You must log in or register to comment.
Libertarians are just Republicans who don’t understand how taxes work.
Some of the funniest shit in the world to me is watching a libertarian talk to pretty much anyone remotely competent in discussing policy and watching in real time as the libertarian reinvents things like taxes and liberal democracy trying to make their policy prescriptions make sense.
I had a “debate” with a libertarian once. It’s annoying because they reply with: “it’s the government’s fault” or “free market can do it better” and citing examples just leans to their boring hypotheticals.
Workers rights, healthcare, regulations, public transit, public healthcare, mail, etc, it’s boring how uninterested they are in how things actually work.
Yeah that can get very boring. I suppose though if they had any interest in how things actually worked they wouldn’t be libertarians. That’s exactly what kept me from aligning with them back in high school when I first started getting into politics.
Like I got as far as roads and it was like “Wait a second, how would you handle roads going into areas where where it wouldn’t be profitable to run them?” They either just wouldn’t have roads, or someone would build it and would make it profitable by charging exorbitant tolls. Neither of those were acceptable to me and my agreement with libertarianism died. There are always going to be things in society that are not profitable but are worth having because they have downstream benefits to society.
The problem I’ve had with a lot of them related to what you mentioned is that their very base motivation for wanting libertarianism is selfishness. They don’t want to pay for things other people use so the argument becomes “well that area just doesn’t have roads. I won’t live there so I don’t care. That’s for the locals in that area to figure out.”
From what I’ve gathered libertarianism is “I got mine, fuck you.”
Like hospitals. Sure they can be profitable, but they should still be running with funding even if they are not.
Education of the masses being a great example.
Yea, like, you know, clean water, moderate temperatures and a livable environment…
The argument is generally to favor non-coercive solutions to avoid centralized power breeding corruption (admittedly with a caveat that wealth can also create centralized power). I’m not clear how that would entail more taxes. Or exactly what you mean by “liberal democracy”, which in the conventional use isn’t something they disagree with?
I don’t mean more taxes I mean taxes at all. Pretty much every libertarian I’ve ever heard talking about it says “Taxation is theft,” then the ones I’m talking about will for example get asked to describe their ideal society and when asked how to say maintain some key infrastructure they essentially describe collecting taxes from the citizens for it. Things like that.
That’s a special breed of American right-wing libertarianism. It’s not indicative of the ideology worldwide, nor does it reflect the beliefs of the more academic libertarians.
Do those True Libertarians live in Scotland?
Australia.
The True Scotsmen are hanging out with the True Libertarians in Australia. Good to know. Are the True Christians there as well?
So Australian Libertarians don’t believe in the free market above all else and that governments basically should only exist to enforce individual property rights? Awesome.
Republicans don’t even know how taxes work.
I always thought a Libertarian is a Republican who is trying to sleep with a Democrat - or vice versa.
I was a libertarian until I vacationed in a country where taxes were used on its people instead of it military.
(Gross over simplification for comedy before anyone comes at me for my political beliefs)
Pretty much. It doesn’t take a whole lot of brains to figure out that if you are spewing out all these policies that are going to hurt people that cute coed isn’t going to want to hang out with you. So, you lie about what you believe. You aren’t mean nasty gop you are cool enlightened libertarian. You don’t respect her intelligence enough to expect her to figure out what you really believe.
Quite a few years ago I came to the decision that if I had any opinion that I was embarrassed about, it was a sign that I should reevaluate it. That doesn’t mean always going with the herd. It means that I was only going to defend embarrassing ideas that I am so sure about I am willing to take whatever society will throw at me for holding them.
I wouldn’t say Democrat takes on libertarianism have ever been very good. Especially in recent years with the alt-right trying to occupy the middle space between “libertarian” and “Republican” and adding to the confusion.
You have a problem on two ends - corporate interests can get out of hand, pollute, monopolize, etc., and you want to rein that in somehow. This can be done via the market, since corps do need money to survive, but a lot of people don’t care enough to make it happen. On the flip side, if you rely on government to just control everything and hope they’ll act benevolently, there are huge risks - a government agency could be benign or beneficial, or it can turn into a machine for oppression and monopolization.
I feel like the Democrat takes never acknowledge the negatives of state control (at least unless it’s something Republican-associated) and also never acknowledge there’s a valid way to accomplish anything outside of the state. It seems like their answer is always to just throw state programs at everything. Well, we did try having the state run everything once…
I think it’s because, as you laid out, the only 2 current options are market led control which isn’t viable, and govt based which is viable but risky. Since it’s the only viable option it gets the risks downplayed.
Well, in market or government, if you have bad people you get bad results. It’s not a simple “viable or not viable” - right now we’re in a mode where most people implicitly assume that any business allowed to exist is probably OK, and don’t really exercise boycott, while relying on regulators etc. to clean up the mess. But that kind of abdication of responsibility isn’t a constant of human nature or something, it’s just what we’ve lazily been doing in this society for a while. Likewise, it’s not the case where regulators, politicians, judges etc. are universally acting in good faith - it’s hard to put a number to it, but there are examples of abuse all over the board as well.
Democrats in the US are not as left-leaning as they make themselves out to be. I’d argue they moved further right economically a couple of decades ago, which pushed the Republicans even further right to the point of absurdity. What to you seem like the Democratic Party’s attempt at “state controlling” things aren’t actually that extreme, or that left-wing for that matter. Both parties are right-leaning. There’s no center or center left in the US. Bernie tried to be center-left, but he was seen as too extreme.
It’s not an issue of perception, either the state controls something or it doesn’t (or somewhere in that gray area in between w.r.t regulations, public-private partnerships and so on).
Yes, exactly, most traditionally public institutions in the US are now carried by private companies and cititzens. Universities, for example.
Not sure how accurate your example is. Government spending as % of GDP has been steadily increasing for a century.
The pie grows, so you need to look into the funding of these institutions, into the percentage of government vs private coffers. I’ll look into it later, still at work now
Hi, I’m back.
State colleges receive the same amount of funding from tuition as from state governments
U of Wisconsin-Madison, 15% State Revenue, 21% Tuition There’s also a graph showing the percentage decline since 1976
U of Texas, Austin, 10% State Appropriation, 20% Tuition Also with a fun cow shaped graph showing the decline from 34% State Appropriation in 1990 to the 10% of today. Important to add that they have income from an endownment that generates oil and gas revenues that is not included in these figures.
U of Virginia 2011, 10.3% State Funding
Other universities show the amount of money instead of the percentage, I’m too lazy to do the maths right now. These are some of the ones that are easier to read on the go. Speaking of, here’s another light read on healthcare The World’s Costliest Health Care, David Cutler, Harvard Magazine
As to HOW COME the percentage of GDP increased and it didn’t translate into better finance for institutions, my leftist ass would guess that the laissez-faire market failed to self-regulate. This is definitely an oversimplification of a more complex economical issue, this could also be a post hoc ergo propter hoc, or a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. In any case, you asked for sources and I provided.
OK, fair enough re: colleges. Not sure what institutions you’re referring to. Government spending as % of GDP is a rough indicator of their general presence in the economy (either through which institutions they’re running directly, or which institutions they’re regulating).
Democrats constantly complain about government control. Defund the police ring a bell? How about all the wars over school district control? Or wasting money on the military?
Just because you lean towards moving power and resources from private to public sector doesn’t mean you always always agree with the public sector.
If I support NASA does that mean I agree with every decision ever made by the Fed?
Democrats constantly complain about government control. Defund the police ring a bell? How about all the wars over school district control? Or wasting money on the military?
Look what I wrote:
I feel like the Democrat takes never acknowledge the negatives of state control (at least unless it’s something Republican-associated)
Wouldn’t really say “defund the police” was a mainstream Dem thing though, they mostly distanced themselves from it.
Libertarians are just not ready to admit to daddy that they too are a Conservative/Republican.
No they’re not. That’s an American Republican appropriation of an otherwise complex ideology. Do you think Chomsky is a Republican who doesn’t understand taxes?
Republicans don’t want small government, they want a fascist police state and a corrupt military industrial complex to oppress people around the world to steal their shit while funding profitable wars for their contractors.
I think the last 2 people who wanted small government and balanced budgets were like John McCain (dead) and John Kasich (retired, but endorsed Joe Biden in 2020) and they’re no longer relevant.
Honestly, as a party, they need to go. I want an opposition party to the Democrats, but they’re not it. Hell, America really needs ranked choice voting and more open primaries, and probably 4 major political parties.
Hence the meme where the Republican party kills the Libertarians
Interesting, the only thing that sets apart the US from being another Russia is the fact that the GOP has to switch with the democratic party every few years
Look I know that’s a hyperbolic statement because you’re dissatisfied with the USA’s political landscape, I am and I’m not American because their politics bleeds heavily internationally through culture.
But the US is FAR FAR away from being like Russia. It’s so different in many ways that to compare the two is like saying Chalk is almost like Cheese because their chemical formulas both have Carbon in them. It’s completely nonsensical. Anything organic has carbon in it.
Just like how all countries have common problems: corruption, malfunctioning subsystems within the government machine, wealth inequality, etc, the list is endless.
The difference is the whole the parts make up.
Let’s take a left-field example: smiling and saying hello to strangers.
Americans (with some exceptions like NYC residents) are stereotyped as being friendly and willing to smile and make small talk with strangers as a form of public politeness. Almost to the point of being over familiar and can come across as superficial.
Russians (again this is stereotyped) would think any stranger smiling at them is someone not to be trusted because they want something from you. But if you spend a lot of time around one, get to know them, I’ve been told they are very welcoming.
The reasons why? Vastly different cultural values and societies that reflect those values.
I could go on with more examples but this comment is long enough.
Your examples are extremely weird, friend. When comparing and contrasting countries, how about focusing on politics? The USA is an imperialist oligarchy with a giant, globe-spanning military presence, dominating and exploiting economies under threat of violence and sanctions, while Russia is an irridentist oligarchy that can apply pressure on other countries through little more than it’s fairly large military force. If Russia had the same resources and trade-presence as the USA they would be almost identical. If you really want to talk about cultural values, they are generally the same. The average human being cares about peace, justice, love, joy, truth, freedom, beauty. The differences are political.
I’m not american either. Sorry I forgot to imply that this was just the way it seemed to me. I didn’t really have the social aspect in mind and I know very well that they are culturally nothing alike. The similarities I was refering to were the imperialistic tendencies, that in the US seem to be out of control of the elected government (this is an interesting example), and the exploitative, oligarchic mode of capitalism that has grown into the state that seems to be growing under both (although it is not called oligarchy in the US). But it is true that the US still has the rule of law and functioning separation of powers.
But it is true that the US still has the rule of law and functioning separation of powers.
No, we actually kind of don’t anymore. Have you been paying attention to the SCOTUS or places like Florida and Texas?
Хаха, нет, даже не близко
username go brrrrrr
and probably 4 major political parties.
George Washington was generally against political parties, but especially opposed to bicameralism.
Libertarians are just Republicans that don’t want to say they’re Republicans, their stances are almost completely the same.
A more honest comic would be a frame of two republicans (use the lion from this comic) tearing part and eating America…say, Uncle Sam, just visceral and blood all over their mouths and claws. Second frame has that scene in the background with a third lion standing with another animal looking upon the carnage. The third lion saying “I’m not republican, I am a libertarian that leans right” while also having blood all over it’s mouth and claws.
Actual libertarians would never vote Republican. They’d be pro-choice, pro-trans rights, against any kind of book ban and for way less invasive religion in the state.
People who vote republicans and call themselves libertarian only like their own freedom.
It is true and unfortunately common that many Americans who claim to be Libertarians are generally Republicans who don’t want the label. It is also true that no true Libertarian would align themselves with the Republican party as it is today, or maybe as it has ever been. The two ideologies are dramatically different. Libertarians are closer to anarchists and republicans are closer to fascists.
Don’t let them fool you, libertarians are just Republicans who are too chicken shit to admit it and be open about it. They still side together on every issue, small government or not. I don’t see a difference between the two in their actions
Hey now, be fair, not all self described libertarians are just being dishonest about their political affiliations.
Some don’t know how anything works and call themselves libertarian because they think it sounds cool.
They still side together on every issue
So you think that Libertarians believe drugs should be illegal, the government should ban abortion, books, and gay rights, and tons of money should be spent on military budgets and corporate subsidies? That’s like the opposite of Libertarianism. But you’re right, there are a lot of Republicans who incorrectly call themselves libertarian.
Libertarians are enemies of everyone else’s liberty, when it contradicts with theirs personally.
How so
They’re almost always corporate libertarians, putting business before individual freedoms.
Yeah that’s not libertarian
Besides, individual freedom is usually independent of corporate. The people really trying to restrict freedom are the religious folks
That’s a No True Scotsman Fallacy.
And also, laissez-faire Capitalism is one of the keystone principles of Libertarianism.
Capitalism does not necessitate the. Removal of individual liberties over corporate liberties
I didn’t say it did.
I don’t respect conservatives. Someone who votes Republican is either ignorant of what their party is doing, is willing to look the other way, or is actively encouraging it. None of these traits are admirable, or respectable.
Libertarianism is the ideology of the childish and selfish, it is the ideology of putting oneself and one’s own interests before everything else, just dressed up in pretty words about “liberty”.
A nice word that Rothbart stole from Anarchists to use for his capital-Feudalism
It makes me a sad left a libertarian/anarchist.
Anarchism has the same individualist liberal basis as “regular” capitalism. An anarchist commune will always transform either to regular capitalism (pre-imperialist capitalism) or socialism.
Anarchism can mean socialism without tyrannical central authority.
“Finnish Nationalist.”
Such “socialism” will simply degenerate back into capitalism as it cannot eliminate the markets, as it cannot have a planned economy. Markets always lead to competition, which leads to consolidation and accumulation.
Okay Buddy, make assertions and leave. That’s how something becomes a fact.
China didn’t eliminate markets.
Markets breeding competition and competition leading to consolidation is economics 101, i don’t think anyone regardless of ideology disputes this.
As for China, they indeed have markets, ever since the reforms of Deng. China has been liberalising ever since said reforms. The Chinese economy isn’t socialist, only some parts of it are owned by the state, lots of the industry is privately owned. Not that China started as an anarchist commune to begin with. Right now China is liberalising further, in the future they will either completely abandon socialism and embrace social democracy, or essentially have a new revolution nationalising all private industry. Time will tell, but judging by Xi’s rhetoric, the former sounds likelier.
Okay Buddy
I do think libertarianism has some principles and concepts that are valuable, I would have even called myself libertarian-ish at certain points, but over the years it’s fallen into a similar bucket as communism from my perspective.
It’s an attractive system until you start introducing the people.
I did call myself a libertarian at a certain point. Then I realized it’s trash. The political philosophy itself is stupid.
“Liberty is the most fundamental right.” Why? Who says? Why not…idk, caring for others and being cared for in return?
It’s an ideology of selfishness fundamentally. And it only makes sense that it was started by a bunch of selfish rich assholes, the same people who champion it now.
Libertarianism is a very wide spectrum and isn’t really nailed down to a single ideology. There’s forms of socialism, capitalism, and communism with libertarian counterparts.
I don’t really say this outloud because people get the wrong idea but I consider myself a libertarian, but I do not associate with any party (especially not the de facto american libertarian party)
My beliefs are this:
-
You should be free to do as you wish that does not impede on the freedoms of others. For instance, you should be free to use substances as you wish, but you shouldn’t be free to operate a motor vehicle or heavy machinery under the influence because it is dangerous and could injure or kill someone, therefore impeding their freedoms.
-
The government should have minimal involvement in regulating the people, and the people themselves play a role in governing the country. Get rid of the electoral college, popular vote should be the way to win elections.
-
I have absolutely nothing against taxes, but I think the people should have a choice on where their tax dollars go on an individual level. Everyone gets a budget set accordingly to their income, and the individual chooses (at least a percentage) of where their tax dollars go. Every year when tax time comes, you record this to be audited. This way the government can still allocate funds where needed, but they can’t overinflate anything’s budget without the approval of the people, or vice versa. BTW, no tax cuts for “charitable donations”, if you truly wish to be charitable, then you can donate along with your taxes :).
This is unironically the best approach in my opinion. Not looking to start a debate or anything, just thought I’d give my .02. I know the system may not be perfect, but no system is.
There’s forms of socialism, capitalism, and communism with libertarian counterparts.
Hey hey! I’m partial to libertarian socialism myself, which is really just anarchist-lite.
You should be free to do as you wish that does not impede on the freedoms of others.
This sounds nice, but practically it’s impossible. Like, quite literally impossible. You can barely drive the car you want without affecting other people indirectly (thanks climate change)! My solution is that you’re only as free as the next person. It’s fine if you transgress against others if it’s equally fine that others can transgress against you. So, it’s probably fine to demand that people care about you if you also extend your caring for them (with the understanding that they are not obligated to reciprocate). It’s complicated, but it’s certainly better than the non-harm principle.
It’s fine if you transgress against others if it’s equally fine that others can transgress against you.
This is an incredibly selfish statement. No, it is not okay to force your will upon other people against theirs, which is essentially what transgression is, regardless of their ability to do the same to you. Respect people’s liberty to be free of your impositions.
Yeah, I agree. It would need modifications to work because not all people have the same belief but I think the ideal world would work like this. Transgression is a bit touchy because while it does inconvenience others, I don’t think that it truly impedes their freedom, rather it just puts a stick in the mud.
I 100% agree on the car part. Don’t get me wrong, I love my car, but I love my planet more. If it wasn’t necessary to actually get to work where I lived, I wouldn’t even HAVE one. Unfortunately though, my workplace is in a rural area and my city has practically zero public transportation save for taxis, which are still just cars.
-
I can’t speak for everyone but I don’t see much out there that gives me the ground to tell someone else how to live their life. So until it affects me or someone else, I have a hard time justifying violence, which is where the “live and let live” thing comes from.
I think that gets a lot of people in the door, and then the reality gets messy. But I don’t think that central principle is trash. And the first part of caring for someone else is recognizing their rights as an individual. It’s why the party was the first to include marriage equality explicitly as part of their platform nearly four decades before democrats. When democratic presidents and presidential candidates were pushing DOMA, libertarians had had as a tent pole for decades already. And that is the fundamental difference: it’s not good enough to have a government that agrees good things are good, they can change their mind and have a bad track record. The libertarian view is that it ought to be a high-bar for anyone to presume the ability to intrude on what’s your business alone.
So yes, there’s a lot of mess where the rubber meets the road, but there’s a lot of good there. A lot of people eventually realize as nice and simple as what I just said above is, there’s very precious little in this world that is exclusively “your business alone”. Still, the principles a good enough starting point, and you’ll find a lot of people are pretty open to things if they’re a net positive and applied equitably. You’ll find a lot of libertarians that are way more opposed to subsidizing the likes of lockheed martin than they are about medicare for all or food stamps. Hell, there are people that still consider themselves libertarians who are proponents of UBI.
I had hoped the party would siphon off some of the more reasonable republicans rather than catch the crazy itself. Sadly that’s not how it played out. Add that to the crazies (“age of consent is a violation of my rights!”), and I 100% get your take. But man… I don’t know about you but I’d sleep much better in a Garry Johnson/Biden election than a DeSantis/Biden election.
It’s the sort of thing that people think they are until they look around and it’s just people who don’t want to pay taxes, and by extension believe that poor people deserve to die.
Republicans are just libertarians who’ve realised they can weaponise the crazies to win elections.
Things aren’t just black and white and I wish people didn’t feel like they had to pick teams. I lean towards liberalism/socialism when it comes to social issues but I lean more libertarian when it comes to economic issues.
The ol’ socially liberal, fiscally conservative position which makes absolutely no sense. You can’t have social issues solved with no money. Austerity affects homos and heteros a like.
Again dude, it’s not black and white. Even when it comes to economic values, I think some traits from both capitalism and socialism are good. It’s a matter of knowing ur options and when to best execute them. Unfortunately we got a lot of blind hating blind.
And unfortunately it has been co-opted by the right, like so many other things. They claimed the banner, and fly the flag, while embodying none of the beliefs. If you say you’re a libertarian in America, people automatically assume you’re Alt-Right, despite the fact that Noam Chomsky is a libertarian, or more accurately a libertarian socialist, or an anarcho-syndicalist.
What’s chomsky’s solution for bears?
Republicans run on the campaign that government doesn’t work, and once they are in power they prove it.
It’s weird seeing American “libertarians”. In Australia, the Liberal Democrat Party were the first to support same sex marriage and drug decriminalisation (even before the far-left Greens) and have long supported peoples right to decide for themselves on euthanasia and abortion. They’ve been the only voice against the governments overreach on internet filtering and their power to secretly force companies to write backdoors into their software. So basically the opposite of American “libertarians”.
After winning some seats about 8-10 years ago, the major parties realised they could marginalise the LDP on issues like gun control, which most Australians know nothing about but support with blind enthusiasm anyway. So we’re back to the stats-quo of 4 parties, Lib/Nat vs Labor/Greens.
Libertarianism in the US is all about personal liberty, basically about being able to do whatever they want and fuck anyone else’s needs or desires.
So they’re just Republicans by a different name then
Nah, if you don’t directly bother them they mostly just don’t give a fuck. True-red republicans find pleasure in fucking over other people in new and disgusting ways.
It’s a minor difference, but it’s important to libertarians. Because it’s the one way they try and distance themselves from other conservatives.
A libertarian is just a republican who knows that admitting who they align with is socially dangerous. You would think that makes them better in some way but in fact it makes them worse. Many republicans don’t know they are absolute garbage. Libertarians know they are garbage but still choose to be garbage.
American libertarians will say they support things like gay rights and drug decriminalization but they will never actually vote in a way that creates change. They will vote for the Republican that claims to want small government but does nothing to further that ideology. Even if that politician is actively fighting against other causes that libertarians claim to give a damn about.
Similar thing with the Lib Dems here in the UK. More socially progressive than Labour, and in theory “centrist” on economics but were also arguably more progressive than even Corbyns Labour. Then as soon as they won a decent amount of seats both the right and left wing media dragged them through the mud to stop them being a threat to the 2 party system that theve invested tons of money into controlling.
I kept misreading it as librarians which really confused me xD
Used to call myself Libertarian at one point. Then I grew up and realized most “Libertarians” are a group of morons who would get eaten by the wealthy if the world suddenly switched over to their ideal “Libertarian” society. You think the gap is bad between the rich and poor now? Let “Libertarian” ideals run amok for a decade…
Libertarians are just Republicans wearing silly hats.
The funniest part of this is the part where we assume libertarians are being honest and acting in good faith
Libertarians are just Republicans who are embarrassed to admit it.
US American Democrats aren’t much better. I mean, sure, pro-choice, environmental policies, etc, but their economic policies? Haven’t been great for the working class at least since Bill Clinton’s era.
*It seems like I have to explain myself, I’m a socialist. I’m very left leaning, very pro regulations, it doesn’t trickle down. Bill Clinton signed NAFTA, he was very openly Neoliberal. (And, btw, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was also from his era). Obama, however charming, did little to bring the dignity of work back to the US, he instead played the respectability politics, pull yourself up by the bootstraps through higher education (which was not available for everyone).
Our progressives still have to be fairly conservative to pull in the swing voters we need to keep batshit Republicans at bay. The Overton window has some fucking miles on it here in the US
It’s often a push and pull. The US “progressives” was pulled to the right, which pushed the “conservatives” further to the right. From the outside looking in, it seems that the new anti-abortion laws are proving to be unpopular, which might just pull conservatives back to the centre of this particular issue, and then the progressives can go further left again.
For activism, whichever side you’re on, they must always ask for a lot right now, to get a little very soon. It goes both ways.
deleted by creator
It’s their firearms policy for me, the economic stuff is just the icing on the cake. I’m literally in the industry, so I know a thing or two about firearms and the laws regarding them, and watching the democrat party be so wrong about the basic functionality of a semi auto rifle or the current laws we already have, or what the one they’re proposing will do (spoiler alert: it’ll disproportionately affect minorities just like drug laws and stop and frisk) that they’re either intentionally misleading the public or have no business making decisions on the matter as they are woefully uninformed has made it so now I can’t trust anything they say. It’d be like if you know a lot about cars and then I come on talking about how a catback makes your car faster and more deadly should you try to Charlestown someone so we need to ban them, immediately you’d know I’m a moron and disregard everything I say, same for the entire dem party and firearms.
Politicians are idiots, but there are plenty of gun lovers on the left. Sweeping bans will be massively unpopular and won’t happen. Nobody left wants to push effective legislation and the right will fight absolutely everything tooth and nail.
Yeah, it’s the democrat party (which leftists often argue isn’t “left,” so take that how you will) that is the issue on that. I’m aware of the SRA and such.
Firearms usage in the US is dysfunctional anyway. It causes heightened tensions in every situation. I don’t know how it can ever be better.
Well tbf I’d rather be heightened than stabbed, and the presence of a firearm has prevented me from being stabbed at least once, so net win.
I guess the stabber was afraid that you had a firearm, that’s why they tried to stab you? To avoid getting shot first?
Well, besides the fact that that is a very poor plan that is more likely to get you shot than “leaving someone alone,” you should look into the concept of “concealed” carry. Idk, maybe he did have X-Ray vision, but somehow I doubt that.
I never owned a gun in my life, but I also have never lived in a country where guns are widely available. Well, I lived in Brazil for a spell, but not in a gun toting neighbourhood, though some of the farmers had air rifles
Cool, but I assume you’re still able to connect the concept of “concealed” to your theory to see that it has pretty big holes. He didn’t know I had a gun until he pulled a knife on me and I showed him, so he couldn’t have pulled it in effort to murder me at for being an open carrying person minding their business, as I was concealed carrying not open carrying.
Furthermore, once he saw it, he decided to leave for some strange reason, so that’s another hole in the theory that he likes to use inferior armaments to murder innocent people for having a different armament than he does.
Your theory is flawed,
sirindividual.
