*unless you are gay, use drugs, cross borders without permission, or don’t stand up for skycloth
2/10 shit tier meme
Most people on the right don’t care whether you are gay or not.
Most people on the right don’t care if you personally use drugs, but admittedly most also do not like the crime associated with it. It is the neoconservative crowd who are the purveyors of the war on drugs.
Most conservatives rightly will call you a dickhead for disrespecting or burning the flag, but still observe your right to do so.
Crossing the border is breaking the law. So, yeah, they’re going to care about that. So, I guess you got us there.
10/10 shit tier criticism.
It’s amazing that even Being Libertarian memes cannot appease the most insufferable of ancaps.
If the right didn’t care about people being gay, then why were champions of the right like Cruz and Huckabee so butthurt about the SCOTUS ruling on Obergefell vs Hodges?
Granted, libertarians do not like the crime associated with drugs, but conservatives as a whole, not just neocons, support militarizing the police rather than decriminalizing drugs. Prohibition didn’t work for alcohol, it didn’t work for guns, and it doesn’t work for drugs. The reason that drugs are associated with crime is because the trade itself is illegal. Victims of force or fraud cannot seek the protection or justice of the courts while (a) the courts are under the monopoly of the state, and (b) the state has prohibited the trade of drugs. It is both ironic and obvious that drug crime will be reduced if drugs are decriminalized.
(Your distinction about “only” the neocons supporting the drug war is a pointless one if the neocons are the majority faction of conservatives, which they seem to be given the right’s consistent rejection of libertarian-leaning candidates like the Pauls, Massie, and Amash, and the lack of defections from the Republican Party to the Libertarian Party; if anything the Republican Party is enjoying the most support its had since Bush given that both houses of Congress and the Presidency are under Republican control and still we have constant war)
There aren’t any soldiers alive today who have secured my freedom. My freedoms are not in the Middle East, they weren’t in Korea, they weren’t in Vietnam. “My” own government is the greatest threat to my freedom and those of my fellow man in this world today; I have neither respect nor loyalty for it or its symbols, and anyone who respects the government and its colors are supporting the forcible subjugation of their fellow man, both citizens and non-citizens, to that government. In short, they are no heirs to liberty, but perpetuate a new form of slavery and tyranny upon themselves and their fellow man.
If you are concerned with disrespecting the flag, consider the blood of the innocents slain by American bombs and American soldiers during American military campaigns, and ask yourself who is being more disrespectful.
Regarding immigration:
>freedom is a human right granted by the Creator >asking the American government for permission to come in and “be free”
Pick one.
“If the right didn’t care about people being gay, then why were champions of the right like Cruz and Huckabee so butthurt about the SCOTUS ruling on Obergefell vs Hodges?”
Because it was a shitty decision. Many conservatives and libertarians don’t believe the government has any role in marriage in the first place, and many conservatives do not believe the Supreme Court has any business making up decisions for the States by twisting the Constitution. The Supreme Court did not have authority to make that decision no matter how much you may agree with it.
But I’m glad Cruz and Huckabee represent the entire right-wing in your eyes.
“…but conservatives as a whole, not just neocons, support militarizing the police rather than decriminalizing drugs.”
Those are two separate concepts.
Yes, more libertarian-leaning individuals clearly oppose militarization, but conservatives have only a slim majority of support as a necessary means of policing. This is probably because more conservatives believe in the rule of law as the most important function of government, as I mentioned about border security.
And they see “militarization” as a means of toppling crime in general, not necessarily just drug crime. So, putting the two side by side is disingenuous. You’re preaching to the choir about prohibition, and that’s because the entire right does not necessarily approve of the war on drugs as you want to generalize.
“Your distinction about “only” the neocons supporting the drug war is a pointless one if the neocons are the majority faction of conservatives, which they seem to be given the right’s consistent rejection of libertarian-leaning candidates like the Pauls, Massie, and Amash, and the lack of defections from the Republican Party to the Libertarian Party”
No. Here you are conflating party politics with political ideology. No one wants to defect from the Republican Party to the Libertarian Party, because the Libertarian Party is absolutely stupendously terrible. That’s not an endorsement of the GOP by any means, only a reasonable observation that the LP cannot even sell individual liberty very well to the general public. They’re too tied up with targeting specific unpopular pet projects like “freeing the weed,” or pandering to socially liberal progressives in order to win them over. Meanwhile, libertarians like the Pauls, Massie, and Amash have managed to infiltrate the Republican Party in order to actually fight for liberty against the neocon establishment within our inevitable two-party system.
And again, you are preaching to the choir about perpetual war. Not that it was really a party of the original conversation.
“I have neither respect nor loyalty for it or its symbols, and anyone who respects the government and its colors are supporting the forcible subjugation of their fellow man, both citizens and non-citizens, to that government…and anyone who respects the government and its colors are supporting the forcible subjugation of their fellow man, both citizens and non-citizens, to that government. In short, they are no heirs to liberty, but perpetuate a new form of slavery and tyranny upon themselves and their fellow man
”
Again, I don’t really care how you feel about the flag, just like I don’t care if you did not care for the Christian religion, for example. But that said, it’s still a dick move to walk into a church and piss on a Bible. It’s immature and in poor taste to disrespect or burn the flag just the same. And that’s why most conservatives – especially veterans, their families, and those who had a family member that died in one of many of our wars – have a problem with it.
Jehovah’s Witnesses seem to tastefully abstain from disrespecting the flag even though they do not salute it or pledge to it because they personally do not believe it ascribes salvation. Take a page out of their playbook and be classy about your beliefs.
“Regarding immigration: >freedom is a human right granted by the Creator >asking the American government for permission to come in and “be free” Pick one.”
No thanks. That’s a false dilemma, son.
Yes, freedom is a human right, but so is freedom of association and property rights. Your liberty ends where my nose begins. Each of the States hold their own sovereignty, but upon the ratification of the Constitution, they ceded naturalization authority to the general government. That means today the territory of these United States is under the jurisdiction and control of the US government. This form of territorial control dates back centuries.
So, foreign citizens are completely free up until the point they cross into an established sovereign territory. Even in an ancap society, there would still be borders and territories dividing private property, homesteads, or private communities. You couldn’t just waltz yourself into that associated community and declare yourself a part of it. The same applies on a much larger scale.
Not to mention, even if you were to support open borders, it would be a terrible idea within a welfare and entitlement system.
Obscure Fandoms 