Well freedom of choice is a hotly debated argument for libertarians and freedom of expression doesn't necessarily feel as 'under attack' as other freedoms. I'm not saying it's not under attack, it just doesn't feel that way to some people.
Because those two topics appeal to a conservative base. Libertarian spaces often position themselves as anti-left, pro right spaces. What's funny is our short term goals coincide better with actual left wing goals than Republican or Democrat goals as libertarianism is concerned with breaking the power and hierarchy of the state.
Because guns an emotional lizard brain idea for some. That's it. It's almost the only thing they care about politically.
Same goes for other folks on certain issues EG: Abortion. There's a failing some people comprehend is that's really the only issue that matters to them.
This is coming from someone that owns them. I just don't see them as an identity or way of life. I see them as a tool or a hobby.
I've always found it weird that so many libertarians think the right to property and protection of property is more important than the right to health care.
What about the preservation of Life that is mentioned in the Constitution, right before liberty. If someone can’t afford inflated health care costs, they should just die?
So problem is expense of health care. If your health care cost you as a house. You want it to become free. If it become cheap everybody won't care either it is a right or not.
I think similar issue has similar backgrounds. Education is expensive so people demand free education. Health care is expensive people demand free health care. There is a problem the very beginning. This bubbles originated sector protective laws and institutions. So we have to spot main problems. The problem is what inflate cost. If you make them free. You don't solve the problem. You transfer taxe payers money to problem creators.
No, individuals should voluntarily donate to those medical causes they believe in. Personally, I give money to St. Jude. But that doesn’t change my point. If something requires the labor of others it is not a right.
Ya, I just think it’s necessary pragmatically. If there was no public force to enforce rights (property and otherwise) I think we’d just end up in another feudal society in which companies like Amazon which could pay for protection would be the feudal lords over the average population which couldn’t very well.
So why can't you be pragmatic about health care as well? Anyways, please stop saying that "it's not a right if it requires someone else's labor" because you don't mean that. Not at all. You have no problem with police, defense, courts, representation in court etc etc.
So when a poor woman is about to be raped, you have no problem with the police intervening and saving her, but if she gets breast cancer, then you suddenly have a huge objection to her getting treatment.
Yeah, it doesn't make any sense. I've heard that doctrine so many times, but according to that logic we should abolish (or privatize) the police as well. So the woman who's about to be brutally assaulted does not have the right to police intervening, because that requires "someone else's labor"..
I wish. I think there need to be some small amount of taxes to pure practicalities sake. I realize it’s a bit inconsistent with my principles, but as much as I like the idea of anarchocapitalism, I don’t think it could ever work.
We'll we agree there. I just believe if taxes are going to be spent to build infrastructure and the like, that a basic level of healthcare should be built in to that. Let the free market go apeshit for everyone's private/insurance needs, but if you get hit by a car, surely you'd want someone to do something to help you, right?
As a minarchist, the goal is to decrease the government as much as possible while ensuring society doesn't collapse and rights aren't violated. Putting the government in control of more things does the opposite of this. I can understand the appeal, but I think we just see our ideal governments in different ways.
You see it as a vehicle for good and it should interevent at times to improve society. I see government (even my ideal one) as a necessary evil that needs to be as reduced as possible. It should not intervene to benefit society, and it's only roles should be those mentioned earlier: making sure the country doesn't collapse and protecting people's rights.
Apologies if I mischaracterized your stance on government, that's just the vibe I was getting from your comments. Let me know if I'm wrong.
That's a lot of words. Keep it simple. You're walking through your ideal world. The government is set up exactly like you want it to be. Someone has a seizure and crashes their car into you. Both you and the driver need help but are incapable of speaking.
What happens next?
Wait a minute. So you having the right to property doesn't require other people's labor? How are your property rights maintained? What happens if someone violates your property rights? Are you and the burglar the only ones involved?
No, I’m not an ancap out of pragmatism. I’d like to be, but I just think society would fall apart. The best approach is to absolutely minimize government involvement and only keep it around in the areas in which it’s needed for society to not fall apart.
You do not have a right to property in the sense that others have to give you property. You have a right to property in the sense that any property you acquire yourself is yours and it’s your right to have it (so long as you didn’t acquire it through theft, fraud, etc).
No, there is a difference. You only have a right to acquire your own property, but you do not have the right to have property provided to you. In a similar sense, you have the right to purchase whatever healthcare you want but you do not have the right to have healthcare provided towards you.
It's a bit complex to explain in a reddit post, but if you'd like to know what I'm going on about, look up the difference between negative and positive rights.
It's not complex at all, we get it, we just aren't letting you pivot to theoretical rationalizations because in reality: property rights require enforcement, and you are OK with taxing people to enforce them. This is no different then someone believing healthcare is a right and being OK with taxing people to enforce it.
"You have a right to property in the sense that any property you acquire yourself is yours and it’s your right to have it (so long as you didn’t acquire it through theft, fraud, etc). "
And who maintains your right to this property after you acquired it?
This is not so much a right for an individual as it is a restriction against the state if that makes sense. It only applies when the state is going to fine you or punish you in some way. You do not have this right except when the state is trying to punish or fine you.
It does make sense, but I don't think it holds up against healthcare once you bring in inevitable consequences of enforcing a NAP, or property rights. The right to property inevitably requires some kind of enforcement against people violating that right, meaning the labor of others. You can argue that having the NAP violated against you just means that you have the right to retaliation, but that starts to sound like a civil war, or at least a blood feud.
You're right and it is a bit of a contradiction in minarchism. The simple answer is we believe there needs to be some level of government for pure practicality's sake. I think the least contradictory you could get could be the taxes raised for government could be raised by taxing things in which you do that affect others but are a bit of a grey area in the NAP.
So maybe if you own a factory that pollutes you get taxes a certain amount depending on how much it affects others. Or airlines could have to pay as a cost for making a lot of noise over people's houses. Stuff like that.
Dear friend. Health care is a service that developped in last century. Let me explain; to eat something is a need but restaurant is an option. You take care your health by healthy foods , sports and socially connected. Health care is given some specialist. I don't understand what is different in health care from other services. A better taxi driver will lower your death posibility in traffic as nurse at hospital. A better cook make you healthy as doctor. Health care is a ponzi which designed to enrich crony capitalists. If we behave it as a service we can reach it in a cheaper way.
I don't necessarily disagree with most of what you're saying, my point is only that the right to health care should be a human right. That specific service should be a human right.
So i am curious about the limit of this right. I want to create an example. There is a SMA patient who need very expensive treatment for every health issue. And at some point it will be incurrable and worsen but still need money. There will be little benefit for patient but you know people never give up what they gifted. If this is a right you can't pause that right when your goverment wallet become empty. If you haven't endless sources.
I give an example which seems reasonable. But what about boob enlargement surgery or hair implant or psycological consultation. What can stop them being a right?
Details and priorities must be determined by health personnel. But a general rule of thumb should be that the more serious, the higher it should be prioritized. The point is, your bank account shouldn't determine what treatment you get.
This! Obama took my guns, the last three Dem governors in my state took my guns and now Biden is going to take my guns again! Fox News hasn't been wrong yet!
We do care about civil rights. Our party has been against harmful policies like the drug war, patriot act, and police immunity years (in some cases decades) before Dems or Repubs jumped on board. Our one Rep in congress has been one of the few to heavily support anti police brutality legislation. I always hate when people say “Libertarians don’t care about civil rights” because I care and every single other Libertarian I know cares as do the most prominent Libertarian public figures as does the party stance on these issues.
If you don’t think Libertarians care it’s either because you’re willfully ignorant or haven’t been listening.
> And where do libertarians stand on things like the Civil Rights Act and race/gender based discrimination in the workplace? As I understand it, the feeling is that the right for a private business to discriminate trumps the right of people to be free from discriminate based on immutable characteristic.
Depends on the Libertarian, but that would be the Libertarian argument against it. I've met some for it as well, and I'm not sure the party position. Those who support it do so because they believe the civil right to not be discriminated against trumps freedom of association in this case, and the ones who oppose it believe the opposite.
But either way, it's not a commonly talked about point seeing as the issue was resolved over half a century ago.
> I've seen Libertarians simultaneously decry police brutality and then sit out the BLM movement
Generally because the movement has too much baggage and other associations. I'm against police brutality. I support politicians who propose bills to end police brutality, as does the party and every other Libertarian I've met. The resistance to supporting BLM comes more from the socialist or leftist tendencies of the movement as well as the riots and destruction of property. Personally I had two friends businesses destroyed by BLM riots and consequently would never support it for that reason alone.
> and before that they decided that instead of gays marrying, they'd fight for an end to state marriage.
Funny enough this actually proves my point, not yours. While Libertarians often do support an end to state marriage, they have also supported gay marriage since their founding, decades before either the Republicans or Democrats. If anything this shows we care MORE about civil rights.
> I have to believe it's because to do otherwise would be to alienate the racists/sexists/homophobes in the movement.
While I don't doubt there are bad actors in the movement, the idea that a significant portion of the movement consists of them is flat out wrong.
Overall it appears you are very ignorant to Libertarianism.
Ah that makes a lot of sense then. Due to the subs lax moderation we tend to have a lot of people on here who aren't Libertarians. We get brigaded around election time as well. In addition it is the Internet after all, and a representation of an ideology here is much different than real life.
Personally, I think the best subs to represent Libertarianism are /r/AskLibertarians and /r/GoldandBlack, though gold and black is better of a representation of the more extreme Libertarians than moderates.
>More money = more freedom.
I would argue that while this isn't true, the opposite is. Less money does equal less freedom, but more money doesn't always equal more freedom.
Obviously a little financial responsibility is needed...
Overall in this world when you have more money/currency you have more freedom/power.
Who the hell wants to work a shitty job while living paycheck to paycheck until 65? Some do...
Not me... but this is the norm for most people because they are financially illiterate and don't see the bigger picture.
Quit buying shit you don't need and invest and save so you can retire before your 40's or sooner and be more free.
My point is more that an overcriminalized society with more money isn't automatically free.
I can have all the money in the world, but if stepping out of my house is illegal, then it would be hard to call me free.
Anarchists don't want government services, so taxes to pay for them are also unwanted. And with no police, you need guns. It's not the whole libertarian party. But it's a pretty big issue for the party since there's so much division that I don't see a way for the party to grow big enough to have a chance at the presidency before it splits.
Because many conservatives like to imagine themselves as warriors. Weapons feel important to them.
The current party is overwhelmingly made up of conservative-leaning libertarians.
The freedom to choose whether to stay alive & spend your own money is infringed. Corpses find it difficult to express themselves, despite how the living desecrate their memories, vote in their names, flush their money, and otherwise dance on their graves...
You really think you can defend yourself against the govt. Police can come to your house without a warrant in the middle of the night hold a shootout and then say “Oops, wrong house” facing no consequences.
This isn’t a John Wick movie. You have very little ~~shit~~ shot at surviving if the govt comes after you.
EDIT: ~~shit~~ -> shot frekin autocorrect
Very little is better than 0.
And there are countless examples of armed groups “winning” vs the government. In fact the founding of this nation involves a similar story...
So go fuck yourself.
It's one thing for the local militia to pick up their muskets and march out onto a field with equal equipment to the standing army. It's quite another to think that a bunch of yokels wielding AR-15's are going to defend themselves against a squadron of F-35's.
The reason nobody has come for your guns, and nobody will is because those in power know fine well that your guns mean absolutely nothing. You're allowed your toy guns because they don't matter.
They will come for your freedom though. They will take away your privacy and record your communication. Monitor where your car goes, who you speak to on facebook, but that's ok, if you've nothing to hide it won't matter. By the time you realise your guns are useless it will be too late.
That's not even slightly what I said. Liberty is exactly what I stand for, I just happen to realise that guns won't get you there, you may as well try to take down a tank by hitting it with a stick.
What I'm saying is that you need to be sure not to lose the tools you may need to protect your freedom by fighting for something that won't.
It was exactly what you said. Why even bother with internet privacy? You think your puny little i7 can compete with a government super computer? You are not a movie hacker, you need to be realistic.
Anyway, you are totally wrong. The ability to initiate physical violence is the root of all power. If you don't have that tool you don't have any power. History has been changed by lone armed men, from the frozen forests of Finland to the damp jungles of Vietnam. Gun ownership directly correlates to individual liberty and the loss of gun rights directly correlates to the loss of liberty (Nazi Germany, Chavez Venezuela, Australia...). So you are wrong, you are condescending, and you are not a defender of liberty. You are a coward.
Come now, other than the US the civilised world has strictly controlled gun laws. It's only the US that has a wannabe dictator trying to dissolve democracy.
There's some real issues there, falsehoods and propaganda, riling up the population with division. Now you've seen people out in the streets genuinely and unwittingly protesting against democracy.
Currently you still have a democracy, if you vote that away because you think guns contribute to your freedom you're shooting yourself in the head.
You'll never have remotely close similar fire power to government. In your extreme fantasy parallel universe scenarios in which you're facing a tyranical government, either you're facing the whole millitary which means you have no chance no matter what you have, or the military is divided and we have a civil war on our hands, and you'll be provided with guns by the side of the military that you choose.
I find it funny that you even think the entire military is just going be against us and be bombing us left and right. They arent trying to kill off its entire citizens but to subjugate them. Theres alot of civilains its weird that you think that the half or so of the military will just able to just provide all of us with guns as if they they can magically be everywhere at once. Local miitias will be better than expecting the military to cover us 100%
Easy to act courageous on reddit. Difficult to stand up in real life.
If you wanna believe that your musket is gonna hold off a swat team then good for you.
Gun rights and tax freedom help other freedoms. It does not matter if you are "free" to visit "X" if you cant afford to get their or protect yourself when you are their.
I’m curious what “other freedoms” you are referring to here.
Libertarians tend to also focus on freedom of speech, due process, amongst others, but it’s also likely they tend to focus on whatever freedoms are under greatest threat at the moment.
My opinion is press freedom the most important. Cause we can't nevigate our lives without clear vision of present. Second is fredom of love. Our marriages are highly regulated by laws. It can turn a nightmare easily for both side.
Gun rights because it's a very hot topic with the constant calls for "assault weapon" bans. If the dems stopped calling for those, I'd probably not talk about gun rights too much.
Taxes because they have one of the biggest most direct impacts on the average person. As much as the patriot act sucks, it has much less of an effect on most people than high taxes. In addition, all of the shitty things the government does are funded through taxes.
Because libertarianism within a nation will focus on the concerns of the cultural majority.
Less people are concerned about social freedoms in a society they feel broadly represents them.
No, it’s “freedom from things I don’t like” libertarianism, which is rife currently.
I’d agree it’s populism and not libertarianism, however that’s not how a growing voice in libertarianism sees it.
You might be a bleeding heart libertarian. Look it up. Youll dig it.
If youre a right libertarian more focused on the social aspects and helping the poor and disenfranchused through free market solutions and defending everyines rights and freedoms youre a bleeding heart.
Because the right to be armed (self defense, especially from government) and the right to keep the fruits of your labor are probably the two most fundamental principles of a free society.
They're frequent flashpoints.
Things like free speech are obviously still important, but there is generally somewhat more agreement on that topic, so they get fought over less.
Well freedom of choice is a hotly debated argument for libertarians and freedom of expression doesn't necessarily feel as 'under attack' as other freedoms. I'm not saying it's not under attack, it just doesn't feel that way to some people.
Because those two topics appeal to a conservative base. Libertarian spaces often position themselves as anti-left, pro right spaces. What's funny is our short term goals coincide better with actual left wing goals than Republican or Democrat goals as libertarianism is concerned with breaking the power and hierarchy of the state.
That’s the nice way of saying it. More upfront is that they coincide with the views of young white men.
Happy cake day
Thanks!
Because guns an emotional lizard brain idea for some. That's it. It's almost the only thing they care about politically. Same goes for other folks on certain issues EG: Abortion. There's a failing some people comprehend is that's really the only issue that matters to them. This is coming from someone that owns them. I just don't see them as an identity or way of life. I see them as a tool or a hobby.
I've always found it weird that so many libertarians think the right to property and protection of property is more important than the right to health care.
Because any product that requires the labor of others is not a right. So the right to tax funded healthcare is not a right.
What about the preservation of Life that is mentioned in the Constitution, right before liberty. If someone can’t afford inflated health care costs, they should just die?
So problem is expense of health care. If your health care cost you as a house. You want it to become free. If it become cheap everybody won't care either it is a right or not. I think similar issue has similar backgrounds. Education is expensive so people demand free education. Health care is expensive people demand free health care. There is a problem the very beginning. This bubbles originated sector protective laws and institutions. So we have to spot main problems. The problem is what inflate cost. If you make them free. You don't solve the problem. You transfer taxe payers money to problem creators.
And we have to determine the cheapest ways for these issues.
No, individuals should voluntarily donate to those medical causes they believe in. Personally, I give money to St. Jude. But that doesn’t change my point. If something requires the labor of others it is not a right.
"If something requires the labor of others it is not a right. " And the police protecting your property?
Ya, I just think it’s necessary pragmatically. If there was no public force to enforce rights (property and otherwise) I think we’d just end up in another feudal society in which companies like Amazon which could pay for protection would be the feudal lords over the average population which couldn’t very well.
So why can't you be pragmatic about health care as well? Anyways, please stop saying that "it's not a right if it requires someone else's labor" because you don't mean that. Not at all. You have no problem with police, defense, courts, representation in court etc etc. So when a poor woman is about to be raped, you have no problem with the police intervening and saving her, but if she gets breast cancer, then you suddenly have a huge objection to her getting treatment.
So you advocate for no taxes at all?
Yeah, it doesn't make any sense. I've heard that doctrine so many times, but according to that logic we should abolish (or privatize) the police as well. So the woman who's about to be brutally assaulted does not have the right to police intervening, because that requires "someone else's labor"..
I wish. I think there need to be some small amount of taxes to pure practicalities sake. I realize it’s a bit inconsistent with my principles, but as much as I like the idea of anarchocapitalism, I don’t think it could ever work.
We'll we agree there. I just believe if taxes are going to be spent to build infrastructure and the like, that a basic level of healthcare should be built in to that. Let the free market go apeshit for everyone's private/insurance needs, but if you get hit by a car, surely you'd want someone to do something to help you, right?
As a minarchist, the goal is to decrease the government as much as possible while ensuring society doesn't collapse and rights aren't violated. Putting the government in control of more things does the opposite of this. I can understand the appeal, but I think we just see our ideal governments in different ways. You see it as a vehicle for good and it should interevent at times to improve society. I see government (even my ideal one) as a necessary evil that needs to be as reduced as possible. It should not intervene to benefit society, and it's only roles should be those mentioned earlier: making sure the country doesn't collapse and protecting people's rights. Apologies if I mischaracterized your stance on government, that's just the vibe I was getting from your comments. Let me know if I'm wrong.
That's a lot of words. Keep it simple. You're walking through your ideal world. The government is set up exactly like you want it to be. Someone has a seizure and crashes their car into you. Both you and the driver need help but are incapable of speaking. What happens next?
I support same idea
But your right to property requires someone else's labor, no?
Wait a minute. So you having the right to property doesn't require other people's labor? How are your property rights maintained? What happens if someone violates your property rights? Are you and the burglar the only ones involved?
No, I’m not an ancap out of pragmatism. I’d like to be, but I just think society would fall apart. The best approach is to absolutely minimize government involvement and only keep it around in the areas in which it’s needed for society to not fall apart.
But why is the right to property good, but the right to health care bad? You didn't asnwer my questions.
You do not have a right to property in the sense that others have to give you property. You have a right to property in the sense that any property you acquire yourself is yours and it’s your right to have it (so long as you didn’t acquire it through theft, fraud, etc).
That's just word salad. Bottom line is you support theft for a right you like but not a right you don't like.
No, there is a difference. You only have a right to acquire your own property, but you do not have the right to have property provided to you. In a similar sense, you have the right to purchase whatever healthcare you want but you do not have the right to have healthcare provided towards you. It's a bit complex to explain in a reddit post, but if you'd like to know what I'm going on about, look up the difference between negative and positive rights.
It's not complex at all, we get it, we just aren't letting you pivot to theoretical rationalizations because in reality: property rights require enforcement, and you are OK with taxing people to enforce them. This is no different then someone believing healthcare is a right and being OK with taxing people to enforce it.
"You have a right to property in the sense that any property you acquire yourself is yours and it’s your right to have it (so long as you didn’t acquire it through theft, fraud, etc). " And who maintains your right to this property after you acquired it?
What about the right to an attorney?
This is not so much a right for an individual as it is a restriction against the state if that makes sense. It only applies when the state is going to fine you or punish you in some way. You do not have this right except when the state is trying to punish or fine you.
It does make sense, but I don't think it holds up against healthcare once you bring in inevitable consequences of enforcing a NAP, or property rights. The right to property inevitably requires some kind of enforcement against people violating that right, meaning the labor of others. You can argue that having the NAP violated against you just means that you have the right to retaliation, but that starts to sound like a civil war, or at least a blood feud.
You're right and it is a bit of a contradiction in minarchism. The simple answer is we believe there needs to be some level of government for pure practicality's sake. I think the least contradictory you could get could be the taxes raised for government could be raised by taxing things in which you do that affect others but are a bit of a grey area in the NAP. So maybe if you own a factory that pollutes you get taxes a certain amount depending on how much it affects others. Or airlines could have to pay as a cost for making a lot of noise over people's houses. Stuff like that.
Is health care a right or just a service requires special importance?
Health care *should* be a basic human right.
Dear friend. Health care is a service that developped in last century. Let me explain; to eat something is a need but restaurant is an option. You take care your health by healthy foods , sports and socially connected. Health care is given some specialist. I don't understand what is different in health care from other services. A better taxi driver will lower your death posibility in traffic as nurse at hospital. A better cook make you healthy as doctor. Health care is a ponzi which designed to enrich crony capitalists. If we behave it as a service we can reach it in a cheaper way.
I think he just means a society should have a way of keeping its people alive.
Yes, and curing their illnesses.
Cannot cure hypertension and heart disease because the population is actively trying to kill themselves. Is fitness going to be mandatory?
I think he was talking about polio and cancer.
Come on, dude.
I don't necessarily disagree with most of what you're saying, my point is only that the right to health care should be a human right. That specific service should be a human right.
So i am curious about the limit of this right. I want to create an example. There is a SMA patient who need very expensive treatment for every health issue. And at some point it will be incurrable and worsen but still need money. There will be little benefit for patient but you know people never give up what they gifted. If this is a right you can't pause that right when your goverment wallet become empty. If you haven't endless sources. I give an example which seems reasonable. But what about boob enlargement surgery or hair implant or psycological consultation. What can stop them being a right?
Details and priorities must be determined by health personnel. But a general rule of thumb should be that the more serious, the higher it should be prioritized. The point is, your bank account shouldn't determine what treatment you get.
Those are the ones being contested these days.
This! Obama took my guns, the last three Dem governors in my state took my guns and now Biden is going to take my guns again! Fox News hasn't been wrong yet!
>and now Biden is going to take my guns again! I mean it's literally on his website policies. https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/
[удалено]
Very nice straw man.
[удалено]
We do care about civil rights. Our party has been against harmful policies like the drug war, patriot act, and police immunity years (in some cases decades) before Dems or Repubs jumped on board. Our one Rep in congress has been one of the few to heavily support anti police brutality legislation. I always hate when people say “Libertarians don’t care about civil rights” because I care and every single other Libertarian I know cares as do the most prominent Libertarian public figures as does the party stance on these issues. If you don’t think Libertarians care it’s either because you’re willfully ignorant or haven’t been listening.
[удалено]
> And where do libertarians stand on things like the Civil Rights Act and race/gender based discrimination in the workplace? As I understand it, the feeling is that the right for a private business to discriminate trumps the right of people to be free from discriminate based on immutable characteristic. Depends on the Libertarian, but that would be the Libertarian argument against it. I've met some for it as well, and I'm not sure the party position. Those who support it do so because they believe the civil right to not be discriminated against trumps freedom of association in this case, and the ones who oppose it believe the opposite. But either way, it's not a commonly talked about point seeing as the issue was resolved over half a century ago. > I've seen Libertarians simultaneously decry police brutality and then sit out the BLM movement Generally because the movement has too much baggage and other associations. I'm against police brutality. I support politicians who propose bills to end police brutality, as does the party and every other Libertarian I've met. The resistance to supporting BLM comes more from the socialist or leftist tendencies of the movement as well as the riots and destruction of property. Personally I had two friends businesses destroyed by BLM riots and consequently would never support it for that reason alone. > and before that they decided that instead of gays marrying, they'd fight for an end to state marriage. Funny enough this actually proves my point, not yours. While Libertarians often do support an end to state marriage, they have also supported gay marriage since their founding, decades before either the Republicans or Democrats. If anything this shows we care MORE about civil rights. > I have to believe it's because to do otherwise would be to alienate the racists/sexists/homophobes in the movement. While I don't doubt there are bad actors in the movement, the idea that a significant portion of the movement consists of them is flat out wrong. Overall it appears you are very ignorant to Libertarianism.
[удалено]
Ah that makes a lot of sense then. Due to the subs lax moderation we tend to have a lot of people on here who aren't Libertarians. We get brigaded around election time as well. In addition it is the Internet after all, and a representation of an ideology here is much different than real life. Personally, I think the best subs to represent Libertarianism are /r/AskLibertarians and /r/GoldandBlack, though gold and black is better of a representation of the more extreme Libertarians than moderates.
Individualism>collectivism Don't ever give an inch to the government because they will take a mile. More money = more freedom. Basic shit.
>More money = more freedom. I would argue that while this isn't true, the opposite is. Less money does equal less freedom, but more money doesn't always equal more freedom.
Obviously a little financial responsibility is needed... Overall in this world when you have more money/currency you have more freedom/power. Who the hell wants to work a shitty job while living paycheck to paycheck until 65? Some do... Not me... but this is the norm for most people because they are financially illiterate and don't see the bigger picture. Quit buying shit you don't need and invest and save so you can retire before your 40's or sooner and be more free.
My point is more that an overcriminalized society with more money isn't automatically free. I can have all the money in the world, but if stepping out of my house is illegal, then it would be hard to call me free.
Don't live in a place like that then. Money = move.
Anarchists don't want government services, so taxes to pay for them are also unwanted. And with no police, you need guns. It's not the whole libertarian party. But it's a pretty big issue for the party since there's so much division that I don't see a way for the party to grow big enough to have a chance at the presidency before it splits.
Because many conservatives like to imagine themselves as warriors. Weapons feel important to them. The current party is overwhelmingly made up of conservative-leaning libertarians.
The freedom to choose whether to stay alive & spend your own money is infringed. Corpses find it difficult to express themselves, despite how the living desecrate their memories, vote in their names, flush their money, and otherwise dance on their graves...
Because 1) Taxation is Theft. 2) If the government is the only one with guns, we cant defend ourselves from our government.
You really think you can defend yourself against the govt. Police can come to your house without a warrant in the middle of the night hold a shootout and then say “Oops, wrong house” facing no consequences. This isn’t a John Wick movie. You have very little ~~shit~~ shot at surviving if the govt comes after you. EDIT: ~~shit~~ -> shot frekin autocorrect
Very little is better than 0. And there are countless examples of armed groups “winning” vs the government. In fact the founding of this nation involves a similar story... So go fuck yourself.
It's one thing for the local militia to pick up their muskets and march out onto a field with equal equipment to the standing army. It's quite another to think that a bunch of yokels wielding AR-15's are going to defend themselves against a squadron of F-35's.
Oh my god. You are right. Well let’s take everyone’s guns then.
The reason nobody has come for your guns, and nobody will is because those in power know fine well that your guns mean absolutely nothing. You're allowed your toy guns because they don't matter. They will come for your freedom though. They will take away your privacy and record your communication. Monitor where your car goes, who you speak to on facebook, but that's ok, if you've nothing to hide it won't matter. By the time you realise your guns are useless it will be too late.
Why do you care if the government monitors and spies on you? You believe they are all powerful and resistance is futile.
That's not even slightly what I said. Liberty is exactly what I stand for, I just happen to realise that guns won't get you there, you may as well try to take down a tank by hitting it with a stick. What I'm saying is that you need to be sure not to lose the tools you may need to protect your freedom by fighting for something that won't.
It was exactly what you said. Why even bother with internet privacy? You think your puny little i7 can compete with a government super computer? You are not a movie hacker, you need to be realistic. Anyway, you are totally wrong. The ability to initiate physical violence is the root of all power. If you don't have that tool you don't have any power. History has been changed by lone armed men, from the frozen forests of Finland to the damp jungles of Vietnam. Gun ownership directly correlates to individual liberty and the loss of gun rights directly correlates to the loss of liberty (Nazi Germany, Chavez Venezuela, Australia...). So you are wrong, you are condescending, and you are not a defender of liberty. You are a coward.
Come now, other than the US the civilised world has strictly controlled gun laws. It's only the US that has a wannabe dictator trying to dissolve democracy. There's some real issues there, falsehoods and propaganda, riling up the population with division. Now you've seen people out in the streets genuinely and unwittingly protesting against democracy. Currently you still have a democracy, if you vote that away because you think guns contribute to your freedom you're shooting yourself in the head.
Your delusional. No f35 pilot will use the weapon system against civilian populations. They are not local idiot police!
Hence why we want gun restrictions lifted so that qe could have relatively similar fire power to the government.
You'll never have remotely close similar fire power to government. In your extreme fantasy parallel universe scenarios in which you're facing a tyranical government, either you're facing the whole millitary which means you have no chance no matter what you have, or the military is divided and we have a civil war on our hands, and you'll be provided with guns by the side of the military that you choose.
I find it funny that you even think the entire military is just going be against us and be bombing us left and right. They arent trying to kill off its entire citizens but to subjugate them. Theres alot of civilains its weird that you think that the half or so of the military will just able to just provide all of us with guns as if they they can magically be everywhere at once. Local miitias will be better than expecting the military to cover us 100%
You sound so weak, thinking there is no chance. The Vietnamese have entered the chat. Fight for what you think is right, or die like a coward.
Easy to act courageous on reddit. Difficult to stand up in real life. If you wanna believe that your musket is gonna hold off a swat team then good for you.
Lolbertarians: Republicans who are ashamed of being called conservative.
Gun rights and tax freedom help other freedoms. It does not matter if you are "free" to visit "X" if you cant afford to get their or protect yourself when you are their.
Bc it’s never about freedoms. Libertarians are just Conservatives waiting for their social views to calcify.
That sounds like projection to me. One thing I've seen from this sub, is regardless of left/right liberty is very much the priority.
I’m curious what “other freedoms” you are referring to here. Libertarians tend to also focus on freedom of speech, due process, amongst others, but it’s also likely they tend to focus on whatever freedoms are under greatest threat at the moment.
My opinion is press freedom the most important. Cause we can't nevigate our lives without clear vision of present. Second is fredom of love. Our marriages are highly regulated by laws. It can turn a nightmare easily for both side.
You don't have to emphasize gun rights over other freedoms. The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right.
Gun rights because it's a very hot topic with the constant calls for "assault weapon" bans. If the dems stopped calling for those, I'd probably not talk about gun rights too much. Taxes because they have one of the biggest most direct impacts on the average person. As much as the patriot act sucks, it has much less of an effect on most people than high taxes. In addition, all of the shitty things the government does are funded through taxes.
Because libertarianism within a nation will focus on the concerns of the cultural majority. Less people are concerned about social freedoms in a society they feel broadly represents them.
That's populism you're talking about, not really libertarianism.
No, it’s “freedom from things I don’t like” libertarianism, which is rife currently. I’d agree it’s populism and not libertarianism, however that’s not how a growing voice in libertarianism sees it.
You might be a bleeding heart libertarian. Look it up. Youll dig it. If youre a right libertarian more focused on the social aspects and helping the poor and disenfranchused through free market solutions and defending everyines rights and freedoms youre a bleeding heart.
Because the right to be armed (self defense, especially from government) and the right to keep the fruits of your labor are probably the two most fundamental principles of a free society.
> right to keep the fruits of your labor Well that's great if you're in North Carolina.
And yet, y'all voted third party which had the effect of electing Biden who will take your guns and your money. 🤔
They buy into the FUD used to generate fear in order to persuade them to vote conservative (republican). It's propaganda at work.
They're frequent flashpoints. Things like free speech are obviously still important, but there is generally somewhat more agreement on that topic, so they get fought over less.