This thread is ridiculous, although I guess I should have expected that. A group of people make a thread about Libertarians in the unchained section, so yeah I guess it's gonna get filled with bad logic and nut jobs arguing about things from hypothetical viewpoints that don't exist.

I guess I should break it to you. Just because one, or some, Libertarian's believe X, doesn't mean that all Libertarian's agree, and doesn't mean that I want to leave all poor minorities to rot on the streets with no assistance from people, or even their government.

This is exactly correct, but it leads to the obvious reasoning by Libertarians that smaller is better, because when you ask the question "what should government be doing" most Libertarian's are going to answer "not much." OK the answer's gonna be longer than that, but you get my point.

Our friend Boney has clearly mastered the First Rule of Libertarianism: Don't talk about Libertarianism. Don't explain what it is or how it will work or how it will be implemented.

An important corollary to the First Rule is that it is essential to whine hard when people don't immediately know which particular flavor of Libertarianism you practice. Unlike statists, who can all be lumped together, each Libertarian is a unique snowflake. Sure, 95% of Libertarians think it's a bad idea for gov't to take money away from people by force and redistribute it to poor people, but it's very offensive for anyone to assume Boney thinks that way.

We like bad logic in the forum.

Curious thing that any bit of bad logic can be explained and with precision. This makes assertions of bad logic without any explanation something like a hypothetical sad clown.

This is what most libertarians think for the most part.

www.lp.org

Take the world's smallest political quiz.

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/quiz.php

Yah but that's completely circular. "Governments should be smaller because governments should be smaller" is not a great answer to why should governments be smaller?

There's large amounts of well understood reasoning why Libertarians feel government should be smaller, but I'm sure most people don't need me repeating them, and then again, if I was to list them out I'd have to go through the long process of writing a long explanations of what I agree completely about, and what I disagree about, with explanations of why I feel that way, etc. etc.

It'd just be way too long and drawn out and I have more important things to do, and I'm sure no one's really interested in my exact reasoning as to why government should be smaller.

I really don't think the statement in and of itself was circular reasoning, that Libertarians want small government because they prefer government to do less (or rather, have less responsibilities than it does now) but I can see that it's not a complete thought/argument. I just don't strongly care to present the argument here, especially when the thread's title is directly condescending towards my views (so I don't really think it'd be a productive use of my time.)

LOL this seemingly simple and fundamental question, "why should government do less?", has apparently broken Boney.

In general, it's just baffling that for as much as people apparently derive some esteem from self-identifying as libertarians on the internet almost none of them are remotely concerned about thinking deeply about libertarianism.

libertarianmagic.jpeg

Though I am convinced by the recent developments ITT and now will begin to be a libertarian again.



It's like political teflon which can absorb all sorts of logic bullets, but don't let any sharp wits get in close or they'll stick that point right straight in the heart.

"I have nothing."

Found this on my FB today. From last year, but of interest to thread IMO.

http://www.filmsforaction.org/articl...ls-guide-book/

excerpt:

Wasn't really referring to you, since you actually had a point to make about what I said , but you know damned well if I made a long argument it'd just be trolled anyway.

Would you really care to make any argument if you already knew that? Of course not.

LMFAO.

One of the most annoying thingees about libertarian-types is they insist on making up their own damn gibberish language... and then get all butt-hurt when us normals won't play along.

FYI: 'Trolling' doesn't refer to bringing up whatever it is you don't wanna hear. 'Trolling' means trying to intentionally disrupt the conversation. We went round-n-round all this c.2012 with the Ronulans during the L.Ron (Over)lution long con. Cliffs: pointing out that L.Ron's racist newsletters were racist, and L.Ron was being racist by publishing them, was not 'trolling'.

The reason why you, and 100% of all other libertarian-types, don't make any "long argument" is the same exact reason they can't make any "argument" at all... and that's because all things libertarian-type are just simple exercises in applied sophistry.

For my sins, I am the sole leftist in a neoliberal/libertard wasteland in POG and I'm always willing to put my views up for trolling. It's part of the fun imo.

This is so spot on it deserves repeating.

So far, this is exactly what we have seen ITT.

the second rule of libertarians: support immigration reform but demand a 100% elimination of the 'nanny state' first

But snowflakes are beuatiful!

Oh man, how libertarian-types gotta react to this whole D.Sterling thing is just LOLtastical.

I was out and about town the day before the NBA came down on Sterling. I decided to have lunch at the eat good in some else's neighborhood chain place. Sure enough, there was a evil crusty old self-identifying libertarian-type, prating on about Sterling, sitting at the bar. I don't need to tell you ignorant, intolerant, white male from an admittedly privileged background.

Of course, like any good libertarian-type, he was uncritically supporting the racist.

He was saying that "those people" shouldn't be attacking a rich businessman. That Sterling was a boss, the owner in fact, and "those people" shouldn't be interfering with his free speech rights, his right to 'dis-associate', and the most important thing in the world... his property 'rights'. That Sterling is obviously better than "those people"... and he's proven this on the 'free market' because, LDO, he's a billionaire. That he's crating jerbs, and "those people" should be thankful, otherwise they'd still be living in mud huts.

So... the bartender asked him who 'those people' might be. To our surprise... he answered The City of Los Angeles !!!1!.

And there you have the pathology of libertarian-type-ism... all in an amazing tight reversed engineered, circular reasoned, and self-contradictory nutshell. LOL @ all things libertarian-type !!!1!

People thinking liberty is right wing have gone full ******. You think you're intellectuals because you listen to Jon Stewart and Bill Maher reading propaganda off a teleprompter and then snicker and the tea party movement because you have no clue. Why not just dig up your ancestors that fought for freedom and slap them across the face because you're too pxxxy to continue the fight to maintain what we have.

My ancestors didn't fight for ****. They just kinda showed up and took whatever jobs they could get.

Pussy?

Wow, just wow.

I'm not sure this is even OT ITT. I mean bighomeytim doesn't even mention libertarian-type-ism at all.

Unless of course, he's so far gone on that kinda drank that he's bought into libertarian-type-ism branding, and considers the concepts of human liberty, and the Libertarian-type-ism Astro-turf 'Movement', to be synonymous.

But if so... it's a 2X LOL !!!1! LOL for falling for Libertarian-type-ism branding... and LOL again for claiming Libertarian-type-ism isn't right-wing. Dude, Libertarian-type-ism is as right-wing as you can get without being out-of-the-closet fascist.

LMFAO... dude went full ****** calling others full ******s !!!1!

FYP. And Bingo.