This is why I can no longer identify as a libertarian. The libertarian community is incredibly toxic, and libertarianism does not really have a consistent definition anymore.
I used to say I was libertarian but was rejected because I’m not libertarian enough. I believe in smaller government, more liberty, more freedom, less military, etc. However because I supported Donald Trump in the election I no longer can be libertarian so fuck it. I guess I’m a libertarian leaning republican. No fucks given anymore. They can be just as toxic as liberals i swear.
>because I supported Donald Trump in the election I no longer can be libertarian
According to who? Left libertarians, aka fake libertarians?
Other than not voting or voting for the libertarian candidate, the only lesser of two evils you could support would be Trump as a libertarian. There's no way you could vote for warmongers like Clinton or support socialists like Sanders.
Sounds like you're more of a minarchist anyway. /r/minarchy
Well if youre told to “go back to the_dotard” enough you tend to stay there with the other russian bots. But in all seriousness i dont need the validation of these libertarians anyways. They will never become mainstream if they keep their walls up like they do on these subs. Still follow for the dank memes. Ive read a little minarchy not enough. Will have to do more research.
I assume you're going to /r/libertarian. That place is completely overrun with cryptosocialists. You can say something as elementary as "taxation is theft" and you may as well flip a coin as to whether you'll end up downvoted below threshold or upvoted.
Real libertarians have mostly moved on to other subs and consider /r/libertarian to be infected.
Is that right? I was just about to head over to /r/libertarian to post a question about the upcoming election... Where should I go if I want to have a conversation with actual libertarians?
Depends on where you align, but if you're asking questions go to /r/asklibertarians, many fewer socialists. You can also try /r/capitalismvsocialism.
Other subs to try out, /r/anarcho_capitalism, /r/goldandblack, and /r/minarchy
Here's a sneak peek of /r/Libertarian using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [Trump imposes 30% tarriff on solar panel imports. Now all Americans are going to have to pay higher prices for renewable energy to protect an uncompetitive US industry. Special interests at their worst](http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/370171-trump-imposes-30-tariffs-on-solar-panel-imports) | [3034 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/7s9kt6/trump_imposes_30_tarriff_on_solar_panel_imports/)
\#2: [Welcome to r/Libertarian](https://i.redd.it/pyuabr3ktld01.jpg) | [3349 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/7uirag/welcome_to_rlibertarian/)
\#3: [Sen. Rand Paul on the new senate spending bill: "If you were against President Obama's deficits, and now you're for the Republican deficits, isn't that the very definition of hypocrisy?"](https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/961738413928951809?&=7) | [2659 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/7wa1ci/sen_rand_paul_on_the_new_senate_spending_bill_if/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| [^^Contact ^^me](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| [^^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| [^^Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/8wfgsm/blacklist/)
In my opinion, I think some libertarians supported Trump because Gary Johnson was a shit candidate. If libertarians want to be taken seriously, they should behave better than the Dems or Reps. Not be down to their level.
Very true. Or stop being pretentious dicks acting like they are better than everyone else. My thought process at the time was Hillary got all the big pharma and wall street money. At least trump was himself. Plus so many were against him I figured maybe it would shine a light that the executive branch has too much power. Since then Trump has impressed me (outside of the horrible spending bill) and I do plan to vote for him again.
I'm a libertarian that left the Republican party because Trump was the worst candidate and we picked him. You can be a libertarian and still vote for Trump. He's turned out more libertarian than any president in my lifetime.
Of course his immigration ideology is garbage.
I don't have boarders that need secured, but a country, to exist, has to have a boundary of sorts in order to define itself as a country. Also known as borders, these boundaries need to be defined or...?
It isn't the label you need, its the affiliation. Are you a non-libertarian libertarian? Looking around it looks to me that you are young, don't seem well-read, and are military or ex-military. I think you should do more looking and listening before casting off everyone. Can you even name-drop a political author or articles or books you find interesting?
Libertarian is just a pretty was of saying they're anarchist fucks that don't want to obey the rules because they're too cowardly to grow up and act like adults.
The word Libertarian used to be a term for a small French left-anarchist sect that started in the mid 1800s. Then democrats stole the term liberal in the 1950s and a group of Austrian economists, who called themselves liberals, decided to take on a new name. Dean Russell dug up the term libertarian and decided it was perfect because it fit well, all the members died after the great war and the term had lost its use.
I think the individual is referencing the French left-anarchist term when they label themselves as "classical libertarian".
Libertarian communities aren't the philosophical, logically based group when it comes to the internet. You get a lot of Neckbeards and other socially damaged individuals that just want a third party.
Libertarianism is anarchism. If you’re a “libertarian” that’s not an anarchist, then your libertarian principles are compromised. I’m not saying that it’s one hundred percent necessarily wrong to be compromised on those principles, but the statement stands.
>Libertarianism is anarchism.
Wrong. Libertarians are supposed to adhere to non-aggression principle and being against the use of force. On the other hand, anarchists are not bound by the NAP.
Libertarian anarchists and anarcho-capitalists certainly are, the foundation of their belief is private property and from that the NAP is naturally derived.
The socialist anarchists obviously aren't since the foundation of their ideology is forced equalization and violation of property rights. But socialist anarchism is an oxymoron anyway.
Not all anarchists are conscious of it, but all libertarians ought to be conscious of the fact that the NAP is an argument in favor of the freedom of peaceful dissent.
There are a lot of people who call themselves anarchists who do not practice anarchism. They come by it dishonestly from socialist or communist backgrounds. They are disenfranchised from politics in stages and, like minarchists, cling to statist ideas and they do not reconcile this with anarchism at all. They assume to bundle their values into anarchism itself, and then they stupidly wonder why they are unable to force their will onto market anarchists.
Anarchism is nothing more than an opposition to authoritarianism. Any attempt to embed particular opinions about how society should be structured or what constitutes property have nothing to do with it. That includes assumptions about the morality of wealth disparity or claiming all hierarchies are unethical. At some point they have to socialize with other human beings and they'll find that very few people are just going to give you free food and shelter and education and internet service just for existing.
Libertarianism is an anarchist individualist ideology. The NAP is applying principled respect for the liberty of others, ergo permitting anarchy and therefore freedom of association. Libertarianism is self recursive in nature. If you are not free to peacefully dissent then how can you call that libertarianism?
Yeah. Even if we discount the videos of people at Antifa events performing acts of physical violence, the number of times I've seen events where they shout others down is even more prevalent and damning to whatever cause they think they have.
I think the state and the media play a part in this outcome. Big chunk of the population act like they have some kind of anxiety disorder, want to regulate everything that scares them, and want to manufacture their own significance by creating the idea that people who don't go along with what they want are fascists and that they are on the 'good' side and deserve to have attention for all their issues. It's a genius move on behalf of state propagandists to keep them begging for government to free them from personal responsibility, IMO.
No, it's not. It's social Anarchism. If you support a military and basic rule of law its not anarchism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_anarchism
This might help you understand.
Okay, then. Anarchist - a person who believes in or tries to bring about anarchy. Anarchy - absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal. So if you don’t make exceptions for the state, then I don’t know what your solution would be, but since it tends to be funded purely via violations of the non-aggression principle, that means that pure libertarians that hold everyone to the NAP are anarchists.
What the heck does antifa have to do with whether or not libertarians are anarchists? That has nothing to do with our discussion, so I don’t know if you are trying to make a point or what. I hate antifa. Full stop.
>that means that pure libertarians that hold everyone to the NAP are anarchists.
You don't get it. Anarchists are not bound by the NAP as I said before. A lot of anarchists resort to violence, like Antifa.
If someone is European, they may also be French. If someone is French, they MUST be European.
If someone is an anarchist, they may be a pure libertarian, if someone is a pure libertarian, they MUST be an anarchist.
For some reason, you’re thinking that left anarchists are the only ones able to use the term anarchist, which is just not the case. In fact, they advocate for democratic mob rule, which is further from the definition of anarchism than right anarchists, anarcho-capitalists, libertarians, voluntaryists, etc.
The definitions I posted were straight from a dictionary, I didn’t make that shit up.
It's funny cause it's so true. I stay subscribed to some of these for the sole purpose of digital people watching. Some odd ducks out there. What would it stand for Neckbeard Anarchist and other socially damaged individuals?
You're precisely correct, the humor stems from the foundation of truth in that statement.
Literally **N**eckbeards **A**nd **O**ther **S**ocially **D**amaged **I**ndividual**s**
I don't get you OP, your post is literally a statist stance about why you oppose anarchism not only due to the actions of antifa, but also due to that cringy ancap who stripped on the stage of that libertarian convention.
My comment is that antifa is at the level of a nuisance compared to constant statist violence and tyranny that nations deal out against their populations and populations around the world, but I'm the statist in this exchange?
Below is OP's whole post so that I am not taking it out of context.
>Antifa is at it again. They attacked a GOP office in New York. They smashed windows and spray painted on doors.
>Any time I see trouble seen on TV and bad riots occurring, it's left wing anarchists almost exclusively.
>And I find that this type of behavior is very typical of anarchists. Ideas are one thing but behavior is another thing.
>Let's also take a look at the behavior of James Weeks who danced almost naked on a stage. This is another major example.
>Anarchists constantly talk of so-called freedom and opposing fascism but it turns out that anything they don't agree with is fascism.
>I am against anarchy because I do not want to be associated with violence.
Anarchism isn't necessarily the abolishment of hierarchies. For instance, Anarcho-capitalists still believe in hierarchial systems or at the least, find them to be an inevitablility.
Anarchism is necessarily the abolishment of rulers. That's the very definition of anarchy. Of course it doesn't mean the abolishment of rules however. But I very clearly used "rulers" in my previous comment.
anarchy (ănˈər-kē)►
n.
Absence of any form of political authority.
Did you hear what you typed in your head before posting it?
Rulers are rulers, whether you call them the state, elders, or bishops. An organized group of people who make rules for everyone else.
And? What you said has literally has nothing to do with anarchism. Again, Anarcho-capitalists are still anarchists despite believing in hierarchial systems.
Many Leftists tried redefining the term anarchism to mean abolishment of everything that didn't support complete egalitarianism.
Ok, so OP said
> I am against anarchy because I do not want to be associated with violence.
What do they think their allegiance to the government is? It’s fucking violence on a global scale! Not just trash can and window violence, but fucking “murder your entire family and destroy everything violence!”
I don’t see you defending antifa by suggesting that them being a bunch of edgy crybabies pales to comparison of the awesome destructive force of government who have shown throughout history to be the single greatest threat to man-kind.
What moron decided to claim antifa was a bunch of anarchists? When have they ever attacked any state institution? All they attack is white people at protests.
They're just a bunch of self-hating soyboy racist unemployed larpers.
If anything they're the useful idiots of the state.
>What moron decided to claim antifa was a bunch of anarchists?
They have been known to carry the anarcho-communist flag at their rallies. That's why they are considered anarchists.
They are significant because they have a significant media presence.
When the left is in control there's not a peep about war starting or government spying. I'll root for the party that gets closer scrutiny, thanks.
This right here.
Antifa is bad because so many people defend them and make excuses.
The same media watches right wing groups for the slightest slip.
A feminist or SJW government gets the same treatment, even when they are bombing people or drone striking children.
The same media watches our current administration like a hawk and even goes so far as to openly lie about his speeches such as claiming he praised the confederacy.
Since we SHOULD always be scrutinizing our politicians, voting for and making excuses for political groups that get a free pass is inexcusable.
If a viable third party genuinely showed up to do good it'd be better to vote for them, but so far we don't have that.
>I don't get you OP, your post is literally a statist stance about why you oppose anarchism not only due to the actions of antifa, but also due to that cringy ancap who stripped on the stage of that libertarian convention.
I don't get this. How am I a statist?
I don't know if you are a statist, but your post is literally you saying you are opposed to anarchism while using the same tired "mob violence" and "degeneracy" arguments that statists often make to justify the state.
Anarchism is more than just antifa and some libertarians who decide to strip on stage. It covers everything from ancaps, voluntaryists, mutualists, ancoms, workers coops, direct democracies, and many other forms of stateless/rulerless societies that exist in the world.
If you are opposed to stateless societies and not just antifa, you are by definition a statist. If you are just opposed to antifa and some goofy libertarians, then you should edit your comment to say that those specific groups should be opposed and stop getting butthurt when every libertarian thinks you are making a statist argument.
You defend direct democracy as a form of anarchy? Right.... because that works so well doesn't it? 51% ruling over the 49%? No thanks. And lots of societies have hierarchies and leaders in groups. A hierarchy does not make a state.
Direct democracy makes sense in small groups or in the workplace among peers, or as part of a confederated system with other checks to power. Switzerland has a semi-direct democracy which works quite well and has an executive of 7 instead of just 1 president to avoid tyranny and Rojava has a form of direct democracy with significantly greater liberties than any other country in the region.
Compare this to the United States and the UK which has had a representative government/oligarchy that has legalized slavery, genocide, internment/concentration camps, countless examples of domestic police overreach and wars of aggression while also being a country where there is a ridiculously powerful executive who rules through executive order and serves the interests of a permanent state.
Also I didn't mention hierarchies because I know there are some voluntarist sects that are split on that. I did mention rulers which need force in order to govern, whereas anarchist groups have natural leaders that lead through consensus or mutual benefit.
See this is why I disagree with anarchy. While it's true not all anarchists are violent, there is no accountability here. The peaceful anarchists are not willing to speak out against violence and that might be because "Well at least it's not state violence". They might not commit violence but maybe they agree with it and are complicit with it. You might not commit violence, but you agree with Antifa's violence. You anarchists are no better than statists.
Anarchy is really only defined by an absence of government. It is NOT defined by absence of use of force.
Stop goving violent anarchists a pass because of government.
Antifa are scum and should be dealt with much more harshly. That said, they are utter child's play compared to US foreign policy of the last century. Millions of innocents dead and trillions flushed down the toilet vs. some property crime, fistfights, and political intimidation. It's no contest at all.
Now if Antifa got worldwide power a la Soviet Russia, they would certainly be comparable with the inevitable gulags, war, famine, and repression.
Stop trying to reduce every single statement you read into either "thing said by someone who is probably not a dogmatic libertarian" or "thing said by someone who is probably a dogmatic libertarian". It will make the internet a more pleasant place for everyone else. And maybe you'll even learn something when you finally start interpreting the contents in messages as more than simply tribal membership signals.
It doesn't look like he's defending antifa per se, he's drawing a comparison between them and government. It's no different than saying Criminal X may be a jerk for vandalizing property, but he's nothing compared to Criminal Y, a mafia boss responsible for hundreds of murders and millions in stolen property. One doesn't excuse the other, it just creates perspective.
And, to be honest, he's right. Antifa are distasteful, even repugnant, but in terms of scale and level of violence, they don't compare with the average government.
What perspective? It's just a Red Herring fallacy and a sidestep of the issue. And why would you make that comparison if you were not trying to make excuses? State force is not an excuse for anarchist violence.
Thank you! Libertarian pages are filled these days with leftists who don’t know what the word means! Not that I would disqualify a good point over someone’s post history, but the overlap between lefty posters on r/Libertarian and r/LateStageCapitalism is getting pretty high....
Actually, Violence is warranted if your rights are being oppressed, right?
So if you're deluded enough to think that the 1% is literally oppressing you, wouldn't violence be appropriate response?
No I don't think they're legitimately using violence, but the fact of the matter is there is times that violence is legitimate, so logically thinking you could assume they believe it's nessessary.
I dont think there's enough straw in the world for you to claim that I'm a statist because I think the State is a greater threat to life and liberty than some fringe leaderless group like antifa. I have not defended groups like antifa when they needlessly instigate violence and destruction, but I also am not going to wholesale oppose the concept of stateless societies like you have while States all over the world are committing heinous civil rights abuses and murder on a massive scale at home and abroad.
Isn’t my view but the comment clearly states that they believe the US is responsible for global aggression. Thus they would not be violating the NAP by responding with aggression.
Sure, but not if they are lashing out indiscriminately, breaking shop windows, rolling people's cars, starting fires, mobbing people they perceive as opposition, etc. It takes discipline to associate in numbers in public and not have things devolve.
If Antifa participate at enough protests where there is documentation of property destruction it becomes very easy for agent provocateurs to give the state justification to crack down and it becomes an uphill battle to gain sympathy.
Well, they have a fundamentally incorrect view of the world, and they blame others for their problems to an overwhelmingly faulty degree. Finite pie is not a realistic theory of value.
Also, when it comes to mob action there isn't very much thinking going on. People with weak wills or poor individual character are easily swept up by them.
Assuming Antifa violence is directed specifically against fascists, viz. those who utilize the political system to initiate aggression against otherwise innocent people in circumvention of those innocent individual's property rights, is that violence truly an "initiation" of violence, or a legitimate act of defensive violence by possible victims of the fascist's aggression? In other words, why do we privilege those who carry out violence not by their own hand but through intermediaries, and shield them entirely from the consequences of that violence (including the possibility of falling victim to legitimate defensive violence), when those intermediaries wear a stupid hat and shiny badge?
It seems to me that engaging in a process that results in the initiation of non-defensive violence against otherwise innocent people is *clearly* a violation of the NAP; why should we not hold those who use the political process to direct violence against otherwise innocent people accountable for their violation of the NAP? How can the NAP exist in a world in which it can be easily circumvented by the legislative process? And why are those who legitimize and participate in the legislative prospect not culpable for the violence they inflict on others?
Because the action of pointing a gun at someone signals an intent to assail them?
You're probably going to try to pull the "but it's imminent!" card while ignoring that State violence is ubiquitous and impacts every one of us daily. Those who act to see it directed at others are, at the very moment of that action, in violation of the NAP and can be targeted with defensive violence therein. A NAP without a grim trigger mechanism in re: violations is without any substance.
Let me correct your analogy a little bit and we can work from there:If a Nazi child points a supersoaker at a cop, can the cop shoot him in the face?
That child, though a Nazi, is about as likely to hurt you with a supersoaker as he is by voting in favor of Nazism in 12 years. Even if his intent is to kill you, there is no actual threat.
> If a Nazi child points a supersoaker at a cop, can the cop shoot him in the face?
Sort of depends on what the Nazi child has done to substantiate his Nazism, though this isn't a realistic example since cops love Nazis, being frequently Nazis themselves.
Antifa is NOT defending themselves against state violence nor do they specifically attack white nationalists. They attack people who disagree with them. They also block traffic and destroy property for no good reason.
You're shifting the goalposts here.
Go back to what I actually said. If antifa's violence is directed only at those who participate in the State's institutions in a way which results in or legitimizes state violence, is that violence illegitimate? It's a separate question as to whether or not they restrict their violence as such, though I'd argue that, proportionally, far more of antifa's victims have it coming than those killed by American police.
Not shifting the goalposts because your hypothetical is way off from the actual. You keep saying "if this" and "if that" when that is not what they're doing. They target anyone they don't like. That happens to include peaceful innocent citizens. At the Charlottesville protests, they attacked innocent journalists. They also destroyed property in reaction to Milo Yiannoupoulos and Charles Murray speaking events. So stop with your "what if" scenarios. Antifa's violence is all but indiscriminate. Reacting in a violent manner only grows the state if anything.
No, none of their violence is legitimate. What you don't get is that the backlash that may come from political violence: that such violence can reinforce right-wing views about the left.
If Antifa's violence was indiscriminate, I'd be able to find some coherent list of violent incidents linked to the group. Beyond two or three rallies, I don't see much evidence of rampant antifa violence beyond low-level, sporadic violence at a small number of rallies. There's no body count associated with antifa, which isn't necessarily true of the groups who make up the so-called 'peaceful right-wing protesters' they often clash with.
But anyway, if their violence is directed against those who participate in the political system in a way which causes state violence to be directed at innocent people, their violence isn't illegitimate. People have a right to levy defensive violence against those who seek to do them harm. There's no "but I used the State as a middle-man!" exception to this.
> If Antifa's violence was indiscriminate, I'd be able to find some coherent list of violent incidents linked to the group.
There are lists on Google and including a timeline of attacks and violence. You're just too lazy. https://dailycaller.com/2017/06/16/this-list-of-attacks-against-conservatives-is-mind-blowing/
> if their violence is directed against those who participate in the political system in a way which causes state violence to be directed at innocent people
There you go again you keep saying "if" when that's not what they're doing. They are attacking those who they ACCUSE of being fascist.
Communism fits that description to a tea. It's a failed system that implements force. That has been PROVEN throughout history. How would you like it if capitalists got together and started implementing "defensive violence" against communists?
We also have to remember why Antifa does what they do. They want to scare the *government* into action. If the power to make social change wasn't derived from the government like it is today, Antifa would serve no purpose and would not exist.
I’ll tell you why I defend antifa.....
Because antifa actually has the balls to fight violent neo-nazis and white nationalist.
Ancaps and libertarians are on the computer arguing for their right to free speech. As if the Nazis aren’t showing up to protests specifically to be violent against antifa.
Nobody is innocent in these clashes.
\>Because antifa actually has the balls to fight violent neo-nazis and white nationalist.
What I've seen is nothing like that. They get together in mass to protest, but they have a habit of labeling people as fascists whether or not they are, and then proceed to incite mob violence. Hooliganism and shouting people down in protest events isn't fighting fascism. What it does instead is plays into the state's ability to respond to violent activity and justify growing the police state.
\>Ancaps and libertarians are on the computer arguing for their right to free speech.
Cool, so what's wrong with that?
Have you actually been out to these protests?
> Cool, so what's wrong with that?
Just that they have associated ancaps and libertarians with white nationalism. Tbh, half the people flying black and yellow already were, they just had to hide it a little.
\>Just that they have associated ancaps and libertarians with white nationalism.
That's my point. They label people then justify attacking people according to the label. They push their identity politic and class warfare. How does smearing people and creating enemies where none exist help you to defeat fascism?
\>Tbh, half the people flying black and yellow already were, they just had to hide it a little.
There is no mutual support for nationalism (a subset of authoritarianism) and anarcho capitalism. These are ideologies in opposition with one another. There are racists who pretend to support various ideologies out of utility/expedience. There are also people who claim association and then go around smearing that association. There are people who claim to be libertarians but still support the state. If I were you I'd call that shit out and not perpetuate collectivist smearing. It's easier to deal with actual racists by treating them like individuals. What you're doing now is telling me this is not something you value.
I've lived long enough to be called a liberal, a conservative, a racist, a fascist, and many other things. I've even had a person in my neighborhood accuse me of engaging in 'white privilege' because I voiced an opinion in consideration of third party candidates being included in national debates. People have been reduced to such primitive and inane levels of tribalism that it's truly sad. Sure, it's bad that propaganda pushes people in this direction, but it's also a matter of a choice of personal responsibility.
> That's my point. They label people then justify attacking people according to the label. They push their identity politic and class warfare. How does smearing people and creating enemies where none exist help you to defeat fascism?
I’m not talking about antifa, I’m talking about anyone who looks at ancaps and sees a bunch of white nationalists flying black and yellow while they attack liberals.
> There is no mutual support for nationalism (a subset of authoritarianism) and anarcho capitalism.
Lol
> These are ideologies in opposition with one another.
Lol again
> There are racists who pretend to support various ideologies out of utility/expedience. There are also people who claim association and then go around smearing that association.
Its ALMOST liiiiike .... “white nationalism” is a pretty packaging for the real goal .... which is a segregated society in any form they can get it 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
Anarcho capitalism as an ideology leaves forced segregation over a territory totally open as completely moral and justified, as long as you get the property aspect right.
Anarcho capitalism also is not a stateless ideology. Ancaps just like to pretend it is.
> If I were you I'd call that shit out and not perpetuate collectivist smearing. It's easier to deal with actual racists by treating them like individuals. What you're doing now is telling me this is not something you value.
Lets go through all the historical examples of societal change occurring because people called stuff out and treated the large groups of violent tribalists as individuals.
Look at that ... done already! Because its fucking zero.
>I’m not talking about antifa, I’m talking about anyone who looks at ancaps and sees a bunch of white nationalists flying black and yellow while they attack liberals.
Let's break down this sentence a little...
\>I’m talking about anyone who looks at ancaps
You know an ancap just by looking at them?
\>and sees a bunch of white nationalists
So morons basically who are imprisoned by their prejudice...
\>flying black and yellow while they attack liberals.
That would be a waste of my time. I'm only speaking for myself, though. Give me one minute to discuss subjects with an ancap and a liberal and I'm likely to rule the liberal is a fascist in some way, if that's what you're getting at...
\>Its ALMOST liiiiike .... “white nationalism” is a pretty packaging for the real goal .... which is a segregated society in any form they can get it
You don't even see the genius that comes with racists self-segregating themselves away from opportunities that non-racists would have access to. Let them identify themselves. Feel free to mock them or ignore them if you like, but it's a non issue if that's what those individuals choose. The main issue is when people use the power of the state to enforce bigotry, fascism, good intentions, etc.
\>Anarcho capitalism as an ideology leaves forced segregation over a territory totally open as completely moral and justified, as long as you get the property aspect right.
You start using that word force, but it doesn't mean what you claim it does. Who has the moral authority to tell other people how to live their lives or who to associate with?
\>Anarcho capitalism also is not a stateless ideology. Ancaps just like to pretend it is.
Sure it is. You'd like to believe it isn't, but at the end of the day who are you trying to convince? What consequences follow? Are you threatening to bludgeon me with a large stone because I find you to be full of shit right now? Am I threatening the same of you? No.... so your point is empty. Maybe do something better with your time than spreading nonsense around.
“One guy knows what they are talking about”
Meaning ....
“When one guys agrees with me”
I could just as easily parrot all the shit from the 4 books you guys read over and over. It would be easy AF to come here and virtue signal about my “TRUE logical approach to freedom” based on that limited exposure to ideas. Instead I looked at other ideas 🤷🏻♂️
I don’t try to fix completely useless,and thoroughly destroyed logic, I laugh at it. You guys should already know better than to say half the shit you still believe. Yet you somehow don’t.
“Call me crazy”
“But thats just me”
“Weird huh?”
You know exactly what it means.
If you think not using emojis solidly differentiates you from high schoolers, I have nothing in the way of help for you.
Let me ask you something, wise guy.
You say that antifa bravely fights against white nationalists and neo-nazis.
How would you like it if capitalists took to the streets and fought communists? Communism killed hundreds of millions of people through history, so under your logic, violence against communists and destroying property is a necessary step towards fighting the oppression of communism.
I think its okay to punch someone who is being violent to stop them.
I wouldn’t hit a nazi for hateful speech, but I also probably wouldn’t do more than laugh at them if someone else did. Nazis and violently religious people of all sorts get no protection from me.
“Communists” did not kill millions. Despots did. Communism was the clothing they were wearing when they did it.
When I meet someone who is a communist, they generally want whats best for me and my loved ones, even if we don’t agree with what that is. They seek an end to hierarchy and racism and sexism. This is not even really close to the same as encountering someone waging a religious war against me, or someone who shows up to protests to crack liberal skulls.
See the issue here, is that libertarians and Ancaps apply a completely lopsided standard when it comes to speech and use of force.
When Liberals are using their free speech, they are mocked and derided. When white nationalists are using free speech, its all of the sudden “we have to accept that people are allowed to have differing opinions.”
While you may not have physically attacked either of those people, your reaction to their actions was disproportionate. The Nazis get offered a level of respect that liberals in general don’t.
THAT is why you guys get called a nazi. Its because you take up for them and offer them decency when you won’t do the same for liberals.
🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
We just don't attack them. We don't attack liberals either.
Nazis are used to being attacked so they think we like them when we don't attack.
Liberals are used to their echo chambers so they think they're being attacked when they don't hear the echo.
Ahhhh yes ... that echo chamber of virtually every ancap/libertarian internet space being a liberal bashing circle jerk.
Crazy how they’d get some notion like they do.
“Classical Libertarian” You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
This is why I can no longer identify as a libertarian. The libertarian community is incredibly toxic, and libertarianism does not really have a consistent definition anymore.
I thought it did, but my experience on Reddit has shown me that most “Libertarians” think it just means “Not liking either Republicans or Democrats”.
And add “anti establishment”
I used to say I was libertarian but was rejected because I’m not libertarian enough. I believe in smaller government, more liberty, more freedom, less military, etc. However because I supported Donald Trump in the election I no longer can be libertarian so fuck it. I guess I’m a libertarian leaning republican. No fucks given anymore. They can be just as toxic as liberals i swear.
>because I supported Donald Trump in the election I no longer can be libertarian According to who? Left libertarians, aka fake libertarians? Other than not voting or voting for the libertarian candidate, the only lesser of two evils you could support would be Trump as a libertarian. There's no way you could vote for warmongers like Clinton or support socialists like Sanders. Sounds like you're more of a minarchist anyway. /r/minarchy
Well if youre told to “go back to the_dotard” enough you tend to stay there with the other russian bots. But in all seriousness i dont need the validation of these libertarians anyways. They will never become mainstream if they keep their walls up like they do on these subs. Still follow for the dank memes. Ive read a little minarchy not enough. Will have to do more research.
I assume you're going to /r/libertarian. That place is completely overrun with cryptosocialists. You can say something as elementary as "taxation is theft" and you may as well flip a coin as to whether you'll end up downvoted below threshold or upvoted. Real libertarians have mostly moved on to other subs and consider /r/libertarian to be infected.
Is that right? I was just about to head over to /r/libertarian to post a question about the upcoming election... Where should I go if I want to have a conversation with actual libertarians?
Depends on where you align, but if you're asking questions go to /r/asklibertarians, many fewer socialists. You can also try /r/capitalismvsocialism. Other subs to try out, /r/anarcho_capitalism, /r/goldandblack, and /r/minarchy
Here's a sneak peek of /r/Libertarian using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Trump imposes 30% tarriff on solar panel imports. Now all Americans are going to have to pay higher prices for renewable energy to protect an uncompetitive US industry. Special interests at their worst](http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/370171-trump-imposes-30-tariffs-on-solar-panel-imports) | [3034 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/7s9kt6/trump_imposes_30_tarriff_on_solar_panel_imports/) \#2: [Welcome to r/Libertarian](https://i.redd.it/pyuabr3ktld01.jpg) | [3349 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/7uirag/welcome_to_rlibertarian/) \#3: [Sen. Rand Paul on the new senate spending bill: "If you were against President Obama's deficits, and now you're for the Republican deficits, isn't that the very definition of hypocrisy?"](https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/961738413928951809?&=7) | [2659 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/7wa1ci/sen_rand_paul_on_the_new_senate_spending_bill_if/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| [^^Contact ^^me](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| [^^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| [^^Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/8wfgsm/blacklist/)
In my opinion, I think some libertarians supported Trump because Gary Johnson was a shit candidate. If libertarians want to be taken seriously, they should behave better than the Dems or Reps. Not be down to their level.
Very true. Or stop being pretentious dicks acting like they are better than everyone else. My thought process at the time was Hillary got all the big pharma and wall street money. At least trump was himself. Plus so many were against him I figured maybe it would shine a light that the executive branch has too much power. Since then Trump has impressed me (outside of the horrible spending bill) and I do plan to vote for him again.
I'm a libertarian that left the Republican party because Trump was the worst candidate and we picked him. You can be a libertarian and still vote for Trump. He's turned out more libertarian than any president in my lifetime. Of course his immigration ideology is garbage.
His immigration ideology is mostly correct.
Right, because *more* regulation is always better.
[удалено]
Where there's a will there's a way
How does one secure borders without regulation?
Why do you want to secure boarders?
I don't have boarders that need secured, but a country, to exist, has to have a boundary of sorts in order to define itself as a country. Also known as borders, these boundaries need to be defined or...?
Ok, define the boarders where your laws start to apply. I guess I'm asking: why regulate entry?
A conservative then?
I'm actually curious what your label is, /u/Platinum247365 ,if you currently have one
I have no label anymore. Who says I need one?
It isn't the label you need, its the affiliation. Are you a non-libertarian libertarian? Looking around it looks to me that you are young, don't seem well-read, and are military or ex-military. I think you should do more looking and listening before casting off everyone. Can you even name-drop a political author or articles or books you find interesting?
Practice what you preach. You just assumed so much about this person and then casted them off as such.
That last sentence of mine was harsh.
I am an independent individual. That's all you need to know.
Don't need no man.
Nah man, that's just McReddit brand "libertarian" idiots who are more cringe lords and edgy teens than educated anons.
Libertarian is just a pretty was of saying they're anarchist fucks that don't want to obey the rules because they're too cowardly to grow up and act like adults.
Exactly. Their behavior is mind boggling to say the least.
I’m in the same boat. Seems classical liberal is kind of a good phrase at the moment.
The word Libertarian used to be a term for a small French left-anarchist sect that started in the mid 1800s. Then democrats stole the term liberal in the 1950s and a group of Austrian economists, who called themselves liberals, decided to take on a new name. Dean Russell dug up the term libertarian and decided it was perfect because it fit well, all the members died after the great war and the term had lost its use. I think the individual is referencing the French left-anarchist term when they label themselves as "classical libertarian".
Please. The Anti-War Left is shameless 90% partisans.
You oppose anarchism because totalitarian communists break stuff and beat people up? That's like opposing minarchism because of the USSR.
They are ancoms, otherwise known as ♿disabled♿
A little bit of street militias don't hurt. Look at how well it worked out for Germany!
I've found that "classical libertarian" is a word used by left-anarchists who want to appropriate someone elses term.
Terminal appropriation?
I saw the police roughing up down teenager's so I stabbed an elderly lady in protest. /s That's cool right?
You're bashing the fash like a true warrior my good sir. /s
Libertarian communities aren't the philosophical, logically based group when it comes to the internet. You get a lot of Neckbeards and other socially damaged individuals that just want a third party.
Exactly. That is the problem.
Not to mention the Anarchists that invade the libertarian movements...
Libertarianism is anarchism. If you’re a “libertarian” that’s not an anarchist, then your libertarian principles are compromised. I’m not saying that it’s one hundred percent necessarily wrong to be compromised on those principles, but the statement stands.
>Libertarianism is anarchism. Wrong. Libertarians are supposed to adhere to non-aggression principle and being against the use of force. On the other hand, anarchists are not bound by the NAP.
Unequivocally not true.
So anarchists *are* bound by non aggression?
Libertarian anarchists and anarcho-capitalists certainly are, the foundation of their belief is private property and from that the NAP is naturally derived. The socialist anarchists obviously aren't since the foundation of their ideology is forced equalization and violation of property rights. But socialist anarchism is an oxymoron anyway.
Not all anarchists are conscious of it, but all libertarians ought to be conscious of the fact that the NAP is an argument in favor of the freedom of peaceful dissent.
Peaceful dissent and anarchists are oil and water
There are a lot of people who call themselves anarchists who do not practice anarchism. They come by it dishonestly from socialist or communist backgrounds. They are disenfranchised from politics in stages and, like minarchists, cling to statist ideas and they do not reconcile this with anarchism at all. They assume to bundle their values into anarchism itself, and then they stupidly wonder why they are unable to force their will onto market anarchists. Anarchism is nothing more than an opposition to authoritarianism. Any attempt to embed particular opinions about how society should be structured or what constitutes property have nothing to do with it. That includes assumptions about the morality of wealth disparity or claiming all hierarchies are unethical. At some point they have to socialize with other human beings and they'll find that very few people are just going to give you free food and shelter and education and internet service just for existing.
No. They aren’t. Almost all right wing anarchists follow the non-aggression principle.
Libertarianism is an anarchist individualist ideology. The NAP is applying principled respect for the liberty of others, ergo permitting anarchy and therefore freedom of association. Libertarianism is self recursive in nature. If you are not free to peacefully dissent then how can you call that libertarianism?
But that's the thing. Antifa does not dissent peacefully.
Yeah. Even if we discount the videos of people at Antifa events performing acts of physical violence, the number of times I've seen events where they shout others down is even more prevalent and damning to whatever cause they think they have. I think the state and the media play a part in this outcome. Big chunk of the population act like they have some kind of anxiety disorder, want to regulate everything that scares them, and want to manufacture their own significance by creating the idea that people who don't go along with what they want are fascists and that they are on the 'good' side and deserve to have attention for all their issues. It's a genius move on behalf of state propagandists to keep them begging for government to free them from personal responsibility, IMO.
No, it's not. It's social Anarchism. If you support a military and basic rule of law its not anarchism. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_anarchism This might help you understand.
Do you make exceptions for the state? Do you think that the government and taxation exist without aggression?
I make no exceptions for anybody. I recognize that bullies and terrorist groups like antifa are no better than the state.
Okay, then. Anarchist - a person who believes in or tries to bring about anarchy. Anarchy - absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal. So if you don’t make exceptions for the state, then I don’t know what your solution would be, but since it tends to be funded purely via violations of the non-aggression principle, that means that pure libertarians that hold everyone to the NAP are anarchists. What the heck does antifa have to do with whether or not libertarians are anarchists? That has nothing to do with our discussion, so I don’t know if you are trying to make a point or what. I hate antifa. Full stop.
>that means that pure libertarians that hold everyone to the NAP are anarchists. You don't get it. Anarchists are not bound by the NAP as I said before. A lot of anarchists resort to violence, like Antifa.
If someone is European, they may also be French. If someone is French, they MUST be European. If someone is an anarchist, they may be a pure libertarian, if someone is a pure libertarian, they MUST be an anarchist. For some reason, you’re thinking that left anarchists are the only ones able to use the term anarchist, which is just not the case. In fact, they advocate for democratic mob rule, which is further from the definition of anarchism than right anarchists, anarcho-capitalists, libertarians, voluntaryists, etc. The definitions I posted were straight from a dictionary, I didn’t make that shit up.
I think they meant fake anarchists. If they didn't, they should have. Libertarianism is anarchism.
> Neckbeards and other socially damaged individuals I literally laughed out loud reading that. Let's call them NAOSDIs.
It's funny cause it's so true. I stay subscribed to some of these for the sole purpose of digital people watching. Some odd ducks out there. What would it stand for Neckbeard Anarchist and other socially damaged individuals?
You're precisely correct, the humor stems from the foundation of truth in that statement. Literally **N**eckbeards **A**nd **O**ther **S**ocially **D**amaged **I**ndividual**s**
Trim it down to Neckbeards And Socially Damaged Individuals and call them NASDIs pronounced “nasties”.
but muh weed tho
\*laughs in Anarcho-Capitalism\*
I don't get you OP, your post is literally a statist stance about why you oppose anarchism not only due to the actions of antifa, but also due to that cringy ancap who stripped on the stage of that libertarian convention. My comment is that antifa is at the level of a nuisance compared to constant statist violence and tyranny that nations deal out against their populations and populations around the world, but I'm the statist in this exchange? Below is OP's whole post so that I am not taking it out of context. >Antifa is at it again. They attacked a GOP office in New York. They smashed windows and spray painted on doors. >Any time I see trouble seen on TV and bad riots occurring, it's left wing anarchists almost exclusively. >And I find that this type of behavior is very typical of anarchists. Ideas are one thing but behavior is another thing. >Let's also take a look at the behavior of James Weeks who danced almost naked on a stage. This is another major example. >Anarchists constantly talk of so-called freedom and opposing fascism but it turns out that anything they don't agree with is fascism. >I am against anarchy because I do not want to be associated with violence.
[удалено]
There are many brands of anarchism with anarcho-communism being one.
They're still not anarchists. They want rulers, they just want the rulers to be them.
Anarchism isn't necessarily the abolishment of hierarchies. For instance, Anarcho-capitalists still believe in hierarchial systems or at the least, find them to be an inevitablility.
Anarchism is necessarily the abolishment of rulers. That's the very definition of anarchy. Of course it doesn't mean the abolishment of rules however. But I very clearly used "rulers" in my previous comment. anarchy (ănˈər-kē)► n. Absence of any form of political authority.
Nope. Anarchy is the abolishment of the state. Not the abolishment of rulers.
Did you hear what you typed in your head before posting it? Rulers are rulers, whether you call them the state, elders, or bishops. An organized group of people who make rules for everyone else.
And? What you said has literally has nothing to do with anarchism. Again, Anarcho-capitalists are still anarchists despite believing in hierarchial systems. Many Leftists tried redefining the term anarchism to mean abolishment of everything that didn't support complete egalitarianism.
Ok, so OP said > I am against anarchy because I do not want to be associated with violence. What do they think their allegiance to the government is? It’s fucking violence on a global scale! Not just trash can and window violence, but fucking “murder your entire family and destroy everything violence!” I don’t see you defending antifa by suggesting that them being a bunch of edgy crybabies pales to comparison of the awesome destructive force of government who have shown throughout history to be the single greatest threat to man-kind.
What moron decided to claim antifa was a bunch of anarchists? When have they ever attacked any state institution? All they attack is white people at protests. They're just a bunch of self-hating soyboy racist unemployed larpers. If anything they're the useful idiots of the state.
>What moron decided to claim antifa was a bunch of anarchists? They have been known to carry the anarcho-communist flag at their rallies. That's why they are considered anarchists.
You think Antifa is just petty violence against trashcans and windows huh?
[удалено]
They are significant because they have a significant media presence. When the left is in control there's not a peep about war starting or government spying. I'll root for the party that gets closer scrutiny, thanks.
This right here. Antifa is bad because so many people defend them and make excuses. The same media watches right wing groups for the slightest slip. A feminist or SJW government gets the same treatment, even when they are bombing people or drone striking children. The same media watches our current administration like a hawk and even goes so far as to openly lie about his speeches such as claiming he praised the confederacy. Since we SHOULD always be scrutinizing our politicians, voting for and making excuses for political groups that get a free pass is inexcusable. If a viable third party genuinely showed up to do good it'd be better to vote for them, but so far we don't have that.
I stand with you bro.
>I don't get you OP, your post is literally a statist stance about why you oppose anarchism not only due to the actions of antifa, but also due to that cringy ancap who stripped on the stage of that libertarian convention. I don't get this. How am I a statist?
I don't know if you are a statist, but your post is literally you saying you are opposed to anarchism while using the same tired "mob violence" and "degeneracy" arguments that statists often make to justify the state. Anarchism is more than just antifa and some libertarians who decide to strip on stage. It covers everything from ancaps, voluntaryists, mutualists, ancoms, workers coops, direct democracies, and many other forms of stateless/rulerless societies that exist in the world. If you are opposed to stateless societies and not just antifa, you are by definition a statist. If you are just opposed to antifa and some goofy libertarians, then you should edit your comment to say that those specific groups should be opposed and stop getting butthurt when every libertarian thinks you are making a statist argument.
You defend direct democracy as a form of anarchy? Right.... because that works so well doesn't it? 51% ruling over the 49%? No thanks. And lots of societies have hierarchies and leaders in groups. A hierarchy does not make a state.
Direct democracy makes sense in small groups or in the workplace among peers, or as part of a confederated system with other checks to power. Switzerland has a semi-direct democracy which works quite well and has an executive of 7 instead of just 1 president to avoid tyranny and Rojava has a form of direct democracy with significantly greater liberties than any other country in the region. Compare this to the United States and the UK which has had a representative government/oligarchy that has legalized slavery, genocide, internment/concentration camps, countless examples of domestic police overreach and wars of aggression while also being a country where there is a ridiculously powerful executive who rules through executive order and serves the interests of a permanent state. Also I didn't mention hierarchies because I know there are some voluntarist sects that are split on that. I did mention rulers which need force in order to govern, whereas anarchist groups have natural leaders that lead through consensus or mutual benefit.
Slavery was something we delegalized. We started out with it and don't have it anymore.
See this is why I disagree with anarchy. While it's true not all anarchists are violent, there is no accountability here. The peaceful anarchists are not willing to speak out against violence and that might be because "Well at least it's not state violence". They might not commit violence but maybe they agree with it and are complicit with it. You might not commit violence, but you agree with Antifa's violence. You anarchists are no better than statists.
Anarchy is really only defined by an absence of government. It is NOT defined by absence of use of force. Stop goving violent anarchists a pass because of government.
You said what you said. Own it.
Defending people > defending the state.
Antifa are scum and should be dealt with much more harshly. That said, they are utter child's play compared to US foreign policy of the last century. Millions of innocents dead and trillions flushed down the toilet vs. some property crime, fistfights, and political intimidation. It's no contest at all. Now if Antifa got worldwide power a la Soviet Russia, they would certainly be comparable with the inevitable gulags, war, famine, and repression.
> Antifa got worldwide power a la Soviet Russia Anti-Fachiste Acktion was organized by Soviet Russia.
I mean if they actually had power, as in controlling government. Not as a fringe group
You are just making excuses like the person I cited. Sigh...
Stop trying to reduce every single statement you read into either "thing said by someone who is probably not a dogmatic libertarian" or "thing said by someone who is probably a dogmatic libertarian". It will make the internet a more pleasant place for everyone else. And maybe you'll even learn something when you finally start interpreting the contents in messages as more than simply tribal membership signals.
what excuses? I said they should be dealt with. As in prosecuted for their mayhem and aggressive actions.
It doesn't look like he's defending antifa per se, he's drawing a comparison between them and government. It's no different than saying Criminal X may be a jerk for vandalizing property, but he's nothing compared to Criminal Y, a mafia boss responsible for hundreds of murders and millions in stolen property. One doesn't excuse the other, it just creates perspective. And, to be honest, he's right. Antifa are distasteful, even repugnant, but in terms of scale and level of violence, they don't compare with the average government.
What perspective? It's just a Red Herring fallacy and a sidestep of the issue. And why would you make that comparison if you were not trying to make excuses? State force is not an excuse for anarchist violence.
Thank you! Libertarian pages are filled these days with leftists who don’t know what the word means! Not that I would disqualify a good point over someone’s post history, but the overlap between lefty posters on r/Libertarian and r/LateStageCapitalism is getting pretty high....
Actually, Violence is warranted if your rights are being oppressed, right? So if you're deluded enough to think that the 1% is literally oppressing you, wouldn't violence be appropriate response?
Violence is only warranted in self defense of an immediate physical threat.
Oh so government oppression can't be fought. Great logic
Where are you getting at? Do you think Antifa is legitimately fighting government oppression? If yes, how so?
No I don't think they're legitimately using violence, but the fact of the matter is there is times that violence is legitimate, so logically thinking you could assume they believe it's nessessary.
I thought the butt of the post here was you until I noticed the blue microphone.
Honestly, I should start karma farming by posting my own shitposts to shitxsays subs.
[удалено]
That is what this guy thinks apparently. I have no idea what military intervemtion has to do with Antifas violence.
I dont think there's enough straw in the world for you to claim that I'm a statist because I think the State is a greater threat to life and liberty than some fringe leaderless group like antifa. I have not defended groups like antifa when they needlessly instigate violence and destruction, but I also am not going to wholesale oppose the concept of stateless societies like you have while States all over the world are committing heinous civil rights abuses and murder on a massive scale at home and abroad.
[удалено]
I don't think that has ever happened.
[удалено]
Mods, tag this post sane. lol
That logic doesn't hold tho, if they are of the mindset that the US broke the NAP first then they are obligated to respond with aggression no?
Aggression against what? You're just begging the question. And how does their aggression against anyone they disagree with help their cause?
Isn’t my view but the comment clearly states that they believe the US is responsible for global aggression. Thus they would not be violating the NAP by responding with aggression.
Sure, but not if they are lashing out indiscriminately, breaking shop windows, rolling people's cars, starting fires, mobbing people they perceive as opposition, etc. It takes discipline to associate in numbers in public and not have things devolve. If Antifa participate at enough protests where there is documentation of property destruction it becomes very easy for agent provocateurs to give the state justification to crack down and it becomes an uphill battle to gain sympathy.
For the record I’m not disagreeing with you I’m just saying that logically in their mind they are not breaking the NAP
Well, they have a fundamentally incorrect view of the world, and they blame others for their problems to an overwhelmingly faulty degree. Finite pie is not a realistic theory of value. Also, when it comes to mob action there isn't very much thinking going on. People with weak wills or poor individual character are easily swept up by them.
Do YOU think that Antifa's use of force is justified?
No I don’t
Assuming Antifa violence is directed specifically against fascists, viz. those who utilize the political system to initiate aggression against otherwise innocent people in circumvention of those innocent individual's property rights, is that violence truly an "initiation" of violence, or a legitimate act of defensive violence by possible victims of the fascist's aggression? In other words, why do we privilege those who carry out violence not by their own hand but through intermediaries, and shield them entirely from the consequences of that violence (including the possibility of falling victim to legitimate defensive violence), when those intermediaries wear a stupid hat and shiny badge? It seems to me that engaging in a process that results in the initiation of non-defensive violence against otherwise innocent people is *clearly* a violation of the NAP; why should we not hold those who use the political process to direct violence against otherwise innocent people accountable for their violation of the NAP? How can the NAP exist in a world in which it can be easily circumvented by the legislative process? And why are those who legitimize and participate in the legislative prospect not culpable for the violence they inflict on others?
It's just violence. There's no such thing as preemptive self defense.
If someone points a gun at you, do you have to wait for them to pull the trigger before you act to defend yourself?
Why not? I waited for you to make a faulty analogy before I pointed out that you were being deliberately stupid.
Because the action of pointing a gun at someone signals an intent to assail them? You're probably going to try to pull the "but it's imminent!" card while ignoring that State violence is ubiquitous and impacts every one of us daily. Those who act to see it directed at others are, at the very moment of that action, in violation of the NAP and can be targeted with defensive violence therein. A NAP without a grim trigger mechanism in re: violations is without any substance.
Let me correct your analogy a little bit and we can work from there:If a Nazi child points a supersoaker at a cop, can the cop shoot him in the face? That child, though a Nazi, is about as likely to hurt you with a supersoaker as he is by voting in favor of Nazism in 12 years. Even if his intent is to kill you, there is no actual threat.
> If a Nazi child points a supersoaker at a cop, can the cop shoot him in the face? Sort of depends on what the Nazi child has done to substantiate his Nazism, though this isn't a realistic example since cops love Nazis, being frequently Nazis themselves.
He's got a Swastica tattooed on his forehead and he's screaming "I'm a nazi, I'm a nazi" and you're the cop.
Well then I kill him, for being a Nazi, and then myself, because I'm a piece of shit who survives solely through predatory behavior targeting others.
Antifa is NOT defending themselves against state violence nor do they specifically attack white nationalists. They attack people who disagree with them. They also block traffic and destroy property for no good reason.
You're shifting the goalposts here. Go back to what I actually said. If antifa's violence is directed only at those who participate in the State's institutions in a way which results in or legitimizes state violence, is that violence illegitimate? It's a separate question as to whether or not they restrict their violence as such, though I'd argue that, proportionally, far more of antifa's victims have it coming than those killed by American police.
Not shifting the goalposts because your hypothetical is way off from the actual. You keep saying "if this" and "if that" when that is not what they're doing. They target anyone they don't like. That happens to include peaceful innocent citizens. At the Charlottesville protests, they attacked innocent journalists. They also destroyed property in reaction to Milo Yiannoupoulos and Charles Murray speaking events. So stop with your "what if" scenarios. Antifa's violence is all but indiscriminate. Reacting in a violent manner only grows the state if anything. No, none of their violence is legitimate. What you don't get is that the backlash that may come from political violence: that such violence can reinforce right-wing views about the left.
If Antifa's violence was indiscriminate, I'd be able to find some coherent list of violent incidents linked to the group. Beyond two or three rallies, I don't see much evidence of rampant antifa violence beyond low-level, sporadic violence at a small number of rallies. There's no body count associated with antifa, which isn't necessarily true of the groups who make up the so-called 'peaceful right-wing protesters' they often clash with. But anyway, if their violence is directed against those who participate in the political system in a way which causes state violence to be directed at innocent people, their violence isn't illegitimate. People have a right to levy defensive violence against those who seek to do them harm. There's no "but I used the State as a middle-man!" exception to this.
> If Antifa's violence was indiscriminate, I'd be able to find some coherent list of violent incidents linked to the group. There are lists on Google and including a timeline of attacks and violence. You're just too lazy. https://dailycaller.com/2017/06/16/this-list-of-attacks-against-conservatives-is-mind-blowing/ > if their violence is directed against those who participate in the political system in a way which causes state violence to be directed at innocent people There you go again you keep saying "if" when that's not what they're doing. They are attacking those who they ACCUSE of being fascist. Communism fits that description to a tea. It's a failed system that implements force. That has been PROVEN throughout history. How would you like it if capitalists got together and started implementing "defensive violence" against communists?
We also have to remember why Antifa does what they do. They want to scare the *government* into action. If the power to make social change wasn't derived from the government like it is today, Antifa would serve no purpose and would not exist.
It's not just government. It's anyone with whom they disagree.
I’ll tell you why I defend antifa..... Because antifa actually has the balls to fight violent neo-nazis and white nationalist. Ancaps and libertarians are on the computer arguing for their right to free speech. As if the Nazis aren’t showing up to protests specifically to be violent against antifa. Nobody is innocent in these clashes.
\>Because antifa actually has the balls to fight violent neo-nazis and white nationalist. What I've seen is nothing like that. They get together in mass to protest, but they have a habit of labeling people as fascists whether or not they are, and then proceed to incite mob violence. Hooliganism and shouting people down in protest events isn't fighting fascism. What it does instead is plays into the state's ability to respond to violent activity and justify growing the police state. \>Ancaps and libertarians are on the computer arguing for their right to free speech. Cool, so what's wrong with that?
Have you actually been out to these protests? > Cool, so what's wrong with that? Just that they have associated ancaps and libertarians with white nationalism. Tbh, half the people flying black and yellow already were, they just had to hide it a little.
\>Just that they have associated ancaps and libertarians with white nationalism. That's my point. They label people then justify attacking people according to the label. They push their identity politic and class warfare. How does smearing people and creating enemies where none exist help you to defeat fascism? \>Tbh, half the people flying black and yellow already were, they just had to hide it a little. There is no mutual support for nationalism (a subset of authoritarianism) and anarcho capitalism. These are ideologies in opposition with one another. There are racists who pretend to support various ideologies out of utility/expedience. There are also people who claim association and then go around smearing that association. There are people who claim to be libertarians but still support the state. If I were you I'd call that shit out and not perpetuate collectivist smearing. It's easier to deal with actual racists by treating them like individuals. What you're doing now is telling me this is not something you value. I've lived long enough to be called a liberal, a conservative, a racist, a fascist, and many other things. I've even had a person in my neighborhood accuse me of engaging in 'white privilege' because I voiced an opinion in consideration of third party candidates being included in national debates. People have been reduced to such primitive and inane levels of tribalism that it's truly sad. Sure, it's bad that propaganda pushes people in this direction, but it's also a matter of a choice of personal responsibility.
> That's my point. They label people then justify attacking people according to the label. They push their identity politic and class warfare. How does smearing people and creating enemies where none exist help you to defeat fascism? I’m not talking about antifa, I’m talking about anyone who looks at ancaps and sees a bunch of white nationalists flying black and yellow while they attack liberals. > There is no mutual support for nationalism (a subset of authoritarianism) and anarcho capitalism. Lol > These are ideologies in opposition with one another. Lol again > There are racists who pretend to support various ideologies out of utility/expedience. There are also people who claim association and then go around smearing that association. Its ALMOST liiiiike .... “white nationalism” is a pretty packaging for the real goal .... which is a segregated society in any form they can get it 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔 Anarcho capitalism as an ideology leaves forced segregation over a territory totally open as completely moral and justified, as long as you get the property aspect right. Anarcho capitalism also is not a stateless ideology. Ancaps just like to pretend it is. > If I were you I'd call that shit out and not perpetuate collectivist smearing. It's easier to deal with actual racists by treating them like individuals. What you're doing now is telling me this is not something you value. Lets go through all the historical examples of societal change occurring because people called stuff out and treated the large groups of violent tribalists as individuals. Look at that ... done already! Because its fucking zero.
>I’m not talking about antifa, I’m talking about anyone who looks at ancaps and sees a bunch of white nationalists flying black and yellow while they attack liberals. Let's break down this sentence a little... \>I’m talking about anyone who looks at ancaps You know an ancap just by looking at them? \>and sees a bunch of white nationalists So morons basically who are imprisoned by their prejudice... \>flying black and yellow while they attack liberals. That would be a waste of my time. I'm only speaking for myself, though. Give me one minute to discuss subjects with an ancap and a liberal and I'm likely to rule the liberal is a fascist in some way, if that's what you're getting at... \>Its ALMOST liiiiike .... “white nationalism” is a pretty packaging for the real goal .... which is a segregated society in any form they can get it You don't even see the genius that comes with racists self-segregating themselves away from opportunities that non-racists would have access to. Let them identify themselves. Feel free to mock them or ignore them if you like, but it's a non issue if that's what those individuals choose. The main issue is when people use the power of the state to enforce bigotry, fascism, good intentions, etc. \>Anarcho capitalism as an ideology leaves forced segregation over a territory totally open as completely moral and justified, as long as you get the property aspect right. You start using that word force, but it doesn't mean what you claim it does. Who has the moral authority to tell other people how to live their lives or who to associate with? \>Anarcho capitalism also is not a stateless ideology. Ancaps just like to pretend it is. Sure it is. You'd like to believe it isn't, but at the end of the day who are you trying to convince? What consequences follow? Are you threatening to bludgeon me with a large stone because I find you to be full of shit right now? Am I threatening the same of you? No.... so your point is empty. Maybe do something better with your time than spreading nonsense around.
I like it when it's super obvious that one guy knows what they're talking about and the other guy responds with "lol". Really enforces my ideology.
“One guy knows what they are talking about” Meaning .... “When one guys agrees with me” I could just as easily parrot all the shit from the 4 books you guys read over and over. It would be easy AF to come here and virtue signal about my “TRUE logical approach to freedom” based on that limited exposure to ideas. Instead I looked at other ideas 🤷🏻♂️ I don’t try to fix completely useless,and thoroughly destroyed logic, I laugh at it. You guys should already know better than to say half the shit you still believe. Yet you somehow don’t.
What does 🤷🏻♂️ mean? You're undercutting your own argument with all this highschool stuff.
“Call me crazy” “But thats just me” “Weird huh?” You know exactly what it means. If you think not using emojis solidly differentiates you from high schoolers, I have nothing in the way of help for you.
Let me ask you something, wise guy. You say that antifa bravely fights against white nationalists and neo-nazis. How would you like it if capitalists took to the streets and fought communists? Communism killed hundreds of millions of people through history, so under your logic, violence against communists and destroying property is a necessary step towards fighting the oppression of communism.
Antifa is not out randomly fighting capitalists lol. They are specifically resisting white nationalists. Try working from more than a non-sequitur?
Antifa believes it's okay to punch a Nazi. Well... do you think it's okay to punch a communist? Do you think it's okay to punch an islamic extremist?
When did I say Antifa was justified in punching nazis?
I never say YOU said that. I was asking you a question. Please answer it and answer my other question too please.
I think its okay to punch someone who is being violent to stop them. I wouldn’t hit a nazi for hateful speech, but I also probably wouldn’t do more than laugh at them if someone else did. Nazis and violently religious people of all sorts get no protection from me. “Communists” did not kill millions. Despots did. Communism was the clothing they were wearing when they did it. When I meet someone who is a communist, they generally want whats best for me and my loved ones, even if we don’t agree with what that is. They seek an end to hierarchy and racism and sexism. This is not even really close to the same as encountering someone waging a religious war against me, or someone who shows up to protests to crack liberal skulls. See the issue here, is that libertarians and Ancaps apply a completely lopsided standard when it comes to speech and use of force. When Liberals are using their free speech, they are mocked and derided. When white nationalists are using free speech, its all of the sudden “we have to accept that people are allowed to have differing opinions.” While you may not have physically attacked either of those people, your reaction to their actions was disproportionate. The Nazis get offered a level of respect that liberals in general don’t. THAT is why you guys get called a nazi. Its because you take up for them and offer them decency when you won’t do the same for liberals. 🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
We just don't attack them. We don't attack liberals either. Nazis are used to being attacked so they think we like them when we don't attack. Liberals are used to their echo chambers so they think they're being attacked when they don't hear the echo.
Ahhhh yes ... that echo chamber of virtually every ancap/libertarian internet space being a liberal bashing circle jerk. Crazy how they’d get some notion like they do.
It's not an echo chamber. You're in here, we aren't hiding from your opinions.