Are Libertarians potential terrorists?

[RINO Tom]

not all libertarians are terrorists, but all terrorists are libertarians

Is it weird that I'm starting to like Lief?  Has anyone else who finds his views to be insane and simplistic undergone this phenomena?

most people find me to be a loveable scamp, yes.

[Cranberry]

This thread so far has been so entertaining I have recorded on audio:

http://vocaroo.com/i/s1M6Ejkei3BR

Hahaha

[Murica!]

This thread so far has been so entertaining I have recorded on audio:

http://vocaroo.com/i/s1M6Ejkei3BR

This is amazing, please make more.

[Leinad]

Look, it is 2015. Either you're on one side of the line, or the other. I can't separate politics from personal beliefs anymore. I can't be kind to someone who, by vote, would push this country back a hundred years. Maybe you don't realize it, but a Libertarian America would be a third world country. The last time we tried Libertarianism out, we got the Gilded Age. We had great events like the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire, contaminated food, an environment that was being poisoned a faster rate than it is today. It would be nice to live in a world where corporations truly worked to serve and people were inherently good and would thus do the right thing if left to their own devices - but we don't. In a Libertarian America you would see the rate of corporate profits dramatically increase, but the poverty rate would also increase, and the middle class would finish the disappearing act it has been slowly doing for the past 40 years. Libertarianism, to me, is as much a pipe dream as Communism. The fact that Libertarianism has a lot of blind followers makes it a very dangerous ideology, and I view it as a form of Anarchism.

I get what your saying, and I understand it. On a more personal level I'm cynical of big-business and support better working conditions and environmental standards, but I'm even more cynical about big government and think that government should be made much, much smaller.

I'm against the use of force, even for a theoretical positive. The government shouldn't be allowed to force people to do things, it should be much more voluntary. Read about the Non-Aggression Principle. Read about the philosophy in general; you probably still won't agree with it, and that's perfectly fine, but at least you could attack it better.

It's not anarchism, it's close to anarcho-capitalism. But most libertarians are more "minarchists"-or minimal government. And don't look at "anarchism" as a dirty word like fascism is looked at, it's a valid ideology, although I'll certainly agree it's impossible (which is why I'm a libertarian and not an anarchist). Anarchists aren't always these violent rabble-rousers people picture them as. Look up Leo Tolstoy, and anarchist and pacifist who greatly influenced Gandhi.

Just try not to make personal attacks. I don't derive my political views from anything but what I think the role of government should be. I have nothing against helping people at all, but I don't want the government robbing from Peter to pay Paul, I'd rather voluntary services pay Paul if he needs help. I also would never pay for sex, but would legalize prostitution (with regulation). And I like to watch soccer, but it doesn't mean I want to broadcast EPL matches on the Senate floor.

I'm not greedy nor sociopathic. It really is about liberty. You have the right to disagree, but I'd rather you kept the insults and mis-characterizations to a minimum.

[Mechaman]

Bull. You don't care about people. You care about your own pockets. It isn't about the government or "liberty", it is about your personal pocketbook. It is greed. On a local level, libertarian sociopaths like yourself would also vote against any sort of charity/safety net program. Please don't try to sell your disgusting agenda under the banner of liberty - you can delude yourself if you please - but all Libertarianism boils down to is greed. The Libertarian state if realized would make Dickens' London look nice in comparison.

No, it's not about me. What I personally believe doesn't need to be completely tied in to what I think about the government. My opinion on the role of government matters more than my personal views when it comes to governmental policy. It's about what I think the government should do, and in my opinion, it isn't their responsibility to help people and more importantly it's not their right to tax people to do so. Charity is great, but like everything else, I believe it should be voluntary. There's nothing sociopathic about that.

You don't know me, don't be a jerk. I'm not a greedy person at all, in fact I try to reject materialism and greed altogether. As long as I have food, shelter, basic clothes, and internet connection I'm happy, I don't care about being rich. It truly is about liberty with me. I fully support the legalization of marijuana, but that has nothing to do with if I personally use it or not. I don't really drink alcohol, but that doesn't mean I'm in favor of prohibition.

Maybe some libertarians are greedy, sociopathic, or whatever else is straw-man libertarian caricature of yours is, but to me it's about minimizing the government. I'm not anti-charity, but I'm against the government becoming too powerful in the name of charity, or anything, for that matter.

It's not hypocritical or self-contradictory, it's a simple concept: minimize the government to maximize liberty. Lower taxes, let people marry who they want, legalize all victimless crimes, and don't go to war. Being greedy or sociopathic is not at all a prerequisite.

Look, you can be statist if you want to. You can think that the government has the right to limit liberty in the name of equality, morality, security, or whatever else. It's a free country, you can have whatever ideas you want, but please refrain from personally attacking an entire ideology or me personally because you can't distinguish personal beliefs from political beliefs. It's annoying.

Look, it is 2015. Either you're on one side of the line, or the other. I can't separate politics from personal beliefs anymore. I can't be kind to someone who, by vote, would push this country back a hundred years. Maybe you don't realize it, but a Libertarian America would be a third world country. The last time we tried Libertarianism out, we got the Gilded Age. We had great events like the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire, contaminated food, an environment that was being poisoned a faster rate than it is today. It would be nice to live in a world where corporations truly worked to serve and people were inherently good and would thus do the right thing if left to their own devices - but we don't. In a Libertarian America you would see the rate of corporate profits dramatically increase, but the poverty rate would also increase, and the middle class would finish the disappearing act it has been slowly doing for the past 40 years. Libertarianism, to me, is as much a pipe dream as Communism. The fact that Libertarianism has a lot of blind followers makes it a very dangerous ideology, and I view it as a form of Anarchism.

I'm sorry, but the bolded statement is so much failure I don't even.  Seriously, please read up on the Gilded Age.  Besides the outright government favoritism on the behalf of industries (whether through subsidies, high tariffs, strike breaking feds, etc. etc. etc.) you also had a lot of high minded reformers who were trying to and in some cases did succeed in passing moralistic legislation designed to limit what people could do in their free time (though admittedly a lot of that came later, during the "Progressive Era").  It was hardly "libertarian", even by the very loose "socially liberal economically conservative" standard.

I am not a fan of libertarianism and I am not suggesting it is by any means a favorable ideology.  However, historically, you can't really compare any era of US History (even the presidency of Thomas Jefferson) to what a hypothetical "libertarian" society would look like.

[Mr. Smith]

Sure they are, just like any other person of any other ideology (save maybe extreme pacifism) if taken too far and without proper therapy.

[Leinad]

I am not a fan of libertarianism and I am not suggesting it is by any means a favorable ideology.  However, historically, you can't really compare any era of US History (even the presidency of Thomas Jefferson) to what a hypothetical "libertarian" society would look like.

Thank you!

Yes, that's something about libertarianism: it's never been tested. Government always naturally gets bigger and bigger, because a skilled demagogue can sell that in the name of equality (high taxes), morality (pick basically any socially conservative viewpoint), or security/nationalism (Patriot Act, most wars we've been in).

All that I ask for is just a few counties, and let the 1 million people who voted for Gary Johnson go there and attempt to create a Libertarian utopia. If it doesn't work, I'll shave "[Green Party candidate][year]" (e.g. "Jill Stein 2012") into my head every election. Until then, I'll keep on supporting reckless limitation of the government, because I don't see a better path (and I believe in the Non-Aggression Principle, primarily that the government should follow it, too).

[beaver2.0]

Sure, but only as much as Statists/Centrists/Fascists/Direct Democracy advocates/Socialists.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I am not a fan of libertarianism and I am not suggesting it is by any means a favorable ideology.  However, historically, you can't really compare any era of US History (even the presidency of Thomas Jefferson) to what a hypothetical "libertarian" society would look like.

Thank you!

Yes, that's something about libertarianism: it's never been tested. Government always naturally gets bigger and bigger, because a skilled demagogue can sell that in the name of equality (high taxes), morality (pick basically any socially conservative viewpoint), or security/nationalism (Patriot Act, most wars we've been in).

All that I ask for is just a few counties, and let the 1 million people who voted for Gary Johnson go there and attempt to create a Libertarian utopia. If it doesn't work, I'll shave "[Green Party candidate][year]" (e.g. "Jill Stein 2012") into my head every election. Until then, I'll keep on supporting reckless limitation of the government, because I don't see a better path (and I believe in the Non-Aggression Principle, primarily that the government should follow it, too).

Inb4 obligatory Somalia comment

[Maxwell]

Yes because everyone is a potential terrorist