[quote]There is no level of "getting fucked around with" by the police transacting in this example. Will there inevitably be those officers who purposefully antagonize civilian populace? Yes, but they already exist and no one is fond of them as. This sort of screening is not an attack on anyone to be viewed as being born of doing something wrong when they haven't. In reality, the purpose of a security checkpoint as I said, even if it is not taking account of every vehicle, is to give the perception to a potential threat they might be caught before they can act and by additional quality, find a few persons of interest accidentally.[/quote] That's not the way people think though. Even if you have done nothing wrong, a security checkpoint typically feels invasive. It's like a tax audit. Nobody likes to be audited, even if they know their taxes are clean. Having authority figures poking around our shit when we haven't actually done anything to warrant it is obnoxious. [quote]I would like to know your issue with sobriety checkpoints, because even living in a location with one of the highest numbers of yearly intoxicated driving casualties, these have been less than a few minutes of my time consistently. And I will note I am none too fond of the potentially radical implication leveled against law enforcement officers, which I will address in light later.[/quote] Sobriety checkpoints, in my experience, are a hassle even if you want cops poking around your shit. They always slow traffic way the fuck down. I don't believe cops are dragging people out and beating them all the time at these things, that's not what I am saying. It's not radical to say you don't want authorities annoying you for no real reason though. [quote]No, the Democratic party is not all true leftists, but when your party was fielding a candidate, with any seriousness at all, such as Sanders, I would call that extreme.[/quote] Sanders was a throwback to the New Deal dems. The idea that Sanders is an extremist is a clear sign that we are way the fuck out right of the typical political spectrum. IMHO Social Democrats are pretty fucking milquetoast. [quote]you do not see me showing much sympathy for those on the true Alt-Right who might hold beliefs that some races or faiths are inherently inferior or that taxation is theft and the central government is evil.[/quote] Err, A: There isn't anything wrong with you sympathizing with libertarians. They are wrong, not evil. B: Those forces exist within the right and regularly feed it. The taxation is theft crowd is a well established part of right wing politics in America, and they have ran their fair share of candidates in the past. I feel you are under the impression that anything that deviates from the center is a monstrosity. The problem with the Alt-Right, for instance, is not that they are too far from the center, but rather that their ideas are horribly unjust. [quote]Carrying on, those stereotypes are all targets of the Alt-Right and the "Alt-Right" who they both strike and lash out at, as minority as they are, but I also note that approximately .3% of the United States population, as example, is transgendered yet look at the level of catering received or allocated to it and the amount of attention it received. The left found a niche in this tiny percentage and as a relative whole, leveraged it into a national debate when it was and is a non-issue.[/quote] The idea of justice in general is that it is available to all. If there is a small portion of the population who are being treated unjustly, their small number doesn't mean that the injustice is acceptable. If you want to argue about whether or not they are being treated unjustly, that's one thing, but saying "There isn't enough of them to care about." is fucked up. [quote]The difference with these fringe radicals is that one group, the Far Left, has shown they are willing to do that or permit that sort of mindset in public. They are the ones burning down their colleges, breaking windows, attacking citizens to include committing assault with deadly weapons, using low-level explosives and smoke, and any other number of more violent criminal activity to help broadcast their message. No less, some of those fragments in the far left who advocate, and at least many more provide excuse for, the infamous rally cry of "Pigs in the blanket, fry them like bacon." Again, the Far Left demonstrates an intent to do harm, acting on opportunities to do harm, and the capability to do harm. [/quote] You make this sound ridiculously endemic, when this is a pretty small potatoes issue right now. Drive to most colleges or windows in the United States and I think you'll find them unburned and unbroken. Violence happens on the fringes, and at this point it is under control so it isn't a major problem. Your argument, honestly, is as silly if I kept pounding you in the head with Dylan Roof, or those Alt-Right guys who keep showing up to protests now. I mean, both of those arose in an atmosphere of right wing culture, does that make the existence of the right wing in general culpable for their existence specifically? That's silly. [quote]A disorder eh? Sounds purely factual to me. But no, even on the political compass it clearly shows what it is, now sure some people don't use it correctly and politics has it's subtle differences. But I don't really think that's the main focus of Libertarianism. Opinions of non-interventionism has nothing to do with what is and what is not a commodity. [/quote] Once I went to use the word "Spectrum", I just [i]had[/i] to continue with disorder, couldn't help myself. We are here to keep our host entertained. [@Dynamo Frokane] [img]http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/ayne.gif[/img] But yes, Libertarianism is on a spectrum moving from Republicans who like weed on down to An-Caps. All of that belongs to Libertarian thought. [quote]I'll start with begging people to stop using the word strawman if it doesn't actually fit the sentence, a strawman is an argument that hasn't come up or existed by real people. Something like trickle down economics, never existed. But if you're trying to argue that people haven't argued that people shouldn't own your home. I hate to break it to you.... [/quote] So if decreasing taxes on the rich doesn't help the through job creation for the poor, then why would anybody support decreasing said rich people taxes? That is an argument that exists, and is what the term "Trickle down economics" describe, then whether or not the term itself was used by those who pushed for it is neither here nor there. Also, we aren't arguing about Stalinism right now. That was another thread. You were using home rights as a defense for all property rights, which isn't really appropriate. [quote]Aside from most of this being bullshit that actually means nothing, and if it's not abide-able by law what you "feel" it means, is absolutely worthless. The best defense for a dozen people is "oh people wont use your underwear" everyone owns everything! But yeah personal propriety. Which isn't a legal term, so means nothing. Yeah, that means, they CAN use it. They can legally steal your shit, without penalty. [/quote] Personal property is a legal term. Hence why we pay personal property taxes. But that's irrelevant anyway, because if you make systematic changes you'd presumably adapt the legal system to those changes. [quote]Also it tries to argue, anything you own that makes you money is the difference. Is private property and whatever doesn't is "personal", so a guitar...if you'd play and had a tip jar. That would no longer be you're personal propriety. According to this logic. That was not a straw-man because IT WAS MADE BY A PERSON.[/quote] You can argue that, but it's irrelevant to the discussion because I wasn't arguing that. In my opinion the line is drawn where the absence of the thing isn't realized by the thing itself, but rather the absence of the income produced by the thing. If someone takes your car, even if you are an Uber driver, the absence of the car itself is the thing. If someone takes your Wal-Mart though, you aren't all like "Oh no! The shelves." So whereas the former, personal property, is an inalienable right, the later, abstract property, is up for public discussion. [quote]Also you disregard my statement about, people successfully suing others for trying to steal people's stuff or breaking and entering, and getting rewarded for it. Is that a straw-man? Because it seems like the COURTS, disagree that no one is doing it. It was probably being done more than ever...[/quote] wat? [quote]Let me break down that scenario for you then, in a libertarian world, a teen is fired because of her sexist boss. Okay, so she'll point that out, people will realize to not go there. And that company loses money. Just because some people act irrationally doesn't mean at fucking all that success should be YOUR responsibility, in this case the boss failed to run a successful business due to mistreating employees. Their competitors have far better work conditions and therefore see more business.[/quote] If this were true, and everybody purchased along ethical lines, then big box stores would never have overcame small businesses. Experience has shown that people shop based on convenience rather than a complex ethical decisions, and that's sensible, because nobody has time to research every purchase meticulously. I can't be fuckin' bothered to google the owner of a store before I go to buy toilet paper there. So in the real world, that teen is fired and maybe her parents and friends don't go to his business, but most people would anyway because they either don't know about the problem or don't give a shit. An injustice has taken place and Libertarianism has no practical answer for it. [quote]In an authoritarian fantasy world, that same corporation, let's say cannot simply fire people. Once you're hired, you are there for good. That asshole boss still exists. So, that world keeps her job she likely hates and can't get away from. And all the customers also CAN'T go anywhere else. Because that IS the only other corporation. It receives bailouts, because no matter how bad it is. IT CAN'T FAIL.[/quote] To the furthest of my knowledge no business has ever received a bailout for diddling the help. In our current system we have laws in place to protect employees. The point being, sometimes people are not rational actors and you need to intervene in the system to keep it just. [quote]I've never seen anyone in real life say they are. Some people probably took the label to heart, like the SJW's did, which I believe was also not something they attributed to themselves at first. But once again, I have to ask is it really on par? Why aren't there giant riots full of them? [/quote] What would they be rioting for? Their movement is new and doing well enough by simply existing, so there wouldn't really be a point to them rioting. But I think we have established that both extremes exist so we'll carry on. [quote]'Citation needed' that the alt-right as a whole wants this. :P[/quote] Richard Spencer. I suspect anybody calling themselves alt right but not wanting ethno-states are really either libertarians or regular conservatives and don't exactly need a separate term, meaning the only unique thing the term Alt Right describes are the ethno-state folk. [quote]You're argument is nobody brought it up, even if that was true. You realize you are now telling me to "talk less" or dumb down my sentences because it's too complicated and is out of nowhere. When everyone else in this page has brought up additional and off topic things and everyone else's posts, are also walls of text, but without all the links I provided to actually provide solid backing for my text. But it's somehow bad because I'm doing it. Not following your own rules, and telling me I'm rambling. Even if true, is hypocritical at best.[/quote] The problem is you get into a lot of non sequitors and it can oftentimes be confusing to try and parse together what your thesis is. I'm not telling you to dumb things down, I'm asking for brevity because I think it would make the discussion less of a clusterfuck. [quote]I guess I agree? Though how does that correlate to "right wing opinions are popular with white folks in the pre-college era"? Because that was what I replied to.[/quote] Pre college would be teenagers. What I was saying is that highschoolers saying seemingly right wing things doesn't mean much because teenagers say random shit. So if someone hears teens going on about race or whatever, it doesn't mean the next group is Generation Zyklon. I say this because I remember people saying racist or homophobic shit all the time when i was in highschool, and my cohort of millenials are the ebil lazy lefties. also, what the righteous fuck is a smurf account? [quote=@Penny]As it happens I am relatively new to the site[/quote] welcome to the site. tell the moderators i welcomed you so i get some welcoming people to the site points that they are going to dole out.