Countering Liberal Elitist Social Theories (and Nebulous Hypotheticals)
- Thread starter DocSolarisReich
- Start date
What lolbertarian mean ? libertarian who troll people ? Then it would be OK.What is wrong with trolling others ?
Besides this:
It can also be those libertarians who are utopianist and believe that if everyone just lived by their ideology the world would work out and be perfect and that we should pursue developing such a world.
Bassoe
Well-known member
Might work if the average person was smart and foresighted enough that everyone, independently, would be able to predict the consequences of allowing for the formation of monopolies/company town feudalism and the threat it would pose them, form lynch mobs armed with Recreational McNukes to preemptively stop anyone who tried and be found innocent on grounds of self-defense by a jury of their peers who could likewise look at the same evidence and reach the same conclusions as them.
Or in other words, it wouldn't work.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
to be fair it can be pretty easily be established that humans as a species or nature in general "Doesn't work" if you are willing to dig deep enough it doesin't (nor should it in my opinion) keep people from trying to find order within chaos and benefit from said chaos as much as possible.
it's ok to admit " X is trying to stop me from reaching my goal therefore they are my enemy.: there shouldin't have to be some sort of deep idoligical reason behind it and I think when we try to make one we trip over our own two feet in the process.
A lolbertarian is usually a strawman of what libertarianism is. It's the concept that somehow libertarians can't identify problems with companies colluding with government, or that we all want to go full McNuke instead of just a minarchism. It's a belief that libertarians are some pie in the sky utopianists who have no practical solutions for problems of the day (like how police brutality could be largely solved by getting rid of qualified immunity and union busting, or wars solved by just not doing it in the first place, hospital bed shortages would have been a lot less bad if there weren't Certificate of Need laws, housing could be solved by getting rid of zoning, etc).
It's a quick, snide way to laugh at something they don't like to think much about when used against the general movement.
But there are the morons who embody this and who don't think about much, going 'I got mine'. And there are fakertarians, usually some Republicans who think they are libertarian because they want government out of some specific things, but also want government to control everything else.
It's a quick, snide way to laugh at something they don't like to think much about when used against the general movement.
But there are the morons who embody this and who don't think about much, going 'I got mine'. And there are fakertarians, usually some Republicans who think they are libertarian because they want government out of some specific things, but also want government to control everything else.
Last edited:
Bassoe
Well-known member
It's hardly a strawman when we have decades of firsthand experience of 'libertarianism'. Look around you. The world we are living in is the result of your ideology run amok. The thing libertarians always seem to ignore is that if society removes every limitation against giant corporations recreating feudalism, that's exactly what they're going to do.
No wonder the modern right has so little credibility, with 'work hard enough and you can bea billionaire successful at least have the same quality of life as your parents did at your age at least doing better than third worlders we're gloating about replacing you with robots' ringing increasingly hollow. Why is the right incapable of producing policy-oriented solutions to real problems? Are you genuinely incapable of crafting their own vision for what the future should look like? Or do you merely refuse to do so since any solution that would work would necessarily harm the bottom lines of the megacorps who've bought out your whole movement. The fact that they also own and have equivalently subverted the left just makes things more annoying.
No wonder the modern right has so little credibility, with 'work hard enough and you can be
Sadly, Libertarianism has not been running amok, as much as I wish it had been. The free market has been repeatedly attacked by corporations and others colluding with government to put roadblocks in the way of people, such as licensure requirements, excessive regulations that are only enforced on the little guy, and certificate of need laws.
And then there are the times that the little people harm themselves as well, such as zoning laws, the welfare state, etc. All of these have held back America. Then there are the countless other non libertarian ideas that have happened, such as wars, the surveillance state, the expansion of the Federal government, increasing debt, etc.
But also, the story of declining American wealth is simply wrong. First, having a smartphone or even internet access makes one fantastically wealthy in comparison to the 1960s, in much the same way that almost everyone in the US is wealthier than people who lived in the 1800s, etc. Technology makes one richer in ways that aren't easy to calculate, but easy to see.
Second, the concept of the middle class shrinking is also a common misnomer (not the right word, but I'll use it). While technically true, what happened to the middle class is that the moved up into the upper middle class too rapidly to be replaced by people moving up from lower classes.
Go to this study, on page 8. You'll see a chart, and what it shows is that the percentage of population for each category of Poor/Near Poor, Lower Middle Class, and Middle Class all shrunk, with people moving into the Upper Middle Class, and from there to the Rich.
See, what has happened is that the Upper Middle Class got more of a share of wealth than the equivalent size from other sections, but so what? They all are doing better now than they were.
Next, this idea that somehow America could stay in this supposed perfect 1960s with the world not changing to compete with them is just wrong. More countries saw the way of capitalism and began competing with our labor force, and beat us out. Why? Sometimes, because we went for protectionism, not realizing that that leads to obsolesce as the need for quality declines. Sometimes, because we just thought that America meant better, when it didn't (see: cars). But all in all, there was no reason to think that any decade long trend would last, so there are countless reasons now is different from then, and few have much to do with any policy. The problem here is that you somehow decide to link this decline to capitalism (as you don't even comment on the rest of what libertarianism believes in your post), when capitalism is the only reason that the 1960s happened at all, and also the only reason things are getting better despite government's best efforts to ruin it.
Finally the reason degrees are necessary now is a fucking stupid complaint to level at libertarians. Degrees are necessary because there are so many of them, and there are so many of them because government shoved them down peoples throats and then setup massive student aid programs to fund colleges, which really just made them more expensive, resulting in needing said aid to even hope to afford it. Wow, such libertarian. Much free market.
There is also the term "losertarian" which i think was used by Conservative commentator Michael Medved among others which has less to do with ideology and more to do with lack of political success.
Just thought I'd throw that in there.
I think the term became less popular amongst Conservatives when the Tea (Taxed Enough Already) Party movement gained traction in 2008-09 after the TARP bailouts (which were paid back and then some) and Obama's even bigger, thicker, and DARKER two trillion dollar Stimulus package done in response to the 2008 Recession.
This of course led to Minarchist Mavericks like Paul Ryan to rise to political prominence. Paul Ryan's goal was threefold.
1) Show big government couldn't work.
2) Lower and Simplify Taxes
3) Reduce Spending
Like all Republicans, he only completely suceeded in the first. 😁
What are we talking about again?
Oh right...
Bro he ain't going to invite you to his Tea Party... Well maybe he would... Depends on whose dunking...
🍵
Just thought I'd throw that in there.
I think the term became less popular amongst Conservatives when the Tea (Taxed Enough Already) Party movement gained traction in 2008-09 after the TARP bailouts (which were paid back and then some) and Obama's even bigger, thicker, and DARKER two trillion dollar Stimulus package done in response to the 2008 Recession.
This of course led to Minarchist Mavericks like Paul Ryan to rise to political prominence. Paul Ryan's goal was threefold.
1) Show big government couldn't work.
2) Lower and Simplify Taxes
3) Reduce Spending
Like all Republicans, he only completely suceeded in the first. 😁
What are we talking about again?
Oh right...
Bro he ain't going to invite you to his Tea Party... Well maybe he would... Depends on whose dunking...
🍵
I'll have you know that Bostonians put on the best tea parties!Bro he ain't going to invite you to his Tea Party... Well maybe he would... Depends on whose dunking...
1.What corporations are doing is not libertarianism,becouse they would be not helped by goverment in that case./Goverment is try to destroy any small business,so they remove competition for them/
2.Do not offend feudals.Most cared about their servs,when corporation remove them when they stop to be useful.