I was into libertarianism before because of individual freedom vs governments and that’s what made me support individuals in Palestine fighting a huge government.
There’s an essay from Murray Rothbard, an libertarian extremist (See here ), also pro Palestine, but when most of libertarian turned pro Israel I didn’t get what why they changed their opinion.
So, there are many cynics among libertarians and I understand your concern.
It would be nice nos to have a president candidate clearly against this genocide, but I don’t know if the American political system cartel would enable that
Because the American political cartel would prefer a libertarian candidate to cut taxes on huge business while dangling big promises to the average prole.
If tax cuts and typical libertarian shenanigans are the cost to take within the system, to end genocide (doubt it, but fingers crossed) then by all means I think it should be taken, if one is to decide to engage with and legitimize the system at all (IMO a futile effort).
All those tax cuts will do, anyways, is further erode and destroy the foundations of the system. I’m not an accelerationist- I believe in working to make things better for people, not worse- but in the face of genocide, absolutely this is the infinitely better (still not ideal, futile, etc) option.
I can see what you mean. There’s also the precedent that this person could do equally heinous shit the second he enters office. There is also the trend that libertarians tend to fall on their face or lose popularity (Aleppo) when they start gaining national steam. If he manages to make an actual debut in politics; sure, why not. I was gonna vote for the worm anyways.
There’s also the precedent that this person could do equally heinous shit the second he enters office.
Knowing libertarians, and knowing the US- probably. Frankly, I don’t think someone who actually stands against genocide could even make it for POTUS in the first place, and if they did, they’d be JFKed (rest in piss, though everyone who came after was worse) in a heartbeat. The AmeriKKKan empire is a beast in its own right, its very institutions and elite culture that of living, breathing, continuous genocide, and no single person alone can change its course- frankly I don’t even think there’s possibility for redemption, or changing of the course within the system at this point, the rot has set in so deep, not that the US was ever anything other than a festering genocidal cancer on this world to begin with, but at this point it has long since metastasized into something truly fatal (IMO).
And yet despite all that I’ve said above, I won’t lie, if I were AmeriKKKan, and if there were a candidate that ran on a platform of- such a basic, simple thing, yet impossible to even comprehend for much of the US elites- “no genocide”- I would vote for them in a heartbeat, even betting on the slim chance it could be done.
My impression now is that they are just a tool to get rid of laws and let corporations take everything, destroying the left (I think they damage more the left than the right), and later the republicans will benefit from it.
RIGHT-WING LIBERTARIANISM is one of the most powerful ideological forces of United States of America…
And what is this force?
Settler colonialism or manifest destiny…
It’s wrong to attack a country that respects (or even tries to respect) individual rights. If you do, you’re an aggressor and are morally wrong. But if a “country” does not protect rights—if a group of tribesmen are the slaves of their tribal chief—why should you respect the “rights” that they don’t have or respect? The same is true for a dictatorship. The citizens in it have individual rights, but the country has no rights and so anyone has the right to invade it, because rights are not recognized in that country; and no individual or country can have its cake and eat it too—that is, you can’t claim one should respect the “rights” of Indians, when they had no concept of rights and no respect for rights. But let’s suppose they were all beautifully innocent savages—which they certainly were not. What were they fighting for, in opposing the white man on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence; for their “right” to keep part of the earth untouched—to keep everybody out so they could live like animals or cavemen. Any European who brought with him an element of civilization had the right to take over this continent, and it’s great that some of them did
“One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . ‘Libertarians’ . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over…”
I was into libertarianism before because of individual freedom vs governments and that’s what made me support individuals in Palestine fighting a huge government.
There’s an essay from Murray Rothbard, an libertarian extremist (See here ), also pro Palestine, but when most of libertarian turned pro Israel I didn’t get what why they changed their opinion.
So, there are many cynics among libertarians and I understand your concern.
It would be nice nos to have a president candidate clearly against this genocide, but I don’t know if the American political system cartel would enable that
Because the American political cartel would prefer a libertarian candidate to cut taxes on huge business while dangling big promises to the average prole.
No amount of voting will solve anything.
If tax cuts and typical libertarian shenanigans are the cost to take within the system, to end genocide (doubt it, but fingers crossed) then by all means I think it should be taken, if one is to decide to engage with and legitimize the system at all (IMO a futile effort).
All those tax cuts will do, anyways, is further erode and destroy the foundations of the system. I’m not an accelerationist- I believe in working to make things better for people, not worse- but in the face of genocide, absolutely this is the infinitely better (still not ideal, futile, etc) option.
I can see what you mean. There’s also the precedent that this person could do equally heinous shit the second he enters office. There is also the trend that libertarians tend to fall on their face or lose popularity (Aleppo) when they start gaining national steam. If he manages to make an actual debut in politics; sure, why not. I was gonna vote for the worm anyways.
Knowing libertarians, and knowing the US- probably. Frankly, I don’t think someone who actually stands against genocide could even make it for POTUS in the first place, and if they did, they’d be JFKed (rest in piss, though everyone who came after was worse) in a heartbeat. The AmeriKKKan empire is a beast in its own right, its very institutions and elite culture that of living, breathing, continuous genocide, and no single person alone can change its course- frankly I don’t even think there’s possibility for redemption, or changing of the course within the system at this point, the rot has set in so deep, not that the US was ever anything other than a festering genocidal cancer on this world to begin with, but at this point it has long since metastasized into something truly fatal (IMO).
And yet despite all that I’ve said above, I won’t lie, if I were AmeriKKKan, and if there were a candidate that ran on a platform of- such a basic, simple thing, yet impossible to even comprehend for much of the US elites- “no genocide”- I would vote for them in a heartbeat, even betting on the slim chance it could be done.
Do you know now tho?
My impression now is that they are just a tool to get rid of laws and let corporations take everything, destroying the left (I think they damage more the left than the right), and later the republicans will benefit from it.
No, they are not simply a tool
RIGHT-WING LIBERTARIANISM is one of the most powerful ideological forces of United States of America…
And what is this force?
Settler colonialism or manifest destiny…
Ayn Rand, major purveyor of Right-Libertarianism
Why is it a surprise?