I was a libertarian my whole life, since early high school. Up until very recently.
Smug libertarians are just the worst. The whole philosophy is, at best, "let's let the left takeover but at least we can say I-told-you-so".
For example, you accused this guy of worshipping government because he thinks the government should do something about a megacorp censoring Americans. You obviously would agree censorship is wrong, and you'd agree that the censorship Facebook is doing hurts your "side" purposefully. And you would cry and demand something happen if government was censorsing. But it's a private corporation (who is worth more than some countries), so lol kewl.
That is honestly a mind-numbingly dumb thought process. And I can say that, because I thought it for nearly 20 years. Libertarianism should be renamed Losebertarian because that's all that philosophy is about.
Too old of a comment to really bother with. Don't care if you don't believe me on my history as a libertarian. Rothbard, RP, Tom Woods, Jason Stapleton, Herman-Hoppe, some of my favorites for various reasons.
If that's what you really understood about what I actually argued, is it any wonder that he's claiming all that shit about libertarians?
This argument doesn't make any sense. Even if I did misunderstand your argument, what does that have to do with him "claiming all that shit about libertarians"? It's not a logical argument.
Anybody can claim to be one without having to meet any criteria.
This is another nonexistent argument. Even if I was pretending to be a former libertarian, you say that me misunderstanding your argument means I don't meet a requirement to be a former libertarian? Honestly, wtf are you talking about?
Keep learning grasshopper. I was a cringe libertarian once, too. For way too long. I've been in your mindstate before. People that aren't libertarians just don't get it! No, I get it. My political philosophy just evolved.
Don't care if you don't believe me on my history as a libertarian.
Not only did I believe it, my whole response was based on believing your claim.
Rothbard, RP, Tom Woods, Jason Stapleton, Herman-Hoppe, some of my favorites for various reasons.
Does being a fan equate with actual understanding? Of course not. Libertarianism is a demanding topic to understand. Regurgitating slogans is easy. Just like how I'm an expert basketball player by watching my NBA heroes.
Even if I did misunderstand your argument, what does that have to do with him "claiming all that shit about libertarians"?
He was arguing about things that were not libertarian positions, but are easily confused as such. Why are they confused in that way? Because when you misunderstand things and say nonsense while fervently claiming to be for libertarinism, why would he doubt that what you say is the cannon?
Even if I was pretending to be a former libertarian
I didn't doubt at all that you were indeed.
I was a cringe libertarian once
You shaved off the libertarian part but it should have been the cringe part instead.
He was arguing about things that were not libertarian positions, but are easily confused as such.
He's not a libertarian. He was arguing for stepping in on social media. And you called him a government bootlicker or whatever. So why is he supposed to argue for libertarian positions? He was arguing against them and you called him a government bootlicker. Thats all i was commenting on. I don't understand what you're even arguing.
Because when you misunderstand things and say nonsense while fervently claiming to be for libertarinism, why would he doubt that what you say is the cannon?
I'm not FOR libertarianism. Why are you acting like we are all libertarians here? The guy you called a bootlicker obviously wasn't and neither am I anymore.
Libertarianism is a demanding topic to understand.
I was a libertarian my whole life, since early high school. Up until very recently.
Smug libertarians are just the worst. The whole philosophy is, at best, "let's let the left takeover but at least we can say I-told-you-so".
For example, you accused this guy of worshipping government because he thinks the government should do something about a megacorp censoring Americans. You obviously would agree censorship is wrong, and you'd agree that the censorship Facebook is doing hurts your "side" purposefully. And you would cry and demand something happen if government was censorsing. But it's a private corporation (who is worth more than some countries), so lol kewl.
That is honestly a mind-numbingly dumb thought process. And I can say that, because I thought it for nearly 20 years. Libertarianism should be renamed Losebertarian because that's all that philosophy is about.
This is why libertarianism is getting a bad rep. Anybody can claim to be one without having to meet any criteria. Take you for example:
If that's what you really understood about what I actually argued, is it any wonder that he's claiming all that shit about libertarians?
Too old of a comment to really bother with. Don't care if you don't believe me on my history as a libertarian. Rothbard, RP, Tom Woods, Jason Stapleton, Herman-Hoppe, some of my favorites for various reasons.
This argument doesn't make any sense. Even if I did misunderstand your argument, what does that have to do with him "claiming all that shit about libertarians"? It's not a logical argument.
This is another nonexistent argument. Even if I was pretending to be a former libertarian, you say that me misunderstanding your argument means I don't meet a requirement to be a former libertarian? Honestly, wtf are you talking about?
Keep learning grasshopper. I was a cringe libertarian once, too. For way too long. I've been in your mindstate before. People that aren't libertarians just don't get it! No, I get it. My political philosophy just evolved.
Not only did I believe it, my whole response was based on believing your claim.
Does being a fan equate with actual understanding? Of course not. Libertarianism is a demanding topic to understand. Regurgitating slogans is easy. Just like how I'm an expert basketball player by watching my NBA heroes.
He was arguing about things that were not libertarian positions, but are easily confused as such. Why are they confused in that way? Because when you misunderstand things and say nonsense while fervently claiming to be for libertarinism, why would he doubt that what you say is the cannon?
I didn't doubt at all that you were indeed.
You shaved off the libertarian part but it should have been the cringe part instead.
He's not a libertarian. He was arguing for stepping in on social media. And you called him a government bootlicker or whatever. So why is he supposed to argue for libertarian positions? He was arguing against them and you called him a government bootlicker. Thats all i was commenting on. I don't understand what you're even arguing.
I'm not FOR libertarianism. Why are you acting like we are all libertarians here? The guy you called a bootlicker obviously wasn't and neither am I anymore.
Insert Rick And Morty copypasta.