Lolbertarian Cringe - A place to post libertarians saying crazy shit

[Neodanthril]

3 pages in and this thread already needs a plagued tag

 

[Delany's Donkey]

3 pages in and this thread already needs a plagued tag

It's literally just suppose to be a place to post screenshots and videos of lolberts saying crazy shit like calling for the abolition of the age of consent or saying because fucking to kill a mocking bird exists we can't protect our borders.

I knew it would eventually turn into autistic sperging because that's all lolberts do, I just didn't think it'd happen so fast.

 

[Frederica Bernkastel]

hat kind of argument is this? Nobody has been born a Kiwi Farms user, yet Kiwi Farms users exist

This is a pretty good example of shallow reasoning surrounding libertarianism. Kiwifarms exists because of its community, and the "individuals" that make up KiwiFarms come from a predictable social group. There is a specific culture, especially in online environments, that produces communities like this. KiwiFarms doesn't exist solely because of Josh Moon, but because of the people who congregate here. This is true for every online community. Trannies don't make up left-wing spaces, a community of libertines, by chance.

The same applies to libertarians. Only certain individuals are likely to identify as libertarians because they belong to specific cultures, or communities, that propagate certain behaviors and values. Apparently, you seem to think that if KiwiFarms were filled with "individuals" from Bluesky, it would still exist. That's clearly retarded. No one is born a Kiwifarms user or a libertarian. Specific social circumstances drive people toward these identities.

For libertarians, the motivation is often the need to protect their wealth (which, in your case, may be influenced by autism). For KFers, it tends to be a derision against lolcows and ennui towards the current state of society and social media. In general, of course.

And in order to communicate at all, we need oxygen and water. Did you think you were unveiling a deep secret of the universe?

Did you think this was a clever response? Of course we need oxygen and water, but we also require a community to exist. Oxygen and water are natural resources that must be protected and regulated to ensure our survival. I don’t think you realize how many people are involved in purifying your water and keeping your air clean. You are not an autonomous individual who exists on your own. You exist solely because the community you live in tolerates you and nurtures your existence. Libertarians are politically ineffective so the system doesn't see you as a threat, and for Kiwifarms, you're more of court jester around here if anything.

In a country like Russia, where people like you would face real oppression, you would likely have been long dead or rotting away in a prison cell. Because of your egoism, and the way society coddles you, you the lack the necessary ability to understand this. You possess an unwarranted level of self-importance that is truly undeserved.

h. The discovery that people are born somewhere is not the philosophical breakthrough you think it is

When talking to a libertarian, it is certainly relevant. You clearly struggle with the concept that humans are not islands. We are products of specific social circumstances. The morals, beliefs, and behaviors a person exhibits depend on their family, their objective physical conditions, and the larger community from which they stem from. Your philosophical outlook, which is grounded in nominalism, comes from an absurd a priori assumption that believes otherwise despite observable reality.

This is largely why you waste your time preaching edicts and ethics to random strangers online instead of engaging in actions that could meaningfully create the society or world you desire. Your fixation on abstract individualism, which explains your actions, blinds you to the reality that the world changes through collective action, not through moral grandstanding on a gossip forum about how much of a "libertarian" you allegedly are.

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.

This is in response to your belief that political power can be "abolished" while simultaneously promoting political propaganda such as political absenteeism and libertarian beliefs. It's pretty obvious that your intentions are not driven by moral or logical consistency, but rather by a particular selfish desire be it political or narcissistic. You're simply not intelligent enough to hide this fact because you're an egoist more concerned with blabbering about yourself. It's a bit too obvious with the way you argue with everyone who doesn't waste time with your ridiculous moral proclivities.

In light of this delusion, you also advocate for the principle of "non-aggression," even though we live in a world fundamentally driven by aggression. People don't care about what you believe. They care about what you can do. That’s why they act in ways you despise, and it is why you rant about it here all the time. It's not a difficult concept to understand, but it's hard for libertarians to grasp. Again, it's easy to understand why.

You have no idea how humans think. You lack a theory of mind and have a poor understanding of how power operates in society. You never stop to ask yourself why you're in the minority here and/or outside of KiwiFarms. You really don't have any ability to engage in self awareness because you can't live outside of your head. You operate purely on defective idealism from your own upbringing.

You can shape the world by creating, trading, or withdrawing consent, none of which require a parliament or a badge.

None of which has led to libertarianism, so this is a moot point. It also makes you sound absurd. Is North Korea a libertarian society because people there engage in trading and contract law? Why even say something so illogical unless you want to make libertarians sound retarded and prove my earlier point that communities and power shape societies? "Trading, creating, and consent" alone do not lead to the society you want, as there are specific historical, social, and economic circumstances that explain the forms societies take.

Understanding this is necessary for social change. You're never going to change society, and your inability to see this, is a product of your ideology fetishizing individualism over looking at objective reality that changing the world requires group action. It is the understanding the individual, and its community, are not separate categories. It is the fact that how communities prefigure themselves are a precondition for human flourishing, and that the goal of any rational individual is to work towards that with whatever means they can.

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 don't have a good grasp of understanding or making logical comparisons. Politics is the art of persuasion, and you regularly engage in spreading political propaganda here. Your actions and beliefs are contradictory because you preach political abstention while not practicing it yourself.

Your analogy is not even close to being comparable because you are performing politics. Discussion of medicine and performing surgery are context specific categories, like politics, which have different criteria and therefore are not same or comparable. Discussing medicine can't do heart surgery, but discussing politics is how political power is made. The most famous politicians are the usually the most famous orators from Cato to Mussolini.

Performing politics is an act of discussion, as it has been since the days of the Athenians. This is why the general concept of freedom of expression exists, and why governments often limit it to protect their power. It is also why Charlie Kirk was shot in the first place.

Above all else, dude ,you clearly struggle with critical thinking. You struggle at understanding simple societal concepts that are so easy for the average person to grasp. You're only good at convincing yourself of your own nonsense. But again, this is just how libertarianism plays out, in practice, because of your whole political philosophy is built on nothing but personal vanity and stunted adolescence.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

so if i come to your house and burn your title deed i can claim it myself, because you have no documentation

Okay, it looks like I lost you at the point where ownership is established through action. Paper is evidence of a history of actions, but it is not the metaphysical source of ownership.

stealing land that was peacefully settled by my ancestors

The burden of proof always lies with the claimant. If you or someone else insists on centuries-old claims, then produce evidence. A vague ancestral myth, however, is identity politics or origin-story politics, not evidence.

[Libertarian theory] miserably fails when discussing ownership of real-worlds lands that have valid claims on them, had valid claims on them before being violently stolen, and these claims being somewhat vague - yet nevertheless real, and not documented with 100% certainty

If a plot has been peacefully occupied, improved, and defended without aggression, then the occupier has a presumptive title until a demonstrable prior non-coercive title is proven. If you want to overturn a current property relation, you ought to show actual proof.

But what's interesting is your logic is self-refuting.
Like, not sure if you noticed, but you objected to "stealing" only when it's done to your side, but when the same procedure is convenient to you (burn the deed! seize the land!) suddenly you treat theft as a valid mode of title production

 

[Smoltine Kiminal]

Paper is evidence of a history of actions, but it is not the metaphysical source of ownership.

that was part of the claim i was making

The burden of proof always lies with the claimant

and if someone burns your title deed you can no longer proove you owned it, so it can be claimed anew

but when the same procedure is convenient to you (burn the deed! seize the land!) suddenly you treat theft as a valid mode of title production

i even >inb4'd you saying this, yet you STILL said it
you missed the point i was making hardcore

Only certain individuals are likely to identify as libertarians

libertarians are extremely likely to be massive spergs, because you have to be a very logical-minded person to look for a political framework / legal system that is in itself logically sound, normies just dont give a fuck about moral consistency

 

[WelperHelper99]

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.

That is nice. You will still pay your taxes like the rest of us or you will have the German IRS pounding down your door with rifles drawn. Your ideals are fake and not real. As long as power exists, someone will wield it. The best you can do is make sure your dudes are in power.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

This

has been a long sociological sermon, a thesis-length rant about why people believe things instead of whether those things are true. Is sociology/anthropology all you've got or do you have anything to say on ethics? Because you spend a lot of time describing how people act and never once explaining why aggression should be legitimate. Either way, lots of words, zero philosophy.

That is nice. You will still pay your taxes like the rest of us or you will have the German IRS pounding down your door with rifles drawn. Your ideals are fake and not real. As long as power exists, someone will wield it. The best you can do is make sure your dudes are in power.

By that logic, the existence of disease makes disease healthy.

To both of you: Description is not the same thing as justification. The endurance of coercion != the legitimacy of coercion, and obedience is nothing but the survival instinct of livestock.

 

[Frederica Bernkastel]

I knew it would eventually turn into autistic sperging because that's all lolberts do, I just didn't think it'd happen so fast.

I mean, they don't really hide it they're usually product of fetal alcohol syndrome and too much porn. No political party would seriously allow propaganda, like this, to define their existence.

libertarians are extremely likely to be massive spergs, because you have to be a very logical-minded person to look for a political framework / legal system that is in itself logically sound, normies just dont give a fuck about moral consistency

Its obvious the dude has never spoken to people in real life, dealt with them and it shows. But I digress. I've spoken this retard before in previous threads (the ones linked here), but it's not worth it. You'd get more out of talking to a ventriloquist.

 

[WelperHelper99]

has been a long sociological sermon, a thesis-length rant about why people believe things instead of whether those things are true. Is sociology/anthropology all you've got or do you have anything to say on ethics? Because you spend a lot of time describing how people act and never once explaining why aggression should be legitimate. Either way, lots of words, zero philoaverage.

Your ethics do not change reality.

By that logic, the existence of disease makes disease healthy.

It is. The strong survive and grow stronger. The weak perish.

To both of you: Description is not the same thing as justification. The endurance of coercion != the legitimacy of coercion, and obedience is nothing but the survival instinct of livestock.

Life is not fair but it is how it is. And frankly I enjoy my life. I know your arguments. The state is a better force for good than anarchy. Law made man more than mindless beasts. It has been that way for thousands of years. Your sniveling for utopia won't change it.

 

[Neodanthril]

Only certain individuals are likely to identify as libertarians

In my experience libertarians are either temporarily embarrassed Nazis or some kind of serious degenerate and advocate for libertarianisn because it gives them a framework for justifying the consumption of csam or hard drugs

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Your ethics do not change reality.

It is. The strong survive and grow stronger. The weak perish.

Life is not fair but it is how it is. And frankly I enjoy my life. I know your arguments. The state is a better force for good than anarchy. Law made man more than mindless beasts. It has been that way for thousands of years. Your sniveling for utopia won't change it.

If "the strong survive" is your ethics, then what makes ethics different from physics? Where is the distinction between a human and an avalanche?
Are you even aware that you're contradicting yourself? You called the state a "better" force for "good" than anarchy. The moment you say "better", you're appealing to a normative standard beyond power, invalidating your own claim. So you're smuggling normativity into an argument that's meant to deny normativity
Regardless, "might makes right" is a worldview for cattle. I understand you're happy with calling the butcher "God" and the slaughterhouse "civilization", but don't act as if the contentment of livestock counts as a proof of reason. The fact that servitude feels good only tells us for how long you've been domesticated

 

[Smoltine Kiminal]

The state is a better force for good than anarchy.

it really isnt, the state is a gang of pedophile warcriminals blackmailed by other pedophile warcriminals
all in all its made up from the worst humanity has to offer
imagine there where (other) warlords instead, filling a power vacuum created by anarchy, what could be the worst they do?
dronestrike innocents around the world?
threaten you to pay them money for protection or else?
traffic children for sex and their organs?
conscript your children to fight for them?

It has been that way for thousands of years.

struggle against the warlords is eternal, so just stop struggling?

 

[WelperHelper99]

If "the strong survive" is your ethics, then what makes ethics different from physics? Where is the distinction between a human and an avalanche?
Are you even aware that you're contradicting yourself? You called the state a "better" force for "good" than anarchy. The moment you say "better", you're appealing to a normative standard beyond power, invalidating your own claim. So you're smuggling normativity into an argument that's meant to deny normativity

You wouldn't make it a week without the German nanny state making you fill out 20 forms for everything, don't make me laugh. It's how you people are.

Regardless, "might makes right" is a worldview for cattle. I understand you're happy with calling the butcher "God" and the slaughterhouse "civilization", but don't act as if the contentment of livestock counts as a proof of reason. The fact that servitude feels good only tells us for how long you've been domesticated

Might does make right. It's a force of nature. Your ideals don't mean shit if they cannot be enforced. It is why your country is still under allied occupation 80 years later and the world isn't speaking German. One will won out. In 10 years, 20, 50, another will, and the cycle begins again

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

You wouldn't make it a week without the German nanny state making you fill out 20 forms for everything, don't make me laugh. It's how you people are.

Might does make right. It's a force of nature. Your ideals don't mean shit if they cannot be enforced. It is why your country is still under allied occupation 80 years later and the world isn't speaking German. One will won out. In 10 years, 20, 50, another will, and the cycle begins again

Come on, say the quiet part out loud: Any atrocity is "right" if it prevails. Every mugger "enforcing" his demand makes theft rightful. Every payment under threat is consent. Whoever kills last was right all along. Your entire spiel consists of denying normativity and pretending it's moral realism.
If "might makes right", then argument is pointless, yet you are here, arguing. If ethics were physics, you wouldn't even need to argue, you'd just act. The fact that you are still posting proves that you know better. Speech itself is an appeal to reason, and by trying to persuade, you are already rejecting the force you preach.
Seriously, if "might makes right", then "right" no longer has any meaning other than "won". Words like "better", "good", "justice" etc. are robbed of all meaning, yet you keep using them, why? In your view, the only thing that exists is whoever happens to still stand when the shooting stops.

Either way, it seems you didn't understand the point I made earlier regarding the difference between description and justification. If you want to say anything that can at least hypothetically have any merit, try explaining why aggression should be legitimate and not merely successful.

 

[WelperHelper99]

Come on, say the quiet part out loud: Any atrocity is "right" if it prevails.

The US government never committed an atrocity against Germany it did not fully earn.

Every mugger "enforcing" his demand makes theft rightful. Every payment under threat is consent.

We all have to pay taxes nigger, get over it.

Whoever kills last was right all along.

Objectively, kinda.

Your entire spiel consists of denying normativity and pretending it's moral realism.
If "might makes right", then argument is pointless, yet you are here, arguing. If ethics were physics, you wouldn't even need to argue, you'd just act. The fact that you are still posting proves that you know better. Speech itself is an appeal to reason, and by trying to persuade, you are already rejecting the force you preach.

Speech is a force of its own.

Seriously, if "might makes right", then "right" no longer has any meaning other than "won". Words like "better", "good", "justice" etc. are robbed of all meaning, yet you keep using them, why? In your view, the only thing that exists is whoever happens to still stand when the shooting stops.

I am explaining to you how the world works. Your parents clearly failed.

Either way, it seems you didn't understand the point I made earlier regarding the difference between description and justification. If you want to say anything that can at least hypothetically have any merit, try explaining why aggression should be legitimate and not merely successful.

There is rightful and wrongful aggression. Say A nation touches another nations boats. That is full justification to fuck them up. A mugging in the street? First, carry a gun lol. Second thar is what the law is for. To punish the evil in the world.

Now you will rant about all the times the law has been misused. Sure. The system is only human. As all systems are. But it is a better system than no system.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

I am explaining to you how the world works. Your parents clearly failed.

A dog licking the boot, thinking it's "justice". You call it realism, I call it housebroken.
Regardless, your worship of whoever points the gun at you is not convincing to anyone who doesn't already agree with you, for you are not presenting any normative arguments. If survival is the only standard, then the average cockroach outranks you

 

[WelperHelper99]

A dog licking the boot, thinking it's "justice". You call it realism, I call it housebroken.
Regardless, your worship of whoever points the gun at you is not convincing to anyone who doesn't already agree with you, for you are not presenting any normative arguments. If survival is the only standard, then the average cockroach outranks you

Survival is life motherfucker. Gay space Star Trek communism doesn't exist. One man cannot change the world on his own. It takes an army. Your ideology atomizes each man to the single unit. There is no community there, no people. Your ideas are that of a child. It's why they never work. Humans have only gotten as far as we have because we work together. You suggest we destroy ourselves for petty selfish reasons.

Also what is justice? Justice is walking home at night with no fear. Justice is a system that punishes crime. Justice is protecting the people against the invaders at the gates. That is Justice.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Survival is life motherfucker. Gay space Star Trek communism doesn't exist. One man cannot change the world on his own. It takes an army. Your ideology atomizes each man to the single unit. There is no community there, no people. Your ideas are that of a child. It's why they never work. Humans have only gotten as far as we have because we work together. You suggest we destroy ourselves for petty selfish reasons.

Also what is justice? Justice is walking home at night with no fear. Justice is a system that punishes crime. Justice is protecting the people against the invaders at the gates. That is Justice.

Bacteria survive too. Sociology, anthropology, biology, anything but ethics I suppose. How you plan to make a normative argument for the legitimacy of aggression is anyone's guess.

 

[WelperHelper99]

Bacteria survive too. Sociology, anthropology, biology, anything but ethics I suppose. How you plan to make a normative argument for the legitimacy of aggression is anyone's guess.

Define aggression? You think sales tax is aggression when to literally anyone else it is an annoyance at BEST.

And on that. You cannot change aggression. It simply is. It is human nature to be aggressive. Your ethics don't matter in real life political discussion. Countries invade eachother. Trade wars happen. Survival of the fittest motherfucker. What matters is that you make it so your side wins. You cannot change the game of life. Merely adapt.

 

[Delany's Donkey]

A dog licking the boot, thinking it's "justice". You call it realism, I call it housebroken.
Regardless, your worship of whoever points the gun at you is not convincing to anyone who doesn't already agree with you, for you are not presenting any normative arguments. If survival is the only standard, then the average cockroach outranks you

Ok, this post actually does belong in this thread. Lol