galleryseek

There are two types of libertarians. There's the libertarian political movement (Gary Johnson, Rand Paul'ish, Ron Paul, etc..), and then there's the libertarian philosophy.

The libertarian philosophy is backed by the axiom of the Non-Aggression Principle. The NAP states that it's immoral to initiate or threaten force against a person or their property.

This is why the libertarian political movement is contradictory. They're attempting to grab ahold of the statist gun in a political environment; which breaks the NAP.

Those who adhere to the libertarian philosophy (I call them pure libertarians), most also refrain from attempting to use political action.

So yes, I'd agree, politicians who call themselves libertarians are just republicans living under a delusion.

Ad hominem. Along with your "THEY'RE ALL WHITE!" comments you espouse in almost every god damn response.

Let me attempt to educate you a little here.. This is the libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, voluntaryist philosophy and how it's backed:

First we have to establish an axiom. The NAP is an axiom. It's wrong to initiate or threaten force against a person or their property.

Secondly, what is property? What are property rights and are property rights legitimate?
Well, let's see. Do you own your body? Yes. If you say no, you've just created a performative contradiction. The mere act of utilizing your body and arguing with me, assumes ownership of your body. Self-ownership is a proof of property rights.

Now that we know you, and you alone own 100% of your body, then a logical conclusion from this is that we solely own the fruits of our labor as well.. Whether that be a painting we made, a website, or the income generated for providing labor in a mutually agreed upon employer/employee relationship.

So we have two things. The NAP and property rights which are derived from self-ownership.

These are the only two things that an advocate of the libertarian philosophy, anarcho-capitalism, & voluntaryism are concerned about.

To make these ad hominen attacks about us being "all white", or being racist, or not caring about the poor, is to be completely ignorant of the philosophy itself and entirely naive with the assumption that our current system cares about racial inequality or the poor.

Your arguments against libertarianism sound exactly like slave owners or advocates of slavery said in the past, "But without slavery, who will pick the cotton?" - Except you're saying, "Without the state, who will feed the poor?" - Well, in the case of slavery, we saw technology handle the problem with massive machinery. In the case of stateless societies and the poor, the solution is much more simple. The abolition of the state itself will greatly enhance the wealth of the impoverished, as the state is the single biggest contributing factor to poverty. But this is all consequentialism, we ended slavery because it's simply fucking wrong. Libertarians/anarcho-capitalists/voluntaryists seek to end statism simply because it's fucking wrong to use force to solve complex social problems.