What do you mean by "evidence based policy"?

If there is "evidence" that gun restrictions reduce gun related crimes, that still wouldn't be a justification to take away inalienable rights

Similarly, if there is "evidence" that lax immigration policies lead to economic development, that wouldn't justify sacrificing the sovereignty of a Nation

Politics has a lot of dimensions than just "evidence" for a single factor

You're missing the point

Gun rights are NOT predicated on that evidence of "probably outweighing the gains"

They are inalienable rights, based on philosophy

Not empirical evidence

@Monstrous Moonshine Yes, Conservatism and the Old Right are collectivist. This is why there are varying motives in the Right for border control. This is why I don't accept the label Right Wing but libertarian. I'd take a weed smoking gay leftist who is for open borders over a Nationalist any day.

*Consistent advocate of liberty

I'm surely a "controlled OP" in a irl chat server of a Socially Liberal Youtuber Sargon of Akkad. LMAO.

I joined here a few weeks ago just to have discussions

All I have got so far are ad homs thrown at me for advocating for a principled position of libertarianism

@Jeremy He isn't a Classical Liberal, but a weird mix of Social Liberal and Nationalist

No. Classical Liberals are Fiscal Conservative and Socially Liberal. Sargon has said he is Fiscally Liberal as well.

He also argued for porn ban recently

In any case, Sargon is certainly not a Classical Liberal by the standard definition

Sargon spends a lot of time coddling with the far right and crying about Muslims ruining his country

@Jeremy He can call himself a unicorn, doesn't mean he is

Imagine calling a principled Libertarian as a leftist

The absolute state of "freedom lovers"

So I went from a controlled OP, to a socialist, to a leftist, to now a Fascist

Thank you for your big brain take statist

You have yet to address any of my arguments. So far there has only been mud slinging and conspiritard accusations. Next you'd be calling me a Russian bot.

@Samaritan™ I make alliance with whoever I see advocating for more individualism. Leftists advocate for social freedom while some on the Right advocate for economic freedom.

For instance, Trump advocates for tariffs and Tucker Carlson is also more of a Nationalist protectionist on economy. Not to mention that the Right was (and still is on some of these issues) against race mixing, homosexuality, transgenderism, legalization of hard drugs, sexual liberation, porn etc.

The libertarian position would be legalization of all these, which the left has historically fought for. I see no reason not to align with well meaning leftists over statist Nationalists.

I find common ground with whoever I can, regardless of partisan politics

Thomas Jefferson signed a law punishing homosexuality by castration. The left fought for legalization of homosexuality. This is another example of the fallacy of revering the founders as messiah. Why should I not align with leftists who are for individual liberties?

> Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half diameter at the least.
-Thomas Jefferson
@Samaritan™

You can look it up, I'm not exaggerating

I never said Sargon is alt right

Learn to read

He just coddles with them and gives them a platform

>reducing everything as left or right
This is your brain on partisan politics instead of principled politics

I cheer when White Nationalists, Fascists and Communists get deplatformed by private corporations

You don't have a right to their platform, they are a private company

Govt. is not restricting your speech when Twitter bans you

@Ethreen42 The difference is of consent. You can choose to not do business with the company. You cannot choose your govt. in any practical manner.

@Samaritan™ Consent is about something to which you have rights. You don't have a right to someone else's private property in the first place.

Imagine thinking you have a right to others' private property and then calling me a leftist instead

@Greasy >What is there is a monopoly?
I don't see a problem in that

@Samaritan™ Leftists have a problem with monopoly. They want to use the state to break them. Libertarians don't care about monopolies, they are a result of the efficiency of the rational actor.

@Jeremy So far I have only received bad faith ramblings and ad homs, not a single response to any of my arguments

@Samaritan™ No, that is a cucked position. The true position is that it is irrelevant whether monopolies are formed or not.

McDonald's having a monopoly because of their caliber is not something that should be punished

You are advocating for punishing success and have the gall to call me a leftist

>Well if you're saying Twitter and co are just private corps and not public platforms they should be regulated to uphold the American constitution, since they actively censor and stop information they dont like from reaching Billions of people
@Ethreen42 I'm against regulations.

No one is forcing you to use Twitter

Use something else. The Free Market has spoken by removing White Nationalist filth like you from their platforms @Ethreen42

@Samaritan™ Create your own company and ban the leftists then. Or are you afraid of picking yourself up from the bootstraps?

>more ad hom

As I expected from a White Nationalist idiot

@Ethreen42 >thats not the point, the point is that Twitter and Facebook influence billions of people and them actively censoring people is bad for freedom of speech
Yes I agree. That doesn't violate the NAP though. The people have personal agency to not be influenced.

You are advocating to relocate the personal agency to the govt.

Translation: I'm advocating for a "freer society" by punishing Capitalist companies who became successful through moral means

@Samaritan™ It didn't take long for me to expose your statism

Funny that you were harping about the wonders of freedom just before I joined

As I said, it is always the case with phonies

You're a socialist

You literally said
1. You are a statist.
2. You want to break up monopolies.
3. You want to use govt. to regulate social media companies and prevent them from banning Fascist scum

@Samaritan™

@Samaritan™ Conservatives are not for freedom. They are collectivists.

And Nationalists are Socialists

Communists are better than Fascists since they are Internationalists and much easier to defeat

Fascists want me dead for my skin color

Native American

See

Fascists are evil, Communists are just misguided

@Jeremy This country was taken forcefully from my ancestors. Either we take back our land or we have open borders and this becomes truly a country of immigrants.

My people were genocided by war mongering Euro trash founders

Whites as a collective did evil stuff, yes. Doesn't mean I'm for reparations, but also doesn't mean I will support a phony nation built on genocide.

I'm at least happy that karma is catching up to Euro trash. Sweden is belongs to Arabs @Kinky Kitsune (Coomer)

@Ethreen42 Africans benefited when they came to the US, still doesn't justify slavery

@Samaritan™ "Jews exist so the holocaust didn't happen"

@Jeremy That's a White supremacist view of justifying genocide because property rights didn't exist. You are worse than Fascists in that you are not even open about your beliefs.

>racial slurs
>ad homs
>conspiritard accusations
>not addressing any arguments I made
>crying to the mods to suppress my free speech

https://www.history.com/news/native-americans-genocide-united-states

@Jeremy

https://www.history.com/news/native-american-genocide-california-apology

> California Slaughtered 16,000 Native Americans. The State Finally Apologized For the Genocide

@Jeremy As I said, you're worse than Fascists. Your kind will LARP as libertarian but secretly hold genocidal beliefs. Fascists and White Nats are at least honest.

@Ethreen42 Go back to Europe

Nationalists are socialists

Socialists come in many varieties. Nationalist is one of them. @Jeremy

Nationalists put the interest of the Nation before the individual

Not to mention, Nationalism inherently has a cultural and blood component

I can't employ a Mexican or a Chinese illegal in a Nationalist govt.

The Nationalist govt. would tread on my property rights

And remove them since they don't "belong" to the Nation

@Jeremy As I said, putting the collective above the individual

@Kinky Kitsune (Coomer) Nation states don't have a right to control their borders

Only private actors do

@Ethreen42 All right, so would you, as a principled Nationalist, be fine with completely legalizing all illegals? Just have a minimum border security check if you want for criminal background, then is it fine if people can come and go as they please?

A principled Nationalist would have some criteria for discriminating based on cultural and ethnic component. One of them said that 10 million Somalis don't become Japanese even if they legally migrated there and learn to make sushi.

This is why I'm against Nationalists

I'm a open border Minarchist

Then you aren't a libertarian @Ethreen42

Libertarians would have no contention if a Somali or a Mexican moved to Japan and started a family, based on contractual property agreements. The component of cultural and ethnic ties is from the Old Right and Traditional Conservatism.

@Jeremy Why would you have an issue if all of Japan turned black but still respected NAP?