You must log in or register to comment.
Says “I’m a libertarian but I’m not one of those crazy ones”.
My followup question is usually what’s your opinion on seatbelt laws and drivers licenses.
Both are necessary, there’s an argument to strengthen the latter, and neither violate the NAP. I’m not one of those crazy ones 😁
violate the NAP
not one of those crazy ones
These two statements contradict each other.
The NAP is a substitute for laws for “libertarians” who can’t tolerate the thought of other people actually being free.
The entire point is to have something that proactively justifies the forcible imposition of your will upon others. So the instant that somebody does something of which you disapprove, you can decree, by whatever rationale might serve, that it’s a violation of the NAP, so you’re now entirely justified in shooting them.
The NAP is a substitute for laws for “libertarians” who can’t tolerate the thought of other people actually being free.
The NAP is not a substitute for laws. I would argue that it is a framework, or set of principles by which laws are created. Also I do not understand what you are implying in the second part of that statement.
The entire point is to have something that proactively justifies the forcible imposition of your will upon others.
This is blatantly false. Libertarianism is fundamentally opposed to the idea of “the forcible imposition of your will upon others”.
So the instant that somebody does something of which you disapprove, you can decree, by whatever rationale might serve, that it’s a violation of the NAP, so you’re now entirely justified in shooting them.
Can you define “something of which you disapprove”?
Not really. It only seems that way because most of us have only had experiences with the psychotic capitalist neo-libertarians of the Murray Rothbard school.
Actual libertarians, left libertarians. Can definitely get pretty squirrely when you get out on the fringes of ideologic anarchists etc. But many are fairly rational and even generally pro social democracy.
Right-wing libertarians are just an oxymoron. Under capitalism none of us can truly be free and we are all subject to the whims of wealth hoarding psychotic oligarch monkeys. They’ll tell you that you’re free not to work for them. The only problem is choosing not to work for them means choosing starvation, homelessness, and death. Which isn’t the sort of thing that should be considered a choice in any civil society. But absolute necessities for unsustainable systems such as capitalism.
Libertarianism is, generally, mostly interested in freedom under the state. Libertarianism is at the core of capitalism; however, it must be made clear that a properly funcioning free-market requires some state regulation in order to ensure fair competition.
Not really. Libertarianism is mostly interested in freedom FROM the state. And freedom from oligarchs of all stripes. Especially the ones inherent to all forms of capitalism. Of which “free market” is the worst about. Capitalism is inherently incompatible with libertarianism. In the fact that you realistically can’t choose not to be part of it. Under capitalism those of us that are not born into oligarchy or happened to luck into oligarchy end up basically slaves to the oligarchs for our wages and basic survival. There’s no liberty in that.
Libertarianism is mostly interested in freedom FROM the state.
Freedom from the state, to me, implies anarchy. I interperet your wording to say that a libertarian would want the freedom to opt out of governence – this makes little to no sense. It is true in that a citizen should certainly have the freedom to emigrate, but I’m not convinced that this is what you were implying.
And freedom from oligarchs of all stripes. Especially the ones inherent to all forms of capitalism. Of which “free market” is the worst about.
Why do you argue that the free market will always result in an oligarchy? I will say that a wholly unregulated free market will result in rampant anti-competitive behaviour which will end up being at the expense of the consumer. So, by that logic, some regulation is certainly necessary to ensure fair competition. This sort of well functioning free market should be the antidote to an oligarchy, unless the public wills it to be so.
Capitalism is inherently incompatible with libertarianism
I would argue that capitalism is founded upon the ideals of libertarianism.
In the fact that you realistically can’t choose not to be part of it.
You can choose to not participate in the free market – create your own local commune where you all freely share your own private goods.
Under capitalism those of us that are not born into oligarchy or happened to luck into oligarchy end up basically slaves to the oligarchs for our wages and basic survival.
Again, no one is forcing you to play a part in the capitalist system. You could grab a farm out in the middle of nowhere, completely off the grid and live off of your own goods (assuming you have some means to cover a theoretical minimum of property tax). That is, of course, unless you are advocating for socialism in that the government should be providing for you.
No, the NAP is a principle not a substitute set of laws. It applies equally to an individual or to groups affected by a policy; the point is to lessen, not eliminate, ‘agression’ on balance and holistically. What you’re describing is used not just by ‘libertarians’ but by anyone that doesn’t want a law to apply to them.
the point is to lessen, not eliminate, ‘agression’
Did you overlook the “non” in “non-aggression principle”?
What you’re describing is used not just by ‘libertarians’ but by anyone that doesn’t want a law to apply to them.
You think that libertarians don’t think laws apply to them…?
The NAP is only colorably considered a “principle” when one applies it toward one’s own life and one’s own choices. That’s notably NOT the way that the “libertarians” who pay it the most lip service use it.
Instead, they apply it to other people’s lives and other people’s choices. And the explicit point is to measure the nominal accepability of those other people’s lives and choices, and as necessary to provide colorable justification for imposing their wills on those other people in order to prevent or punish the “wrong” choices.
That’s the exact function of law, simply transferred to a different concept.
Isn’t this entire thread about “libertarians” vs libertarians? I’m not sure who you’re trying to argue with but it certainly isn’t me 😁
By “libertarians”, are you referring to the non-libertarians that OP was outlining in their post?
Do you think roads, police and fire departments should have a pay-per-use system?
i think air should be bottled and sold on the free market.
The free market will set a fair price.
Lack of regulation will make sure it’s a low price and why would a company want to kill off its customers?
Sure if the market has healthy competition and the time horizon of the shareholders is long and if everyone is perfectly rational.
You know the 3 things each of which almost never happens.
Markets rarely have healthy competition. Usually for all practical purposes consumers have few if any choices where they can spend their money. Your supermarket might have a million items but you only have two supermarket and those million items are made by 10 companies.
Time horizons of shareholders are infamous for being short. With the larger they are the shorter they are. We live in a world where for decades stocks are bought and sold with high frequency trading. Long term means a business quarter.
Homo Economis never existed. If that abomination against all that is decent ever did form it would die off having no offspring. Humans smoke, they eat junk food, they buy boats, they lose their temper, they spend 45 billion dollars on Twatter and run it into the ground. This is why you don’t leave things that matter to one asshole and just have faith that your invisible sky friend Market will correct it all eventually.
More customers dying means fewer people buying, therefore it’s better to rent them. See, the invisible hand of the free market(swt) correcting itself.
And of course, if a company successfully corners the market and extracts value beyond the tolerance of some customers who eventually attempt to harm the company and force it out of business, the company is entirely justified in using assassination drones against the insurgent NAP-violators.
I would say that boycotting is contained within one’s freedom of association. Unless you are talking about physical damages at which point an individual should have the right to protect their property, and this is also where tort law comes into play.
It’s what the free market wants.
All hail the free market.
Way ahead of you:
Yes, if you consider existing in society “use”. I think that’s just a standard annual tax. Roads, that’s tricky. Otherwise no.
In a Night-Watchman State, wouldn’t a public police force be necessary?
I generally just go straight to libraries as it’s not designed to trap/bait and it more often than not leads to productive discussions where we are both attempting to gain mutual understanding.
It’s not a trap or bait, it’s pointing out that it takes money to use and maintain these things.
My apologies, I realize it seems I implied you were baiting/trapping, but that wasn’t my intention. That being said I’m sure libertarians get examples like firefighters a LOT and they probably just glaze over and dismiss it as a result. But again, didn’t mean to imply that you were engaging in bad faith and such.
It’s because it is a fairly obvious example.
It’d be better to have a response that makes sense instead of ‘glazing over and dismissing it’.
Libraries are a great resource for keeping information free and protecting free speech. I think it’s very reasonable for taxes to be used in ways that benefit the community as a whole, as that serves the people who pay the taxes.
deleted by creator
noticeable demographic issues
You mean that the one group of people in the US who have no fear are the ones advocating for a government that protects no one?
deleted by creator
(in case it wasn’t clear that was a “yes and”)
We call those taxes
Thanks, captain obvious.
No problem, SatansMaggotyCumFart
No - roads are for the public good and should be supported by taxpayers that benefit with the possibility of ‘penalizing’ heavy vehicles that do more wear on roads.
Sorry, didn’t mention the others but generally things that are for the public benefit/use should be maintained through tax dollars without profit-pressure to extract ‘value’. How does a fire department generate revenue? Or police? They don’t and they shouldn’t be designed to - they’re a public utility for the supposed benefit of all in the community.
Firefighters should be a private enterprise and figure their revenue streams out themselves. They don’t need the government telling them how to run a business.
Roads can easily made all private for-profit toll roads and people could decide for themselves if they want to use the McHighways or the WalMiles.
Roads are a complicated issue. I feel that roads fall under the idea of an “intrinsic monopoly” – by their very existence, they create a monopoly, and are thus anti-competitive, and thus anti-free-market.
I would argue that it depends on context. Take the following two examples:
- A densly packed urban environment
- A rural countryside with sparsely placed dwellings
In the first example, a fire on one person’s property can quickly threaten the property of many others around it. This danger could be argued to be so great that, if in a system where each individual must pay for fire services, and one individual does not, this can be seen as a threat to the livelihood of others – a form of “aggression”, if you will. It would be in everyone’s best interest to have a municipal, or community fire department that the public pays for.
In the second example, no dwelling, or proprety is realistically a threat to any other. The only danger is to one’s own property. As a result, it could be argued that, in such a situation, the individual could not be expected to pay for the fire service. If they wish to have its benefits, they could choose to pay, say, a subscription fee.
generally things that are for the public benefit/use should be maintained through tax dollars without profit-pressure to extract ‘value’.
Generally, I would be inclined to agree, but one must tread cautiously.
How does a fire department generate revenue?
Presumably, one could pay a subscription fee for the pleasure in having the added level of safety, similar to paying for insurance; however, it could be argued that, in certain scenarios, the lack of a publicly funded, mandatory fire department is an intrinsic threat from one to another. For example, if you look at a densely packed city, a fire can spread very rapidly, and indiscriminately. This would be funded through tax dollars. In other scenarios, for example, a rural, sparsely populated region of farmland, there could be no perceived intrinsic thread, so a mandatory fire department would not be necessary.
Or police?
I would argue that it would be a conflict of interest for police to be payed. One could pay for their own private security, sure, but the state should provide the means to ensure that the rights, and freedoms of the individual are upheld. This is outlined in something called a Night-Watchman State.
they’re a public utility for the supposed benefit of all in the community.
This does raise the question if everyone must pay taxes for utilities even if they do not use them. I would personally argue that no an individual should not be expected to pay for a utility that they are not using.
I personally feel that roads are a complicated issue. A public police force is necessary to ensure the best equal application of the law. Fire departments are sort of a contextual issue – I am inclined to treat fire departments as more of a utility.
My followup question is usually what’s your opinion on seatbelt laws and drivers licenses.
Seatbelt laws would really only make sense if their purpose was to protect others from harm, but, as far as I’ve been able to think, this would only make sense in 2 scenarios:
- You are in a car with other passengers. In a crash, one passenger not wearing a seatbelt could end up harming the other passengers in the vehicle simply by their limp body flying around, and impacting the other passengers. This does raise the point, however, that the other passengers could simply refuse to occupy the vehicle with that individual, or the driver could bar them from that vehicle. If all occupants are able to give consent to the situation, then there should be no issue under the law.
- You have a child and you are neglecting that child’s safety by not restraining them with a proper seatbelt.
As for driver’s licenses, that’s actually a rather complicated issue.
EDIT 1: As pointed out in this post, there is a third case that I hadn’t originally considered in that, in a crash, one’s limp, and unrestrained corpse could fly through the windshield and end up causing damage to someone else’s property, or bodily harm to another.
There are cases where in a head on collision the person not wearing a seatbelt is launched out of the car like a missile killing people in the opposite car.
Libertarianism isn’t a monolithic ideology, and opinions vary widely among libertarians. Furthermore, one who identifies as libertarian doesn’t inherently reject all utilitarian or communitarian values. Some may argue against seatbelt laws and drivers’ licenses on the basis of personal freedom and responsibility, while others might see the value in certain regulations that protect public safety. What unites libertarians is a belief in limiting government intervention to essential functions, but defining those ‘essential functions’ can differ greatly among individuals within the libertarian community. Libertarians often share common ground with leftists on social values, differing significantly from mainstream Republican politicians.
This is correct, and the downvoters don’t like that you’re right because they all came here to circlejerk about how they think Libertarians are dumb.
so where does Libertarian ends and where does “leftist” start?
because personal freedom, with some restrictions and protections sounds very much like left-wing, progressive politics.
like how many regulations are OK before you are no longer a libertarian and just a leftist?
Now you’re starting to understand why the Libertarian platform is awesome.
Don’t just listen to what Internet edgelord commies tell you about it, look at the candidates’ platforms and what the party actually stands for. https://www.lp.org/platform/
The only thing I don’t like about their platform is the stance on Environmental Protection. I believe it is better for the government to impose environmental regulations to protect the environment that we share than to let big business run wild with pollution. That’s obvious IMO.
The only thing I don’t like about their platform is the stance on Environmental Protection.
well good then, because there is nothing going with the environment and there is no need to worry about that.
Also I don’t care what the USA Libertarian Party stands for, even if I was from the USA, it wouldn’t matter, because of FPTP voting system it’s a nothing party.
Also I don’t care what the USA Libertarian Party stands for, even if I was from the USA, it wouldn’t matter, because of FPTP voting system it’s a nothing party.
This is a rather naive perspective.
Well then, get off my American Internet and go curl some cheese or whatever your foreign weirdos do
pretty sure lemmy.world is hosted on hetzner which is a german company, but okay
One of the core ideas of libertarianism is to maximise the freedoms of the individual, so long as such freedoms don’t infringe on those of others. As long as those tenets are met, libertarianism isn’t necessarily mutually exclusive.
Libertarianism literally originated on the left. Right wing neo-libertarians were a creation of the mid 20th century. A product of the anti socialist panic/red scare of the 50s. where all socialist ideologies were demonized where possible. Or usurped and undermine in the case of Rothbard. He’s also the guy that came up with anarco capitalism. Because nothing says you’re against large over arching rules and systems. Than being a hypocrite and making an exception for your favorite system.
It’s somewhat dubious to use terms like “left” and “right” how you are, especially when talking about historical context – the defintions for those are extremely fluid.
Drivers licenses protect folks from each other, not only do we need them we need to be more selective about who gets them
Seat belts protect you, so it should be your choice. If we had socialized healthcare, not wearing a seatbelt is a greater social cost, and then I would be ok with enforcing it. However, since we don’t have real healthcare in America and it’s all out of pocket, I don’t think we should enforce seat belt laws here. It’s hypocritical.
Not wearing a seatbelt can harm your passengers in an accident. Based on that alone it’s reasonable imo
It could then be argued that it would only be required under the circumstances in which the lack of a seatbelt would create a situation where the safety of others is threatened, and those affected do not consent to the risk.
So, whenever you are driving and could possibly get in a wreck.
I would say that such a law, when being written, should maintain the original mindset as described in this comment of mine. What I mean by this is to say “whenever you are driving” does not cover the situations in which there would never be (or, at least, extremely unlikely to be) any harm to another except yourself, or those consenting. An example of this woud be offroading – perhaps you were implying for such laws to only apply when driving on public roads, but this wasn’t specified explicitly, so I’m making assumptions.
Yes, you are correct in both statements. I was not thinking of the more fringe scenarios, I meant specifically public roads.
I was not thinking of the more fringe scenarios
Unfortunately, the contention around many laws lies within the gray rather than the black, and white.
If your dumb corpse flies out of your windshield it could hurt me or my property. Restrain yourself FFS, people. It doesn’t impinge on the driver at all.
I mean body leaving the car is like least of your problems, if someone sits behind you and you crash and they are not buckled in, they will fucking crush you to death.
I mean, just do the math. a 60 kg weight hits you from behind with all the speed the car has gathered.
here is a video with Crashtest dummies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeTs-6xksIk
If your dumb corpse flies out of your windshield it could hurt me or my property.
This is a fair point. I hadn’t considered that.
It’s not just healthcare costs, but also the costs of first responders finding meat crayons who died unneccesarily, and the social cost of the trauma for those who witness conpletely avoidable deaths. And the emotional cost of the family of the dead idiots.
It’s not just healthcare costs
This depends on whether the healthcare system in question is privately, or publicly run.
yeah if it’s public healthcare then that gives an even stronger argument to the government mandating safety equipment. but regardless of that monetary cost I think the other three aspects I pointed out are strong enough on their own.
yeah if it’s public healthcare then that gives an even stronger argument to the government mandating safety equipment
Agreed.
but regardless of that monetary cost I think the other three aspects I pointed out are strong enough on their own.
I’m not overly convinced that a law should exist solely because of such reasoning. At the very least, if such a law must exist in some capacity, I believe that it should be enacted as some form of local law, or bylaw.
Differing local laws just make things more complicated.
Would you mind explaining why you believe that unnecessary death and the trauma surrounding it is not good enough reason to enforce simple safety laws?
Differing local laws just make things more complicated.
Would you mind explaining what you mean by this?
Would you mind explaining why you believe that unnecessary death and the trauma surrounding it is not good enough reason to enforce simple safety laws?
I don’t believe that the purpose of a law is to ensure the comfort of the public, but instead laws should be enacted to ensure one’s ability to freely pursue their life, and happiness.
I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.
- Thomas Jefferson
Someone without a seat belt becomes a 185 lb projectile in an accident.
I say this in the most cordial and respectful manner possible: Wear your fucking seatbelt, you blithering ape.
I’m with you on seatbelts, but drivers licenses shouldn’t exist. You should be inherently able to drive and vote once you reach the appropriate age, and driving should be taught in school. The privilege to drive should be revoked only when you prove you can’t drive properly or safely.
deleted by creator
And how, pray tell, would you enforce a revoked driving privilege?
By ID, I didn’t say get rid of social security or IDs.
I’m with you on seatbelts, but drivers licenses shouldn’t exist.
Driver’s licenses are actually an interesting issue. I am inclined to agree that they have no need to exist. All that matters is that people follow the laws surrounding the operation of motor-vehicles on public roads – I’m rather convinced that licensing has no effect on this whatsoever – after all, Ignorantia juris non excusat.
If this is what a fake libertarian is, there’s no such thing as a real one. This is every single libertarian I’ve ever conversed with.
You need to find yourself some Left-Libertarians.
You’re usually looking for some type of Georgists or some flavor of small-scale Social/Communist Anarchy. Most of them are way more able to grok the concepts of things like “natural monopolies” or “Tragedy of the Commons” and other fun market failure states. They tend to focus more on the existence of the market itself as a tool for creating competition that drives innovation and efficiency while giving less lip service to the idea that just because you accumulated a bunch of capital from an idea that’s its a good idea.
If I scam a bunch of people, I’ve gathered a bunch of capital, but that doesn’t mean I’ve actually produced anything of value for anyone. If I refined chemicals in my house and dumped all the waste in my neighbor’s pool, I’m not actually competing in an even market, because I’ve burdened my neighbor with the cost of waste remediation while I get to keep all the profit.
You’re usually looking for some type of Georgists
Georgism is actually a very interesting political philosophy. I hadn’t heard of it before you mentioned it in your comment. Thank you for sharing!
“natural monopolies” or “Tragedy of the Commons”
These are, indeed, two very important, and critical issues. When one is advocating for libertarianism, capitalism, and the like, they mustn’t be ignored.
If I refined chemicals in my house and dumped all the waste in my neighbor’s pool, I’m not actually competing in an even market, because I’ve burdened my neighbor with the cost of waste remediation while I get to keep all the profit.
This point doesn’t actually hold much, if any, ground, as it is fundamentally at odds with the philosophy of libertariansim. Libertarianism is about equal freedom of the individual, yes, but that does not grant one the right to burden other’s with un-consented cost.
Yea but my neihbor is a POS.
I don’t understand your point. Would you mind elaborating?
When I considered myself libertarian, I was not a fan of police brutality, pro LGBTQ rights, more open border, and legalized drugs. I still hold all of those views but have gotten a lot more to the left from am economics standpoint. A lot of that is die to my econ degree.
That said, post 2016 I definitely noticed a ton of faux libertarians who were very defensive of Trump. If you voted for Trump, I don’t think you can consider yourself libertarian. I think I recall hearing that the whacko New Hampshire libertarians basically took over the party. Those guys are a bunch of racist fascists.
If you voted for Trump, I don’t think you can consider yourself libertarian.
I wouldn’t go so far as to draw that line at voting, as one could certainly be voting strategically – it’s possible that they don’t agree with many, if any, of Trump’s policies, but they were of the belief that voting for Trump would push policy in a direction that would be in their interest – this is, of course, a symptom of FPTP, and it could be possibly solved with a ranked ballot. That being said, I do completely agree that if one is a vehement supporter of Trump, and his policies in a similar fassion to the usual MAGA group, then they cannot call themselves a libertarian in good concience – there are many policies of, and actions by Trump that are very un-libertarian.
This means you have never interacted with a libertarian then, just a ashamed conservative/republican wanting to be labeled something else.
Everyone knows the True Libertarians hang out in Scotland. With the True Scotts.
Generally I lean libertarian in terms of pure individual choice. Worship no gods or a million, be single or marry 20 people at once, put whatever substance you want in your own body, kneel for the flag or shed a tear, yes I will use your pronouns.
Every man a king, that’s my philosophy.
The rest of the stuff yeah. I want food stamp programs, I want a secular neutral state, I want antidiscrimination laws, I dont support a company dumping pollution on us.
You just described being a leftist. Why are libertarians so afraid of being put on the progressive left? You are not a libertarian lmao
For the sake of clarity in this conversation, would you mind defining “leftist”? It is rather ambiguous.
I was pretty clear in what I believe LMAO
yes, and it’s not libertarianism.
a political philosophy that advocates only minimal state intervention in the free market and the private lives of citizens.
food stamps, anti-discrimination laws and anti-pollution laws are all a big fucking no-no for libertarians.
food stamps
Food stamps are not mutually exclusive with libertarianism on the whole. Libertarianism, very generally, can be described as encompassing the idea of maximising equal individual liberty, while ensuring that one cannot impart costs on another without their consent, or proper compensation for damages. Food stamps are more of a socialist view which puts it in the category of, what is commonly referred to as, “left-libertarianism”.
anti-discrimination laws
Correct, this would be incompatible with libertarianism – one has the right to choose with whom they associate, and what they say.
anti-pollution laws
This is incorrect. One cannot impart costs on another without their consent, or proper compensation for damages.
This is incorrect. One cannot impart costs on another without their consent, or proper compensation for damages.
who is gonna enforce that? lol
Ok it helps when you read what I wrote not what you want me to have written.
For the individual I want as much freedom as we can give them. Everything above that I want regulated and I want welfare programs.
For the individual I want as much freedom as we can give them. Everything above that I want regulated and I want welfare programs.
Okay, so you are a leftist, like me. In fact, you might just be a socialist, or even a communist.
My economic beliefs are: if it works do it, if it doesn’t do not. I don’t trust ideology and I don’t trust economists. Food Stamps work in that people don’t generally starve anymore, the free market works for video games in that people generally can buymore than they would ever hope to play.
Only do things that work.
Those are very broad categories to haphazardly throw around.
I want antidiscrimination laws
For the sake of clarity, what do you specifically mean by this?
I dont support a company dumping pollution on us.
This is actually not a libertarian belief. It is of the libertarian philosophy that one cannot impose a cost on others without their consent, or proper compensation for damages.
Drugs actually worsen the quality of life for everyone. You just need to go to some streets in San Francisco to know it
No, what is bad is how people who use drugs are treated like criminals and thrown in jail. People don’t suddenly decide they want to be addicted to crack or something… But you know… Curiosity kills the cat. These people need help, not jail time. In countries where drugs have been decriminalized, there’s very little usage of hard drugs. Iirc, when users are spotted, they are offered treatment instead of a jail sentence.
Decriminalization works and it has been proven… Yet there are still so many countries that refuse to take the step
what is bad is how people who use drugs are treated like criminals and thrown in jail
Agreed.
Consumers get therapy, dealers get jail
When the fuck did I say “treat drug addicts like criminals”?
dealers get jail
Then we arrest a 17 year old POC male because of a dime bag was calculated using police math to be 1 billion dollars street value and clearly dealer level.
And “therapy” turns out to be taxpayer funded rehab places where people pet fucking horses to get over their Marijuana “addiction” and atheists are forced to pray.
I went to state funded rehab outa jail… They were putting people with multiple clean years under belt on suboxone. 🙄 while pushing hard on AA, which does come across as a religious cult to me, while the principals are mostly sound, the people sent into these places to proselytize, don’t have anything other than a Christian god to project into a “higher power”…instead of it being you and the people and world around you.
What’s the point of mentioning the accused’s race? You fucking Americans are tiring with that shit
Because the war on drugs disproportionately impacts certain races over others. I mention race because race is relevant to the issue.
But yeah thanks for stereotyping in a comment telling at me for stereotyping. I enjoy seeing my point made.
OP wasn’t insinuating that you were saying drug addicts are criminals. How I interepereted what they said was that what you were describing wasn’t bad in OP’s opinion, and what actually was bad was that drug addicts are treated as criminals.
Dont believe you and I wouldn’t care if it were true. I am not a utilitarian.
As for San Francisco, have you considered the radical idea of building more housing for greater housing needs?
So not wanting to have quite literally zombies roaming the streets is being utilitarian?
Can I have a turn beating up that strawman when you are done with him?
Sorry I don’t click random YouTube links.
This is a strawman argument. I don’t believe that OP was arguing that drugs increased anyone’s quality of life, they were instaead arguing, and rightly so, that access to drugs is a in line with the libertarian philosophy.
How many have you talked to? I’m guessing the root cause is your sample size is too small.
I can confirm the same.
Yeah, OP’s argument is founded on a logical fallacy – it is called a Faulty Generalization.
I’ve spoken to many libertarians over the years, not one is in support of total decriminalization of all drugs.
Hello! Nice to meet you. I support total decriminalization of all drugs. What a human being does with their own body is their own business only. Unless the human is a child who still needs guidance in making those decisions before they have matured enough to do so on their own. In that case the parents should guide them to make safer decisions until adulthood.
Now you have.
Then I would argue that they cannot, in good concience, call themselves libertarians.
Because that’s absolutely unhinged
By decriminalizing at a minimum we can get people out of the shadows of crime and maybe into treatment, instead we pay for them to rot in prison because drugs are bad.
Then what if they were just kept illegal, dealers get harsh sentences and consumers get treatment?
Because under current laws, consumers that intend to distribute to support the habit, are treated as if they’re producers.
Current laws where? America is not everywhere
This is a faulty generalization.
Commenting on a 2 month old comment. Sure got me.
The age of the post should protect your statements from future criticism…?
I been saying it for years. Cut a self-identified libertarian and you will find a Republican who groked on that all the cute girls he is interested in aren’t going to date him unless he lies about what he believes.
Here is some advice: if you are ashamed about what you believe consider changing it.
Not a cute girl, but a rather plain woman so I get the memos, and generally we’re not a big fan of libertarians either. There are some outliers but yeah, the ruse was not super effective.
[on a date]
Her: Huh, so Libertarians think laws about pornography should be relaxed? What kind of porn exactly?
Him: …
Her: What kind of porn, exactly?
Him: Well–
Her: I’m just kidding, I called a Lyft as soon as you said you were a Libertarian.What kind of porn exactly?
An argument can easily be made that CSAM should be made illegal, as it exploits minors, who are generally considered a protected class. A minor is not able to give consent – being able to give consent is core to the philosophy of libertarianism.
Strange that women would be against a group of people who
- Want to hand over all reproductive control over your body to the state legislation.
- Want to strip away all anti-discrimination protections.
- Hope to pull away all social support. Including WIC.
- Remove school funding
Are you telling me you are not looking forward to the era where you have to stay married to a man who beats you because if you leave or even call the cops it will mean utter ruin for you and your children? Children who won’t be able to get free schooling or even discounted food. And of course your employer will be able to sexually harass you as much as they would like since it isn’t technically a violation of the NAP but even if it were you won’t report him because you really need this job. Why wouldn’t women like to return to the 1850s?
Want to hand over all reproductive control over your body to the state legislation.
I like to make fun of libertarians as much as the next guy, but this is not a common position of theirs and it doesn’t check out with the basic tenets of libertarianism, or diet anarchy as I like to call it. Their positions are usually more along the lines of “abortion should be legal, but the government shouldn’t be paying for it.” Which I strongly disagree with because I can do very basic math, but I think it’s a distinction between libertarians and republicans because you would have a different approach in trying to address their stance. I can at least work with someone who thinks they should be available but not free, I will not try to find common ground with someone who thinks they should be restricted, there’s absolutely no room for “proudly ignorant but otherwise innocent” in the latter, they’re just ghouls who should have been aborted.
The Libertarian Party website as well as statements from Ron Paul is where I got this. I don’t care what some random person 209 years ago said.
Wasn’t the case the last time I looked. Fine, cool they updated. I was wrong and I am glad you corrected me.
deleted by creator
Want to hand over all reproductive control over your body to the state legislation.
Abortion is actually a contentious issue among libertarians.
Want to strip away all anti-discrimination protections.
Correct. One has the right to choose with whom they associate, and the right to choose how they use their speech.
Hope to pull away all social support. Including WIC.
I would argue that libertarianism, in general, is not mutually exclusive to social programs.
Remove school funding
This one I’m actually not sure about. I have not made any solid decision on the matter. That being said, I will say that the majority of libertarians would oppose it in favor of private schooling.
Are you telling me you are not looking forward to the era where you have to stay married to a man who beats you because if you leave or even call the cops it will mean utter ruin for you and your children? Children who won’t be able to get free schooling or even discounted food. And of course your employer will be able to sexually harass you as much as they would like since it isn’t technically a violation of the NAP but even if it were you won’t report him because you really need this job. Why wouldn’t women like to return to the 1850s?
I have absolutey no idea what you are talking about here. Everything that you just said is not libertarian. Furthermore, your point about the NAP is completely incorrect – sexual harrassment is, without any doubt, an agression.
generally we’re not a big fan of libertarians either
Why? What is so objectionable about resisting authoritarian oppression? What is so objectionable about the belief that we should maximise, to the best of our ability, the freedoms of all individuals?
You can’t generalize this argument to all libertarians. This argument is founded upon a faulty generalization.
Republican * Coward = Libertarian
As a self diagnosed math major: Republican is already a product of coward so shouldn’t it be more like Republican + Shame = Libertarian?
That would work, because Republicans lack shame and Libertarians are Republicans that know that their beliefs are shameful.
Libertarians are Republicans that know that their beliefs are shameful.
I think that you have a misunderstanding of what libertarianism is.
Would you mind explaining this statement? I’m especially curious as to why you are referring to libertarians as cowards.
Don’t move unless you want to, @SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world !
i expected an XKCD
my disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined
This is why the idea of a Nightwatchman State exists.
Are you busy trying to respond to every comment in a two month old post?
Libertarians are irrelevant, they are either rich entitled pricks or conservatives that like to do drugs.
Are you busy trying to respond to every comment in a two month old post?
Pretty much.
Libertarians are irrelevant
I would argue that they are reaching a local maximum of societal relevance.
they are either rich entitled pricks or conservatives that like to do drugs.
That is a faulty generalization.
Their maximum relevance for society is getting 3% of the votes, and tell me why my generalization was faulty.
Their maximum relevance for society is getting 3% of the votes
By “local maximum of societal relevance” I wasn’t talking in terms of absolute proportional vote, but instead of how germane the philosophy is to modern political discourse.
tell me why my generalization was faulty
You are making a hasty generalization. Based on how I interpret it, you are generalizing that a group of people calling themselves libertarians who satisfy your two examples – namely “rich entitled pricks”, and “conservatives that like to do drugs” – are a satisfactory representation of the entirety of those who call themselves libertarians. If a single person makes a claim contrary to your statement, then it will immediately falsify it. You provide no evidence to refute the possibility those who fall into categories other than the examples that you gave who also self-label as libertarian.
As an aside, your statement “they are either rich entitled pricks or conservatives that like to do drugs” does nothing to support your claim of libertarians being irrelevant.
No, real libertarian takes over a town in New Hampshire only to get that town taken over by feral bears (the animal, not hairy gay men, although that would be fun too.)
https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-into-bear-book-review-free-town-project
That’s one of my favorite stories ever. I think I laughed the entire time when I first read that article. Fucking morons.
If this was made into a movie it’ll be dismissed as completely unrealistic.
Reality is absurd sometimes.
not hairy gay men, although that would be fun too.)
I have had much worse neighbors.
If I saw that kind of bear going through my trash I would assume he was helping me separate the recycling.
That could be a fun group. Bunch of big hairy stocky gay dudes going around helping people with recycling.
That sounds amazing actually.
Crazy republican that likes weed.
For the sake of clarity, your referring to a fake-libertarian as OP described, correct?
Real libertarians would stand there with their hands in their pockets watching a toddler drown in a duck pond because the parents have no right to demand their labour.
What you’re describing is something called “Duty to Rescue”. It has serious implications if enacted, and should not be taken lightly.
hey look, I was bang on the money.
For your reference, here is a Wikipedia article on Good Samaritan Law. This graphic also provides some important context (it is contained within that Wikipedia article, but it is a useful graphic, so I explicitly linked it).
no please, don’t let me get in the way of you confirming the stereotype. Say more words by all means.
What stereotype do you believe that I am confirming?
The one at the top of this comment chain.
I never stated that it is un-libertarian to have duty-to-rescue laws. To be clear, I, personally, am of the belief that one should not be forced to come to the aid of another; however, I do support good samaritan protections. This being said, I would like to point out that your original argument is founded upon an assumption.
is this satire or…?
because i actually noticed a few specific people (namely us-citizens) associating libertarianism with uncontrolled market instead of the humanitarian background of the enlightenmentSorry your movement got co-opted by idiots. It happens. Pick a new name for your beliefs and start over. The brand is tarnished and anyone who disagrees either is in denial over the state of things, or perfectly fine with what it has become. It’s time to move on.
RIP vegetarianism
I feel sorry for chill vegans.
They still even exist?
I’ve been saying “lais·sez-faire - anism” because at this point I could care less what other people do or what bathrooms they use lol
Liberalism maybe? It’s a thing you know
The entire concept is “I don’t have to and you can’t make me!”.
That’s it, that’s all; a complete renunciation of social obligation. Nobody is required to do anything for anybody else, and the very idea is offensive.
Regulation is tyranny, taxation is theft, fuck you, pay me.
Your baby is starving to death in the street? Better hope someone decides to randomly donate to a charity or something, because I don’t have to give a shit about anyone in the world but myself. But its okay, I’m a good person because I’m not touching you!
At least toddlers grow out of it.
Randroid scum the lot of them; a bunch of edgelord ex-teenage anarchists who realised they like money and want laws to protect it, without any of that inconvenient and expensive functioning-society stuff getting in the way of their selfishness.
Can we get a real libratarian starter pack? What’s that look like?
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian-police-department
here is a teaser
I was shooting heroin and reading “The Fountainhead” in the front seat of my privately owned police cruiser when a call came in. I put a quarter in the radio to activate it. It was the chief.
Thank you for that. Glad I asked.
This article is an example of why there exists the idea of a Nightwatchman State.
Real libertarianism looks more like anarchism. There’s no strong central body (neither government or corporation), community helps each other, total personal liberty, etc. Political anarchism is generally “lib-left” on a political compass while classical libertarianism is “lib-right”.
As a tangent, I very much dislike the ambiguous words we chose for the political compass, they have usage that could indicate so many different things on their own. For example, if I saw someone referring to republicans as “lib-right”, I’d say no shit because both parties in the US are liberal political parties.
There’s no strong central body (neither government or corporation)
Libertarianism is not opposed to the existance of a government – in fact, libertarianism is founded upon the idea that a government is necessary.
It depends on who you ask. 10 years ago, it was mostly classical liberals that defected from the Republicans after the GOP started focusing their messaging on rallying evangelicals. Within the last couple election cycles, which IIRC is right around when they got close to having good enough poll numbers to get in a debate, the loudest group in it became ANCAPs who fight with each other about who’s actually extreme enough to earn the libertarian title.
TL;DR: hippies. (At least for left-libertarians.)
I appreciate you guys trying to make me feel at home here by making it seem like reddit. I was starting to worry nobody was going to tell me what I believe.
There seems to be a basic misunderstanding among both the targeted parties and the entertained parties in many posts like these.
Even when this particular post specifies “fake libertarian” in their simplistic collage of observations, many readers end up understanding it as “this is what OP and the upvoters think libertarians are like”, and then it’s that premise they either agree or disagree with.
It should be said thst if you’re a libertarian that is genuinely liberal without the “protect sensitive people through authoritarian means”-mindset, then you’re a much different type than the cop-loving “liberty is for white christian land owners”-type this meme is about.
Yup. This comment section is a dumpster fire full of used condoms worthy of those spamming bots of reddit. They are just attacking people for their believes. And not even good ones, just more american culture war bullshit.
It’s not even for their beliefs: it’s for what they claim people believe. Don’t get me wrong, I cringe when I see a gadsden flag next to a blue lives matter flag, but that’s not me and it’s not the people I’ve met.
Brother eye is watching.
It’s funny, because I watched it play out in real time on Reddit.
It all changed with the Tea Party. Not at first - a fact that the statists on both sides of the aisle want to bury is that the first couple of Tea Party protests were genuinely libertarian, and were in fact against the Bush administration.
But when Obama was elected, the Republicans moved to co-opt the Tea Party, and succeeded, and both they and the statists on the left were then more than happy to pretend that it was always a Republican thing, since as much as they might differ on the details, they both agree that the idea of being free of government entirely cannot be allowed to prosper.
And almost immediately, r/libertarian went to complete shit, as it was taken over by overt authoritarians who just want to eliminate all of the bits of the government they don’t like - like gun laws and public assistance of any form - so the rest of the government can then focus entirely on punishing people for being too liberal or too brown or too smart, and they themselves can be free to just shoot anyone they want.
It took me a while to figure out that that change wasn’t limited to just Reddit - that libertarianism as a whole had been co-opted by those violently authoritarian shitstains.
And it’s certainly not a coincidence that the net result of that is that there’s no longer an umbrella term in the US for people who just want people to be more free, and “libertarianism” has become just another variety of authoritarianism.
It all changed with the Tea Party. Not at first - a fact that the statists on both sides of the aisle want to bury is that the first couple of Tea Party protests were genuinely libertarian, and were in fact against the Bush administration.
Its important to keep restating these histories. Its easy to think of the past as monolithic, but instances like these are a reminder that its actually a tapestry of individual threads, none of which were predetermined at the outset.
This is why things like the modern tanky movement concern me. Effectively, they are the same people who pre-supposed the modern neofacist movement: young edgelords and older dumb edgelords who never matured in their world view. Movements like this are easily coopted towards broader political goals by people who understand how to operate them far better than their originators. The Koch brothers looked at the tea party and went full youmadethis.meme on it.
that libertarianism as a whole had been co-opted by those violently authoritarian shitstains.
I’m of the belief that the libertarian philosophy must be defended. We cannot roll over and let it be twisted and contorted to the wills of another. The same goes for the Gadsden Flag.
As a dyed in the wool true Libertarian I have no love for the grousers. Do what you want w/o stepping on another persons rights. Its that simple.
Do what you want w/o stepping on another persons rights.
That’s not a libertarian ideal, that’s just being a normal person. Though I can see, in this political climate, why a libertarian would want to express it. Libertarianism comes more into play when the topic is how we as a society decide what to do in order to preserve those other persons’ rights and what we should do to someone who violates those rights. It also comes heavily into play when discussing what those rights actually are and where they apply.
There are protect the people from the corporations type libertarians and the protect the corporations from the government type libertarians. Guess which kind the GOP like?
A true libertarian would be both. Although it depends on exactly what you mean by “protect the corporations from the government”.
I’ve never seen a libertarian who thinks drugs and prostitution should be illegal.
Immediately looks for justifications when there’s an incident of police brutality
It’s not immediately clear to me what you are implying with this statement. Is it that you think that any justification of the use of force by the police is un-libertarian, is it that you think it is un-libertarian to question an official verdict of “police brutality”, or something else?
Pro-death penalty
This is a difficult statement to tackle. I would argue that, at the very least, it is not as cut and dry as you appear to be making it out to be. There could certainly be arguments both for, and against capital punishment from a libertarian perspective. This being said, a libertarian would generally seek to minimize the power, and authority of the state, and fully recognize its fallibility. Being cognizant of the state’s fallibility, I would argue, is mutually exclusive with the death penalty – if the state wrongfully imprisons someone, there is no turning back, in the case of newly found evidence exonerating the individual, should they be killed.
Has both of these flags, doesn’t notice the contradiction between them
I tried to do some research on the “Blue Lives Matter”/“Thin Blue Line” flag(s), and the Blue Lives Matter movement, but, I must say, it is very difficult to find any unified information, vision, or platform for it – it’s hard to find evidence of the idea that the Blue Lives Matter flag is mutually exclusive to the Gadsden Flag (which is a symbol of libertarianism). I am, of course, not naive to the fact that a very specific faction of people enjoys sporting that symbol, but I must be careful in laying any judgement, as I am frequently annoyed when I come across misappropriations of the Gadsden Flag, which, in my opinion, is one of the best symbols of libertarianism that exists. I would, at the very least, say that I don’t believe that libertarianism is opposed to law public enforcement.
Aside: If you have any good resources that outline the actual symbolism represented by the flag, then I would really appreciate it if you could share it so that I might try to ameliorate my understanding.
Protesting banned books, voter roll purges, anti-protest laws, Assange, Snowden, etc.Complaining about cancel cultureProtesting banned books
If books are banned by law, this a violation of freedom of speech, so supporting that would indeed be non-libertarian.
voter roll purges
Would you mind specifying what you mean by this? I’m not familiar with it.
anti-protest laws
Again, this is a violation of freedom of speech, as well as freedom of assembly, freedom of association, etc. so supporting it would, indeed, be non-libertarian.
Assange, Snowden
What specifically about them are you referring to? Are you talking about their leaking of state-classified information, their individual principles, or something else?
In favor of anti-trans bathroom laws
Any law which would prevent a private establishment from setting its own such rules would, indeed, be non-libertarian.
Believes drugs and prostitution should remain illegal
Any laws that restrict the freedoms of the individual, if those freedoms do not infringe on those of others, is, indeed, non-libertarian.
“I am a libertarian, I just think the left has gone too far recently and needs to be pushed back against!”
I don’t understand what you are implying here. There are plenty of non-libertarian things that the “modern left” political faction supports.
Only actual libertarian principles are being pro-2A and hating the IRS
While, yes, supporting the 2A falls in line with libertarian principles, I’m not convinced that abolishing the IRS would be. The IRS’s purpose is to collect taxes. A libertarian doesn’t necessarily have to be completely opposed to taxation, and if there exists taxes, then you need state agency to collect them – of course, a libertarian would certainly seek to minimize taxation to the greatest extent feasible.
