Bears 2, libertarians 0

[Hamish Howl]

The Town That Went Feral

When a group of libertarians set about scrapping their local government, chaos descended. And then the bears moved in.

newrepublic.com

There's actually a reason for society. It keeps the bears away.

 

[Mr Person]

The Town That Went Feral

When a group of libertarians set about scrapping their local government, chaos descended. And then the bears moved in.

newrepublic.com

There's actually a reason for society. It keeps the bears away.

Big-L Libertarianism is as much of a moronic and naive pipe dream as communism or anarchy.

Government is inescapable for the simple reason that when you have >1 humans, someone will take control. Someone in control is government. It can be one, it can be many, but it's a someone or group of someones. Get rid of all formal current government and you get warlords, whether they be Somolia-style or Corporate-mercenary-style. Or bears. I suppose you could get bears.



Hell, just look at the Libertarian platform. Jo J. One plank is that taxation should be voluntary because we should be free to do what we want with our money. lol. That's just about the instant collapse of the U.S., as nobody is lending to a country with voluntary taxation scheme. Poof goes the federal government, poof goes the nation. On and on.

Partial libertarians are fine. They want the government off their ass on stuff like drugs, sex, and who you can marry. Me too. But the Big-L ones are virtually indistinguishable from anarchists or communists, the other two 'systems' that propose no government.

 

[beefheart]

Libertarians think they can create their utopia. About all they can do is put blankets over card tables and pretend they have a fort.

 

[bongsaway]

The Town That Went Feral

When a group of libertarians set about scrapping their local government, chaos descended. And then the bears moved in.

newrepublic.com

There's actually a reason for society. It keeps the bears away.

Interesting article. It's what happens when people don't want to pay taxes, the bears take over. As america's infrastructure ages the gop talks about more tax cuts. It never ceases to amaze me how those on the right wave their flags and claim how patriotic they are and how much they love america while at the same time trying to pay into the common good as little as possible and complaining the whole time about they pay too much.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Interesting article. It's what happens when people don't want to pay taxes, the bears take over. As america's infrastructure ages the gop talks about more tax cuts. It never ceases to amaze me how those on the right wave their flags and claim how patriotic they are and how much they love america while at the same time trying to pay into the common good as little as possible and complaining the whole time about they pay too much.

It's a function of people not understanding that it's cheaper and easier to do things as a group.

That was a town full of malfunctioning primates, and they wound up with malfunctioning bears.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Big-L Libertarianism is as much of a moronic and naive pipe dream as communism or anarchy.

Government is inescapable for the simple reason that when you have >1 humans, someone will take control. Someone in control is government. It can be one, it can be many, but it's a someone or group of someones. Get rid of all formal current government and you get warlords, whether they be Somolia-style or Corporate-mercenary-style. Or bears. I suppose you could get bears.



Hell, just look at the Libertarian platform. Jo J. One plank is that taxation should be voluntary because we should be free to do what we want with our money. lol. That's just about the instant collapse of the U.S., as nobody is lending to a country with voluntary taxation scheme. Poof goes the federal government, poof goes the nation. On and on.

Partial libertarians are fine. They want the government off their ass on stuff like drugs, sex, and who you can marry. Me too. But the Big-L ones are virtually indistinguishable from anarchists or communists, the other two 'systems' that propose no government.

More to the point, the entire secret of our success has been cooperative efforts.

 

[Mr Person]

More to the point, the entire secret of our success has been cooperative efforts.

I'd say that's the other end of the stick, other side of the coin. Yes, that too.

Free for all never ends in what the people who propose it insist.

 

[Ikari]

Big-L Libertarianism is as much of a moronic and naive pipe dream as communism or anarchy.

Government is inescapable for the simple reason that when you have >1 humans, someone will take control. Someone in control is government. It can be one, it can be many, but it's a someone or group of someones. Get rid of all formal current government and you get warlords, whether they be Somolia-style or Corporate-mercenary-style. Or bears. I suppose you could get bears.



Hell, just look at the Libertarian platform. Jo J. One plank is that taxation should be voluntary because we should be free to do what we want with our money. lol. That's just about the instant collapse of the U.S., as nobody is lending to a country with voluntary taxation scheme. Poof goes the federal government, poof goes the nation. On and on.

Partial libertarians are fine. They want the government off their ass on stuff like drugs, sex, and who you can marry. Me too. But the Big-L ones are virtually indistinguishable from anarchists or communists, the other two 'systems' that propose no government.

Libertarianism doesn't advocate no government. There are certain branches of libertarian philosophy that may, but it's not iconic of the overall philosophy. Libertarian political philosophy tends to root its arguments into the rights and liberties of the individual. Often it will call for the limitation of government force, but not always the abolition of all force. As for the platform regarding taxes, perhaps they should be voluntary, but they cannot be. It is a government force to collect taxes as many wouldn't voluntarily give their dollars to the government. But it's necessary, it's in fact one of the main reasons the Articles of Confederation didn't work out, iirc. So we have that government force, we need it to maintain a government and society. But we also need to limit the government force and keep their powers of taxation and taxation rates in check.

 

[Mr Person]

Libertarianism doesn't advocate no government. There are certain branches of libertarian philosophy that may, but it's not iconic of the overall philosophy. Libertarian political philosophy tends to root its arguments into the rights and liberties of the individual. Often it will call for the limitation of government force, but not always the abolition of all force. As for the platform regarding taxes, perhaps they should be voluntary, but they cannot be. It is a government force to collect taxes as many wouldn't voluntarily give their dollars to the government. But it's necessary, it's in fact one of the main reasons the Articles of Confederation didn't work out, iirc. So we have that government force, we need it to maintain a government and society. But we also need to limit the government force and keep their powers of taxation and taxation rates in check.

And yet, when I speak to the kind of person I mean by "B-L Libertarian", I never seem to get any recognition that any particular law, regulation, agency, or function is something that the federal government should be doing. When pressed, I end up being told that it should be handled locally with "limited government", etc.

In fact, the direct result of their tax platform would alone destroy the ability to have a national government. Unless this is a faked site, this is the Libertarian's tax platform:

When you pay taxes, do you do so voluntarily? Or do you do so because you are forced to do so? If you don’t pay your taxes, what will happen? Will you be fined further? Harassed by the IRS or other government entities? Jailed? The Libertarian Party is fundamentally opposed to the use of force to coerce people into doing anything. We think it is inherently wrong and should have no role in a civilized society. Thus we think that government forcing people to pay taxes is inherently wrong. Libertarians advocate for voluntary exchange, where people are free to make their own choices about what to do with their lives, their time, their bodies, their livelihood, and their dollars. If Americans want to give money to the government for one reason or another, they should be free to do so. If Americans prefer to spend their money on other things, then they should be free to do that also.

Taxes | Libertarian Party

When you pay taxes, do you do so voluntarily? Or do you do so because you are forced to do so? If you don’t pay your taxes, what will happen? Will you be fined further? Harassed by the IRS or other government entities? Jailed? The Libertarian Party is fundamentally opposed to the use of force […]

www.lp.org

Think about those last few sentences.

Voluntary taxation only. Immediately, all creditors would cut off the federal government. Nobody is going to loan money to a government that relies on donations. Sure, it's couched in wishy-washy feel-good statements about freedoms - you should be able to do what you want with your money! Nobody should tell you what to do with it! - but the direct pragmatic result would be catastrophic.

What happens with a suddenly insolvent federal government that cannot back its currency? Poof goes that government. Splat goes economic activity, reduced to bartering.
It is no exaggeration to say that putting that just that one Libertarian Party policy position into law would destroy the United States of America.

I'm glad you see that, but can I really consider voting for someone who is going to run on a platform like that? Hell no. That shows an extreme lack of judgment.




I actually used to think more highly of the libertarian party, but one of these threads to me digging and I actually paged through most of their current platform. It's bonkers. Everything is couched in nobody should tell you what to do language. It sounds nice if we assume the best of humanity, but the end result of adding it all up would be anarchy. And it wouldn't be some anarchy in which everybody is working together to solve problems and enjoy their freedoms. Someone always steps into a power vacuum, especially in the chaos that would ensue the moment that tax policy (or non-tax policy, I should say) became law.

It probably wouldn't go quite like the lawless parts of Somolia/Ethiopia everywhere - straight-up warlords - but it actually might in some areas, and elsewhere you would likely see corporations stepping into the role of government. Anyone who could amass goods and weapons. Human nature is such that this kind of vision is simply impossible, no better than communism (government collapsing and ownership of means of production reverting to workers), or anarchism.

There are certainly some principles of libertarianism I like the sound of. But all in all....nope...just not realistic.

 

[Ikari]

And yet, when I speak to the kind of person I mean by "B-L Libertarian", I never seem to get any recognition that any particular law, regulation, agency, or function is something that the federal government should be doing. When pressed, I end up being told that it should be handled locally with "limited government", etc.

In fact, the direct result of their tax platform would alone destroy the ability to have a national government. Unless this is a faked site, this is the Libertarian's tax platform:

When you pay taxes, do you do so voluntarily? Or do you do so because you are forced to do so? If you don’t pay your taxes, what will happen? Will you be fined further? Harassed by the IRS or other government entities? Jailed? The Libertarian Party is fundamentally opposed to the use of force to coerce people into doing anything. We think it is inherently wrong and should have no role in a civilized society. Thus we think that government forcing people to pay taxes is inherently wrong. Libertarians advocate for voluntary exchange, where people are free to make their own choices about what to do with their lives, their time, their bodies, their livelihood, and their dollars. If Americans want to give money to the government for one reason or another, they should be free to do so. If Americans prefer to spend their money on other things, then they should be free to do that also.

Taxes | Libertarian Party

When you pay taxes, do you do so voluntarily? Or do you do so because you are forced to do so? If you don’t pay your taxes, what will happen? Will you be fined further? Harassed by the IRS or other government entities? Jailed? The Libertarian Party is fundamentally opposed to the use of force […]

www.lp.org

Think about those last few sentences.

Voluntary taxation only. Immediately, all creditors would cut off the federal government. Nobody is going to loan money to a government that relies on donations. Sure, it's couched in wishy-washy feel-good statements about freedoms - you should be able to do what you want with your money! Nobody should tell you what to do with it! - but the direct pragmatic result would be catastrophic.

What happens with a suddenly insolvent federal government that cannot back its currency? Poof goes that government. Splat goes economic activity, reduced to bartering.
It is no exaggeration to say that putting that just that one Libertarian Party policy position into law would destroy the United States of America.

I'm glad you see that, but can I really consider voting for someone who is going to run on a platform like that? Hell no. That shows an extreme lack of judgment.




I actually used to think more highly of the libertarian party, but one of these threads to me digging and I actually paged through most of their current platform. It's bonkers. Everything is couched in nobody should tell you what to do language. It sounds nice if we assume the best of humanity, but the end result of adding it all up would be anarchy. And it wouldn't be some anarchy in which everybody is working together to solve problems and enjoy their freedoms. Someone always steps into a power vacuum, especially in the chaos that would ensue the moment that tax policy (or non-tax policy, I should say) became law.

It probably wouldn't go quite like the lawless parts of Somolia/Ethiopia everywhere - straight-up warlords - but it actually might in some areas, and elsewhere you would likely see corporations stepping into the role of government. Anyone who could amass goods and weapons. Human nature is such that this kind of vision is simply impossible, no better than communism (government collapsing and ownership of means of production reverting to workers), or anarchism.

There are certainly some principles of libertarianism I like the sound of. But all in all....nope...just not realistic.

Well some are unfeasible for sure. But the third parties always start out as more fringe groups, if they can get the funding and grow in popularity, they'd start to bring in a little more moderation. But also the government is, or should, be built on compromise. So sometimes you throw out ideals you know won't get past, but can pull the system a bit closer in the direction you're looking to pull it.

If a libertarian won, would taxation go away? No. But we might get some better restrictions on government taxation and a better tax system overall. I support the Libertarian Party because it's the closest to my personal philosophy. There is a lot the government does that it should do, a lot of force it exercises which it shouldn't be allowed to, and a lot of power grabbed that was never meant for them. And the Republocrats aren't going to pull in Government Responsibility & Accountability, so I need a party that will. As I see responsibility and accountability as key to a properly functioning government.

And we already have the Corporate State where Corporations influence and guide legislation and oversight, so I suppose that wouldn't change much if a libertarian happened to get in.

 

[Mr Person]

Well some are unfeasible for sure. But the third parties always start out as more fringe groups, if they can get the funding and grow in popularity, they'd start to bring in a little more moderation. But also the government is, or should, be built on compromise. So sometimes you throw out ideals you know won't get past, but can pull the system a bit closer in the direction you're looking to pull it.

If a libertarian won, would taxation go away? No. But we might get some better restrictions on government taxation and a better tax system overall. I support the Libertarian Party because it's the closest to my personal philosophy. There is a lot the government does that it should do, a lot of force it exercises which it shouldn't be allowed to, and a lot of power grabbed that was never meant for them. And the Republocrats aren't going to pull in Government Responsibility & Accountability, so I need a party that will. As I see responsibility and accountability as key to a properly functioning government.

And we already have the Corporate State where Corporations influence and guide legislation and oversight, so I suppose that wouldn't change much if a libertarian happened to get in.

That platform simply goes way too far for me. I don't think I could trust the judgment of politicians who run on a platform like that. And more generally, I don't think the kind of society envisioned by it could ever exist. Not among homo sapien, at least. If we're going to have one nation called the USA, we need a lot more governmental structure than a platform like that envisions. Way more, in fact.

I was willing to say "well, he probably won't get most of his agenda passed" about Bernie were he to have won the nomination, and I'd have voted for him. But then, his platform is not nearly as far from where I'm sitting as the Libertarian Party.

There are certainly a number of things I could go along with. Ending all the fossil fuel subsidies. Ending the War on Drugs. Getting government out of telling people who can marry whom and the like. But...yeah... their platform seems completely unrealistic to me. It's written as if the question is: do we want a government telling us what to do, or do we want to decide for ourselves? The reality is that someone is going to be telling us what to do (unless of course we successfully set out to be the people telling others what to do).

ie, massively scale back government regulation of the environment, and who is going to decide what happens with the environment? Corporations and landowners. I don't want, for example, corporations to be deciding how much toxic runoff they can dump in retention ponds or the like.

 

[MrPeanut]

That's not how this is supposed to work. Didn't they explain the non-aggression principle to the bears?

 

[Ikari]

That platform simply goes way too far for me. I don't think I could trust the judgment of politicians who run on a platform like that. And more generally, I don't think the kind of society envisioned by it could ever exist. Not among homo sapien, at least. If we're going to have one nation called the USA, we need a lot more governmental structure than a platform like that envisions. Way more, in fact.

I was willing to say "well, he probably won't get most of his agenda passed" about Bernie were he to have won the nomination, and I'd have voted for him. But then, his platform is not nearly as far from where I'm sitting as the Libertarian Party.

There are certainly a number of things I could go along with. Ending all the fossil fuel subsidies. Ending the War on Drugs. Getting government out of telling people who can marry whom and the like. But...yeah... their platform seems completely unrealistic to me.

Possibly so, I don't agree with everything the LP stands for, but I am in favor of their general shift in government that they seek. You do need government, and if you have government it must be funded. But it's gotten too big and too intrusive under the care of the Republocrats. So I need a force that's going to pull it in, and that's only going to be an outside force; the oligarchy is not going to suddenly change course. So I end up supporting Libertarian candidates because a more responsible and accountable government is what I seek, the emphasis on the rights and liberties of the individual is what I seek.

And the power of the third parties isn't even in their winning, they don't have to win to have an effect. They just have to pull enough votes disproportionally from one of the Main Parties to cause that party to lose more often and then that main party will have to shift their platform to recapture lost votes. But third parties are the only lever we really have on the system. And the only way to actuate that lever is to vote for the third parties. So I do. I want a more reasonable, more rational, more responsible government and I cannot get that through support of the Republocrat Oligarchy. Ergo, I am left with the only option of voting 3rd party.

 

[Luce]

Well some are unfeasible for sure. But the third parties always start out as more fringe groups, if they can get the funding and grow in popularity, they'd start to bring in a little more moderation. But also the government is, or should, be built on compromise. So sometimes you throw out ideals you know won't get past, but can pull the system a bit closer in the direction you're looking to pull it.

If a libertarian won, would taxation go away? No. But we might get some better restrictions on government taxation and a better tax system overall. I support the Libertarian Party because it's the closest to my personal philosophy. There is a lot the government does that it should do, a lot of force it exercises which it shouldn't be allowed to, and a lot of power grabbed that was never meant for them. And the Republocrats aren't going to pull in Government Responsibility & Accountability, so I need a party that will. As I see responsibility and accountability as key to a properly functioning government.

And we already have the Corporate State where Corporations influence and guide legislation and oversight, so I suppose that wouldn't change much if a libertarian happened to get in.

Libertarians need to spend a bit of time developing down ticket if they want to be taken seriously. And they'll need to be taken seriously, because I'm not sure I see the GOP coming back from this mess.

 

[Luce]

Possibly so, I don't agree with everything the LP stands for, but I am in favor of their general shift in government that they seek. You do need government, and if you have government it must be funded. But it's gotten too big and too intrusive under the care of the Republocrats. So I need a force that's going to pull it in, and that's only going to be an outside force; the oligarchy is not going to suddenly change course. So I end up supporting Libertarian candidates because a more responsible and accountable government is what I seek, the emphasis on the rights and liberties of the individual is what I seek.

And the power of the third parties isn't even in their winning, they don't have to win to have an effect. They just have to pull enough votes disproportionally from one of the Main Parties to cause that party to lose more often and then that main party will have to shift their platform to recapture lost votes. But third parties are the only lever we really have on the system. And the only way to actuate that lever is to vote for the third parties. So I do. I want a more reasonable, more rational, more responsible government and I cannot get that through support of the Republocrat Oligarchy. Ergo, I am left with the only option of voting 3rd party.

It's not even the taxation thing with the LP. I am unsure what was going through Jorgenson's head when she told an interviewer that she wanted to abolish the minimum wage.

 

[Ikari]

Libertarians need to spend a bit of time developing down ticket if they want to be taken seriously. And they'll need to be taken seriously, because I'm not sure I see the GOP coming back from this mess.

Yeah, people always say that. And surely libertarians run on all levels of government. But the system is contrived to prevent 3rd party competition, it's a bit of a Catch 22.

The GOP will come back from this mess because enough people have bought into the faux-dichotomy and only vote R or D. So R and D sit on a teeter-totter, the D's will get in charge for some amount of time, but surely will piss people off and they'll turn to the R's and the R's will get back in power. And then surely after some time, they'll piss people off and they'll turn to the D's and the D's will get back in power. And back and forth they go, and nothing really gets done except that government is grown under both.

The only way to influence the teeter-totter is the application of outside force, and the only outside force we have are third parties.

 

[Ikari]

It's not even the taxation thing with the LP. I am unsure what was going through Jorgenson's head when she told an interviewer that she wanted to abolish the minimum wage.

That's not even exactly out there, as Republicans have proposed the same thing from time to time. Supposedly built upon market forces and pay scale. But it overlooks dynamics that play into corporations due to the Corporate State and likely wouldn't result in the betterment of the system.

 

[Luce]

Yeah, people always say that. And surely libertarians run on all levels of government. But the system is contrived to prevent 3rd party competition, it's a bit of a Catch 22.

The GOP will come back from this mess because enough people have bought into the faux-dichotomy and only vote R or D. So R and D sit on a teeter-totter, the D's will get in charge for some amount of time, but surely will piss people off and they'll turn to the R's and the R's will get back in power. And then surely after some time, they'll piss people off and they'll turn to the D's and the D's will get back in power. And back and forth they go, and nothing really gets done except that government is grown under both.

The only way to influence the teeter-totter is the application of outside force, and the only outside force we have are third parties.

The system mathematically guarantees that we will only ever have two parties worth mentioning.

Every time a new party becomes major, another one had to have croaked (so long, Federalists and Whigs). The GOP is croaking, and we need a conservative party. It's either you or the "constitutionalist" party which more or less wants women in burkas.

I'd prefer the libertarian party, so it would be nice if they would get serious in the midterms instead of the doomed gesture every 4 years.

 

[Ikari]

The system mathematically guarantees that we will only ever have two parties worth mentioning.

Every time a new party becomes major, another one had to have croaked (so long, Federalists and Whigs). The GOP is croaking, and we need a conservative party. It's either you or the "constitutionalist" party which more or less wants women in burkas.

I'd prefer the libertarian party, so it would be nice if they would get serious in the midterms instead of the doomed gesture every 4 years.

That may be true, but it doesn't mean that there's no place for 3rd parties. And if 3rd parties were allowed to participate equally, I think that while we'd still have 2 main parties, we'd have a much healthier 3rd party system and thus more control over the main parties.

 

[Luce]

That may be true, but it doesn't mean that there's no place for 3rd parties. And if 3rd parties were allowed to participate equally, I think that while we'd still have 2 main parties, we'd have a much healthier 3rd party system and thus more control over the main parties.

Duverger's Law is a thing. First past the post systems get 1-2 parties, and parliamentary systems wind up with so many parties that your government collapses over a taxi strike.

 

[Ikari]

Sure, but can't get anywhere if I don't vote libertarian to start with. So I'll have to vote libertarian for now.

 

[Mr Person]

Possibly so, I don't agree with everything the LP stands for, but I am in favor of their general shift in government that they seek. You do need government, and if you have government it must be funded. But it's gotten too big and too intrusive under the care of the Republocrats. So I need a force that's going to pull it in, and that's only going to be an outside force; the oligarchy is not going to suddenly change course. So I end up supporting Libertarian candidates because a more responsible and accountable government is what I seek, the emphasis on the rights and liberties of the individual is what I seek.

And the power of the third parties isn't even in their winning, they don't have to win to have an effect. They just have to pull enough votes disproportionally from one of the Main Parties to cause that party to lose more often and then that main party will have to shift their platform to recapture lost votes. But third parties are the only lever we really have on the system. And the only way to actuate that lever is to vote for the third parties. So I do. I want a more reasonable, more rational, more responsible government and I cannot get that through support of the Republocrat Oligarchy. Ergo, I am left with the only option of voting 3rd party.

I'll briefly repeat something I said previously: I think you'll see the most effect is if parties like LP focus mainly on expanding reach in states and relatedly, sending people to congress. Until they have a larger presence, I just don't see them moving the policy needle when they're getting a few percent of the vote in the presidential election.

The biggest effect might be to Nader an election. Did either the GOP or Democrats change their policy in light of Nader's impact? I don't recall that. I do recall a general sentiment of "**** those people" lingering for a while. Hell, I remember having to beak up a near-fight when Bush won in 2000 between two friends. One had voted Nader, the other, disliking Gore, still voted Gore.

Now, maybe that last bit is not a reason not to vote third party. But the absence of effect on the GOP/Dems party platform undermines the effect argument. I think you need to get enough of a voting bloc in congress that people have to negotiate with you if they want to get something. Then you'll move the needle. And of course, an awful lot of what goes on in our lives is decided stateside and locally. Another good thing to focus on. If I was leading the party, I'd probably say "don't bother with the presidency, folks, let's focus our spending/efforts on these other areas".

 

[Glitch]

The Town That Went Feral

When a group of libertarians set about scrapping their local government, chaos descended. And then the bears moved in.

newrepublic.com

There's actually a reason for society. It keeps the bears away.

Judging from the article, the residents of Grafton, New Hampshire, are complete idiots who know nothing about bears.

First and foremost, despite the opening explanation of the article, there are no grizzly/brown bears within 2,000 miles of New Hampshire. They are all black bears. While black bears can get as big as ~500 pounds, the vast majority weigh less than 300 pounds. Unlike grizzlies/brown bears who are very near-sighted, black bears have very good eyesight. Both types of bears are very intelligent (at least dog level intelligence), very curious, with an excellent sense of smell.

You need to be aggressive with black bears if you wish to alter their behavior. That means running towards them, shouting angrily, making yourself look as menacing as possible. That does not mean attacking, or throwing things at the bear. You should never have any kind of physical contact with any bear. It simply means to come across as aggressively as possible towards the bear. While being aggressive you also have to leave the bear a way out, otherwise it may just attack in self-defense seeing no other option.

The residents of Grafton, New Hampshire, are idiots for allowing black bears to take over their town. It has absolutely nothing to do with their political ideology, and everything to do with their complete lack of understanding with regard to black bears.

I've lived with grizzly/brown and black bears for 30 years, with hundreds of encounters, but never any problems. This past Summer was particularly interesting with regard to bears. Because the 2+ million tourists did not show up in Alaska due to COVID-19, the bears have been much bolder and more visible.

While there are certainly aggressive bears, most bears are not. Most of my grizzly/brown bear encounters have been while fishing for salmon. They wait at the edge of the forest until you catch your first salmon. They watch where you place the salmon, and when you go back to catch another they try to be sneaky and steal the salmon you just caught.

When a 10 foot long, 1,000+ pound brown bear tries to be sneaky it is difficult not to notice. All it usually takes is talking to bear to let them know they have been busted. Like a dog trying to sneak into a room they know they are not suppose to be in. At most, if they are being persistent, I might toss a ladyfinger firecracker in their general direction. They are not being aggressive, they are just looking for a free lunch. They just run off into the woods when busted.

 

[Glitch]

Libertarianism doesn't advocate no government.

Actually, the official Libertarian Party Platform does advocate no government, specifically.

The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

Platform | Libertarian Party

As adopted by convention, May 2022, Sparks, Nevada. Download PDF

www.lp.org

Libertarians are essentially just closet anarchists.

 

[Cameron]

Actually, the official Libertarian Party Platform does advocate no government, specifically.

Platform | Libertarian Party

As adopted by convention, May 2022, Sparks, Nevada. Download PDF

www.lp.org

Libertarians are essentially just closet anarchists.

Exactly what I was going to post. They are like intellectual, bookish anarchists rather than Molotov cocktail throwing anarchists.