It is difficult. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. Enjoy your day.

I appreciate you engaging—genuinely. What you're describing sounds like a Rothbardian vision in different language: individual sovereignty, voluntary small communities, direct trade, mesh networking, Bitcoin, self-sufficiency, rejection of state authority over the individual. That sounds like libertarian anarchism. Are you worried it's necessarily secular? What am I misunderstanding?

I'm legitimately curious, given your assertions. Do you have an alternative? Is the prevailing social-political order to your liking, or is it just as absurd to you as libertarianism?

I'm not ignoring anything - present a viable alternative to libertardianism and perhaps there'd be something to go on.

Should we relate to each other politically with the same agression you display in your responses? What group gets to coerce other groups—especially given your own point that humans are fundamentally screwed up?

Hey now, I worked really hard on that!

You asked what was retarded about it - I simply showed you that in about three seconds you could have answered that question from your intellectual opponent's perspective. Then you either could understand any weaknesses in your own view or, conversely, bolster it and have better rebuttals than calling people gay jungle peckerhead cunts or whatever.

But the most important thing is: don't let it get under your skin.

Devastating critique! Lol

1. Category error masquerading as insight. Libertarianism is a normative framework—it describes what constitutes just action (non-aggression) and unjust action (initiation of force). It is not a behavioral prediction that humans will perfectly follow it. Saying "people are emotional so they won't follow libertarian principles" is like saying "people lie so honesty is unrealistic." That may be descriptively true; it doesn't make dishonesty just. The critic is conflating "what is" with "what ought to be."

2. The argument boomerangs on the critic. If humans are irrational, self-interested, and prone to compromising principles when inconvenienced—then the absolute worst arrangement is to vest a monopoly on coercive force in a small group of those same flawed humans and call it "the state." This is the core Rothbardian insight: precisely because people are self-seeking, concentrating power in a state apparatus guarantees predation. The critic's premises lead to the opposite of his conclusion. He's essentially arguing: "Humans are dangerous, so give the most dangerous humans all the guns."

3. "Will to Power" supports decentralization, not statism. If people seek power and compromise principles, then the system most resistant to predation is one that diffuses power maximally—no centralized coercive monopoly, competing institutions, voluntary exchange. Rothbard didn't assume humans would become angels; he assumed they'd remain what they are and designed institutions accordingly. The critic seems to think libertarianism requires moral perfection when it actually requires the opposite: it acknowledges human selfishness and builds around it.

4. Dude charges libertarians with expecting unrealistically consistent human behavior, but he offers no alternative that fares better (at least in this clip). Democracy? Constitutional limits? Both rely on the same flawed humans obeying abstract rules (ballots, constitutions) that are equally subject to compromise when inconvenient—and historically, those compromises have been catastrophic. At least under libertarianism, the self-interested actor must persuade rather than coerce. Market mechanisms harness self-interest productively; political mechanisms weaponize it.

5. Markets prove the thesis wrong daily. The critic claims people won't follow rational voluntary principles when inconvenient. Yet billions of daily transactions occur without coercion—people show up to work, honor contracts, refund customers—not because they're saints but because incentives align. Libertarianism doesn't require people to act against self-interest; it requires institutional structures that make cooperation more profitable than predation. That's not a Nirvana assumption; it's an empirical observation about how voluntary systems actually function.

Dude has identified that humans aren't perfectly rational or principled—which is true—and then bizarrely concludes...What? That it validates handing immense power to a subset of those same irrational, unprincipled humans? Rothbard's entire project was to take human nature as it is and ask: given that people are self-interested, what institutional arrangement minimizes the damage? The answer is the one that denies anyone a coercive monopoly. I'd like to know the guy's suggestion - he demands libertarians produce a society of angels while ignoring that his *implicit* alternative (state governance) faces the exact same human material and performs demonstrably worse.

Get a load of Bailey McOutterson talking about financial recklessness.

Asshat!

There were some who thought they were serious at first until someone pointed out that if deficits don't matter, then we don't need to pay taxes so the mmtards said shit! No! We still want to enslave people we don't like with taxes.

True story.

Hell, he's had lots of practice stateside. Wanker ass wanker.

JMP chat... $4.99/mo

#GrapheneOS could slap my granny and I'd let them get away with it.

Can't be the first one to make this joke, but more like "Bored of Peace", amirite?