Please stop with the libertarianism already!

Well, the subject says it all really, but here is a nice article about another libertarian nut.
http://www.bullshido.net/modules.php?name=Reviews&file=viewarticle&id=178

That guy is full of a lot of bullshit. I got 1/4 the way through before I got bored and saw nothing relevant. tl;dr, boil it down please. I'm not made of free time.

Well, the Libertarian PARTY is clearly not perfect.  However, Libertarianism as a political philosophy has some very important elements that the mainstream political sphere would do well to embrace. 

The Libertarian Party has some kooky ideas about property, the 2nd and 4th amendments (both of which it interprets FAR too strictly imo), and national utilities/infrastructure.  I disagree with the party in part on issues such as these.  This does not mean we should not explore the opportunities the Party represents.

Just because you found one (or many, I could believe) nut who worships Ayn Rand and thinks an AK is the solution to many of life's problems does not destroy the libertarian outlook.  For ANY political philosophy, I could find you hundreds of pathologically scary people who ascribe to it.

>>2 here.

I read the rest of it anyways.

This was an attack on Randroid objectivism, not libertarianism. Ayn Rand hated libertarians.

Well, id like a well mannered person to describe libertarianism without scavenging liberalism and using strawman stalinism, i mean, like describe how libertarianism could work on its own merits. But since it cant i guess i hope in vain.

Libertarianism evolved from liberalism (not as used to refer to the Democrat kind of liberal). That's like saying "Describe communism without taking anything from marx or using strawman fascism, I mean like, describe how communism could work on it's own merits." I can do it without referring to Stalinism, but Libertarianism takes a lot from Liberalism.

>>6
You may refer to liberalism, just not scavenge, meaning saying that freedom of speech is a core libertarian value and anybody who ever supported this is therefore a libertarian. Where does liberlism and libertarianism differ for example. Own legs.

>>6
Libertarianism came from Jeffersonian ideas, Libertarianism came before America Liberalism 

Libertarianism sees the government as an aggressor against rights.
Liberalism sees government as the protector of rights, occasionally to aggress.

Most of the differences are derivatives from that.

I don't believe that the government protects my rights, especially due to it's incessant infringement upon them. I believe I should be allowed to declare myself and my land sovereign and independant from the country that thinks it owns my land. You could sum it up as Liberalism + belief that governments should not stop people from exercising their right to secede from any government and govern themselves.

>>9
Okey, thats what i thought. Was checking if i missed something.
So, when are american libertarians going to return the land to the indians? It is still theirs isnt it? Since it was stolen, just like your taxes? Or are it in the indians rights to reclaim all land that wasnt voluntarily given, by force if necessary, since it is just like evicting a squatter on your property?
And what happens if the indians are not capable because of the amerikkan military strenght to evict the invaders, do they loose their ownership?

>>6
Liberalism was originally much like libertarianism. Except it didn't concern itself with economy much. It was all about freedom and civil rights.
>>9
Actually both see government as the protector of rights. That's what libertarians and classical liberals believe to be only rightful job of government. You seem to be thinking of individualist anarchism or anarcho-capitalism. That's very different though many libertarians have anarcho-capitalist leanings. One should be careful using word liberal and make distinction whether referring to classical liberal, social liberal or whatever. For example current US "liberals" are hardly liberals, but more like social democrats of Europe.

I support libertarians cause they're only party out there who cares for civil rights. I don't give fuck if they fuck up whole economy besides I don't think they can do anything worse there than Clinton or Bush. I consider civil rights to be more important issue.

>>10

Repayment for crimes doesn't span generations. All those who did the wrong, and all those who were wronged, are all dead now. It's no longer any of our business.

>>11

Libertarianism as expounded by the Libertarian Party up until last year (when the LRC republicans hijacked it) and as expounded by Murray Rothbard is stateless at it's most extreme. Some people who call themselves libertarians do believe government exist only for the protection of rights. By excluding them I don't mean that they are not libertarians, just that they're not relevant to this, as I am expected to contrast my own beliefs here for that. I can't speak for all libertarians, so I speak only for my own brand of libertarianism. I call it agorism. It's not inconsistent with anarcho-capitalism. Agorism and anarchocapitalism are not very different from libertariansism, they're extreme versions of it.

And I do try to be careful when using the word liberal to establish the definition before using the word.

>>12
So if i steal from your father and give it to my son then commits seppuku you have no claim on the stolen property? Libertarianism is NIIICE!

>>13

No, because my father is still alive and still rightfully owns the property.

When both the criminal and the victim are dead, there's no use pursuing the case.

>>14
Yeah, i forgot to tell you i murdered your father also (after i stole the object and gave it to my son, otherwise i would have stealen from you). Still very NIIIICE!

Well then what am I supposed to do? Punish your son for something he didn't do?

>>15
NIIICE!

>>16
Technically, the stolen goods would probably become 'evidence' and so the state would take it.

>>16
Your ownership rights seem unjust to me instinctly. I would think that the son was not the rightful owner of the object stolen (whatever if it is used in the courtsystem) since he got it through illegal means, it does not matter if he acted in good faith, and that the original owner is dead does not change things either. And that he looses the object is not a punishment for something he did, his ownership claims are just false.