Quote:
Originally Posted by Catgirl64
Why? It seems to be working rather well in this one.
I know that as a liberal I wasn't invited to this particular party, but I actually enjoy talking with libertarians and ancaps. I may not agree with them about everything, but they sure do make me think.
|
That you find so much interesting and probably some in common with them perfectly illustrates my prior point about shared political DNA between progressives and libertarians, even though the LOLitarians here will deny it. And this is at least your second sentiment to that effect in this thread.
And, no, they are here complaining that we don't interact with them enough. Its basically begging for respect that they don't have. They don't care about interacting with you, mostly, because you aren't the target. They aren't afraid of you, as self-interested minorities, nor do they disagree with a lot of your positions. They're here to whine that we don't retread the same ground with them over and over again, so that they can feel nice about supposedly advancing a long buried thought experiment that never was and never will be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest
Freedom loving, non-violent, property respecting types really trigger you. You aren't debating anything, you're just attacking.
|
Who is here to debate? I debated them in other threads, in good faith. They're here to complain that they're now being ignored. I don't perceive a debate, I'm not offering one, and nor do I read substantial support of their own positions on the rare occasion when they attempt to venture some beyond "natural rights is the bestess".
You don't have freedom, non-violence, or property respect just because you complain that you want it like these boys do. You actually have to articulate a functional system that will assure those things, which they never have done and will always fail to do. Because it doesn't exist in their model that remains an unfinished thought experiment built on multitudes of unrealistic contingencies, which was really only created to undermine the Right. Its political nonsense meant for those without the ability to actually model how it would play out, but mostly its for people who merely hate the traditional Right. You can give yourself or them all of the florid adjectives that you wish, but that doesn't make it real. The only way you will accomplish those things is if you can take and protect them, which requires a national government and military. As it always has and always will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor
Libertarianism is apolitical. For some reason you are unable to understand that.
|
Ah..okay. I understand more than you think.
I do understand that about libertarianism, and this perspective has always rested as part of the core of my attack against it.
Just as communism attempted to substitute dysfunctional political software in place of functional political software (the proletariat that offers no power for the family and its ethnic culture that offers real power), you attempt to substitute a dysfunctional system (apolitical or a system that lacks the ability to build political power) for a nationalist system that can incubate political power and offer protection from foreign systems and rule (or genocide).
Thanks very much for making my point for me. Stating that libertarianism is apolitical, or lacks the ability to confer political power in a political world, is admitting that it is a system that is only suited for slaves. That is not hypebole. No power is the de facto political power status of slaves everywhere, and in fact this status is the primary delineator of 'slave class'.
Humans are not apolitical. We are entirely political. We never were apolitical, since we crawled from the caves, and never will be. Politics is the game of life, from your relationship with your family, community, nation, neighbor, mayor, and plumber. This is life, protection, power, and politics. There is no substitute.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor
No one has ever refuted any of my points with substantiated facts. The only refutations are hypotheticals and ad hominem.
|
What a joke. And a lie. What facts are you referring to? You've never successfully defended your system. You only state that "da state is bad" and "natural rights". Whereas I have repeatedly offered detailed political modeling of how your system doesn't work whatsoever. This is aside from its lack of observable implementation. You're response and those of your allies, as in here, is to claim that I hate "muh freedoms" and then to deny that any debate took place or to falsely claim that you have ever attempted a sincere elucidation of a model of your system. The most I have ever seen you write is a couple of lines about hypothetical details like property rights or border controls, but they are never supported with sound logic that isn't immediately defeated and it is never couched in a holistic model nor logic that extends across your entire system. Stating that my arguments center around ad hominems is ridiculous on its face, especially in light of your consistent lack of content and lack of debate success. Its amazing that you beg for more continued abuse given how one sided these arguments are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor
If anyone has common ground with communists it's nationalists. Collectivism and forced conformity are antithetical to liberty.
|
More "muh freedoms" and "muh liberty" with no further expression or evidence of thought, substituting for argument when actually none exists whatsoever. Perfect example. Thank you.
There is natural collectivism, based in ethnicity and /or race. Ethnics will always conform to one another to a degree, out of happy choice or instinct, and that is none of your business if you aren't a part. It offers them political power and protection. Most can always leave a particular such nation if they aren't happy.
In contrast, communism takes away natural national bonds, which are politically effective, and substitutes with false political bonds of economic interest and association that are not political effective. No power is conferred by these bonds, which is obvious when you observe how easily members of the Soviet proletariat were jailed and murdered. The point in a communist system is to make former nationalists into political individuals. Exactly akin to your system.
Political bonds of family and community are severed. Dysfunctional personal habits and values are encouraged to reduce the ability of these individuals to form a politically powerful community, or "collective".
Instead, this psychological hole (because it is a natural instinct) is filled with a false promise of an economic associative substitute that only oppresses. Communism is not true collectivism. Its a system of individuals, with zero political power that are thus defined as slaves, under an oppressive (often) foreign ruled government.
Under libertarianism, you advocate for that first step that is necessary for communism to take hold: the dissolution of effective nationalist (family, community) bonds for dysfunctional individualistic morality and behavior that leaves people vulnerable to slavery because it elaves them without power and protection.
Further, you don't understand communism, which is obvious from your above statement, and thus have no business in this argument (and thus really any political argument).
And this is where your BS really starts to stink. Because I've been through this with you before on a couple of occasions at least, and you had zero response. The exact same material. Your responses aren't even congruent with my prior statements in this thread alone. You don't pay attention or argue against my points (reading comprehension issues?). And yet everyone is too afraid to debate you!?!
What a joke! Do you have any dignity whatsoever? that's my question a this point. Forget the almost irrelevant political discussion that we aren't even really having.
You simply reappear and rattle of a couple of unsupported cliches and think that's an argument. The most you'll muster here is a denial, but you won't be able to model a true rebuttal. What smells terribly is that you are back here with amnesia pretending like you have said something poignant in the past or are saying it now, when you have nothing.
I'll expect to wait a month and have you back here complaining how your "facts" (ahem) aren't refuted and no one ever debates you. Its a running joke in this forum, or it is now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor
To the contrary, conservatives in general are too cowardly to debate libertarians, as they lack the intellectual capacity to do so. Once again to your credit, you at least try.
|
Lolitarians. yeesh. I've spanked you over and over again on this forum, including here, and your rebuttals consist entirely of cliches, personal attacks, and misrepresentations of our historical interactions.
Here. I'm right here. Waiting for your intellectual bombshell. Lay it on me, boss. WHERE IS IT?!?
Nowhere. That's where. Its never been here, and never will be. I have all the intellect that you can handle on these matters, and yet you still have N_O_T_H_I_I_N_G. There is nothing forthcoming from you but more of the same cliched assertions with no intellectual support to reinforce them. No historical citations that apply to the present. No successful hypothetical modeling. No successful political logic other than assertions about how you wish people would behave. You have garbage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor
I rarely, if ever, lose a debate.
|
Woo hoo hooh hooh.
That's a knee slapper. You know what they say about the guy who claims that his junk is large. I wouldn't even make that audacious claim. But the truth is that I've never seen you win one, and especially not with me. You don't understand politics, let alone what an argument vs an assertion or cliche looks like. Your politics don' exist in reality. Moreover, your motivations were clear a few weeks ago. You attempting to (emphasis) argue from a place of fear rather than conviction. And you're position is well dated. You need to time-warp back to 1960 when post WWII guilt was still sweeping the West and people were more vulnerable to BS that would later allow the Far Left to gain so much traction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor
Conservatives just don't know how to respond to intelligent discussion.
|
Can you direct me to your intelligent discussion? I must have missed it. Seriously, I'll lower my standards considerably. Show me something that passes for intelligent discussion and I'll give it to you. Some evidence of abstract thought. Some evidence of extensive political theory or logic. Something. The truth is that you cannot complete this task upon request, and I doubt that you could write it if I gave you the time right now to do so.
By the way, again, note that your arguments consist wholly of assertions about us (or me), which are obviously contradicted by the evidence. There are no "facts". There is no political logic. This is the sum of your argument and this, to you, is what passes for "intelligent discussion".
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor
Nah--it's too fun.
|
Sure it is. That's why you guys have a pathetic thread complaining that no one will engage with you. Bye bye dignity. Prep to be ignored from here on out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor
Says the leftist gatekeeper.
|
Again more evidence of your lack of intellectual capacity on these matters. Whereas I will (at least 3-4 times in various discussions) offered detailed political modeling and logic as to why and how you are a tool of the Far Left, your rebuttal consists of an unsupported assertion.
You are the one who runs from actual discussion and debate. Whether that is by ignoring my prior logical proofs to repeat long refuted assertions, or to simply type with nothing to support what you say, you are the evasive one. And now you've been deemed to be a time waster and unworthy of further interaction.
I'e heard everything that you've had to say, all one paragraph of total content, over and over again.
You've never offered anything new. You've never successfully rebutted anything that I've said with any type of logical presentation, and your tactics in your simplistic repetitiveness and superficial responses are reminiscent of communist propaganda tactics. So, that's another link. You simply have had your chance, and have failed to pique my interest with any type of substantive response at any point in time. And you know what? I won't be here next week starting a thread about how you won't talk to me
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor
Once again, you are one of the only self-identified conservatives here who actually engages libertarians in debate, as misguided as YOUR fantasy politics are. The rest of them are absolute cowards and mental midgets.
|
My politics were the politics of most of human civilization for most of its history. Mostly embodied in monarchy, but also still a large presence in society in general until after WWII. They are as far from "fantasy" as it gets. More reality denial and nonsensical assertions on your part. Yours fail to exist except in yet to be developed frontier societies and in theory. Thanks for the further demonstration of your argument brand.
They aren't afraid of you. They just think that your politics are silly an that you are a waste of time to debate. They're correct. I only post in response to you (in the past) to record deeper elucidations of political logic that more conservatives should be aware of, and which clear up some misconceptions.
My engagement of you actually has very little to do with you, normally. As far as this thread is concerned, I dislike pathetic behavior and weakness and so this whiny complaint over engagement inspired me to offer you one last interaction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor
How are property rights globalist? Globalism requires a State.
|
Is this a twist of my statements or a reading comprehension problem? The point is that you won't have property rights under globalism. You will only have property rights under a nationalist government. You can not otherwise defend your property nor your right to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor
Large system? Are you just making things up as you go?
|
What's your reading comprehension issue? Are you making things up? Your system requires the dilution of nationalist borders, which are the only thing holding back a global federal state. Nationalism is the closest that you will get to your libertarianism, no matter how distasteful or dissonance inducing that is for you. Freedom through smaller true community. Its better than a larger (fake) Marxist "community", no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor
Nationalist government is essentially communism, and yet you're here lecturing me about being in bed with them.
|
Oh, shoot. I missed your supporting logic. I only see another unsupported assertion from the guy who "never loses a debate". For a refutation of the logic that you would have used, see my prior post.
Nationalism is in no way communism. They are opposite ideologies, and further evidence of this can be found in the theologies that they manifest. Which, again, are polar opposite. The God-King (the North Star, the unmoving mover, the objective center, the navel of the World) vs the worship of the people (theologically an morally akin to robots or insects). But that's another post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor
Property borders are as far from globalism as one can get. If I didn't want a certain group of people to cross my borders, I would be free to use any force necessary to stop them.
|
Then you are at least a small group nationalist, because your ability to defend those borders will be exactly in proportion to your ability to defend against the next largest political group down the road.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor
The rest of that paragraph is purely speculative and has no factual proof.
|
My word, dude. Just slink away.
What has no "factual" proof? That libertarian governments don't exist? The burden is on you to show that proof. Where are they? Where were they?
That no property rights are the globalist proposal? That's speculative and without proof? Are you being serious or punking us? The most significant globalist movement of the past century to the present, which is indeed
the globalist movement, is Marxist communism (which is he same as nationalism according to you, amirite?
). It is still the spiritual core of globalism. See Europe. Denying that a denial of property rights, being the core of communism, is not the core of communism's globalism, or that asserting such is conjecture, is counterfactual. Certainly, you aren't denying that communism depends on a large federal government.
Again, your arguments lack support as a mater of habit. Your consistent argument style is to make unsupported assertions that are disproven with proofs almost every single time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor
Community...commune...communism. Pot, meet kettle.
|
Are you in eighth grade? Is that he core of your political logic? You aren't worth any of my time and you fully deserve your future.
I think that I'll start a political movement called "Funtime Heaven" and then throw you into a pit when you join it. But at least it will be called Funtime Heaven and so you must be having fun, right? Semantics are always accurate, and never would they be essentially inaccurate for a system whose core goal it is to destroy all other nations.
See my prior writing (repeated at least four times with you in different discussions) about how the nature of political association under communism and nationalism are fundamentally in opposition. One leads to self determination through political power incubated through ethnic community (which in turn was incubated via functional family life), and the other to slavery through no meaningful cultural association between people and dysfunctional families (an thus no politically functional communities).
Your system variously advocates for or logically implies the same essential cultural system as communism does. The same individualistic disassociation characteristic of the slave class. It has to, or nationalist communities will continuously arise as a matter of human self interest, family instinct, community instinct, cultural instinct, and political instinct.
All politics are defined through the social sphere because all political power is the result of ever deeper levels of interpersonal cooperation. Thus it is clear that your system is fully aligned with the sociopolitical root of individualist communism, and that nationalism is fully opposed.
Again, point me to your grand intellectual discourse that we are all ignoring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor
You are solely responsible for your own property, as are your neighbors. What you are saying is that you are too weak to defend them and you depend on others for your defense.
|
Yes, you are too weak. Everyone is. You will have people come in and rape your wife while you are out looking for food or working, you will have people shoot you from 200 yards and take your property. You are too weak. Your system is nonsense, in total.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor
Frontier environments are actually ideal in many ways.
|
But they no longer exist in places that are worth developing and inhabiting. They certainly don't exist for the seven billion people of planet Earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor
Power vacuums are also a good thing, as they allow self-rule.
|
No, power vacuums mean that you have no power nor protection. They mean that you are of the slave class, because you lack political power, and will either be taken as a de facto or overt slave or killed as he next powerful large political force rolls through. If you are extremely lucky you can live at their lowest class level in their society. Your system and thought processes are wholly unrealistic.
I actually love your last two attempts at argument, because they are so nonsensical that they are nicely wrapping up my point that your system is not worth arguing over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor
Group political power is collectivism. Political power in and of itself is collectivism.
|
I fail to see your point whatsoever. You are assuming that we share some kind of common morality where pointing something out as collectivist means that you win the argument. You are only illustrating your lack of capacity to debate or argue.
Moreover, group political power is survival. Group political power is wealth. Group political power is peace. Group political power is protection an enforceable laws. Group political power is civilization. Group political power is community.
Oohh.. I thought of a nice frontier society for you. Africa... the libertarian's utopia. Completely bereft of functional community power and government through large expanses of it. Where everyone is an individual or at least where a large number have the equivalent dysfunctional community habits. A libertarian's (and coincidentally a communist's) dream. Enjoy!
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor
The family unit has nothing to do with government, as families are and should be autonomous.
|
Yes, again, you are here arguing well out of your political league. No offense. The family is central to nationalist political power, as well as any serious political power for any people whomsoever. Scratch a genuinely powerful group and find a solid family culture underneath.
Nationalist political power grows organically from the family unit. The communists knew and know this, which is why they work so hard to destroy the family.
If I didn't have to explain everything else in the world to you in this post, again for at least the fourth time on this forum, then I could embark on a couple of paragraphs of proofs for this assertion. My proofs are solid and true. And understood by a large number of people. You aren't arguing within your realm of expertise, whatever that may be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor
The bad guys already exist; they're who makes up governments.
|
Nice spin, but rhetorical nonsense. The bad guys are those who will kill or enslave you in your libertarian utopia.
Quote:
And you've been proven wrong once again.
The far left made progress starting with Teddy Roosevelt and continued through FDR.
|
Where have you "proven me wrong"? I see assertions that do not invalidate what I stated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor
You did it again. Number five.
This is why your argument is inherently failed.
|
Again, nonsense assertions. No argument. No detail. Nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor
Nope. I'm mostly Caucasian, with 1/8 Native blood.
|
We've had this discussion prior. No need to change your race now. Be black and proud. Or was that No_Recess? I thought it was both. Still do. Either way. Its sincerely difficult to tell you two apart. Your rhetorical styles and knowledge base are mirrors of one another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor
If that scenario did happen, I would either sell my property or come to a voluntary agreement with the other property owners. If we couldn't come to an agreement I would try to live peaceably among us.
|
Sounds like a terrible system in which you'd have to form a quasi nationalist association, be without property or forever moving, or soon be dead.
Quote:
|
Again, it's never happened. You're one of the only self-identified conservatives who even tries
|
Really? Because youv'e been entirely shut down here. You offer no substantive responses to anything, and you hadn't prior. You have nothing to refute any of my more detailed logic offered here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor
How do you know? The mighty United States military has been defeated multiple times by civilian armies with lesser firepower.
A libertarian society based on property rights would allow me or anyone else to own the same weapons as a hostile foreign government, including nuclear weapons.
|
Dude, its getting bad. Your starting to become a typing satire of libertarianism. Sure, nuclear weapons with your subsistence farm. You will have no army without your nationalist government. This isn't 1776. There will be no putting a dent in a single medium size unit of a modern military without such a military. It takes a government to field everything that you just stated, no exceptions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor
How so? Each individual is different. Your reliance on “groups” is sheer Marxist-Leninist.
|
No, "groups" have been the way of civilization since we crawled out of the caves. You only rely on citing Marxism because you not only don't understand it but you don' understand political history, seemingly, or politics in general.
Moreover, each group of people can be observed to resort to consistent types of behavior over time. Each individual is not different. Each individual is a part of a race, and the behavioral numbers average out predictably over any significant group of any people that would form a community. Those numbers are what you will see whether or not those people are spread out over your libertarian utopia or in a formal civilization with laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor
Where's your documented proof of unfettered crime under a property rights-based society?
|
LOL..where is your documented proof of a property rights based society?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor
Who says there wouldn't be police forces? They would be free-market, voluntary, and liable to their customers.
|
In the real world, we call those type of police the mafia. In your world, assuming lack of a pure mafia (though unlikely to be anything but), they would be the de facto private security force for whomever paid them. They certainly would not be duty bound to enforce justice. They would also be very likely to become a self directed entity, like the mafia. Until you raised a force to oppose them. And then all of a sudden you are looking an awful lot like he beginning of combating nations. It would have likely been easier to begin with less corruptible national institutions, with checks and balances, from the ground up.
Both of our scenarios are predictions. The major difference being that the predicted results of my scenario are observable in the real world. Where, like always, yours is pure fantasy. Where they will stay.
Take it easy, LOLitarians.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
