«12. . .3,5853,5863,5873,5883,5893,5903,591. . .3,6073,608»
So the Libertarian Party just unveiled their new logo on Facebook:
https://scontent-lga1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t31.0-8/11894664_10153555477327726_5798420126901936833_o.png
It'll probably take a while to be updated everywhere, not even their page on Wikipedia is updated yet. I would of preferred to stay away from the color black in preference for dark blue, but if that's just the background then I guess it doesn't matter much.
Thoughts?
Actually, this: http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/07/lnc-selects-new-logo/
I like the new logo more, seems more modern and not to stuck up in American Exceptionalism. Also the slogan sounds more radical.(minimum vs less)
I don't like it, it reminds me of an a cap group rather than a Libertarian one. Also most Americans will think it's a New football teams logo.
Without government, we'll have government, so we need a government to protect us from government.
Definitely cut back on the usual tribalist "look at muh country and how unique we are!"
American "exceptionalism"
French "excellence"
German "efficiency"
Norwegian whatever 'you guys' think yourselves to be. Compassionate?
You get the idea.
I am not an anarchist for three reasons below:
Theoretical limitations - Ancapism may rebound into a state (using Nozick's logic as I presented above) that could be worse than even the most libertarian state, and therefore destroys itself. A minimal state is the only strong guarantee that libertarianism can exist in a chaotic, conflicting world.
Philosophical differences - Anarchism is a contravention of the non-aggression principle it believes it sticks to, in which it makes following the NAP completely voluntary and therefore destroys the philosophical foundation it is built upon. No general law and order function to enforce the non-aggression principle = no libertarian society, but instead a society that treats the NAP as a mere suggestion.
Practical limitations - Anarchy is not sellable to the public, the majority of people are statists, and education alone is not enough to convert people.
You say that we should strive for more freedom, more libertarianism, and I agree. But to what extent? If anarcho-capitalism is the "end goal" so to speak, why do you ignore say, striving towards anarcho-communism? Is that not a greater end goal, a society in which poverty doesn't exist, everyone is "equal," and blahblahblah?
The true naive utopian is somebody who thinks that giving a group of people all the guns and all the power can limit itself. Force change through the political system? Maybe. But what happens when the political system changes? Liberty can easily be lost. As long as government exists, there will always be socialists, nativists and parasites to take advantage of it and sway public opinion. There is no guaranteed that a minarchist state can remain forever.
You've been listening to Austin Petersen too much. People must be taught moral values. The NAP is already believed in by most human beings, except when it concerns government. Almost everybody believes that killing and stealing is wrong. The great ethical challenge of our time is to convince the people that morality applies not only to individuals, but groups as well. Education can indeed sway the masses.
What the hell has that got to do with anything? None of the libertarians here want "anarcho"-communism because we believe it is inherently statist and antithetical to freedom, along with being massively impractical. Anarcho-capitalism is believed in by ancaps because we believe it will lead to the most desirable long-term outcomes for humanity.
Socialists, nativists, and parasites will exist regardless of the size of the government, except maybe in a huge Pinochet government where you can just silence them all. Perhaps you'd like that better, as it would be the best way to achieve your utopia where everyone is the same and no one holds counter-anarchist positions to the Natural Market Order.
Tell me, did "market forces" stop the Bolsheviks from getting into power? Did market forces stop the Romans from coercing anarchic primitive societies to join them or die? Where, in the state of nature, do market forces self regulate themselves? If one traces the development of the nation-state, one will get to a point where there is anarchy, and in anarchy there was enough imbalance for some group of people to say "hey, this force stuff really works!"
what happens when the political system changes? Then we change with it. If fascists or other authoritarian socialists take over, are we supposed to bind ourselves to the NAP and willingly allow ourselves to be jailed or sent to gulag? Of course not. We are peaceful now because peaceful attitudes are a realistic way to fight for what we believe in, but if that opportunity is taken away from us, then we become more like the revolutionaries of America and France - libertarian freedom fighters who don't sit around waiting for utopia to happen.
A good analogy is the fact that libertarians in New Hampshire have successfully gotten into government (even a couple anarchists) through peaceful measures, but violent libertarians have instead been awarded with more police militarization - achieving exactly the opposite that they want. But if New Hampshire (or the US, or whatever governmental institution) becomes increasingly hostile to peaceful processes, then the net benefit of revolting violently might override political action and winning the hearts and minds of people. Currently, we are not at that point, and revolting now could damage the movement forever.
People only obey the NAP BECAUSE they are limited in real life from violating it. Without the invisible threat of the policeman, people would rob, murder, and steal, but the sole fact that people CAN get arrested, put to court, and sentenced for doing so. Christian morality did not stop Christians from violating it (lol inquisition), why do you think that libertarian morality would correctly govern a libertarian society? Morality has always been consequential in real life, and always subjective. It is you, Pev, who is foolish to think that people's morals will change and people will always obey the NAP in an anarchist society. It's the kinda nonsense that discredits Rothbard as a major libertarian figure outside of ancap circles.
holy sh!t dude that's like half the minarchist argument in the first place. Thanks for proving my point unwittingly.
Lolwut? Equality can only be attained through force. Communism is mandated poverty.
This already happened. In every single nation. Tens of millions of peaceful people are locked up in cages all over the world.
Violent libertarians? What? The term is an oxymoron. By definition, violence is not libertarian.
Most people do not rob and murder because they have moral objections to robbery and murder, and they are not pieces of sh!t. Not due to the threat of prosecution.
That being said, an anarchist society does have ways of dealing with such people. Opinions on the matter differ, but tons of anarchist literature deals with this.
This is why praising Denmark as a social democratic success model is a bad idea:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/27/denmark-fears-it-has-been-victim-of-biggest-ever-800m-tax
Nothing ever bad happens when you raise taxes! Promise! Social democracy works people! You just got to beeeeellllieeeevveee.
(This is targeting Atlanticatia mostly)
http://www.dharmanation.org/media/tumblr_m6cgl4oSEC1qj6owio1_500.jpg
Companies do illegal things all the time. Denmark still collects the highest taxes in the world as a % of GDP. Not sure what you're attempting to prove.
States do illegal things all the time.
Higher taxes are not something to praise.
I have accepted an invitation to be a part of the 'young' (i.e. under 30) Conservative organisation by my MP in his constituency, the one who happens to be a junior minister in the government, whom I have an internship with for the summer. I think that trying to change the Conservative Party from the inside is a better strategy than stubbornly waiting for the Libertarian Party to get off its ass and start doing things.
Yep. If you wanna get politically active I agree. LIBUK refuses to participate elections until it's propositional anyway. So go for it!
Vech, would you vote for Liberalistene (sp?) next election? They seem to be the successors of the LPP.
Nah. I highly doubt I will vote for them next election. They are warmongerers and very close minded, and in general all their politician are young angry/arrogant men thinking Ayn Rand is some kind of prophet.
Ah going full agorist then. Good luck.
Speaking of agorism, I knew a guy four years back, he ran a distillery in his parents basement (he was about 15). He supported Ron Paul for president. He smoked weed in the back of the school bus and somehow never got caught. I don't think he was aware of Konkin's ideology, but he was the literal definition of an agorist.
Not necessarily. I could consider voting, but not for a party that wants to nuke Iran. There is a local election here in a couple of weeks, I'll tell update on their result.
Alao that guy sounds cool as all that
That's unfortunate. I looked at their website and they look very progressive, supporting free movement of labour, social tolerance and a non-interventionist foreign policy.
Yeah well.. I was able to stay in their internal party forum on Facebook for quite some time. It's infested with racism towards muslims and neoconservatives. And even in public the leader supports nuking Iran. They are strict adherents of ARI objectivism and they write nice things on their page but that's as far as it goes. This party was basically started because their former party was so looked down up that they needed to rebrand.
Their official name in English is The Capitalist Party, because they view libertarianism as morally wrong.
Cosmo kramer and The Liberated Territories
What a shame. Sounds like how UKIP were calling themselves a 'libertarian' party for a while.
«12. . .3,5853,5863,5873,5883,5893,5903,591. . .3,6073,608»
Advertisement
