Lolbertarian Cringe - A place to post libertarians saying crazy shit

[Long Dong Silver 2025]

this is a thread for posting examples of lolbertarians saying insane and dumb shit and making fun of them for being retards. it's not a thread dedicated to destroying the philosophy of libertarianism.

unfortunately, as long as there are teenagers and autistic pot heads there will always be libertarians.

Oh ok. In that case, I will sit back and enjoy.

 

[dick brain]

 

[Smoltine Kiminal]

so far nobody has made any coherent refutation, yet even a rebuttal or retort that's coherent and stands up to scrutiny

i agree with a lot of libertarian stuff but its relatively easy to come up with a proper counterargument against it

imagine someone buys a corridor of property surrounding someone elses property, then builds a fence and forbids him to leave or trade with anyone outside except if he conforms to whatever demands are made, now you have libertarian slavery

monopolies might destroy libertarian ideals, but can easily form in libertarian ethics. there is no saveguard against monopolies or cartells forming under libertarian law, and defending against those monopolies would be in breach of the libertarian interpretation of the nap

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

imagine someone buys a corridor of property surrounding someone elses property, then builds a fence and forbids him to leave or trade with anyone outside except if he conforms to whatever demands are made, now you have libertarian slavery

Not sure what you're talking about, your argument is two decades out of date
cf. S. Kinsella, The Blockean Proviso; L. Dominiak, The Blockian Proviso and the Rationality of Property Rights; S. Kinsella, Thoughts on the Latecomer and Homesteading Ideas; or, why the very idea of "ownership" implies that only libertarian principles are justifiable; or for a more condensed form, LiquidZulu, The Blockean Proviso

 

[Smoltine Kiminal]

The Blockean Proviso

so in your understanding of libertarianism all property must always stay connected to a singular network of unowned property, which can never be claimed by anyone, as not to break that network and encircle someone?
this singular network would be public domain, and for the sake of the muh road cunts roads are allowed to be built upon it, but not be owned

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

monopolies might destroy libertarian ideals, but can easily form in libertarian ethics. there is no saveguard against monopolies or cartells forming under libertarian law, and defending against those monopolies would be in breach of the libertarian interpretation of the nap

Oh, you edited your post to add this too.
What do you think a monopoly even is?

so in your understanding of libertarianism all property must always stay connected to a singular network of unowned property, which can never be claimed by anyone, as not to break that network and encircle someone?

Not quite.

Consider the following with A owning a plot of land and B seeking to completely encircle it. Libertarian norms prohibit actions that create conflict. For B to completely encircle A would mean interfering with A's capacity to act upon his already-owned property, thus creating a conflict of control (A cannot use his property without crossing B's, and B can block A's movement arbitrarily). Accordingly, it is true that some structural openness between owned and unowned domains must always exist in principle, for otherwise, property ceases to be a universal conflict resolution mechanism.
However, your phrasing implies a metaphysical right of way that stretches continuously across the entire world. That's both unnecessary and incoherent.
What matters is that no property arrangement renders another unusable without consent. That means that multiple properties can form enclosed regions if the relevant access paths are voluntarily granted or contractually secured.
However, the notion of a "singular, unownable network" implies a permanently unownable category of physical goods. But all rivalrous goods are in principle ownable. There is no such thing as a metaphysically permanent commons, nor a requirement for such.

 

[Smoltine Kiminal]

What do you think a monopoly even is?

in libertarianism the monopoly that stays is sole control of a good, worst case that good is food or shelter, then you got rentcuck slaves in your corpo not-government city

What matters is that no property arrangement renders another unusable without consent. That means that multiple properties can form enclosed regions if the relevant access paths are voluntarily granted or contractually secured.

and of course no jew would ever form a contract that is overly complicated to trick someone with some clause that allows for conditions to be changed later on

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

sole control of a good

So you got a monopoly on your dick?
In what way is that harmful or bad for consumers? Not like there are any

and of course no jew would ever form a contract that is overly complicated to trick someone with some clause that allows for conditions to be changed later on

Show me where in libertarianism deceptive contracts are permitted. Fraud is conflict-creating and self-invalidating.
Seriously, why are people wasting their time badly attempting to argue against things they don't understand even at a surface level?

 

[Trusty Terrorist]

Not exactly the libertarian you were thinking of, but I read this reddit post of someone who lived in an anarchist commune and it was just the most "attractive" members who had sex with eachother getting what they want.

 

[Frederica Bernkastel]

imagine someone buys a corridor of property surrounding someone elses property, then builds a fence and forbids him to leave or trade with anyone outside except if he conforms to whatever demands are made, now you have libertarian slavery

That sounds no different than embargo or tariffs? Typically, Libertarians don't support those things. Free trade and all that.

Either way, libertarianism is an ethical/legal position

The problem with that type of thinking is it can fall into the trap of nominalism. Ethics, legality are products of one's community, and that is shaped by historical. physical and cultural circumstances outside of anyone's control. Often, libertarians get upset with people not listening to them or not understanding their beliefs, when that is simply the default state of the world. Their inability to develop political strategies to get around that is why they remain so fragmented and politically ineffective.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

The problem with that type of thinking is it can fall into the trap of nominalism. Ethics, legality are products of one's community, and that is shaped by historical. physical and cultural circumstances outside of anyone's control. Often, libertarians get upset with people not listening to them or not understanding their beliefs, when that is simply the default state of the world. Their inability to develop political strategies to get around that is why they remain so fragmented and politically ineffective.

No, use ontological ethics. Nominalism is a cancer, and arguing that ethics is a product of community is nothing but constructivism or relativism.
Political strategies are anti-libertarian by definition, as politics is ethically impermissible.

 

[Kalamazoo 2 Timbuktu]

The libertarian position is that nobody may "immigrate" without the landowner's consent

They weren’t illegally immigrating, they are settling. No human is illegal.

The shallow stupidity of their stances. When challenged, they get even more ridiculous.

“imaginary Borders and immigration laws are made up by Governments and MSM”

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

They weren’t illegally immigrating, they are settling. No human is illegal.

What kind of commie gobbledigook is this

 

[Smoltine Kiminal]

What kind of commie gobbledigook is this

who owns the country right now?
either you accept the government-corporation as the rightful owner, which is nonsensical because the government-corporation stole the land from the people, or you accept that public land is communally owned by the volk, which arguably has the most merit, but comes with its own set of issues, especially since a part of the volk accepts immigration, or you accept that the land has no rightful owner and can be claimed by whoever wants a piece

 

[Frederica Bernkastel]

Nominalism is a cancer, and arguing that ethics is a product of community is nothing but constructivism or relativism.

I don't think anyone is born a libertarian or can even be a libertarian. Even the ideas you cite don't even come from you, but from the people you've read. We couldn't even communicate ideas, ethics, and thoughts without language. It's pretty apparent men are not products of wilderness, but of specific circumstances that are observable.

 

[Neodanthril]

im not surprised @XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG is posting itt. he has made two threads defending lolbertarianism that i know of and they are both funnny. this entire thread is full of howlers. this one too
some choice quotes

Political elections are contests in bribing voters
Only the most unscrupulous rise to the top in democracies
Political power is something that libertarians seek to abolish

Non-violence is not a libertarian principle.
Non-aggression simply means that initiating a conflict is not legitimate.
Accordingly, violence against aggressors is A-OK.
The strategy I personally envision for achieving a free society consists of peaceful activism alongside targeted sabotage and asymmetrical warfare.

You, like many others, are assuming that law = state edict. I reject that premise. Law is the rule that your action stops at the boundaries of others.

Antitrust laws exist to make every businessperson guilty before proven innocent.

Parents don't own children. They brought them into existence and are responsible for not aggressing against them. Neglect that results in aggression (like letting a child starve while obstructing others from helping) violates the child's rights. But no, unless the parents agree otherwise, there is no state-like "legal code". The framework is liability and restitution under property rights.

Parents don't magically owe their children goods simply by virtue of their existence. Rights are not claims upon other people's resources, they are boundaries against aggression. Children have the right to not be starved, beaten, or blocked from receiving help. If parents refuse to provide, they forfeit guardianship to others who will.

and for good measure im throwing the libertarian paradise copypasta in here

Spoiler

I was shooting heroin and reading “The Fountainhead” in the front seat of my privately owned police cruiser when a call came in. I put a quarter in the radio to activate it. It was the chief.

“Bad news, detective. We got a situation.”

“What? Is the mayor trying to ban trans fats again?”

“Worse. Somebody just stole four hundred and forty-seven million dollars’ worth of bitcoins.”

The heroin needle practically fell out of my arm. “What kind of monster would do something like that? Bitcoins are the ultimate currency: virtual, anonymous, stateless. They represent true economic freedom, not subject to arbitrary manipulation by any government. Do we have any leads?”

“Not yet. But mark my words: we’re going to figure out who did this and we’re going to take them down … provided someone pays us a fair market rate to do so.”

“Easy, chief,” I said. “Any rate the market offers is, by definition, fair.”

He laughed. “That’s why you’re the best I got, Lisowski. Now you get out there and find those bitcoins.”

“Don’t worry,” I said. “I’m on it.”

I put a quarter in the siren. Ten minutes later, I was on the scene. It was a normal office building, strangled on all sides by public sidewalks. I hopped over them and went inside.

“Home Depot™ Presents the Police!®” I said, flashing my badge and my gun and a small picture of Ron Paul. “Nobody move unless you want to!” They didn’t.

“Now, which one of you punks is going to pay me to investigate this crime?” No one spoke up.

“Come on,” I said. “Don’t you all understand that the protection of private property is the foundation of all personal liberty?”

It didn’t seem like they did.

“Seriously, guys. Without a strong economic motivator, I’m just going to stand here and not solve this case. Cash is fine, but I prefer being paid in gold bullion or autographed Penn Jillette posters.”

Nothing. These people were stonewalling me. It almost seemed like they didn’t care that a fortune in computer money invented to buy drugs was missing.

I figured I could wait them out. I lit several cigarettes indoors. A pregnant lady coughed, and I told her that secondhand smoke is a myth. Just then, a man in glasses made a break for it.

“Subway™ Eat Fresh and Freeze, Scumbag!®” I yelled.

Too late. He was already out the front door. I went after him.

“Stop right there!” I yelled as I ran. He was faster than me because I always try to avoid stepping on public sidewalks. Our country needs a private-sidewalk voucher system, but, thanks to the incestuous interplay between our corrupt federal government and the public-sidewalk lobby, it will never happen.

I was losing him. “Listen, I’ll pay you to stop!” I yelled. “What would you consider an appropriate price point for stopping? I’ll offer you a thirteenth of an ounce of gold and a gently worn ‘Bob Barr ‘08’ extra-large long-sleeved men’s T-shirt!”

He turned. In his hand was a revolver that the Constitution said he had every right to own. He fired at me and missed. I pulled my own gun, put a quarter in it, and fired back. The bullet lodged in a U.S.P.S. mailbox less than a foot from his head. I shot the mailbox again, on purpose.

“All right, all right!” the man yelled, throwing down his weapon. “I give up, cop! I confess: I took the bitcoins.”

“Why’d you do it?” I asked, as I slapped a pair of Oikos™ Greek Yogurt Presents Handcuffs® on the guy.

“Because I was afraid.”

“Afraid?”

“Afraid of an economic future free from the pernicious meddling of central bankers,” he said. “I’m a central banker.”

I wanted to coldcock the guy. Years ago, a central banker killed my partner. Instead, I shook my head.

“Let this be a message to all your central-banker friends out on the street,” I said. “No matter how many bitcoins you steal, you’ll never take away the dream of an open society based on the principles of personal and economic freedom.”

He nodded, because he knew I was right. Then he swiped his credit card to pay me for arresting him.

 

[Caligura]

View attachment 7994744View attachment 7994766

how about Rand Paul and other lolberts pearl clutching about killing cartel members trying to poison Americans?

Rand's post
other's post

How the hell is this guy Ron Paul's son?

 

[Frederica Bernkastel]

im not surprised @XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG is posting itt. he has made two threads defending lolbertarianism that i know of and they are both funnny

Yeah, a lot of his arguments are just contradictory normative platitudes without any grasp on reality.
"Political power is something that libertarians seek to abolish"
"Political strategies are anti-libertarian by definition, as politics is ethically impermissible."

Seeking to abolish political power is a political strategy. It couldn't even be a libertarian principle because even libertarians require political power to implement their ideas. You might not be a libertarian, but rather an anarchist, who believes that. However, it does show the contradictions of both philosophies. To do anything in this world that shapes politics, you need power.

Even if we take this claim at face value, it doesn't make sense either because he engages in politics all the time. He's not a political quietist or a bodhisattva, which begs the question of why. It's easy to know why if you understand what political circumstances favor libertarians.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

It's an indictment of mankind that adult human beings still fall for incoherent and nonsensical statist mental gymnastics

who owns the country right now?

What is "the country"? It's a conceptual label for a set of individuals, relationships, and terrain. But abstractions can't be owned. The question is analogous to "what color is a promise?"

I don't think anyone is born a libertarian or can even be a libertarian.

What kind of argument is this? Nobody has been born a Kiwi Farms user, yet Kiwi Farms users exist. Or if you take issue with that example, nobody has been born a designer of lithography fabrication processes, yet computers exist. Are you presupposing that concepts stop existing when you personally fail to be born with them?

Even the ideas you cite don't even come from you, but from the people you've read.

If that were true, then where did their ideas come from? Either way it's a non-argument. If your standard is originality, then stop using geometry, for Euclid already did it. The real measure of ideas is coherence with reality and not some sort of authorship or pedigree.

We couldn't even communicate ideas, ethics, and thoughts without language.

And in order to communicate at all, we need oxygen and water. Did you think you were unveiling a deep secret of the universe? Language doesn't create truth, it's just a medium through which truth flows. Or do you fail to distinguish between the medium and the content?

It's pretty apparent men are not products of wilderness, but of specific circumstances that are observable.

Duh. The discovery that people are born somewhere is not the philosophical breakthrough you think it is. Circumstances describe the setting of action, but they say nothing about whether certain actions are universally conflict-free or not.

Yeah, a lot of his arguments are just contradictory normative platitudes without any grasp on reality.

Reads to me like a confession of someone who doesn't understand what a norm is. If you can't tell the difference between a principle that forbids aggression and a platitude, you're not engaging in reality. Really though, if those contradictions are so obvious and trivial that the word "contradictory" alone is sufficient to settle the matter, then by all means, point to one and show where the contradiction is. Should be easy, right? Or are you so busy misdiagnosing contradictions in others that you're failing to see that you can't even deny ethics without practicing one?

Seeking to abolish political power is a political strategy.

That's like saying that the act of removing a tumor is itself a cancer. The libertarian does not seek to "wield state power correctly", instead the goal is to end the pretense that anyone is entitled to wield it. To treat that as a "political strategy" is to assume that every human interaction is political, which is precisely the pathology that you're suffering from.

To do anything in this world that shapes politics, you need power.

Power over nature yes, power over man no. You can shape the world by creating, trading, or withdrawing consent, none of which require a parliament or a badge.
Regardless, to argue that libertarians require political power to implement their ideas is nonsensical. Libertarianism requires the recognition of property boundaries, that's the entire point. The moment it must be "implemented" by force, it's not even libertarianism anymore.

Even if we take this claim at face value, it doesn't make sense either because he engages in politics all the time.

Is discussing medicine the same as performing surgery? Critiquing the state doesn't make you a statesman, and speaking about ethics is not politicking. Or do you fail to understand the difference between describing coercion and participating in it?

You keep presupposing that fighting against power is just another way of trying to grab power, as if the concept of a human act that isn't about dominating or submitting is beyond your understanding. Like, you literally can't imagine someone acting without a master, and from that delusion you conclude that freedom must be hypocrisy.
That is the essence of the statist mind. The statist is a domesticated animal that is so used to the leash that it thinks that biting it off is just begging for a tighter one. The tragedy is that these slaves have turned their obedience into a moral code and started calling it civilization.

 

[Male Idiot]

Why is anyone taking the Libertarian Party seriously?
It's an oxymoron, it has no reason to exist
It's like a pacifist serial killer

Either way, libertarianism is an ethical/legal position, and so far nobody has made any coherent refutation, yet even a rebuttal or retort that's coherent and stands up to scrutiny

What about Balldos and cocaine on 9 year old girl's hair? Are they kosher?

The only way any of these systems will work, be it free market libertarianism or socialism, is for a state to have a shared ethos through both racial and cultural means. That is the only way ANY set of ideas can work in practice. This is an objective fact of reality.

Even full blown Communism would work. Would it be the best system? Probably not, but it would still function as to the benefit of people in relationship to governance.

The modern concept of "politics" existing in a vaccum as "ideas" independent of a people is something relegated to only the past century. Nationalism was the default operating system for all of human history.

The erosion of this fundamental truth is why every Western country has turned into a niggercattle feedlot and only benefits the top 1%.

(((Who))) eroded that? With enough nationalism, anything can work. Lolberts and commies just want to replace the genetically valid nation state with unnatural notions of every "independent sovereign person" or "no human is illegal". Which don't work currently unless you got a total ethnostate with full on Volkdoctrination.

Even Israel haven't managed that, see jew Bibi vs jew courts.

Jews are that 1%. Never forget Hitler did nothing wrong.

He did sadly. He didn't win!