SpiralStairs wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
tommy wrote:
denisdman wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Ogie is a great American.
Glad he's on our side
Might I suggest taking your tongue out of his ass?
Ogie's not on our side. There is no "our" for libertarians. He's out for himself. Fuck the social consequences. For a guy who is against violence, he sure seems to reference it in nearly every post. And for a guy is pro-individual rights, he is glad to ignore the rights of others when you mention Israel. (And no, that doesn't make me anti-Semitic.)
Libertarians stand for nothing. Like Tea Partiers and SJWs, they are often incapable of nuance. What's more, they view sacrifice as a weakness. Their conscious minds are riddled with blind spots, and the only arguments in their bag are repetition and volume.
Ok. Now go clean your chin.
You're taking a very simplified view of a philosophy that simply puts individual rights above collective rights. I simply believe in empowering the individual and believe in a simple concept of live and left live This can be summed up in the NAP.
It's laughable to say Libertarians stand for nothing when they stand for the natural and inalienable rights of the individual above all else and believe that those rights should not be ceded to the state. I'd say that is standing up for plenty. I strongly suggest that you read some of Locke and Hobbes. You may have a better idea of where I cam coming from there.
I think I've also made it clear that I deplore violence. I'm decidedly anti-war and anti-violence except as a last resort. Do I think we need to violently resist the current state in America? No. Do I think we will get to that point in my lifetime? Doubtful. With that said, the fact that it remains a possibility is enough to justify a population of armed civilians being maintained as a bulwark in the event an unlikely situation occurs. Our founding fathers certainly probably had faith their Constitution would hold up, but even then they also knew nothing is guaranteed and that one day the government they set up could become too powerful, just as the prior monarchs had. It is for that reason we have our 2nd Amendment.
I want to sell my kid to a guy who wants to use him as one would a cum sock. Should the state be allowed to stop me?
selling another person violates the NAP and certainly violates their natural rights. I do not believe in no state (that's anarchy, not libertarianism) I believe in a restrained states.
Do you really think we are well off with a state that perpetuates 16 years (and counting) of undeclared wars overseas, collects bulk data without warrants, executes the failed drug war, uses civil asset forfeiture, kills people without trial via drones, etc.? I think I've raised some valid concerns with several areas where our nation's government oversteps any reasonable bounds If that doesn't bother you fine, but these are all things which deeply bother me. You should find these realities to be far more disturbing that your invented hypotheticals.
Is it too much to ask that we not continue endless wars, stop spying on our citizens, end the drug war, restore due process, stop the use of police for purposes of theft, stop using drones to kill without trial, and cease the militarization of our police forces? I'd say all of the above are reasonable requests.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
