Libertarian here. Thanks guys for fighting the 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧Federal Reserve🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 with us!

He's not wrong though is he.

Personally I'm cool with libertarians that genuinely oppose the government and all its tentacles, because I think capitalism is untenable without strong state support (Ayn Rand agrees, not saying you all like her as she is barely libertarian in my opinion) so any good faith attempt to consistently apply libertarianism will lead to a departure of some kind from capitalism. Only problem is how many libertarians are inexplicably just closet fascists or proto-fascists.

Attached: 1542696399028.png (500x559, 109.09K)

Libertarians should really be called propertarians. It's not in any way about human liberty, just the liberty of property, which people should bow down for. Their "freedom" is like the "freedom" of a king to do whatever he wants with his country. Just as the people demanded democratic rights over the land of the king, workers should demand their rights from the property owners.

Libertarians make gestures that people are a priori the owners of their own body, but this is meaningless if you're unable to negotiate any rights from the people who own actual property.

My main gripe with libertarians:
1) Spooked by libertarian free will
2) Spooked byprivate property.
3) Rebranding Capitalism to an idealized preferred form, while denouncing current capitalist states while in the same time using those very states in arguments.
3) A high chance they go crypto-fascist or full blown fascist.
4) When the revolution comes they are most probably gonna side with the capitalist fascists than the anti-capitalist communists.

It's not inexplicable. Libertarians rush to support fascists whenever capitalism is in danger and their private property rights are threatened.

Attached: no step on snek.jpg (2048x1024, 218.79K)

They have a poor understanding of private property though. Socialists don't want to take their homes from them. We'd even assert their right to it over their landlord if they have one.

No, that's bullshit. Their problem is that their petit bourgeois mentality has made them worship the metaphysical concepts of "the individual" and "the entrepreneur", perceiving everyone who is against it as a evil socialist who wants to "steal their hard earned property".

Except for when we do. Let's not pretend there won't be times when we need to build more infrastructure or denser housing on top of land where their home currently sits. Let's not pretend that some of their homes will fail to meet certain efficiency and environmental standards and need to be torn down. Let's not pretend that we might not move them somewhere else where they will be more productive. Let's not pretend that their wasteful lawns might not be converted to something more productive or beneficial to the community. Hell, let's not pretend that there are many among us who do not believe in the concept of private home ownership and instead prefer we live in cohabitation housing communes!

You're forgetting that many of them are themselves landlords, or aspirational landlords who own property they want to someday rent, or only own their home as a form of investment to sell again later.

No, their problem is a material one. They are beneficiaries of capitalism. Why would they want to tear it down?

not really. I've met a lot of them that are cops, military, or veterans. most bourgs in this county are Clinton/Bush supporters.

Ok, I don't fully agree with you there because I know libertarians that aren't benefited all that much by the system but this is reductionist. Sure all ideologies are based on material conditions, that doesn't prevent us from criticizing them head on.
Also I think a constructed argument would be much more convincing than "their problem is a material one"

Let me rephrase: All ideologies are formed and passed on due to material conditions.

I don't really think this is a majorly adopted position.. If it's an ecological reason, then we should consider it, if not I don't see the point of forcing people to live with others.

We should definitely encourage it though. Loneliness is being wildly underestimated as a societal problem.

I believe that loneliness mainly exists because of alienation. People having the choice to live alone doesn't mean alone in the middle of nowhere, it means alone in an apartment, surrounded by neighbors and working with others.

This, it's also being exacerbated by many people's addiction to social media.

>I believe that loneliness mainly exists because of alienation
Also this, most social media is an alienation engine. Which exists to pressure people to feel and believe certain (capitalist approved) things or risk complete isolation from others in their age group, by design.
The complete opposite should be true with technology, we should be more connected than ever; but instead have found more unique ways to isolate ourselves using it.

I can't agree more. Extensive social media usage has been linked with depression.
When you get bombarded with the curated, idealized versions of other peoples' lives while living in capitalism, not only forces one to try to uphold the same image for themselves, but also undermines their determination.

Of course. But it is still inexplicable that they don't see this massive contradiction, or easily turn around and justify police repression and military coups just to #OwnTheLibs. If you see yourself as caring first and foremost about the preservation of glorious capitalism like Rand did it makes perfect sense, but not if you're like most libertarians who see themselves as defenders of freedom and liberty and only think that capitalism is the best way to secure it/the natural state of things.

As I see it they can be divided into three main groups: the crypto-AnCaps, the "individualists" and the LINOs who are basically just disgruntled neocons. The first group is ideologically devoted, tends to be relatively well-read and are "libertarians" because of the baggage of "Anarcho-*", the second group is the I was shooting heroin and reading "The Fountainhead" in the front seat of my privately owned police cruiser types who are excited for SHTF because they think it will be like an action movie starring them and the final group consists almost entire of edgy republicans who like to complain about "big government" and in some cases use "muh personal freedoms" as a thinly-veiled way to complain about civil rights/minorities/etc. I probably missed some subtleties and cross-pollination due to the late hour but from this side of the fence all of them are lousy prospects and always have been.

What? Is this a falseflag or did I slip in a timeline with no right wing Libertarians?

Attached: watcha sayin.gif (230x230, 1.54M)

You fool. The right to own property is the subjugation of group punishment. Is it so wrong for a Shepard to steer away from a cliff face while the sheep hurdle off of it?

huh rightists have right-wing ideas??? how can this be happening?

your analogy can still function under socialism. private property has nothing to do with individual liberties

Capitalism is the Shepard steering the sheep right into the cliff, and even though the sheep cry at him to turn the other way he just goes straight off like a moron, because his father he inherited the sheep from never taught him to be a proper Shepard.