/liberty/ - Liberty

libertarianism is dead

>>69874

That's part of it, but keep in mind this was a joint effort of Turning Point and YAL, and it's not the first time they got together to make asses of themselves. There's currently some odd marriage between spineless cuckservativism and unprincipled Libertine Party retards. They've missed the boat on the anti-SJW wave, they've missed the boat on the alt-lite's anti-socialist message, and they're terrified of stepping into the far right to embrace the Hoppe crowd. All they have now are """conservative""" thinktanks who believe their pathetic forays into the culture war are edgy and engaging, so this is what we get: Morons trying to dunk on college cunts and somehow failing, aiming for the center ground between Democrats and Republicans despite the trends going toward polarization, and disavowing anyone even immediately to their right. They'll be pushing the "gay weed farms" angle until the civil war melts their bowties with nuclear fire, hoping until the end to glue the country together with feckless centrism and tax cuts.

>>69877

>>69878

>Does Libertarianism have a way to deal with scum like Soros? The answer is no.

Soros works by influencing governments, you goof. How would Soros tear apart an anarcho-capitalist society?

>Corporations are a scourge in the service of Jewish banks.

A corporation is a legal entity that exists because of states. The worst excesses of Jewish banks are enabled by the state: Fiat currencies monopolizing money exchange, governments bailing out failing banks, easy credit between banks.

Nice redtext, by the way. First day here?

I'll take Conservative Libertarians over the Libertarian Party any day though I might be biased since I am one Anyone notice that YAL's twitter seems to have been taking over by AnCaps though?

>>69894

Also, we need more fucking flags, I want a Minarchism flag.

>>69879

God, that doujin was sad.

>>69877

>Libertarianism is another ideology

Libertarianism is not an ideology. It does not posit how people should be governed but leaves it to the individual to decide how best to be governed. It is akin to calling atheism a belief, when in fact it is the lack of a belief.

>>69899

>It is akin to calling atheism a belief, when in fact it is the lack of a belief.

It isn't, though. Agnosticism would be closer to a lack of belief. Atheism is at the very least the belief in a negative, but I think it's more than that. For example, atheists also tend to be more or less radical physicalists, who claim that only things that can be explained through the natural sciences exist.