No, I perfectly understand you. When you say "lol at all things" you don't mean all things at all, you just mean the things you want to LOL at, irregardless of whether they actually have any real or imagined connection to libertarianism.

Getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar is not "being misunderstood". Sorry.

OK fair enough. I guess the whole juncture of 'Statist'-rights-ism -vs- Libertarian-type-ism is kinda complicated.

First they're two different things. You can be a 'Statist'-rights-type and not be a Libertarian-type, and vise versa.

However, as I mentioned above, when someone is both a 'Statist'-rights-type and a Libertarian-type, AFAIK their 'Statist'-rights-ism always trumps their Libertarian-type-ism.

For example: let's say some dude, let's call him Ron, held "don't war on drug users" as his personal Libertarian-type Ideal. But if he was also a 'Statist'-rights-type, and his state happened to be warring on drug users, Ron would say... "fair enough, as long as those DAMN FEDS DON'T GET INVOLVED !!!1!".

No matter what they say, or how much they might otherwise stay pure in their Libertarian-type-ism, the Ron's of the world... well they are just simply not against the War on Drug Users. The same way as they are just simply not against the War on a Woman's Right to Choose.

So yeah... LOL@ 'Statist'-rights-types. That doesn't necessarily have anything to say about Libertarian-type-ism. You are correct.

But... but I gotta believe that the most popular flavor of Libertarian-type-ism is virulently 'Statist'-rights. Again, just like L.Ron. Most of the self-identifying Libertarian-types I talk to IRL are 'Statist'-rights-types. That's almost always how I can spot them... they are always prating on about the 'evils' of only one particular level of government.

So yeah... the first LOL is when a Ron outs himself as a 'Statist'-rights-type. That shiz is just bone-head stupid. The second LOL is when Ron doubles down, and further outs himself as a Libertarian-type. That's what the whole thread's about. But here's the part you might be missing... a third LOL happens when a Ron tries to rationalize the unavoidable contradictions between his Libertarian-type-ism and his 'Statist'-rights-ism. LMFAO you can't be both for and against the same exact thing.

Bottom line is this: I believe most Libertarian-types in the US are 'Statist'-rights-types. They are flat out not against the War on Drug Users. I believe most of the rest of US Libertarian-types are in favor of continued prohibitions, with the exception of pot.

I'd hardly call something a group's Ideal if only a decided minority of the people in that group shared it.

So you're ACTUALLY in love with REAL libertarian ideals, and you just get SO MAD that these other people you've met claim to be libertarian but are actually statist, so you're going to SHOW THEM by... calling them libertarians, creating a bunch of confusion, and in the process smear all the other people who are libertarians and NOT secret closet statists.

Sounds like a very intellectually honest and not at all sleazy endeavor you've got going there, sir. Don't ever change.

It could easily be LOL sample size, I'll admit that. Out-of-the-closet Libertarian-types are very rare in the wild.

The IWW is an apolitical union. One of our sayings is "you check your politics, along with your coat, at the door". As long as they're not a "hire & fire" boss, any Libertarian-type is welcome to join.

However, we are an out-of-the-closet anti-capitalist union. I'm guessing notta whole lotta Libertarian-types are members. None that I know of.

No, of course not. There's a real difference Objectivism -vs- Libertarianism (proper)... one's a cult of personality, while the other's a cult without personality. Other than that, they're indistinguishable.

That's what the whole "-type" thingees was for

How can you be against trading?

Dude, don't worry. Missiledog has his finger on the pulse of REAL libertarians. You know, the ones who aren't libertarians.

So has anyone asked for some "libertarian ideas" that aren't akin to thinking breathing is a good idea? What are some uniquely libertarian ideas that aren't lolworthy?

There are no uniquely libertarian ideas any more than there are any uniquely liberal or conservative ideas.

See... this is why I never use the word 'statist'. WTF does it even mean ?? It's almost exclusively used by Libertarian-types as a pejorative for all non-Libertarian-types. Let's see how that hunch reads...

OK... it looks like the Libertarian-type equivalent of the US Republicans never ending game of "Who's the RINO"... LINO I guess. Anyways, I think we are mainly agreeing here. This is what I'm hearing...



No can do. See Rule#1 above.

WP sir !!!1!
FYP
Err, Libertarian-type-ism is ultra conservative. Ultra-conservatives most certainly embraces ideals that liberals and mainstream conservatives don't share.

Another fine example of how classic Ron Paul-style Libertarianism isn't inherently going to produce the results you guys want. Shifting drug enforcement from the federal level to the state level won't help if people like Chuck Schumer are in charge on the state level.

Alternatively, we can imagine a strong federal government deciding to decriminalize and tax weed --this is almost certainly going to happen within a generation in the US.


Is "Libertarianism" then really just a question of results and not process?

Libertarianism is ultra liberal IMO.

Ron Paul isn't a classic libertarian.

And libertarians aren't generally in favor of shifting drug enforcement from the federal to the state. They oppose it entirely.

So no drug laws is a uniquely libertarian idea that is loltastic. Thanks Alex!

Indeed, the end goal seems to be far more important than the process.

I probably should have labeled Ron Paul a "classic American Libertarian," since he goes all the way back to the "states rights" origins of American-style Libertarianism.

What?

Wait, you didn't mean that libertarians are against drug laws?

No, but it's not uniquely libertarian.

Knowledge about books is librarian, but not uniquely.

I mean, I think it's pretty important. The whole thread is about libertarianism, so it wouldn't hurt to be clear on what exactly we're talking about. A key reason (make no mistake, there are plenty of others!) why discussions about libertarianism always go round in circles, and you know they do, is because people talk at cross-purposes.

My issue with libertarianism is that people who advocate for it will talk non-stop about how awesome its ideas are in theory, without ever actually talk about how it would actually happen, nor acknowledging the real-world implications and limitations.

All libertarians talk about the worst things about government. Fine. But the question is: what's the alternative?

Take your Clapper example, for instance. Let's put aside the fact that there are many countries that manage to rein in their government officials far better than the US does. I asked you: (changed "stateless" to "libertarian")

A representative of a private, unregulated security organization would not lie about its operations? At least there is a body that is meant to provide oversight and is theoretically accountable to people - i.e. congress - as lol as it is. What kind of equivalent body do you think would exist in a libertarian society?

....because I wanted to know: what's the alternative?. Lying government officials are a bad thing. But what's the alternative? Basically, substitute "government official" for "spokesman from a largely unaccountable corporation". Wohoo?

Also, with the war on drugs.... fully agree that it should stop. But we don't need a libertarian system (not that anyone knows what that is) to achieve that, given that some governments have have already legalised drugs. And in a libertarian society, there is no reason why there couldn't be a 'war' of sorts on drugs. In an anarchist society, for instance, what's stopping the richest people in your neighborhood deciding they don't like drugs and nor should anyone else and thus paying a DRO to enforce that policy?

Like, until people stop talking in really vague, abstract ways about libertarianism, it will always remain at its core a

I always used to think this about revolutionary socialists, but libertarians are far, far worse. Libertarianism is essentially a religion, it's some ideal people believe in that has absolutely no basis in fact. There is the simple assumption that once government is gone we'll all be living in utopia.

I feel the child labor laws were glossed over...there was a question asked, someone mentioned how the US we know and love today is a powerhouse because kids were allowed to slave away in factories (?!), but then things died down a bit.

Anyway, just wanted to pick this issue up for a minute and LOL at it, and hopefully allow for some interesting LOL-worthy responses in defense of the poor children. Let them back in the mines and restore or country to its former greatness! Woot!

You mean like insisting libertarianism means nothing short of completely getting rid of government? You mean like pretending that things like drug legalization aren't libertarian ideas because it's possible do do that with a government in place? I mean YOU are the one INSISTING that we talk about it in these "vague, abstract ways" and then you have the balls to complain about it???

cliffnotes: I have a problem with specific individuals not having every answer immediately to every weird curveball scenario I think of, therefore I can safely assume the idea they are talking about is dumb.

sigh

I love how people are like "lol libertarians are utopians" and then THEY act like if there aren't bulletproof assurances that everything will be 100% PERFECT then libertarianism can safely be ignored.

A) nobody said the US was awesome because kids in factories

B) child labor was in fact crucial to civilization in general. Agriculture would never have gotten off the ground without it.

C) if child labor were completely legalized today would you send your kid to go work in a mine? What kids specifically do you think would magically appear at the mine entrances tomorrow morning?

Maybe the mines are lolbertarians answer to what would become of the millions of kids in foster care!