- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Can anyone defend being a libertarian anymore?
Posted on 2/16/25 at 10:40 am to OBReb6
Posted on 2/16/25 at 10:40 am to OBReb6
quote:
If you can’t enforce your beliefs on others until it becomes accepted then it’s worthless
quote:
People can’t be left ungoverned as libertarian individualists at scale because they are not smart enough to make rational choices
You post ideas like these and people are downvoting me?
0
Posted on 2/16/25 at 10:42 am to OBReb6
quote:
Can anyone defend being a libertarian anymore?
Easily.
Fear isn't a reason to let your government run you over.
Posted on 2/16/25 at 10:45 am to TrueTiger
quote:
They are a bunch of moonbats starved for attention.
Hold on pal, that's SFP you're talking ab... Oh right, carry on.
Posted on 2/16/25 at 10:54 am to OBReb6
Posted on 2/16/25 at 10:55 am to OBReb6
I was a "pure" Libertarian in my youth. Since then I slowly slid conservative, and ironically more hawkish (as conservatism has mostly slid away from that). Young me probably wouldnt have cared about wokeism too much (live and let live), but the way its forced through DEI and corporate pandering has made it clear thats not possible
Seeing the unfair treatment of US trade, rise of China and their belt & road, Russian irredentism, and all hell breaking lose all over the globe (Sudan, Ethiopia, Israel, Congo, ISIS etc) has made me hawkish.
For the longest time, the libertarian party would focus on the military industrial complex as prime waste. Procurement and contracting system need to be reformed for sure. But if we spent $0 on defense, we would still have a $900B deficit. The whole bureaucracy is rotten to the core. Trump + DOGE has been the best thing to happen to this country since Reagan
Seeing the unfair treatment of US trade, rise of China and their belt & road, Russian irredentism, and all hell breaking lose all over the globe (Sudan, Ethiopia, Israel, Congo, ISIS etc) has made me hawkish.
For the longest time, the libertarian party would focus on the military industrial complex as prime waste. Procurement and contracting system need to be reformed for sure. But if we spent $0 on defense, we would still have a $900B deficit. The whole bureaucracy is rotten to the core. Trump + DOGE has been the best thing to happen to this country since Reagan
Posted on 2/16/25 at 10:55 am to The Scofflaw
quote:
Trump's current party is closer to the Libertarians than GOP of yesterday.
Populist is more fitting.
Posted on 2/16/25 at 11:21 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
people like you crave security over liberty.
The very concept of citizenship itself is based in allegiance for security.
Individuals give up their personal power to enforce their inalienable natural rights and agree instead to obey the laws of civil society in exchange for civil society’s protection of those rights.
Government itself is a pact between the individual sovereign and civil society of allegiance for security.
“Allegiance is a debt due from the subject, upon an implied contract with the prince, that so long as the one affords protection, so long the other will demean himself faithfully.” - William Blackstone
In the US, where the people are sovereign, the allegiance expected of a citizen is obedience to the laws, not a "prince".
We ALL give up some liberty for security.
Posted on 2/16/25 at 11:26 am to Harry Boutte
quote:
The very concept of citizenship itself is based in allegiance for security.
Our society was constructed for individual excellence, not collective security.
the USA has always been a fast lane for the exceptional, we (the rest of us) just do the menial tasks.
This post was edited on 2/16/25 at 11:27 am
Posted on 2/16/25 at 11:26 am to OBReb6
quote:
locked down border isn’t libertarian
This is why libertarians are retards. They’d let their country be overrun by invaders who don’t share their values.
Posted on 2/16/25 at 11:30 am to thebigmuffaletta
(replying in general, not to anyone in particular)
Being libertarian means never having to defend the policies you support because your candidates never win.
That means you can blab forever about how the mythical perfect libertarian would have done something.
Being libertarian means never having to defend the policies you support because your candidates never win.
That means you can blab forever about how the mythical perfect libertarian would have done something.
Posted on 2/16/25 at 11:31 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Our society was constructed for individual excellence, not collective security.
That's gibberish. Societies are formed for collective security, sorry.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Posted on 2/16/25 at 11:32 am to OBReb6
The prospect of completely unfettered Darwinian capitalism flies in the face of what the Founders envisioned. It also is a recipe for unnecessary human misery in a modern nation state. Franklin, Madison, Adams and Jefferson wanted to create a just and humane government that also allowed for individual liberty.
Posted on 2/16/25 at 11:32 am to Harry Boutte
quote:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Holy bad fricking example to use.
The Second Amendment is an individual right.
There's still time to edit this out.
Posted on 2/16/25 at 11:35 am to Harry Boutte
quote:
That's gibberish. Societies are formed for collective security, sorry.
More coping from the incapable collective crowd.
Posted on 2/16/25 at 11:50 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Holy bad fricking example to use.
The Second Amendment is an individual right.
There's still time to edit this out.
It's an example of the Founders discussing giving up liberties for security.
The REALLY fricking crazy thing about the 2nd Amendment is how absolutely blind people are to this part: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"
There's nothing "individual" about the militia. And the militia is NECESSARY to the SECURITY of a free STATE.
Do you not understand that you give up individual liberties as part part of the militia?
Posted on 2/16/25 at 11:51 am to Harry Boutte
quote:
It's an example of the Founders discussing giving up liberties for security.
Individuals.
Youre getting it, just dont realize it.
Posted on 2/16/25 at 11:55 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
More coping from the incapable collective crowd.
I feel for ideologues such as yourself, forever frustrated.
YOU have given up some liberty for some security, Roger, we all have. The sooner you come to grips with this obvious fact, the sooner your frustrations may subside.
Posted on 2/16/25 at 11:58 am to Harry Boutte
quote:
It's an example of the Founders discussing giving up liberties for security.
No, it isn’t.
quote:
There's nothing "individual" about the militia.
The Second Amendment doesn't protect the rights of the militia. It protects the natural right to self defense of the individual.
You're falling into the anti-gun trap of focusing on the prefatory clause.
Posted on 2/16/25 at 12:25 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
The Second Amendment doesn't protect the rights of the militia
I never said it did.
quote:
You're falling into the anti-gun trap of focusing on the prefatory clause.
It's not a trap, it's a clause. I'm not discussing the right to bear arms, I'm discussing the Founders' discussion of common 'defence'.
You're falling into the pro-gun trap of completely ignoring some of what our Founders had to say. You provide the classic response, a total knee-jerk reaction to the mention of the prefatory clause.
Again, I'm not talking about the individual right to bear arms, but the collective necessity for defense.
You can't just do anything you want, you give up individual liberties by pledging allegiance to the laws of society in exchange for collective security.
Posted on 2/16/25 at 12:27 pm to Harry Boutte
quote:
Again, I'm not talking about the individual right to bear arms, but the collective necessity for defense.
Which is natural. Because one man fighting 300k Chinese wouldnt go very far.
Page 8 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News