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."
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.
Insane projection since Marxism-Leninism is to be adapted to one's conditions and not just an emulation of what happened in 1917 tsarist Russia. Lolbertarians on the other hand advocate for set in stone solutions like allowing "privatization", "free speech", "small government" and other assorted dogshit regardless of where and when it's being applied. Cut your losses short and stop making a fool out of yourself before you start spouting garbage about mud pies or "human nature" and instead go read marxist theory if you care to talk about it.
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
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."
Actually, I prefer it when my leaders are deeply unpopular.
...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.
You do realize ideas are what governments use to rule, set laws, decide on ways to manage resources and the like? Right? And a set of ideas is an ideology? Just because libertarianism is disconnected from reality does not mean every ideology is incompatible with it, particularly marxism which grounds it's theory and practice in material reality. Hell even fascism is as dangerous as it is because it is something that exists within material reality of capitalism in crisis! Returning to the theme of the original post of Milei who is doing precisely what he is because his ideas are widely unpopular with the majority.
Also you are jumping from label to label, when you and I seem to have agreed that ideologies are not fashion statements. And so you can't really in all seriousness do that? It also seems you have been applying your original label to yourself by only yourself when really you don't even seem to agree with yourself whether or not it fits you. You seem very confused from my point of view.
What do distributists think about age of consent laws
It's basically a political ideology grown from Catholicism, so all the usual.
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.