libertarianism is anti-human. humans are naturally social beings. acting in isolation only works if you live in isolation.
how many successful countries right now are libertarian?…. none. Including Canada, they are all liberal/socialist.
its like watching my province in slow motion destroy itself.
You’re confusing libertarianism with hermit-ism. Libertarianism just says you can’t use coercion in you dealings with other human beings, not that humans can’t or shouldn’t interact with each other or cooperate. Just that they do it peacefully.
What do you think is going on in the international division of labor? In trade? In charity? In non-profit organizations? In social clubs or fraternal societies? In markets generally? What is this if not cooperation? The claim about libertarianism being incompatible with the social nature of human beings only makes sense if you think there is no such thing as voluntary (i.e. non-coerced) human interactions.
This second point doesn’t mean literally anything. There was a time when one could have said the same thing about absolute monarchies or societies with slavery. The fact that “everybody’s doing it” doesn’t mean it’s right. If everybody jumped off a bridge, would you?
I was speaking with someone the other day and we got to talking about charity and philanthropy and we came to the conclusion that Libertarianism and Anarchism basically promote the existence of charity and that it’s a core part of a functional anarchist system. Without it, a free market system is less stable and might even collapse. Isolationism is anti-anarchism. Anarchism depends on people interacting and taking social responsibility for both their actions and their surroundings.
People are all worked up over this plane disappearing. Not saying it’s not a tragedy, but the gov’t makes people disappear everyday and none of you give a fuck.
This is the exact kind of things libertarians need to not say when bad things happen.
How dare you call me a libertarian.
What should I call you? You have an AnCap flag in your picture.
In what world is an AnCap the same as a Libertarian/libertarian?
I’m really curious because I thought they were far apart in many ways.
AnCaps are libertarians but not all libertarians are AnCaps.
I thought this was well established.
libertarians believe in a limited state-run government.
AnCaps believe in no state-run government.
That’s a very big difference. Huge, in fact, considering that the very basis of An-Capism is the necessity of NO STATE.
How is this a valid argument?
How is it an argument to say that X is false because X’s standards have not been fulfilled by proponents of X?
And why is libertarianism a “cognitive disorder” as you tagged this post as?
If the idea of Peace is so great, why hasn’t humanity ever had world-wide Peace?
Clearly Peace is not a great idea, we should live in a society based on unending wars and violence.
I seriously doubt whether half of the anarcho-capitalists I know have ever read Rothbard or Mises.
Because… they generally are just repeating “conversation” libertarianism. Like stuff that libertarians say on Facebook and Tumblr.
…and usually don’t understand the actual theory when we start talking.
What you are essentially saying is that people who aren’t Rothbard or Mises (who wasn’t an AnCap) can’t independently conceive the idea of anarchy or Anarcho-capitalism?
The beauty of anarchism or Anarcho-Capitalism is that it is very logical. One can easily deduce the theories and ideas of anarchism single handedly, without ever having to be introduced to the great thinkers of libertarianism.
Anarchy is logic.