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.”
Wtf he can’t do that. That’s a violation of the NAP
That’s just because you don’t understand the NAP. When you’re NAPping you’re supposed to find the original instigating aggression. How do you find that? Easy, you take the side you don’t like and point at something they did that hurt your feelings.
Tear gassing protesters is just a legitimate response to the initial aggression of blocking traffic. But wait, isn’t the blocking of traffic a response to the aggression the government did by throwing the country into poverty overnight? No it’s not. Why? Because it just isn’t.
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.
The revolution will only need to be as violent as the bourgeoisie will require it to be.
Source - I’m a libertarian
I’m not a lawyer but I don’t think Megan’s Law applies to Lemmy, you don’t need to say this
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.
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.
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 an ad-hoc justification for why capitalism is incompatible with liberalism
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.
This is why we can’t take you seriously. You’re stuck
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.
You’re stuck in a world of ideology and abstractions away from the actual bare-bones model of society.
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.
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
Your ignorance is so cute. You don’t even know where you are or who you are talking to! You should stick around and read more about who “tankies” are, and maybe ask questions.
I know where I am, just enjoying my life which involves tickling kitties and making fun of tankies.
