Libertarianism = Anarchy?

Libertarians often say they aren't anarchists, they just believe in really small government.  However in order to join the Libertarian Party you must certify that you are against the initiation of force.  Anarchy is described as the lack of a hierarchal authority, no one has any power over anyone else (ideally).  Taken to its logical conclusion, a libertarian government obviously could not do anything without absolute consent of each and every individual.  It could not even levy any taxes, because taxes by their very definition are an initiation of force.  If people give willingly it's called donations.  Government itself is all about force and control.  It makes people do things that might not be good for them, but good for the group as a whole which libertarians find abhorrent.  How can a party that requires such a pledge morally participate in governmental elections unless their only platform was to immediately dissolve the government once elected?  Which ironically would require a significant power grab for them to even do so.  Why can't libertarians just fess up and admit they're anarchists?

Anarchy doesn't = libertarianism omg...

Libertarians believe in government as we know it, minus the unnecessary bullshit. 

I know lots of punks who are libertarians.

>>42
Punk doesn't always equal anarchist.

>>43
It always equals retarded though.

LOL @ youth subculture getting an idiot hairstyle and ugly clothes together with a political philosophy.

If you take punks seriously, shame on you.

>>44
I don't. I find them as retarded as Commies or Nazis.

>>42
Fuck punks, and fuck you anti-libertarian anti-american commies.  The only god damn 'punks' are you piece of shit liberals willing to shit all over the constitution, bill of rights, and rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that good men have fought and died for in the past. 

Good job you fucking punks.  Rot in hell.

>>46
I don't know where you've been but it's the neocons doing all the stuff you've described above.

>>36
But we enforce the rights of other people to drink and drive their  cars. My friend was nearly killed by a drunk driver.

Protect her right to live?

Although I agree with Libertarians on many points, I'm really sick of the whole idea that gun control and legalizing all drugs is a capital idea.

The idiots of the world who abuse Guns and Drugs can fuck their lives and the lives of dozens of other people through their actions. If a husband gets addicted to crack and sells all his possessions so he can buy more, where is the safety net for his children and family?

Libertarians don't believe in welfare or Social Security, so basically, those Children are fucked. Because we want to protect  the husbands "right" to fuck his kids over.

>>48

Libertarians seem to believe in two things:
1. People are all logical and thoughtful.
2. If someone gets into economic trouble, there is no safety net for those FUCKERS CAUSE THEY OBVIOUSLY CAN'T DO ANYTHING RIGHT LOLOLOLOL

>>48
How many idiots have fucked up your life with guns and drugs? How many drug junkies have fucked up dozens of lives? Only reason they do crimes is that the stuff is ridiculously expensive, if drugs were legal such lowlives could kill themselves off without being any danger to society. Husbands don't get addicted to crack in first place. People who do drugs are born retards and they don't get wifes in first place. No sane man does drugs. Guns on the other hand are just tools. Like an axe they can be used to kill human beings, but most people don't use them to do that. Have you actually studied crime statistics? You're typical security fetishist who believes that freedom of majority should be restricted, because of stupid minority. You may gain little security that way, but remember that you are trading freedom. That trade has been done countless times and most times we have just lost freedom, but gained no real security...

I think it shoul be very easy for people to move across America, and that most federal legislation should go. The only thing left on the obligatory level is the constitution, an educational syllabus, the police, federal military and the bill. Now the states that want gay marriage/state-facilitated adoption can do so, and if you want to come out as gay but don't feel safe in your town, you can easily settle a sort of contract with a state you prefer, ensuring some living and a job there. If you get fed up with your states gun legislation, maybe you can contact some nation-wide agency and trade your living with someone who wants to get to your state... No more states imposing shit on one another, and a chance to see which states do better. 

>>47
The democrats do it too, and their violations are worse than the neo-cons, not to mention their willingness to support the U.N.

>>49
...

I think it has more to do with the fact that other people shouldn't be forced to do other people's work for them. 

In other words, everyone has the right to their individual life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.  Go out and live your life freely, as long as you don't infringe upon others rights. 

These are 'libertarian' ideas, and if you don't like them, go move to China and enjoy your police state.

I'll take the USA thanks.

>>53 Oh yes, you can have the US, or China. Trying to achieve a balance is BAD.

>>54
Sweden tried balance and you know how it turned out. Britain also tried balance, but they became police state.

>>54
What do you have in mind? Some kind of in-between between a good country, and a shithole?

I think I'd rather just have the pure-good country.  (USA)

>>56
Spoiler: the US is a shithole.

>>57
gb2 china

>>57
The USA is the richest country in the world.  We have the highest standard of living of any country in the world, and the highest per capita GDP of any country in the world.  We have the largest economy in the world.  The USA isn't a shithole, it's the greatest nation on earth. 

I love the USA, I love freedom, and I love Capitalism. 

>>59
You have neither the highest GDP per capita, nor the highest living standard.

What you do have, as you just demonstrated, is a sub par education system. Rejoice in thine AIDS.

>>60
Eurofag who is sad because he didn't born in USA.

>>60
Sources plz. 

>>60
Luxembourg doesn't count. 

>>66
Not true.  Norway's per capita GDP is lower than the USA's.  Norways total GDP of the nation is FAR lower than the USA's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway

>>66
Everything in Norway is so fucking damn expensive I'd never live there. Well, except on border, so that I could buy my stuff from Finland.

>>67
>Norway's per capita GDP is lower than the USA's.

They're not that much different. It depends on which source you check, some will say Norway is on top, others will say the US is.

>Norways total GDP of the nation is FAR lower than the USA's.

That's pretty irrelevant for the peoples' standard of living. In some years, China will have a larger GDP than the US. They'll still not have reached our standard of living though. The European Union already has a larger GDP too.

>>69
China's standard of living is only rising due to United States' corporations and businesses.  We are coming in and saving their asses from their own shitty, parasitic government. 

If you want to look at it that way, you should be even more thankful for the USA, since we are spreading our wealth about the globe, raising the standard of living of billions of Chinese with us. 

>>70
You don't have a choice, you're owned by a few rich fags just like everybody else.

>>71
The free market will benefit everyone in the end, rich and poor.

>>72
>The free market, combined with governance will benefit everyone in the end, rich and poor.

FIXED

>>73
Governance has a pretty shitty track record.  Capitalism has a good one. 

>>74 The only problem is that we only have one planet so far, and everybody gets the waste without everybody getting the affluence. Look, I know how China's impoverished population has decreased by 300 mill since 1980 due to foreign investment, but our environment can't sustain unhindered capitalism for more than two more decades. Time runs very fast.

>>75 Centuries, not decades. And that is a rough estimate.

>>74
Unchecked capitalism, especially at the beginning of the industrial revolution, has an extremely shitty track record. Proved that rich fags were willing to let you work in horrible conditions not much better than slavery.

>>77 Exactly. Many neo-cons argument that That Deal or communism are expressions of human naivity, laziness or bleeding-hearts that wnat everybody to share, but in fact the worst anti-capitalist situations are in fact counters to capitalism run rampant. Today, however, capitalism is available to everyone, and the serious discussion regard what type of consumer-corporation relationship is sustainable and foolproof. I mean, a global system where Nike, McD, Bechtel and the gang can still make money needs a little scrutiny.

Capitalism within the constraints of justice = better than communism.

So why should we have communism?

Oh yeah and stop bein extremists and putting words in capitalists mouths as if capitalists think it should be legal factories to pour mercury into people's drinking water, of course they fucking don't.

>>79
We shouldn't. We just should keep an eye on the capitalists and if they try to fuck us over from their position of power, we should beat them up really good.

>>80
Exactly.  People think if we had a Capitalist libertarian we'd all die of mercury poisoning or something, It's ridiculous.

These people need to read some Capitalist literature, then these: 

http://www.theadvocates.org/ruwart/categories_list.php

And finally, consider the fact that GOVERNMENTS, not corporations or businesses, are the worlds' largest polluters.  the US government easilly pollutes more than all the top 10 chemical companies in the world, combined. 

Want to stop pollution? It's time to downsize the government.