In 2016 I voted libertarian. I liked Trump but wasn’t 100% sold and didn’t have confidence in the establishment Republicans. Looking at the vote totals most states had Gary Johnson at 3%. In MN, for example, it was 3.8%.
Trump has been the most libertarian president we’ve had. That being said, I’m assuming most libertarians would switch to Trump for 2020, I certainly am. If that’s the case he’d pick up a few extra states while holding onto the ones he flipped. That mixed with the massive amount of people walking away from the dems we may be looking at a landslide victory.
I haven’t heard any commentators, or anybody, speak to this point. Is it just me? What do you all think?
I didnt say they were libertarian. But when they moved to those ideals their was higher utility and greater freedom.
Absolutely feminists would not be lynched in those societies. When did the UK lynch feminists in the 80s?
Is statism that has allowed those things to flourish.
Do you think anyone would get a job as a feminist studies teacher or gender studies teacher without the state? No way.
Muslims would not be able to put into place Shariah law. An authoritarian state is far easier for islam to take control of.
An excellent example would be how difficult it was for the British to take Ireland despite overwhelming power why? Because they had no state system. They couldnt put their guys in and take control. Due to clan system.
Its far easier for a marxist to take control of a more centralised system as they only need to take a few roles in order to have power. A decentralised system is very difficult to take power. Another reason the Roman Republic lasted so long having 2 consuls both with veto ability for a 1 year term meant it was very difficult to gain control... until they created a state military which was used to turn it into an empire. Again move towards statism and youre doomed.
Tldr: decentralised systems are harder for marxists, feminists, muslims to take control.
Thank you for your post, it's a good discussion. But I'm not convinced.
First of all, my statements were not implying more government powers. I simply said that a society needs to be based on something other than the free market: Christianity, national identity and pride, or racial identity and pride, etc. This can be imposed even without a government; in your example of the Irish, there was no central state but that was not a libertarian society: it was based on specific cultural values. Not many mosques in Ireland back then.
Second, on top of this I also believe that government intervention is necessary to protect society from external forces. For example: the Saudis are using their immense wealth to colonize Europe by building mosques everywhere. This is a problem that a libertarian society cannot solve.
They didn't, and 40 years later the native British people are a tiny minority of their capital city. London and every major UK city has been colonized. What used to be England is now Pakistan. Soon the rest of the country will follow.
This shows you what happens when a society is so scared to be "authoritarian" that lets itself be conquered.
Think of the Third Reich for a moment. If it hadn't been defeated in war, it would have lasted for 1000 years as was its vision. And the future of white children would have been assured.
No because a decentralised state is difficult to take over for muslims, gays whoever you are worrier about.
Add to this that when you centralise power corrupt individuals seek it out. Thats the exact system currently in the US. You have corrupt individuals in control and they actively destroy the nation be that socialists or muslims.
You probably realise Trumps dont come along 3 times a week. If they did sure theyd all run the state and we might be fine. But in reality the people seeking out those positions are the likes of Bush, Clinton, Pelosi, Cuomo, Romeny, Biden.
I don't think you answered my points at all.