Member
RPM
Birdboy
xVampire3go
Antlers
Space Core
X Fiendfyre X
Zeus23
Nightwing95
BurnDaWitch
Libertarianism is a spectrum disorder. Some are anarchists. The driving question within libertarianism is what is a commodity and what isn't. Actually, this is the driving question of modern economics, it's just that libertarianism tends to think that too many things have been decomodified. However, if you believe that everything except your own body is a commodity, than Anarcho-Capitalism is sorta the natural place for you to go.
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.
This seems like a straw man. If someone breaks into your house, yeh, that's not arbitrary property rights. Arbitrary property rights would be shit like, say, protecting the intellectual copyright of dead people, or enforcing an investors right to a proportion of property they have never visited at the expense of the workers.
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....
anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secb3.html
quora.com/Does-communism-allow-you-to…
reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/4r3qq…
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.
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.
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...
This is the inherent problem with libertarianism though. People are not economic units, they are people. Your boss doesn't entirely act in his logical self interest. Neither will his customers. Neither will you. Your boss might do something that is irrational and makes the system you are describing despotic. For instance, Imagine a scenario where we nix sexual harassment laws. While Ron Paul blows a kazoo in the libertarian fortress of doom, some teenage girl somewhere gets fired because she wouldn't go the extra mile with her boss. To keep sexual harassment laws is to accept that we aren't rational actors all the time, and that state intervention is sometimes necessary.
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.
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.
I never argued that it is a flawless system, clearly some people can't even seem to agree exactly what it actually is. But it certainly has more credence and realism to how the world works. (Certainly hasn't lead to any regimes...) Self interest. And frankly the reason people find selflessness so reassuring and pleasant is because of how rare of a concept that is. Because it is, humans may be social creatures by nature. But most of our actions DO revolve around self interest/preservation.
There are people who identify as Alt-Right. They exist. Like SJW's, they are an small minority, but they do exist.
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? Where's there U.N meetings taking them seriously? I don't see it...So I really wouldn't compare them in scale or relevance to say the least. But again, it's a completely new term...it's not based in actual history in anyway whatsoever.
and an ethno-state free of minorities.
'Citation needed' that the alt-right as a whole wants this. :P
Okay, nobody was debating this point. You are rambling, sir. Try to keep to, like, five sentence answers or something. Be concise so this debate doesn't get out of control pls.
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.
I'd argue the person I was replying to, was inferring that the alt right, who supposedly are the main supporters of trump, are mostly all white people and that the white supremacist will now rise because of the election results.
Why can't I bring up something a little different if it still refers to what I'm talking about? Why am only I not allowed to do this? And "concise" / 2 sentences sometimes can't debunk several pages and walls of text. I hate to tell you.
First and formost Millenials are adults, so what we are about is irrelevant.
Not to what I'm discussing, or what I'm talking about...and millennials are the generation that voted for trump and the ones actively involved in current politics, not the newest generation. Not to any real extent. I don't think 12 year old's are joining the white supremacist movement to say the least.
Second, yeh, teenagers don't have complex political opinions. What I am saying is that fucking with feminists and saying racist shit isn't evidence that teenagers are all right-wingers now, it's just evidence they are teenagers.
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.
Sincerely, have a good day. I might not have been perfectly clear, but it was me replying to three separate people. Probably doesn't come off perfectly, telling me to 'write five sentences' doesn't particularly bring much to the conversation. ;3
