or eat pizza with a fork

Maybe they are in Chicago

You could probably make a blog about that sort of thing, "Politicians fucking up ordering food." List the taco bowls, the people who order chain pizza in NYC or eat pizza with a fork, all those politicians who get the wrong toppings for their cheesesteaks when they visit Philadelphia, etc etc.

Like, I think that's the one thing I could do if I ran for public office. I'm ugly, I can't give a speech, I'm not particularly outgoing, but when I go to a restaurant I don't order off the bland suburbanite part of the menu. Vote for me and I'll eat the right goddamned food.

I'm sure if you grew an old-school president's tier beard people wouldn't care about your looks. Hell, we had shy presidents before. Or at least wasn't so fond of the press.

Wouldn't being socially liberal and fiscally conservative be almost border-line anarchy? You are ultimately supporting less state control in both business and social issues. Though, while Libertarians do profess smaller government they tend to draw the line on things that have a direct negative effect on other people, so it's not like assault and battery is going to be made legal to shrink government, or relieve corporations from the guilt of hiring hitmen.

But it could still all the same be a sort of middle-point to outright anarchy if you wanted to fuck around with it, imo.

Well, in the extreme... if somebody is socially liberal enough to believe the state shouldn't interfere in capital crimes like rape and murder, then yeh that person would be absolutely an anarchist (unless they hold that position but are also socially liberal, in which case they'd be a weird motherfucker). The most hardcore libertarians in America are usually those still chasing Jefferson's dream, where states handle crime and the federal government exists as a sort of defensive alliance between those states. But it seems the majority of libertarians are socially liberal in the mild way that liberals are socially liberal, where they believe the state shouldn't get involved in anything where there isn't a victim. And though modern libertarians sprang from unsatisfied conservatives and therefore don't always mesh with modern liberals on what "Victimless crime" means, in the broad strokes they tend to agree in that area.

The big difference between the two is suppose to be their economic policy. I'm a socialist, but I still see my philosophy as essentially libertarian in the sense that I think the entire point of the thing is to give the greatest amount of liberty and happiness to the largest amount of people, and capitalism to me now seems like an aristocratic system that sucks freedom and happiness from the general population and gives privileges to small numbers of oligarchs who's claim to those privileges is either they were born to them or they were good at screwing people over to get to their position. And I don't naturally hate federal power because I see federal power as a representative government the general population got to vote for, so if there is any issue with the federal government it's the fault of the people for voting stupidly, whereas capitalist oligarchy is the fault of the oligarchs for stealing and hoarding wealth.

(I've been stalking this thread lately. Now, my sense of time has always been flawed, but golly, the politic fest feels like it lived through a millennium - perpetually ongoing.)

Wouldn't being socially liberal and fiscally conservative be almost border-line anarchy? You are ultimately supporting less state control in both business and social issues. Though, while Libertarians do profess smaller government they tend to draw the line on things that have a direct negative effect on other people, so it's not like assault and battery is going to be made legal to shrink government, or relieve corporations from the guilt of hiring hitmen.

But it could still all the same be a sort of middle-point to outright anarchy if you wanted to fuck around with it, imo.

Extreme wise maybe so. But the two are not equal/the same thing. Yes, libertarians want to keep the court system. Though in anarchy pretty sure assaulting another would be punished regardless, just more than likely less humanely. :P

in anarchy the best assaulter would become the new government.

in anarchy the best assaulter would become the new government.

Thee who can be the Witnesser the most, becomes the power through so many having been witnessed.

Whether or not the Witnessing involved a bad-end for the witnessed through heavy-metal explosions, or a prompt rush of pride and power for being witnessed in a blessing light.

Anarchists are just broke Libertarians.

Ins't Stefan Molenyeux an Anarchist? (as well as being a nutty condescending cult leader)

@Dynamo Frokane No. Just no. :P

Googling him says he is anarcho-capitalist, which is anarchism for people who aren't quite sensible enough to form political opinions (like seriously, one of the points of a government is to define and protect property rights. Get rid of the legal system and all property rights revert to right of conquest). Most anarchists who call themselves anarchist tend to be either A: Edgy people who have a tattoo of a guy throwing a Molotov, or B: Revolutionary Marxists who reject Leninism.

man people talking about politics and economics really gets my blood boiling i tell you what

grrrrr

@SleepingSilence Are you a fan of his?

@Dynamo Frokane I assume you mean Stefan Molyneux? Not really, I haven't really looked at a lot of his things. He isn't the greatest at getting his point across on his videos I have seen.

@Ebonsquire
I know how you feel.

Everyone is making super complicated sociopolitical arguments and im just here like

_{donald trump has some legit points}

@Vilageidiotx

@Dynamo Frokane I assume you mean Stefan Molyneux? Not really, I haven't really looked at a lot of his things. He isn't the greatest at getting his point across on his videos I have seen.

hes also a cult leader, damnit LOOK AT HIS EYES, THERE IS NO SOUL BEHIND THEM

@Dynamo Frokane Strawman argument the video much? xP

Also pretty sure posting something to a similar effect would've gotten me bitched out by like at least one person already. :P

@Dynamo Frokane Strawman argument the video much? xP

Also pretty sure posting something to a similar effect would've gotten me bitched out by like at least one person already. :P

I haven't even watched the video so I can't form an opinion on it. I'll read his articles or blog or whatever, or at least skim it to get the gist of what he's about, but watching his youtube videos would pollute my recommended list with him and fucks like him, and that... that just gets me down, man.

@Vilageidiotx It's just taking an exaggeration taken out of context and presenting it as whole truth. Stefan often exaggerates (even in the few videos I've seen, he does it a lot). The problem I have with this video is, are people genuinely that fucking stupid to believe he is a cultist? Or is it trolling presenting itself as fact? And is either one, a better thing?

Oh please, even if you don't click on him, you will be flooded with a bunch of dipshits you don't like and will never watch. But that's just the youtube mission statement. :P

Oh please, even if you don't click on him, you will be flooded with a bunch of dipshits you don't like and will never watch. But that's just the youtube mission statement. :P

A little maybe, but generally speaking I don't get bombarded with too much BS in my recommended list, and I don't want to fuck it up. Same reason why I basically never watch youtube videos that get posted if I don't have an interest in the content. I don't want to wake up, drowsily click the wrong video, and accidentally give views to some trust fund wingnut whining that he can't sit on homeless people or whatever.