OK, so then you seem to have a bizarre definition of libertarian. The central ideas of libertarianism are self-ownership, property rights through homesteading and voluntary exchange and non-aggression (only the use of defensive, non-initiatory violence is legally justifiable).
You said in the OP: “We are NOT born Libertarian. We are born human, and as humans, we are tribalistic, violent, and collective thinking [desiring to be part of a group].”
Implied in this are that libertarians are one or all of:
Not human
Not tribal
Not violent
Not desiring to be part of a group
The first point is I think rhetorical excess on your part. The second and fourth points are, it seems to me, different ways of saying the same thing. So, you are asserting two things as I see it: libertarians are pacifist and rugged individualistic. However, if you look at the central ideas I spelled out above, you will see that neither pacifism nor rugged individualism figure anywhere there. That’s not an oversight. Some libertarians are pacifistic (e.g. Roderick Long). Some are rugged individualists (e.g. Henry David Thoreau).
I’ll agree with you that these libertarians are mistaken in their pacifism and rugged individualism. But what all libertarians have in common are the attributes I gave in the first paragraph. If you’re going to claim that humans are not born libertarian, please use the actual definition of libertarian.
When I say that humans are not born libertarian, I mean to say the ‘Libertarian’ ideas as we understand them (which is completely understandable for a newborn human). Unless you’re saying that libertarianism is the most honest expression of humanity?
Also, I don’t think humans are born to follow the NAP, but then again, not all libertarians necessarily follow that or agree with it.
I don’t get the relevance of 2, if I’m not mistaken Clayton didn’t say anything of that sort. As for 1, our “group” now (i.e. the state) is certainly anti-libertarian, but groups in themselves are not necessarily anti-libertarian.
Clayton admitted that he’s into that conspiracy stuff.
I agree that there are ‘powers’ that manipulate the process, but they’re just working with the culture, and that culture is emergent and cyclical (this shit has happened before).
But that’s the whole point. Those in power want to make it out like their position is somehow natural or not the result of their own avarice and ambition. The country just rose up and demanded Barack Obama as President in 2008! How silly. Those in power got there as the result of climbing over the heads of their peers - by any means necessary - to reach the top. They are not the lucky beneficiaries of “emergent” and uncontrolled public sentiment.
It is true that the masses will always run after some leader or other and that is why we have some leader. But it doesn’t follow that the particular leader can wipe his hands clean of all the dirty business he engaged in to get to the top on this basis. “Someone had to lead” Yeah, but it didn’t have to be you, so shut up unless you’re going to be honest enough admit that you’re a despicable human being devoid of moral compunction who clawed his way to the top over a pile of broken lives and probably even some dead bodies.
Anyway, TronCat, as long as we are on the subject of you trolling, is there any particular reason you decided to create the troll account MissMapleLeaf?
It’s interesting that I got a response out of you for that comment, but not when I asked you to point out where Clayton assumed whatever it is you claimed he assumed.
Anyway, for those that are interested, here is the damningevidence that TronCat decided to troll us under the account MissMapleLeaf.