Comments by "Seven Proxies" (@sevenproxies4255) on "The Thesis of Conservatism" video.

Libertarianism is incompatible with the concepts of duty, obligation ans honour. Libertatians only sit aroune bickering over their "choice" in every facet of their life. While every adult human being understands that for family, community and society to function, sometimes it is imperative that you accept obligation and duty, even if you didn't get to "choose" to do so. Like when a child is born, it comes with an unspoken obligation that the child grows up to pass along the family line. But a Libertarian is fine eith children growing up and CHOOSING to waste their lives on video gamesx porn or sexual preferences that makes procreation and childraising unlikely if not impossible. The libertarian will just sheepishly smile and say "Well, that's their choice".
6
@markzuckergecko621 Yeah you honestly don't care, and that's the problem. The libertarians utter lack of holding his fellow man to standards. That's why society goes down the toilet. Because you're too wimpy to use shaming and force where it is warranted.
2
@markzuckergecko621 Community will never form or "fill in the gaps" with the selfish libertarian mindset. Like you just proved. In the libertarian world, everyone is just looking out for number one, caring about nothing but themselves.
2
@akbarsdesign Government is downriver of culture. That's what you libertarians don't understand.
2
@akbarsdesign So culture does not exist if there is no government? 🤔 That's a pretty historically illiterate take.
2
@akbarsdesign Leftists got into the western world because the western world was too busy sucking the dick of libertarianism. Instead of condemning, forcing and actively opposing the left, you were all like "Oh but that's their freedom of opinion. We can't interfere with that because it wouldn't be libertarian!"
2
@Libertymancer I understand liberty perfectly. That's why i'm more authoritarian leaning.
2
@akbarsdesign The way I see it, libertarian government (besides being an oxymoron) would end up undermining conservative culture. Because conservative values do contain elements of duty and obligation that the individual doesn't choose, but which he or she simply have to shoulder regardless of personal preference. What the inividual "wants" to do will often be of secondary importance to what they HAVE TO do.
2
@markzuckergecko621 No, anarchists are more ideologically consistent, whereas libertarians are filled with hypocrisy. And as a result, anarchy is far more dysfunctional than libertarianism. But the only reason libertarianism is less dysfunctional than anarchy isn't because of it's liberal views, but the fact that it borrows elements from statism... Which libertarians also tend to scorn at the same time.
2
@markzuckergecko621 It's not strawman positions but positions I've seen for myself from other libertarians, who are more prolific and influential within the ideology than you are. If you've got some personal interpretation then that's on you. But your interpretation is not practically representative of Libertarianism as a whole.
2
@markzuckergecko621 Why should I adress what you're claiming that libertarian ideals are when you didn't create them nor are you particularly influential on their development? Hate to break it to you kid, but when you profess to be a member of an ideology, you're gonna be forced to answer for what it's figureheads claim that it is. You libertarians do so as well against your political opponents. I mean you damn sure don't let some rando in a youtube comment section set the standard for what Communism or Nationalsocialism "actually" mean. You invoke the ghosts of Old Adolf, Moussolini, Josef Stalin, Mao Zhedong, Che Guevara, Vladimir Lenin and the rest. THEY represent these ideology for you, not some pleb arguing with you on social media.
2
@markzuckergecko621 So I have even less of a reason to debate the issur with you? Could've clarified that earlier instead of wasting my time.
2
@akbarsdesign That's fair. But flipping the issue around a little, there are still a lot of parents who want things like public education too. Rich folks want it because they don't want poor people to be deprived of education and means of upwards social mobility. Poor parents want it because they wouldn't be able to afford private schooling. But when you mention public education to libertarians, they tend to go "Eugh! TAX FUNDED education!? What communism is this!? You're literally Stalin!" I don't want any educative body to preach or teach politics either. That's not the prerogative of a school. A school is supposed to be about teaching skills and not values. The teaching of values is the exclusive realm of parents. But I don't see how abolishing taxes or public education will ever be of benefit to poor people. Libertarian dismissals about "well there will be charities to take care of that" does not cut it because nobody can make a life plan around the waxing and waning of charity. So what needs to be changed about public education is not to abolish it, but to remove the teaching of values and politics from it. And I should know, because my education was tax funded, and my parents damn sure would not be able to afford sending me to private schools, just so those "poor oppressed" wealthy business magnates could be relieved of the "burden" of paying taxes.
1