1."Federal agencies have the authority to intervene in protests, picket signs, or blockades. The law is impartial: it must be enforced without exception."
2."Federal forces are not required to have judicial oversight for their actions."
3."Forces are not obligated to consider alternative entrances or pathways. If the main path is blocked, their duty is to clear it."
4."This action continues until the flow of traffic is fully restored."
5."To carry out these acts, forces will use the minimum necessary force, which is sufficient and proportional to the situation they are addressing."
6."Instigators and organizers of the protest will be identified."
7."Vehicles used in the protest will be identified and subjected to citations or penalties."
8."Data of the instigators, accomplices, participants, and organizers will be transmitted to the authorities through appropriate channels."
9."Notices will be sent to the judge in cases of damage, such as burning flags."
10."In cases involving minors, relevant authorities will be notified, and the guardians of these youths who bring them to these demonstrations will face sanctions and punishment."
11."The costs incurred by security operations will be borne by the responsible organizations or individuals. In cases involving foreigners with provisional residency, information will be forwarded to the National Directorate of Immigration."
12."A registry will be created for organizations that participate in these types of actions."
Ah, ancaps are weird. Part of them actually likes Latin American dictatorships and this kind of thing exactly because of the state not pretending to have any mandate but force.
Source - I'm a libertarian (not culturally of that group of ancaps, cause they tend to be fans of something far away and not try and build a working system at least among themselves ; makes them similar to tankies in the sense of "we can't build our utopia without killing all the problematic people first").
Tankies don’t even believe that. We would prefer to not kill anyone, but reactionaries (like yourself) always try to fight against us which is why you go into the pit. Also Utopianism is anti Marxist.
For your sake I really hope you're not legally allowed to buy booze yet
Low energy comrades: the CIA is very tricky. They might try to ingratiate themselves into our community and tear it apart. They're masters of deception
The CIA:
Libertarianism is not a coherent ideology based in political reality or science. It's an ad-hoc justification for why capitalism is incompatible with liberalism, that is the values of democracy, freedom, liberty, etc. There is no such thing as stateless capitalism. Capital depends on the state and will always increase state power as more capital is accumulated. They like the dictatorships because the state is acting purely in the interest of capital while embracing the ideological misdirection of bigotry. That is the dictatorship is free to grind workers into paste with the use of near unlimited state control and power while the wealthy and petite bourgeois explain it all with racism, sexism, xenophobia, and nationalism. It uses those things to nudge workers away from class consciousness. They're not actually hypocrites because ideological consistency is not the goal nor does it matter in the pursuit of power. They have the material edge and being hypocritical only helps them.
This is why we can't take you seriously. You're stuck on why your fellow libertarians are hypocritical, you don't understand what's actually happening. You're stuck in a world of ideology and abstractions away from the actual bare-bones model of society. Since your ideology has no explanatory power in the real world, your only recourse is clinging to models like the horseshoe theory. You don't have a deep understanding of your own ideology let alone that of tankies, they just exist as points on some graph of extremism in your world.
To further this point, the original libertarian theorists rejected the enlightenment's triplet of "equality, liberty and property" for a couplet of just "liberty and property". The basis of libertarian ideology is a rejection of equality as a fundamental value.
As for why actually existing libertarianism is indistinguishable from fascism/right wing authoritarianism in practice, it is because it is fundamentally not an ideology compatible with any concept of ethics. The core of libertarian thought is an abandonment of social, political , economic, and ultimately societal responsibility for others. However, without responsibility there can be no ethics. And without no ethics in an ultimate "might makes right" world where capital is in control and equality is abandoned as a fundamental value, what prevails? We all know what.
Just like communism may mean ancom, ansyn, trotskyism in various kinds, stalinism in various kinds, libertarianism may mean minarchism, ancap, panarchism, georgeism and so on.
It's not. It's just voluntarism put over anything else. Hence age of consent arguments, for example.
It's actually the most coherent ideology, because any compromise for practicality would make it a part of some other existing one.
That's also the reason for very little of it existing in reality.
It's ok, I'm not taking your particularly seriously too, one really shouldn't, it's all a mix with pieces of gold very rare.
However, I'm not stuck in general.
There's no "actual" model, a model by definition is a simplification allowing you to analyze a phenomenon spending a fraction of energy needed to recreate it.
And that's the problem ML has - instead of producing one model after another, some for one use case, some for another, some being discarded, some being used further, ML just has one model based on Imperial Germany as a dogma and puts it over reality.
I don't need a deep understanding of something which may or may not fit. I don't even theoretically, potentially have access to source of any "deep understanding".
It's like algebraic solutions vs numeric ones.
...so why are you a libertarian? In your own words it doesn't exist because it does not actually address the practicalities of the world.
If I knew that my political ideology isn't compatible with the real world, I would find a better one.
No ideology is compatible with the real world.
And I'm not a libertarian. It's just the closest known point so I called myself that.
A distributist would be closer, just you are likely not aware of such a thing.
What do distributists think about age of consent laws
Stalinism isn't an ideology btw, Stalin was just a Marxist-Leninist.
That's the Stalinist point of view. Cults of personality, nationalist propaganda, banning abortions and so on are not exactly ML.
Oh okay, you're operating on a 9 year-old's epistemology
I bet you also believe the clapping story.
Heres the CIA saying you're wrong tho
Actually, I prefer it when my leaders are deeply unpopular.
I'm still stuck on this, this shit has me fucked up. So the people who supposedly are in a cult of personality...steadfastly refuse to give the subject of their adulation credit for being a theorist? This is the first I've ever heard of a personality cult where the orthodox view is "Nah, our guy didn't create anything particularly unique or worthy of deliniation."
Voluntarism is capitalist apologia, yes. The very premise is that society is a collection of independent individuals, exactly the premise which is both prerequisite for and produced by capitalism. Voluntarism takes this state ideology and proclaims it as an eternal, natural truth which cannot be escaped; the only problem, claim the libertarians, is that the state is interfering with the free expression of this ideology — which is exactly the reverse causal direction.
“Truly, one must be destitute of all historical knowledge not to know that it is the sovereigns who in all ages have been subject to economic conditions, but they have never dictated laws to them. Legislation, whether political or civil, never does more than proclaim, express in words, the will of economic relations.”
You must rip out the idealism which has rotten your logic if you want it to have any connection to material reality. Start scientifically from the world as it really exists, and from history as it really unfolded, not from your abstract models of independent individual exchanges, which so happens to justify the status quo or an intensification thereof.
You need to investigate how society is in fact a web of interrelations and dependency; ie the very opposite of non-interacting isolated individuals. There is no society without dependency. A theory that starts with an assumption of independence is absolutely useless.
Why the fuck would you ever admit this you fucking dork