So... how libertarian are you... really? Libertarian Purity Test! ***

[JCDenton0451]

But thats all besides the point. Your a troll plain and simple. Anyone you disagree with you label a zionist and a neocon and call them fake libertarians. I urge you to become less single issued and to cease your annoying demeanor at once.

Dude, you're the only actual Zionist on this forum that I know of. compromise is frendly to Israel somewhat, but that's mostly due to ignorance I assume. Still, even he admits Israel has been guilty of atrocities.

 

[Sentient Void]

Zionism is not a "card", it's the name of Jewish nationalist movement. How do you reconcile individualism in libertarinism and tribalism in Zionism? The Zionists don't see people as individuals, they see people as groups, and in their view the Jewish group is superior and collectively entitled to a State and a piece of land in the Middle East, because the Jewish Bible says so or whatever.

Do you think the State has should promote specific religion, discriminate based on ethnicity because this is what the concept of the "Jewish State" is all about? Do you think that property rights of the non-Jews should be disrespected, because this is what the Israeli government does in Palestine.

Frankly, I don't see a way to reconcile Zionism and libertarianism. Just like Communism and Nazism, it is an entirely complety different philosophy and worldview, on the opposite side of the political spectrum.

I don't know enough about 'Zionism' to have a serious opinion on it, but *basing my opinion on the information you've provided*, assuming it is entirely correct and true, then I would say 'Zionism' would not be compatible with libertarianism.

That being said, Palestine was a Nation State as well, correct? So a lot would also depend on the history of who was there first, the violence / wars / conquering that occurred over the history there, and other factors. It might very well be that 'Zionism' as you described it, while it may still be unlibertarian in a vacuum, may be more libertarian than the alternative of a Palestinian state. I have not really considered this point, and again do not know enough to solidly say this is the case, because I don't know enough about 'Zionism' nor the history of that area and its people over the last however many thousands of years.

What I'm thinking about is a situation where if a thief steals something from someone, then another thief comes around and takes that something from the thief that was stolen from its rightful owner, it is better and 'more just' (rather than completely just) to be in the hands of the new thief than the original thief (Rothbard talked about this iirc in Ethics of Liberty, a very interesting and useful point), since the thief's property claim is completely unjust.

The most just situation would of course be to get the stolen thing back in the hands of the original owner, of course.

 

[JCDenton0451]

I'm not interested in dabbling in alternative history: who knows what would have happened if Palestine was not subjected to a Zionist colonisation. I prefer to deal with reality.

The reality is that local Arabs have lived in Palestine for a thousand years and they had private property. As late as 1947 The Arabs owned most of the land in what later became the State of Israel. Then in the yearly 20th century European settlers came along. They set up their own separate political institutions that excluded the locals, and armed forces. The Zionists used these armed force to drive the local non-Jewish people off their land. Hundreds of Arab villages were left empty after the war of 1947-1948, because Arab civilians fled from fighting and violence caused by Zionist terrorist groups like Irgun. The Israeli government did NOT allow them to return to their homes. Instead it demolished their houses and re-distributed the land among the ethnic Jews.

State of Israel was founded on massive theft and gross injustice. Those continue to this day. You should read about the "Settler movement" in Israel, it will make you sick.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Ayn Rand invented her own brach of philosophy: objectivism. I suggest we call her that. Someone who says we have a moral duty to support the Israeli government, someone who calls the Arabs savages sould never be associated with the libertarian movement. Ayn Rand is a huge embarrasment for all of us. She may have been good on economic issues, but on foreign policy Ayn Rand was a total neocon.

Wait, are libertarians now not allowed to exercise freedom of speech? Calling Arabs savages is morally absurd but not necessarily unlibertarian unless you advocate violence against them.

Regarding Israel, I really don't care about them beyond separating them from US support

 

[Sentient Void]

The issue is though, apart from her racism and bigotry (which I agree is not necessarily unlibertarian as it is a free association issue), she did advocate for and support the wars against them, because they are 'savages', 'not unlike animals'. She wanted us to be there.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I agree that she's not a libertarian.

 

[NationalAnarchist]

148. Figured I would be damn close to perfect.

 

[gwax23]

Dude, you're the only actual Zionist on this forum that I know of. compromise is frendly to Israel somewhat, but that's mostly due to ignorance I assume. Still, even he admits Israel has been guilty of atrocities.

A lot of people silently agree with me it seems. Compromise is indeed the most vocal about it.

I just signed back online and of all the reps I got from my last post the only negative one was from you.....

Anyway Zionism isnt an all encompassing ideology like Communism or Fascism or even Libertarianism. All it means it the jewish people should have a state of there own, just like theres a state for Italians, French, Spaniards, Russians etc. Saying thats incompatible with libertarianism (and not being an anarchist, thats a separate issue against all states) is like saying any nation state professing libertarian ideologies is contradictory.

Do I consider myself a Zionists? In the sense that I support Jewish nationhood and jewish cultural unity (Hebrew language, literature, music etc) yes....I dont support aid to israel of any form but I support its right to exist. I dont think this is an unlibertarian at all. This is Ron pauls position and the position of many libertarians. Many on this forum have this view. They dont care about Israel they just dont want money to go to them (Like any other country) but only a few (such are yourself) go out of your way on a regular basis to demonize and attack Israel. Or try to claim its the center of all the worlds misery and frustrations.

But Anyway I dont want to further feed the troll and get this thread off topic even more especially considering Ive already debunked point by point all the lies and untruths you constantly spew. I do invite you to continue this argument in a more appropriate thread, where I will again debunk your lies point by point until you end up disappearing like usual only to reappear in a random thread in order to bring up israel once more.

Back on topic, Ayn Rand it could be strongly argued to not be Libertarian. But milton friedman sure is and considered himself as such, as did others. You have to differentiate his middle ground, pragmatic and politically viable solutions from his ultimate ideals. He wanted to end the fed for instant but knew at the time it wasnt politically viable so he suggested alternative ways of running it. This is an important distinction to make when determining someones political standings.

 

[revned]

I got a 155.

I think I only said no to two of them. Immigration law being abolished and I can't remember what else, maybe the courts being abolished or something along those lines. Would have voted for it to be abolished had I known it was going to ask me about the state being abolished. Without the state, we do not have such a need for laws. Everything would work itself out better through voluntary agreement, and the people who would actually still want a state to help manage their lives would still have the right to do so voluntarily; the same can not be said about anarchists in a state-controlled system. Statism should be voluntary.

I personally believe that it is human nature to want to succeed and survive, and the best way to do so would be through voluntary cooperation and absolute freedom in economics, education, and property. I have come to the conclusion that ONLY through an absolute, natural, and totally free environment will we humans ever evolve, intellectually, into the great beings we could truly be. It all boils down to the fact that we can only truly learn morals through absolute freedom to learn, and that only comes through a free education that could only come about through a free market. It is a survivalists strategy to properly learn basic morals, and you can not properly learn something when someone else is hovering over you telling you what is right and what is wrong; it doesn't teach you anything but the fact that there will be someone above you to punish you if you do something wrong. You learn that the punishment is the bad result, not the possible consequence. A prime example of this is the speed limits on our roads. Your first thought about why you should not go faster than the speed limit is solely because of the fact that there could be an officer that will give you a ticket for speeding. This doesn't properly teach you the moral of not speeding because you could potentially hurt or kill someone. Only when you learn and live by the Golden Rule will you understand that your actions are your responsibility just as the actions of others are their responsibility. When you start applying how others actions could effect you and you begin to understand that your actions could just as easily effect others, this is where learning of morals takes place; and with government in the way telling us what is right and wrong we are distracted by how it only applies to us. "I don't drive fast because I could get a speeding ticket."

 

[NationalAnarchist]

Had my friends on FB do this only 1 got over 100! LMAO...weird my mother who got 28 actually voted libertarian party past 2 elections.

 

[Rocco]

He really is the worst poster on this forum and it isn't even close. I submit that a solid percentage of the increased animosity on this forum is a direct result of this one troll. The fact that he hasn't been banned is absolutely mind boggling to me.

But thats all besides the point. Your a troll plain and simple. Anyone you disagree with you label a zionist and a neocon and call them fake libertarians. I urge you to become less single issued and to cease your annoying demeanor at once.

 

[gwax23]

He really is the worst poster on this forum and it isn't even close. I submit that a solid percentage of the increased animosity on this forum is a direct result of this one troll. The fact that he hasn't been banned is absolutely mind boggling to me.

well said

 

[kcchiefs6465]

He really is the worst poster on this forum and it isn't even close. I submit that a solid percentage of the increased animosity on this forum is a direct result of this one troll. The fact that he hasn't been banned is absolutely mind boggling to me.

Gwax shows up to virtually every thread about Israel to defend their 'honor.' Many people see him for what he is, a nationalist. Someone calling out somebody for supposedly every one of their posts being about Israel, probably shouldn't have every one of their posts be about Israel.

In his defense though, Gwax has gotten better lately.

 

[Barrex]

Had my friends on FB do this only 1 got over 100! LMAO...weird my mother who got 28 actually voted libertarian party past 2 elections.

You are obviously bad influence.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

I got a 155.

I think I only said no to two of them. Immigration law being abolished and I can't remember what else, maybe the courts being abolished or something along those lines. Would have voted for it to be abolished had I known it was going to ask me about the state being abolished. Without the state, we do not have such a need for laws. Everything would work itself out better through voluntary agreement, and the people who would actually still want a state to help manage their lives would still have the right to do so voluntarily; the same can not be said about anarchists in a state-controlled system. Statism should be voluntary.

Statism cannot be (organized into a) voluntary (institution), it's a logical contradiction.

It's like advocating for 'voluntary murder'. If the killing were consensual it wouldn't be murder it would be 'assisted suicide'.

You can advocate for a voluntary governmental institutions that resemble the way states are currently organized, essentially supporting a voluntary monopolization of governmental services, but it's still not a state.

 

[bolil]

True libertarians don't take tests.

That makes me 100% pure, sieg heil, mein fuhrer.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Also, yeah that was a silly test with several really bad questions, though it seemed pretty tongue-in-cheek.

 

[TaftFan]

I got an 81%.

I voted no pretty much in the last section. I don't support some privatization to the extent it might become fascist. Like how private prisons have become.

 

[Murray N Rothbard]

I hate the lesser of two evils questions. School vouchers aren't much better at all.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

True libertarians don't take tests.

That makes me 100% pure, sieg heil, mein fuhrer.