Defense and justice are apparently important functions of a libertarian government?
Current government funding are markedly skewed already towards these two issues. The USA spent a trillion on "defense" for a single airplane. Probably there's no statistical difference in safety of Americans ovwr the past 30 years if we spent $10 trillion less on defense. But who's knowing? Libertarian predictors of the future?
The difference between the current Republic and the libertarian utopia is what?
238d
@wildgrass saidNo one is saying 'libertarian utopia' except the boot lickers putting up their stupid tired strawman to burn down, weeee, weeee.
Defense and justice are apparently important functions of a libertarian government?
Current government funding are markedly skewed already towards these two issues. The USA spent a trillion on "defense" for a single airplane. Probably there's no statistical difference in safety of Americans ovwr the past 30 years if we spent $10 trillion less on defense. But who's knowin ...[text shortened]... rs of the future?
The difference between the current Republic and the libertarian utopia is what?
Libertarian military policy is non-interventionist, defense only. What's called supposed defense now equals hundreds of bases all over the world. Like spruce I don't think you want to discuss the issue seriously. A quick google would have rendered your bait OP redundant.
@wajoma saidFaaaaacking strawman.? You are a shaman.
No one is saying 'libertarian utopia' except the boot lickers putting up their stupid tired strawman to burn down, weeee, weeee.
Libertarian military policy is non-interventionist, defense only. What's called supposed defense now equals hundreds of bases all over the world. Like spruce I don't think you want to discuss the issue seriously. A quick google would have rendered your bait OP redundant.
Google says you're wrong. Defend your position or stop saying that justice is a realistic goal of libertarianism.
@shavixmir saidthe same way was pointing a gun at everyone you meet before they attack you isn't defense
How are bases abroad not part of a defense policy?
238d
@wajoma saidYou cannot defend in the modern world without interventionist policies dumb ass. If you do not defend your geopolitical position you have to defend your front lawn instead, oh yeah and how do you in enforce the libertarian dream of free markets if you do not defend your ability to get your exports and imports to and from anywhere in the world.
No one is saying 'libertarian utopia' except the boot lickers putting up their stupid tired strawman to burn down, weeee, weeee.
Libertarian military policy is non-interventionist, defense only. What's called supposed defense now equals hundreds of bases all over the world. Like spruce I don't think you want to discuss the issue seriously. A quick google would have rendered your bait OP redundant.
You Libertarians haven’t really thought this through have you.
238d
@wajoma saidI'd missed this about libertarians. They are 'defense only'?? If Truman had been a libertarian, would he have NOT bombed hell out of the japs? Interesting. Well, I guess I will leave being a libertarian up to other people.
No one is saying 'libertarian utopia' except the boot lickers putting up their stupid tired strawman to burn down, weeee, weeee.
Libertarian military policy is non-interventionist, defense only. What's called supposed defense now equals hundreds of bases all over the world. Like spruce I don't think you want to discuss the issue seriously. A quick google would have rendered your bait OP redundant.
238d
@averagejoe1 saidThere will be boot licking state worshipping bureaurat brown nosing relapses but yes, I do think there is an ember there, zahlooney has the potential for the flames of freedom.
I'll thumbup as well on this post. Zahlanzi has promise! Is he a libertarian, or more of a strong get-things-done kinda guy?
238d
1 edit
@wajoma saidAt least us state worshipers have a vote, you boot licking corporate bitches would take that away and have us powerless in the face of the corporations private armies of thugs when they come to take our 💩 away and enslave us
There will be boot licking state worshipping bureaurat brown nosing relapses but yes, I do think there is an ember there, zahlooney has the potential for the flames of freedom.
No laws, no right of appeal, just the corporate “ jack boot on a human face forever”
238d
2 edits
@kevcvs57 saidHaha, you've got that Orwell quote 180 degrees opposite, back to front, inside out wrong.
At least us state worshipers have a vote, you boot licking corporate bitches would take that away and have us powerless in the face of the corporations private armies of thugs when they come to take our 💩 away and enslave us
No laws, no right of appeal, just the corporate “ jack boot on a human face forever”
Classic kev bamboozle.
Edit: Also kev bambbozle, mega drug corporation lickspittle, haw haw.
Edit2: I like people taking my shyte away, that's a good thing. But you don't have to eat it too kev.
238d
@kevcvs57 saidi don't get it. is this sarcasm?
You cannot defend in the modern world without interventionist policies dumb ass. If you do not defend your geopolitical position you have to defend your front lawn instead, oh yeah and how do you in enforce the libertarian dream of free markets if you do not defend your ability to get your exports and imports to and from anywhere in the world.
You Libertarians haven’t really thought this through have you.
238d
@wildgrass saidI was in the Libertarian Party for about 10 years and ran for office locally. So I know something about this.
Defense and justice are apparently important functions of a libertarian government?
Current government funding are markedly skewed already towards these two issues. The USA spent a trillion on "defense" for a single airplane. Probably there's no statistical difference in safety of Americans ovwr the past 30 years if we spent $10 trillion less on defense. But who's knowin ...[text shortened]... rs of the future?
The difference between the current Republic and the libertarian utopia is what?
There are two kinds of libertarians: anarchists and minarchists. Minarchists feel that a small government is necessary, so yes, defense and justice are important functions. Anarchists believe that, one day, all of government will be privatized and taxes eliminated. 'Taxation is Theft!' they like to chant. Justice can be privatized, they are sure. I've had libertarians patiently explain to me how national defense could be funded through private donations.
The inside baseball joke within the party goes "What's the difference between a minarchist and an anarchist? About 6 months." Implication -> anarchy (i.e. no government) is where we SHOULD all be heading. Minarchists are just 'scaredy cats', afraid to let go of the side of the pool and swim into deep water.
This schism has been recognized since the party was founded and in 1974 in Dallas an accord was made that libertarians wouldn't stress about this difference. Anarchists and minarchists would accept the joint goal of REDUCING the size of government, and worry only much later about whether to get rid of the tiny stub of government that would remain after cutting most of it.
I was always a minarchist, and so I put up with the good-natured ribbing you get in the party for being a 'statist' (i.e. someone who believes in states.) There is a VERY strong libertarian current of thought that DOES NOT BELIEVE in borders. Borders are EVIL AND WRONG. Just eliminate all borders between nation states.
There is another group that really hates roads. 'Why do we need government to build roads? Government sucks. If a road is needed, people will just build a toll road!'
And so on.
My break with the party began when I comprehended that the difference between anarchists and minarchists was not "6 months" but basic beliefs about rights and obligations.
- Minarchists believe we are obliged to help protect one another's rights.
- Anarchists just don't. Everyone should behave and protect themselves.
That schism which was papered over in 1974 CAN'T be papered over. It's axiomatic.
So when you say 'libertarian uptopia', there are two VERY different visions of that.
Then came Trump. Again: context. There was a libertarian candidate for President (you've never heard of him; Adam Kokesh) whose single-issue platform was an "orderly dissolution of the federal government." He said if elected, he would do nothing and just let the government die from inactivity. Well, for some libertarians, Trump was "the most libertarian President in history." Because what did he do? Cut taxes. Cut a few environmental regulations. And that was it. He didn't do anything else.
That was more or less the last straw for me. I couldn't see how Trump was a libertarian. He isn't. He's authoritarian. But some libertarians were willing to cheer on a strongman, as long as he burned the government down.
It threw the split in the party into sharp relief. And I left after that.