Unless you’re ready to let another dude through your back hole I ain’t bending

my back hole has never been penetrated. you would be bending

Nah

But here’s the thing

wow...that was dirty...I think I just offended myself

How many “conservatives” do you see on prog shows?

Even their so-called right wingers have all been fired at this point

Hell even Joe Scarborough’s given up on acting like he is

Oh, I know. It's an echo chamber

Conversely, while admittedly not many...

anything that challenges the echo must be purged

I mean even _Fox News_ has fucking Shep Smith, Juan Williams, and Geraldo Rivera

They’re not exactly rock ribbed red blooded right wingers

Then they go on Twitter and accuse the right of being in an echo chamber

I mean in a true libertarian society the borders are peoples property so while theres no borders in a country sense, theres a billion or more small borders

I didn't have the heart to tell the poor bastard who descended into name calling me yesterday to watch my videos and see how many times Vox shows up on my screen versus Fox

There's no way that guy would of watched any of your videos, unfortunately people who descend into petty insults dont usually go and actually consume media that disagrees with their world view

In an ancap society*. A libertarian society can absolutely have national borders

It wouldn't be a true libertarian society

Open borders is the official libertarian position

Wait so what is libertarian supposed to mean, I cant pin down an actual definition from anybody, and I've heard it mainly be used as an umbrella term for Republicans and also from a few reasonable folks

"Official libertarianism" is a bunch of subverted bugman hippie nonsense that has no logically consistent philosophy behind it

E.g. the libertarian party

Does official libertarian refer to the party?

isn't it usually disginguished by big 'L' and small 'l'?

If I'm remembering correctly the libertarian party is big 'L'

https://mises.org/library/nations-consent

Groups of people voluntarily associating in an exclusive manner theoretically doesn't violate the NAP

@lesalia It has logical consistent philosophy, it just fails to understand Everything humans are. Making only some of their ideas useful as a whole (but this can be said about most parties, no side is always right).

It might have an actual philosophy and I was being excessively snarky sorry

heh its cool

It is probably bugman hippie nonsense for a lot of people because masses of people don't all have the time or inclination to do philosophy in a perfectly careful way

Not that anyone does philosophy perfectly and I'm not sure what that would even mean

>Wait so what is libertarian supposed to mean
It doesn't mean the same thing to all people who identify as libertarian

Wikipedia says "Libertarianism is a collection of political philosophies and movements that uphold liberty as a core principle" and I guess that's a good enough approximate definition

Its hard to say sometimes (like with any group that fragments into many different parts), but they do have to agree with a few principles (i'm just not sure i care enough to look for them and list them heh).

Ah ok so that would make sense I always understood it as, people are allowed to do what they want as long as its within the law and doesn't effect someone or their property negatively

At least that's my highly simple version of it

The pedantic answer to that would be "not really"

Maybe a good way to explain it to people who are new

"Within the law" implies it's not a critique on the law itself if it's an unjust law