have you guys noticed lolberts are the only thing that scares them? natsocs and socialists are the entirety of the discussion, shills for and against, but the moment the discussion moves towards freedom from jewish influence people freak the fuck out
Why does freedom for the goy scare them more than an ideology that literally calls for their genocide? why does every shill try and argue lolberts believe things they dont? I've never heard an argument against lolbertism that didn't involve pushing the envelope far outside the meaning of the term to mcnukes, private owned police etc, saying we are an extension of our party, which is just as corrupt and broken as any other political party, or arguing that we are for degeneracy, regardless of how we actually view degeneracy
there is never an argument of substance against lolberts, arguments against us depend on a lack of knowledge on part of the reader, mcnukes and private police are an ancap meme nobody actually wants for example, yet they still come up, libertarians are only against involuntary taxation, IE: income and property tax, yet people still ask who will build the roads, lolberts argue for freedoms to homeschool or segregate their kids to protect them from degeneracy, but people somehow see a lack of policing people in their own homes as a support of things they disagree with
I don't pretend it is perfect as an ideology and that isnt the point of this, but why does it scare them >It was made by jews and doesnt It was named by jews, liberty has existed as an idea since before America has, everything you love about America that hasn't been molested yet, is because you are free to enjoy it, or own it
Why are we the only side that isn't (outside our shitty political party) jew a or jew b?
Scares who, you big fat idiot. Lolberts are tolerated enough that they can run political parties and get percentages of the vote. Fascism and national socialism get shut down immediately.
"Freedom" will never work because the odds are already so stacked in their favour that without regulations the few corporations that collectively monopolize nearly all big business in America would just run a train up the average citizen's asshole. They have money, you don't - money begets money. That's how it works in capitalism. It lets you corner markets, weather bad times, outcompete any adversary.
This is a sad thread.
Cameron Phillips
Not that current regulations do anything particularly good either, as lobbying lets big companies just sneak legislative exemptions for whatever they need packaged into bills. But you're an actual retard if you think being all enthusiastic about freedom against an opponent who controls all narrative and flow of information and thus the democratic process.
Nicholas Harris
Is this an argument saying necessary avenues such as banking or ISPs will still be able to deny service to you because libertarianism treats corporations like individuals in the same way corporate america does?
This seems like a nigger argument
Strong agree
Carter Price
They control the flow of information in a way that can easily be outlawed with a constitutional case stating that online forums are public discourse that cannot be controlled, that potential is there thanks to a framework of legal freedoms set out nearly 250 years ago
Blake Hill
You're too uneducated to be discussing this if you think the only way trillion GDP corporate conglomerates can only wipe out competition through banking and ISP manipulation. But again, the reality is that most anti-trust legislation is fucking gone, corporations control the legislative process and the media, and you have jackshit in terms of options for non-violent reform. You have nothing, zilch, nada, you're a buffoon dreaming up democratic reform in a state where the democratic process and the collective ideological leanings of an entire nation are controlled through mass media. And you think lolbert non-sense about market deregulation would ever fly in a way that benefits the small business owner.
Who'd pass that legislation? Your politicians? Who'd campaign through media to pass that legislation? Your media conglomerate CEOs?
I don't think you understand, lolbertarianism is what got us into this fucking mess through capital accumulation and lack of national loyalties. Capital is both the means and the ends here. They'll continue fucking you up the butt while you play their game.
Kevin Fisher
How are you going to have violent reform without the free access to guns libertarianism has given us?
without government control butchering small business, there would be no monopolies, if there were, I would still be able to create my own business, like a bar, without a 50,000 dollar liquor license, or replacing septic tanks, like our boomer forebears did with nothing but a shovel
You realize America wasn't always as it is today, correct?
Kayden Price
>How are you going to have violent reform without the free access to guns libertarianism has given us? Claiming that access to guns is a feature of libertarianism exclusively is stupid. Great, you have one fail-safe that you're still probably never going to make use of since democracy is so effective at keeping up a veneer of legitimacy.
>You realize America wasn't always as it is today, correct? Yeah, and how do you think it became this way, genius? You think the will of the people elected politicians that heard their plea to screw them over? It's all lobbying and financial interests, not of the government itself, but of corporations who've wormed their way into your government. The US government and its corporate conglomerates are virtually inseparable at this point, it's why they have so much coordination in sabotaging foreign countries. And how did these corporations worm their way into the White House? Libertarianism. Not through its principles, but through its praxis.
Ayden Barnes
Liberty is on the libertarian side of the political compass, are you arguing that legal guns are not a libertarian policy?
Are you also arguing that lobbying is a fundamental element of libertarianism? why are you arguing against my ideology using something that is unrelated to my ideology?
Grayson James
Lolberts dont scare anyone. Never have. Never will. You are being delusional af
Samuel James
name a time you have seen a real argument against libertarianism, that wasn't just taking advantage of the uninformed
Hudson Perry
>Liberty is on the libertarian side of the political compass, are you arguing that legal guns are not a libertarian policy? A 2D political compass is not encompassing of most political positions and government forms, let alone them all. You can allow guns (a single libertarian policy) while having a strong state that absorbs corporations, instead of letting corporations enforce their interests onto the legislative branch (fascism).
>why are you arguing against my ideology using something that is unrelated to my ideology? Because your ideology is specially conducive to it. It creates powerful private entities who then force their way into the government through underhanded means (and eventually legitimize it into lobbying) and use that power not to the benefit of a nation's people, but for their own monetary benefit. How else would you even arrive at a conclusion such as lobbying? Libertarianism is short-sighted, there are dozens of other examples of this same principle in action.
Wyatt Nguyen
>assuming private firearm ownership is because of your gay ideology that has no historical precedent >assuming government restrictions on certain types of economic behavior are always bad >assuming that private entities, such as corporations, will not take advantage of you and are not at this very moment No wonder ppl hate ppl like you. Lolberts are incredibly gay and annoying. You treat life and people like an input/output computer program. You misattribute any modicum of freedom that you presently have to a gay ideology that only cropped up recently because of literal jews. And you fail to see that many governmental regulations are present to prevent miserly faggots like yourself from running rough shod over those less fortunate than themselves.
Kevin Wood
You are like water, you have gone around my question, ignoring it completely, to claim that legal guns being libertarian does not mean you are pro liberty if you legalize guns, the statement I made was that legalizing guns is ultimately a libertarian act, this statement is factually correct
>Libertarianism is specially conducive to lobbying according to who? are you saying libertarians are advocating corporate lobbying as an effective political solution? that's ridiculous
gradually I began to hate them
Everything in this country left that is not awful, is left because intelligent men protected those freedoms through word of law, without libertarian thinking we would be as broken as europe
Carson Watson
Alright, you're mouth deep into cognitive dissonance. But just for the sake of hopefully making you aware of the failings in your ideology, I'll answer one more time, although this time I am just repeating what I said before since you (ironically) haven't offered any proper refutation.
>according to who? It doesn't need to be according to anyone at all if it's simply a logical conclusion. Again, lobbying comes about when corporations and private interests become strong enough that they would be manipulating the legislative process regardless of whether lobbying gets passed into law or not. The only way you end up with corporations and private interests that strong is with a total lack of regulation and government intervention. It's mathematical, it doesn't need to be said. And of course no libertarian philosopher is going there because they're dreadfully optimistic about their ideology, as every ideologue is.
And no, quoting Mein Kampf doesn't make you any more convincing. It's just cringe given the circumstances. Please get a more cohesive world view.
Liam Martinez
Every libertarian goes there, so much I thought about putting it in my OP as the fourth stupid argument relying on the reader being uninformed
without lobbying to begin with, corporations are not capable of reaching the size you are talking about, without legal lobbying, the resistance to illegal lobbying quickly destroys it, there is nothing mathematical about your word salad, you are arguing for lobbying, something every libertarian is vehemently against, you are a jew
Angel Lee
Arguing that we are for lobbying*
Joshua Lee
>the USA was libertarian and good before, and libertarianism does not allow lobbying because companies can't get big enough to lobby for lobbying >but also the USA is bad now because it's not libertarian and this happened through lobbying, which became a thing along the way because uhm kikes just happened to grow too rich and influential You hurt my heart dearly in knowing I just spent several minutes trying to explain something to someone just for them to run proudly and headfirst into a logical contradiction.
There's really nothing sadder than a broken libertarian who copes about their failed ideology by blaming the enemy who only got powerful through that same ideology, an issue that runs back all the way to the French Revolution.
Chase Rivera
>Lobbying is libertarian because America did it >But guns are not libertarian because its possible other ideologies can implement it you are a jew
if you are going to make this retarded claim, please explain to me how lobbying is somehow in line with libertarian ideology
In at least three seperate posts at this point I have established the logical relationship between libertarianism and lobbying. It doesn't need to be in line with the ideal functioning of an ideology for it to be an issue of that ideology. Commies don't account for the logistical issues of central planning, yet they exist. At this point just believe in whatever stupid cope you want to believe in, I just hope that if a time ever comes to clean the slate and decide how things will be run you aren't the retard calling the shots and setting us back on the same path all over again.
