Why do Republicans seem to think they are owed support from Libertarians?

[Goldwater]

Josh Hawley is not a paleoconservative. Neither is JD Vance. Both are just Elizabeth Warren if she didn't really go woke on gays. A Paleocon is someone who would have opposed FDR during the new deal and pretty much adored Robert A. Taft.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Josh Hawley is not a paleoconservative. Neither is JD Vance. Both are just Elizabeth Warren if she didn't really go woke on gays. A Paleocon is someone who would have opposed FDR during the new deal and pretty much adored Robert A. Taft.

Do Josh Hawley and JD Vance support:

- Medicare for All

- A Wealth Tax

[Saint Milei]

Josh Hawley is not a paleoconservative. Neither is JD Vance. Both are just Elizabeth Warren if she didn't really go woke on gays. A Paleocon is someone who would have opposed FDR during the new deal and pretty much adored Robert A. Taft.

Do Josh Hawley and JD Vance support:

- Medicare for All

- A Wealth Tax

They are definitely close to it imo.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

He is right about the term paleoconservative being misused here, though.

[SNJ1985]

Do we (as in Republicans nationwide, not just the ones on Atlas) actually think that, or do you just desperately want to believe that we do so you can feel important and relevant (which you're not)? If anything, this screed suggests that you think we owe you our support.

Also, I don't know why opponents of social conservatism think this asinine ''You're trying to force your beliefs on others!'' criticism is such a slam dunk. I'm pretty sure most people, including most libertarians, engage in politics so they can use the force of law to steer a polity in a certain direction - something that inherently requires you to impose a certain belief on everyone around you. Why is the Libertarian Party trying to get people elected to the presidency, the Senate and the House? Do they plan on never actually enacting any legislation, since that would involve forcing a libertarian belief on the millions of Americans who are not libertarians?

[John Dule]

1. We live in an era right now where it's obvious Dem are a much bigger threat to liberty than the GOP. COVID lockdowns proved this. It's not comparable. You can see the difference in freedom by comparing California to Florida.

The last Republican president and current party leader openly asked an authoritarian regime to hack the opposing party, attempted to strongarm local elections officials into fabricating votes in his favor, withheld congressionally mandated aid from a foreign nation in order to get them to dig up dirt on his opponent, and orchestrated a violent riot that culminated in the country's highest elected officials fleeing for their lives through tunnels while their building was occupied by fascist homunculi in shaman costumes.

But the Democrats made you wear a piece of fabric on your face I'm sorry you had to go through that. poor baby

[Cassius]

1. We live in an era right now where it's obvious Dem are a much bigger threat to liberty than the GOP. COVID lockdowns proved this. It's not comparable. You can see the difference in freedom by comparing California to Florida.

The last Republican president and current party leader openly asked an authoritarian regime to hack the opposing party, attempted to strongarm local elections officials into fabricating votes in his favor, withheld congressionally mandated aid from a foreign nation in order to get them to dig up dirt on his opponent, and orchestrated a violent riot that culminated in the country's highest elected officials fleeing for their lives through tunnels while their building was occupied by fascist homunculi in shaman costumes.

But the Democrats made you wear a piece of fabric on your face I'm sorry you had to go through that. poor baby

I mean being made to wear a rag on his face was a greater imposition upon his liberty than any of the above violations of the great electoral game.

[John Dule]

1. We live in an era right now where it's obvious Dem are a much bigger threat to liberty than the GOP. COVID lockdowns proved this. It's not comparable. You can see the difference in freedom by comparing California to Florida.

The last Republican president and current party leader openly asked an authoritarian regime to hack the opposing party, attempted to strongarm local elections officials into fabricating votes in his favor, withheld congressionally mandated aid from a foreign nation in order to get them to dig up dirt on his opponent, and orchestrated a violent riot that culminated in the country's highest elected officials fleeing for their lives through tunnels while their building was occupied by fascist homunculi in shaman costumes.

But the Democrats made you wear a piece of fabric on your face I'm sorry you had to go through that. poor baby

I mean being made to wear a rag on his face was a greater imposition upon his liberty than any of the above violations of the great electoral game.

There is no metric by which that is true.

[OSR stands with Israel]

1. We live in an era right now where it's obvious Dem are a much bigger threat to liberty than the GOP. COVID lockdowns proved this. It's not comparable. You can see the difference in freedom by comparing California to Florida.

The last Republican president and current party leader openly asked an authoritarian regime to hack the opposing party, attempted to strongarm local elections officials into fabricating votes in his favor, withheld congressionally mandated aid from a foreign nation in order to get them to dig up dirt on his opponent, and orchestrated a violent riot that culminated in the country's highest elected officials fleeing for their lives through tunnels while their building was occupied by fascist homunculi in shaman costumes.

But the Democrats made you wear a piece of fabric on your face I'm sorry you had to go through that. poor baby

I mean being made to wear a rag on his face was a greater imposition upon his liberty than any of the above violations of the great electoral game.

There is no metric by which that is true.

Didn't you literally have in your sig for a while saying you oppose democracy.

[John Dule]

Didn't you literally have in your sig for a while saying you oppose democracy.

Yes, but I removed it because it was being misinterpreted. I oppose democratic decision-making when it comes to the basic rights and freedoms of individuals. My rights to life, liberty, and property should not be subject to the whims of majority rule. The best way to defend these rights is to enshrine them in an unalterable constitution, so that even if 99% of the public wants to infringe upon my freedom, they are nonetheless unable to (legally) do so.

[Saint Milei]

Josh Hawley is not a paleoconservative. Neither is JD Vance. Both are just Elizabeth Warren if she didn't really go woke on gays. A Paleocon is someone who would have opposed FDR during the new deal and pretty much adored Robert A. Taft.

Do Josh Hawley and JD Vance support:

- Medicare for All

- A Wealth Tax

They are definitely close to it imo.

[Mod deleted].

Lmao where are the mods

[Saint Milei]

1. We live in an era right now where it's obvious Dem are a much bigger threat to liberty than the GOP. COVID lockdowns proved this. It's not comparable. You can see the difference in freedom by comparing California to Florida.

The last Republican president and current party leader openly asked an authoritarian regime to hack the opposing party, attempted to strongarm local elections officials into fabricating votes in his favor, withheld congressionally mandated aid from a foreign nation in order to get them to dig up dirt on his opponent, and orchestrated a violent riot that culminated in the country's highest elected officials fleeing for their lives through tunnels while their building was occupied by fascist homunculi in shaman costumes.

But the Democrats made you wear a piece of fabric on your face I'm sorry you had to go through that. poor baby

None of that is worse than Biden trying to push us to piss Russia off more and the COVID regime was more than just mask-wearing. And Jan 6th was nothing compared to the left encouraging the burning of cities in 2020. Let's not forget Dems spied on trump, weaponized the IRS against the right, and used big tech to censor half the nation. At the end of the day, it's obvious what states people are flocking too and it's certainly not the ones that were more supportive of Biden in 2020.

[Del Tachi]

Didn't you literally have in your sig for a while saying you oppose democracy.

Yes, but I removed it because it was being misinterpreted. I oppose democratic decision-making when it comes to the basic rights and freedoms of individuals. My rights to life, liberty, and property should not be subject to the whims of majority rule. The best way to defend these rights is to enshrine them in an unalterable constitution, so that even if 99% of the public wants to infringe upon my freedom, they are nonetheless unable to (legally) do so.

 If 99% of people want to infringe upon your freedom there is nothing a Constitution is going to do to stop them.

[John Dule]

1. We live in an era right now where it's obvious Dem are a much bigger threat to liberty than the GOP. COVID lockdowns proved this. It's not comparable. You can see the difference in freedom by comparing California to Florida.

The last Republican president and current party leader openly asked an authoritarian regime to hack the opposing party, attempted to strongarm local elections officials into fabricating votes in his favor, withheld congressionally mandated aid from a foreign nation in order to get them to dig up dirt on his opponent, and orchestrated a violent riot that culminated in the country's highest elected officials fleeing for their lives through tunnels while their building was occupied by fascist homunculi in shaman costumes.

But the Democrats made you wear a piece of fabric on your face I'm sorry you had to go through that. poor baby

None of that is worse than Biden trying to push us to piss Russia off more and the COVID regime was more than just mask-wearing. And Jan 6th was nothing compared to the left encouraging the burning of cities in 2020. Let's not forget Dems spied on trump, weaponized the IRS against the right, and used big tech to censor half the nation. At the end of the day, it's obvious what states people are flocking too and it's certainly not the ones that were more supportive of Biden in 2020.

What a ridiculous post.

1. How exactly did Biden "try to piss off Russia?" By not giving them the thumbs-up and saying everything was hunky dory when they began their brutal ethnic cleansing campaign? Biden's response to the Ukraine invasion has been one of the best parts of his presidency. His approach was clear from the beginning, he clearly had all the right intelligence on the invasion, and he has led an appropriate NATO response without embroiling us in the conflict. It is hard to imagine a better approach, and it is impossible to imagine Trump doing the same thing.

2. The Democrats spied on Trump because he was and continues to be a national security threat. I wish they'd done a better job of surveilling him, because then they might've realized he was in possession of illegal nuclear documents sooner and we could've avoided one of the biggest security leaks in our nation's history. Morons need looking after.

3. When has any Democratic politician "used big tech" to censor anyone? You are talking about private companies, and they are free to deplatform anyone they choose. The only people who care about this are extremely online alt-righters who think that private companies should be required to provide them with a service, which is essentially socialism.

4. I agree there is no comparison between a disorganized mob attacking a Racine, WI tire store and a sitting president ordering rioters to attack the seat of American democracy. The latter is clearly worse than the former and only an utter ignoramus would think otherwise.

[John Dule]

Didn't you literally have in your sig for a while saying you oppose democracy.

Yes, but I removed it because it was being misinterpreted. I oppose democratic decision-making when it comes to the basic rights and freedoms of individuals. My rights to life, liberty, and property should not be subject to the whims of majority rule. The best way to defend these rights is to enshrine them in an unalterable constitution, so that even if 99% of the public wants to infringe upon my freedom, they are nonetheless unable to (legally) do so.

 If 99% of people want to infringe upon your freedom there is nothing a Constitution is going to do to stop them.

[Del Tachi]

Didn't you literally have in your sig for a while saying you oppose democracy.

Yes, but I removed it because it was being misinterpreted. I oppose democratic decision-making when it comes to the basic rights and freedoms of individuals. My rights to life, liberty, and property should not be subject to the whims of majority rule. The best way to defend these rights is to enshrine them in an unalterable constitution, so that even if 99% of the public wants to infringe upon my freedom, they are nonetheless unable to (legally) do so.

 If 99% of people want to infringe upon your freedom there is nothing a Constitution is going to do to stop them.

You speak as if the law is something that exists upon people instead of among them.

If we're talking about literally *99% of people wanting you dead or something, it's happening.  The "law" only has effect because it's broadly consistent with consensus (or at least majoritarian) standards and beliefs.  Whether or not something is "legal" is immaterial - no judge or police officer has the balls (or even the ability) to enforce something over the objections of 99% of everyone else.   

[Saint Milei]

1. We live in an era right now where it's obvious Dem are a much bigger threat to liberty than the GOP. COVID lockdowns proved this. It's not comparable. You can see the difference in freedom by comparing California to Florida.

The last Republican president and current party leader openly asked an authoritarian regime to hack the opposing party, attempted to strongarm local elections officials into fabricating votes in his favor, withheld congressionally mandated aid from a foreign nation in order to get them to dig up dirt on his opponent, and orchestrated a violent riot that culminated in the country's highest elected officials fleeing for their lives through tunnels while their building was occupied by fascist homunculi in shaman costumes.

But the Democrats made you wear a piece of fabric on your face I'm sorry you had to go through that. poor baby

None of that is worse than Biden trying to push us to piss Russia off more and the COVID regime was more than just mask-wearing. And Jan 6th was nothing compared to the left encouraging the burning of cities in 2020. Let's not forget Dems spied on trump, weaponized the IRS against the right, and used big tech to censor half the nation. At the end of the day, it's obvious what states people are flocking too and it's certainly not the ones that were more supportive of Biden in 2020.

What a ridiculous post.

1. How exactly did Biden "try to piss off Russia?" By not giving them the thumbs-up and saying everything was hunky dory when they began their brutal ethnic cleansing campaign? Biden's response to the Ukraine invasion has been one of the best parts of his presidency. His approach was clear from the beginning, he clearly had all the right intelligence on the invasion, and he has led an appropriate NATO response without embroiling us in the conflict. It is hard to imagine a better approach, and it is impossible to imagine Trump doing the same thing.

2. The Democrats spied on Trump because he was and continues to be a national security threat. I wish they'd done a better job of surveilling him, because then they might've realized he was in possession of illegal nuclear documents sooner and we could've avoided one of the biggest security leaks in our nation's history. Morons need looking after.

3. When has any Democratic politician "used big tech" to censor anyone? You are talking about private companies, and they are free to deplatform anyone they choose. The only people who care about this are extremely online alt-righters who think that private companies should be required to provide them with a service, which is essentially socialism.

4. I agree there is no comparison between a disorganized mob attacking a Racine, WI tire store and a sitting president ordering rioters to attack the seat of American democracy. The latter is clearly worse than the former and only an utter ignoramus would think otherwise.

1, Sending aid + supporting Ukraine joining Nato = provoking conflict. Better approach? No aid and no NATO bid.
2. Doing something illegal because of your delusion doesn't make something right. Regardless, I don't give a sh**t what the justification is. It's wrong and not legal.
3. Private companies being weaponized as an arm of the regime and democrats supporting censorship is clearly an issue. The altright is dead lmao nobody even talks about that in real life but they do talk about censorship and it isn't just "altrighters" complaining.
4. Yes, Trump texted people to attack the capital and burn everything down. And yet none of this happen. But what did happen in 2020 was the burning down of cities that Dems absolutely encouraged.

[OSR stands with Israel]

3. When has any Democratic politician "used big tech" to censor anyone? You are talking about private companies, and they are free to deplatform anyone they choose. The only people who care about this are extremely online alt-righters who think that private companies should be required to provide them with a service, which is essentially socialism.

No this is wrong given they are given section 230 protections so yes companies who censor no longer should get them

[PSOL]

Maybe ElectionsGuy was right that socially liberal “Libertarians” are just progressives who love the free market. Seeing dule d•••ride the democrats like this is a sad sight to see, I can’t even recognize him even from the heavy dose of elitism in his posts.

[politicallefty]

3. When has any Democratic politician "used big tech" to censor anyone? You are talking about private companies, and they are free to deplatform anyone they choose. The only people who care about this are extremely online alt-righters who think that private companies should be required to provide them with a service, which is essentially socialism.

No this is wrong given they are given section 230 protections so yes companies who censor no longer should get them

So private companies must host certain speech or be subject to lawsuits? That is antithetical to the freedom of speech. The right does seem to enjoy making many exceptions to the free speech protections afforded by the First Amendment (except equating money with speech).

[OSR stands with Israel]

3. When has any Democratic politician "used big tech" to censor anyone? You are talking about private companies, and they are free to deplatform anyone they choose. The only people who care about this are extremely online alt-righters who think that private companies should be required to provide them with a service, which is essentially socialism.

No this is wrong given they are given section 230 protections so yes companies who censor no longer should get them

So private companies must host certain speech or be subject to lawsuits? That is antithetical to the freedom of speech. The right does seem to enjoy making many exceptions to the free speech protections afforded by the First Amendment (except equating money with speech).

Section 230 protections literally gives them special protection from the law on the guise they really shouldn't be responsible for what others post on there. Well if you are censoring posts then I have no idea how you can continue to make that argument.

[John Dule]

You speak as if the law is something that exists upon people instead of among them.

If we're talking about literally *99% of people wanting you dead or something, it's happening.  The "law" only has effect because it's broadly consistent with consensus (or at least majoritarian) standards and beliefs.  Whether or not something is "legal" is immaterial - no judge or police officer has the balls (or even the ability) to enforce something over the objections of 99% of everyone else.   

The mob can always take my freedoms with force if it comes to that. I just don't want them having any illusions about being able to do this "within the system."

1, Sending aid + supporting Ukraine joining Nato = provoking conflict. Better approach? No aid and no NATO bid.

Not going to read any further than this. Isolationism is even stupider than neocon interventionism, and anyone who thinks Russia should be allowed to pave through Ukraine without any hinderance from US foreign policy is a lover of oppression and totalitarianism. Biden has struck an excellent middle ground in his approach.

No this is wrong given they are given section 230 protections so yes companies who censor no longer should get them

This makes no sense.

[OSR stands with Israel]

You speak as if the law is something that exists upon people instead of among them.

If we're talking about literally *99% of people wanting you dead or something, it's happening.  The "law" only has effect because it's broadly consistent with consensus (or at least majoritarian) standards and beliefs.  Whether or not something is "legal" is immaterial - no judge or police officer has the balls (or even the ability) to enforce something over the objections of 99% of everyone else.   

The mob can always take my freedoms with force if it comes to that. I just don't want them having any illusions about being able to do this "within the system."

1, Sending aid + supporting Ukraine joining Nato = provoking conflict. Better approach? No aid and no NATO bid.

Not going to read any further than this. Isolationism is even stupider than neocon interventionism, and anyone who thinks Russia should be allowed to pave through Ukraine without any hinderance from US foreign policy is a lover of oppression and totalitarianism. Biden has struck an excellent middle ground in his approach.

No this is wrong given they are given section 230 protections so yes companies who censor no longer should get them

This makes no sense.

1. I oppose Libertarian foreign policy but a core of libertarianism is isolationism or at most paleo-conservatism so if you oppose that I don't see how you can really call your self Libertarian Dule. I also think isolationism is stupid but thats why I am not a libertarian

2. Libertarians should be opposed to special exemptions from the law

3. You never addressed the core point I made earlier on your 40 years post and that is the neoliberal consensus Reagan ushered in made America more libertarian economically than it was before.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

While I don’t disagree , I will point out Reagan was the most libertarian president we have had economically since the 1920s. He pretty much replaced the old economic consensus with a far more libertarian friendly consensus called “neoliberalism”

Good thing Ronnie did it on a fiscally responsible budget!




This isn't a free market. It's crony capitalism.

Republicans constantly yammer on about how to prevent young people from falling to socialism while all they do in office is cut taxes for rich people, increase the deficit and debt, and then leave.

Meanwhile, Libertarians actually provide real solutions to problems.

The Republican solution to the housing crisis is to scream and whine and give boomers tax breaks to buy their fifth investment property (negative gearing). Compared to that, young people like socialist rent control.

Libertarians, on the other hand, provide reasonable solutions like... building more housing.

Republicans always manage to gut regulation for the financial sector but they never get around to zoning reform

[Saint Milei]

You speak as if the law is something that exists upon people instead of among them.

If we're talking about literally *99% of people wanting you dead or something, it's happening.  The "law" only has effect because it's broadly consistent with consensus (or at least majoritarian) standards and beliefs.  Whether or not something is "legal" is immaterial - no judge or police officer has the balls (or even the ability) to enforce something over the objections of 99% of everyone else.   

The mob can always take my freedoms with force if it comes to that. I just don't want them having any illusions about being able to do this "within the system."

1, Sending aid + supporting Ukraine joining Nato = provoking conflict. Better approach? No aid and no NATO bid.

Not going to read any further than this. Isolationism is even stupider than neocon interventionism, and anyone who thinks Russia should be allowed to pave through Ukraine without any hinderance from US foreign policy is a lover of oppression and totalitarianism. Biden has struck an excellent middle ground in his approach.

No this is wrong given they are given section 230 protections so yes companies who censor no longer should get them

This makes no sense.

What's the point of making a thread about Libertarians when you aren't even with Libertarians on their biggest issue?