The sheer amount of butthurt libertarianism causes is astounding

Why do conservatives, fascists, commies and collectivists in general get so upset and sperg out when a libertarian says "I don't care about X since it does not affect me and doesn't infringe me constitutional rights, it is none of my business" (For example when it comes to LGBT issues)
and then they start blabbering about the fall of culture and civilization and society through degeneracy and whatnot

>it's a libertarian pretends anyone takes them seriously episode.

I agree with you for the most part, OP.

That said, I can understand why people feel like an excess of highly individualistic libertarians who don't give a shit can totally undermine social cohesiveness, and can end up getting overtaken by cultures that are more structured and willing to dictate what people can or cannot do.

There's a danger inherent, for example, in permitting people to say whatever they want, if it means groups who don't permit people to say whatever they want can finagle themselves enough supporters to begin censoring others on their own.

Society is an organism, you may be be perfectly healthy yourself but if a significant portion of it is cancerous you will suffer too, the world does not begin and end at your property line. Libertarians love drugs and permissive fag orgies until a rehab clinic and men's shelter for homeless men with HIV is slated to open in their backyard. Makes you think.

Question: I believe in the "doesn't affect me" thing OP said, however I still hold extremely socially conservative views. For example, I think drugs are degenerate and homosexuality is sinful but I think the state limiting such things is a far greater evil. Am I still a libertarian? Am I a paleoconservative/paleolibertarian?

Totalitarians naturally want to control all aspects of society, including personal lives of people. Once you oppose their megalomaniac worldview they go into tantrum.

Because its an unreasonable position to say that you support a given political structure while saying you don't care about the social and cultural conditions that make such a political structure possible.

Libertarians advocate for less dependency on the State. They want more self reliance, more local, community-based governance. This obviously terrifies people who put all their faith in the power of the State. Not only those who stand to directly lose power and influence from a reduction in the State's role in society, but those who have become totally dependent on the State as a pseudo-spiritual successor to God. The idea that people could reject the government and live without its influence upsets them on an emotional level because of this attachment they have formed to authority.

Anyway that's my take on why they seem personally offended when you say "I want to be left alone, thanks."

Because libertarianism and authoritarianism are opposite. They naturally want to control as much as they can.

But that's not true at all. Libertarians value personal liberty more than any other political ideology and that more than anything else is the most precious legacy of western democracy. From a libertarian perspective, it is the statists and authoritarians who have degraded western society by concentrating so much power in one place and stripping the people of their agency and natural rights. A libertarian would prefer a return to less centralized, more federated approach to governance with greater state autonomy and influence. Less big alphabet organizations and Congressional committees deciding everything for the entire country and more state and county-run boards in charge of their own communities. This system is actually better for preserving traditions that matter to local communities, it prevents top-down federal legislation changing their lives in ways they don't agree with.

To be libertarian you just have to care about liberty first and foremost. That's why they are called "libertarians". To me, being a libertarian means not only wanting to be left alone, but respecting the rights of others to be left alone. If you're fine with the state banning, restricting, or oppressing a group just because you're not a part of it or affected by it, then I'd say you're not really libertarian. Because you're fine with the state having the power to do those things, and really it's only a matter of time before the state decides to come down hard on someone or something you do care about it. So you should never give them the tools they need to attack you just because you're not their target today.

>you will suffer too
How? am i going to get raped by a random faggot in the street just because i didn't ask the government to truck down an LGBT rally?

Sure, it could totally happen.
Fags are a menace.

I'd shoot anyone who tries to get his hands on my precious parts

that's why the right to self defense is guaranteed

>. This system is actually better for preserving traditions that matter to local communities, it prevents top-down federal legislation changing their lives in ways they don't agree with.

Except it's not actually a system, it's a toothless philosophy that relies on mass adherence and falls apart when people stop respecting it. The authoritarian statists can at least club people over the head when they stop following along, what can the libertarian do other than reee?

Collectivists can't handle the idea of sovereign individuals not wanting to be controlled by others. For them there is an insecutiry & fear of freedom, they feel the need to control the physical world around them and can't hanlde the stress of not being able to control things, especially people, it's the reason most of their relationships fail long term.

It's a constant disease on humanity that fear leads to the need for control, without trying to sound like a /pol/tard it really is a beta mindset which is unfortunately the majority.

I truly believe it has less to do the any great ideological opposition and more to do with the undeniable fact that "Libertarians" as a group and very often unpleasant, obnoxious, sanctimonious and immature. There's a reason it's popular with teenaged boys after all.

Collectivism works.
Individualism is for r selected sub-creatures not civilized man.

Culture, incentive, persuasion, defence, leading by example ....basically everything besides forcing it on individuals through violence? Not our fault you lack imagination & thought.

> those who have become totally dependent on the State as a pseudo-spiritual successor to God

This, and checked.

> Society is an organism
“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” - Bastiat

It's amazing how communal Libertarian alternatives are & just how socially destructive it is to remove direct human - human interactions & replacing them with 3rd party bureaucrats, it creates a society of antagonism. Neighbours can't work out disputes they call the council instead, parents & children can't work out disputes they call social workers, employers & employees have a dispute they call up legally backed unions & bureaucrats, spouses can't work out disputes they go to court instead, it's fucking tragic.....yet the illusion persists.

Except clearly, collectivism is responsible for the majority of evils men do to men & it was individualism that has given us the greatest prosperity in human history. Remember individualism doesn't mean anti-cooperation/anti-community, it's merely the idea that it is not justified to sacrifice individuals for "society" which is in practice merely morally cannibalizing some inidividuals for others through immoral means.

You forgot the most important shit is that nobody gives a shit about your morals

morals are very subjective, there's no point in trying to enforce a certain point of view

If you want to live in a conservative household then you teach your morals to your family and kids, anyone who isn't in that circle isn't in your business

>hurrdurrhurrr iz returded
>heha yuz mad

>Buttmad commie/fascist with no argument

>nobody gives a ahit about your morals
>therefore people should give a shit about the morals of libertarians
Smart.

>Remember individualism doesn't mean anti-cooperation/anti-community,

If we're making statements like "I don't care because it doesn't directly effect me", then clearly it does.

>Libertarians having any morals
what the fuck did i just read

Libertarianism is secular, the only "morals" libertarians care about are physical like assault, theft, rape, etc etc or any other form of constitutional right infringing

Plus you entirely missed the fucking point of my post which is that in a libertarian society EVERYBODY has the right to make their own morals as long as they keep it to themselves or the small circle of their family and their morals don't intervene in somebody's rights.

>Except clearly, collectivism is responsible for the majority of evils men do to men

I reject this claim.
It is not collectivism that motivates a robber to rob, a rapist to rape, or a murderer to murder, its is the individual desire elevated over that of the collective. You're just being confused by the fact that individual rapist, murders, and thieves are more effective at pursuing their iniquity when organized into a group of like minded individualist scum, causing you to conflate their collective actions with collectivism.

>everybody has the right to make their own morals so long as they abide by my morals
lel

>Collectivism didn't make pol pot do what he did to cambodia
>Collectivism didn't make stalin build all those gulags and order all the executions
>Collectivism didn't make the fascist leaders do what they did

Comparing these evils to theft or murder is like comparing a planet to an ant

>>everybody has the right to make their own morals so long as they abide by secularism
FTFY you mongoloid

Except look at all of the evils done in the name of the collective good; from human sacrifice, warfare, religion, "communist" famines, democide, fascism over individual rights, socialism over individual rights, democracy over individual rights, all of it justified for the collective over the individual when if it were done by the individual would be counted as theft, murder, extortion, slavery etc.

I don't think homicides are on a scale anywhere near war, democide & human sacrifice. You might argue Stalin & Hitler were individualists but they claim to have done what they did for the good of their people or the collective good. Don't be silly mate, collectivism is justified evil on indviduals, individualism can have unjustified evil against individuals but it's hardly systemic like collectivism.

What he said does make sense, what he's saying is that essentially people agree on a more objective framework of morals and within which they are free to hold whatever subjective beliefs they want. You're also missing that anons point that it wouldn't be his morals they would be shared morals, just like how everyone when not acting in contradiction know murder is evil, if you have a society that values individuals & property rights, the subjective choices within that are different to the ones people hold today.

How do we stop collectivism?

I guarantee you that more men will be murdered over an individual desire for pussy and simple greed over the course of human history than "collectivism". Let's not forget the fact that communists are deep down motivated by individual avarice and not high minded dedication to a "collective".

Point out its evils and persuade people on freedom, particularly the younger generations. The true question is how do we persuade people? For that we have to look at past movements, psychology, sales/business, advertising etc.

Problem is collectivists have been active NEETS for over 100 years with either revolutionaries, intellectuals or gradualism, the freedom movement is basically starting up again over the world, thankfully we have the internet which is double edged but really speeds things up.

libertarianism is just astrology for men

>if you have a society that values individuals & property rights,
and if you have a society populated by The New Soviet Man, communism would totally work.

Sounds funny
elaborate please

what did she mean by this

Not that same thing, new soviet man goes against human nature, freedom, property & individual human rights are well within the realms of human nature and in fact make the best use of it by turning greed into a productive force for the wants & needs of society/others.

Persuading people to be religious/atheist, persuading people to buy/not buy, persuading people on certain morals are all observable & real outcomes in life. We're on a history board, have you read about the way Unions used to be before Marxist infiltration?

>human nature
What a pity no one can agree what that means.

Tell me, if respecting property rights is human nature, why must we set up collective systems to ensure their defense?

This is literally the problem with the system as presented by most people outside Hoppe. You can't have a system based on the idea of not caring about culture or the behavior of the masses and have it still function.

A society that values individual liberties must necessarily have certain cultural characteristics, this means you NEED to take steps to insure that culture remains in place.

Saying you want a libertarian society while not caring about whether or not there is a libertarian culture is a contradiction in terms. And sometimes protecting a libertarian culture means taking decidedly UN-libertarian-ey actions.

Well first of all, natural rights aren't real.

The only thing that is real is power and influence.

Which means that might is right.

Libertarians are welcome to dispute this, but they know I'm right.

Only when viewed in a divine light. In a secular light, natural rights are simply everything we can do in a state of nature if no one stops us, and the social contract involves signing away certain of these rights [murder, theft, rape] to receive the benefits of civilized society.

These rights basically form anti-laws. If the citizens break the law, they can be arrested. If the State doesn't respect rights, it loses its legitimacy and can be overthrown.

> What a pity no one can agree what that means.

Fair enough. If I talk to someone irl who thinks humans can be greedy by nature & compassionate by nature then that common ground allows further discussion, simple as that. Spreading something that's subjective until it becomes generalized is very possible.

> Tell me, if respecting property rights is human nature, why must we set up collective systems to ensure their defense?

Because people saw the value of property enough to protect it individually, after which time they decides that if individuals can protect themselves & their property then a group of individuals may be able to do that more effectively. I agree with Bastiat & others that people take the path of least resistance, when the cost of plunder is higher than of production you get a productive people & cooperation, when it's reversed the opposite happens. I also agree with them that people need to be able to protect their fruits of their labour or the effects of applying their faculties to both survive and have a society.

> A society that values individual liberties must necessarily have certain cultural characteristics, this means you NEED to take steps to insure that culture remains in place.

I see what you're saying in regards to Hoppe but it's not necessarily black and white. Hoppe says you should take forceful steps to protect the culture you want, others have seen the value in defense & persuasion, leading by example etc. Culture spreads in many ways.

> Saying you want a libertarian society while not caring about whether or not there is a libertarian culture is a contradiction in terms.
Definitely.

> And sometimes protecting a libertarian culture means taking decidedly UN-libertarian-ey actions
Possibly.

Libertarians will agree that when violence takes precedence ethics goes out the window, ethics is only in the realm of discussion everyone knows this. It doesn't mean that the persuit of defining right/wrong is pointless just because offense & defense exist.

>In a secular light, natural rights are simply everything we can do in a state of nature if no one stops us

Pretty sure you're conflating the word "right" with "freedoms".

The word "right" implies that other people have an obligation or responsibility to behave a certain way towards you, which absolutely does not exist in a state of nature.

No, in the Enlightenment Tradition the word "rights" refers to something you could do, not something people had to do for you.

Originally the word "rights" referred exclusively to what are now called negative rights. Positive rights were just called duties.

Culture is the worst fucking spook ever

Like what's the point of fucking culture anyway?

You're wrong tbqh. There's a reason we have the expression "My right to wave my fist ends where your nose begins".

Your rights are my responsibility. If you have a right to life, this means I have a responsibility to not kill you.

Which are abstract concepts that only exist within the context of a civilized society, and in a state of nature they do not exist.

Did you read my post?