libertarianism
About us
An open, user owned community for the general disscussion of the libertarian philosophy.
- Libertarianism is the belief that each person has the right to live his life as he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others.
- Libertarians defend each person’s right to life, liberty, and property.
- In the libertarian view, voluntary agreement is the gold standard of human relationships.
- If there is no good reason to forbid something (a good reason being that it violates the rights of others), it should be allowed.
- Force should be reserved for prohibiting or punishing those who themselves use force.
Most people live their own lives by that code of ethics. Libertarians believe that that code should be applied consistently, even to the actions of governments, which should be restricted to protecting people from violations of their rights. Governments should not use their powers to censor speech, conscript the young, prohibit voluntary exchanges, steal or “redistribute” property, or interfere in the lives of individuals who are otherwise minding their own business.
Source: https://www.libertarianism.org/essays/what-is-libertarianism
Rules
1. Stay on topic
We are a libertarian community. There are no restrictions regarding different stances on the political spectrum, but all posts should be related to the philosophy of libertarianism.
2. Be polite to others and respects each others opinions.
Be polite to others and respects each others opinions. We don't want any form of gatekeeping or circlejerk culture here.
3. Stay constructive and informational
In general, all types of contributions are allowed, but the relevance to this community must always be evident and presented openly by the contributor. Posts that do not meet these requirements will be removed after a public warning. Also remember to cite you sources!
4. Use self-moderation measures first before reporting.
This community is fundamentally built upon freedom of speech. Since everyone understands libertarianism differently and we do not want to exclude any kind of content a priori, we appeal to the individual users to block/mute posts or users who do not meet their requirements. Please bear this in mind when filing a report
view the rest of the comments
If you were honest about your philosophy, you'd seek some way to prove it - and yourself - to be solid, logical and, well, honest.
But you're not. You're looking for explanations, excuses, ways to divert the discussion, distractions, and finally insults. Like an undereducated AIs guided by inflexible software.
There's no way in hell that you're going to ever take the responsibility for your choices and suggestions. Because all you have in store is a bunch of idiotic ideas that are supposed to be "other poeople's burden.
Would that be all?
I see you're a broken record now, attempting yet another character assassination instead of dismantling my argument. Nothing of what I've said allows you to draw the conclusions about me that you are presenting. It's disgraceful.
If anything, you've made it even more certain that anyone else coming across this exchange, won't take your side. Good job.
You're the one avoiding the real discussion.
I bet that even if I did provide the proof you are asking for, you'd find some way to invalidate it and require more. It's a classic arguing tactic among the brainless. So many times I've backed myself up with salient points, including now, only for them to be utterly ignored.
Who cares if you're wrong? If you keep claiming to be right, at least it feels like there's still a chance that you are.
But there isn't. You're wrong.
That will be all.
Yes. There's no merit in a discussion where one side pushes possibly troubling, hurtful propaganda and ideals, while not being ready to actually back them up with actions, thus setting an example that it can be done, that it's not that bad. Much like every dictator ever demands for others to make it happen.
Feel free to prove it in real word, Internet dictator.
It was over long ago.
It was over the moment you didn't read my comment, and responded with nonsense. Ever since, I've been trying to get you to admit that mistake, so we could have a real discussion.
By demanding action, you sidestep the actual exchange of ideas. Because online, here in a thread of mere text, ideas and the words that represent them, is all we have. By demanding action, you avoid having to defend your own views at all. You've made yourself look utterly devoid of reason to anyone capable of realising that. Which is everyone with their head on straight.
I'd need to be a mod to be a dictator, so I could ban you. Instead I'm right here on your level, trying to use words to explain why you're wrong. I demand nothing from you, except the basic ability to fucking read. You're the one demanding the literally impossible. That I bring grand actions as ideological proof, into a fucking anonymous text thread.
You just need to scroll the fuck up, and fucking read what I had to say. You're still responding as if I think something I don't. You're afraid of understanding what I have to say, that you might agree with me if you did, so afraid that you wont take off your beer goggles and look at reality with clear eyes. You'd rather appear insane to anyone watching than risk reality proving you wrong.
"It's over... B-bbut not really! I don't care about any further discussion and let me tell you in length just how much I don't care!"
Predictable. The likes of you are all talk. You can't get enough of your own words, you feel euphoric about re-reading your comments (and whole discussion while at that) at least a few times.
But that's just talk, no walk. And as such it deserves no attention.
Would that be all?
We are in an anonymous text thread. There is only talk here, the moment you began demanding a walk, that was just you sticking your fingers into your ears and going "laalaalaa". I will not stop trying to pull them out.
And I'm not afraid of admitting I care. Maybe I can't change your stance on this matter, but I want to at least make you think about how utterly idiotic your discussion methods are. How you've undermined your own position by sidestepping a real discussion, and hence leaving your actual points undefended. All you have left is to keep claiming you're still on top, but with no language to actually show that is the case.
"This is the end of discussion!"
Right. Self-importance, helluiva drug, am I right?
...but it didn't prevent you from using "everyone who may read it will think you idiot" argument.
You're not thinking straight.
Would that be all, or are you going to continue, still trying to avoid your responsibilites?
What responsibilities? What part of what I've said tells you I'm avoiding them?
I want you to see the errors you've made in presenting your argument and dismantling mine. I point out third parties because I want to provoke YOU into taking an outside look at your own words.
Then we'll be able to talk for real. Not this mudslinging that idiots do.
Classic.
Same old repertoire of a coward faced with "proof yourself right" dillema.
Anyway.
Would that be all?
I see you're in the final stages of clamming up completely. This string of non-responses is an attempt at annoying me until I go away.
You've given up on trying to actually prove me wrong, because you can't. Or at least don't know how to properly try.
Please, figure it out. If not for me, then the next exchange you engage in.
What I don't see is any proof that your ideas arn't anything but pro-pedophila propaganda that is meant to be "someone else's problem".
But, of course, you won't ever deliver any kind of proof that it's not.
So, would that be all?
I keep laughing at this "someone elses problem" point. I can't refute it without revealing way too much personal info, its such a perfect non-argument.
You don't know shit about how close I've been to these matters irl, and I can't tell you.
Keep it to the single branch of discussion, since you don't have much to say anyway, please.
How about three fronts? I have a lot to say so more bite-sized bits would help get through you non-existent attention span.
Yes, yes, of course.
Now, would that be all?
Look at it this way, I didn't declare an end to our delightful little chat, I declared my victory in the original matter.
You stopped forwarding arguments and counter-arguments two comments in, giving me the win by default.
All you have left, is acting like the ball is in my court and I'm the one who is refusing to make the next move.
Would that be all?
"Observe, as the creature finally clams up completely, refusing all exchange. Resorting to a final four words that carry no meaning whatsoever, except the implied 'fuck you'.
Truly, a deep thinker of the interwebs."
Would that be all?
"In desperation, it repeats the words in an attempt to have the last word.
Unaware, that if the last words spoken are obviously meaningless, they aren't last words at all. But simply the pathetic death-cry of a loser."
I do hope you reflect on what I've told you, despite my being mean. You're clearly not so dumb as to be completely without hope. Even if I'm wrong, which I well might be, your arguing skills are so bad they actively sabotage your own message.