my problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 20:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 05:03 |
|
|
Look, the bears were hungry, and what were they going to do? Pick through the trash when there's hunting to be had? Please.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 20:18
|
|