It is not a Libertarian principle to demand Open Borders. Unfortunately, the L.P. has been infiltrated by Globalists.
I want small government, and Trump has done a great job with making the government smaller. Let's see what happens with another four years of Trump/Pence!
Chapotraphouse fags invaded every libertarian community and started suggesting open borders. They did a large psyop and are still doing it in any libertarian community they can find in reddit and outside of reddit.
Yeah, it's kinda like how the leftist Neo-Nazis invade Conservative communities to conduct psyops. We just have to wise-up, and call out Commie/Nazi bullshit in our communities when it comes around.
It's a shame. Her position on the 2A is pretty great, but she ends up bending the knee to people who want the enemies of Communism dead. The last time I checked, Libertarianism is supposed to embrace Capitalism, hence why I embrace Capitalism.
I'd be much more for open borders if it wasn't for all the gov't handouts. The old USA, where pretty much anyone was was just rubber stamped in, but there was zero welfare, food stamps, social security, medicaid, or anything else. That attracted tough, rugged individuals who had to make it on their own.
And can you imagine how laughable a "lockdown" would have been in that era? People had to worry about surviving the winter. Starving was a real possibility. Americans today are complete wimps compared to their ancestors.
Open borders is a libertarian goal. And if we stopped giving free shit to anyone who waltzes across the border it could work. But we can't keep handing everyone free healthcare, food, housing, and jobs and expect to not ruin ourselves.
Not for all Libertarians. Maybe the Libertarian party feels that way, but most Libertarian Conservatives like myself would disagree with open borders. It's like I said to another pede, Libertarianism has a schism, like any other political movement.
It's like any political ideology, really. There's schisms. Some have gone off like me, who identifies as a Libertarian Conservative, and then there's some who've stayed around with the Libertarian Party.
This is true. The freedom of movement is central to libertarian philosophy. However, this only works in a libertarian utopia with no welfare state. This could never be implemented in the US, because the gimmiedats storm the border not for freedom, but for freebies.
I used to think of Libertarians as Republicans who like pot. They've really gone off the rails in the last few election cycles. Now they just look crazy.
That's how it used to be, like the good o'l days with Ron Paul. Now, it's Republicans who like pot who feel bad about being on the right-wing, and want brownie points from people who want to throw us in the gulag.
Libertarians at one point were strong on the 2A, castle doctrine, small government, low taxes. You could typically expect their office holders to caucus with Republicans.
Those days are done. More they're an object example of why 3rd parties don't work.
Fortunately the Constitution Party kind of just piggy backs off the Republican Party, so a vote for the Republicans is still a vote for them, it'st just not directly voting for them. I agree they'd be better Libertarians then the Libertarian Party haha.
Yup, this is why I'm a Republican. I think there's a lot of common ground between Conservatives, and Libertarians to make things better for the country. Trump is an awesome example of a balance between Libertarianism, and Conservatism.
Though I consider myself mostly libertarian in philosophy, there are problems with their philosophy which fundamentally cannot be fixed.
Ultimately, the libertarian philosophy can be summarized as "as long as you don't do harm to others without their consent, you can do whatever you want." However, the phrase "do harm to others without consent" is vague and effectively impossible to truly accomplish.
For example, if I stand nearby someone's property, someone could argue that I am affecting their property because light-waves bounce off me and go into their property. What if the owner doesn't consent to my light-waves going into their property? In a very minimal way, I might be hurting them.
Any reasonable person would obviously say that this example is ridiculous, but it demonstrates that all actions have consequences, and those consequences could affect other people. We cannot reasonably ask for consent for everything we do. This is where society, through a government, steps in to decide what people can and can't do without getting consent. Generally, government should err on the side of liberty without consent under the assumption that people can solve their own disputes, but it needs to recognize areas where use of force is justified to make sure people don't gravely violate each other's rights.
YES, AS A LIBERTARIAN, DO NOT, I REPEAT, DO NOT VOTE FOR THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY FOR POTUS! TRUMP ALL THE WAY!
THIS, the Libertarian candidate isn't even a real libertarian. TRUMP/PENCE 2020
It is not a Libertarian principle to demand Open Borders. Unfortunately, the L.P. has been infiltrated by Globalists.
I want small government, and Trump has done a great job with making the government smaller. Let's see what happens with another four years of Trump/Pence!
Chapotraphouse fags invaded every libertarian community and started suggesting open borders. They did a large psyop and are still doing it in any libertarian community they can find in reddit and outside of reddit.
Yeah, it's kinda like how the leftist Neo-Nazis invade Conservative communities to conduct psyops. We just have to wise-up, and call out Commie/Nazi bullshit in our communities when it comes around.
Fuck Chapo, Fuck Stormfags.
Not to mention Jo bent the knee to BLM marxists
It's a shame. Her position on the 2A is pretty great, but she ends up bending the knee to people who want the enemies of Communism dead. The last time I checked, Libertarianism is supposed to embrace Capitalism, hence why I embrace Capitalism.
I'd be much more for open borders if it wasn't for all the gov't handouts. The old USA, where pretty much anyone was was just rubber stamped in, but there was zero welfare, food stamps, social security, medicaid, or anything else. That attracted tough, rugged individuals who had to make it on their own.
And can you imagine how laughable a "lockdown" would have been in that era? People had to worry about surviving the winter. Starving was a real possibility. Americans today are complete wimps compared to their ancestors.
Open borders is a libertarian goal. And if we stopped giving free shit to anyone who waltzes across the border it could work. But we can't keep handing everyone free healthcare, food, housing, and jobs and expect to not ruin ourselves.
Not for all Libertarians. Maybe the Libertarian party feels that way, but most Libertarian Conservatives like myself would disagree with open borders. It's like I said to another pede, Libertarianism has a schism, like any other political movement.
It's like any political ideology, really. There's schisms. Some have gone off like me, who identifies as a Libertarian Conservative, and then there's some who've stayed around with the Libertarian Party.
This is true. The freedom of movement is central to libertarian philosophy. However, this only works in a libertarian utopia with no welfare state. This could never be implemented in the US, because the gimmiedats storm the border not for freedom, but for freebies.
I used to think of Libertarians as Republicans who like pot. They've really gone off the rails in the last few election cycles. Now they just look crazy.
That's how it used to be, like the good o'l days with Ron Paul. Now, it's Republicans who like pot who feel bad about being on the right-wing, and want brownie points from people who want to throw us in the gulag.
Libertarians at one point were strong on the 2A, castle doctrine, small government, low taxes. You could typically expect their office holders to caucus with Republicans.
Those days are done. More they're an object example of why 3rd parties don't work.
Yup, exactly. It's why I'm with the Republican Party.
Yep, it’s more or less cucked fence sitters who still aspire to be social climbers and denounce their white privilege to the loony left.
Fortunately the Constitution Party kind of just piggy backs off the Republican Party, so a vote for the Republicans is still a vote for them, it'st just not directly voting for them. I agree they'd be better Libertarians then the Libertarian Party haha.
Yup, this is why I'm a Republican. I think there's a lot of common ground between Conservatives, and Libertarians to make things better for the country. Trump is an awesome example of a balance between Libertarianism, and Conservatism.
Though I consider myself mostly libertarian in philosophy, there are problems with their philosophy which fundamentally cannot be fixed.
Ultimately, the libertarian philosophy can be summarized as "as long as you don't do harm to others without their consent, you can do whatever you want." However, the phrase "do harm to others without consent" is vague and effectively impossible to truly accomplish.
For example, if I stand nearby someone's property, someone could argue that I am affecting their property because light-waves bounce off me and go into their property. What if the owner doesn't consent to my light-waves going into their property? In a very minimal way, I might be hurting them.
Any reasonable person would obviously say that this example is ridiculous, but it demonstrates that all actions have consequences, and those consequences could affect other people. We cannot reasonably ask for consent for everything we do. This is where society, through a government, steps in to decide what people can and can't do without getting consent. Generally, government should err on the side of liberty without consent under the assumption that people can solve their own disputes, but it needs to recognize areas where use of force is justified to make sure people don't gravely violate each other's rights.