Open letter to the atlas forum

[Enduro]

Yeah, I'm not putting someone nearly as bad as Hitler on the debate stage just to get diversity of opinion. Very dangerous direction for American discourse

Hitler was authoritarian, that's the opposite of libertarian.

[Enduro]

Yeah, I'm not putting someone nearly as bad as Hitler on the debate stage just to get diversity of opinion. Very dangerous direction for American discourse

Hitler was authoritarian, that's the opposite of libertarian.

Stalin was communist. That's the opposite of fascist.

Yes, they are both bad.

Well, fascism and communism both are authoritarian.

[Enduro]

I suppose I appreciate Wulfric's request to a degree, but I'm afraid I agree that lying in poll results is a rather silly thing to do.

The thing is, Johnson should be in the debates already based on ballot access to a majority of EVs worth of states, not an arbitrary number in media-based polling. There is no objective reason why the Republican and Democratic parties are more serious/real/deserving-to-be-heard than the Libertarian party.

"Oh, but Leinad, they've had so much more historical success, while the Libertarians have won nothing!"

Yes, that's what happens when the media paints everything as a two-party race and any other vote--if they even address other options--as "wasted." Duh.

"Oh, but Leinad, the Libertarian Party is a joke!"

And the Republican Party isn't? Besides, if the party was given a chance to win, it would have many more "serious" people involved in the process. I agree that there are many flaws in the party, but we're picking from <1% of the population--the "true believers"--which is why we lack in badly needed pragmatism, moderatism, and political expertise.

"Oh, but Leinad, libertarianism itself is a joke!"

How is it any more ridiculous that the corporatist liberalism of Clinton's party or the nationalism of Trump's party?

Probably the second biggest evolutionary flaw of humanity is our irrational love of assumptions and familiarity. There is nothing less rational about libertarianism--especially a broad definition of the term, which would be the case if it was allowed the same exposure and thus growth as the major parties--it's only that people view it as less rational because it is so radically different than the ideologies we've been exposed to ad nauseum the rest of our lives, and it smashes our comfort zones by actually looking at politics in a different way.

To address SMilo's point, Ayn Rand actually got a lot of things wrong. The idea that greed is good and charity is bad is wrong--greed is an undeniable truth of human nature, which is why capitalism is the only workable economic system, and charity is something that must thrive for any capitalistic system to succeed.

One of the most horrid assumptions that we've been conditioned to believe is that government is an extension of ourselves, and that if something is wrong, government should fix it. Also that if we oppose government doing something, we oppose that action being done at all, and vice-versa. Understand that there's a difference between "this should be done" and "this should be done by government" and libertarianism doesn't sound crazy at all. Radical, maybe, but that's not always a bad thing.

And to say it's as bad as Hitler is enough to be sent to the re-education camps.

*slow claps