Election 2020 Election 2020: It's (almost) over! (maybe...possibly...ahh who are we kidding, it's 2020!)

Reader mode
My primary issue with Paleocons is they often have a very romantic(not a bad thing in itself) ideal of what they want society to look like, while not actually wanting to deal with the hard work of getting there.

They aren’t willing to put the plow in the soil as it were.

At least not in a substantive way.

Though I have no issue with them on much anything else.
 
StormEagle said:
My underlying problem with the libertarians, is I view them as being far to friendly with the corporations that are actively fighting against the right wing of this country. They also have a problem of aiming their ambitions higher than reasonable. They should be focusing on at least building a strong local party, maybe taking a state legislature or two, before aiming for the highest political office in the land.

I, personally speaking, cannot view them as a legitimate replacement for conservatism because of that.
Click to expand...
I am for fair trade, not the rad-lib 'no regs what so ever', and for trust-busting the fuck out of most industries.

You all have a parody image of what most Libertarians want from the world, and not the reality of of what most of them actually want.

Aldarion said:
Libertarians are big part of the reason for the mess. They basically went "all deregulation", without understanding that:
1) individual always loses against the group. Libertarians are those guys from Risa, Progressives are the Borg Collective. Who do you think will win?
2) total freedom also removes the tradition and the borders. If you remove tradition, people are groundless, and are easy to manipulate - and will seek safety, which means socialism, laws and totalitarian state. If you remove borders, this just enables growth of supranational entities which are far more dangerous for individual freedom than a nation-state ever could be.
3) total freedom also means total freedom for the guys who want to take any and all freedom you have away from you... that is, the Left.

Only possible answer is traditionalism... Dark Enlightenment, Neoreaction, but only if put into practice. Paleoconservativism, if you don't have any better ideas, but that is the newest thing that should be acceptable.
Click to expand...
Edit: See what I said above. You are basing your views of Libertarians off the rad-libs, and not what most on the ground want.
 
Bacle said:
I am for fair trade, not the rad-lib 'no regs what so ever, and for trust-busting the fuck out of most industries.

You all have a parody image of what most Libertarians want from the world, and not the reality of of what most of them actually want.

Edit: See what I said above. You are basing your views of Libertarians off the rad-libs, and not what most on the ground want.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, it doesn’t matter much for what the rest of libertarians want if they aren’t willing to take action on a political level or able to hold your leadership accountable to your goals.

For example, the Libertarian party in the US is a complete joke, both in reach and in how it’s leadership is not much better then the Democratic Party.
 
The problem with libertarianism right now is that most ofnthe leadership is basically left wing at this point: yarron brook is bacially a pro Biden neoconservative at this point. Reason is at best center left.

Hopperian libertarianism isnt bad, but also very much in the fringe of libertarianism.

Current leadership of the libertarian party seems to basically be run by blairist leftists. When the libertarians whish to govern to the left of the Republican party, thrir usefulness is questionable.
 
DarthOne said:
With all due respect, it doesn’t matter much for what the rest of libertarians want if they aren’t willing to take action on a political level or able to hold your leadership accountable to your goals.

For example, the Libertarian party in the US is a complete joke, both in reach and in how it’s leadership is not much better then the Democratic Party.
Click to expand...
JagerIV said:
The problem with libertarianism right now is that most ofnthe leadership is basically left wing at this point: yarron brook is bacially a pro Biden neoconservative at this point. Reason is at best center left.

Hopperian libertarianism isnt bad, but also very much in the fringe of libertarianism.

Current leadership of the libertarian party seems to basically be run by blairist leftists. When the libertarians whish to govern to the left of the Republican party, thrir usefulness is questionable.
Click to expand...
I'm not a Libertarian, but I do see them as a far preferable alternative to a GOP that embraces reactionaries and 'Dark Enlightenment' bullshit.

Also, Libertarian ideals will get far more traction with 'normies' than Dark Enlightenment rhetoric will, so it is actually more viable that the reactionary/paleo-con angle.
 
Hopperian Libertarianism seems from what I've gleaned to be basically neo feudalism with some Pinochet style "helicopter rides".

I mean, that's just "property is sacred, anyone who opposes property ownership to the sea".

Which doesn't actually address moral or spiritual concerns.
 
Lord Invictus said:
Hopperian Libertarianism seems from what I've gleaned to be basically neo feudalism with some Pinochet style "helicopter rides".

I mean, that's just "property is sacred, anyone who opposes property ownership to the sea".

Which doesn't actually address moral or spiritual concerns.
Click to expand...

Well it's something of a step up from running around wailing "NAP!" whilst the left continues its inexorable advance.

Liberty or else is a functional philosophy to wield against Marxist agitators who are happy to devote their lives to their cause, even if the next generation finishes what they start. It essentially boils down to "if you don't want to live by our values, then you can piss off."
 
Yes, but what about contrasting liberties? Or opposed liberties? The left has its institutions, its own sources of money. Even in Hopperian Libertarianism, you can't really stop this. I suppose you could argue their aims are to deprive liberty.

But then we run into the issue that to have a society, someone has to have the boot heel on someone else.

So while it is definitely a step up, its not enough.

Liberty without the actual content-that is mores and values, comes down to who has more guns at the moment.
 
What really killed my interest and respect for mainstream libertarians is their orthodoxy on immigration which speaks to a fundementally unserious thinking. States do exist, and there are property rights tied up in that. With immigration, they seemed to wish to talk as though collective property didnt exist, and thus flooding an area with new voters who thus have property rights to the state was a non-issue.

Sometime out of college after being a libertarian for about 4 years, I realized the general solution to issues of reality that libertarianism werent well set up to deal with was to ignore them, and the thinking became less free wheeling thay I grew disolutioned and no longer self identify as such.

Hopper at least reconized the contraditions and tried to deal with them, such as the problem with democracy where at is base is an idea of collective ownership, duty, and will. And once you accept the idea of "a public will", justifications for libertarian self interest and autonomy wither before calls to implement the near unlimited mandate to enforce the public will.

His solution, as Lord said, was basically neo-fedualism, that the government itself was just an extension of indeviduals large scale property rights, but well, at least he tried to deal with the issue.
 
Aldarion said:
I think it comes from the very nature of conservativism. Conservare - to preserve, to stay the same. Conservatives have nothing to gain, they can only hope to defend, and so aggression and aggressive mentality are discouraged. Meanwhile Marxists have a clear goal - destruction of anything traditional, European, or sane - and act appropriately.
Click to expand...

It is also, because it is hold overs from when our opponents actually played the same game. And we could win or lose and then go out and have a drink and laugh and be friends over the result. People continue to do this, because it was the right thing, the correct strategy and so on, and they refuse to stop, because old habits due hard and people often refuse to "lower" themselves even if it has become requisite.

And I now I have outstanding posts to attend to, I will try.
 
Aldarion said:
Libertarians are big part of the reason for the mess. They basically went "all deregulation", without understanding that:
1) individual always loses against the group. Libertarians are those guys from Risa, Progressives are the Borg Collective. Who do you think will win?
2) total freedom also removes the tradition and the borders. If you remove tradition, people are groundless, and are easy to manipulate - and will seek safety, which means socialism, laws and totalitarian state. If you remove borders, this just enables growth of supranational entities which are far more dangerous for individual freedom than a nation-state ever could be.
3) total freedom also means total freedom for the guys who want to take any and all freedom you have away from you... that is, the Left.

Only possible answer is traditionalism... Dark Enlightenment, Neoreaction, but only if put into practice. Paleoconservativism, if you don't have any better ideas, but that is the newest thing that should be acceptable.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Hell, I have mentioned before how liberalism emphasized the individual and rebellion and destruction of groups and yet its child the current left which is all out a collectivist group now is able to destroy the various individuals without issue.

Hell, liberalism while talking a big game about "Muh individualism" did keep groups around and supported them in form of LGBT and Feminism which claims to be for all women and advances their interest as a collective.

I have long suspected that Leftists and Liberals pushed for maximum individualism as a tactic to destroy anything that can oppose the left cause they sure as hell kept their own groups while having everyone lose theirs.
 
Libertarians seem to have the naive belief that their adversaries will combat them on their own terms, as "free" individuals, and not as collective groups.

Individualism has its benefits, but collectivist organization will beat disorganized individuals every single time.
 
Lord Invictus said:
Libertarians seem to have the naive belief that their adversaries will combat them on their own terms, as "free" individuals, and not as collective groups.

Individualism has its benefits, but collectivist organization will beat disorganized individuals every single time.
Click to expand...

Which is why libertarians need to combine together as individuals to fight. They need to leverage their own strength and then coopt the strength of their foes if they want to win.
 
Libertarian though isn't the same as the Libertarian Party, furthermore the problem with most people's perception's of libertarianism is that the entire philosophy is a big tent movement that boils down to (government<individual) making the movement of libertarianism seem to be vastly different from different view points.

A lot of people around here have the bad habbit of complaining about any other blend of conservatism but their own, but the fact is that for all Trump has done, the world has done the exact same things, the exact same way, since he first took office. nothing has changed, as far as we still aren't seen as the 'flow' just fish moving against it.
 
Last edited:
Lord Invictus said:
I'd generally say the Cato Institute is Libertarianism.

And its basically "drugs, sex, unlimited immigration and wars be bad mkay?"
Click to expand...
Well it's not wrong if you automatically assume all libertarians are hippies who only care about getting high, committing adultery and kissing up to immigrants.

From my point of view, Libertarianism and Minarchist Libertarianism in particular is a form of desire to revert federal institutions to their post Articles Of Confederation, pre-imperial presidency standards of Constitutional governance, immigration is a flexible issue for me, because it's a federal job and nothing says a person with libertarian leanings can't be against it.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top