Ex-Libertarians, what made you change?

submitted by TrabWhite Nationalist from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]VulptexVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

Most libertarians are not feminists or into forced diversity, which in fact go against it. Those are the far left SJWs who are exactly the same as you once the personal preferences are removed from the equation.

create a society vastly different from what I wanted.

"I". The problem is other people might not want the same kind of society. Or want one at all. Frankly it only exists to control us and oppress dissidents and outcasts, and steal from us. Society itself is not a good thing.

[–][deleted]  (10 children)

[deleted]

    [–]VulptexVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (9 children)

    Nonetheless, they (most of them) support the second wave of feminism (careers are more important than children, abortions, birth control, no-fault divorce, etc.).

    I don't see what's so hard about giving women rights and treating them like human beings. I'm super jealous of those who are born female but that's not an excuse to mistreat someone. No, this does not include abortion, and libertarians are about 50/50 on that.

    Like I said above, the guy on the throne makes the decisions. Libertarians do not like this, but it still is a fact.

    Which is exactly why the solution is to get rid of the throne.

    [–][deleted]  (8 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]VulptexVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

      I believe the tradtional family should be at the center and not some atomistic individual, that actually does not even exist.

      Actually the individual is what does exist. The "traditional family" is only a concept.

      Why exactly should I want to get rid of the throne, if I was the ruler? My main question is, how do I become the king?

      So you want world domination? You want to be ruler of the world? Why? That causes others to suffer! That makes you evil!

      Do you want to have some rules, that prevent your neighbors from listening to loud music at 3 AM? Do you want to prevent your neighbors from shooting porn movies in their front yard, because otherwise you and your children have to see and hear this? Let's take another example. Let us assume you have a classical single-family house. All your neighbors decide to build some multi-story skyscrapers, so that you literally never get any daylight in your home. Would you be happy?

      Those are quite outlandish scenarios, but since they do affect my property it could be argued that they violate the NAP.

      Would you want to have some other rules, that are not clearcut violations of the NAP?

      Absolutely not, because that is abuse of power. Me not liking something is a horrible reason to take it away from those who do.

      Sure, you can debate, what violates the NAP and what does not. The problem, that even Libertarians themselves can not answer these questions, should be a warning.

      Don't pretend like every other system in existence doesn't suffer from the exact same problem. It's not libertarianism's fault, it's because humans are flawed.

      Let me end with one final question. I assume you want to have some rules other than do not kill and do not steal from someone. Why do you not want to be the guy deciding on the rules?

      You assumed wrong.

      Why should you prefer trying to make some joint agreements with everyone in your neighborhood to just making the rules by yourself? Obviously the latter option would resemble your ideal, while the former option will probably end in some compromise.

      Because that would be incredibly selfish and inconsiderate of others' needs. That would be hypocritical. And if I do it myself, I have no right to complain when I am the victim of it. But alas, I am anamoly; human instincts are not moral or principled.

      Why do you not want to be the guy deciding on the rules?

      Same reason. I want to decide what happens in my own life. I have no business dictating others. In fact, since I care about my own autonomy, it is crucial that I not infringe on others' autonomy.

      [–][deleted]  (6 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]VulptexVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

        I talked about an atomized individual.

        Well you're talking to one so they do exist.

        Being powerful is always better than being weak.

        Not being weak does not mean being evil. Let me ask you, would you consider Jesus weak?

        Why is it an abuse?

        Because why should everyone else have to conform to your personal preferences?

        If you are sure, that your ideas are great, then why should it be a horrible idea to make others follow these ideas?

        Because you are not God and could still be very wrong. Almost everyone is sure their own ideas are great. And they are often evil and selfish too.

        Is being selfish always wrong?

        Yes.

        Interesting to hear a Libertarian caring for other people's needs.

        You clearly believe in stereotypes about us then which don't represent us one bit. In fact concern for others is the only thing that holds back the desire to rule them like you want.

        Anyways, I have already addressed above, that I believe I would help others, if we made them follow my ideas.

        But some may disagree.

        Why do you not have a right to complain yourself, if you are the victim? In one scenario you are the victim and in the other you are not. That's a huge difference.

        Because that would be hypocrisy.

        Finally, we once again agree on something. How does this help a Libertarian "society"?

        It's not a society, and human instincts don't help. In fact they're probably the reason why so few ever like the idea; only those open-minded enough to question their instincts, their deepest primal convictions, will take it seriously.

        Your life is affected by others.

        Which is why they should not rule.

        Once again, I have to ask why?

        Because I believe in morals. Consistency. Not being a hypocrite. Equality of opportunity for all. I don't like pride. Others do not inherently deserve more than me, nor do I deserve more than them. If I had it my way everyone would have their own reality and only interact when they want to. But this prison, the matrix, and maybe the real world that contains it, keeps us locked in this world, so all we can do is respect one another.

        [–][deleted]  (1 child)

        [deleted]

          [–]VulptexVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

          The fundamental difference is whether you have the right to other peoples' lives and belongings. The way I see it, everyone is entitled to their own. And I also believe that following principles and morals will give the best results in the end, even if there are short term gains in not doing so. The best results for everyone, not just those in power.

          [–][deleted]  (2 children)

          [deleted]

            [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

            catholic church hates moral relativism

            they want to be the ones to define that

            [–]VulptexVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

            Not when you define them by the golden rule.