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.
Being apolitical is to be in a default setting of anarchy. Which, unless you believe in the social contract (speaking of fairies), is the natural born state of a human.
So, Libertarian Purism is analogous to masturbation?
A state of fantasy which feels good but produces nothing.
And no, I don't believe in "social contracts" but I don't believe in open borders either.
If other countries want a libertarian based government, let them get their own.
So, Libertarian Purism is analogous to masturbation?
A state of fantasy which feels good but produces nothing.
And no, I don't believe in "social contracts" but I don't believe in open borders either.
If other countries want a libertarian based government, let them get their own.
I don't see how liberty jives with an involuntary government.
And the obsession with results is a uniquely statist mindset. How it "feels" or what it "produces" have no bearing on how you morally and logically conduct yourself.
I'll masturbate myself. Or not. You masturbate yourself. Or not.
I'll masturbate (or not) for the reasons I want to. You masturbate (or not) for the reasons you want to.
I don't see how liberty jives with an involuntary government.
And the obsession with results is a uniquely statist mindset. How it "feels" or what it "produces" have no bearing on how you morally and logically conduct yourself.
I'll masturbate myself. Or not. You masturbate yourself. Or not.
I'll masturbate (or not) for the reasons I want to. You masturbate (or not) for the reasons you want to.
I don't consider all government involuntary.
A certain amount of government is necessary for purposes of national defense, international trade and border enforcement.
The biggest problem with libertarian purism is that in order to work, the whole world would have to agree to play by the same rules....and we know that will never happen.
I subscribe to certain libertarian principles such as live and let live, property rights and self ownership, but I do so from a bit of a protectionist point of view.
For example, I apply the concept of property rights to the country as a whole...... just as I have no right to come set up camp in your living room, immigrants have no right to come set up camp across our borders.
If you argue freedom of movement as part of self ownership, why is it necessary for me to give up my property rights to a country in order for them to gain their freedom of movement?
Again, let them get their own liberty, it is not my responsibility.
When will you understand that what I would do and what the majority of voters would do are two different things?
If the state steals 9k from me instead of 10k it still sucks but it is a step back on the road to serfdom.
If it weren't for the immigration act of 1965 and proceeding, both political parties would most likely be more to the 'right' and the republican party would be more libertarian. You can't have open borders to Democrat/liberal/socialist voting groups and have libertarianism. Libertarianism wouldn't work in a multicultural country anyway. It was just turn into a Brazil.
I just want to live in an America that is not overpopulated and as is monoculturally cohesive without so much government interference into everything, kind of like "1955" and don't care about libertarian politics.
If it weren't for the immigration act of 1965 and proceeding, both political parties would most likely be more to the 'right' and the republican party would be more libertarian. You can't have open borders to Democrat/liberal/socialist voting groups and have libertarianism. Libertarianism wouldn't work in a multicultural country anyway. It was just turn into a Brazil.
I just want to live in an America that is not overpopulated and as is monoculturally cohesive without so much government interference into everything, kind of like "1955" and don't care about ligbbertarian politics.
I agree with the open borders My major influence is Milton Friedman. Let me quote him "you can have a welfare state or you can have open borders. You can't have both."
For example, I apply the concept of property rights to the country as a whole...... just as I have no right to come set up camp in your living room, immigrants have no right to come set up camp across our borders.
If you argue freedom of movement as part of self ownership, why is it necessary for me to give up my property rights to a country in order for them to gain their freedom of movement?
Again, let them get their own liberty, it is not my responsibility.
I agree with you. Also I think labor has some level of property rights that should if not have a tiny bit of government protection or private 'union' protection, should at least not be sided against and trampled by government and globalist. That would probably make me a 'socialist' by most libertarians today lol.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
