Libertarianism Is Not The Answer

Recently I listened to a podcast in which Cassie Jaye, the director of The Red Pill, interviewed Stefan Molyneax about identity politics. Stefan’s answers to most questions were “libertarianism is the answer.” If we just had less government our problems would be solved.

He doesn’t usually sound that dumb.

Then I came across an article saying that libertarians had the most masculine psychological profile. Could that really be? No. The parameters for judging masculinity versus femininity in the survey the article cites is based on empathy. Liberals showed the most empathy (think bleeding-heart liberals). Libertarians showed the least.

This pillar of manhood could have been your president

This is a poor parameter for judging manhood. A lack of empathy is a caricature of masculinity. It’s a dark-triad trait that loose, damaged women find attractive but is not common to most men. When betas pretend to be alphas without guidance they try to appear cold and calculating. But men are not this way.

Men certainly try to use logic when making decisions but we are not cold, calculating psychopaths. We have people for whom we care: sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, wives and friends and usually an ethnic group. We are masculine because we care about those people. We are strong because our strength is needed to support them. We are brave because our courage is needed to protect them. We work because our work is needed to feed and shelter them.

So no, libertarians are not the most masculine ideologues, they are just the least empathetic. In fact, here are some things that expose the weakness in libertarian ideology.

They Don’t Favor Free-Market Capitalism

The most laughable part of the libertarian agenda states in essence; if only the government would get out of the economy the market would be free and therefore more competitive.

As I detailed here, for over a century America did have a free-market. Government regulations were largely non-existent. As a result trusts and oligopolies (both of which act as monopolies) took over the economy. Eventually the federal government tried to impose some regulations to stop these monopolistic organizations from controlling the market and suppressing competition but the damage was already done.

Corporations don’t want competition. That’s the sad truth of the “free market”

Now the economy is controlled in large part by these huge organizations. Not only do they control the market, they control the politicians who could influence the market. That’s how banks can become too big to fail. We have only our government’s initial laissez-faire attitude towards the economic market to thank for this.

The ironic part of the libertarian ideology is that they don’t want the authoritarian government to control our actions but they’re perfectly fine with private organizations controlling our actions. Let’s say, just for argument’s sake, that a certain group of people disproportionately controlled the media and used it to influence our children, college students, and the gullible. That’s fine under libertarian ideology. That’s just the free market at work.

Libertarian economics only replaces one authority figure with another.

They Favor Degeneracy

The reason libertarians are not on the left-right spectrum is because they share an anything-goes attitude toward cultural issues with leftists. Think of the issues most men on this site consider degenerate: parents raising their children as transgender, female hypergamy, the glorification of pornography, etc. The libertarian solution to all these problems is less government intervention.

Who then if not a central authority we appoint to protect children will stop parents from mutilating their children’s genitals to gain street cred among their radical leftist friends? Who prevents pornography from being advertised to children?

The sexual market place isn’t regulated at all by society. Do you like where it is heading?

In the past we solved these problems by giving the government authority to solve them. Perhaps we could solve these problems ourselves if the government would allow us to, but this is backwards thinking. We already had the ability to solve all problems on our own. Eventually we created organizations (like the police or a governing body) to address certain issues so that we could move on with our lives.

Back to that Stefan Molyneax-Cassie Jaye conversation. In it they discuss abortion. One minute, Stefan discuss personal liberty. In the next he discusses why abortion is bad for society. In a libertarian, limited-government utopia there is nothing stopping doctors from performing third-trimester abortions for a price. That’s just free-market supply and demand economics at work.

The only part that bothers libertarians is when their tax dollars are used

They Take Self-Reliance to Absurd Extremes

No man is an island. If men work hard they will surely have some good times but they will also fall on hard times. When they fall on hard times how are other men going to view him? Are they going to be cold and calculating like libertarians? Or will show empathy and get him back on his feet so that he can get back to contributing in some way? Men are social animals. Those that support each other the best out compete others. Lone wolfs don’t survive in nature for precisely this reason.

How many alpha males have no friends?

Everyone thinks that when things are going well for them it will always be that way. Nobody wants to imagine that they could be the one in need of help one day, but it happens all the time. Men were hit harder than anyone in the 2008 economic crash (thanks again, unregulated market). I’ll bet a majority of men who lost their jobs then were self-reliant in the true sense; they didn’t expect others to work for them. But libertarians would have us believe that anyone who used government programs to get back on their feet until the economy improved are not self-reliant.

We created social welfare programs so that men and families could get back to contributing to society.

What about all the libertarians who have been divorce-raped and cucked over the last 40 years? Are they happy that regulations were rolled back in the form of no-fault divorce?

Why Do We Even Have A Government?

We only have a government because so many complex problems have emerged in societies that it is helpful to have an organization that addresses those issues. Libertarians sound smart by saying we should limit government, but that doesn’t solve any of the problems a government is supposed to solve.

It’s everything libertarians want

Libertarians sound smart by saying phrases like “personal liberty” but in the end they bring nothing to the table.

For Jared’s writing on Masculinity and literature check out his site Legends of Men.

Read More: The “Free Market” Is A Myth

176 thoughts on “Libertarianism Is Not The Answer”

  1. Libertarianism only works if there are enough white people, but even then so many other whites (leftists, elitists, SJWs) side with (((allies))) and use Cultural Marxism to preserve their fiefdoms against other whites by flooding their areas with Third World savages and other forms of degeneracy that only those with enough wealth can shield their communities from.

    1. Terrible points. The culture miracle where all differences in group hierarchy and family structures and parental investment we see between races wherever they exist in the world are culture. This miracle means that we can get only the least able races to breed forever and still our society will stay together and get stronger. This miracle means humans defy all genetics and all of evolution and unlike animals we are blank slates because we are miracles. I am a left wing person.

      1. Culture is a product of a population of people, not the other way around, culture comes from humans. High IQ people like whites and orientals create civilized cultures that enable progress, low IQ populations create nothing but primitive and savage cultures with naked chiefs and cannibals. What kind of a culture could the Australian Aboriginals create when they’re borderline retarded on average.

        1. Its true the (((Americans))) told us that! Its a miracle and gender is a social concept invented by the Nazis

        2. Poor me, I should’ve known better than to question the college (((professors))). A stupid, evil Nazi am I.

        3. “White” really means “competent.”
          Of course, white men can screw up. But then look at the natural experiment of two cities in the Southern Hemisphere both suffering from water crises because of prolonged droughts: Cape Town, South Africa, versus Perth, Australia.
          Cape Town stands on the knife edge of chaos because blacks with their low IQ’s and high time preference run it. While Perth has a manageable problem because white men with high IQ’s, low time preference and agency have taken rational measures to deal with it.

        4. problem is you can absorb 5% blacks without crashing the country. To absorb 50% the country is in ruins. The country when it gets 5% then cannot close the gates on race without riots. So if you let a single one in you accept that you are awaiting destruction!

      2. No idea if you are trolling, but we only witness the miracles of cholera, mud huts, lynchings and cholera in colored countries. Good try, though.

      3. So we get things like Truehart’s article that reads like a fat mama’s boy snarking the cool-kid achievers. And hey, I used to ‘think’ like Trueheart and most of the silly or troll commenters, all virtue-signaling far-left loser policies and smears on Libertarianism while feeling I was a metal conservative. I had an excuse in the pre-internet age where information was not at your fingertips.
        Then a friend, now an Army General, got me wise. I met senior Libertarians in foreign militaries, academia, industry (Steve Jobs). I eventually really studied it and asked how to help and got some powerful guidance. I ended up in China aiding Libertarians therein slowly reforming the government and bringing ‘market socialist’ prosperity to China and purging war-mongering fanatics from the Red Army. Now I’m part-time in Florida where the libertarians had a big win legalizing solar/home-generated energy vs. the government energy monopolies Trueheart loves, helping people get solar co-ops started.
        But this was after I stopped paying attention to the commenter smear-bubble and looked at what Libertarians were achieving. I realized Libertarians are working on the fundamentals and think in terms of centuries, always have. Libertarians are Bill of Rights militants so of course the US-haters (and paid trolls) are in force in the comments. Plus Libertarians are in every country, and things like the US Libertarian Party is one small part of what they do. They’re reforming us towards a morality of tolerant rights-respect. Small-l libertarian homes are now in about every neighborhood on Earth quietly bettering their communities, the movement organizing not be individuals but by by self-sustaining intact homes. I used to blame everything on libertarians. I repeated Trueheart’s contradictory talking points that Libertarianism was either powerless or the cause of all our woes. I get it. Then I stopped getting info 5th-hand and got beyond introductory quasi-libertarians like Hoppe and Rothbard who were never formal Libertarians and the ‘directional’ Libertarian Party kiddie table. Now I love what they do.
        Libertarians and their small-l libertarian fans are the cool kids changing the world for hundreds of years and now today–creating stage 1 libertarian countries everywhere, tearing down commies and fascists, bringing us enough deregulation so we get things like the internet– the only international force protecting the home and encouraging people to read the Great Books and study logic. They intend to give us options for the interstellar empire of man of nations built on the Bill of Rights and the whole like the internal USA of free trade and residence, people, pay attention. Christ, they’re slowly bringing Somalia to democracy so of course Trueheart misinforms on that. Of course the far-left/-right media are silent or publish nonsense on them–while libertarians’re reforming every institution and winning.
        Libertarians traditionally protect the process of civilization, are alerters to threats to rights and freedom. In 1969 they began to expand into a community of millions guided by their traditional first family. Yes, they legalize lifestyles you may not like, but protect traditional ones impartially. They teach us the rules of the game so we don’t really need things like government and give us models (every sensible thing I’ve read here I first heard at libertarian workshops decades ago) but don’t tell you how to play, mama’s boys. They’re the umpire everybody wants to kill. But his job is not to help your side win but to protect the game and see we get ever-nicer stadiums. Without them there is no game. They have coolth.
        For information I Google Libertarian International Organization. They highlight just some of the things Libertarians are doing.
        You want to be manly and get some Libertarianism? Start a family and have kids and do their ‘3P’s’ of: Study their pledge and wins, prep to have a self-sustaining home/intact family and study the Great Books and if you’re high-IQ have 3 and preferably 4 or more kids, plus create a ‘pod’ of 2-3 homes you can help and be the neighborhood go-to and maybe get in local office/be a leader in your profession or union.
        I don’t usually spend time commenting, but RoK usually has some sensible articles addressing some real educational needs IMHO (while the Libertarians protect its freedom to do so)…this pro-left article isn’t one of them. Get smart and STFU until you’re 3P, fellas.
        Stop worrying about Pedro taking your job at 7-11 and get the Libertarian Big Picture. Libertarians are right that immigration, who is gay, tariffs, etc. is all anti-rights nonsense meant to divert you. Trueheart is sort of getting it with his blog on loving the classics. There’re 250 million mostly Euro Americans of good intelligence and open to reform. Their 4 kids for 4 generations in an expanding USA of 3P homes will solve many US problems.

        1. Libertarianism is a false ideology created by Madison avenue in the 1940s as a PR stunt by the first oligarch think tanks. It’s for sucker water boys holding water for condescending billionaires. (See Mark Ames’ work.)
          Ironically, Libertarianism leads to monopoly, which destroys the free market, which leads to the collapse of capitalism and its replacement. But Koch and McDonalds will see a banner next quarter and that’s all that matters…

    2. People are fuckin idiots if they think libertaianism is ‘good’ – Libertarians ARE WAY more fuckin radical than any fuckin SJW ‘progressive’ liberal fucktard – At least with the ‘progressive’ liberal SJW you KNOW more or less where their loyatys lie and where they stand on issues – Libertarian fucks have no morality and no standards – anything goes with them – does that sound better or worse than liberal ‘progressives’??? The liberal ‘progressive’ social justice faggot makes the claim “TRANNYS are people too!” – while the libertarian doesn’t give a fuck either way and says “Anything can be a person!” – Libertarians are WAY more fucked up than the ‘right’ realizes – they’ve rationalized their pursuit of ‘every free liberty’ at the cost of all morality – fuckin idiots.

      1. Eh, yes and no. Yes, being open to everything leads to everything turning to shit. But that’s not the entire spectrum of libertarian. I consider myself somewhat libertarian because I refuse to side 100% with any one party. Sitting on the fence is for pussies? Okay, support Trump 100%, that’s fine. I support him in general, but his stance on gun laws is fucked. And that goes for most subjects, there are almost always two valid sides to the argument. Like say what you want about feminism, of which we all agree, but it’s impossible to deny there isn’t a rape culture crisis. They were 100% right all along. Of course, it’s the blacks and browns and beige’s who are in the in-groups, us whites never get an invite to one of their culture enrichment ceremonies of peace. Guess that would be culture appropriating anyway.

        1. I am an originalist in terms of the constitution and support the right to bear arms but surely this is only for white men. Changing that is where it went wrong.

      2. Libertarianism is only a prescription for the government, NOT for the individual or for society itself. Libertarians believe that shame and stigma are the solution to societal problems, not Big Daddy Government.

        1. but can religious groups implement their own laws and punishments or does big daddy government want to run that shit show?

        2. Some Oriental guru once said that a good government is one that is corrupt. They come knocking on your door once a year for taxes and then they disappear and leave you alone for the rest of the year.
          This is true because most people naturally know the right thing to do.

    3. So why aren’t Paraguay and Argentina libertarian when they’re 80% white?
      Why isn’t most of Europe embracing it instead voting themselves out of existence

      1. White society and white people naturally formed very rule-bound and harmonious groupings but when technology came into play such as fingerprints and the rest of modernity it became too strong and suffocating and now whites have no real way of dissenting or spreading dissent as speech is so cracked down upon in most countries where a white who steps out of line at minimum gets ruined so the whole system stopped whites forming in-group ethnocentrism as is natural and now obviously the white man is the worlds cuc-old. Society became too rule-bound and now it is selecting against that in terms of the next generation and no whites will not play much part in that other than by raising the non-white children their women produced with other men.

      2. Argentina has also gone through several bouts of hyperinflation. But the Argentines haven’t dealt with this problem by establishing the libertarian fantasy of “sound money.” Instead they just issue new fiat currency and muddle through somehow.

      3. Paraguay is not white, Argentina is 60% white and descending. Libertarianism is growing in Argentina but it is more minority than the extreme left, in the future it is a movement of importance embraced by the youngest.

  2. Interesting article, and it once again falls into another facet of the left destroying good things.
    Then again, that’s what these guys do, time and time again, everywhere.
    You’d think people would wise up to these moron’s antics, but no, it never happens.

  3. Somalia dosent have 0 government it has 12 or more competing in which one rules the country. And it’s goverment interference and regulations that causes monopolies to exist in the first place. When businesses have to apply for expesensive permits and state permission just to set up lemonade stands it makes it much harder for smaller buisness to compete. And this isn’t even mentioning the increased tax rates and required minimum wage. And then when large companies go bankrupt our government bails them out with our tax money. Get rid of government and you can have your free market.

    1. @Erwin…OH HORSESHIT…Monopolies, Oligarchies, Trusts would form almost INSTANTLY without the government regulating them ro at the very least keeping them transparent about their actions. There is a lot more you could add to this article, but in essence if you think a “nation” of individual, selfish, uninformed, decentralized idiots is going to accomplish anything than you are a moron. the problem is not that government exists, it is WHO RUNS THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT. Right now we have feminists, baby boomers, and minorities running it.

      1. He’s an anarchist.
        Libertarianism allows plenty of restrictions, just not at an executive level, kinda like how the U.S. used to be back when the founding fathers created it.

      2. So your solution is to give a small group of idiots a monopoly on violence to force thier will on others. So that we can be protected from monopolies. The nature of every goverment is to grow bigger and more tryanical. Intill eventually it becomes so large that it collaspes under its own weight and the process repeats itself. Goverment caused the issues we are dealing with today and I highly doubt its the solution.

      3. Oh no who would enforce the regulations protecting them and are you one of those idiots who don’t believe in corruption?
        Most corporations operate unethically so there goes your “benevolent bureaucracy”

      4. WES
        This is absolutely true. Think there is hatred towards Hebrews right now (Though Irish-Catholics and Old Money WASPS are also in on the Northeast hegemony).
        Wait until this happened.
        Probably the Evangelicals controlling the primary economies would refuse to sell their goods because they were tired of porn being broadcast on street signs and then every gay Mick and swinger Jew banker in Manhattan would become a cannibal.

    2. Indeed. The time the author was referring to also had government soldiers come in to bust strikes. What keeps companies from becoming too big or oligopolies forming is the ability for a disgruntled employee to say “Screw you, fuck this, Im going my own way.” Pepsi was resurrected from the dead by Coke’s largest vendor who wanted a discount on product but didn’t get it. Sony made the Playstation in response to Nintendo fucking them over in favor of Philips. Countless other companies have been formed and were made into competing behemoths because an employee wanted more, or wanted to do things their own way. What prevents them from doing it, is government.

      1. Agreed even mega corp Disney was formed by an ex universal employee by the name of Walt Disney. When Universal stole the rights to Oswald the Lucky rabbit. And Dreamworks was formed by disgruntled Disney empolyees. Buisnesses are constantly changing being created and destroyed. It should never be up to a poltician which buisness stays and which one goes.

    1. You do understand labeling everything that isnt to your exact political leanings “communist” is as fucking retarded as liberals labeling everything they disagree with “fascist” the exact same level of stupidity !!!
      Communism whether you like it or not is a relatively clearly defined political ideology.

  4. Author is a closet communist and a fool, has a serious chip on his shoulder regarding libertarians.
    Another gem: http://www.returnofkings.com/147640/the-free-market-is-a-myth
    “The dumbest thing that otherwise smart people glorify is the free market. It’s the central ideology of libertarians, the party of people who pride themselves on sounding much smarter than they actually are. That alone should make you question free market rhetoric.”
    Must have got beaten up by a libertarian in high school or something.

    1. >Must have got beaten up by a libertarian in high school or something.
      aren’t you liberTARDians supposed to be nonviolent? yeah, that’s what I thought.

      1. > aren’t you liberTARDians supposed to be nonviolent?
        Libertarianism is based on non-aggression, not non-violence. Learn the difference. No point debating with fools.

        1. Agreed: go to a gym, self defense training course, or gun range and it won’t take long to realize you’re surrounded by libertarians there.

    2. I bet he didn’t get “beat up” by a libertarian. I seriously doubt any of you skinny-fat beta faggots could win a fist fight against anyone that wasn’t as lame as yourselves.
      You useless autistic half-wits love to think of yourselves as everyone’s intellectual superior and that your ridiculous inversion of marxism has all the answers. Well, perhaps you weird incels should try reading real books– real philosophy, real history. Not worthless (((Ayn Rand))) and shitty (((Murray Rothbard))). You towering intellectual giants ought to be able to handle the Great Books of the Western world, for starters, right? Oh, but that’s so much work…especially when you can spend your dateless Saturday nights on Redtube and re-reading some toilet paper like Atlas Shrugged for the 50th time. Dear Leader (((Rand))) has all the answers anyway, right?
      Author states his points coherently and you basement dwellers have zero counter arguments– you just call him a communist. Which is rich since you dumb cunts are leftists and you’re too dumb to even realize it.
      Yes, you are right. There is no point to seriously talking to a fool. In this case the fool is you, retard. Again, go read some real books and then come back and try again when you know something. Dipshit.

      1. Another hurt fool to the rescue.
        > I seriously doubt any of you skinny-fat beta faggots could win a fist fight against anyone that wasn’t as lame as yourselves.
        Projection, Mr. Antifa-fag?
        You must be new around here – I actually don’t support (((Ayn Rand))) whatsoever and have spoken against her numerous times in my comments. The rest of your wall of text is based on your erroneous assumption, but what more to expect from a runt?
        > Author states his points coherently and you basement dwellers have zero counter arguments– you just call him a communist.
        Author is a total dumbass who conflates libertarianism with anarchism and I refuted (along with many other people) his prior idiotic article http://www.returnofkings.com/147640/the-free-market-is-a-myth
        The author’s own core misunderstanding of the free-market being the “central ideology” of libertarianism is clearly pointed out; the actual values of libertarianism clearly explained and limitations of the ideology. Looks like the fool hasn’t learned anything since and you didn’t even bother reading the link, but that’s what a fool is: someone who doesn’t learn and likes writing about things he doesn’t even understand.
        Hooked on phonics, Skippy?

    3. If I was to hazard a guess, he didn’t get beaten up by a libertarian in high school because their weren’t any and the reason he wrote this article is simply because he doesn’t agree with their politics.

  5. liberTARDianism is an autist pipe dream mostly. usually, young people are liberal, old people are conservative, and autistic people are liberTARDian because they’re naive as fuck and have no idea about human greed

  6. “Free trade is not a principle; it is an expedient”
    -Benjamin Disraeli
    And that is coming from the birthplace of classic liberalism. We should also paraphrase another quote, that from Otto von Bismarck:
    “He who is not a libertarian at 19, has no heart. He who is still a libertarian at 30, has no brain.”

    1. the liberTARDian movement is mostly made up by autistic people that have no idea about actual human nature: greedy, power hungry, aggressive etc.

    2. Uh, that quote is from Winston Churchill and it goes something like this “if you are young and not liberal you have no heart, if you are old and not conservative you have no brain”. Also, pretty sure 19th century Germany (the Bismark days) is completely incomparable to today. Not to mention, BISMARK CREATED THE FIRST UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM AND PENSION SYSTEM. Nice try though.

      1. Allegedly, Bismarck used the word “socialist” and that’s why I wrote “PARAPHRASE”. No wonder many Americans are regarded as functionally illiterate…

        1. Right. Americans are functionally illiterate. Unlike the rest of the world, great scholars and thinkers who sit about their homes at night discussing Kant and Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard. The entire rest of the world is so incredibly smart but Americans can barely tie our shoes. Which explains why Apple and Microsoft and Exxon-Mobil and General Electric are all here. We’re just too stupid to breath.

  7. Yikes. So many holes in this authors arguments.
    1. “Now the economy is controlled in large part by these huge organizations.” What does he mean control the economy? They provide goods to consumers at a price they are voluntarily willing to pay. Corporations have no power to force me to do anything without the Government. And when Corporations become a bad deal for the consumer, the free market always finds a better way. i.e. Banks ruining currencies, free market produces crypto. Jews pushing degenerate agendas with their media empires, free market produces internet to allow everyone to have a platform. The only thing Government needs to do is make sure everyone’s rights are not violated and that the free market is able to work.
    2. “The sexual market place isn’t regulated at all by society. Do you like where it is heading?” The sexual marketplace is manipulated by government policies such as welfare for single mothers, anti discrimination laws, and anti male court systems. If there was no government acting as providers and security for females the marketplace would be more fair to men.
    3. “In a libertarian, limited-government utopia there is nothing stopping doctors from performing third-trimester abortions for a price.” That is a when does life begin argument. Right now people believe the fetus is not a legal human until very late into pregnancy. Has nothing to do with Big or small government.
    4. “Men were hit harder than anyone in the 2008 economic crash (thanks again, unregulated market)” This is just false. The housing crash had a lot to do with easy housing Government program. Banks had incentive to give loans to low credit score borrowers. If it was a free market, banks would not due such a risky move. The banks did these loans because they had a government safety net.
    I guess ROK is trying to give a different perspective. But I can’t be the only one that thinks this article is trash. Bottom line is government is involuntary, free market is voluntary. Government is immoral use of force.

  8. As somebody who considered him self a Libertarian(I still somewhat do) I have to agree, you need a government that is strong outwards but liberal inwards – and that’s the tricky part. How do you make politicians go “soft” on the people and “hard” on the outsiders? Once you give them the power they will one way or the other learn to abuse it.
    The worst government possible is the one the goes “hard” on it’s own people while being “soft” to the outsider – case in point Europe currently.

    1. Good Comment.
      Many Non Chinese Asian Governments (eg. S. Korea, Thailand, Taiwan) tend to go soft inside and hard on the outside. I think it’s the right approach

    2. Good comment, although I would consider your “worst government” description as being ultra-left wing.
      I’m pretty libertarian, but I’m not idealist. I’d rather have a right winger in office than a lefty.

  9. Poor argument you talk about government programs that exist to help men but are primarily there to help women who are fucking lazy and irresponsible. You talk about degenerative but look at feminist trying to criminalize cat calling, asking someone out, stronger false rape laws to throw innocent men in jail. I will agree with you on the free market being a scam look how much damage corporations can do to political enemies they can almost silence them so they are absolutely not the answer and I feel it is libertarians weakest argument not their strongest.

    1. Corporations are a legal fiction an arm to the government. According to Mussolini fascism should be called corporatism a combination of business and state. You call that libertarianism? LMFAO

  10. “The reason libertarians are not on the left-right spectrum is because they share an anything-goes attitude toward cultural issues with leftists.”
    Nature mercilessly culls the stupid. The crazy leftist ideologies can only exist because Big Governments subsidizes them. I guarantee these insane beliefs would disappear very quickly if people had to rely on themselves and friends/family/community instead of Big Daddy Government.
    For example, single motherhood is so common because men have been replaced by the government…a teen mom can get knocked up and collect checks from Uncle Sam. Why does she need to get married?
    If she couldn’t just pick up a (debt-funded) government check, she would be forced to find a man willing to take care of her and her baby instead of some Chad who’ll just pump and dump her. Otherwise she’d have to humbly accept others’ charity. Or, she would give the kid up for adoption. Those are all better outcomes than what we have in the current system.
    “Eventually we created organizations (like the police or a governing body) to address certain issues so that we could move on with our lives.”
    Very few libertarians argue that we should abolish the police forces. You seem to be conflating anarchists and libertarians. Libertarians believe that the purpose of the government is to protect your life, liberty, property rights and your right to pursue happiness…to that end a certain amount of government force is needed. There is a difference between limited government and lawlessness.
    “Nobody wants to imagine that they could be the one in need of help one day, but it happens all the time.”
    When you fall on hard times you should turn to your family, friends, church, charitable organizations and community instead of demanding forced transfers of wealth.

    1. “The crazy leftist ideologies can only exist because Big Governments subsidizes them” Ya, and it was “muh individual” dumbasses who gave it to them.
      “single motherhood is so common because men have been replaced by the government” that is because men gave women the right to vote, and it is also because men are too weak and de-tribalize to even secure our borders or to stand up to the minorities that actually take advantage of the system.
      “Very few libertarians argue that we should abolish the police forces” Not sure which libertarians you have been talking to, but a lot of them think everything should be privatized, “muh taxation is theft” horseshit.
      “There is a difference between limited government and lawlessness”…uh, limited government is a subjective term, what is limited?
      “When you fall on hard times you should turn to your family, friends, church, charitable organizations and community instead of demanding forced transfers of wealth.” OH BULLSHIT, the church ain’t going to do shit, charities are the most corrupt and wasteful enterprises out there, and with charity only the good people go broke while assholes end up getting rich and controlling the economy. F*** your BS church charity. Oh hey church, I am 60 years old with a pre-existing condition, the insurance companies won’t accept me, and I need 100,000 dollars for a life saving procedure. Pfff.
      YOU WOULD BE WORTH NOTHING BOY if not for your country and the sacrifices of previous generations who were not selfish and moronic A-holes like yourself. You are not a bad-ass bro, you are not a Spartan individual warrior, and you obviously don’t get life.

    2. Nature does not ‘cull the stupid.’ Ever heard of ‘the meek shall inherent the earth?’ Take a look at Wakandan-Americans and the purer Wakandans invading Europe. They are low IQ, and low everything aside from dribbling or chasing a ball, yet they will outlive us all like cockroaches in a nuclear holocaust.

      1. Thats because the current social paradigm rewards the least able 25% and the top 5% and the rest suffer disproportionately! These two groups rob from the rest and the bottom do with large families and the top 5% do with lavish life styles.

    3. TJ, “Otherwise she’d have to humbly accept others’ charity. Or, she would give the kid up for adoption. ”
      Faulty logic, loads of single moms in Asia and no free money for them, they mostly seem to work as prostitutes.

      1. You got it wrong, John !! Hell lot of pussies (single moms, widowed) get paid from Tax Payers Money.
        You still got a benefit of doubt ! Because you simply referred “Asia” !!
        Prostitutes !? Are those the same pussies who enjoy “cock carousel” and also get paid & pampered !?

      2. Asia has universal healthcare, and many countries probably have other benefits.

  11. Any ideology that lacks a clear moral compass, be it on the left of the the right, is a system that won’t work in real life. They might make valid points on certain issues like: taxation, the role of government or rent control…but without a firm societal foundation you’re just floating around: one day you’re pro abortion the other day against it, one day you’re pro immigration the next you’re against it, one day you’re against alternative lifestyles the other you’re pro. Replacing one flawed system with another one. The end result is a confused, unprincipled populace that lack common ground, a recipe for infighting. Any halfway decent engineer will tell you not the build your house on loose sand. First lay some concrete than start building from bottom to top.

    1. A nation needs some form of central authority and leadership, a nation full of unregulated, uninformed, selfish, greedy, and dumb consumer idiots will never accomplish anything and will fail within a short time. the question is WHO RUNS THAT AUTHORITY…nationalistic men, or feminists, Marxists, and immigrants. Unfortunately, most white men are on board of this “muh indivdual” crap and so the degenerates easily moved in and took over.

      1. Praying away a foreign invasion is not going to work bro. At some point you would still need to have a government to actually implement something, unless of course you want to live a theocracy, which is essentially government anyways. Ya, I’m the Church regulate our drinking water, keep monopolies from forming, build highways and other essential infrastructure, lol. The church ain’t going to do shit, and most of the people running the church are cucks anyways. Also, Charities are the most wasteful, corrupt, and inefficient systems on earth. Charities are also systems that punish good people, while rewarding assholes. Ten the assholes get rich by not giving to charity and according to your principle they would be the ones running the country. The government is fine and you will never get rid of it. However, what people like you will do is hand power over to ACTUAL Marxists and then you can kiss your libertarian dream goodbye.

        1. “what people like you will do is hand power over to ACTUAL Marxists and then you can kiss your libertarian dream goodbye.”
          Look at the U.S. You have already allowed it to become marxist. Voting in a big right wing government is just ONE election away from having a big left wing socialist government. Look at the last 40 years. Even while a republican is president:
          The welfare state grows.
          The inflation grows.
          The government spending grows.
          Our young men get sent off to die for globalist favors.
          Libertarianism would just return power to the states. So culturally, california can be a cesspool while texas and the midwest get to remain conservative. Fiscally, the Fed wouldn’t be able to print our money, fund wars, welfare in other liberal states, etc.

        2. Wes, “build highways and other essential infrastructure”, do we really NEED highways?

        3. @John Dodds…yes John, we need highways. Major routes connecting large urban/industrial centers are most efficiently done through the use of highways. Also, they need to be public.

      1. one example: libertarians would allow monopolies to kill competition, and scam/control you. why? that’s how a “free market” operates, according to the author’s definition of “free market.”
        he assumes that “free market” means ZERO governmental intervention. but, ideologically, how could libertarians allow purely monopolistic conditions, if they forced you to buy all of your cars from GM or all of your groceries from Whole Foods?. that’s not a free market. as a result, a libertarian gov’t would have to break/limit/preempt monopolies.
        zero gov’t intervention = anarchy, not libertarianism.

        1. Yeah this article is like a SJW would define the alt-right. All nazi comparison and nonsense.
          Average iq on republicans are 95 and its 98 on libertards, while the libertarians have 120 on average so before we go full retard (IQ 70) and hate on the libertarians lets try to understand its standpoints correctly.

        2. @Willy…that statistic is total bullshit, lol. Most libertarians are pothead white trash, or autistic morons who think they are all knowing hot shit because they have skills in one particular industry or subject. Libertarians are just another ideological group of Utopian dreamers who don’t get life.

  12. None of the current political parties work because they have been compromised by the bankers and deep state alphabet agencies. We need a viable third party that favors free market not crony capitalism and has sufficient safety net programs for the unemployed and disabled. A balance between capitalism and socialism. We also need limits on immigration.

    1. The problem is that you can have a safety net for the actually very disabled but if you have one for single-moms then in a couple of generations by natural selection everybody will be a single mom! You must look at the society and who is producing the children because they are your future. If that is from the bottom end of your society you are without hope.

      1. you can have a time-limited safety net for single moms. give them X time to enroll in job training/work force. if they fail, remove their kids. (one possible exception: some women are simply too stupid for work. their low intelligence would constitute a “severe disability.”

        1. Even removing the kids will still allow the low IQ to breed out. Nations at some stage will have to just impose limits on children like with China. That will have to be done and done per man and per woman and just jail those who break it. Yes that means a man at his limit will not be able to date a woman wanting children but boo hoo.

        2. Hot Karl,
          You are assuming free white women are capable of being productive workers, to me, this doesn’t appear to be true. Without a man to control and instruct them, they are worthless.

      2. Or you could make the safety net more uncomfortable, as in no free money, but free single sex barracks housing and free army style canteen meals.

        1. The society will just breed downwards until it is taken over by a patriachal group and then stabilise. Patriachal groups hoard women so will take over at some stage by natural selection which destroys groups that adopt these egalitarian values which are basically the exact worst evolutionary strategy you could design ie feminist women, giving away wombs to other men and not getting back, homosexuality, transgender-ism ect.
          Its something that will lose in evolution to some patriarchal group probably Islam with 5 generations in Europe and then the genes will stabilise. Liberalism is the exact worst evolutionary strategy bar embracing suicide culture and pro-ana.

        2. Maybe they could even have a few set aside to babysit while some of them can go out and do tasks like clean the street, pick up rubbish, wash graffiti off walls and chewing gum off the pavement and some of them who been checked out could maybe be given the job of helping some of the elderly ect, i’d day it would be fair enough to give them money in line with the amount of hours they worked if they did things like that…

  13. Libertarianism is another hopeful option that we pray will work and is more an intellectual brain-fuck and utopian vision than
    is needed for long run survival. We are in a world where many groups vie for absolute domination and only one group ethnic Europeans support equality from a position of power. Every group supports it from weak positions that is easy. It requires absolute brain-washing of the people for them to drop their genetic
    predsiposition to preferantially help themselves. No group other than ethnic Europeans will ever fall for that again especially after it is destroying them rapidly. In Israel they immediately dropped it in a half second.
    If you believe this and that white society will not have power in the future or exist by multiplying out birth rates and seeing the reproductive death of white men at the one-sided sexual competition with arab and black men then you begin to see that these ideologies on the left or on the right of cuc*oldry wether socialism on the left and libatarianism on the right are all suicidal. Stronger government is needed.

    1. If as is very possible as the worlds population baloons that 100 million, or far more, Islamic and African men try to come to the west to
      sexually genocide the local men by taking women in the next 50 years ( thats 2M per year which is low ). Can this idiology throw them out by hand if that is the only option? Does it have strength to actually protect borders? Will it uphold values that will have the people wish for the borders to be upheld? Will it allow powerwful elites to own the information and wash the brains and suppress the people until they suicide? Putin is one better model or the Chinese model.

      1. If it is coupled with an abolition much of the state and all associated apparatus like health-care, free housing to single moms to prevent rapid r-selection of the population and end of civilization and instead favor k-selection and thus save the civilization in the long-run then I give it some credit.

        1. My theory is that its about the quality of your citizens. Sweden and Norway had great socialist societies not because of socialism being great but because of the people working hard and being great. Libertarianism would have worked great there 15 years ago before they started to decline but before they start to be forced to put these people in power ( and then the society will actually collapse ).
          If you have good citizens like these any system works and if your citizens are like those of Somalia then any system will fail! Its about citizens as much as the system and their genetic quality. Also some citizens by genes favor socialism more like the Nordics and some favor capitalism more like the Italians as they are genetically more individualistic so the system also must match the genes of the population and their genetic group structure.

        2. Most of Europe one big welfare state go figure. Your “genetics theory” is crap. Once you give everyone the right to vote eventually people will vote for free stuff that’s the issue

        3. Genetics is not crap its fact. You probably just don’t want to open your eyes and see that Asia and Africa are going in different directions in their societies because of genetics and want to be so blind and stupid that you think its culture. lol. You think that Africans and Asians personalities could flip around if there were a few small cultural changes and suddenly Africans could be too shy to speak and recoil when insulted and apologise lol and asians could be all uppity and wild.
          Imagine that some people are so stupid they think chance culture is what seperates different groups rather than cultural differences and group differences coming from genetic differences apparantly it is all chance and luck that it differs. That is a hilarious argument when people have the nerve to make it.
          Selfishness within democracy is a problem where one big group just electorally dominates another and takes shit.

  14. Libertarians will have you believe baby killing, faggotry, and transgenderism are all left up to the states.
    No, fuck that. Libertarianism operates from a premise of moral relativism. Successful patriarchies never operated under such a pussy ass way of thinking.
    Libertarianism is just blackpilled garbage of “oh well fuck it time to just worry about me”.
    Libertarians also for the most part can’t get it through their thick skulls that religion was necessary for a reason. Libertarians want to believe that if you simply allow people to be “more free” then society will fix itself.

    1. Religion was never needed like it is today. Today those without it will actively wear condoms and not reproduce! Its never been as needed as now. 200 years ago without it you would be ok individually or as a group even though it still helped but today its pure suicide of your group through birthrates.

        1. http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2017/04/04114923/PF_17.04.05_projectionsUpdate_change310px.png
          We shouldn’t debate women because demographics is too mathsy and always escapes them. Look at birthrates and population projections for the next 50 ,100 and 200 years and you see that atheists and secular have very little place in the future.
          At what date will there not be a single feminist left in how many generations based on their low birth rates? 3? 6? 50? 100? certainly before a hundred that will happen its like the second worst evolutionary strategy ahead only of homosexuality.
          man: 1 + 1 = 2
          woman: 1 + 1 = {insert socially acceptable answer here}

        2. Debating women is more a waste of time than anything else and needs stopping just on that basis alone. I was going to say that its like debating five year kids but when I was five I was still logical so maybe that’s a poor analogy.

        3. The correct answer to women is, you reproduce within your own race or you don’t eat. Women are incapable of making sensible life choices (this is what every religion has ever said), so they should always be owned by a man (first their father, then their husband), and never be put in a position to have choices.

      1. The prevailing social norms are also far more suicidal and crazed than ever before. These days homosexuality and cross-dressing is considered virtuous!

    2. That’s one example. Here’s the reasoning: the small liberal cities with fucked up ideals will eventually TURN the federal government, which will FORCE the rest of the country to believe in the LIBERALS’ morals. Get it?
      It happened in Rome. A big government quickly changes religions, and suddenly they went from burning christians, to burning non-christians. That’s an extreme example, but imagine if the liberal cities start importing more muslims. In a small amount of time, more of them will be elected to FEDERAL office and start enforcing that bullshit.
      Libertarian government would keep it contained to that one cesspool city/state.

      1. remember that you will never make muslims ever agree to any compromise so its only until they eventually out breed you. When they can take you by the ballot box or by force they absolutely will and they would be violating their religion if they did not.
        Libertarianism as some block on full Islamization of the West really only works before their numbers really fill out. They really really do have high birth rates and rates of net assimilation that are actually zero in America so eventually it doesn’t work.
        You cannot make Muslims vote libertarianism. Juvs are generally in favour of it because they don’t pray to the son and are therefore seen as purer monothiesm so they wish gentiles to support Islam as they believe gentiles must follow the neohide laws as a requirement by God ( part of why they wish to always impose on gentiles to make them back these rules ) and so they will rarely oppose islamization of gentile nations.

    3. who are you to say whether baby killing, faggotry or transgenerism is morally wrong? under libertarianism, you could live in a state that forbid those activities, whereas I could live in a state that permitted them.
      “Libertarianism is just blackpilled garbage of ‘oh well fuck it time to just worry about me.’
      this is another caricature of libertarianism. do some libertarians worship ayn rand? yes. but others don’t. there’s actually a little something called libertarian socialism, where outsiders are left to fend for themselves, but insiders are taken care of, if they run into various difficulties (financial, psychological, familial, etc.).
      “Libertarians also for the most part can’t get it through their thick skulls that religion was necessary for a reason. Libertarians want to believe that if you simply allow people to be ‘more free’ then society will fix itself.”
      when did we say religion was bad? What we say is that it’s bad when it’s FORCED on us. want to be religious? great. go for it. worship a guy you’ve never seen, and take a book of poetry at face value. just keep that shit away from me, and don’t force me to live under a gov’t that uses that crap to control me.

  15. The article underscores some important points about masculinity and the flaws of libertarianism and free-market capitalism, while it has some flaws itself.
    1. It’s hard to deal with oligipolies, whether you’re a Third Way-leaning democrat or free-market-leaning republican. Oligopolies make their products gradually better, often but not necessarily, but the problems arise when they have too much power and decide to push for degeneracy (cultural Marxism, PC algorithms, and app-addiction are some of the latest things that Google, Apple and other big corps have carried through). I am not sure that no one can really solve the oligopoly dilemma.
    2. Libertarianism is not necessarily nihilistic, since the individual and local community decide whether or not some cultural component, immigrant or whatever can establish itself in a certain place or community. A conservative libertarian like Hans-Hermann Hoppe has emphasized common sense and anti-leftist cultural inclinations. This type of traditional community would not allow porn or other forms of degeneracy.
    3. Furthermore, libertarianism does often imply not an atomistic but community-based society. If things go bad, then the individual should turn to the family, relatives, community and/or perhaps churches, which offer minimal service for the poor, but not the welfare state (which does not exist on a national or federal scale).
    This lecture is pretty interesting, although I do not agree with everything. Love Hoppe’s German accent.

  16. Of course libertarianism isn’t the answer. This is because libertarianism is meant to be practiced in stable societies, where the liberalization of human behavior is seen as positive. However, we live in a decaying civilization that is the most socially liberalized (degenerate) that has ever been seen in human history. By ideology, libertarians support this cultural collapse. Why? Because they believe that state intervention in order to halt the decline is a bigger evil than the decline itself.
    This can be seen in the libertarian worship of the “free market.” Despite the fact that rampant consumerism and materialism has created zombies who don’t give two hoots about the decline of their people, culture, or anything of actual value, it’s still better than muh statism. In addition, libertarians are anti-traditionalist by default. Why bother preserving long-held cultural and religious practices if they dare put constraints on what people can do? Just let them do what they want! This translates into libertarian support for gay marriage, abortion, transgenderism, mass immigration, feminism, and corporations that become more powerful than the state.
    Face it, what the west needs is authoritarianism. People need to be told right from wrong and efforts must be undertaken to stop humans from destroying their own societies through hedonism and liberalism.

    1. “Of course libertarianism isn’t the answer. This is because libertarianism is meant to be practiced in stable societies, where the liberalization of human behavior is seen as positive. However, we live in a decaying civilization that is the most socially liberalized (degenerate) that has ever been seen in human history. By ideology, libertarians support this cultural collapse. Why? Because they believe that state intervention in order to halt the decline is a bigger evil than the decline itself.”
      There’s some truth to this. We don’t like to be stuck under a single “culture.” We’d rather have “western cultures,” than “western culture.” If you want to enjoy open faggot relations & wear leather pants with a zipper in the back, go form your own community and do that stuff there. I might not like your kind in my hood. but who am I to say that my sexuality is the only sexuality?
      “This can be seen in the libertarian worship of the “free market.” Despite the fact that rampant consumerism and materialism has created zombies who don’t give two hoots about the decline of their people, culture, or anything of actual value, it’s still better than muh statism. ”
      the decline? gay marriage? more births out of wedlock? transgenderism? are these issues what you’re addressing? who am I to say that hetro marriage is the only marriage? who am I to say that wedlock births are the only acceptable births? who am I to say that you’re stuck with your assigned sex?
      it’s not that we’re all anti-state. instead, we want state-imposed constraints to be more objective than subjective. subjectivity is best left to (small) communities, so that there’s a mix of “not in my backyard,” & “in my backyard.”
      “In addition, libertarians are anti-traditionalist by default. Why bother preserving long-held cultural and religious practices if they dare put constraints on what people can do? Just let them do what they want! This translates into libertarian support for gay marriage, abortion, transgenderism, mass immigration, feminism, and corporations that become more powerful than the state.”
      you’re perfectly fine to worship your community-level cultural/religious traditions. just don’t impose them on me. maybe I don’t give a fuck about them as much as you do. And, of course, maybe you don’t give a fuck about my cultural/religious traditions. so I won’t impose them on you. you’re perfectly fine to set up a (small) community that imposes hetro marriage, bans trannies/minorities/feminism. you can also set up a mini-economy to free yourself (to some extent) from the multi-nationals (like the Amish folks do).
      “Face it, what the west needs is authoritarianism. People need to be told right from wrong and efforts must be undertaken to stop humans from destroying their own societies through hedonism and liberalism.”
      I don’t like to be referred to as “the west,” as it suggests that we’re all robots, programmed to like the same things. If you want authoritarianism, libertarianism would left you form a (small) community of like-minded individuals. we just don’t want that style of gov’t imposed on all of us.

  17. Murray Rothbard had a good comment with regards to human failings. If people are by nature good, then any kind of system ought to work. However, if people are by nature bad, there is no point to putting one person or group of persons in charge of all others.
    Who will watch the watchmen?

    1. White ethnostates like Denmark can make social democracy work because the taxpayers and the tax recipients all belong to the same tribe.
      The problem with social democracy in the U.S. is that white people are paying, and nonwhites are taking. That’s why white people who figure out this system are resistant to being despoiled by unwelcome alien tribes who aren’t producing a proportionate share of the nation’s wealth.

  18. Great Article!
    Ironically Libertarianism and it’s supposed opposite Communism have the same foundational philosophy which is that man can perfect himself. LIbertarians just take it one step further and believe that man without government is already perfect. It’s a very silly belief system which leads to an abundance of absurdities that you have rightly pointed out.

    1. I don’t even believe there is such a thing as man but a bunch of loosely related species some of which like whites this would work with and others like aboriginees for whom all of these systems will not.

    1. Hating on libertarians while missing the point that USA is one of the most libertarian nations on earth. So its basically shit talking America. Probably written by a SJW commie disguised in altright.

  19. “Now the economy is controlled in large part by these huge organizations. Not only do they control the market, they control the politicians who could influence the market. That’s how banks can become too big to fail. ”
    This is NOT free market capitalism. As soon as a business has a relationship with government, it is a social program. (Read: communist, socialist).
    Republicans and democrats are now on the same team. The U.S. dollar was strongest in 1963. Both parties get into office and do the same shit. They print money for war & welfare. It devalues our hard-earned dollars and pushes the middle class further into debt. Republicans and democrats allow the banks to take your money, and make enormous multi-billion dollar loans to other countries in the name of “charity,” which those countries can never pay back. Then those countries start printing their own dollars and causing hyperinflation (See: All of Latin America & Africa). The founding fathers would NEVER allow the Federal Reserve or the IMF to operate. They’re both unconstitutional, but every president the last 80 years has been funded by them (except Trump.)
    It was Bush’s administration that took 700 Billion of our tax dollars and bailed out banks, The Federal Reserve, & other private businesses. Since then, they’ve taken 20 TRILLION!
    Sure I voted for Trump, but damnit a big government was not what this country was founded on. Quit bitching about who’s more masculine lol. And if you’re anti-libertarian, then go ahead and hand in your guns to the big right wing government you trust so much!

  20. The best book anyone could ever read about this is called “The Creature From Jekyl Island.” It will take a long time to get through, but you’ll have a true, research-backed perspective on how global banksters OWN democrats AND republicans.

      1. Banks have practiced fractional reserve lending for centuries.
        And it’s not at all “fraudulent,” as libertarian crackpots argue, because you consent to the bank’s use of your money in that fashion when you set up an account with the bank.
        And we practice double claims on money all over the economy, for example, when you buy a gift certificate from a business. Say you give Walmart $100 for a gift card. Walmart now has $100 on its books, and you have $100 in your possession, at least until you redeem the gift card at a Walmart for the equivalent value in goods. Is Walmart engaged in some kind of fraud by selling these double claims on money?

    1. David, by global banksters you mean private organizations? International companies and international banking cartels are pretty much screwing everything up. So why don’t you do something about, go defeat them. I know, you can get the church and then go and defeat them.

      1. The only guys with power are the government, they have the guns and get protection money from big banks, they operate just like the mob. The law is structured so that there is always a regulation a bank has violated, the SEC, CFTC, FINRA etc. then go and demand the bank pay a $1B fine to the government, after which they guarantee the bank total immunity from its clients’ lawsuits. The M.O. is always pay off the mob (govt) and get protection in exchange.

      2. “by global banksters you mean private organizations?” They’re not so private since we gave them 700billion of our taxes in 2008, and now they have a license to print dollars to loan across the world for whatever they want (wars, land, lobbying, etc.)
        The only defeat strategy is to end the Fed, but that would need both Dems and Repubs to fall into shambles, giving power back to states, and THEN local banks (like it was up until the Fed was created in 1913.)

  21. Corporations are legal entities created by the government. Because of the law, corporations are held liable for the actions of individuals employed within it. If the board were individually jailed when laws are broken (toxic waste being improperly disposed of) we’d have a different situation regarding corporations. Further, corporations used to be granted existence for a specified period of time, for a specific purpose with a large element of public good (forming a corporation to build a bridge then disbanding). The intended purpose of the corporation has been lost.

  22. I don’t know if I consider myself libertarian but I’m definitely for limited government and the free market.

  23. Prager U has been a big influence on me and I’d recommend watching some of their videos.

    1. Prager University is neocon zionist crap and all about how great Israeli aparthied is. Its full of shit. They would destroy the west equally. Its like controlled opposition.

  24. I was once at a gun show. I usually find good super deals on ammunition at gun shows, so I picked up a couple boxes of .45 Auto FMJ for my prized 1911 Colt and headed for the exit. There was a booth for the NRA manned by an 80-something old codger in bib overalls, and a booth manned by ATF agents in Armani suits touting that they were the lawful gun owner’s pal. I then noticed a booth for the Libertarian Party. I’m Independent, but they asked me to take a test to see if I was a Libertarian. I scored moderately to their leanings based on this “Diamond”. Where they scored with me was on gun rights, eminent domain, and home schooling. Where they lost me was on open borders, decriminalizing marijuana and prostitution, laissez-faire capitalism, ambivalence on abortion, feminism, and gay rights, and this nihilist/atheist Ayn Rand style animus for Christianity. I’ve encountered few, if any, faith based Libertarians in my day. I’ve also encountered Libertarians (like some liberals) who appear to lead an honorable life, but extol and wish to enable unbridled depravity for society if they so choose.

      1. Legal drugs abrogates free will! If you smoke then your first ten are voluntary but the next 100,000 cigarettes are with not. I am not a principles addict like molyneaux and see outcomes pragmatically as being more important but really drugs circumvent free will in their major effect. The free will argument is for them to be prohibited since they circumvent your free will for the most part.

        1. JAMES
          True, but booze is really the bad one. I smoke so I know this is awful. But booze jails people, not tobacco or caffeine.

        2. Any addictive substance would thus be subject to punishment; Nicotine, sugar, caffeine, salt, saturated fat, etc.

        3. I don’t think that you should argue for drug legalization on the whole free will argument. that is all I was saying. You judge each drug on its actual net effects rather than free choice which is a flawed argument with addictive substances. There are also different levels of addictiveness so that heroin can be more addictive than chocolate.

        4. You can have a few drinks at the weekend without being an alcoholic though, whereas smoking is something people do on daily basis and having to go a day without smoking causes cravings. I can go fine not drinking for long periods, but I like drinking every now and then and like being able to go out to pubs or clubs on my days off. There wouldn’t be the same atmosphere going out if drinking alcohol wasn’t at least an option. I wouldn’t be for pro hibition of alcohol.
          The only think I’ve really gotten out of smoking though is a bad cough…

  25. UNBRIDLED DEPRAVITY-
    1) Kids will experiment with drugs. You did, I did, most people do. Maybe 25% move on from pot to heroin or crack.
    2) Guys will go to hookers. Period. I do. Hookers will exist. It is good money.
    3) Some dudes are fags who want to suck another dude off. Cannot stop that.
    4) Some people like to booze or smoke. Cannot stop that.
    5) Some dudes are idiots or gamble.
    What are you going to do?

    1. To your points. 1. Speak for yourself. I didn’t experiment with drugs, so kindly don’t assume I did. That’s a mark of a character problem, low class, and a fool’s game. 2. If you want to whoremonger, smoke marijuana, or accept homosexuals performing fellatio on each other, knock yourself out. Liberals love to impose their twisted worldview on others, and force acceptance (be it via the legal system, Johnny Law, or whomever) on those who reject this. I’ll concede that Libertarians, IMO, be they often cavalier in morals, are at least prone to not try and force acceptance on others of what I personally deem unacceptable and aberrant. Idiots are all about. I have to deal with them daily in my job, but I elect to avoid them on my own time.

      1. ANTONIO
        You are a scant decade younger than my father (He’s 70, you are 60) and working some job that sounds not that well paying.
        You COME OFF as being in the lower middle classes-sixty and not a white collar professional, living around blacks and trailer trash.

      2. ANTONIO
        No offense, but your name and job description conjures up images of a shabby Italian neighborhood.
        Sure, I smoked some pot in university. I’m willing to bet that in high school 60% or more of people do experiment with marijuana. This is neither good nor bad. It is a fact.
        Here is another fact and I know it-a guy can spend 5 years in college blasting his brain on drugs but the Christian hick who has a kid at 21 will be lower-class on the economic paradigm.

      3. Antonio Zoli,
        Do you really believe your ‘betters’ don’t smoke pot and take cocaine?

        1. JOHN
          Marijuana-
          The kids I knew who started smoking pot VERY young, say 15 or 16, were adversely affected by it to SOME degree.
          People who smoke pot after the age 18 are usually fine although a few become such complete potheads that they fail out of university. It happens.
          Cocaine
          I used cocaine a few times in my twenties and I don’t think it is THAT addictive.
          I’ve known a few people who became complete addicts because of trying cocaine in university. Maybe 20% of the people I knew. One girl became a total coke whore. But this is rare.
          YOUNG PARENTHOOD
          This is what fucks people up and locks Irish-Americans in the Northeast US and Evangelicals in the South into a lifetime of poverty. Being stupid and having a kid when they are 21.
          You are not going to get a STEM degree if you have two kids at 21.
          So the Bill Gates or Steve Jobs who is some college hippie who drops acid but waits to have a family until he has made his fortune is much better off.
          Much.
          And so predictably the assholes who had kids at 21 and never went to university or questioned anything in their life and naively trust the government and its good intentions are at the bottom of the US class system while a bunch of hedonists run shit.

    2. Re: Unbridled depravity. Do what they did in the past, condemn these things publically, knowing it will minimise the occurrence for the majority of the people.
      Open acceptance, then leading to approval, and then celebration of the degenerate behaviour is what has got the western world fucked.

  26. Great job putting together a very flawed straw man argument against libertarianism. Please read Hayek or Friedman to get a firm grasp on what libertarianism is. I couldn’t even get through the whole article.

    1. Eh, Hayek’s argument about the “impossibility” of centralized economic decision making looks a lot weaker now. With digital technology we can monitor the economy at a level of fine detail that Hayek would have dismissed as science fiction back in the 1940’s.
      I realized that when a clerk at my bank called me to confirm one of my debit card transactions I just made because some algorithm in the bank’s computers flagged it for not fitting my usual pattern of spending.

  27. I consider myself as a Libertarian, but I am also fully aware of the fact that the total absence of a government would mean total chaos. You must not forget that there are some branches among Libertarians.
    This is why I believe we must have a government, but as small as possible, taking only care of a limited number of sectors (National Defense, Justice, International Relations, Police among them). This is called Minarchism, and this is what I adhere to.

    1. Yeah i dont know why everyone here is confusing libertarians with anarchists.
      We just want a small government that doesn’t spend our taxes on welfare and wars to defend globalist negotiations! Totally cool voting for Trump, but also hoping he lowers spending and brings our boys home (when the job is done.)

      1. The problem with it is it presupposes limited society could work. I cannot see this working sadly with societies with black Africans in them since they could easily sink to favellas as they genetically do not form family units as often ( see book sex at dawn evidence on testicle ratios and paternal investment in children and data of single moms in AA community ) so it won’t help in America.
        In Switzerland where there are strong families or even in East Asia but it won’t work in America as these groups need every little extra thing such as health care and free schools to keep them afloat in society or it will be riots and favellas.
        The success of a society is really not wholly based on which form it takes but the genetics of the citizens.

        1. I cannot believe that supposing the genetics is the primary determinant of the societies success is a crazy idea when every other known animal functions according to its genetics. Culture and social structure issues and goverment types are just tiny little cherries on the top of that big factor.

        2. JAMES
          You actually summed it up.
          One reason is that black males are more (Not all) inclined to be Chads who will have access to females and thereby reproduce with them whereas the Asian, WASP, Jew (They are liberal but behave like WASPS) cannot.
          As for Favelas we are starting to see this.
          Some people argue for white males to have children but when you are some dork who lives at home and has a mediocre job you are not as appealing as the cool black man with his muscles and masculinity.

      2. DAVID
        Trump has not drawn us into any wars and it was idiot Republicans in the year 2000 who elected Bush.
        Not that I am a liberal but I also think some Republicans are idiots and Bush was one of them.
        Thank him.
        At any rate the military is no longer a draft and could not be a draft because of the prison overcrowding that resulted from WASP liberals, Jews and other minorities not showing up for such a war. Which they would not.
        The Pentagon knows this and as a result all wars have to be voluntary.

    2. A good, logical start would be to forbid government workers and people getting any govt assistance (I think there should be none, if anything there should be something similar to the christian healthcare ministries where people pool money and use it as needs arise) from voting. There should be term limits, Trump wanted to do that but probably nobody would vote for it. Lawyers should be prohibited from being lawmakers for it’s an evident conflict of interests, and there should be difficult math, physics, and logic tests required of anybody who wants to run for any office and who doesn’t have any significant professional achievements in the private sector. Almost all politicians are lawyers, what a difference there would be if they were engineers with limited terms.

      1. If the right to vote was only given to people paying income taxes, it would already make a big difference, because politicians could no longer use the ballots they buy from people on welfare to be elected.

        1. True, but in reality, people who work for the government don’t pay any income taxes. Their salaries come from taxes, it’s not productive, necessary employment, so anything they pay back again goes to the government and was taken from somebody else in the first place, their salaries are just smaller than what they think they are, they should forget the taxes, they don’t pay any, somebody else’ money bounces around within the system. Just like giving your kid $20 and he then gives you back $10, and says ha, I paid you 10 bucks so you’re now richer, but this did not come from the outside so you still have the same amount of money in the system (family).

  28. This article highlights why I’m losing interest in Return of Kings. I’ve read too many articles about topics I’m very familiar with, where it is clear the author knows very little about it, but makes outrageous claims that could be easily verified as false with minimal research.
    In this article, the author criticizes a video of Stefan Molyneux and provides a such a blatant mischaracterization of the video that it’s hard to believe he has the intellectual ability to lecture about this topic. Stefan Molyneux is not a libertarian, so it’s not likely that his answer to “most questions” (in the video) were “libertarianism is the answer.” If Jared Trueheart was as familiar with Stefan Molyneux as he claims, he would recognize the irony of criticizing a public intellectual that has spent his entire online career championing reason and evidence, without providing any arguments. Stefan Molyneux has made several videos where he summarizes the counter-arguments libertarians make to the most common objections to libertarianism. If Jared Trueheart was as familiar with libertarianism as he suggests, he wouldn’t write an article restating those same objections without addressing the counter-arguments he should’ve been familiar with. Why does this writer make so many bold assertions when he’s barely familiar with the topic?
    It’s embarrassing that a middle-aged guy who considers himself a gentleman scholar could be this delusional (Dunnin-Kruger). If you look at the comment section, you realize that it is reflective of the audience the new content brings. They need their new media to be like their old media, easily digestible. They’re here for the illusion that they can think (by giving them new thoughts).
    I’ll make it as simple as possible; if you offhandedly dismiss Stefan Molyneux, but you haven’t called in to his show to debate, you’re just a blue-pill that got left behind.

    1. The articles on here actually discuss issues which very few msm troll blogs will even do.

    2. > It’s embarrassing that a middle-aged guy who considers himself a gentleman scholar could be this delusional (Dunnin-Kruger).
      Well said. Seriously, I almost feel sorry for the guy.

  29. I could quibble with him probably on some minor things, but this guy here is a Christian libertarian and not an open border libertard.
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/author/laurence-m-vance/
    The libertardians at the Economic Policy Journal think it’s perfectly okay for a company to import a bunch of HIV/TB infected Somalis for their meat processing plant. They are okay with the entire turd world coming to America and oblivious to issues like race, IQ, and culture. Magic dirt will make them libertardians in the future.

  30. Our elites don’t consider libertarianism scary. They haven’t used their power to punch libertarians, get them fired from jobs, disrupt their public gatherings and speeches, arrest them at the airport in other countries like the UK and then deport them as undesirable aliens and so forth.
    No, libertarians in general have comfortable lives, unless they do something stupid, for example, denying the existence of the tax laws like Peter Schiff’s idiot father, Irwin Schiff, who died in prison while serving a term for tax evasion.
    No, libertarians don’t experience this kind of persecution. By contrast, our elites have inflicted all kinds of damage to white nationalists like I described above.
    The difference shows what our elites really care about, and where they feel really vulnerable. White nationalism is the real enemy of our elites’ grip on power in our world.

  31. Impressive article and thread. I’ve generally taken inspiration from libertarianism as philosophy, not practice. It offers a useful, zen-like tension between the other political parties, including centrism. Give a nod to the “spirit of” but still not casting a vote there. If you’re situated center-right in your political thinking, IMO there’s plenty to like about libertarians without ever joining them. I can see where bureaucracy works, and where it gets a bad rap, and accept that we indeed need the fucking IRS. When the libertarians start railing on on it, and they start to seem disconnected from the inelegant truths of ways & means, then “Gentleman fare thee well, I’m out…”

  32. Libertarianism is just a mental exercise for freshman and socially retarded upperclassmen. The ultimate third party in any election. All theory and no reality. Seriously though, what is the point? Mental masturbation for Poli Sci and Philosophy majors.

  33. States rights.
    If the state of California wants to legalize heroin, they should be allowed to do so and the fedgov should have zero say in the matter.
    Similarly, if the state of California chooses to clean up its act by executing all the homosexuals found in its borders, then that again is absolutely their right and the fedgov should have zero say in it.
    More to the point, if the state of California decided that women should have no say in electing either members of the electoral college, or in the state representatives, once again, the fedgov should have no authority.
    What we have instead is a “one size fits all” model. Now that suits liberals just fine, because a centralized authority allows them to weasel their way into the power structures such that they could never do if they had to deal directly with the electorate. Going back to California, if the fedgov didnt subsidize those degenerates to the hilt, youd best believe they would be making different choices.
    The idea of libertarianism is appealing to a subset of men, bc while they dont want to suffer under leftist tyranny, they also dont have the requisite balls to stand up to the centralized system. Libertarianism is their way of trying to weasel out of the fight.
    The system original designed by the constitutional framers worked great. Go back to it. Limited government, smaller army, taxes only on imports, and the rest you leave up tot he individual states.

  34. Libertarians and (and demand) open borders. The lie they say is “America had open borders until the mid-20th Century), which is a total lie. We have had immigration controls in place since we were a British colony and it continued into today. The Constitution gives Congress control over Immigration policy for a reason. If America always had “open borders”, then why need ANY immigration powers specifically given to Congress? Clearly, a lie. The reason Congress was given absolute power to control and set immigration policies in Constitution (enforced by President) is so local citizens can control who lives among them, through their Representatives.
    Libertarians say we should have as much cheap labor imported into the 1st world countries “as much as the job market will allow”. Think about the late 1880s and into the early part of the 20th Century and see how much violence and social turmoil we had in the USA. There were mass public street riots and violent strikes all over the country. Workers were murdered and intimidated often by gangs of different ethnicities to open up jobs. If you ever watched the movie “Gangs of New York”, you can see why. That movie is almost 100% correct in NYC and other “high immigrant hubs” for decades.
    Proximity + mass immigrant diversity = violence.
    Before immigration controls of early 1920s by Conservative Coolidge, the Robber Barons (JP Morgan banking and investment, Andrew Carnegie steel, The Roosevelts, Cornelius Vanderbilt railroads, Rockerfeller oil, etc) ENCOURAGED mass immigration. They even bought a President once, to keep the scam going. You can read more on these clowns here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist)
    Thanks to the “fake free market” Libertarian policies, American men were forced to work slave labor hours in Robber Baron factories, immigrants worked in sweatshops inside cities (some were literally chained to workdesks), and children as young as 7 worked cotton mills. Jobs went to kids and immigrants instead of adult men. People literally lived inside factories, as they could not go home, and had to work 15-20 hour workdays 7-days per week. People died all the time, there was poverty and misery everywhere.
    Slave labor of free men is how “the market” sets wage values, the way Libertarians want. They allow business monopolies to form, they allow mass immigration, they allow unfair trade.
    That is the Libertarian dream, folks. No tariffs, export jobs overseas as fast as possible, and mass immigration. It is good for the 0.00000001% of the elites, sucks for 99.9999999% of everyone else.
    After the Robber Baron “Libertarian period” (1865-1914 period), we saw a reaction from the electorate. First they went with corrupt Progressives like Woodrow Wilson, then they fixed it with Coolidge.
    It wasn’t until Calvin Coolidge became President and imposed tariffs and very strict border controls and almost zero immigration that we had a Middle Class appear in America (and the world) for the first time in world history. Even the History Channel did a special called “The Men who Built America” and while they had a
    The 1920s were called “the Roaring Twenties” for a reason. Low immigration, tariffs, low taxes, and tons of freedom. People were wealthy and happy. No more child labor, wages went up, and jobs were plentiful. The Middle Class, the backbone of America appeared.
    Look at how Trump’s policies of reducing immigration, making it harder to get a visa (gateway for illegal immigrants to fly in as “tourists” and become cheap laborers), re-negotiating unfair trade deals (i.e. NAFTA, steel dumping, Aluminum scams, etc) have already helped raise wages. The stock market is soaring, there are for hire signs in my area everywhere (had not seen these on windows in at least 10 years), and even new investment by foreign companies has increased.
    If he followed the Globalists Cuckservatives like Jeff Flake, McCain, Rubio, and Kasich or the Libertarian harpies (Paul family, Koch brothers, Kennedy on FoxBus, Jon Stossell, etc), we would be still in economic depression. Open up immigration and allow unfair trade and you have despair and poverty.
    The same Libertarian harpies that say we can have “unlimited free market immigration” are the same idiots that say we can completely “eliminate the welfare state”. 🙄 It is so preposterous, it is hard to even say anything about it.
    The Democrats plan is open now, they want unlimited mass immigration, total amnesty and immediate citizenship for all immigrants, no deportations (not even of CRIMINAL ALIENS), and then put everyone who is forced into Loser-dom on welfare for life. Guaranteed 100-years of total government control, if not forever.
    Look at Europe, a huge open border and welfare state. They are beginning their slow collapse already. Sweden is borrowing money to finance that collosal immigrant welfare and crime shithole they have now.
    Italy has rebelled (finally), 75% of vote last week went to center-right and far-right political parties. They want out of Euro currency, zero immigration, and they want mass deportations.
    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/02/06/silvio-berlusconi-deport-600000-illegal-migrants-time-bombs/
    Learn from history. Libertarianism does not work and will never work. Their policies on immigration, trade, and big business monopolies simply are a recipe for total national collapse and violence. 😮

  35. You’re either a hunter or a gatherer. All of these other political labels are complete bullshit.

    1. In the modern world, there are no places to hunt or gather. All land is zoned either for private use by the rich or for government use. So we are all slaves to our corporate/government masters.

  36. Corporations are a creature of government. They are not the result of laissez-faire capitalism. A corporation exists only by and through a grant of the state. The primary benefit to a corporation is the immunity of its shareholders’ assets from claims against debts owed by the corporation; this is a protection given by government. Without that protection corporations could not become as massive as they do, the individual risk becomes too great. So lets be clear when we are discussing corporate monopolies and oligopolies that this is not a result of the free market–this is a direct and predictable result of government interference in the market.
    This is doubly so for the national banks, which have been granted privileges by the federal government far exceeding the ability of the regulatory power of the states. In particular, the ability of national banks to charge interest based on their state of incorporation as opposed to the state in which a loan is made. Its why credit card rates can be 30+% APR when state usury laws limit loans in the 6-10% range. One set of laws for the banks, another for everybody else. Thats not free market capitalism.
    This isn’t a comment on anything else put forth in the article, just a clarification that banks and corporations are not some libertarian, free-market creation.

  37. Only in the Manosphere will you have any concerns raised about the damage done to children caused by ‘female empowerment’. Only here can the negative effects of having single mothers and career mothers raising children be discussed. Yet, we are supposedly the sociopaths.
    So called Libertarians still believe in land ownership. Yet putting up a ‘No Trespassing’ sign is a restriction on everyone else’s liberty. Libertarian-ism is basically the rich monopolizing all the natural resources so they have freedom and money to do as they please. The poor are screwed, you can’t create wealth without access to natural resources.

    1. “Libertarian-ism is basically the rich monopolizing all the natural resources so they have freedom and money to do as they please. The poor are screwed, you can’t create wealth without access to natural resources”
      Totally. A few lucky people who own the land and resourses will have ‘freedom’, everyone else will have the choice of starve or work for them for a pittance…

  38. “If libertarians are so smart, why are there no libertarian governments?”
    That is a fallacy. Under that thought, the current batch of politicians are “smart”.

  39. In any human organizational system, the strong rise to the top on the backs of opportunists and exploit the labor of the group.
    Doesn’t matter if it’s a tribe on an island somewhere or a first world nation with a population in the 100’s of millions.
    Like it or not, everyone can’t be in charge at once and somebody always gets exploited.
    This article’s trash and I’d welcome a more well thought out counterpoint to Libertarianism.
    The author gives his own unqualified interpretation of an inline quiz,strawman’s an anarcho-capitalist extreme, points to a failed Kleptocratic state, cites a fictional character from a movie, slings a little more shit, then retreats with no logic to back his arguments up.
    Oligopolies, de facto monopolies? That’s what we have already. As large and well funded as the US govt is, it’s powerless in the face of “too big to fail” companies. Instead, it’s spent its time on “feel good” social engineering enddeavors like subsidizing sex change surgeries through the military (and don’t think for a moment, a bunch of opportunistic trannies aren’t going to try to enlist just to snag free hormone treatments and operations, contribute as little as possible, disrupt military order, then get out on a section 8).
    The state acting as surrogate husband is what enables single moms slut around and disregard male support. The legal system, which ignored the 14th amendment as it applies to men these days, favors women in every respect.
    Corporations are among the most politicalky correct entities out there and apply pressure on the govt’s at both state and local levels to support sjw initiatives like gender neutral bathrooms. Why? Productivity and control: companies see PC politices as means to further control their workforce, minimize non-business related employee interactions, and reduce people to grey, impersonal numbers. Corporations, I’ll add, thay thrive on govt intervention whether in the form of subsidies and regulations that favor big businesses.
    Most libertarians support property rights, freedom of expression, the right to self defense, and freedom from government impositions, whether legal or financial, on personal freedom. It’s mostly a policy of live and let live and acheive on your own merits.
    I suppose where ideologies diverge are in that Libertarians don’t want to be subsumed by mass movements like fascits or communists do; whereas proponents of mass movements and of the welfare state operate on a fear model wherein their needs won’t get met unless government meets it for them. They’re looking for the government to be everyone’s surrogate parents.
    Ever notice how most authoritarians envision themselves at the top of the food chain once “the revolution” happens? Doesn’t matter if it’s a 22 year old gender studies majot on the left thinking “they’re” the next Mao or a 55 year old bigot Who collects WW2 uniforms, these people all think they’ll be the ones in charge.
    Guess what, not gonna happen. The former will end up in a gulag gor not falling in line and the latter starving to death in some shithole while his leadership excoriates his unit as a pack of cowards.
    As for ROK, it’s basically become another Incel whiner/White surpremacist shitpile despite the occassional self improvement articles or allusions to the good ol’ PUA days.
    This article is just another arc in the long trajectory for ROK’s jump over the shark.

  40. Libertarianism is not about a lack of empathy. It’s about seeing the bigger picture and understanding the nature of government. Once the government starts ‘helping people’ and meddling in their personal affairs then it starts to become tyrannical. You give government an inch and it takes a mile. It’s the same old story everywhere. I’m actually a minarchist. I think that some government is necessary, but we should have as little as possible. I live in the UK and I see the control that big government has over people first hand. In the UK you can have your children taken and adopted just because the local authority doesn’t like your beliefs or they disagree with you parenting. Elderly or sick people can also be detained or put on non consensual end of life plans by the NHS and the local authority can force them into care homes. The local authority can sell an elderly or sick person’s assets to pay care fees even when such person doesn’t want the ‘care’. If you don’t pay taxes towards these awful things then it’s off to jail.
    Government systems are sub par and beauracratic, yet no one questions them because public servants are Gods here. You can also be arrested for saying the wrong thing on Twitter, or for simply questioning a police officer. You tell me that we need big government. Part of having a free society is allowing inequality to exist and accepting it as a fact of life. Our government tries to force equality, so much so that people lose their autonomy.

  41. Of course it works in theory. Everything works in theory.
    Capitalism is the perfect system though, in practice.
    It forces us to evolve, become stronger, refine our individual skill-sets and compete with one another, rewarded according to our triumphs and punished when we fuck up.
    If you can’t handle having to make money, then go live in a god damn log cabin or some polygamist sect in the middle of nowhere. Grow up.

  42. I am sorry, but I really dont think you have enough
    knowledge about libertarianism and even about economy.
    Sorry.

  43. I know this is anecdotal: but people I personally know that claim to be libertarian… when pressed to explain what they believe, boils down to “weed should be legal”. Beyond that they contradict themselves often with a random mess of buzzwords and catchphrases.

  44. “If libertarians are so smart, why are there no libertarian governments?”
    Is this a joke or a serious question?
    Why would people wanting to enslave you and kill you want to grant you freedom?
    HOLY SHIT I WONDER WHY

  45. Libertarians are not the most masculine…..so what? Since when did masculinity become some kind of moral absolute?
    “As I detailed here, for over a century America did have a free-market. Government regulations were largely non-existent. As a result trusts and oligopolies (both of which act as monopolies) took over the economy.”
    So what? Why is this a problem? I thought you Return of Kings people believe in aristocracy? Ah, I see. You only like aristocracy when it is NOT legitimately earned! If a warlord becomes a king that is fine, but if a businessman becomes too wealthy oh now that is just unacceptable.
    “Now the economy is controlled in large part by these huge organizations. Not only do they control the market, they control the politicians who could influence the market. That’s how banks can become too big to fail. We have only our government’s initial laissez-faire attitude towards the economic market to thank for this.”
    What does that have to do with libertarianism? Libertarianism is the consistent application of universal moral principles include the NAP. Wealthy businessmen getting into a position in a statist society where they can buy politicians in order to influence the market =/= libertarianism. It’s frankly obvious you do not understand the abstract concepts you’re arguing against.
    “The ironic part of the libertarian ideology is that they don’t want the authoritarian government to control our actions but they’re perfectly fine with private organizations controlling our actions. Let’s say, just for argument’s sake, that a certain group of people disproportionately controlled the media and used it to influence our children, college students, and the gullible. That’s fine under libertarian ideology. That’s just the free market at work.”
    You’re confusing anarchism with libertarianism. Libertarians are not against authority. They are not against control, force, or rules. They are against moral relativism. They are against arbitrary ethical systems that give legal privileges to some groups and not others. “Freedom” is not synonymous with power in libertarianism. “Freedom” is the consistent enforcement of non-aggression. It’s only in liberalism that freedom and power are conflated.
    “The reason libertarians are not on the left-right spectrum is because they share an anything-goes attitude toward cultural issues with leftists. Think of the issues most men on this site consider degenerate: parents raising their children as transgender, female hypergamy, the glorification of pornography, etc. The libertarian solution to all these problems is less government intervention.”
    This is a severe strawman of libertarianism. It does not logically follow that if you are against stealing you are against making a profit. It does not logically follow that if you are against cheating you are against winning. It does not logically follow that if you are against rape you are against love making! The libertarian idea is simply this: non violent moral issues are to be resolved in a civil manner and moral issues involving violence to be resolved with violence. It is absolute nonsense that a libertarian with a fully fleshed out ethical system has nothing to say in regards to moral issues that are not strictly related to violence. For example, Ron Paul said that he was against drugs but did not think the government had any business putting people in jail using them.
    “Who then if not a central authority we appoint to protect children will stop parents from mutilating their children’s genitals to gain street cred among their radical leftist friends? Who prevents pornography from being advertised to children?
    The sexual market place isn’t regulated at all by society. Do you like where it is heading?”
    The only reason the government would ever me motivated to crackdown on those things is IF society generally speaking was concerned about those things.Ah, but if society generally speaking was concerned about those issues then you wouldn’t need the government to encourage those people to act ethically. You can’t have a government that respects its limits if you give the government the legal principle: Force mankind to act ethically. That would give the government the power to do literally anything including force the individual to do what he thinks is unethical. This is the problem with you Return of Kings people. You advocate for political absolutism and just assume that absolutism is going to work in your favor when there is literally zero historical to support the idea that only the good people will appear in government. No, it’s evil people who are attracted to power.
    “In the past we solved these problems by giving the government authority to solve them. ”
    No, what happened was you were discriminated against or socially ostracized for breaking those social taboos.
    “In a libertarian, limited-government utopia there is nothing stopping doctors from performing third-trimester abortions for a price. That’s just free-market supply and demand economics at work.”
    Nonsense. It is a strawman that libertarians only think aggression is morally wrong. You obviously don’t understand the concept of ostracism. Which you should since you alt-right people are ostracized on a daily basis for your ideas.
    “They Take Self-Reliance to Absurd Extremes
    No man is an island. If men work hard they will surely have some good times but they will also fall on hard times. When they fall on hard times how are other men going to view him?”
    All strawman arguments. Libertarianism =/= man is an island. Libertarianism =/= solipsism. Libertarianism =/= atomization. Libertarianism is about universal ethics.
    “Are they going to be cold and calculating like libertarians? Or will show empathy and get him back on his feet so that he can get back to contributing in some way? Men are social animals. Those that support each other the best out compete others. Lone wolfs don’t survive in nature for precisely this reason.”
    Sigh. There is nothing stopping a person who believes ethics are universal from helping people struggling or showing empathy. You have no concept of what libertarianism actually is.
    “But libertarians would have us believe that anyone who used government programs to get back on their feet until the economy improved are not self-reliant.”
    First of all, it is just a freaking FACT that you are not self-reliant if you need to the government to get you back on your feet. Sorry to hurt your feelings.
    Second, Libertarians are not against people who are dependent upon others. Libertarians are not against interdependence in fact libertarians tend to like the division of labor. No, what they are against is STEALING. Socialism is a sophisticated form of stealing.
    “We created social welfare programs so that men and families could get back to contributing to society.”
    Yeah? So what? Has this actually reduced poverty in the long run? Do you think this has reduced or aided the degeneracy of the West? You can’t have a healthy ethical culture when you throw the moral rule of thou shall not steal out the window. Libertarians do not let their empathy for mere individuals blind their moral reasoning. They are worried about the long term negative effects of moral hazard: giving financial support to degenerate individuals. You Return of Kings people should be the strongest voices against the welfare state because the welfare state is the primary cause of degenerate behaviors in the West because it forces the successful people in society to fund the unsuccessful and degenerate people.
    “What about all the libertarians who have been divorce-raped and cucked over the last 40 years? Are they happy that regulations were rolled back in the form of no-fault divorce?”
    Presupposing that no fault divorce laws and all the family court regulations actually have anything to do with libertarian principles. Nothing could be further from the truth.
    “We only have a government because so many complex problems have emerged in societies that it is helpful to have an organization that addresses those issues. Libertarians sound smart by saying we should limit government, but that doesn’t solve any of the problems a government is supposed to solve.”
    That is precisely the freaking problem. Why do you think the government has so much tyrannical power? It’s precisely because we have this notion that the government ought to solve moral issues that are not strictly violent in nature. Where do you Return of Kings get this idea that mankind is evil, but government can somehow be populated by a bunch of Platos and force the degenerate mankind to be good? That is delusional utopianism. If mankind is evil generally speaking than government must be even moral evil than it is.

Comments are closed.