Libertarians have always been corporatist shills. They are there to convince conservatives that corporations are good as they are getting crushed by these same corporations.
libertarianism is the right direction. You wouldn't want to go the whole way as if enacted in it's entirety would be horrible. If mostly implemented would be considerably better than our current position. I'm with the guy who said he wants government small enough he could drown it in the bath tub but also believe government is a required evil.
I disagree.
They are more about taking the least offensive successful approach toward the future.
Notice when the left responded to Trump by moving its own social platform in a contrarian manner that the libertarians moved right with them.
Thatās because they desperately seek that social approval and are easily manipulated.
I have said it before. The entire party is a Trojan horse to help the left achieve its social goals.
I used to frequent Reason all the time. They've always have some impressively dedicated trolls in the comments. I don't visit much any more, but do check in on occasion, including today. There's an article about how bad it is to worry about mail in voting. It's a shit article, but just as I expected, the author got savaged in the comments. Every time I've checked in on Reason the past few years, I've seen the same thing. TDS editorial, comments saying "AYFKM? What happened to this publication?"
I don't know if they got bought out or compromised or what, or if cucking just comes naturally to pundits. Nonetheless, it's refreshing to see that the userbase still recognizes bullshit when they see it.
Same thing happened to a few websites.. I think liberals have been buying them out.. someone should look into it.. the intercept was once a really good website and it even broke the Edward Snowden story..
go to The intercept under Donald Trump and it's just a bunch of left-wing rad bullshit.. The Huffington Post was even once half decent. They ran a few stories under the 2016 election interviewing experts on fascism who said that Donald Trump wasn't fascist.. they even did a few on how trump didnt call mexican rapistss
At the end of the election though their coverage completely changed.. they had that wasn't a far left nut j
Libertarians are retarded. They immediately sided with Democrats once Trump won. That's why the Libertarian Party sucks. They accepted a boatload of Democrat cash and for the next 4 years sided with Democrats on basically everything. Justin Amash supported every fake impeachment and sided with Democrats when we all knew they massively abused the surveillance state to weaponize government against their political opposition but they still sided with them anyways. Libertarian party an Libertarian mouth pieces are fucking retarded. This coming from someone who's pretty fuckin libertarian but also not a retard who wants completely free trade and open borders while they could care less about dismantling the welfare state first. Smart libertarians went the way of Stefan Molyneux and realized we don't have time to undo 30 years of commie indoctrination to convince stupid people why libertarian ideas might be better before the complete destruction of the country takes place thus requiring more drastic and immediate actions so we still have the chance to have these conversations in the future.
I used to self-identify as a libertarian when Bob Barr was the candidate and the leading figures were Ron Paul and John Stossel. Today, I'd consider it an insult, even if you called them "smart libertarians".
Libertarian is synonymous with contrarian corporate bootlicker at this point. We need a new label for people who are okay with regulating giant corporations with way too much power but want small businesses and individuals to have nearly full freedom. Who think trust-busting is a great idea and that oligopolies and monopolies are in complete opposition to the principles that make free-market capitalism good and efficient.
Diversity in their eyes would also mean a company ran entirely by black people is diverse, but a company ran 65% by whites, 35% by other races "isn't diverse enough".
It's like how 6% of America makes it into 85%+ of all commercials.
Almost everything Reason or low IQ libertarians advocate for has nothing to do with a free market. Our current system with transnational corporations is so far removed from anything resembling a free market. Monopolies and cartels arise because of government interference, subsidizing, and heavy-handed regulations. When someone is defending the rights of these large āprivateā corporations and institutions, they are defending the network of politicians and bureaucrats that prop them up. Free markets and free trade is ideally the most efficient way to run an economy, but given the relationship of governments and corporations (even outside the United States), we arenāt even close to being there. Thatās why antitrust legislation and regulations to protect civil liberties is so important because there are no other āfree marketā solutions since we do not exist in one. It would be great to live in a world where they wouldnāt be needed, but that is a delusional pipe dream, much like the communists who constantly claim that ārealā communism has never been tried.
They're also pro-slavery. By that, I mean they think anyone in the world should be able to waltz into the U.S. and stay here. Since we know they are nothing more than a slave class and/or criminals, anyone who is for open borders is pro-slavery.
Back in the Ron Paul days it was about personal liberty and small government. But an ever growing section of the country are gimme dats and border jumpers. Those populations can't self govern, so this concept won't work.
That's the only thing Ron didnt do, was wrestle the reigns of what it means to be a Libertarian as a U.S citizen.
Now in that wake populism has taken up the bastion of being everything Libertarians should have been in recognizing the evil necessity of the state on a national scale but protecting the rights on the individual scale.
Well I'm a libertarian and don't care about drugs, but regardless think they should be legal.
Only retard libertarians want zero laws. Legalizing drugs would have to come with social conduct laws (Illegal to be homeless).
I want a society where you are either self sufficient, accept gov help at the expense of liberity (e.g. rehab, job assignment, someone waking you up at 6 AM to do community service, etc), or exiled to some desigated zone with 0 funding or goverment and just other degenerates and you are totally on your own
A small tropical island nation is perfect for growing sugarcane. They devote most of their agricultural capacity to it, and export sugar, using the profits to import the food they need. Then their crops get hit by a disease that just hits sugarcane. Or their main trading partner moves to another source for sugar. They are devastated. Not just one business or industry, but an indispensable foundation of their whole economy. One hiccup has made it so they can't feed their own people. Because it was more "efficient" to go all in on one commodity and be dependent on others for the basics.
Imagine:
A country outsources almost all of their manufacturing capacity to another country. Then that country becomes hostile. Or that country faces a crisis that requires them to use all those resources for themselves. Now the first country is left high and dry, because it was "cheaper" to let the other country take care of the basics.
Imagine:
A web services company decides to let another company handle all their cloud computing. Then the bigger company decides to put the boot down and kick the first company off their platform. A company is destroyed on someone else's whim, because it was "easier" to let a specialized market middleman hold the keys to the castle.
Globalist "efficiency" is a trap. It's a web to catch unsuspecting flies. It's a vulnerability, it's fragility, it's a thermal exhaust port. The trap may be sprung by accident or by evil. It doesn't matter. Either way, it kills you just the same.
This is not a difficult lesson to learn. It's easy to understand and easy to spot when it happens, which it does often. Anyone who deliberately denies the hazard can safely be assumed to be either a shill for something sinister, or a dunce.
That's funny because the way I view efficiency and how my grandfather told me was the ability to get everything I need without going too far.
Just because Country A B C and D may be efficient in making 1 widget specialization each to me seems highly inefficient because of transportation. Where as having one country having the ability to create the 4 specialized widgets to me is efficient. Since as a person who needs those widgets I can go directly to the source (within a 50 mile radius) and pick up all the parts just in case the local -mart doesn't have them.
At some point libertarians do not recognize that supply chains are a thing and hinging the whole global market on very specific countries making very specific things eventually fucks everything up.
Making everything in house has always been the most efficient when it comes to production. You can monitor quality easily and keep on a eye on production. Exporting manufacturing is highly inefficient and those who buy into that 'free trade' are just morons.
Free markets except for ideas, then we will tell you what's good.
Diversity. Except diversity of opinion.
Inclusion. As long as you exclude Pupulism
What the hell happened to reason. The TDS in editorial and some of the commenters is unreal.
Libertarians have always been corporatist shills. They are there to convince conservatives that corporations are good as they are getting crushed by these same corporations.
Libertarianism is the rightās answer to Communismāan ideology that would work real well, if human nature were completely different.
libertarianism is the right direction. You wouldn't want to go the whole way as if enacted in it's entirety would be horrible. If mostly implemented would be considerably better than our current position. I'm with the guy who said he wants government small enough he could drown it in the bath tub but also believe government is a required evil.
I disagree. They are more about taking the least offensive successful approach toward the future. Notice when the left responded to Trump by moving its own social platform in a contrarian manner that the libertarians moved right with them. Thatās because they desperately seek that social approval and are easily manipulated. I have said it before. The entire party is a Trojan horse to help the left achieve its social goals.
Not sure I agree. I always thought libertarians were Republicans that like to get high and want to get rid of the federal reserve.
I used to frequent Reason all the time. They've always have some impressively dedicated trolls in the comments. I don't visit much any more, but do check in on occasion, including today. There's an article about how bad it is to worry about mail in voting. It's a shit article, but just as I expected, the author got savaged in the comments. Every time I've checked in on Reason the past few years, I've seen the same thing. TDS editorial, comments saying "AYFKM? What happened to this publication?"
I don't know if they got bought out or compromised or what, or if cucking just comes naturally to pundits. Nonetheless, it's refreshing to see that the userbase still recognizes bullshit when they see it.
Same thing happened to a few websites.. I think liberals have been buying them out.. someone should look into it.. the intercept was once a really good website and it even broke the Edward Snowden story..
go to The intercept under Donald Trump and it's just a bunch of left-wing rad bullshit.. The Huffington Post was even once half decent. They ran a few stories under the 2016 election interviewing experts on fascism who said that Donald Trump wasn't fascist.. they even did a few on how trump didnt call mexican rapistss
At the end of the election though their coverage completely changed.. they had that wasn't a far left nut j
ya, it's nice to see that
I saw the same thing looking at one article a while back
Libertarians are retarded. They immediately sided with Democrats once Trump won. That's why the Libertarian Party sucks. They accepted a boatload of Democrat cash and for the next 4 years sided with Democrats on basically everything. Justin Amash supported every fake impeachment and sided with Democrats when we all knew they massively abused the surveillance state to weaponize government against their political opposition but they still sided with them anyways. Libertarian party an Libertarian mouth pieces are fucking retarded. This coming from someone who's pretty fuckin libertarian but also not a retard who wants completely free trade and open borders while they could care less about dismantling the welfare state first. Smart libertarians went the way of Stefan Molyneux and realized we don't have time to undo 30 years of commie indoctrination to convince stupid people why libertarian ideas might be better before the complete destruction of the country takes place thus requiring more drastic and immediate actions so we still have the chance to have these conversations in the future.
I used to self-identify as a libertarian when Bob Barr was the candidate and the leading figures were Ron Paul and John Stossel. Today, I'd consider it an insult, even if you called them "smart libertarians".
Libertarian is synonymous with contrarian corporate bootlicker at this point. We need a new label for people who are okay with regulating giant corporations with way too much power but want small businesses and individuals to have nearly full freedom. Who think trust-busting is a great idea and that oligopolies and monopolies are in complete opposition to the principles that make free-market capitalism good and efficient.
They only exist to suck votes from consversatives. That's why the green party is gone and the democrats give money to the libertarians.
I don't know, but they seem really bipolar now. They have author(s) who still write good articles, and then author(s) who shill this nonsense.
I think they're just grasping at straws to have content that ANYONE will buy.
And to think āReasonā used to be reasonable.
Diversity in their eyes would also mean a company ran entirely by black people is diverse, but a company ran 65% by whites, 35% by other races "isn't diverse enough".
It's like how 6% of America makes it into 85%+ of all commercials.
As long as you consider everyone being darker than a chocolate bar 'diversity', sure.
Almost everything Reason or low IQ libertarians advocate for has nothing to do with a free market. Our current system with transnational corporations is so far removed from anything resembling a free market. Monopolies and cartels arise because of government interference, subsidizing, and heavy-handed regulations. When someone is defending the rights of these large āprivateā corporations and institutions, they are defending the network of politicians and bureaucrats that prop them up. Free markets and free trade is ideally the most efficient way to run an economy, but given the relationship of governments and corporations (even outside the United States), we arenāt even close to being there. Thatās why antitrust legislation and regulations to protect civil liberties is so important because there are no other āfree marketā solutions since we do not exist in one. It would be great to live in a world where they wouldnāt be needed, but that is a delusional pipe dream, much like the communists who constantly claim that ārealā communism has never been tried.
Every libertarian Iāve met only cares about legalizing drugs.
They like to kill unborn babies too.
They're also pro-slavery. By that, I mean they think anyone in the world should be able to waltz into the U.S. and stay here. Since we know they are nothing more than a slave class and/or criminals, anyone who is for open borders is pro-slavery.
Iāve never understood this as a ālibertarian ā. Surely abortion violates the NAP
Back in the Ron Paul days it was about personal liberty and small government. But an ever growing section of the country are gimme dats and border jumpers. Those populations can't self govern, so this concept won't work.
That's the only thing Ron didnt do, was wrestle the reigns of what it means to be a Libertarian as a U.S citizen.
Now in that wake populism has taken up the bastion of being everything Libertarians should have been in recognizing the evil necessity of the state on a national scale but protecting the rights on the individual scale.
That's just their come-on for the stoner vote.
Well I'm a libertarian and don't care about drugs, but regardless think they should be legal.
Only retard libertarians want zero laws. Legalizing drugs would have to come with social conduct laws (Illegal to be homeless).
I want a society where you are either self sufficient, accept gov help at the expense of liberity (e.g. rehab, job assignment, someone waking you up at 6 AM to do community service, etc), or exiled to some desigated zone with 0 funding or goverment and just other degenerates and you are totally on your own
Imagine:
A small tropical island nation is perfect for growing sugarcane. They devote most of their agricultural capacity to it, and export sugar, using the profits to import the food they need. Then their crops get hit by a disease that just hits sugarcane. Or their main trading partner moves to another source for sugar. They are devastated. Not just one business or industry, but an indispensable foundation of their whole economy. One hiccup has made it so they can't feed their own people. Because it was more "efficient" to go all in on one commodity and be dependent on others for the basics.
Imagine:
A country outsources almost all of their manufacturing capacity to another country. Then that country becomes hostile. Or that country faces a crisis that requires them to use all those resources for themselves. Now the first country is left high and dry, because it was "cheaper" to let the other country take care of the basics.
Imagine:
A web services company decides to let another company handle all their cloud computing. Then the bigger company decides to put the boot down and kick the first company off their platform. A company is destroyed on someone else's whim, because it was "easier" to let a specialized market middleman hold the keys to the castle.
Globalist "efficiency" is a trap. It's a web to catch unsuspecting flies. It's a vulnerability, it's fragility, it's a thermal exhaust port. The trap may be sprung by accident or by evil. It doesn't matter. Either way, it kills you just the same.
This is not a difficult lesson to learn. It's easy to understand and easy to spot when it happens, which it does often. Anyone who deliberately denies the hazard can safely be assumed to be either a shill for something sinister, or a dunce.
That's funny because the way I view efficiency and how my grandfather told me was the ability to get everything I need without going too far.
Just because Country A B C and D may be efficient in making 1 widget specialization each to me seems highly inefficient because of transportation. Where as having one country having the ability to create the 4 specialized widgets to me is efficient. Since as a person who needs those widgets I can go directly to the source (within a 50 mile radius) and pick up all the parts just in case the local -mart doesn't have them.
At some point libertarians do not recognize that supply chains are a thing and hinging the whole global market on very specific countries making very specific things eventually fucks everything up.
Making everything in house has always been the most efficient when it comes to production. You can monitor quality easily and keep on a eye on production. Exporting manufacturing is highly inefficient and those who buy into that 'free trade' are just morons.
venezuela lol
very good
Good post.