Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 45

Thread: Eradicate The "Left Libertarian" Nonsense

  1. #1

    Eradicate The "Left Libertarian" Nonsense

    You're either libertarian, or you're not. Understanding that there is a relatively large umbrella with that, this whole "left libertarian" or "right libertarian" stuff is nonsensical. And the more we argue about those semantics and divide ourselves upon dividing ourselves, our goals will not grow. No, we won't agree on everything, but at the end of the day we all should follow the NAP, believe in the individual, be anti-war, anti-Fed (central bank), etc.

    We have a fantastic opportunity to reach out to all of the disenfranchised Americans who don't believe in the two party system. The LP can literally go on a marketing spree by simply pushing the slogan "Not one of the Big Two" or something like that.

    This crap that many of us are seeing about "left libertarians" and what not is junk. Purge those a-holes out of the party and tell them to go to the Dem party if they want.


    P.S. I've joined the Mises Caucus. We won't win the GOP, so we need to use our own vehicle at our disposal and really impact local and state races. I'm good for another go and I encourage other folks to do this. There is still power left on the lower levels that can then be used to fight against the national/federal crap going on.

    P.P.S. If anyone needs a great example of those who claim to be "left libertarian" just go to the "Libetarian" subreddit on Reddit and you'll see they're nothing than lite leftists posing as libertarians.
    Welcome to the R3VOLUTION!

    Join the Mises Caucus and let's get this train rolling: https://lpmisescaucus.com/



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    I totally agree with you.

    But what I notice is that, at least here on this website, those who use the term "left libertarian" (and similar terms like libtardarian and liberaltarian) often just use it for what are simply libertarians, especially purists of the Mises Caucus mold. Their point isn't to distinguish left libertarians from right libertarians, but to distinguish all libertarians from conservatives and/or Trumpers, with the latter being understood by them to be far superior to the former.
    There is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
    Ron Paul
    Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)

  4. #3
    Fiscally there really shouldnt be much difference between real libertarians and conservatives . Where the problems probably start is in the national level with people claiming to be libertarians who do not appear to be . I find it easier just to acknowledge state level and below and then it eliminates most of what people are opposed to. The libertarians here are pretty decent overall.
    Do something Danke

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Invisible Man View Post
    I totally agree with you.

    But what I notice is that, at least here on this website, those who use the term "left libertarian" (and similar terms like libtardarian and liberaltarian) often just use it for what are simply libertarians, especially purists of the Mises Caucus mold. Their point isn't to distinguish left libertarians from right libertarians, but to distinguish all libertarians from conservatives and/or Trumpers, with the latter being understood by them to be far superior to the former.
    I honestly haven't ran into too many of these issues on this forum, although it does pop up occasionally. I see it way more in other libertarian Internet spheres where there appears to be a very strong leftist slant to everything, which is bizarre to me and makes me skeptical.

    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    Fiscally there really shouldnt be much difference between real libertarians and conservatives . Where the problems probably start is in the national level with people claiming to be libertarians who do not appear to be . I find it easier just to acknowledge state level and below and then it eliminates most of what people are opposed to. The libertarians here are pretty decent overall.
    Yep, I agree with this.
    Welcome to the R3VOLUTION!

    Join the Mises Caucus and let's get this train rolling: https://lpmisescaucus.com/

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Okie RP fan View Post
    I honestly haven't ran into too many of these issues on this forum, although it does pop up occasionally. I see it way more in other libertarian Internet spheres where there appears to be a very strong leftist slant to everything, which is bizarre to me and makes me skeptical.
    I have seen that too, especially on reddit. I pretty much gave up on the main libertarian subreddit there for that reason.
    There is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
    Ron Paul
    Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Okie RP fan View Post
    I honestly haven't ran into too many of these issues on this forum, although it does pop up occasionally. I see it way more in other libertarian Internet spheres where there appears to be a very strong leftist slant to everything, which is bizarre to me and makes me skeptical.
    Quote Originally Posted by Invisible Man View Post
    I have seen that too, especially on reddit. I pretty much gave up on the main libertarian subreddit there for that reason.
    There is no such thing in nature as a "left libertarian", unless you're talking about a @James_Madison_Lives, who is pretty leftist but is slowly learning Thomas Jefferson was right when he talked about the difficulty in finding "angels in human form" to take charge of us who actually love us and truly want us to be happy.

    Leftarians were invented by the troll brigade that sent us Swordshyll to confuse the masses about what libertarians believe and/or instill unfounded feelings about libertarians into the ignorant.

    And, of course, Republicans, the people who supported Nixon and the Bushes, are rather well known for their gullibility. Witness their willingness to go from "Fearless Alpha genius playing 3D chess" to "duped and in fear of his life" all within a single paragraph.

    Hell, look at Q. Hey, look! The Nostradamus of the CIA! That's bound to be a reliable source! The CIA is the enemy, the 'net is censored and a wall of trolls, and we laugh at the left for thinking the government loves them and wants them to be happy, but the Nostradamus of the CIA surely loves us and wants us to be happy!
    Last edited by acptulsa; 06-06-2021 at 06:55 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    These days? That's always what has passed for conservatism.

    And exactly the same thing goes for (modern) liberalism, too.

    They just disagree about what should be forced upon whom.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    There is no such thing in nature as a "left libertarian", unless you're talking about a @James_Madison_Lives, who is pretty leftist but is slowly learning Thomas Jefferson was right when he talked about the difficulty in finding "angels in human form" to take charge of us who actually love us and truly want us to be happy.

    Leftarians were invented by the troll brigade that sent us Swordshyll to confuse the masses about what libertarians believe and/or instill unfounded feelings about libertarians into the ignorant.

    And, of course, Republicans, the people who supported Nixon and the Bushes, are rather well known for their gullibility. Witness their willingness to go from "Fearless Alpha genius playing 3D chess" to "duped and in fear of his life" all within a single paragraph.

    Hell, look at Q. Hey, look! The Nostradamus of the CIA! That's bound to be a reliable source! The CIA is the enemy, the 'net is censored and a wall of trolls, and we laugh at the left for thinking the government loves them and wants them to be happy, but the Nostradamus of the CIA surely loves us and wants us to be happy!
    Ususually the "liBROtarian" trope is thrown at people who think (gasp) Ron Paul is right to be concerned about a police state being put in place to stop the "border invasion." Even if you propose Ron Paul's actual plan on immigration as a solution, a vocal minority will call you a librotarian, or worse a marxist. When you bring up that you're just going by Ron Paul's actual plan, they're all "Well I like him on everthing but that." Rather than admit that they aren't 100% libertarian, they morph the definition when it suits them, then still try to hang on Ron Paul's coattails by making a "special exception" for him. Here's the truth. Most people are not 100% libertarian. And it's very hard to be. Take antitrust legislation for example. It's easy to make a theoretical argument that it should be okay for businesses to do whatever they want. But then we see big corporations like Facebook, Twitter and Google collude with each other (Suckerbooker had to admit that under oath) to censor conservative voices. What's the appropriate liberarian response? Mine is that since these corporations are a government creation anyway, it is right and proper to use the power of the government to reign them in. (Also I've come to the @Anti Federalist position that they could be considered "state actors" because the government pressured them to start censoring in the first place.)
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Ususually the "liBROtarian" trope is thrown at people who think (gasp) Ron Paul is right to be concerned about a police state being put in place to stop the "border invasion." Even if you propose Ron Paul's actual plan on immigration as a solution, a vocal minority will call you a librotarian, or worse a marxist. When you bring up that you're just going by Ron Paul's actual plan, they're all "Well I like him on everthing but that." Rather than admit that they aren't 100% libertarian, they morph the definition when it suits them, then still try to hang on Ron Paul's coattails by making a "special exception" for him. Here's the truth. Most people are not 100% libertarian. And it's very hard to be. Take antitrust legislation for example. It's easy to make a theoretical argument that it should be okay for businesses to do whatever they want. But then we see big corporations like Facebook, Twitter and Google collude with each other (Suckerbooker had to admit that under oath) to censor conservative voices. What's the appropriate liberarian response? Mine is that since these corporations are a government creation anyway, it is right and proper to use the power of the government to reign them in. (Also I've come to the @Anti Federalist position that they could be considered "state actors" because the government pressured them to start censoring in the first place.)
    Exactly right and good to see. I think all that needs to happen is to hold them to First Amendment standards, with criminal and civil sanctions for failure to comply.

    As far as leftarianism goes, there most certainly was/are a significant segment of "libertarian" Ron Paul folks who, at heart, were/are leftists.

    The Great Migration from Ron's camp to Bernie's proves that point.

    The musician John Popper, who I am big fan of, is one of them...a gun toting, property rights, self professed libertarian, who phone banked for Ron in NH.

    Went on to do support concerts for Bernie in 2016.

    I think most who supported Ron, left or right, were simply looking for an outsider to shake things up.

    That explains Trump.
    According to government's own numbers, over half a MILLION people are dead, just in the US alone, because of a man made virus designed to be even more deadly than what would be found in nature, released, possibly on purpose, from a Chinese lab, a virus that that was created from funding and prior research given to the Chinese scientists by our own government because we, in fit of sanity, pulled the plug on funding here.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Exactly right and good to see. I think all that needs to happen is to hold them to First Amendment standards, with criminal and civil sanctions for failure to comply.

    As far as leftarianism goes, there most certainly was/are a significant segment of "libertarian" Ron Paul folks who, at heart, were/are leftists.

    The Great Migration from Ron's camp to Bernie's proves that point.

    The musician John Popper, who I am big fan of, is one of them...a gun toting, property rights, self professed libertarian, who phone banked for Ron in NH.

    Went on to do support concerts for Bernie in 2016.

    I think most who supported Ron, left or right, were simply looking for an outsider to shake things up.

    That explains Trump.
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again.

    Yeah....you have a good point there. I don't understand why some jumped ship for Bernie or Trump while Rand was still in the race but I guess Rand had started being seen as something of a quasi insider by that point.

    Anyhow, I saw that the anti-trust lawsuit against Twitter and Facebook got tossed some months ago, but that was before the testimony where Zuckerberg admitted to the collusion. Hopefully it will be refiled. It's going to be tough to go after them criminally. Maybe there is a RICO angle but I haven't seen it yet. A state actor who violates a constitutional right under the color of law is civilly liable under a 42 USC 1983. Private companies generally aren't seen as state actors but the can be if they take on a state function. The clearest example of this is violations of prisoner rights by for profit prisons. This needs some serious thought.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Ususually the "liBROtarian" trope is thrown at people who think (gasp) Ron Paul is right to be concerned about a police state being put in place to stop the "border invasion." Even if you propose Ron Paul's actual plan on immigration as a solution, a vocal minority will call you a librotarian, or worse a marxist. When you bring up that you're just going by Ron Paul's actual plan, they're all "Well I like him on everthing but that." Rather than admit that they aren't 100% libertarian, they morph the definition when it suits them, then still try to hang on Ron Paul's coattails by making a "special exception" for him. Here's the truth. Most people are not 100% libertarian. And it's very hard to be. Take antitrust legislation for example. It's easy to make a theoretical argument that it should be okay for businesses to do whatever they want. But then we see big corporations like Facebook, Twitter and Google collude with each other (Suckerbooker had to admit that under oath) to censor conservative voices. What's the appropriate liberarian response? Mine is that since these corporations are a government creation anyway, it is right and proper to use the power of the government to reign them in. (Also I've come to the @Anti Federalist position that they could be considered "state actors" because the government pressured them to start censoring in the first place.)
    1 Zillion % agree!

    And I've been called all that crap because I stand with Ron Paul.
    There is no spoon.

  13. #11
    I don't think that we should give amnesty and they become voters. But I do think we should deal with our borders. One way that I would suggest that we could do it is pay less attention to the borders between Afghanistan and Iraq and Pakistan and bring our troops home and deal with the border. But why do we pay more attention to the borders overseas and less attention to the borders here at home?
    -Guess who?

    Leftarians don't believe in borders.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    -Guess who?

    Leftarians don't believe in borders.
    1 Zillion % agree!

    And I've been called a statist because I stand with Ron Paul.
    ...

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by RJB View Post
    1 Zillion % agree!

    And I've been called a statist because I stand with Ron Paul.
    If Ron Paul would have brought troops back and put them at the border, many that claim to support him here, would excoriate him. "Ron Paul is a Federal tyrant! Posse comitatus! Down with Ron Paul! He's just another big government stooge! Booooo!"

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    -Guess who?

    Leftarians don't believe in borders.
    Quote Originally Posted by RJB View Post
    1 Zillion % agree!

    And I've been called a statist because I stand with Ron Paul.
    What exactly does it mean to "not believe in borders?" Here is Ron Paul saying he doesn't support open borders but he doesn't support a wall either. That he doesn't want to "wall people in or wall people out."



    And just about anything that one might do with the money saved from not policing the world is a better use of that money.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Okie RP fan View Post
    You're either libertarian, or you're not. Understanding that there is a relatively large umbrella with that, this whole "left libertarian" or "right libertarian" stuff is nonsensical. And the more we argue about those semantics and divide ourselves upon dividing ourselves, our goals will not grow. No, we won't agree on everything, but at the end of the day we all should follow the NAP, believe in the individual, be anti-war, anti-Fed (central bank), etc.

    We have a fantastic opportunity to reach out to all of the disenfranchised Americans who don't believe in the two party system. The LP can literally go on a marketing spree by simply pushing the slogan "Not one of the Big Two" or something like that.

    This crap that many of us are seeing about "left libertarians" and what not is junk. Purge those a-holes out of the party and tell them to go to the Dem party if they want.


    P.S. I've joined the Mises Caucus. We won't win the GOP, so we need to use our own vehicle at our disposal and really impact local and state races. I'm good for another go and I encourage other folks to do this. There is still power left on the lower levels that can then be used to fight against the national/federal crap going on.

    P.P.S. If anyone needs a great example of those who claim to be "left libertarian" just go to the "Libetarian" subreddit on Reddit and you'll see they're nothing than lite leftists posing as libertarians.
    Like "anarchism", "libertarian" is compromised beyond salvation. There are more idiots who ID as libertarian than there are actual libertarians.

    I jettisoned "anarchy" for "autodiathism", a term I coined that comes from the Greek for "self-determination". Similarly, I would leave "libertarian" on the cutting room floor. I prefer Freeman, the rest being Weakmen.

    As for "left libertarian", that is just another example of how the Regressives (communists) coopt and modify terms in order that they may perpetuate the Stupid in as many people as possible. They develop a lingo all their own and that alone tends to take on a life of its own. Next thing you know, Freemen are using is for the sake of being conversational, and it's all downhill from there.

    Same has happened with anarchy. "I'm a anarcho-communist"... and other similar idiocy can be seen spewed by the homers on social media - the little ignorant $#@!s who know nothing but think they know everything, wishing cancer on all who disagree with them and who hope the children of their enemies are raped and murdered. Can't make this crap up. There may be no other oxymoron as moronic as "ancom". The term literally means nothing at all to anyone who applies so much as a single half-functional brain cell to consideration of what "anarcho-communist" must perforce mean, if we assume basic sanity, rationality, and sincerity in a man. One cannot be an anarchist and communist at the same time. This is prime Stupid in action.

    I'm more of a mind to eradicate the left libertarian, as he is too stupid to live.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    Freedom will be stolen from you in a heartbeat if you do not behave as a wild and ravening beast pursuant to its protection.

    "Government" is naught but a mental construct, a script to which people meekly accept and play out their assigned roles by those with no authority to dictate such.

    Pray for reset.


  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    What exactly does it mean to "not believe in borders?"
    That is always the question to ask in immigration debates.

    People often try to lump people together in categories based on pure abstractions like borders vs. no borders, or open borders vs. secure borders, and things like that, without getting into the actual policies.
    There is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
    Ron Paul
    Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Like "anarchism", "libertarian" is compromised beyond salvation. There are more idiots who ID as libertarian than there are actual libertarians.

    I jettisoned "anarchy" for "autodiathism", a term I coined that comes from the Greek for "self-determination". Similarly, I would leave "libertarian" on the cutting room floor. I prefer Freeman, the rest being Weakmen.

    As for "left libertarian", that is just another example of how the Regressives (communists) coopt and modify terms in order that they may perpetuate the Stupid in as many people as possible. They develop a lingo all their own and that alone tends to take on a life of its own. Next thing you know, Freemen are using is for the sake of being conversational, and it's all downhill from there.

    Same has happened with anarchy. "I'm a anarcho-communist"... and other similar idiocy can be seen spewed by the homers on social media - the little ignorant $#@!s who know nothing but think they know everything, wishing cancer on all who disagree with them and who hope the children of their enemies are raped and murdered. Can't make this crap up. There may be no other oxymoron as moronic as "ancom". The term literally means nothing at all to anyone who applies so much as a single half-functional brain cell to consideration of what "anarcho-communist" must perforce mean, if we assume basic sanity, rationality, and sincerity in a man. One cannot be an anarchist and communist at the same time. This is prime Stupid in action.

    I'm more of a mind to eradicate the left libertarian, as he is too stupid to live.
    Absolutely this and the problem is compounded by state libertarian parties actively driving out anyone who is not a open borders pro polygamy homosexual activist. The brand has been destroyed.
    Out of every one hundred men they send us, ten should not even be here. Eighty will do nothing but serve as targets for the enemy. Nine are real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, upon them depends our success in battle. But one, ah the one, he is a real warrior, and he will bring the others back from battle alive.

    Duty is the most sublime word in the English language. Do your duty in all things. You can not do more than your duty. You should never wish to do less than your duty.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Pericles View Post
    Absolutely this and the problem is compounded by state libertarian parties actively driving out anyone who is not a open borders pro polygamy homosexual activist. The brand has been destroyed.
    Yes, and I agree with Osan to be quite honest. However, isn't the Mises Caucus trying to turn that around by taking the LP over and using Ron Paul as the primary bedrock moving forward? That was my understanding. I think there may be something there for those who want to remain "politically active" FWIW.
    Welcome to the R3VOLUTION!

    Join the Mises Caucus and let's get this train rolling: https://lpmisescaucus.com/

  22. #19


    My guess is that most of us have shifted from one segment of this wheel to another at some point in our lives. Some of us probably can identify with several segments at once depending on our current moods.

    Because of that, I'm pretty open to working with people on other ends of the wheel when our positions align. And when they don't align, I try not to get into divisions that would turn them off.

    The only ones who really get under my skin are the ones who are pretending to share small government ideals, but just want to sow division among the ranks. The ones who put personality over principles every time.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Pericles View Post
    Absolutely this and the problem is compounded by state libertarian parties actively driving out anyone who is not a open borders pro polygamy homosexual activist. The brand has been destroyed.
    I would add a few points.

    Firstly, I don't care if they are ***** or pro-polygamy. Freedom is as scary and $#@!ty as it is elating and exciting. As with anything, liberty is a mixed bag because we humans are mixed bags.

    Secondly, the open borders deal is a whole other kettle of rotting-in-the-sun fish. Humans are by nature territorial. Being so makes every good sense imaginable and it is wired into out mid-brains. Therefore, to go against our own nature by dispensing with borders is insane. It is tantamount to dispensing with our identities. Those advocating and working toward open borders should be taken from their beds at 3 AM and beaten with iron bars and whipped with iron wires until hatred for their mothers for having brought them into this world becomes second nature to them.

    People speak ceaseless of "tolerance". Tolerance yes, but not of the intolerable.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    Freedom will be stolen from you in a heartbeat if you do not behave as a wild and ravening beast pursuant to its protection.

    "Government" is naught but a mental construct, a script to which people meekly accept and play out their assigned roles by those with no authority to dictate such.

    Pray for reset.


  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post


    My guess is that most of us have shifted from one segment of this wheel to another at some point in our lives. Some of us probably can identify with several segments at once depending on our current moods.

    Because of that, I'm pretty open to working with people on other ends of the wheel when our positions align. And when they don't align, I try not to get into divisions that would turn them off.

    The only ones who really get under my skin are the ones who are pretending to share small government ideals, but just want to sow division among the ranks. The ones who put personality over principles every time.
    All shapes and sizes? Sure. Some are skinny, others fat. That's about the gamut of variance for anything even remotely "libertarian". Those who would say "I'm a communist libertarian" should be involuntarily de-sexed so that they become incapable of propagating The Stupid into yet another generation. 1/2

    Freedom. That's the long and the short of libertarianism proper. All the rest is putrefaction of the term. "OOOOoooo look at MMMMmmmmmeeeee everyone, I'm a left libertarian and I want the right to suck my goldfish's weenie..."

    Seriously, we should just buy Africa and put all the stupid people there and leave them to their own devices... supervised, of course, as they could not be trusted not to manage global destruction via The Stupid.

    Freedom is governed by natural law, which is the Law of the Freeman (what I generally refer to as "Law" [sic], and carries but three precepts:



    1. Be good for your word. Covers contracts and other agreements.
    2. Do no unjust harm. Covers criminal acts and torts.
    3. Make whole those whom you unjustly damage. Covers amending one's ill-deeds of intent or accident.


    That's all she wrote, and none of it is rocket surgery.

    That we have convoluted things in so buggered a manner as we now find statutory non-Law, is indicative of the depths of our corruption as a people. There appears to be no bottom to our perdition, on the average. Humanity: it's own worst enemy.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    Freedom will be stolen from you in a heartbeat if you do not behave as a wild and ravening beast pursuant to its protection.

    "Government" is naught but a mental construct, a script to which people meekly accept and play out their assigned roles by those with no authority to dictate such.

    Pray for reset.


  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Humans are by nature territorial. Being so makes every good sense imaginable and it is wired into out mid-brains.
    If this is so, then we don't need the state to impose borders on us. And in fact, those state imposed borders will always tend to impede our natural territoriality, rather than support it.
    There is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
    Ron Paul
    Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Like "anarchism", "libertarian" is compromised beyond salvation. There are more idiots who ID as libertarian than there are actual libertarians.

    I jettisoned "anarchy" for "autodiathism", a term I coined that comes from the Greek for "self-determination". Similarly, I would leave "libertarian" on the cutting room floor. I prefer Freeman, the rest being Weakmen.

    As for "left libertarian", that is just another example of how the Regressives (communists) coopt and modify terms in order that they may perpetuate the Stupid in as many people as possible. They develop a lingo all their own and that alone tends to take on a life of its own. Next thing you know, Freemen are using is for the sake of being conversational, and it's all downhill from there.

    Same has happened with anarchy. "I'm a anarcho-communist"... and other similar idiocy can be seen spewed by the homers on social media - the little ignorant $#@!s who know nothing but think they know everything, wishing cancer on all who disagree with them and who hope the children of their enemies are raped and murdered. Can't make this crap up. There may be no other oxymoron as moronic as "ancom". The term literally means nothing at all to anyone who applies so much as a single half-functional brain cell to consideration of what "anarcho-communist" must perforce mean, if we assume basic sanity, rationality, and sincerity in a man. One cannot be an anarchist and communist at the same time. This is prime Stupid in action.

    I'm more of a mind to eradicate the left libertarian, as he is too stupid to live.
    The words "commune" and "communist" come from the same root. Someone who believes in voluntary communal living could be considered an anarco communist. That's how the early Christian church was set up.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Invisible Man View Post
    If this is so, then we don't need the state to impose borders on us. And in fact, those state imposed borders will always tend to impede our natural territoriality, rather than support it.

    I would tend to agree with this, but since when did "state" have anything to do with the good between men and their inherent natures? "State" is all about tyranny. The very concept of "state" is repellent to Freemen and attractive only to Weakmen.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    Freedom will be stolen from you in a heartbeat if you do not behave as a wild and ravening beast pursuant to its protection.

    "Government" is naught but a mental construct, a script to which people meekly accept and play out their assigned roles by those with no authority to dictate such.

    Pray for reset.




  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    The words "commune" and "communist" come from the same root. Someone who believes in voluntary communal living could be considered an anarco communist. That's how the early Christian church was set up.
    You are employing a different sense of the term, and in fact "communism" has practically nothing to do with "commune" in reality. What you have outlined here is a prime example of the abuse of language, much like "For The People Act", which is in no conceivable way for the people, but rather the tyrants. Communists are pathological liars by their nature precisely because they are thieves. They want to take what is yours, preferably with your consent, but will employ force if need be. In either case, they are incentivized to lie to and bull$#@! those around them.

    In the case of voluntary handing over of the goods, Theye need a line of $#@! that convinces the rest to put out. "Blah blah equality blah blah blather blah..." The dumbasses and opportunist-parasites go, "OOOOOooooo... we're all EEEEEEEEEKWAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLL... Sign me up!"

    In the case of having to use force, Theye similarly need a line of $#@! that enables them to rationalize and justify their felonies.

    And so the methods of NewSpeak come into play, and Orwell didn't invent a whit of it, but gave it a good name. Define terms to suit one's goals, even if it means mangling words and language to the detriment of all. It's all good if it gets you what you want, consequences be damned. This is what Theye do. It is ALL Theye do.

    Communism has a very specific meaning and it has absolutely nothing to do with "commune", "community", etc. It has everything to do with chicanery and bitter hatred or, far worse, utter indifference by one population to the rights and plights of another, and is thinly disguised as the precise opposite. Furthermore, the purported altruism of the hard-left commie is in fact one of the foulest of human obscenities of self-absorption, masquerading as compassion for one's fellow human beings. The claim of altruistic intent is a clear and infallible sign of malice and malignancy in a human being. I would prescribe the death penalty for any policital officeholder who would dare utter that word as the basis of any legislative effort. And no, I am not joking. "Altruism" is one of the most singularly spectacular lies of all human existence. It is a penultimate obscenity and should be stricken from human consciousness, as it describes an impossibility and labels it as some form of ultimate human virtue. Fie upon all who worship at that altar.

    Orwell ID'd the strategy of linguistic trickery and it's attendant tactics with good precision. Your example of "commune" and "communism" fits that bill to a 'T'.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    Freedom will be stolen from you in a heartbeat if you do not behave as a wild and ravening beast pursuant to its protection.

    "Government" is naught but a mental construct, a script to which people meekly accept and play out their assigned roles by those with no authority to dictate such.

    Pray for reset.


  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Okie RP fan View Post
    You're either libertarian, or you're not. Understanding that there is a relatively large umbrella with that, this whole "left libertarian" or "right libertarian" stuff is nonsensical. And the more we argue about those semantics and divide ourselves upon dividing ourselves, our goals will not grow. No, we won't agree on everything, but at the end of the day we all should follow the NAP, believe in the individual, be anti-war, anti-Fed (central bank), etc.

    We have a fantastic opportunity to reach out to all of the disenfranchised Americans who don't believe in the two party system. The LP can literally go on a marketing spree by simply pushing the slogan "Not one of the Big Two" or something like that.

    This crap that many of us are seeing about "left libertarians" and what not is junk. Purge those a-holes out of the party and tell them to go to the Dem party if they want.


    P.S. I've joined the Mises Caucus. We won't win the GOP, so we need to use our own vehicle at our disposal and really impact local and state races. I'm good for another go and I encourage other folks to do this. There is still power left on the lower levels that can then be used to fight against the national/federal crap going on.

    P.P.S. If anyone needs a great example of those who claim to be "left libertarian" just go to the "Libetarian" subreddit on Reddit and you'll see they're nothing than lite leftists posing as libertarians.

    r/Anarcho_Capitalism - The real libertarian sub on Reddit (NSFW!!)
    Jesus Is Lord

  31. #27
    No. You are arguing through projection. You are doing exactly what you are falsely accusing me of doing. Someone can believe in communal living without wanting to force communal living on others. Or someone can with to do communal living through government force. Your "wall of text" doesn't change your dishonesty in this regard.

    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    You are employing a different sense of the term, and in fact "communism" has practically nothing to do with "commune" in reality. What you have outlined here is a prime example of the abuse of language, much like "For The People Act", which is in no conceivable way for the people, but rather the tyrants. Communists are pathological liars by their nature precisely because they are thieves. They want to take what is yours, preferably with your consent, but will employ force if need be. In either case, they are incentivized to lie to and bull$#@! those around them.

    In the case of voluntary handing over of the goods, Theye need a line of $#@! that convinces the rest to put out. "Blah blah equality blah blah blather blah..." The dumbasses and opportunist-parasites go, "OOOOOooooo... we're all EEEEEEEEEKWAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLL... Sign me up!"

    In the case of having to use force, Theye similarly need a line of $#@! that enables them to rationalize and justify their felonies.

    And so the methods of NewSpeak come into play, and Orwell didn't invent a whit of it, but gave it a good name. Define terms to suit one's goals, even if it means mangling words and language to the detriment of all. It's all good if it gets you what you want, consequences be damned. This is what Theye do. It is ALL Theye do.

    Communism has a very specific meaning and it has absolutely nothing to do with "commune", "community", etc. It has everything to do with chicanery and bitter hatred or, far worse, utter indifference by one population to the rights and plights of another, and is thinly disguised as the precise opposite. Furthermore, the purported altruism of the hard-left commie is in fact one of the foulest of human obscenities of self-absorption, masquerading as compassion for one's fellow human beings. The claim of altruistic intent is a clear and infallible sign of malice and malignancy in a human being. I would prescribe the death penalty for any policital officeholder who would dare utter that word as the basis of any legislative effort. And no, I am not joking. "Altruism" is one of the most singularly spectacular lies of all human existence. It is a penultimate obscenity and should be stricken from human consciousness, as it describes an impossibility and labels it as some form of ultimate human virtue. Fie upon all who worship at that altar.

    Orwell ID'd the strategy of linguistic trickery and it's attendant tactics with good precision. Your example of "commune" and "communism" fits that bill to a 'T'.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaytonB View Post
    r/Anarcho_Capitalism - The real libertarian sub on Reddit (NSFW!!)
    That's nice. What would you call the early Christian church? It most certainly was not capitalistic by any stretch of the imagination.

    Acts 4:32-35.

    32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

    You certainly cannot call ^that capitalism by any stretch of the imagination. If this was a state requiring people to sell all of their possessions and keep them in common it would be classic statist communism. Instead, this was done voluntarily. No, the people weren't forced to sell their possessions and let the church distribute to who had need. They chose to do it. When Ananias and Sapphira lied to Peter and claimed they had donated all when they had only donated a portion, this is what Peter told them:

    Acts 5:3-5
    5 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.

    3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”


    I guess @osan thinks the Bible is "newspeak." I dunno.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    ...
    Secondly, the open borders deal is a whole other kettle of rotting-in-the-sun fish. Humans are by nature territorial. Being so makes every good sense imaginable and it is wired into out mid-brains. Therefore, to go against our own nature by dispensing with borders is insane. It is tantamount to dispensing with our identities. ...
    Kind of depends upon what you consider "your" territory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pauls' Revere View Post
    ...
    His parents, Myrna and Jim Bennett, are American but now live in Haifa.
    ...
    His parents are graduates of the University of California, Berkeley, and were "left-wingers" until they moved to Israel and embraced nationalism, his mother told Haaretz.

    "In the US, we were against the Vietnam War. We went to Berkeley. We were automatically like left-wingers. When we came to Israel, I felt I loved the place I was living in," she said in a 2013 interview.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    That's nice. What would you call the early Christian church? It most certainly was not capitalistic by any stretch of the imagination.
    Well, that's an interesting but unrelated question. AC is the idea that law and security can be (and should be) produced on the market. There is a book called The Law of the Somalis which documents how law is produced in traditional Somali law, called Xeer. Many people do not realize that the Gospel reached parts of east Africa possibly as early as the writings of Paul (cf the Ethiopian eunuch), so the knee-jerk reaction of waving away Xeer as "barbaric/pagan" or "probably Islamic" is incorrect. In fact, the book explains that the type of law that the Somalis practice is called kritarchy which literally means "rule by judges". Recognize that from the Bible? Yes, that's the original form of government that God established under Moses -- hence, the book of Judges.

    As for capitalism, there is nothing anti-capitalist about Scripture. The organization of the church, and the organization of the economy are obviously separate things. The church is the new people of the Lord -- word-search "cut off people" in the Old Testament and compare to Matthew 18. While there is some interaction between these spheres, of course, they are separate. A merchant does not go to the temple to do business, he goes to the market. So the church is not and never was about the organization of the economy.

    Note that I am using "capitalism" in its original definition which means private-property rights and the right to exchange freely in the market (unhampered by strong-men/thugs) which inevitably results in the widespread accumulation of savings, that is, capital. The usage of "capitalism" nowadays is almost synonymous with "nepotism".

    While I think that AC raises many interesting challenges to many prevailing ideas in libertarian thinking, I don't consider myself an anarcho-capitalist per se. I'm a follower of Jesus. But if you held me at gunpoint and forced me to pick an "-ism" label for my political views, it would be AC.
    Jesus Is Lord

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-05-2015, 09:42 AM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-10-2012, 09:46 AM
  3. Replies: 75
    Last Post: 09-06-2012, 01:37 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-17-2011, 10:28 PM
  5. Replies: 24
    Last Post: 12-01-2011, 12:04 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •