What's new
By:
Filters

Can any of you libertarian types explain to me like I am 5/4 retard

Animalmother said:
Dude. I get you are way smarter than me but I just dont get what you’re saying.

I mean our leaders are in theory not acting on their own accord, but representatives subject to the wants of the people.
Click to expand...
In theory maybe, but that shit hasn’t happened for a long time. They’re now subject to the wants of whoever gives them the most shit.
 
Icono said:
It's only "fucking up" who's weak minded and needs to be led from outside, because they have no internal fortitude, or character.

Nobody else. Give those people a nod, and walk on past.

Not that hard.

If you have kids, it's up to you to know what their day at school was like. We (as parents) sure as fuck did, even 15 years ago. It's sensible. My Mom asked me what went on in school, back in the 70s. Go figure.

None of this is new.
Click to expand...
Covid showed those that need to be lead include 80%+ on the left and 50-60%+ on the right. Thats not a simple majority, thats a super majority. Ignoring them is fine and all but dont expect change.
 
Animalmother said:
I mean our leaders are in theory not acting on their own accord, but representatives subject to the wants of the people.
Click to expand...
Our leaders are on paper supposed to be working for the good of all
they cannot even picture all of those they are "acting in the name of" so how can they even begin to act in the name of them?

What they end up doing is what's best for their own extended family. What's clearly called out as corruption is just their instinctual calculation of 'me and mine first' which is all that any man is capable of.

ETA: the mistake is in giving any small group power over the efforts of millions of people
 
Thefishguy77 said:
Covid showed those that need to be lead include 80%+ on the left and 50-60%+ on the right. Thats not a simple majority, thats a super majority. Ignoring them is fine and all but dont expect change.
Click to expand...
That was very damning.

I think most peeps were looking around at each other and wondering who was gonna say something first, and were surprised nobody did, and then shut down. LOTS went into huge depression over this.

I think it'll be different next time.
 
Icono said:
That was very damning.

I think most peeps were looking around at each other and wondering who was gonna say something first, and were surprised nobody did, and then shut down. LOTS went into huge depression over this.

I think it'll be different next time.
Click to expand...
why would it be different "next time"?

it's always the same, this was already a large portion of people's "next time"
those who stuck their neck out got their heads chopped off, those who didn't, didn't
 
[486] said:
why would it be different "next time"?

it's always the same, this was already a large portion of people's "next time"
those who stuck their neck out got their heads chopped off, those who didn't, didn't
Click to expand...

Granted, not everyone will. The silent majority is really a "thing", though. They may not all be "stay-at-home-astronauts" like you and me, on the 'net, but there's an underground "sensing network" at work.

I'll never discount that.
 
Animalmother said:
Hey….arent libertarians primarily the ones bitching over there not being enough labels to vote for?
Click to expand...

I don't know. I'm not a libertarian. I pretty much agree with them on most social issues though. If I agree with you, I agree with you. If I don't, I don't. I don't care about the labels or staying true to my "team".
 
WTF is a 5/4 retard? Like 5'4"? Are you saying you're a manlet? Is it a fraction? You're more than one whole retard? Is that like extra chromosomes? Are you super down?
 
posford said:
WTF is a 5/4 retard? Like 5'4"? Are you saying you're a manlet? Is it a fraction? You're more than one whole retard? Is that like extra chromosomes? Are you super down?
Click to expand...
it's a board that is 1.25" thick
but a particularly slow board of that thickness
 
Animalmother said:
I am against forcing my beliefs or morals on others but Im okay with certain laws? Because every law on the book is a set of beliefs or morals thats forced on another. You are in fact, okay forcing your beliefs and morals on others, otherwise you are advocating for anarchy.
Click to expand...
I would say it boils down to Libertarians agree with laws that prevent one person from (physically or financially, but not emotionally) harming another person.

I heard a Libertarian co-worker of mine put it this way:

1. No law should exist that is not intended to protect a victim/potential victim.
2. No person can be a victim of themselves. (So long as they possess their full mental faculties, e.g. are "mature" and not clinically insane).


Murder - yep there's a victim
Theft - yep victim
Arson - yep victim
Rape - yep victim (real rape, not this BS "he raped me with his eyes" non-sense the left is pushing)
Saying mean things that hurt someone's feeling - sorry your emotions are your responsibility not mine
Seatbelt/Helmet laws - can't be a victim of your own stupidity.


For me, it's the gray areas that Libertarianism starts to fall apart.

Abortion (Let's not derail the thread, I'm only using this as an example) - is the fetus a victim or is it a "lump of cells" - When SCOTUS ruled on Roe vs Wade, we were told it was just a lump of cells, now that science has shown that there is brain activity in as little as 6-7 weeks, is that still the case? .

Traffic Laws - Is doing 100mph+ through a school zone ok?

Assisted Suicide?

Also, at what age is someone deemed in full possession of their mental faculties?
 
Animalmother said:
Transgenderism seemed to be a good example. The effects not apparent at first have become apparent and yet still no one wants to man up and tell someone that its fucking up society.
Click to expand...
Mentally unstable trannys and the like have always been around. They are being empowered and supported by the media and the left in order to keep people like you from voting for someone outside of the 2 approved candidates. If they weren't being used by those in power and we actually followed libertarian ideals they would be a fringe non-issue.
 
Animalmother said:
I mean our leaders are in theory not acting on their own accord, but representatives subject to the wants of the people.
Click to expand...
You hit on the main argument of libertarians. The USA is way too large and diverse to be governed the way it currently is. I mean when was the last time you got your reps in DC, or even the state gov, on the phone and persuaded them? Government should be as small and as local as possible, when you take that to it's logical conclusion, it's what 486 said, it's the size of a family. I see you get fixated on the tranny shit a bit, the libertarian stance is, consenting adults can do whatever they want to themselves. You should not be messing with children as they can't make decisions on their own.

Also ignore anything sandiegocj says on the subject of libertarianism, he's one big ball of appeal to authority bias.
 
swtfman said:
Mentally unstable trannys and the like have always been around. They are being empowered and supported by the media and the left in order to keep people like you from voting for someone outside of the 2 approved candidates. If they weren't being used by those in power and we actually followed libertarian ideals they would be a fringe non-issue.
Click to expand...

Uh wrong. Im all for liberty and small gov but I am willing to use political power to prevent others from steaming rolling society with woke / transgenderism. Even if there was a viable libertarian candidate to vote for it doesnt sound like that is something they would be willing to do.
 
arse_sidewards said:
If the government wasn't so far removed from the people a heck of a lot of the political issues people care about would be smaller or irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Exactly, they are way out of touch with what's actually going on. I mean look at them currently, both parties are saying Ukraine is the nations number one priority, and the recent NDAA votes confirmed that. Meanwhile society is pretty much coming unraveled here in the states, that should be the number one priority.

Defending Ukraine is the last of my priorities, my priority is the constant devaluing of my money via inflation, second is the prospect of a bleak future here in the states because we only care about what's going on abroad and I am being forced to pay for it under the threat of violence or death.
 
swtfman said:
Mentally unstable trannys and the like have always been around. They are being empowered and supported by the media and the left in order to keep people like you from voting for someone outside of the 2 approved candidates. If they weren't being used by those in power and we actually followed libertarian ideals they would be a fringe non-issue.
Click to expand...
Pandoras box has been opened. You now have kids under 10 years old being mutilated and sterilized.
It will never again be a "fringe" issue.
 
Animalmother said:
Uh wrong. Im all for liberty and small gov but I am willing to use political power to prevent others from steaming rolling society with woke / transgenderism. Even if there was a viable libertarian candidate to vote for it doesnt sound like that is something they would be willing to do.
Click to expand...
You are too stupid to understand what I said, oh well.
 
Animalmother said:
Uh wrong. Im all for liberty and small gov but I am willing to use political power to prevent others from steaming rolling society with woke / transgenderism. Even if there was a viable libertarian candidate to vote for it doesnt sound like that is something they would be willing to do.
Click to expand...
What libertarian political figure have you gotten that idea from? Or is this something you are assuming?

Reason I ask is I enjoy listening to libertarian theories and speakers and they are pretty well against the trajectory society is going down right now. The real issue with libertarians gaining power is they don't believe in voting.
 
MChat said:
I would say it boils down to Libertarians agree with laws that prevent one person from (physically or financially, but not emotionally) harming another person.

I heard a Libertarian co-worker of mine put it this way:

1. No law should exist that is not intended to protect a victim/potential victim.
2. No person can be a victim of themselves. (So long as they possess their full mental faculties, e.g. are "mature" and not clinically insane).


Murder - yep there's a victim
Theft - yep victim
Arson - yep victim
Rape - yep victim (real rape, not this BS "he raped me with his eyes" non-sense the left is pushing)
Saying mean things that hurt someone's feeling - sorry your emotions are your responsibility not mine
Seatbelt/Helmet laws - can't be a victim of your own stupidity.


For me, it's the gray areas that Libertarianism starts to fall apart.

Abortion (Let's not derail the thread, I'm only using this as an example) - is the fetus a victim or is it a "lump of cells" - When SCOTUS ruled on Roe vs Wade, we were told it was just a lump of cells, now that science has shown that there is brain activity in e as little as 6-7 weeks, is that still the case? .

Traffic Laws - Is doing 100mph+ through a school zone ok?

Assisted Suicide?

Also, at what age is someone deemed in full possession of their mental faculties?
Click to expand...

Thats the rub right there bro. Especially when its been said even in this thread that liberty is different for everyone.
 
[486] said:
can it, I'm the same retard that any man is, my terrible explanations are testament to that
I just ended up autistically fixated on the underlying framework of politics somewhat recently so I did a bunch of reading on it, that's all
Click to expand...
You hit on the difficulty of libertarianism right here. It's complex shit with an assload of rules, written by autists. It's a ton of reading, not something that is grasped in a 20min campaign speech. Ron Paul did the best at articulating a lot of the foundational principals, but then again look how much airtime he actually got.
 
Animalmother said:
Uh wrong. Im all for liberty and small gov but I am willing to use political power to prevent others from steaming rolling society with woke / transgenderism.
Click to expand...
having governmental powers in place to prevent that happening just so happens to be the very same governmental powers necessary to make that happen

assembling those powers is doing the work for those who would misuse those powers
as an aside, "misuse" is just a matter of perspective, to them you're the one misusing that power to your own personal ends
Animalmother said:
Even if there was a viable libertarian candidate to vote for it doesnt sound like that is something they would be willing to do.
Click to expand...

to remove that power from the hands of the government all together is the most basic anarchist/libertarian principle
 
MuntCuffin said:
Pandoras box has been opened. You now have kids under 10 years old being mutilated and sterilized.
It will never again be a "fringe" issue.
Click to expand...
I don't mean it in the mocking manner it comes across as, but you're getting too emotionally fixated.

Are children the property of the collective (state) or their parents (guardians)?
there is no arguing that they are their own individual; someone else is making their decisions for them, so it is either the responsibility of society or their parents

to make any law about children is to say that they are the property of the collective, full stop
whether that law is written by animalmother screaming about "they're transing the chilluns" or some blue hair about "they're denying affirming care to the chilluns" the underlying framework is interchangeable
 
[486] said:
I don't mean it in the mocking manner it comes across as, but you're getting too emotionally fixated.

Are children the property of the collective (state) or their parents (guardians)?
there is no arguing that they are their own individual; someone else is making their decisions for them, so it is either the responsibility of society or their parents

to make any law about children is to say that they are the property of the collective, full stop
whether that law is written by animalmother screaming about "they're transing the chilluns" or some blue hair about "they're denying affirming care to the chilluns" the underlying framework is interchangeable
Click to expand...
Children aren't property. They are a being.
The parents are responsible for the child.

If you go slicing and dicing a bum, you'd be jailed for assault. Do it to a child? Somehow its ok, because "muh property rights"?

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree 😉
 
Animalmother said:
Uh wrong. I'm all for liberty and small gov but I am willing to use political power to prevent others from steaming rolling society with woke / transgenderism. Even if there was a viable libertarian candidate to vote for it doesn't sound like that is something they would be willing to do.
Click to expand...
Congrats...by making this statement you have just announced that minimal .gov is the proper direction as long as the minimal .gov follows only your idea of what a minimal .gov should be. Cant have it both ways...that's a restriction on other individuals liberty/freedom and counter libertarian ideas.

Which also reminds me of an old saw I posted on PBB eons ago.

2 folks arguing over rights and liberties, one happened to be real animated using hands to gesture while speaking as was their right.
Conversation got more heated until the one gesturing inadvertently smacked the other in the face.
The other hauled off and decked them. As they got off the floor they asked, "why did you deck me?" They responded, "Cuz your rights end at the end of my nose."
 
Last edited:
2FV7QYWu-WQ-4AAAAd%2Fkenan-thompson-eating-popcorn.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh