Libertad wrote:ArmorClassZero wrote:Coincidentally, Libertarians are all for social freedoms of gays, trans, minorities, etc. What people do in their personal lives, with their own body, as mutually consenting agreeing individuals or groups, is perfectly fine. That's the way things should be.
You earlier argued that it's not un-Libertarian to make a country all-white via restrictive immigration policies, and that the alt-right is "correct from a Libertarian point of view."
That doesn't line up with social freedoms. People like Richard Spencer (the very person who coined the phrase "alt-right") want to kick me out of the US because I'm not 'white' by their exclusionary standards, and I've lived in this country all my life. My own home and private property rights would be null and void in their dystopian vision.
The Alt-Right observes that every nation has an ethnic interest in maintaining the existing ethnic majority status: only in predominantly white nations is this opposed and lambasted as an evil view (ironically, mostly by whites themselves). This is an accurate observation: to assume that a group of people in a particular territory they and their ancestors have occupied for centuries, cannot exclude from their land whoever they wish, paves the way for colonialism and dispossession - the same crimes the Europeans are crucified for. The existing peoples of a territory have every right to exclude from their land (which is their collective property) whoever they wish for whatever reason, because as was stated earlier, among the 1st principles are: You can't (justly) violate the Rights of others EXCEPT in self-defense. Private Property is one such Right. And the only legitimate (just) use of the Law (which is collective force) is to secure the Rights of others. That's it. That's all the Law can justly do. It is of course, possible for the Law to be used for other purposes, like how many here want the Law to be used as a tool to remedy people's misfortune. But the Law cannot do that without defeating its own purpose: without violating the Rights of others. And the individual Rights: Life, Liberty, Person, Property, Happiness are what is known as "negative" Rights, meaning that the only thing necessary to see that they are upheld and NOT violated is a
negation of imposition and subjection - restraining from coercion, force, violence, etc. Nothing is required to obtain these Rights other than leaving people alone. Unlike what Frank and others here think, if you operate under the assumption that "I have a right to food," the implication is that, in order to see this "right" upheld and NOT violated,
someone must give you food. And if that someone refuses, then what? Their solution: strong-arm someone (not them, of course) into handing it over.
You can legitimately restrict someone from entering your house, your private property. Likewise, as stated earlier, individual Rights, as Libertarians identify them, also apply to groups in the same respect: no individual and/or group can legitimately (justly) use force, coerce, or violence against another individual and/or group EXCEPT as a means of self-defense. If I break into your house, I am as in the wrong as I would be having illegally (without your agreement or consent) entered into the territory that is collectively you and your people's private property. This applies at every level: your home, your street, your neighborhood, your community, your district, your county, etc. etc upwards infinitely.
Richard Spencer isn't a Libertarian: pretty sure he's on record as calling Libertarians all sorts of names, and he seems to want a strong State with plenty of social welfare programs (exclusively for whites, of course.) And he would be in the wrong if he did try to kick you off your property (essentially claiming, by force, that it belongs to him and his.) Now, if Richard Spencer and his crew wants to find an as of yet unoccupied region and settle it exclusively with whites, he is free to do so. And once doing so, he and his community would be free to exclude whoever they wish from that territory. If you think I'm a nazi, or I have the wrong opinions, or you don't like my face or my hair or the clothes I'm wearing, you are within your Rights to deny me access to your home, your street, your neighborhood, etc. etc. scaling upwards infinitely. Many here would do just that based on their limited perception of me alone (which you could call prejudiced, but hey) but that's their Right, and I would defend it. I imagine I will probably be exiled from this forum soon enough, but whatevs. But feel free to continue this OSSR, and I look forward to reading Hoard The Spoils if you do one for it too.
@Wiseman: So a Govt selling off land to outside investors irrespective of the property rights of the present owners (presumably against the people's wishes as a whole) constitutes a Libertarian policy? A Govt that pockets the sale of such lands? A Govt that subsidizes industries at the expense of the poor? A Govt that still (steal?) collects taxes, presumably to pay for their officials and their security - such as a militarized police force that refuses to uphold personal and private property rights? A Govt that gives gangs and cartels free reign (see the previous sentence), which, incidentally, formed around trafficking drugs (mostly) which is what happens when you criminalize something that is in demand by huge numbers of people, Prohibition in the USA being a prime example - that Libertarian wonderland?
@DeadDMWalking: The Great Depression didn't refute free markets or Libertarianism. Markets fluctuate, prices rise and fall. Sometimes people panic, or make poor investments, take bad loans, and spend frivolously. Curiously, the Govt tried numerous spending schemes and jobs programs to help alleviate the effects of the Great Depression. That's interesting - where did the Govt get all this money for these schemes? I wonder if taxing people, price controls, subsidies, and printing money out of thin-air, has anything to do with businesses hurting, people unable to find employment, forclosure, and bank failure. Hmmm...
But it is interesting you mention the TVA. As Wikipedia states (admittedly citation needed): "Many private companies in the Tennessee Valley were bought by the federal government. Others shut down, unable to compete with the TVA. Government regulations were also passed to prevent competition with TVA." Huh, the Fed bought private companies (with whose money? and this is during the Depression?) and others shut down
unable to compete (I imagine it would be hard to compete with someone who has an effectively infinite budget), and then made it
illegal to compete. Very interesting stuff.
Please, for the love of all that is holy, study up on the Kansas Public School system. And while you're looking at the Libertarian paradise that Kansas tried to create, look at the economic growth in the neighboring states. While committed to a Libertarian model economic growth STAGNATED and Public Services fell apart. Private Enterprise DID NOT fill the void.
What Libertarian paradise? How is cutting taxes on business owners, while keeping them for everyone else a Libertarian paradise? How is cutting taxes on business owners while maintaining Govt spending at all a model of Libertarian economics growth? Sounds like more crony capitalism, more mercantilism. Think about this for more than 2 seconds: They said cutting taxes on business owners would result in job creation, but why would that create jobs when the average consumers don't have any more money than they did prior to the cuts? There isn't more demand, why would businesses hire more employees? But at least they were honest about their aims: Gov. Brownback is on record as saying, over and over, that he thought they would see increased revenue. I imagined their plan was to increase revenue, keep spending the same, and then pocket the profits. And according to Wikipedia,
in order to offset the loss of revenue from cutting the income tax, he increased the sales tax! So the average consumer, on top having what they earn stolen from them, is now paying MORE for everything! And then he's at a loss to explain why they didn't see the growth they expected! Fucking brilliant!
But no wonder people here think I'm arguing in favor for oligarchs and plutocrats - you guys think Libertarianism is wanting the Govt to show favoritism to business and corporations, while shitting on the poor. No wonder.