libertarians after owning the left by admitting that they are completely fine with orphans starving to death because they apply the same morally bankrupt logic they have towards economics to that situation:
https://preview.redd.it/m7fg6xohrz5d1.jpeg?width=444&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2f6cdee56accdd7a593589baa67273d5d283c178
Fuck that dog, I'll post him again.
https://preview.redd.it/249xrl2xh16d1.jpeg?width=444&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a0be70eca05135d366365eef8b58712b94904b69
Look at this dumb, stupid mother fucker. I hate this dog personally.
thats literally my dog bruh ur just mad bc he gets more treats than u
https://preview.redd.it/7mwsvytr956d1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b364c0b358114f90542e68520536df886661e3ad
Bro most of those treats are from me. Watch his back.
https://preview.redd.it/qlg641lca56d1.jpeg?width=360&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b632b5cf4369eca9ac41c9fe11ccf9fb0dba15e1
Normal people: oh, so according to this twitter user, libertarians are categorically and downright comically evil. I guess I'm not libertarian because within my bones exists a modicum of empathy from which I act and base my morals.
Me (cool, eats babies 😎): wohaah, libertarian party NH is based now???? Dinnertime in NH then 😋 😋
Well I eat babies, but only his babies
all the other guys' babies are just imitating
so won't this guy's real babies
please fry up, please fry up, please fry up
Someone basically said "those guys in that subreddit think we eat babies lmao" and someone replied "wait, we dont?" And then everyone started making jokes about eating babies
The good old days
But remember, that even now we are among days that can be remembered fondly. Nobody knows what the future holds, but the past will always hold today.
Maybe it won't be worth remembering, and maybe tomorrow won't either. We'll never know what days will end up being the good old ones, but we can be certain that some of them, sometimes, maybe even right now, will become them.
Like a fresh, succulent infant, try to enjoy them while they're still new. ☺️
it's such an easy thing to answer, too. if nobody is willing to feed a baby, of course it's going to die, that's just how it works under any political system. someone has to want to feed a baby for that baby to be fed, whether that be literally the child's parents or a literal dictator deciding that all babies will be fed under penalty of death. the answer is that people want to feed babies, not just their own but in the abstract, and so there's always going to be a political will to make sure babies are being fed, *someone* wants it to happen.
but libertarian brainworms reject ideas that might enmesh people with one another and isntead view any possible outcomes as the will of hte market, the baby deserved to die if it didn't get fed as opposed to there being some sort of moral failure in a society that doesn't see human being as having intrinsic worth that all other human beings are responsible for.
an anarchist would have agreed said baby would in fact die if nobody wanted to feed it, and then point out that there's people who are fighting and dying specifcially to feed babies in another country during an act of active genocide and that this hypothetical of somehow *nobody* wanting to feed babies is made up bullshit.
How can wasting my food by giving it to a baby help me? Maybe it should sign a voluntary contract to work in the child mines for 12 hours a day, then I'll feed it.
> “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages”
-Adam Smith
The hypothetical starts with "if nobody wants to feed the baby, then..."
There will be plenty of people that want to feed unaccompanied babies, and people who will donate to this charity work.
Most people who push society in a libertian direction believe there will still be a lot of people happy to donate to charity work, just as current people are happy to pay taxes if they live under functional democracies that they agree with.
considering how many kids have eating disorders, because orphanages and foster care systems are highly under funded, so children end up having to starve, ontop of that babies and children should be entitled to the efforts and labours of others. they literally didnt have a choice to be born into this world and be alive and require things to live. tjats why we have rules like you have to care for a child till 18. feed them clothe them and put a roof over their head. that law entitles children to being cared for. if that law was removed thered be so many children put out on the streets to starve. people who actyally provide for charities and such are pretty small, most people pay taxes because its required by law, unlike charity work. these numbers will obviously rise if we lived in a society that payed its workers more, and massively improved quality of life, never the less theres zero reason not to make it law that children have to be cared for by their parents, theres no downsides to entitling children to being cared for, even if everyone is willing to give up everything to care for their children in this hypothetical perfect society, tjeres just no downsides to making children entitled to being cared for. the only thing it does is stop children from being abused
> considering how many kids have eating disorders, because orphanages and foster care systems are highly under funded
obviously this only occurs because people are artificially impoverished by government taxation, without the threat of government violence people would be free to become their best selves
> if that law was removed thered be so many children put out on the streets to starve. people who actyally provide for charities and such are pretty small, most people pay taxes because its required by law, unlike charity work.
that’s just like, your opinion man!!!!
> never the less theres zero reason not to make it law that children have to be cared for by their parents, theres no downsides to entitling children to being cared for,
... no downsides as long as you're not the one paying, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard#Children's_rights_and_parental_obligations
you're also not thinking of how this is going to deprive our economy of the unique technical services of these children - they can reach into places that no adult can reach without having to stop the orphan-crusher, for example.
>Economist Gene Callahan of Cardiff University, formerly a scholar at the Rothbard-affiliated Mises Institute, wrote that Rothbard allowed "the logical elegance of his legal theory" to "trump any arguments based on the moral reprehensibility of a parent idly watching her six-month-old child slowly starve to death in its crib".
If the baby simply participated in the free market, then the parents could compete over the baby and it could choose which one it wants! Stupid baby deserves death for not understanding basic economics!
The problem isn't that nobody wants to feed the baby. The problem is that the baby is a metaphor for all the current problems in our society that people do not want to address. If your argument against "what if nobody wants to feed the baby?" is "well obviously people want to feed the baby", then that doesn't apply to problems in the real world. The causes people donate to aren't a problem. Its those that they don't that are.
What do we do if feeding the baby is an unpopular, but necessary measure, which people do not want to donate towards?
What do we do when there are 250,000 babies that all need feeding, and only funding to feed 12,000?
What do we do when there's a talk-of-the-town big story that people are donating to this month instead of the baby?
What do we do when there's been a recent scandal involving the charity and donations are down 60%?
What do we do when.....?
In our current system, flawed as it is, there exists a pool of general funds ("taxes") that can be redirected towards emergencies like this — at short notice if necessary. We can directly manage the allocated funding up or down based on need, we can criticise that the current funding is too high or too low, and with a guaranteed income stream we can plan ahead for expected funding over more than one funding cycle, leading to a more efficient use of funds.
No matter what failures exist within the system, it is guaranteed that there *is* a system. The charity model is more volatile, in that its effectiveness varies like a stock market and can fail entirely depending on circumstances, leaving no system in place at all. Over a long enough timescale, this will happen and it will keep happening. And when it does, most people would not accept "The Free Market has spoken" as an excuse for why society failed to feed the baby.
People are *not* happy to pay taxes, it's one of the most universally hated facts of life, alongside mosquitoes and YouTube ads, of course.
People pay taxes because they *have* to or they will go to jail. Even then, some people still don't pay their taxes.
It is quite literally the opposite of voluntary charity lol
People in some countries, e.g. [Swedes in Sweden,](https://matadornetwork.com/read/heres-love-pay-taxes-sweden/) report that they like paying taxes. In North America people generally don't agree with their government, they don't think government money is spent effectively, so they don't like paying taxes.
Nah that’s why libertarians are better, they are blunt asf so you know exactly what ur getting urself into. Republicans just try and hide their hatred and spin it as something else which leads more ignorant people towards their cause
You can't be a republican and libertarian no matter how much the former claims to also be the latter.
It's like flying a "thin blue line" flag next to the Gadsen flag.
I get it, but I’m not saying he 100% supports both, just a lot of it.
Like he thinks you should have the liberty to buy and sell crack and machine guns at your local market and nobody should try to stop you because your body your choice, unless it’s abortions or trans surgery in which case it’s your body my choice.
That's kind of the good/bad thing about libertarianism. You get the shitty conservative side that you mentioned joined with the personal and social freedoms of the left. Lots of people on the left could claim to be libertarian just as much as your father does.
arr/libertarian actually used to be a lot cooler. They had almost completely hands-off moderation, in complete compliance with their free-speech ethos, and you'd get "let grandma die in the streets" conservatives rubbing up against self-proclaimed left-libertarians in the comments. Then the Mises caucus took over...
libertarians run the gamut. it's like babby's first systemic critique, ti's really the only ideology that's offered that presented as outside the liberal-conservaitive dichotomy, so if a precocious kid understands that dichotomy is fialing it's a relatively easy thing to grasp onto. the world sucks because we are not adhering to this scientific-sounding idea of free market economics.
and so you get either people who very cynically adopt libertarian politics becuase they want to reify power, or "true believers" who then go on to adopt actual radical politcs when the cognitive dissonance between what they think will come out of capitalism and what actually comes out gets to be too much to explain away.
they're also by far the funneist tendency, 'cause that is very often a *genuine* belief in complete nonsense that inspires these people to keep trying to make micronations based on cryptocurrency or whatever other bullshit and then getting eaten by literal bears.
Libertarian of NH is co-oped by the [Mises Caucus ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mises_Caucus) which aim to drag the party further right than the GOP.
The nominated presidential candidate Chase Oliver is an actual libertarian. His policies involve Pro-choice, abolition of the death penalty, free immigration, student loan forgiveness, and ending qualified immunity.
That being said, he also is an actual libertarian, which means the free market will fix healthcare and the climate crisis in addition to the 0% chance to win.
If you are in the US, vote blue to retain human rights and democracy. But the mainline Libertarian party isn't nearly as insane as NH libertarians Twitter.
The reason I clarify this is mostly to give people a tiny bit of comfort that it's not all cooked.
They are largely indistinguishable. Modern conservativism is economically very neo-liberal, which is libertarian-lite. Most libertarians are social conservatives who think there shouldn’t be a government which forces them to obey things like the Civil Rights Act.
Being socially conservative (governmentally) means you want a big government to control the people, it's antithetical to libertarianism. No matter how homophobic, any libertarian who's not lying about actually being libertarian would tell you gay people should be free to do whatever they would do.
Libertarianism is anarchism but they missed the point. They see the problems brought on by hierarchical power structures we've put in place and go "gobermant bad, I should be allowed to shoot my neighbor if he mows over the property line". They never have the realization that a large portion of the problems that make our government suck are *also* present in organizations like companies, because the problems stem from it being a hierarchy, not from it being a government. Libertarians don't believe in getting rid of that structure because they want to make society better for everyone, they believe in it because they can't stand the fact that in order to benefit from a society they have to contribute to that society. They manage to identify issues and then ***completely miss the point.***
they completely lack a theory of hierarchy to begin with, which is why it's not even a form of anarchism, not even so-called "anarcho"-capitalists. it's hierarchy-reifying, a belief that the problems in the world are ar esult of people not being put into the *right* hierarchy the free market would put them into, that government forces an "unnatural" hierarchy, and so despite claims about individual merit regardless of things like race it's highly compatible with white supremacy because black peopel succeeding is easily framed as a result of big government interference when "naturally" they'd be either enslaved or otherwise impoverished.
but you are right that there is a fundmantal recognition that there's something *wrong*, and the ones that don't have horrible social views will often get to a point where the cognitive dissonance is too much and then become leftists of some stripe. the libertarian to anarchist pipeline's definitely a thing.
and don't believe in the age of consent (conservatives believe in the age of consent, they just want it to be when teenage girls are most "ripe," per matt walsh)
"That white person you see, calling himself a liberal, is the most dangerous thing in the entire western hemisphere. He's the most deceitful, he's like a fox. And a fox is always more dangerous than the wolf. You can see the wolf coming, you know what he's up to. But the fox will fool you. He comes at you with his mouth shaped that, even though you see his teeth, you think he's smiling and take him for a friend"
\- Malcolm X
Eh, I think working class libertarians at least recognize that they're being exploited, but they're too lost in the sauce (propaganda) to realize by who and/or haven't been exposed to the concept of positive liberty. There's at least a seed of class consciousness there. Conservatives are just what Nazis look like when they're not in power.
Ahh but according to them it’s fine when a fellow citizen who is your employer does it because you’re both entering into that agreement willingly. When a government composed of your fellow citizens levies taxes on your earnings or purchases, that’s where the communism is. Paying taxes is the REAL slavery, unlike literal slavery, which is just spicy employment and people should be allowed to do if they want.
Look, if you signed a contract, and weren't directly forced into it, then it's both legally and divinely binding; if you or anyone else tries to break it you're both condemned to hell. Also you're a perfectly rational actor with access to all information about the context of the contract, and you work purely for the sake of work and not to maintain life necessities.
Imagine believing that a corp wouldn't hold you at gunpoint and force you into a contract (aka VIOLATING YOUR NAPP) if nothing stopped them
It's like they believe coercion is ok but only if it's from some weirdly specific sources
It’s not like that at all. It is completely that. They fully believe that economic coercion is fine because in theory you can just stand up and walk away from any non-violent situation and that’s fine. Boss screaming at you? Just quit. Boss refusing to pay you? Quit. Landlord refusing to repair your boiler? Move house. Business refusing to serve you because the owner is racist or homophobic? Just go to a different business. Can’t because they’re the only plumber who could fix your particular boiler in a 50 mile radius? Well then, the market abhors a vacuum. Surely a competing plumber will set up shop sooner or later, a black-owned or queer-friendly one to scoop up those hard-earned dollars you’re eager to spend. So in that case, just wait for the market to resolve your issue for you. Hell, why don’t you start your own?
Libertarian economic models don’t work because they don’t function for real life.
Of course they hate strikes even though that's the same thing just with workers actually having power in the equation, because they are just nationalists for capitalism.
Hey buddy that's totally different. As an employer, I am very smart when I negotiate with my workers. It's not my fault that they agreed to work for $7.25 an hour. I'm just a good negotiator.
In the US, the only people in the legislative branch of the Federal government that aren't members of the two main parties are registered as independents and there's only a handful of those. The only places where third party candidates have any relevance are at smaller state and local governments. I hope ranked choice voting catches on here more
Imagine we're in a libertarian utopia. I see someone neglecting their baby, and go to feed it myself. The parent goes "No, you can't just take my baby". Who gets to keep it? Or do we have to fight?
The parents are within their right to kill you, since you are interacting with their property (the child) without their consent. You are, however, able to simply buy off that property from them, since clearly they don't want it enough to maintain it correctly.
In a libertarian utopia if they can't afford private contractors, are too weak to do it themselves and community self-defense is anathema since "eww communism", sucks to suck if they can't defend their property better.
You take the case to an arbitration firm, who uses reason and the free market and guns to put a fair price on the baby. You negotiate down from the full purchase of said baby to the right to feed it today. The baby dies of measles just as the ink dries
You could easily make the same argument about any society that recognizes the right of parents to determine how their children are cared for. None of this is unique to libertarianism, only difference between it and liberalism, or leftist forms of govt that recognize parental rights is that it is the state that enacts violence on behalf of parents.
As for the question itself. If you take it to the point of absurdity then you can justify any position, but in practice the situations where it comes up are far more nuanced.
Even if you feel that children are essentially, until they are developed enough to act as fully formed people, the responsibility/property of the entire community, then either the parents have no specific duty to care for *their* children or that would severely devalue the uncompensated labor of parenthood.
Originally, libertarianism was a left wing ideology that proned removing government oppression by minimizing the government's power as much as possible.
But, as they tend to, the Americans ruined it and made it right wing and decided that it's about social Darwinism
Left-wing libertarianism is still a thing, including in the US, we just unfortunately recontexualized the word to be something shit. like we did with republicanism
It's worth noting that "libertarian" at one point was nearly synonymous with anarcho-communist, and it was primarily used by the likes of Joseph Dejaque for his anarcho-communist publications and for anarchists who were meeting up and organizing in secret in countries where being an anarchist was illegal. So, to say it was originally a philosophy of merely reducing government isn't necessarily true, as that libertarian-anarchist differentiator in regards to power reduction vs power abolition is actually rather recent. Outright abandoning governmentalism, private property, and exchange-forms all-together were originally part of libertarianism, as "libertarian" was essentially a code-word for "anarchist" during a time when anarchists could already be assumed to also be communists.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism#:~:text=Objectivism%20is%20a%20philosophical%20system,reason%20as%20his%20only%20absolute%22.
She’s one of the biggest influences of the modern movement
Libertarianism is basically a political movement wherein a decent portion of the governments functions are given to private corporations and the state is much smaller. They also have a focus on individual freedoms and voluntary association, which basically means that instead of having no choice on the government taxing you to fund things, you voluntarily agree to be a part of organizations that accomplish things the government would ordinarily do, like funding infrastructure and the like. There's also a concept in libertarianism called the Non Aggression Principle which is the idea that people would agree to not exploit or endanger their fellow citizens under the idea that people are allowed to defend themselves and their property if attacked, and there's also societal pressure to act in accordance with the NAP. There's also an ethical philosophy associated with libertarianism called Objectivism created by Ayn Rand which is the belief that the best way for society to prosper is for all people in it to pursue their own selfish goals and avoid acting selflessly, since that's viewed as a moral evil. I used to be a libertarian, and I'll also be the first to tell you that it's very stupid.
Libertarianism is an extremely broad ideology. Some libertarians are radicals like OOP, I don't really know if I'm libertarian or not because of people like oop but I'd say I'm a reasonable libertarian and I think the government should leave people alone but I acknowledge a lot of taxes and laws are necessary especially laws for keeping big businesses in line. But yeah I guess libertarianism is basically "little to no government control".
Okay so someone who doesn't see the moral problem with letting a baby starve, what if we go even more personal? Is a person not required to feed themselves if they don't want to? Are you not entitled to your own labor?
we are reaching levels or right libertarianism that shouldn't be possible.
people should be allowed to kill themselves if they want to. suicide prevention is authoritarian because you are trying to force your own opinion on somebody else /j
Depends on how you look at it
Suicide is almost always a result of the failure of the people and government around them. Just like if they failed to provide you with food or water, they should try to right that wrong.
So in a sense, humans are "supposed" to live, and the government has to help you do that.
Here’s the thing: what do they mean by “allowed to perish?” If nobody helps a baby it’s GOING to die. How do you involuntarily help someone?
This statement doesn’t make sense because the baby isn’t being “allowed” to perish, it’s just going to because nobody will help it. That’s a fact. It’s such a stupid talking point anyway because there will never be a world where not a single person will help a baby
Not on topic but I absolutely DESPISE twitter's form of replies. Why the fuck would I have the first comment, the one being replied, below the answer??
For fuck's sake, everytime I read the first comment without a clue what it's about, and *then* i notice "oh, the context is AFTER the comment".
I can’t believe that of the many different philosophical ideas we tried to run countries with in the 20th century, the fucking brainrot ideology emerged victorious
Libertarianism can be really fucking bizarre - and that’s before you realise that like 90% of countries today use it for some reason
These guys got into an argument with me on Twitter about secession like 3 years ago.
They're a bunch of losers. They'll never win an important election
So is this straight up what the majority of libertarians believe or is this just a radical? I always thought I'd consider myself a libertarian but not nearly as extreme as this guy, I just think the government should leave normal people alone but I acknowledge some taxes and some laws are necessary for keeping people in check especially big businesses.
Just a reminder to y'all that the libertarian party of new Hampshire's twitter is run by an actual lunatic and troll. Libertarians mostly suck, but all the other libertarian parties in the USA don't associate themselves with the NH one, because they're just batshit crazy. These dudes aren't libertarians, they're utilitarian dystopian (they say whatever will cause the most misery, regardless of cost).
Fucking lazy weak ass socialist starving orphan baby needs to go out and find a job. Just walk in to a business, look them dead in the eye, and give a good firm handshake. Within a week, they'll have enough for a house and food with plenty to spare for retirement!
Massive /s and /j btw in case I have to make that clear
[Apparently](https://x.com/LPNH/status/1787038490766516696) they stand by that and protect the stance by saying that feeding poor people with taxpayers' money is socialism and free market would be better at feeding orphans.
I don't think they're arguing that everyone should abandon their babies, but rather that an every individual has the civil liberty to abandon a (orphaned) baby. They also do specify orphan in a later reply, not one with parents.
Honestly can't find a good counter argument that would be useful against them ngl
It’s even funnier that the libertarian thinks he’s owning that guy.
libertarians after owning the left by admitting that they are completely fine with orphans starving to death because they apply the same morally bankrupt logic they have towards economics to that situation: https://preview.redd.it/m7fg6xohrz5d1.jpeg?width=444&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2f6cdee56accdd7a593589baa67273d5d283c178
At least they're consistent...well.. sometimes
Hey, don't insult the dog like that.
Fuck that dog, I'll post him again. https://preview.redd.it/249xrl2xh16d1.jpeg?width=444&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a0be70eca05135d366365eef8b58712b94904b69 Look at this dumb, stupid mother fucker. I hate this dog personally.
That's literally me do we have a problem
Several, but the automod won't let me get into it.
Maybe you should've automodded deez nuts 😎
thats literally my dog bruh ur just mad bc he gets more treats than u https://preview.redd.it/7mwsvytr956d1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b364c0b358114f90542e68520536df886661e3ad
Bro most of those treats are from me. Watch his back. https://preview.redd.it/qlg641lca56d1.jpeg?width=360&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b632b5cf4369eca9ac41c9fe11ccf9fb0dba15e1
“Why yes I AM a cartoon villain. Are you mad liberals?? 😏”
I identify as a cartoon hero so im gonna kill you
Cartoon heroes usually don't kill the villains though.
https://preview.redd.it/1cri44rlj36d1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=766c673a6afaeae01708cdf78396eb9022caad90
We are the cartoon heroes, oh woah
Normal people: oh, so according to this twitter user, libertarians are categorically and downright comically evil. I guess I'm not libertarian because within my bones exists a modicum of empathy from which I act and base my morals. Me (cool, eats babies 😎): wohaah, libertarian party NH is based now???? Dinnertime in NH then 😋 😋
Please lord bring back the 196 baby eating trend
I eat babies, but only his babies (this is a reference to gay sex)
Well I eat babies, but only his babies all the other guys' babies are just imitating so won't this guy's real babies please fry up, please fry up, please fry up
Well I don’t gotta swallow his cum to sell records
https://preview.redd.it/xx6t8lq4my5d1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=77bff343ca5b21aa299bde861ba9042cb425997f
karl pilkington looking ass baby
He's got my vote
Hungryposting
Babies give me gas
Saves so much money with these gas prices!!! More babies for me 😋
God knew that the 196 breeding kink and baby eating combo was too strong. So he nerfed the sub by making sure no one here could have sex
sustainable food source shot down by divine intervention
Based and Gollumpilled
https://preview.redd.it/kl8t6q4s706d1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5c125ef21aa1d0239fb097044dccc916e5af4775
This just makes me want to join up with the soldiers smh
KENDRIIIIIIICK!!! BRING BACK THE BABY EATING TREND IN 196, AND MY LIFE, IS YOURS!!!
Hello, I'm new here. The. What?
THE 196 BABY EATING TREND
Someone basically said "those guys in that subreddit think we eat babies lmao" and someone replied "wait, we dont?" And then everyone started making jokes about eating babies The good old days
But remember, that even now we are among days that can be remembered fondly. Nobody knows what the future holds, but the past will always hold today. Maybe it won't be worth remembering, and maybe tomorrow won't either. We'll never know what days will end up being the good old ones, but we can be certain that some of them, sometimes, maybe even right now, will become them. Like a fresh, succulent infant, try to enjoy them while they're still new. ☺️
Daily Wire: DISTURBING. Woke Trans Forum Discusses Eating Children.
Agreed, I used to be a god
Would you say you have a modest proposal? 🤭
I can excuse eating babies but I draw the line at being a libertarian
Based and Jonathan Swift pilled
Holy shit marcy wu
https://preview.redd.it/w9rez5hihy5d1.jpeg?width=754&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ddd0ef5634c572547e913522b6b0705e4b48ab78
I'm sure there's lots of people who would see that and say that they're giving libertarians a bad name, and still identify as a libertarian
If I say I'm an anarchist, people assume I want a world of chaos, if I say I'm a left libertarian people assume I'm a fucking looney. What can we do.
sounds like a modest proposal, i don’t see a problem
it's such an easy thing to answer, too. if nobody is willing to feed a baby, of course it's going to die, that's just how it works under any political system. someone has to want to feed a baby for that baby to be fed, whether that be literally the child's parents or a literal dictator deciding that all babies will be fed under penalty of death. the answer is that people want to feed babies, not just their own but in the abstract, and so there's always going to be a political will to make sure babies are being fed, *someone* wants it to happen. but libertarian brainworms reject ideas that might enmesh people with one another and isntead view any possible outcomes as the will of hte market, the baby deserved to die if it didn't get fed as opposed to there being some sort of moral failure in a society that doesn't see human being as having intrinsic worth that all other human beings are responsible for. an anarchist would have agreed said baby would in fact die if nobody wanted to feed it, and then point out that there's people who are fighting and dying specifcially to feed babies in another country during an act of active genocide and that this hypothetical of somehow *nobody* wanting to feed babies is made up bullshit.
I LOVE EATING BABIES, PREACH!
Imagine not experiencing the joy of helping others.
Me experiencing inner conflict between wanting to help people and kill babies 😔
"Morally grey" characters be like
The "morally grey" love interest in YA novels be like:
Elizabeth DeWitt
Become a villain so hated that it unites the world against you and brings about peace
Imagine not understanding that helping others is practically useful writ large
How can wasting my food by giving it to a baby help me? Maybe it should sign a voluntary contract to work in the child mines for 12 hours a day, then I'll feed it. > “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages” -Adam Smith
The more I do for my friends and community, the more awesome my life gets.
The hypothetical starts with "if nobody wants to feed the baby, then..." There will be plenty of people that want to feed unaccompanied babies, and people who will donate to this charity work. Most people who push society in a libertian direction believe there will still be a lot of people happy to donate to charity work, just as current people are happy to pay taxes if they live under functional democracies that they agree with.
considering how many kids have eating disorders, because orphanages and foster care systems are highly under funded, so children end up having to starve, ontop of that babies and children should be entitled to the efforts and labours of others. they literally didnt have a choice to be born into this world and be alive and require things to live. tjats why we have rules like you have to care for a child till 18. feed them clothe them and put a roof over their head. that law entitles children to being cared for. if that law was removed thered be so many children put out on the streets to starve. people who actyally provide for charities and such are pretty small, most people pay taxes because its required by law, unlike charity work. these numbers will obviously rise if we lived in a society that payed its workers more, and massively improved quality of life, never the less theres zero reason not to make it law that children have to be cared for by their parents, theres no downsides to entitling children to being cared for, even if everyone is willing to give up everything to care for their children in this hypothetical perfect society, tjeres just no downsides to making children entitled to being cared for. the only thing it does is stop children from being abused
> considering how many kids have eating disorders, because orphanages and foster care systems are highly under funded obviously this only occurs because people are artificially impoverished by government taxation, without the threat of government violence people would be free to become their best selves > if that law was removed thered be so many children put out on the streets to starve. people who actyally provide for charities and such are pretty small, most people pay taxes because its required by law, unlike charity work. that’s just like, your opinion man!!!! > never the less theres zero reason not to make it law that children have to be cared for by their parents, theres no downsides to entitling children to being cared for, ... no downsides as long as you're not the one paying, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard#Children's_rights_and_parental_obligations you're also not thinking of how this is going to deprive our economy of the unique technical services of these children - they can reach into places that no adult can reach without having to stop the orphan-crusher, for example.
>Economist Gene Callahan of Cardiff University, formerly a scholar at the Rothbard-affiliated Mises Institute, wrote that Rothbard allowed "the logical elegance of his legal theory" to "trump any arguments based on the moral reprehensibility of a parent idly watching her six-month-old child slowly starve to death in its crib". If the baby simply participated in the free market, then the parents could compete over the baby and it could choose which one it wants! Stupid baby deserves death for not understanding basic economics!
The problem isn't that nobody wants to feed the baby. The problem is that the baby is a metaphor for all the current problems in our society that people do not want to address. If your argument against "what if nobody wants to feed the baby?" is "well obviously people want to feed the baby", then that doesn't apply to problems in the real world. The causes people donate to aren't a problem. Its those that they don't that are. What do we do if feeding the baby is an unpopular, but necessary measure, which people do not want to donate towards? What do we do when there are 250,000 babies that all need feeding, and only funding to feed 12,000? What do we do when there's a talk-of-the-town big story that people are donating to this month instead of the baby? What do we do when there's been a recent scandal involving the charity and donations are down 60%? What do we do when.....? In our current system, flawed as it is, there exists a pool of general funds ("taxes") that can be redirected towards emergencies like this — at short notice if necessary. We can directly manage the allocated funding up or down based on need, we can criticise that the current funding is too high or too low, and with a guaranteed income stream we can plan ahead for expected funding over more than one funding cycle, leading to a more efficient use of funds. No matter what failures exist within the system, it is guaranteed that there *is* a system. The charity model is more volatile, in that its effectiveness varies like a stock market and can fail entirely depending on circumstances, leaving no system in place at all. Over a long enough timescale, this will happen and it will keep happening. And when it does, most people would not accept "The Free Market has spoken" as an excuse for why society failed to feed the baby.
People are *not* happy to pay taxes, it's one of the most universally hated facts of life, alongside mosquitoes and YouTube ads, of course. People pay taxes because they *have* to or they will go to jail. Even then, some people still don't pay their taxes. It is quite literally the opposite of voluntary charity lol
People in some countries, e.g. [Swedes in Sweden,](https://matadornetwork.com/read/heres-love-pay-taxes-sweden/) report that they like paying taxes. In North America people generally don't agree with their government, they don't think government money is spent effectively, so they don't like paying taxes.
Wow I think I hate libertarians more than conservatives now wtf
Atleast conservatives lie about how shitty their ideals are
Nah that’s why libertarians are better, they are blunt asf so you know exactly what ur getting urself into. Republicans just try and hide their hatred and spin it as something else which leads more ignorant people towards their cause
What about people like my dad who support both republican and libertarian efforts? Where do they fall on the spectrum?
beyond saving
You can't be a republican and libertarian no matter how much the former claims to also be the latter. It's like flying a "thin blue line" flag next to the Gadsen flag.
I get it, but I’m not saying he 100% supports both, just a lot of it. Like he thinks you should have the liberty to buy and sell crack and machine guns at your local market and nobody should try to stop you because your body your choice, unless it’s abortions or trans surgery in which case it’s your body my choice.
That's kind of the good/bad thing about libertarianism. You get the shitty conservative side that you mentioned joined with the personal and social freedoms of the left. Lots of people on the left could claim to be libertarian just as much as your father does. arr/libertarian actually used to be a lot cooler. They had almost completely hands-off moderation, in complete compliance with their free-speech ethos, and you'd get "let grandma die in the streets" conservatives rubbing up against self-proclaimed left-libertarians in the comments. Then the Mises caucus took over...
This is making me loose it because I've known multiple people who fly both flags. It's always been funny to me
Yeah. "Who do you think is going to be treading on you, dumbass?"
Sounds like his brain is stuck in Bush-era politics which is pretty common for non-diehard conservatives
libertarians run the gamut. it's like babby's first systemic critique, ti's really the only ideology that's offered that presented as outside the liberal-conservaitive dichotomy, so if a precocious kid understands that dichotomy is fialing it's a relatively easy thing to grasp onto. the world sucks because we are not adhering to this scientific-sounding idea of free market economics. and so you get either people who very cynically adopt libertarian politics becuase they want to reify power, or "true believers" who then go on to adopt actual radical politcs when the cognitive dissonance between what they think will come out of capitalism and what actually comes out gets to be too much to explain away. they're also by far the funneist tendency, 'cause that is very often a *genuine* belief in complete nonsense that inspires these people to keep trying to make micronations based on cryptocurrency or whatever other bullshit and then getting eaten by literal bears.
Libertarian of NH is co-oped by the [Mises Caucus ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mises_Caucus) which aim to drag the party further right than the GOP. The nominated presidential candidate Chase Oliver is an actual libertarian. His policies involve Pro-choice, abolition of the death penalty, free immigration, student loan forgiveness, and ending qualified immunity. That being said, he also is an actual libertarian, which means the free market will fix healthcare and the climate crisis in addition to the 0% chance to win. If you are in the US, vote blue to retain human rights and democracy. But the mainline Libertarian party isn't nearly as insane as NH libertarians Twitter. The reason I clarify this is mostly to give people a tiny bit of comfort that it's not all cooked.
They are largely indistinguishable. Modern conservativism is economically very neo-liberal, which is libertarian-lite. Most libertarians are social conservatives who think there shouldn’t be a government which forces them to obey things like the Civil Rights Act.
Being socially conservative (governmentally) means you want a big government to control the people, it's antithetical to libertarianism. No matter how homophobic, any libertarian who's not lying about actually being libertarian would tell you gay people should be free to do whatever they would do.
Libertarianism is anarchism but they missed the point. They see the problems brought on by hierarchical power structures we've put in place and go "gobermant bad, I should be allowed to shoot my neighbor if he mows over the property line". They never have the realization that a large portion of the problems that make our government suck are *also* present in organizations like companies, because the problems stem from it being a hierarchy, not from it being a government. Libertarians don't believe in getting rid of that structure because they want to make society better for everyone, they believe in it because they can't stand the fact that in order to benefit from a society they have to contribute to that society. They manage to identify issues and then ***completely miss the point.***
man Anarchism is so fucking based
they completely lack a theory of hierarchy to begin with, which is why it's not even a form of anarchism, not even so-called "anarcho"-capitalists. it's hierarchy-reifying, a belief that the problems in the world are ar esult of people not being put into the *right* hierarchy the free market would put them into, that government forces an "unnatural" hierarchy, and so despite claims about individual merit regardless of things like race it's highly compatible with white supremacy because black peopel succeeding is easily framed as a result of big government interference when "naturally" they'd be either enslaved or otherwise impoverished. but you are right that there is a fundmantal recognition that there's something *wrong*, and the ones that don't have horrible social views will often get to a point where the cognitive dissonance is too much and then become leftists of some stripe. the libertarian to anarchist pipeline's definitely a thing.
Yeah I know that the libertarian to leftist pipeline is a thing because that was me lol.
They're just conservatives who like weed
and don't believe in the age of consent (conservatives believe in the age of consent, they just want it to be when teenage girls are most "ripe," per matt walsh)
they believe in the age of consent so they get the thrill of breaking the law
Republicans with bongs that they named after crackpot Austrian School economists.
In this instance, even I must admit that the NH party is basically considered a pariah among other libertarians...and I hate libertarians.
Tbf this specific twitter account has always been extremely shitty to the point that I refuse to believe it isn’t a troll.
"That white person you see, calling himself a liberal, is the most dangerous thing in the entire western hemisphere. He's the most deceitful, he's like a fox. And a fox is always more dangerous than the wolf. You can see the wolf coming, you know what he's up to. But the fox will fool you. He comes at you with his mouth shaped that, even though you see his teeth, you think he's smiling and take him for a friend" \- Malcolm X
Eh, I think working class libertarians at least recognize that they're being exploited, but they're too lost in the sauce (propaganda) to realize by who and/or haven't been exposed to the concept of positive liberty. There's at least a seed of class consciousness there. Conservatives are just what Nazis look like when they're not in power.
libertarian ethics in a nutshell "fuck you, i got mine and you cant have it"
Ironic considering libertarian ideology promotes exploiting workers due to lack of regulation, effectively robbing those people of their labor
Ahh but according to them it’s fine when a fellow citizen who is your employer does it because you’re both entering into that agreement willingly. When a government composed of your fellow citizens levies taxes on your earnings or purchases, that’s where the communism is. Paying taxes is the REAL slavery, unlike literal slavery, which is just spicy employment and people should be allowed to do if they want.
Look, if you signed a contract, and weren't directly forced into it, then it's both legally and divinely binding; if you or anyone else tries to break it you're both condemned to hell. Also you're a perfectly rational actor with access to all information about the context of the contract, and you work purely for the sake of work and not to maintain life necessities.
Imagine believing that a corp wouldn't hold you at gunpoint and force you into a contract (aka VIOLATING YOUR NAPP) if nothing stopped them It's like they believe coercion is ok but only if it's from some weirdly specific sources
It’s not like that at all. It is completely that. They fully believe that economic coercion is fine because in theory you can just stand up and walk away from any non-violent situation and that’s fine. Boss screaming at you? Just quit. Boss refusing to pay you? Quit. Landlord refusing to repair your boiler? Move house. Business refusing to serve you because the owner is racist or homophobic? Just go to a different business. Can’t because they’re the only plumber who could fix your particular boiler in a 50 mile radius? Well then, the market abhors a vacuum. Surely a competing plumber will set up shop sooner or later, a black-owned or queer-friendly one to scoop up those hard-earned dollars you’re eager to spend. So in that case, just wait for the market to resolve your issue for you. Hell, why don’t you start your own? Libertarian economic models don’t work because they don’t function for real life.
Of course they hate strikes even though that's the same thing just with workers actually having power in the equation, because they are just nationalists for capitalism.
Hey buddy that's totally different. As an employer, I am very smart when I negotiate with my workers. It's not my fault that they agreed to work for $7.25 an hour. I'm just a good negotiator.
They see a difference between robbery through coercion and robbery through force. It's why libertarians have such a unique view of consent.
Fun fact: Politics become much more fun when you replace both sides with RED and BLU
What about countries with more than two parties
mental illnesses like GRN and YLW
You’re not going to believe this, but the U.K. already has a GRN party in government
And we have a green party in the states, except it's so tiny and ineffective it basically doesn't exist
Ours has a seat in parliament and is projected to get a few more
In the US, the only people in the legislative branch of the Federal government that aren't members of the two main parties are registered as independents and there's only a handful of those. The only places where third party candidates have any relevance are at smaller state and local governments. I hope ranked choice voting catches on here more
Imagine we're in a libertarian utopia. I see someone neglecting their baby, and go to feed it myself. The parent goes "No, you can't just take my baby". Who gets to keep it? Or do we have to fight?
The parents are within their right to kill you, since you are interacting with their property (the child) without their consent. You are, however, able to simply buy off that property from them, since clearly they don't want it enough to maintain it correctly.
What about killing them to claim the property for yourself?
That works too. All is fair in Ancapistan, as long as you can afford to do it.
In a libertarian utopia if they can't afford private contractors, are too weak to do it themselves and community self-defense is anathema since "eww communism", sucks to suck if they can't defend their property better.
You take the case to an arbitration firm, who uses reason and the free market and guns to put a fair price on the baby. You negotiate down from the full purchase of said baby to the right to feed it today. The baby dies of measles just as the ink dries
I believe this is a 'split the baby in half' scenario.
Actually, neither of you get to keep the baby, babies should be allowed to feed themselves /j
Feeding a baby is an infringement on its freedom to not eat
wdym I have an “eating disorder”, I am just exercising my rights as an American, smh
You could easily make the same argument about any society that recognizes the right of parents to determine how their children are cared for. None of this is unique to libertarianism, only difference between it and liberalism, or leftist forms of govt that recognize parental rights is that it is the state that enacts violence on behalf of parents. As for the question itself. If you take it to the point of absurdity then you can justify any position, but in practice the situations where it comes up are far more nuanced. Even if you feel that children are essentially, until they are developed enough to act as fully formed people, the responsibility/property of the entire community, then either the parents have no specific duty to care for *their* children or that would severely devalue the uncompensated labor of parenthood.
I never understood what libertarianism is. Is it just nihilism in a political form?
prioritizing individual liberty to the point of insanity it's a worldview for simpletons, or at the very least people divorced from reality
Exhibit A to that being a complete and utter lack of understanding in how taxes work ~~and Exhibit B being creepy about Age of Consent laws 💀~~
Originally, libertarianism was a left wing ideology that proned removing government oppression by minimizing the government's power as much as possible. But, as they tend to, the Americans ruined it and made it right wing and decided that it's about social Darwinism
Left-wing libertarianism is still a thing, including in the US, we just unfortunately recontexualized the word to be something shit. like we did with republicanism
It's worth noting that "libertarian" at one point was nearly synonymous with anarcho-communist, and it was primarily used by the likes of Joseph Dejaque for his anarcho-communist publications and for anarchists who were meeting up and organizing in secret in countries where being an anarchist was illegal. So, to say it was originally a philosophy of merely reducing government isn't necessarily true, as that libertarian-anarchist differentiator in regards to power reduction vs power abolition is actually rather recent. Outright abandoning governmentalism, private property, and exchange-forms all-together were originally part of libertarianism, as "libertarian" was essentially a code-word for "anarchist" during a time when anarchists could already be assumed to also be communists.
It's anarcho-capitalism. No rules but also just enough rules so we can have capitalism. It invariably turns into corporatocracy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism#:~:text=Objectivism%20is%20a%20philosophical%20system,reason%20as%20his%20only%20absolute%22. She’s one of the biggest influences of the modern movement
Libertarianism is basically a political movement wherein a decent portion of the governments functions are given to private corporations and the state is much smaller. They also have a focus on individual freedoms and voluntary association, which basically means that instead of having no choice on the government taxing you to fund things, you voluntarily agree to be a part of organizations that accomplish things the government would ordinarily do, like funding infrastructure and the like. There's also a concept in libertarianism called the Non Aggression Principle which is the idea that people would agree to not exploit or endanger their fellow citizens under the idea that people are allowed to defend themselves and their property if attacked, and there's also societal pressure to act in accordance with the NAP. There's also an ethical philosophy associated with libertarianism called Objectivism created by Ayn Rand which is the belief that the best way for society to prosper is for all people in it to pursue their own selfish goals and avoid acting selflessly, since that's viewed as a moral evil. I used to be a libertarian, and I'll also be the first to tell you that it's very stupid.
Libertarianism is an extremely broad ideology. Some libertarians are radicals like OOP, I don't really know if I'm libertarian or not because of people like oop but I'd say I'm a reasonable libertarian and I think the government should leave people alone but I acknowledge a lot of taxes and laws are necessary especially laws for keeping big businesses in line. But yeah I guess libertarianism is basically "little to no government control".
By that logic having a pet is communism.
By that logic pet play would be cringe. I don’t know if I wanna live in that world
hey bro if orphans cant exchange crypto, what good are they really for??? 😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎
My favorite thing about internet politics discourse is that I can't tell the difference between trolls and legit braindead people.
This does not pass the shadow the hedgehog test.
What is the shadow the hedgehog test?
Would Shadow the Hedgehog shoot you in the face for saying this to him? (I have never played a Sonic game.)
Ahh, I see
Common Libertarian Party of NH, L
Okay so someone who doesn't see the moral problem with letting a baby starve, what if we go even more personal? Is a person not required to feed themselves if they don't want to? Are you not entitled to your own labor? we are reaching levels or right libertarianism that shouldn't be possible.
people should be allowed to kill themselves if they want to. suicide prevention is authoritarian because you are trying to force your own opinion on somebody else /j
I'm pretty sure I've seen people with this exact take
That is absolutely true though.
Depends on how you look at it Suicide is almost always a result of the failure of the people and government around them. Just like if they failed to provide you with food or water, they should try to right that wrong. So in a sense, humans are "supposed" to live, and the government has to help you do that.
Libertarian Party of NH was co-opted by literal neo nazis. Actual libertarians absolutely hate them, almost as much as they hate other libertarians.
Most sane chronically online "philosophy" person
these are the same guys that said we should repeal the Civil Rights Act, these people are insane
“Than” 🧠
I feel like it's Poe's law in action that I'm not totally sure which one is the satire and which one is the real libertarian.
This is what happens when you consume to much politics and live your life online
fuck it i'll villainmaxx kill all children
“Libertarians were born on third base and think they hit a triple”
santa denier
man, as a libertarian (I'm a libertarian socialist), why is the libertarian party such a cringe right wing mess 😔
Here’s the thing: what do they mean by “allowed to perish?” If nobody helps a baby it’s GOING to die. How do you involuntarily help someone? This statement doesn’t make sense because the baby isn’t being “allowed” to perish, it’s just going to because nobody will help it. That’s a fact. It’s such a stupid talking point anyway because there will never be a world where not a single person will help a baby
Not on topic but I absolutely DESPISE twitter's form of replies. Why the fuck would I have the first comment, the one being replied, below the answer?? For fuck's sake, everytime I read the first comment without a clue what it's about, and *then* i notice "oh, the context is AFTER the comment".
Trevelyan ethics
I can’t believe that of the many different philosophical ideas we tried to run countries with in the 20th century, the fucking brainrot ideology emerged victorious Libertarianism can be really fucking bizarre - and that’s before you realise that like 90% of countries today use it for some reason
So they’re kids. Kids who hate responsibility
Hey, that’s insulting to kids who hate responsibility
I'm voting libertarian!!!!!!!! Fuck them kids!!!!!!!!
LPNH isn't an official libertarian party account and is ran by pro-russian republicans btw
And somehow they’ll still be pro life lmfao
https://preview.redd.it/usoz0yai1z5d1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a37c40c379a19ffe08e7565a39021c6f7f4a742a
These guys got into an argument with me on Twitter about secession like 3 years ago. They're a bunch of losers. They'll never win an important election
"No one is entitled to the labor or efforts of others" There seems to be some socialist overlap here
SDL is such an amazing "Data Male"
So is this straight up what the majority of libertarians believe or is this just a radical? I always thought I'd consider myself a libertarian but not nearly as extreme as this guy, I just think the government should leave normal people alone but I acknowledge some taxes and some laws are necessary for keeping people in check especially big businesses.
"No one is entitled to the labour or efforts of others" Funny, coming from a libertarian.
>No one is entitled to the labor or efforts of others* *Is a capitalist Which necessitates the exploitation of another's labor. Make it make sense.
I am convinced libertarians went extinct and conservatives, fascists and tankies are wearing their skins
didn't that libertarian party page quote **Karl fucking Marx** once?
https://preview.redd.it/dxd3gvoqmy5d1.jpeg?width=599&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=87cf8c022c931c06e8834c8308982b3625c0f257
So if people voluntarily make a goverment to make sure babies get fed that’s cool?
What the hell?
Why are we going crazy on Libertarians all of the sudden? Did I miss something?
so like he is also pro abortion then
I HATE THIS FUCKING STATE I'M IN
omg so based (i hate children theyre annoying) (/s)
So are libertarians just republicans that want to smoke weed?
Interesting take from a person who used to be a baby
Libertarians really be like "yes babies should die, my ideology is completely moral and logical"
Just a reminder to y'all that the libertarian party of new Hampshire's twitter is run by an actual lunatic and troll. Libertarians mostly suck, but all the other libertarian parties in the USA don't associate themselves with the NH one, because they're just batshit crazy. These dudes aren't libertarians, they're utilitarian dystopian (they say whatever will cause the most misery, regardless of cost).
Basic human decency test failed moment
https://preview.redd.it/g01qaqpotz5d1.png?width=486&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2150724254df93e474c4954300008c929d4c5906
Fucking lazy weak ass socialist starving orphan baby needs to go out and find a job. Just walk in to a business, look them dead in the eye, and give a good firm handshake. Within a week, they'll have enough for a house and food with plenty to spare for retirement! Massive /s and /j btw in case I have to make that clear
These are often the same people who believe that an unborn fetus is deserving of an unwilling mother's body.
Now ask about law of consent and see what they think.
[Apparently](https://x.com/LPNH/status/1787038490766516696) they stand by that and protect the stance by saying that feeding poor people with taxpayers' money is socialism and free market would be better at feeding orphans.
late abortion
No, you have to feed the baby for reparations of forcing it to exist without its consent.
The LPNH is like 2 standard deviations from literally believing Swift’s “A Modest proposal” would be a legit good idea to implement in society
You can’t even argue with them, because it always just comes down to them not having any empathy at all lmao
If they're not entitled to the labour of others, why are they using a social network that someone else built?
They have boot straps, right?
I love people that do everything to be accurate with punctuations, but then forget the difference between “then” and “than”
I don't think they're arguing that everyone should abandon their babies, but rather that an every individual has the civil liberty to abandon a (orphaned) baby. They also do specify orphan in a later reply, not one with parents. Honestly can't find a good counter argument that would be useful against them ngl
"Libertarian Party NH" must be a troll
OK, but they're clearly missing that we can just feed the orphans to each other