I'm getting mixed signals regarding this board's take on libertarianism...

I'm getting mixed signals regarding this board's take on libertarianism. Is it extreme libertarianism that you're against? Is it unrealistic? Or is it libertarians themselves that irritate you? I've read Ron Paul's stuff, and from what I can tell it's based. Am I wrong?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=7UFmwArST-I
theamericanconservative.com/articles/marxism-of-the-right/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

We like nationalist libertarianism.

Freedoms for me, middle finger for you.

Cred Forums is too dumb to discern between libertarianism and SJWism.

I'm still not entirely sure what libertarianism is.

Seems like it's just a theme of very small government.

What is libertarianism to you?

I was thinking it was possibly a reaction to the no taxes of any kind/anything and everything goes kind of libertarianism.

I would say small government, lower taxes, less regulation, decriminilazation of most drugs, etc.

All four of those things are EXTREMELY vague.

Here's the thing; the conversation breaks down the specifics are brought up.

What specific drugs should be decriminalized? Why?

How would you design the tax system? Where are the income cutoffs and their percentages? Inheritance tax? Income? Import? Export? Import/Export to specific countries?

What's the difference between libertarianism, or being socially liberal and fiscally conservative?

Is there a bit of a fedora element to libertarianism that turns people off? I've gotten kind of an "I'm above this" vibe from some libertarians I've encountered online.

The government's role under libertarianism is to protect the individual's right to liberty. That's it.

That's why most of what Ron Paul talks about is liberty and prosperity. It takes some philosophical thought from the individual to operate properly in a libertarian government. That's why it won't really work - because the majority of people are complete retards. It's a shame.

Imo,desu,senpai,baka

Would social liberalism include widespread government entitlements? Real question btw, not rhetorical.

>What specific drugs should be decriminalized?
All of them
>Why?
Because as much as I think most drugs are a bad idea and should be avoided, I think people are well within their rights to fuck themselves up if they want, government isn't your mummy.
>How would you design the tax system?
Well I'm not going to tell you I have a definitive tax plan that would work for every country, but I certainly think that taxation should be as limited as possible. I think income tax should be flat and not scale with income. I think that inheritance tax, property tax, and any other similar things are theft and unacceptable. I'm in favour of something like VAT as a method of paying for government, not sure if you have something similar over there, as it is optional when it comes down to it.
>Import? Export? Import/Export to specific countries?
Trade with every nation, ally with none
>What's the difference between libertarianism, or being socially liberal and fiscally conservative?
One is being socially """liberal""" and fiscally conservative the other is being socially libertarian and fiscally libertarian

Cred Forums is not one person - the board runs the gamut from communist to fascist, authoritarian to libertarian, and globalist to isolationist and everything in between.

On average, though, I would say the majority are center-right national populists. We want a strong nation, a strong national identity, a strong middle class, and most of us are willing to let some of the little social and cultural issues slide if it means securing that.

So libertarians arent big on border enforcement?

Strictly speaking, I would think the deep economic impact would force that into the fiscal area, which conservatism does not favor entitlements of that nature.

I like a lot of their basic tenants but their political party representatives and most of their members are autistic sperglords who grate on my nerves.

Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are two of the worst political candidates I've ever seen. Neither have any kind of clout or real agenda despite being career politicians, and both just come off as cranky old men.

>restricting your thinking to false political ideologies

(((They))) have surely won. How about instead of thinking in terms of (((ideology))) you think in terms of issues? What solution does issue A need? What solution does issue B need? etc

Think freely and stop artificially restricting yourself to (((ideologies))) just so you can fit in to a larger group of retards

As my grandmammy once said: "if it aint white, it aint right"

Libertarianism and cuckservatism are the same fucking thing.

It is anti-border enforcement and pro-abortion/feminism/diversity, so it does not have a place on a board where logical political discussion is the norm.

This.

Also, did you accidentally don your shitposting flag before you made this reasonable post?

How odd.

Cred Forums is a libertarian board
everyone who likes Trump or Hillary unironically is reddit newfag trash

Government is there to protect liberty, not do anything else (like provide goods and services), because it's terrible. Central planning is inefficient and the government is made of people. Giving it more power is counter productive

Seems like a meme idealogy that could potentially work well in a white homogenous society.

The recent rise in libertarianism is caused by Jews.
Sorry to say, but you aren't some genious who 'suddenly' just 'discovered' or 'thought up' that libertarianism was cool. You have been used. You have been a tool.

Funny how young people started becomming really libertarian around the financial crisis, huh? Funny how it coincidences with Jewish billionaires wanting to buy off cheap public property, huh? Funny how adults didn't catch on to libertarianism, but the young voted it in in drones, huh?

Basically, Jews use libertarianism as an excuse to buy off Europe. Denmark lost its whole fucking energy sector.
>it's worth nothing, goy. Be a nice libertarian and give it to the private Jew corporation who wants to give you freedom.

What happens? Next month it turns out it was actually worth BILLIONS AND BILLIONS AND BILLIONS more than we were told.

Then, we lost our fucking computer infastructure. Handling all public security, transport and money transfer.
>it's worth nothing, goy. Be a nice libertarian and give it to the private Jew corporation who wants to give you freedom.

What happens? Next month it turns out it was actually worth BILLIONS AND BILLIONS AND BILLIONS more than we were told.

All because of a bunch of fucking children thinking they know about society because they read the first chapter of Atlas Shrugged. (A book that was printed in thousands of copies and given out for free to use as propaganda against the young)

Don't be a slave to the Jewish state.
Don't be a slave to the Jewish corporations.

National Socialism is the only solution.

I agree with most things Libertarians say they want, like not being fucked with and all that, I just disagree on how to obtain it. Tolerating the Left and commies will ensure that small govt and freedom will never exist.

As part of the underpinning for their worldview, Libertarians need to believe that all people and cultures are basically equal, and that the only thing getting in the way of mass immigration / open borders being a net positive is government.

That's why you see Molymeme having to reexamine his entire worldview ever since he started studying the differences in IQ by race

Johnson just seems like a complete pussy. He was seriously triggered by use of the term "illegal."

Libertarians and paleocons converge on many issues, given the civic history of this country and the ideals of its founding.

The Libertarian movement seems to have a divide between traditionalist American liberalism (i.e. founding fathers, liberty, rights-based), and the cucky libertarian cohort seeking to place themselves as an American 'liberal party' to parallel its European counterparts (i.e. a moderate and socially progressive party with pro-business tendency).

The former seems acceptable on Cred Forums, not so much the latter

Sheeple enjoy bootlicking too much.
They're collectivist freaks who would shrivel up and die without constant affirmation from others that their lives matter (they don't).

Australia is a pretty (((diverse))) country user. Usually the anglos are the shitposters

This is a very important point. Libertarianism is used for cover for (((globalist))) plans. Just look at the trade deals that get passed under the guise of "free trade." It's really just about the multinational jews taking control , if it was free stuff like TPP would not have to be thousands of pages long goy.

I would add that I view Libertarianism as a good stepping stone to more enlightened thinking. It at least shows you are thinking, the trick is not to get stuck there

Then I'd say there doesn't appear to be much difference between the two.

So what do you think is the logical next step following libertarianism?

you're dumb

More enlightened thinking, like fascism which rejects enlightenment thinking, devalues rational calculation, and historically tends to have an affinity for the occult? /fringe/ and Cred Forums are more enlightened than the broader intellectual constitution of western society?

>nationalist libertarianism
me desu.

I've been under the impression for a while that Australia was relatively un-cucked. However, recently I've seen some things online indicating that the SJW plague is spreading there too. What's your take?

before it was a libertarian board early Cred Forums was largely left wing. that was when it was a cool and hip underground place on the internet. but over the years it has attracted social rejects and outcasts which has made it become more stormfront.

Fuck off gook/leb/wog/rag head/cunt

It's mostly contained in universities and small parts of major cities.

Paleolibertarianism and Neolibertarianism are the only acceptable libertarian ideologies.

Something like pic related
>Cred Forums are more enlightened than the broader intellectual constitution of western society?
Yes because they aim to preserve western society. FWIW, my ideal society would be very limited government - but that can only work with a certain (see:white, tradition of English common law) and very homogeneous citizenry. I bet you get pretty butthurt about normies throwing out the Somalia meme, but in their own retarded way they have a point. You can't force limited government on cultures that have no tradition of it. And Libertarianism as it is currently widely defined has no interest in preserving culture

Yes, it is spreading like a plague. The only hope for Australia is to return to its Christian roots.

Kek my family was invited under the white australia policy and our people built a lot of Australia's infrastructure. They come from somewhere in the levant ;) Although Cred Forums advocates for white supremacy, the anglos in Australia have proven to be lazy, easily manipulated and uneducated (although, well intentioned I believe in my heart). I think only the Germans and old Anglos of Britain have any claim to white 'supremacy'. The Aussie anglos do not. Even your status as 'shitposters' on this board is evidence of what I'm saying. God bless you, user.

Social liberalism includes the concept that it is the government's responsibility to address issues such as health care, education, poverty, etc.

The term nowadays is also typically associated with progressivist ideals like gun control.

You people are puppies with ADHD.

Can't believe the brit was right.

Nice.

>Yes because they aim to preserve western society.

If people are free to act, they associate by likeness and seemliness. The idea that liberalism is to blame for demographic volatility and victimhood culture the west is facing is nonsensical, because both those trends would fail to persist if people were allowed the self-onus to relate positively to property and manage and calculate risk in their own lives. Big, dominating institutions do not prevent effeminacy and alienation, they cause it

mainstream libertarianism was taken over by the koch brothers. they now push corporate libertarianism, which now mean freedom for business to do whatever they want and pay for no services

A lot of (((Australians))) in power in major institutions, eh?

>Be libertarian society
>Can't get anything cross country because of roads
Don't say trains

I think people are plastic beings, and happy to set into the mould placed around them. The stupid masses are, I believe, just as much a result as the cause of our current government. Raise everyone in a nuclear household with moral, mature adults, and you'll see it reflected in the next generation. We're currently experiencing just the opposite (i.e. social degeneration), but I don't think people are always doomed to this level of thoughtlessness.

I don't understand your question. Our government is similar to America's: two party options. The labor party is a bit like the democrats but a little more effective. It jumps on political bandwagons like feminism and gay rights for votes but it often does implement some good socialist policies. Liberal party is like the Republicans. Removes socialist policies, increases taxes, privatizes infrastructure and sells to foreign purchasers. They all reek of corruption and self interest.

It is a fundamental problem of democracy and the breed of career politicians it gives birth to. They only care about getting votes now with short sighted policies and siphoning money from donors, which leads to disastrous long-term effects. Democracy cannot work with so much dirty money circulating around it. That the politicians can determine their own wages and accept donations is the biggest problem.

Liberalism (I know you mean classical goy) is not to blame for progressivism / cultural marxism. It is just not sufficient on it's own. Protect our people and preserve our culture first, and I agree with everything you are saying. But not addressing the problem, even if it's not the fault of your ideology, is childish

Nah OP, you're not wrong.

Unfortunately, just like in Ron Paul's time, there are sheeple who still buy into the left-right game, a game that today is so rigged that we have Hillary Clinton, one of the most corrupt politicians of our time, running against Donald Trump, who, while based in his mannerisms and general "fuck you" attitude towards political correctness and the establishment in general, is still a raving statist and a bumbling fool who buys into the same game as the people who support this party politics farce.

We have that same stuff, plus, the Libertarian Party is infested with people like Starchild (autistic fools) and Gary Johnson (closet statists). Infested because somehow, despite what he is, Gary Johnson was chosen to represent the party at a time when the party was going to be so much more visible given the mess that is this general election.

It is all of this, that has me silently weeping for this country while I watch it burn around me. It is all so very sad.

In an authoritarian government, how would you prevent stagnation and groveling cucks free riding the system?

I understand your question now. No I do not think there are "a lot". There are some. Problem is that most of our politicians are sell outs. Happy to forego their integrity and values for votes and/or donor money from foreign interests. China has paid many politicians lately.

>Free spirits, the ambitious, ex-socialists, drug users, and sexual eccentrics often find an attractive political philosophy in libertarianism, the idea that individual freedom should be the sole rule of ethics and government. Libertarianism offers its believers a clear conscience to do things society presently restrains, like make more money, have more sex, or take more drugs. It promises a consistent formula for ethics, a rigorous framework for policy analysis, a foundation in American history, and the application of capitalist efficiencies to the whole of society. But while it contains substantial grains of truth, as a whole it is a seductive mistake.

>There are many varieties of libertarianism, from natural-law libertarianism (the least crazy) to anarcho-capitalism (the most), and some varieties avoid some of the criticisms below. But many are still subject to most of them, and some of the more successful varieties—I recently heard a respected pundit insist that classical liberalism is libertarianism—enter a gray area where it is not really clear that they are libertarians at all. But because 95 percent of the libertarianism one encounters at cocktail parties, on editorial pages, and on Capitol Hill is a kind of commonplace “street” libertarianism, I decline to allow libertarians the sophistical trick of using a vulgar libertarianism to agitate for what they want by defending a refined version of their doctrine when challenged philosophically. We’ve seen Marxists pull that before.

1/?

>This is no surprise, as libertarianism is basically the Marxism of the Right. If Marxism is the delusion that one can run society purely on altruism and collectivism, then libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness and individualism. Society in fact requires both individualism and collectivism, both selfishness and altruism, to function. Like Marxism, libertarianism offers the fraudulent intellectual security of a complete a priori account of the political good without the effort of empirical investigation. Like Marxism, it aspires, overtly or covertly, to reduce social life to economics. And like Marxism, it has its historical myths and a genius for making its followers feel like an elect unbound by the moral rules of their society.

>The most fundamental problem with libertarianism is very simple: freedom, though a good thing, is simply not the only good thing in life. Simple physical security, which even a prisoner can possess, is not freedom, but one cannot live without it. Prosperity is connected to freedom, in that it makes us free to consume, but it is not the same thing, in that one can be rich but as unfree as a Victorian tycoon’s wife. A family is in fact one of the least free things imaginable, as the emotional satisfactions of it derive from relations that we are either born into without choice or, once they are chosen, entail obligations that we cannot walk away from with ease or justice. But security, prosperity, and family are in fact the bulk of happiness for most real people and the principal issues that concern governments.

2/?

That's all good to know. I guess I was addressing more the heightened "cuckness" that Australia seems to be experiencing recently. Like that other user, I traditionally have a certain image in my mind of the Australian people, and it doesn't involve a lot of the cultural marxist bullshit I've seen coming out of there recently. Basically I'm saying Australia seems like it's been subverted just as bad as a lot of western countries, but we thought you guys might be immune to that down there

>Libertarians try to get around this fact that freedom is not the only good thing by trying to reduce all other goods to it through the concept of choice, claiming that everything that is good is so because we choose to partake of it. Therefore freedom, by giving us choice, supposedly embraces all other goods. But this violates common sense by denying that anything is good by nature, independently of whether we choose it. Nourishing foods are good for us by nature, not because we choose to eat them. Taken to its logical conclusion, the reduction of the good to the freely chosen means there are no inherently good or bad choices at all, but that a man who chose to spend his life playing tiddlywinks has lived as worthy a life as a Washington or a Churchill.

>Furthermore, the reduction of all goods to individual choices presupposes that all goods are individual. But some, like national security, clean air, or a healthy culture, are inherently collective. It may be possible to privatize some, but only some, and the efforts can be comically inefficient. Do you really want to trace every pollutant in the air back to the factory that emitted it and sue?

>Libertarians rightly concede that one’s freedom must end at the point at which it starts to impinge upon another person’s, but they radically underestimate how easily this happens. So even if the libertarian principle of “an it harm none, do as thou wilt,” is true, it does not license the behavior libertarians claim. Consider pornography: libertarians say it should be permitted because if someone doesn’t like it, he can choose not to view it. But what he can’t do is choose not to live in a culture that has been vulgarized by it.

3/?

Does this fuck not understand freedom of association? How does having a libertarian govt prevent collective acting outside the government?

fucked up and got dubs, this post was meant in response to you

...

>Libertarians in real life rarely live up to their own theory but tend to indulge in the pleasant parts while declining to live up to the difficult portions. They flout the drug laws but continue to collect government benefits they consider illegitimate. This is not just an accidental failing of libertarianism’s believers but an intrinsic temptation of the doctrine that sets it up to fail whenever tried, just like Marxism.

>Libertarians need to be asked some hard questions. What if a free society needed to draft its citizens in order to remain free? What if it needed to limit oil imports to protect the economic freedom of its citizens from unfriendly foreigners? What if it needed to force its citizens to become sufficiently educated to sustain a free society? What if it needed to deprive landowners of the freedom to refuse to sell their property as a precondition for giving everyone freedom of movement on highways? What if it needed to deprive citizens of the freedom to import cheap foreign labor in order to keep out poor foreigners who would vote for socialistic wealth redistribution?

>In each of these cases, less freedom today is the price of more tomorrow. Total freedom today would just be a way of running down accumulated social capital and storing up problems for the future. So even if libertarianism is true in some ultimate sense, this does not prove that the libertarian policy choice is the right one today on any particular question.

4/?

They literally always put out the worst candidates of all time except for Rand, that once. Then they turned their backs on him like the cunts they are

I'm a Social Libertarian and that's why I vote PC

We are not. It is common to see white people mixing with Asians now. That is in part due to our geographic location and in part due to the increasing influence of Asian economies (china for example).

There is a resilient aussie culture underneath that basically says "fuck america" but it is eroding steadily.

The logical conclusion of libertarianism is ancap.
Terrible idea.

Every libertarian i ever met was a utopianist faggot spouting nonsense pipedreams of a fantast eutopia that could exist

>Furthermore, if limiting freedom today may prolong it tomorrow, then limiting freedom tomorrow may prolong it the day after and so on, so the right amount of freedom may in fact be limited freedom in perpetuity. But if limited freedom is the right choice, then libertarianism, which makes freedom an absolute, is simply wrong. If all we want is limited freedom, then mere liberalism will do, or even better, a Burkean conservatism that reveres traditional liberties. There is no need to embrace outright libertarianism just because we want a healthy portion of freedom, and the alternative to libertarianism is not the USSR, it is America’s traditional liberties.

>Libertarianism’s abstract and absolutist view of freedom leads to bizarre conclusions. Like slavery, libertarianism would have to allow one to sell oneself into it. (It has been possible at certain times in history to do just that by assuming debts one could not repay.) And libertarianism degenerates into outright idiocy when confronted with the problem of children, whom it treats like adults, supporting the abolition of compulsory education and all child-specific laws, like those against child labor and child sex. It likewise cannot handle the insane and the senile.

5/?

You may have to define authoritarian, are you full ancap? Not calling for an authoritarian government though as I think you mean it, I'm saying I favor limited government for my (the West's) people. Now how you get from where we are to where we need to go for that to work is a messy question. Libertarianism is certainly not the answer though. You have to realize our countries are run by evil fucking people, there is going to have to a fight before any of your ideals become realistic to practice

So basically just like a communist.

I know that feel bro.

>Libertarians argue that radical permissiveness, like legalizing drugs, would not shred a libertarian society because drug users who caused trouble would be disciplined by the threat of losing their jobs or homes if current laws that make it difficult to fire or evict people were abolished. They claim a “natural order” of reasonable behavior would emerge. But there is no actual empirical proof that this would happen. Furthermore, this means libertarianism is an all-or-nothing proposition: if society continues to protect people from the consequences of their actions in any way, libertarianism regarding specific freedoms is illegitimate. And since society does so protect people, libertarianism is an illegitimate moral position until the Great Libertarian Revolution has occurred.

>And is society really wrong to protect people against the negative consequences of some of their free choices? While it is obviously fair to let people enjoy the benefits of their wise choices and suffer the costs of their stupid ones, decent societies set limits on both these outcomes. People are allowed to become millionaires, but they are taxed. They are allowed to go broke, but they are not then forced to starve. They are deprived of the most extreme benefits of freedom in order to spare us the most extreme costs. The libertopian alternative would be perhaps a more glittering society, but also a crueler one.

>Empirically, most people don’t actually want absolute freedom, which is why democracies don’t elect libertarian governments. Irony of ironies, people don’t choose absolute freedom. But this refutes libertarianism by its own premise, as libertarianism defines the good as the freely chosen, yet people do not choose it. Paradoxically, people exercise their freedom not to be libertarians.

6/?

Cred Forums is now in favor of extreme authoritarian fascist statism, the natsocs and stormfags have taken over. ron paulicans left Cred Forums a long time ago, and ron paul is considered a cuck by the new Cred Forums standards

All is not lost
youtube.com/watch?v=7UFmwArST-I

>The political corollary of this is that since no electorate will support libertarianism, a libertarian government could never be achieved democratically but would have to be imposed by some kind of authoritarian state, which rather puts the lie to libertarians’ claim that under any other philosophy, busybodies who claim to know what’s best for other people impose their values on the rest of us. Libertarianism itself is based on the conviction that it is the one true political philosophy and all others are false. It entails imposing a certain kind of society, with all its attendant pluses and minuses, which the inhabitants thereof will not be free to opt out of except by leaving.

>And if libertarians ever do acquire power, we may expect a farrago of bizarre policies. Many support abolition of government-issued money in favor of that minted by private banks. But this has already been tried, in various epochs, and doesn’t lead to any wonderful paradise of freedom but only to an explosion of fraud and currency debasement followed by the concentration of financial power in those few banks that survive the inevitable shaking-out. Many other libertarian schemes similarly founder on the empirical record.

>A major reason for this is that libertarianism has a naïve view of economics that seems to have stopped paying attention to the actual history of capitalism around 1880. There is not the space here to refute simplistic laissez faire, but note for now that the second-richest nation in the world, Japan, has one of the most regulated economies, while nations in which government has essentially lost control over economic life, like Russia, are hardly economic paradises. Legitimate criticism of over-regulation does not entail going to the opposite extreme.

7/?

>Libertarian naïveté extends to politics. They often confuse the absence of government impingement upon freedom with freedom as such. But without a sufficiently strong state, individual freedom falls prey to other more powerful individuals. A weak state and a freedom-respecting state are not the same thing, as shown by many a chaotic Third-World tyranny.

>Libertarians are also naïve about the range and perversity of human desires they propose to unleash. They can imagine nothing more threatening than a bit of Sunday-afternoon sadomasochism, followed by some recreational drug use and work on Monday. They assume that if people are given freedom, they will gravitate towards essentially bourgeois lives, but this takes for granted things like the deferral of gratification that were pounded into them as children without their being free to refuse. They forget that for much of the population, preaching maximum freedom merely results in drunkenness, drugs, failure to hold a job, and pregnancy out of wedlock. Society is dependent upon inculcated self-restraint if it is not to slide into barbarism, and libertarians attack this self-restraint. Ironically, this often results in internal restraints being replaced by the external restraints of police and prison, resulting in less freedom, not more.

>This contempt for self-restraint is emblematic of a deeper problem: libertarianism has a lot to say about freedom but little about learning to handle it. Freedom without judgment is dangerous at best, useless at worst. Yet libertarianism is philosophically incapable of evolving a theory of how to use freedom well because of its root dogma that all free choices are equal, which it cannot abandon except at the cost of admitting that there are other goods than freedom. Conservatives should know better.

8/8

Robert Locke; The American Conservative theamericanconservative.com/articles/marxism-of-the-right/

I've never met a communist so idk. You don't really meet a lot of government boot lickers in the south

>utopian
>libertarian

No. You don't get it. It's up to each individual to make the best of this shit world. Utopian fantasies are force fed by the statists.

>not knowing the history of libertarianism
>not knowing that the first person described as a "libertarian" was a French communist

You have a long way to go before this is a plausible idea in peoples heads, but time is running short and big corps who like big gov have it all locked down.

You want open boarders but the people coming in (poor or not) will just end up voting democrat and making society servile.

You need to actually engage with society itself and encourage independent business or people will not feel enfranchised with the idea of libertarianism. People who are freaked out by the evil kkk republicans just fall into the honeypots set by the democrats.

Look at the chump you have representing the libertarian party ffs. Anyone can hijack your party simply as a no-confidence vote. Supporters think it is about being allowed to get naked at conferences.

Your are too low energy. Do something and stop sitting there talking about how people have to make up their own minds while powerful people contort the world view around them and so do the thinking for them.

Fuck off kike. Go back to Vaucluse you filthy subhuman

Stop talking out your ass kike. Go shill your multicultural agenda somewhere else. Only people i see with Asians are the old boys with a mail order Philippino

...

Purely because it is seen as a non-vote on a left-right line. The idiots don't do the ground work or sell the concepts of how it would function to the masses.

The masses all work for large corporations chummy with gov or consume corporate monopoly media and are dependent on the state in some way while they do irresponsible shit free from responsibility when frustrated at their lot in life.
They don't own nothing goyim.

No. Border enforcement is a government restriction on the movement of people, which runs counter to libertarianism. Libertarians are also very pro-Free Trade (which Trump is against).

That is why they are retarded. They have no sense of structure or strategy.

Libertarianism is shit, what we need is a mixture of Nationalism and Socialism.

Trump isn't against Free trade, he is against unfair trade deals.

Anyone that thinks free trade by itself is bad is a retard

>I'm getting mixed signals regarding this board
That's because Cred Forums isn't and has never been one person, you stupid fucking datamining faggot.
Fuck googletarianism.

Ron Paul would destroy Hillary in a debate. Retarded media wouldnt be able to do their "fact checking" bullshit since Ron Paul puts his words into straight forward truths. Hillary would be on the defense entire debate

Cred Forums has always been a libertarian board. The anons that suggest otherwise are fucktard newfags and/or kike shills.

Cred Forums what would I be?
I am fiscally conservative (but don't think that every problem can be solves by the free market like libertarians think)
But generally socially liberal (Not as bad as SJWs and progressives, but I'm generally inclusive)
Plus I'm huge on civil liberties like guns, NSA, etc.

Not giving a fuck.

Was about to post this.
Ancap thread now

Trump wants to impose up to 45% tariffs on imported goods, that is called "protectionism" which IS THE FUCKING OPPOSITE OF FREE TRADE.

Free trade literally means the elimination of tariffs.

You clueless fucking retard.

This is called having no principles.

It's just that Gary Johnson is a crazy retard. ...

Personally I'm a fascist, so I'm outside his spectrum. Respect him as a principled man though.

1. Cred Forums is not one person

2. Ideology is worthless unless it addresses the real and specific problems of the present

I'm not a libertarian because of ideology. I'm a libertarian because our federal government is the epitome of evil and needs to be opposed at every single step. In addition, as far as I understand, Austrian economics and free market policies are the most economically sound.

At the same time, that needs to be combined with healthy nationalism and love & appreciation for culture.

In other words, if you're not voting Trump you're a retard.

...

Libertarianism is tight but not Gary Johnson's brand.

You wot, son?
Weren't you seen Monday at Starbucks with a Vietnamese trap sipping Chai lattes in Sydney?

Your mother is ashamed of the person you've become, and you know it.

I sure hope so.

A tax on American businesses that leave the country, yes.

Not all libertarians support open borders, faggot. Do you even Hoppe?

I'd be willing to bet that you've sampled your own feces at least once in your life.

It's half and half. Or use to be before it got gay and moved to the center

Half was hard core paleolibertarians the other half was national socialist or more accurately stormfags.

Take that as you will.

Then I have a bridge to sell you

It varies depending on the person or if you discern between minarchists or individualists and libertarians, but yes libertarianism is generally just anti governmental regulation and laws, except when the outlawed activity is something that would directly limit the rights of others and opposition of taxation in any way that isn't absolutely necessary. The legalization of drugs that most libertarians, myself included, want is based on the thought that the government only has the right to outlaw activities that directly harm or restrict the rights of others, and using drugs, even if it is a horrible decision, doesn't affect anyone but the user and therefore should be legal. What is still disputed among libertarians and is essentially the main difference between modern libertarians and minarchists is the extent to which they believe the government can tax and give welfare benefits. Most agree today that there should be some form of safety net welfare and public or publically funded private schools. The average libertarian will be in favor of some kind of monetary welfare, although not much of it, and fully public schools, whereas minarchists and individualists will typically favor either no welfare at all or just food stamps, and little to no government involvement in schools.

You talk like a faggot and your shits all retarded.

Libertarianism only requires two things:

Non agression principles and private property

Copyright is anti libertarian/ancap that image is retarted.

Can't impose a contract on a 3rd party without concent

gee I wonder who could be behind (((libertarianism)))

>that image is retarded
so is libertardianism

He is saying nothing of substance and posting weak memes. Total lightweight fedora.

...

Exactly my point.

Out of curiosity, have you ever had a job that deals extensively with the public, particularly the underclass? I don't ask to be a pedantic asshole, but because I hadn't either when I held strongly libertarian beliefs. Once I did have a job that involved daily contact with the inner city, transients, drug addicts, etc, my views changed pretty drastically. I still believe that in most things we should try and maximize freedom in things regarding speech or access to information. However, I think it would be a disaster if all drugs and "public order crimes" were suddenly decriminalized. As much as I'd like to turn a could shoulder and chalk it up to survival of the fittest, having massive amounts of people dying from drugs and other vice isn't a symptom of a healthy society. Essentially, there is a segment of the population, the size of which is up for debate, that cannot handle absolute freedom in every facet of life.

Pic unrelated, I just like Indian Facebook.

...

Minarchist here, one thing I have noticed is that minarchism doesn't usually carry with it (obviously in theory) a radical restructuring of the government, usually just a large restriction in size. For instance many minarchists (myself included) feel there should be an infrastructure tax for roads and such, whereas individualist libertarians believe any taxation is, on principle, theft.

Quite insightful my good sir. Truly makes one ponder.

Pure libertarianism is like pure socialism in that it sounds real nice on paper and also makes an excellent strawman for detractors

Lets pretend that in a libertarian society, public order crimes were legalized. With no large leftist state to leech off of, the lesser element of society would either get with the program or die off in a matter of a few short years. Instead of allowing the problem to fester, we simply let it die on its own.

After maybe 20 years of national socialism degeneracy will be purged enough to make libertarianism viable.

Which drugs? all of them
Tax system? What tax system?
libertarianism is the foundation of liberty. All other philosophies restrict freedom in various ways.

Ron Paul was god-tier but no one liked him. That is when I realized there was seriously something wrong with the country. I started to become more redpilled and I realized that the problem was culture and loss of tradition. Meanwhile libertarianism became more edgy and now you have faggots like Milo trying to subvert any real opposition to the status quo. Libertarians are not a threat to leftists.

Exactly.

yes but realistically, having there be very very small taxes to pay for things like roads and bridges would probably work better than zero taxation. Yes you have to minutely sacrifice a singular principle but the value for cost is extraordinary.

...

>economists
>associated with the frankfurt school and bolshevism
no, Murry Rothbard and the Austrian school might have gotten some things wrong, but they were overall right on their stances against inflation and most regulation

E

...

.

Logging off after posting this btw. U lose.

Don't forget to log out of your Cred Forums account