Oh let me guess, they're not real libertarians right?

Government coercion is opposed

CRUSH YOUR ENEMIES

Not coercion to enforce your own rights

You can't enforce your own rights without someone trying to violate them first

Yes

You won't go out of your way to punish the parasite before he even has a chance to

That's the problem

You're defensive when in reality you need to offensive to defend what you care about

Why do I need to be offensive, when I didn't get the problem in the first place, by defending myself?

Sowell once said that if you are unwilling to use force to defend civilisation then be prepared to accept barbarism. All power derives from the end of a gun, its just a case of who's pointing it at who

Yes

Because it removes the possibility of people violating your 'rights' in the long run

You don't need to be on the edge of your seat all the time worrying if someone is going to violate your NAP if you've already removed all those that would from your civilisation

So you want to aggress, to prevent possible future aggressions?

Libertarians: "We will rebel against government when it infringes on our rights."

Government: *Slowely grows in bureaucracy over time.*

Corporations: *Creates more consumer goods.*

Also Libertarians: "Yeah we will stop you government, we will" *Consumes goods in comfort*

Yes

That's what created all this mess in the middle east

In the first place

Just because it was implemented badly doesn't mean it was a bad idea to begin with

It failed? Yeah, I'll agree. But was it unjustified? Nope

Oh, of course, it wasn't done well enough, we just need better people and then it'll work

It could have gone better, it could have gone worse

I'd rather have western dominance in that region than Chinese or Russian dominance

Geopolitics has very little to do with morals and everything to do with power and resources

Moralising about muh war by gubernment bad is fucking gay

I'm glad you've joined this server. You might begin to realise that libertarianism, while being intellectually interesting and having a lot of decent things to say; especially on economics, is completely unfit to deal with modern problems and geopolitical situations.

Shame Social Matter doesn't exist anymore. I remember they had a good few articles of libertarianism which are worth a read.

Listen to that Truediltom audioclip, you might find it interesting.

g

a

y

> It could have gone better, it could have gone worse
Yeah, we don't know.

> I'd rather have western dominance in that region than Chinese or Russian dominance

Why? I understand your concerns, but I doubt that the west (if there is some united west) has dominance in that regions.
Also, why do you fear the dominance of two powers in that region, who already have problems establishing their dominance over their own territory.

> Geopolitics has very little to do with morals and everything to do with power and resources

I didn't moralize. I argued against aggression into foreign countries, since they create far bigger problems in the long-run. See mass immigration, political Islam, destabilized failed states... So why can't free trade and security partnership work then?

> I'm glad you've joined this server. You might begin to realise that libertarianism, while being intellectually interesting and having a lot of decent things to say; especially on economics, is completely unfit to deal with modern problems and geopolitical situations.
@William

Yeah, me as well. See what I'll pick up then. 😎

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/668911631937437727/684220917601140749/shut_up_homo.gif

Great one closs

nice

@Despot Romanicus the Enslaver lolberts may actually have a sober understanding of power they are just afraid of it or position themselves against it

They will consume in silence just like the rest of the Non-Despoilers

the turkroach faggot @Mr.Fisch（炫龙） is shitting up other discords as well it seems

@Yak oh yak my friend is here as well