Radical libertarians confuse and irritate me, among other things

[That Is Quite Enough]

They say that we should have no gun control, social welfare programs or law enforcement (outside of moral vigilantes) and yet whenever you invite one of them to move to a libertarian utopia like Mogadishu or Port Moresby, they politely decline.

What's up with that?

[Posteritatis]

1. I knew one who sincerely believed Somalia was a paradise of freedom

No irony whatsoever; he genuinely thought it was the promised land because the evil government wasn't there, so it would obviously be a zone of absolute freedom and prosperity and the western news coverage was all socialist lies.

Tried talking it up to one of his slightly-less-libertarian buddies whose uncle spent a few years doing aid work there and got one hell of a lesson over it. I never did find out if it stuck, though.

[That Is Quite Enough]

4. Most of the libertarians I've met claim that Mogadishu sucks cause of all the brown people

The Europid races of America are, of course, 'inherently' more 'civilized' and would organize themselves perfectly and peacefully without a government.

But racism is so common among conservatives (even the anti-government branches) that I'm never really surprised when they bring it up.

[Posteritatis]

6. Yeah, most of the ones I know are honest enough not to code that sort of thing

I will give Mogadishu's-a-paradise guy credit in that he was as close to utterly and completely indifferent to race or gender as far as evaluating people went as most sapient people are able to be, but - obviously - he still had some big damn gaps in his knowledge.

[The Northerner]

2. I've spoken with some

and when the issue of Mogadishu is brought up they say that it's not libertarian enough because it's controlled by warlords fighting over territory which should've been settled via private property.

Some of what they promote is reasonable such as drug decriminalization, same-sex marriage & adoptions, their pro-choice stance, and opposition to war but their opposition to nearly all government can be little strange.

[Marr]

9. That's hilarious. What is a warlord if not a pure expression 'freedom and independence'?

He doesn't even expect the state to maintain a system of laws or a standing army. He decides for himself when he's justified in taking something, and raises his own force to do it.

If they weren't moral cowards, our self-described Libertarians should be on the first boat out, ready to carve out their bold new fiefdoms.

[baldguy]

3. There's another term that can be used to describe radical libertarians.

That term is "10-yr old children"

[MineralMan]

5. They irritate other things, too? Who knew?

Sorry. Couldn't resist. :hide:

[Radical Activist]

7. I call them corporate libertarians.

People who advocate for destroying government power, yet say nothing about centralized corporate power, are more accurately corporatists. They want an oligarchy run by billionaires in which those with more property have more rights. Radical isn't a fair term for it.

[Marr]

8. Most of the Libertarians I've met

were just chicken-shit Republicans. They say they're "Libertarian" so they can call themselves principled while actually supporting racists and fascists. They like to say they have no political home, but they show up like punctually on election day, vote for Republicans, and enjoy Republican propaganda all week.

They really don't know what the fuck they're talking about, and don't think about much beyond their own immediate fears and bigotries.

[NNN0LHI]

10. All the libertarians I have known were Republicans who smoked pot

[nemo137]

11. I don't know, but fi you feel like an argument, ask them of non-state actors can be tyrannical

makes their heads spin.

[stevedeshazer]

13. Huh?

"ask them of non-state actors can be tyrannical"

Translation, anyone?

:)

[nemo137]

14. I was once in an argument with someone

who insisted that:
1.) the entire story of human history is between liberty and tyranny and,
2.) only governments can be tyrannical.

When asked whether corproations, churches etc could be tyrannical, they got mad and didn't want to play anymore.

[Marr]

15. That's hilarious. Point #1 is practically a tautology.

It's like saying, "human history is a struggle between winners and losers". People who hold power have liberty, and people who do not live in tyranny. What a silly thing to say.

Point #2 is pure nonsense. He must've picked up his "wisdom" from talk radio.

[Posteritatis]

16. Non-state actors = anything that isn't a state but exerts some kind of influence/power/etc

They're generally seen as anything that has any kind of international influence; something that chips away at all at the idea that nation-states are the sole source of authority and impact outside their own borders.

DU, the Red Cross, the Anglican Church, Hamas, CNN, Nelson Mandela and Walmart are all non-state actors with widely varying levels of influence.

[stevedeshazer]

12. Let them build their own roads, water/sewer lines, police and fire protection.

Let them pay for their own wars, retirement, health care.

Their philosophy is a joke. Except it's not funny.

A lot of folks are attracted to the Libertarians because of their advocacy of drug legalization. Once you get past that, it's just a bunch of empty-headed utopianism.

Simple minds, I say.