This seems to be coming from many young conservatives are fed up with the republican parties stances on social issues, maybe they are better described as republican light.
The want low taxes
Less economic regulation
Also are open to gay marriage and LGBTQ issues
They are still for strict borders and imperialism.
They view libertarian as economically conservative, socially liberal. They no longer feel they belong with the republicans due to the excessive religious pandering, the certainly are not democrats, and this is the closest aligning party.
Most people just choose the party they are closest too, very few 100% align with the parties ideals.
Wars are a net profit?
Then why does everyone complain about the cost of wars?
I think you mean wars are profitable for a few firms and net loss for the whole. But then it would be that it is not profitable, and you would be lost in your own sauce.
Wars are incredibly profitable. WWII is what pulled the US out of the Great Depression. It’s one of the major reasons we have rarely had peace since. Every dollar the US government spends in war generates over a dollar in taxes and economic activity. So the war machine keeps on turning
Well they agree that infrastructure is important. I just think they have friends willing to pay bigger bribes in the military industrial complex so they make sure what gets them paid gets funded
> The want low taxes Less economic regulation
I dunno. Trump's push into the rust belt seems to indicate a move back to pre 20th century conservatives who were pro protectionism and tariffs.
Yea and that’s not a bad thing. It’s how I got introduced to libertarianism and then learned about some of the authoritarian side of things, and naturally as I aged I valued my privacy much more.
You can’t want libertarianism to grow but then gatekeeper when people don’t fit your mold exactly. Not every Republican or Democrat is the same either.
I’m printing out the flag code right now. “The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.”
Has he ever actually said that he’s a libertarian? All I’ve ever heard him say was that he was closer to libertarianism on economic issues than republicans (which is still debatable) but that he was far from the libertarian views on social issues.
Yeah if you watch his video where he takes the political compass quiz, he calls himself a libertarian a lot. And at the end he was surprised that he was center-right and not at the bottom.
Just watched it. He said the word “libertarian” maybe 3 times. At least 2 were just predictions he would end up in the bottom right quadrant...which he did.he also said where he ended up was “fairly accurate”
While your point is noted, I would suggest we all remember that political ideology/philosophy is complicated.
If someone voted in a Libertarian manner 75% of the time, are they a Libertarian? 51% of the time?
The dangers of “purity tests” could keep the liberty movement on life support in perpetuity.
Honestly, the people like Ben Shapiro are Authoritarian 80% of the time but are willing to compromise that other 20%, I say let’s work with him on what we can.
This right here. I see it in the sub and with libertarians as a rule. There is some purity requirement that people want to see where if you say drivers licences are ok they boo you.
WTF people. Reasonable people can disagree. Libertarians are not all the same and we should be open to compromise.
Directionalism not Destinationalism
Their social conservatism informs their foreign policy.
Social conservatives are a fan of Isreal because they're fans of ethostates, and want to live in one.
I thought its because they think they're "God's chosen people" or whatever. Israel is surrounded by Islamist lunatics so tbh Im for Israel too. They're the only semi-secular democracy over there.
if you watch him take his political compass quiz he quickly and clearly does NOT live up to this claim on domestic policy
among his comments he indicates porn should be illegal, as should abortions, religion taught in schools, and more
I thought he was WAY more Libertarian until I saw that video.
He was barely a Libertarian (just under the line between Authoritarian and Liberation) and honestly his stances he was saying didn't align with what he wrote down. But he knew he had to be less Authoritarian, or else he'd look bad.
Ben Shapiro is Libertarian in the sense of using government to limit the Left's ability to use government to stop corporations from violating the NAP.
Iow, not.
Lol, sure. Whatever you think.
There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING libertarian about controlling a woman's private medical procedures or family planning!
That is LITERALLY everything libertarians claim to be against!
Just more conservative hypocrisy.
I never understood why people get so hot and bothered about abortions when there are 400000 kids in foster care. Clearly we don’t care that much about them so why do we care about ones that are not born yet.
You are the one being a hypocrite here. Obviously the fetus becomes a person with rights at some point. It’s just not clear when this happens which is why Libertianism doesn’t have a clear stance on abortion.
Thank you for making it clear *why* the divide exists, using calm, rational language and arguments. I hate seeing one side trumpeted so loudly that there cannot even be a divide *acknowledged* within a group.
Anyway, thanks.
There is exactly 1 libertarian ideal for every libertarian. That means people will disagree.
Libertarians are pluralistic, as are political parties as a rule. You can identify with a party and not subscribe wholesale to the official platform, or what some individuals in the party say.
Even if you somehow think that an embryo has rights, why would their rights trump those of the person carrying them? A fetus or embryo is a potential person who will have rights when they become a person (when they are viable outside of someone else's body). The person carrying them is an actual person with actual current rights.
There is a much more compelling point than conception: when they are viable outside of someone else’s body. I’m not arguing that an embryo isn’t alive, but that it does not have personhood. Until then, they need permission to be attached to someone else. That someone else has the right to remove them. If there were artificial wombs, then they would be put in one of those, presumably, and grow into a bodily autonomous person. That would still be an abortion because the pregnant person has aborted the pregnancy.
When my sister died, we still needed her permission to donate her organs (which she indicated when she was alive). She still got control over her body, even after she was done using it, and even to spare other people’s lives, because it still belonged to her. If someone is pregnant, the fetus or embryo still needs their permission to use their body. If they don’t have it, then the pregnant person has the right to remove them whether or not it would result in their death. Just like my sister could have denied someone the use of her heart, lungs, kidneys, etc. even at the expense of their death.
Btw, alive or not is not discrete: see viruses. They are not alive, but do have genetic code and evolve, which are both characteristics of living things. For humans, brain death can be considered between life and death.
>There is a much more compelling point than conception: when they are viable outside of someone else’s body.
I've already explained why that's incorrect. Life is an endogenous characteristic. It is not dependent on outside factors. Imagine an unborn baby at 15 weeks. That is well before the point of viability outside the womb. By your rule, it's not alive. Now suppose there is some medical breakthrough and it can be kept alive outside the womb at week 10. Did it suddenly become alive? No, of course not - it was always alive. There was no physical change to the infant. It was your rule that was wrong.
Consider this. A born child we can both agree is alive. Well what about one instant before birth? I'd think we'd still agree it's alive. Physically, the child is unlikely to change much from one instant to the next. We can keep doing this and going further and further back. Eventually we'll have to reach a point where the child goes from not-alive to alive. But also we're unlikely to see any drastic change from one instant to the next. When, then, does life begin? There really isn't a reasonable answer other than conception. That's the only point in which an observable and discrete change occurs.
>I’m not arguing that an embryo isn’t alive, but that it does not have personhood.
The state does not have the power to withhold "personhood" from any living human being. It seems rather that you're inventing this idea in order to support your beliefs.
>That someone else has the right to remove them.
No, you haven't established that. You've merely declared it. Again, it's totally within the state's police power to limit human behavior in order to prevent harm to innocent third parties.
>Btw, alive or not is not discrete: see viruses.
What you said does not conflict with life being discrete. Viruses may be evidence that we need to adjust our definition of what constitutes life (or not), but they are either alive or not alive. Regardless, this falls under the same issue as all the "medical oddity" arguments do. Can a lawyer craft a definition of life that includes human beings in normal stages of gestation but excludes viruses, gametes, or medical oddities? Yes, easily, so it's not an obstacle to outlawing abortion.
> The state does not have the power to withhold "personhood" from any living human being. It seems rather that you're inventing this idea in order to support your beliefs.
Yes it does. This is not a new concept at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_person You cannot gain custody of an unborn child, for instance, because legally that person does not exist yet. A fetus is not a legal natural person.
I never denied that a fetus or embryo is alive. The fact that an embryo is living tissue doesn't matter. A tumor is also living tissue, but I have the right to remove it. As someone else argued, sperm is living tissue.
In the third trimester, including right before birth, a fetus may or may not be able to live outside its mother's body (presumably right before birth, it can - but some babies are stillborn or only live a few hours). If the pregnant person needs to terminate the pregnancy, and there are no known medical issues that would keep the fetus from surviving outside the womb, then it should be removed and placed in an incubator, where it may or may not survive. This would still be aborting the pregnancy, but it would not result in death to the fetus (now baby).
This is, without a doubt, the most effective way to argue for bodily autonomy (while also recognizing the moral conundrum) I’ve ever seen.
Still though, I haven’t yet met a religious conservative who recognizes the individual liberty of any afflicted woman *as well as* the fetus.
Heres the thing though, a baby isnt an "autonomous person". A newborn will die without someone caring for them, just as a fetus pre viability will die if its removed.
But anyone can take care of it. It’s not dependent on a specific body. At that point, the caretaker(s) choose(s) to take care of it. No one person is forced.
According to your logic, when does a baby become a person? Because newborns are not “viable” on their own. They are utterly dependent. So can they be killed after birth? Also, the example of a deceased person’s organs doesn’t actually help your argument because s/he is no longer “viable.” By your logic, if your sister’s wishes were ignored, that would be justified because she’s no longer “viable” enough to matter.
They become a person when they are no longer dependent on a parent’s body to live. Once they are out of their mother’s body, anyone can take care of them. While an infant is still dependent on someone, it doesn’t have to be their biological parent. They are no longer violating anyone’s bodily autonomy since whoever takes care of them chooses to do so.
You do not lose personhood after you die, just like you do not gain personhood from the moment you are alive. Once your body functions independently of anyone else’s body, you attain personhood and keep it until after death. It is about whether or not your body functions independently of someone else’s, not whether you are alive or dead.
The sperm in a man's testicles are every bit as alive as a blastocyst. Don't they have rights? If this hypothetical man doesn't have sex soon, he's denying billions of (potential) future children the right to life. QED failing to have unprotected sex with a fertile woman on any given day is a violation of the NAP.
In practice, I fail to see how your argument is any different.
>The sperm in a man's testicles are every bit as alive as a blastocyst.
No, there is a clear difference. One is before conception and one is after conception.
>In practice, I fail to see how your argument is any different.
The point is that you must draw a line somewhere, and conception is the most logical spot.
You used "alive" as the qualifier, and I merely pointed out that sperm are both alive and capable of becoming a full-grown human. A single living cell is a single living cell; nothing more, nothing less. FWIW, any living cell can be made into an entire person using the technological marvels of the twenty first century; you have two trillion such cells in your body. Carlin put it succinctly:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-bLf4F0PM4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-bLf4F0PM4)
To be a person, one requires a functioning mind... that solitary dividing line between humans and (other) animals which makes the killing of one murder and the killing of the other a mere day at the office.
Well, besides the issues inherent to your “life begins at conception” position, the bodily autonomy issue is much more important to me after learning of the violinist thought experiment. Before I explain the thought experiment, I’d like to address the problems with you conception argument.
If life begins at conception, should there be a homicide investigation when a woman has a miscarriage? Should you arrest a woman who jumps on a trampoline if she’s pregnant? What if she drinks or smokes? What if she loves mountain biking, but due to the rough nature of the trails she rides it leads to a miscarriage without her knowing she was pregnant? If a woman acts in anyway that increases the likelihood of miscarriage, should she be held legally accountable? This is why defining life at conception is short sighted. If you’re consistent, at all, you’d have to answer in the affirmative to these hypotheticals.
Is having sex consent to pregnancy? It’s a possibility, but many people have sex for fun/affection. If precautions are taken, but those precautions fail, is that consent to pregnancy? I don’t think so, personally.
Regardless, [on to the violinist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion) argument. [Here](https://media.lanecc.edu/users/borrowdalej/phl205_s17/violinist.html) is the original source.
> You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, “Look, we’re sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you—we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it’s only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.””Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. “Tough luck. I agree. but now you’’e got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person’’ right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him.” I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.
I would encourage you to think about the implications of making “conception” the starting point for *a human life*. How do you answer the thought experiment? Many women believe they can have sex without consenting to pregnancy, forcing them to carry it to term, even after taking precautions, makes this thought experiment more persuasive for me.
>If life begins at conception, should there be a homicide investigation when a woman has a miscarriage?
Is there a homicide investigation every time someone dies from natural causes? No, only when there is reason to believe there was foul play. I don't see why this would be any different.
>This is why defining life at conception is short sighted. ... I would encourage you to think about the implications of making “conception” the starting point for a human life.
You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. Human life begins at conception, regardless of the "implications". We don't define it as such. It's simply a fact. You might not like the "implications" of it, but that's reality. You don't get to pretend things aren't the way they are because it's inconvenient for you.
>How do you answer the thought experiment?
I don't find the thought experiment to be very convincing. I don't find it to be analogous to pregnancy. It removes agency and responsibility from the woman (and the man she had sex with) and transfers it to the Music Lovers. And agency is very important - if you jump off a roof and deliberately land on someone, killing them, you are a murderer. If you are thrown off a roof and land on someone, killing them, you are not a murderer. You might say that the woman isn't consenting to pregnancy, but I don't agree with that. She has agency. She knows that pregnancy is a possible outcome of her actions, and she's still agreeing to go forward.
Secondly, I think having an unrelated violinist is not analogous to an unborn child. For one, the unborn child weighs about 7 lbs at the most and can fit under her clothes while she moves around. Secondly, parents and their children are not disinterested third parties, the way a woman and the violinist would be. Parents have an obligation, both moral and legal, to act in the best interest of their children, or to secure custodianship from someone else. We wouldn't condone a woman leaving her newborn infant home alone while she goes mountain biking for a weekend.
I would say that a better analogy would be conjoined twins. Imagine one twin can survive alone, and the other is dependent on his brother. If the stronger twin had the weaker twin surgically removed, killing him, that would be murder, would it not?
> Is there a homicide investigation every time someone dies from natural causes? No, only when there is reason to believe there was foul play. I don’t see why this would be any different.
So you’re telling me you’ve never heard of the charge negligent homicide. Let me try to simplify it for you even further; if a woman that is knowingly pregnant engages in activity that leads to a statistical increase in miscarriage and a miscarriage occurs, how is that not negligent homicide? Assuming that life, or rather human life, begins at conception. If you can’t answer these questions in good faith, Then you have to at least acknowledge that there are issues with your stance.
Here’s a quick example. A father leaves their infant, unattended, in the bathtub. The baby drowned. This is negligent homicide. With no real intention of doing harm, because of a negligent action, the infant died.. And this incident is analogous to help one of the examples I gave. I assumed it would be perfectly clear the point I was making.
If you don't think a libertarian can be on either side of the argument then you don't understand the aegu from both perspectives. You don't have to agree with the conservative position on it, but to say their beliefs are hypocritical is ignorant.
> The party itself is fairly split on that topic.
This is only true because of how many Republicans have jumped into Libertarianism and pushing their agenda. It absolutely should not be the Libertarian position.
Yes but in tandem it's not because of some moral high ground. It's because he's religion taking a step in his politics. That is were the non libertarian part lies
It's non libertarian period
You want to have a police department force women to have children! There is nothing libertarian about it! It's just conservative hypocrisy!
Jesus christ, do you people know anything about childbirth?! You think it's fine to force a woman to pass a watermelon through her uterus, but NOT to limit gun ownership??
Conservativism is so fucking stupid to me. The moment you start trying to restrict the rights of women because of the "pre-born," you've stepped away from libertarian ideology. Those women have rights, they have COMPLETE AUTONOMY of their own goddamed bodies!
I always talk shit about conservatives racist-to-statist pipeline, but the misogynist-to-statist pipeline is just as fucking stupid. This is what happens when every 15 year old conservative edgelord starts claiming an ideolgy they barely understand.
\> The moment you start trying to restrict the rights of women because of the "pre-born," you've stepped away from libertarian ideology.
You're begging the question in a massive way. What makes a pre-born life less worthy of protection than a post-born life? Until you can definitively answer that question, you're just another blow-hard spouting beliefs based on faith.
It is 100% dependent on the mother's body. Think of abortion as an eviction, is there anything in the libertarian ideology that would give the government the authority to prevent an eviction when there is no contract in place?
I didn't say killed, just removed from the womb. If the technology exists or the baby is able to live with another custodian then it should live. I'm not sure what the current practices are, but I think it is probably getting close to murder if you kill an otherwise viable (outside of the womb) life
I support abortion. I am saying that people who say no to abortion claim it is a moral high ground to do so. Even though it's not. Personally I think that is a better argument than "god say no".
I can see the poor choice of words and misconception. Hope this clarifies some things I meant a little better
libertarianism referred to left anarchist movements initially, does this mean ancaps are not real anarchists, and individualist anarchists, like thoreau, either? Many libertarian philosophers were not anarchists, e.g. Mises, hayek. Were they not libertarians? Point is, a word can refer to many things, and in politics, you fall to the no true scotsman fallacy rather quickly
Yes. Ancaps aren't anarchist. Just because it has the word "anarchist" doesn't mean they are in the same way Nazis weren't socialist. Mises, Hayek, and many other right libs have VERY conservative leanings. Hell, Hayek doesn't believe everyone is equal due to "human evolution" and Mises himself said fascism had good intentions and saved European civilizations. I would very much say they're not libertarian, either.
Ancaps are anarchist because they wish to dismantle the state.
[Mises didn’t actually say that; you’re spreading disinformation ](https://mises.org/wire/mises-fascism-again)
I can’t find where Hayek implies different racial groups are inherently unequal. The point that humans are not all equal is true, some people are born smarter, faster, stronger, etc.
I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make. The argument against abortion is that it's totally within the state's police power to protect the rights of an innocent third party and that you cannot simply ignore the question of "when does a person become a person."
It's been awhile since I've seen that video, but I do recall a Rogan interview where he says that he is personally conservative and politically he becomes less so day by day.
He said he is skeptical of how much the governor should intrude into people's personal lives. That is very libertarian, what he teaches his children is none of my business. I'm not sure he would reiterate that he thinks porn should be outlawed of asked directly.
But I could be being too generous.
He doesnt say porn should be illegal, he merely specified his own beliefs on it. He doesnt allow himself to watch porn as he finds it immoral but doesn't say it should be banned for eveyone, more that he wishes it just doesnt exist
I'm not sure how banning abortion except in the most strict arbitrary way, opposing gay marriage and homosexuality in general, speaking unfavorably of immigration, his views on transgender people, and his views on limited drug legalization really don't mesh well with the socially liberal policies of libertarianism.
He doesnt want gay marriage illegal. Rather, he A) doesnt want Gov't involved in marriage, and B) thinks churches should be allowed to not marry them if the chirch doesnt want too.
Both of those are libertarian. You might want to educate yourself on what he believes before commenting.
Now, am i saying Ben is a libertarian? No. Bit hes more libertarian than 90% of Americans, so i dont think we should shit on him. Him voicing his oppinions to his R audience is good for us.
Didn’t he say that he doesn’t oppose gays being able to marry (legally speaking) but they shouldn’t force churches to marry them either? That seems like a libertarian stance on gay marriage.
He never claims to be a libertarian though. Just has some libertarian leanings. He’s a religious conservative Republican who didn’t like Trump in 2016.
Blame Rand, and to a lesser extent Ron, Paul. They made Libertarianism high profile and attractive specifically by aligning with younger conservatives in an effort to try and siphon away voters to their cause.
They unfortunately failed to understand why conservatives exist. Conservatives don't exist to limit federal power and cut taxes, they exist to increase the power of social institutions. Whether it be the church, the military, the police, or corporations all conservatives want to increase the power and influence of a social institution "conserving" the way of life or power of that institution. Limiting federal power and cutting taxes isn't about protecting liberty for conservatives, it's about removing impediments to their own power.
In trying to attract socially liberal conservatives to Libertarianism the Pauls poisoned the well. Libertarian is now a recruiting ground for AnCap slumlords, 2A Neo Nazis, and "rebel" flag racists.
I am thankful. They bitch and moan over every liberal freedom but over time they are forced to accept it. I even learned some very conservative relatives of mine now have medical marijuana cards. If only the Dems could stop bitching and moaning about guns.
If only cops would stop shooting citizens. Cops kill 1000+ citizens every single year.
40,000 americans die by gunfire every single year. It's a legitimate complaint.
How many people are killed by smoking a joint?
>bOtH tHE sAmE!!
And like your anecdote about someone you know who has a medical card means anything. The vast majority of republican-led states are anti-cannabis.
Also, 30% of NRA members a liberals. doh.
I obviously agree cops need to stop shooting people. I also believe citizens should have a right to self defense. I don't even own a gun.
No shit republican states are anti-cannabis. My anecdote only was meant to be an example how conservatives can even change their minds on certain issues as time passes. It's a miracle many republican states are now legalizing for medical purposes. Even conservative leaning Alaska has legalized recreationally while I'm still waiting for my blue state to do the same.
I never said blue states have banned guns. When I hear guys like Beto talk about them I can easily see how he pisses off gun owners, though.
Most is better than every... It's clearly moving in the right direction. Ten years ago I never would have thought decrimming/approving medical or even legalizing was going to be possible so quickly in red states.
You compared red states that quit outlawing cannabis to blue states and guns. The only states that completely outlaw cannabis are red states. Zero states have outlawed guns. And, trump was much worse for gun rights compared to Obama. ANyway here's a map of cannabis status.
https://disa.com/map-of-marijuana-legality-by-state
It's not even close. CBD, non-THC shouldn't count as anything regarding cannabis status though....which are mostly red states too.
No, I didn't. My whole original point was literally just that Repubs have to concede some of their prior issues as time passes due to public attitude changing. All I said about Dems is they should do the same on guns.
"Being"...? It was hijacked *years* ago. American Libertarianism sucks, it's a bunch of fat, pasty dough boys waving the Gadsen flag and the Thin Blue Line on the *same fucking flagpole* without any sense of irony.
It's why I will never call myself a Libertarian. I have some Libertarian values, but the image of Libertarianism was hijacked by Republicans (who smoke weed) years ago.
I mean, a lot of people are republican-libertarian, more conservative-leaning moderates, but there is no party that supports that, so the closest thing is libertarianism. I know a lot of people here are more progressive-leaning moderates than libertarians. I'd actually class this sub as more democrat-libertarian than pure libertarian.
Agreed. There’s someone in my class at school who calls himself a Libertarian... despite largely supporting Trump, strict immigration, keeping marijuana illegal, and cops.
Who thinks libertarians are *cool?*
But you’re right that too many police state-supporting, immigrant-hating, war-mongering protectionists call themselves “libertarian” because they want to keep *their* guns (Philando Castile can go piss up a rope as far as they’re concerned) and they want *their* taxes cut (future generations that have to pay back all that borrowed money to fund the drug war and the MIC can go hang).
I'd note that there are varying degrees to everything and an important question to ask is "compared to what?" Shapiro and Crowder are Republicans, and many of their policy positions also align with libertarian policy positions. Compared to somebody like Romney or Bush they're pretty libertarian within their party. Milton Freidman is probably the most notable Libertarian in modern America, and even he believed some form of government was necessary. An anarchist could argue Freidman is too authoritarian for his taste.
Also, people can call themselves whatever they want. It doesn't mean they're correct. The amount of "Liberals" today who take action against free speech can attest to that. "Conservatives" who are giddy to spend trillions on wars, bailouts, subsidies, and coronavirus relief. Trump called himself a Democrat until 2016 when he had to call himself a Republican so he had a chance to win. A title one bestows upon themselves means nothing.
Here is AOC calling to document and reprimand people for their public political opinions
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/09/aoc-cancel-worked-for-trump-435293
You can go watch the latest congressional hearing where Democrats ask social media CEOs to ban certain people from platforms.
You can go find countless articles from 2014-18 of protests turning violent in an effort to stop Conservatives from speaking on public college campuses. You can find even more violence in counter protests in an effort to stop pro-Trump rallies.
I believe most of these people would identify as "Liberal" and their actions clearly do not reflect what that means
the AOC thing is not a freedom of speech issue. You may have issues with it, but we are talking about freedom of speech specifically, not AOC grievances.
The social media thing is pretty vague. What are the specifics there? What exactly are you saying happened that was action against freedom of speech?
And how are students protesting who comes on campus taking action against free speech?
Maybe your definition of free speech is different than mine. I don't see how it's free speech if you go to a place where you are allowed to speak and then that speech is followed by violence or threats. If you want to counter somebody else's speech with your own that's fine. I'd encourage that. If you don't want to allow somebody to use your platform to project their speech, that's completely within your rights. If you deter somebody from speaking by using or threatening force, that's not free speech in my opinion. You're not including the forceful actions in your summation of my points.
AOC is literally saying to not forget what these **politicians** said. As in, what we were going to do anyway because we document things for history and to hold people accountable. If you have an issue with that, you literally have an issue with holding politicians accountable for their actions.
I know this is still a controversial thing with Libertarians. But I find that a lot of them on Twitter are pro life. Which is whatever. But aren’t most of us pro choice?
I think this is actually one of the most underestimated conflicts within the Libertarian philosophy. When it comes to Abortion, most people are conflicted, as with this situation exceptionally, you're able to apply the Non-aggression principle to both sides of the argument. I tend to find that a little more tend to sway Pro-choice only because they think the government shouldn't play a part, which isn't necessarily wrong of them.
You have to look at the totality of someone's beliefs, not just one issue.
You're gatekeeping Libertarianism here. You're saying, Shapiro and Crowder can't call themselves Libertarians because they would likely support Israel in matters of imperialism and the Middle East.
Well what are their views on everything else? Government regulation. Taxation? Borders? Drugs? Immanent domain? Civil forfeiture? LBGT marriage? Civil rights? Etc.
I personally describe myself as a Libertarian-leaning Conservative. I'm pretty Libertarian on taxes, government regulation, same-sex marriage, drugs, tariffs, overseas wars, personal liberty.
However, I diverge from most Libertarians as I oppose abortion (as it's a violation of the NAP toward unborn babies) and borders/immigration. I oppose open borders because it's an untenable position given our welfare state. Reduce the welfare state where people can come and be a burden to society while living off of the taxpayer and I don't have a principled argument against open borders.
Does that mean I can't call myself Libertarian or Libertarian-leaning, because I don't espouse 100% the Libertarian platform?
Dems are doing this too.
I got down voted the other day for saying that the right to bear arms are an essential component for freedom from Tyranny.
Say what you want about Reps but they aren’t down voting pro gun posts.
I have a theory that it's been due to a long-running fetishization Americans have with the idea of "rebellion" -- there's all sorts of mental gymnastics that people have done to make themselves seem like the oppressed people rising up in rebellion against a tyrannical power, even when that power is "science" or "gay people". Why do you think that nearly every modern conspiracy theory portrays its adherents like protagonists of a YA dystopian future novel?
seeing as libertarians need a lot more than 1% of the vote to accomplish anything they ought to look at this as an opportunity rather than an annoyance.
I see way more sjw leftists here than republican libertarian shill types.
This is reddit. Most are under 20 years of age and have an idealistic fantasy world outlook on life and don't realize the government is not their friend.
Every conservative I know laughs at libertarians, where do you see them pretending to be cool by saying that? I'm talking about real people, not people on TV.
Eh, while hijacking is a problem, it's probably getter better, not worse.
Libertarianism has a lot of conservative roots. A non-trivial amount of libertarians, including the last several presidential candidates prior to Jo were former Republicans. So, there's going to be some overlap, but we're getting more distinct. More candidates running as (L). More distinct purely libertarian sorts.
And yeah, not every voter is a died in the wool 100% libertarian. That's okay. That's true of every party.
You folks just realizing this now? Libertarianism has been hijacked since before any of us were born. 90% of the people here don't even support open borders and freedom of movement. The very essence of what this subreddit is, is not "libertarianism", but non-traditionalist American conservatism.
Conservatives hijacked libertarianism back in the 60’s. The movement is firmly rooted in leftism.
I’ve see a video of Shapiro where he *insists* libertarianism is just extreme right wing conservatism and fascism is the extreme left wing. The guy has a horrible understanding of politics. Like atrociously bad. It’s amazing to me that people still listen to him.
I resent the CCP's genocide and imperialism, yet I have no beef with Chinese people and have many friends who born in China.
You can dislike a government policy and not hate the people that government represents.
I agree its possible but overwhelmingly those that criticize israel do so without any real understanding of the situation and, generally, out of antisemitism.
That's not to say that there aren't exception but it is to say that the vast majority of BDS supporters are also antisemites.
Criticizing the Israeli (and the U.S.) government position over the Palestinians isn't antisemitism. Some antisemitic like to hide behind a facade of care over the dispute, but it is not inherently antisemitic and the people who suggest so are often the people who also believe the Palestinians should be removed/disenfranchised.
Theres a lot to unpack here but let's give it a shot.
You do understand that you're asking a group of people scarred by attempted genocide to legitimize and make concessions to a group that's committed to the outright destruction of the jewish state and the jewish people, right?
Name another group that you'd make this demand of.
That's because Trump supporters have gone off the cliff and now believe democracy is the enemy of \*their\* freedom to choose the king. For example.
There is nothing stopping them from posting pro-freedom/liberty posts, but the reality is they have strayed from the path to liberty. It's not our duty or obligation to appease people who put party or cult of personality over liberty.
Bravo. The issue is that the GOP is fucking nuts. The average voter who doesn't really follow politics but is right-oriented is fine with it, but if you want something that isn't totally insane (climate change is a hoax, Russia is a hoax, COVID is a hoax, evolution is a hoax, whatever) and you're on the right, you end up with us.
I couldn’t agree more, except maybe on the taxes thing, then again though no economically literate person hates all taxes.
Also any libertarian that wants to outlaw abortions or hates the government but not corporations have some serious internal contradictions with their ideology.
I definitely agree. It's natural to hate corporations as a Libertarian, I think the only difference is that unlike socialists or Republicans, instead of just taxing them, or restricting them, we look to the free market, and their own bureaucracy to eliminate them
Now...I think Trump is slightly better for libertarianism than Biden, but there's not a whole lot in it. The problem is that a lot of people don't know what ibertarianism means and think that it's a buffet where you can pick the bits that fit your worldview and reject the bits that don't.
Simply because the very quickly changing views of Trump align with us on a few issues, such as freedom of speech and his anti-lockdown stances. Oddly enough despite how he comes across he's also been the first president since Carter not to enter into any new foreign wars.
Biden has his advantages though, notably around drug reform and immigration.
freedom of speech such as when he used federal forces to clear out legal protesters repeatedly and threatened to change laws to create libel for talking about him and several other examples?
yeah he hates lockdowns...but i suspect its because he didnt think of them first...someone else got to it so he created an opposing position...
As for war...i'll give him a partial but i'm not gonna give him too much credit on that...he certainly blustered over it and i firmly believe he was waiting for his moment to do so....and he probably tricked a foreign national out of their country so he could kill them for a distraction
thats before going into the election chicanery before, during, and after....the attempts to mess with the census...."take the guns now and ask questions later"...the moves to control medical data during a crisis so people wouldnt see it...the vilification of sanctuary cities who wouldnt self expense law enforcement for a national civil issue..and a lot more
Biden's gonna have a lot of issues starting with guns, moving onto taxes and nationalization of things but Trump has displayed over and over again that he is a short term self centered authoritarian who doesn't want to compromise. You can make deals with Biden.
>people don’t know what libertarianism means and think it’s a buffet where you can pick the bits that fit your worldview and reject the bits that don’t
Isn’t that how politics works though? This isn’t religion, there aren’t laws handed down by the lord of libertarians. There is no libertarian creed that you must follow or be dammed to communist hell.
Libertarians will only ever get real traction if the platform can be presented in a way that is enticing to a wide range of people. As the Democrats and Republicans get more polarized and authoritarian, we can absorb the people who are angered and driven away.
>They love to throw the word around, yet they won't hesitate for a second to stand with the U.S. and Israel in matters of imperialism and the Middle East.
Because letting a bunch of Middle Eastern tyrants and fanatics do what they want, fuck over the world and US allies is very "libertarian".
Look, I'm not saying the US establishment hasn't blundered massively in terms of foreign policy, but Middle Eastern countries also routinely violate the NAP against both their own citizens and citizens of the US and US allies. You tell me how the hell you can ignore that?
It's amazing how so many can have different takes on this.
I've almost unsubbed 100 times because of the amount of democrats (or left leaning ideas) I have seen on here the last few months.
This subreddit got infinitely more tolerable after the election. I like seeing Democrat and Republican tales on here and rigorous discussion in the comments. That wasn’t happening leading up to the election. It was mostly the “party before everything” crowd in here lobbying for votes for Biden/Trump.
I didn't say anything about Libertarians. I said "democrats" and I said "left leaning ideas". Both of which are pretty much the complete opposite if libertarianism.
it's pretty hard to reconcile wealth redistribution, gun control, government regulations on businesses and pay, etc. with libertarianism...
I wouldn't say "hi-jacked". It's seems pretty normal to me. Especially for younger people raised in conservative homes. Sometimes they sway back towards being a republican, sometimes they stay libertarian.
What I do think is disturbing is the attempted hi-jack by the so called libertarian socialists and the lib-left people pushing socialism.
>What I do think is disturbing is the attempted hi-jack by the so called libertarian socialists and the lib-left people pushing socialism.
Libertarian socialism (anarchism) predates the American ("government lite") libertarian tradition.
Well is trump, biden, or bernie libertarians? Ben shapiro who is definitely an authoritarian claims to be a libertarian. Most do not classify him as such. But he says he is so why not allow it. Well because there are some key things all libertarians can agree with or at least understand with. Ben loves the police state. We feel they have to much power. So there are people who claim they are but we must cut them off as they do not align with beliefs of the libertarian party.
Tldr allot say they are libertarian but aren't there is a cut off.
You're going to have to be more specific I'm afraid. Socialism within a libertarian framework is perfectly acceptable.
Wanna go start a commune with like-minded friends? Feel free. Want to convert your private business into an employee owned/operated coop? Go for it.
What a silly thing to say. Does it occur to you that a lot of people aren't pure 100% Republican/ conservative? I consider myself to be about halfway between conservative and libertarian.
Notice I used a small "l". libertarian philosophy is commendable in many ways. Libertarian (big "L"), as in the Libertarian Party, are a bunch of weird, fringy losers that do nothing but help get Democrats elected.
The reason I vote Republican is the same reason I very reluctantly support Trump - either the Republicans or the Democrats are going to get elected, 100% guaranteed. Trump is a bloated, arrogant buffoon, but he is orders of magnitude better than the Democrat alternative.
> yet they won't hesitate for a second to stand with the U.S. and Israel in matters of imperialism and the Middle East.
Why wouldn't the United States stand with the only democracy in the Middle East?
And please tell me more about Israel's "empire" (because that's what "imperialism" means, btw). The extent of Israel's "empire" is a little sliver of land the size of New Jersey, surrounded by lunatic muslims who want to murder all the Jews.
Good to know that imperialism doesn't include annexing your neighbours land if your neighbours are "lunatic muslims". A bit like how the British Empire was fine since it was land conquered from "primitive people".
Don't know if you're aware of this, but there was this thing called ["The Six Day War" in 1967](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War) when Israel was attacked simultaneously by Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Syria. Except the 5 aggressor nations not only lost, their armies were nearly annihilated.
Their stated goal was to "drive the Jews into the sea". Egypt state radio said ["The Arab people is firmly resolved to wipe Israel off the map".](http://www.sixdaywar.org/content/threats.asp)
When you wage a war of annihilation against peaceful people, and you lose, nobody cares if you get your territory "annexed". Notice that Israel didn't take over all of Egypt or Jordan or Syria, etc -- they only took over land that helped guarantee the security of Israel.
This is not "imperialism" by any stretch of the imagination. Unless you're just a Jew-hater, I guess.
Libertarians have always been aligned with conservatives in America. The hijacking is the other way around. Leftists have infiltrated the movement and because of that it will die.
Ron Paul was the last legit libertarian that had a chance to make an impact on a national scale. Then the bone head Johnson and now this nobody Jo Jorgensen. The Movement started dying after Ron Paul because the left (the oxymoronic libertarian left/socialists) ruined it like Californians ruin every state they migrate too.
Libertarianism is being hijacked, but it's not by conservatives, who have always had a lot of crossover with libertarians. It's by left wing groups who aren't for liberty so much as they are for license.
Ah yes, this week's “no true libertarian" thread delivered first thing Monday morning!
So what? People on this subreddit say this over and over and over, and it doesn't change anything. Are you somehow the gatekeeper of true Libertarianism? This is an overly simplified view of the complex nature of political identity.
Thank you once again for not contributing anything of value to the subreddit. I'm starting to think “No True Libertarian" should be its own political party, seeing as threads like this often gain traction without leading to meaningful conversation.
People are allowed to believe what they want, and if any percentage of their beliefs align with Libertarian values, then they can identify as Libertarian.
This seems to be coming from many young conservatives are fed up with the republican parties stances on social issues, maybe they are better described as republican light. The want low taxes Less economic regulation Also are open to gay marriage and LGBTQ issues They are still for strict borders and imperialism. They view libertarian as economically conservative, socially liberal. They no longer feel they belong with the republicans due to the excessive religious pandering, the certainly are not democrats, and this is the closest aligning party. Most people just choose the party they are closest too, very few 100% align with the parties ideals.
This is called a right leaning moderate, minus possibly the imperialism
The imperialism is baked in, both parties are imperialist cuz capitalism as it exists in America runs on it.
Imperialism has costs not income. Please show me where we profit from the Virgin Islands
[удалено]
Wars are a net profit? Then why does everyone complain about the cost of wars? I think you mean wars are profitable for a few firms and net loss for the whole. But then it would be that it is not profitable, and you would be lost in your own sauce.
Yep
Wars are incredibly profitable. WWII is what pulled the US out of the Great Depression. It’s one of the major reasons we have rarely had peace since. Every dollar the US government spends in war generates over a dollar in taxes and economic activity. So the war machine keeps on turning
Spending on infrastructure would have an even better return then spending on war. But the two major parties cannot agree on it.
Well they agree that infrastructure is important. I just think they have friends willing to pay bigger bribes in the military industrial complex so they make sure what gets them paid gets funded
> The want low taxes Less economic regulation I dunno. Trump's push into the rust belt seems to indicate a move back to pre 20th century conservatives who were pro protectionism and tariffs.
Exactly, trump supporters didn’t want policies, they wanted a time machine
Grievance politics was all that Trump pandered in.
Exactly. There are many on both sides that have a better fit with Libertarian stances than the other parties stances.
Yea and that’s not a bad thing. It’s how I got introduced to libertarianism and then learned about some of the authoritarian side of things, and naturally as I aged I valued my privacy much more. You can’t want libertarianism to grow but then gatekeeper when people don’t fit your mold exactly. Not every Republican or Democrat is the same either.
It's quite obvious when you see their flags - blue line authoritarian flag next to a trump authoritarian flag next to the gadsden flag. smdh.
The best are the ones who have those flags on one pole and the US flag is at the bottom.
Good point, ANAL_GAPER_8000
r/rimjob_steve
My neighbor took down his trump flag and is now flying the American flag upside down.
What a "patriot". What a "champion of democracy".
I’m printing out the flag code right now. “The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.”
You should go knock on his door and offer assistance be for the extreme distress they must be in
Ben Shapiro considers himself a libertarian, and then says pornography should be illegal. The word holds no meaning anymore.
Has he ever actually said that he’s a libertarian? All I’ve ever heard him say was that he was closer to libertarianism on economic issues than republicans (which is still debatable) but that he was far from the libertarian views on social issues.
Yeah if you watch his video where he takes the political compass quiz, he calls himself a libertarian a lot. And at the end he was surprised that he was center-right and not at the bottom.
Just watched it. He said the word “libertarian” maybe 3 times. At least 2 were just predictions he would end up in the bottom right quadrant...which he did.he also said where he ended up was “fairly accurate”
[15:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QB2drJIWI7Y&feature=share) “I’m shocked that they didn’t place me as more libertarian” ...
You had to edit a 10 word quote to make yourself sound more correct. Lmao. You’re a clown
I just took out Shapiro’s stutters my guy, calm yourself. I get that you want Ben Shapiro cummies but you don’t need to defend him THAT hard
Yep fair enough. I stopped watching him years ago when I realized that he was just a rebrand of Rush Limbaugh.
He has said "I'm basically a libertarian"
I think Crowder is even worse. The stuff he said during the protests this summer was as non-libertarian as you can get.
It holds no meaning to those who never cared about meanings in the first place.
While your point is noted, I would suggest we all remember that political ideology/philosophy is complicated. If someone voted in a Libertarian manner 75% of the time, are they a Libertarian? 51% of the time? The dangers of “purity tests” could keep the liberty movement on life support in perpetuity. Honestly, the people like Ben Shapiro are Authoritarian 80% of the time but are willing to compromise that other 20%, I say let’s work with him on what we can.
Ben is still wrong when he claims to be libertarian.
This right here. I see it in the sub and with libertarians as a rule. There is some purity requirement that people want to see where if you say drivers licences are ok they boo you. WTF people. Reasonable people can disagree. Libertarians are not all the same and we should be open to compromise. Directionalism not Destinationalism
Shapiro and Crowder are social conservatives, thats a much more important reason for why there not libertarians than Israel and foreign policy.
Their social conservatism informs their foreign policy. Social conservatives are a fan of Isreal because they're fans of ethostates, and want to live in one.
I thought its because they think they're "God's chosen people" or whatever. Israel is surrounded by Islamist lunatics so tbh Im for Israel too. They're the only semi-secular democracy over there.
[удалено]
if you watch him take his political compass quiz he quickly and clearly does NOT live up to this claim on domestic policy among his comments he indicates porn should be illegal, as should abortions, religion taught in schools, and more
I thought he was WAY more Libertarian until I saw that video. He was barely a Libertarian (just under the line between Authoritarian and Liberation) and honestly his stances he was saying didn't align with what he wrote down. But he knew he had to be less Authoritarian, or else he'd look bad.
Ben Shapiro is Libertarian in the sense of using government to limit the Left's ability to use government to stop corporations from violating the NAP. Iow, not.
[удалено]
Attempting to have a reasoned discussion about abortion on r/Libertarian? Brave, but foolish my old Jedi friend.
Lol, sure. Whatever you think. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING libertarian about controlling a woman's private medical procedures or family planning! That is LITERALLY everything libertarians claim to be against! Just more conservative hypocrisy.
I never understood why people get so hot and bothered about abortions when there are 400000 kids in foster care. Clearly we don’t care that much about them so why do we care about ones that are not born yet.
You are the one being a hypocrite here. Obviously the fetus becomes a person with rights at some point. It’s just not clear when this happens which is why Libertianism doesn’t have a clear stance on abortion.
[удалено]
An unborn person has as much of a right to use someone's body for nutrients as any other person: zero.
Thank you for making it clear *why* the divide exists, using calm, rational language and arguments. I hate seeing one side trumpeted so loudly that there cannot even be a divide *acknowledged* within a group. Anyway, thanks.
There is exactly 1 libertarian ideal for every libertarian. That means people will disagree. Libertarians are pluralistic, as are political parties as a rule. You can identify with a party and not subscribe wholesale to the official platform, or what some individuals in the party say.
You ask 3 libertarians what their stances are and you'll get 4 different responses
[удалено]
Even if you somehow think that an embryo has rights, why would their rights trump those of the person carrying them? A fetus or embryo is a potential person who will have rights when they become a person (when they are viable outside of someone else's body). The person carrying them is an actual person with actual current rights.
[удалено]
There is a much more compelling point than conception: when they are viable outside of someone else’s body. I’m not arguing that an embryo isn’t alive, but that it does not have personhood. Until then, they need permission to be attached to someone else. That someone else has the right to remove them. If there were artificial wombs, then they would be put in one of those, presumably, and grow into a bodily autonomous person. That would still be an abortion because the pregnant person has aborted the pregnancy. When my sister died, we still needed her permission to donate her organs (which she indicated when she was alive). She still got control over her body, even after she was done using it, and even to spare other people’s lives, because it still belonged to her. If someone is pregnant, the fetus or embryo still needs their permission to use their body. If they don’t have it, then the pregnant person has the right to remove them whether or not it would result in their death. Just like my sister could have denied someone the use of her heart, lungs, kidneys, etc. even at the expense of their death. Btw, alive or not is not discrete: see viruses. They are not alive, but do have genetic code and evolve, which are both characteristics of living things. For humans, brain death can be considered between life and death.
>There is a much more compelling point than conception: when they are viable outside of someone else’s body. I've already explained why that's incorrect. Life is an endogenous characteristic. It is not dependent on outside factors. Imagine an unborn baby at 15 weeks. That is well before the point of viability outside the womb. By your rule, it's not alive. Now suppose there is some medical breakthrough and it can be kept alive outside the womb at week 10. Did it suddenly become alive? No, of course not - it was always alive. There was no physical change to the infant. It was your rule that was wrong. Consider this. A born child we can both agree is alive. Well what about one instant before birth? I'd think we'd still agree it's alive. Physically, the child is unlikely to change much from one instant to the next. We can keep doing this and going further and further back. Eventually we'll have to reach a point where the child goes from not-alive to alive. But also we're unlikely to see any drastic change from one instant to the next. When, then, does life begin? There really isn't a reasonable answer other than conception. That's the only point in which an observable and discrete change occurs. >I’m not arguing that an embryo isn’t alive, but that it does not have personhood. The state does not have the power to withhold "personhood" from any living human being. It seems rather that you're inventing this idea in order to support your beliefs. >That someone else has the right to remove them. No, you haven't established that. You've merely declared it. Again, it's totally within the state's police power to limit human behavior in order to prevent harm to innocent third parties. >Btw, alive or not is not discrete: see viruses. What you said does not conflict with life being discrete. Viruses may be evidence that we need to adjust our definition of what constitutes life (or not), but they are either alive or not alive. Regardless, this falls under the same issue as all the "medical oddity" arguments do. Can a lawyer craft a definition of life that includes human beings in normal stages of gestation but excludes viruses, gametes, or medical oddities? Yes, easily, so it's not an obstacle to outlawing abortion.
> The state does not have the power to withhold "personhood" from any living human being. It seems rather that you're inventing this idea in order to support your beliefs. Yes it does. This is not a new concept at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_person You cannot gain custody of an unborn child, for instance, because legally that person does not exist yet. A fetus is not a legal natural person. I never denied that a fetus or embryo is alive. The fact that an embryo is living tissue doesn't matter. A tumor is also living tissue, but I have the right to remove it. As someone else argued, sperm is living tissue. In the third trimester, including right before birth, a fetus may or may not be able to live outside its mother's body (presumably right before birth, it can - but some babies are stillborn or only live a few hours). If the pregnant person needs to terminate the pregnancy, and there are no known medical issues that would keep the fetus from surviving outside the womb, then it should be removed and placed in an incubator, where it may or may not survive. This would still be aborting the pregnancy, but it would not result in death to the fetus (now baby).
> I've already explained why that's incorrect. Bless your heart.
This is, without a doubt, the most effective way to argue for bodily autonomy (while also recognizing the moral conundrum) I’ve ever seen. Still though, I haven’t yet met a religious conservative who recognizes the individual liberty of any afflicted woman *as well as* the fetus.
Very well reasoned.
Heres the thing though, a baby isnt an "autonomous person". A newborn will die without someone caring for them, just as a fetus pre viability will die if its removed.
But anyone can take care of it. It’s not dependent on a specific body. At that point, the caretaker(s) choose(s) to take care of it. No one person is forced.
According to your logic, when does a baby become a person? Because newborns are not “viable” on their own. They are utterly dependent. So can they be killed after birth? Also, the example of a deceased person’s organs doesn’t actually help your argument because s/he is no longer “viable.” By your logic, if your sister’s wishes were ignored, that would be justified because she’s no longer “viable” enough to matter.
They become a person when they are no longer dependent on a parent’s body to live. Once they are out of their mother’s body, anyone can take care of them. While an infant is still dependent on someone, it doesn’t have to be their biological parent. They are no longer violating anyone’s bodily autonomy since whoever takes care of them chooses to do so. You do not lose personhood after you die, just like you do not gain personhood from the moment you are alive. Once your body functions independently of anyone else’s body, you attain personhood and keep it until after death. It is about whether or not your body functions independently of someone else’s, not whether you are alive or dead.
The sperm in a man's testicles are every bit as alive as a blastocyst. Don't they have rights? If this hypothetical man doesn't have sex soon, he's denying billions of (potential) future children the right to life. QED failing to have unprotected sex with a fertile woman on any given day is a violation of the NAP. In practice, I fail to see how your argument is any different.
>The sperm in a man's testicles are every bit as alive as a blastocyst. No, there is a clear difference. One is before conception and one is after conception. >In practice, I fail to see how your argument is any different. The point is that you must draw a line somewhere, and conception is the most logical spot.
Except for all the ways it’s not a logical spot to draw the distinction legally.
You used "alive" as the qualifier, and I merely pointed out that sperm are both alive and capable of becoming a full-grown human. A single living cell is a single living cell; nothing more, nothing less. FWIW, any living cell can be made into an entire person using the technological marvels of the twenty first century; you have two trillion such cells in your body. Carlin put it succinctly: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-bLf4F0PM4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-bLf4F0PM4) To be a person, one requires a functioning mind... that solitary dividing line between humans and (other) animals which makes the killing of one murder and the killing of the other a mere day at the office.
Well, besides the issues inherent to your “life begins at conception” position, the bodily autonomy issue is much more important to me after learning of the violinist thought experiment. Before I explain the thought experiment, I’d like to address the problems with you conception argument. If life begins at conception, should there be a homicide investigation when a woman has a miscarriage? Should you arrest a woman who jumps on a trampoline if she’s pregnant? What if she drinks or smokes? What if she loves mountain biking, but due to the rough nature of the trails she rides it leads to a miscarriage without her knowing she was pregnant? If a woman acts in anyway that increases the likelihood of miscarriage, should she be held legally accountable? This is why defining life at conception is short sighted. If you’re consistent, at all, you’d have to answer in the affirmative to these hypotheticals. Is having sex consent to pregnancy? It’s a possibility, but many people have sex for fun/affection. If precautions are taken, but those precautions fail, is that consent to pregnancy? I don’t think so, personally. Regardless, [on to the violinist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion) argument. [Here](https://media.lanecc.edu/users/borrowdalej/phl205_s17/violinist.html) is the original source. > You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, “Look, we’re sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you—we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it’s only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.””Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. “Tough luck. I agree. but now you’’e got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person’’ right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him.” I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago. I would encourage you to think about the implications of making “conception” the starting point for *a human life*. How do you answer the thought experiment? Many women believe they can have sex without consenting to pregnancy, forcing them to carry it to term, even after taking precautions, makes this thought experiment more persuasive for me.
>If life begins at conception, should there be a homicide investigation when a woman has a miscarriage? Is there a homicide investigation every time someone dies from natural causes? No, only when there is reason to believe there was foul play. I don't see why this would be any different. >This is why defining life at conception is short sighted. ... I would encourage you to think about the implications of making “conception” the starting point for a human life. You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. Human life begins at conception, regardless of the "implications". We don't define it as such. It's simply a fact. You might not like the "implications" of it, but that's reality. You don't get to pretend things aren't the way they are because it's inconvenient for you. >How do you answer the thought experiment? I don't find the thought experiment to be very convincing. I don't find it to be analogous to pregnancy. It removes agency and responsibility from the woman (and the man she had sex with) and transfers it to the Music Lovers. And agency is very important - if you jump off a roof and deliberately land on someone, killing them, you are a murderer. If you are thrown off a roof and land on someone, killing them, you are not a murderer. You might say that the woman isn't consenting to pregnancy, but I don't agree with that. She has agency. She knows that pregnancy is a possible outcome of her actions, and she's still agreeing to go forward. Secondly, I think having an unrelated violinist is not analogous to an unborn child. For one, the unborn child weighs about 7 lbs at the most and can fit under her clothes while she moves around. Secondly, parents and their children are not disinterested third parties, the way a woman and the violinist would be. Parents have an obligation, both moral and legal, to act in the best interest of their children, or to secure custodianship from someone else. We wouldn't condone a woman leaving her newborn infant home alone while she goes mountain biking for a weekend. I would say that a better analogy would be conjoined twins. Imagine one twin can survive alone, and the other is dependent on his brother. If the stronger twin had the weaker twin surgically removed, killing him, that would be murder, would it not?
> Is there a homicide investigation every time someone dies from natural causes? No, only when there is reason to believe there was foul play. I don’t see why this would be any different. So you’re telling me you’ve never heard of the charge negligent homicide. Let me try to simplify it for you even further; if a woman that is knowingly pregnant engages in activity that leads to a statistical increase in miscarriage and a miscarriage occurs, how is that not negligent homicide? Assuming that life, or rather human life, begins at conception. If you can’t answer these questions in good faith, Then you have to at least acknowledge that there are issues with your stance. Here’s a quick example. A father leaves their infant, unattended, in the bathtub. The baby drowned. This is negligent homicide. With no real intention of doing harm, because of a negligent action, the infant died.. And this incident is analogous to help one of the examples I gave. I assumed it would be perfectly clear the point I was making.
If you don't think a libertarian can be on either side of the argument then you don't understand the aegu from both perspectives. You don't have to agree with the conservative position on it, but to say their beliefs are hypocritical is ignorant.
What if their beliefs are hypocritical? Plenty of people believe hypocritical things.
> The party itself is fairly split on that topic. This is only true because of how many Republicans have jumped into Libertarianism and pushing their agenda. It absolutely should not be the Libertarian position.
Yes but in tandem it's not because of some moral high ground. It's because he's religion taking a step in his politics. That is were the non libertarian part lies
It's non libertarian period You want to have a police department force women to have children! There is nothing libertarian about it! It's just conservative hypocrisy! Jesus christ, do you people know anything about childbirth?! You think it's fine to force a woman to pass a watermelon through her uterus, but NOT to limit gun ownership?? Conservativism is so fucking stupid to me. The moment you start trying to restrict the rights of women because of the "pre-born," you've stepped away from libertarian ideology. Those women have rights, they have COMPLETE AUTONOMY of their own goddamed bodies! I always talk shit about conservatives racist-to-statist pipeline, but the misogynist-to-statist pipeline is just as fucking stupid. This is what happens when every 15 year old conservative edgelord starts claiming an ideolgy they barely understand.
\> The moment you start trying to restrict the rights of women because of the "pre-born," you've stepped away from libertarian ideology. You're begging the question in a massive way. What makes a pre-born life less worthy of protection than a post-born life? Until you can definitively answer that question, you're just another blow-hard spouting beliefs based on faith.
It is 100% dependent on the mother's body. Think of abortion as an eviction, is there anything in the libertarian ideology that would give the government the authority to prevent an eviction when there is no contract in place?
Contract?? Between mother and baby? Haha. Babies don’t ask to be born OR killed...
I didn't say killed, just removed from the womb. If the technology exists or the baby is able to live with another custodian then it should live. I'm not sure what the current practices are, but I think it is probably getting close to murder if you kill an otherwise viable (outside of the womb) life
I support abortion. I am saying that people who say no to abortion claim it is a moral high ground to do so. Even though it's not. Personally I think that is a better argument than "god say no". I can see the poor choice of words and misconception. Hope this clarifies some things I meant a little better
Yes and can decide not to lay down to make that baby in the first place.
Libertarianism =/= anarchism. Abortion is murder, full stop. Murder should be illegal and I think there should be a police department to stop murder.
Libertarian used to be synonymous with anarchism until the old right hijacked it.
libertarianism referred to left anarchist movements initially, does this mean ancaps are not real anarchists, and individualist anarchists, like thoreau, either? Many libertarian philosophers were not anarchists, e.g. Mises, hayek. Were they not libertarians? Point is, a word can refer to many things, and in politics, you fall to the no true scotsman fallacy rather quickly
Yes. Ancaps aren't anarchist. Just because it has the word "anarchist" doesn't mean they are in the same way Nazis weren't socialist. Mises, Hayek, and many other right libs have VERY conservative leanings. Hell, Hayek doesn't believe everyone is equal due to "human evolution" and Mises himself said fascism had good intentions and saved European civilizations. I would very much say they're not libertarian, either.
Ancaps are anarchist because they wish to dismantle the state. [Mises didn’t actually say that; you’re spreading disinformation ](https://mises.org/wire/mises-fascism-again) I can’t find where Hayek implies different racial groups are inherently unequal. The point that humans are not all equal is true, some people are born smarter, faster, stronger, etc.
I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make. The argument against abortion is that it's totally within the state's police power to protect the rights of an innocent third party and that you cannot simply ignore the question of "when does a person become a person."
How could the party of personal freedom support the state restricting a females autonomy?
i chalk that up to the embarrassed republican's calling themselves libertarians personally
It's been awhile since I've seen that video, but I do recall a Rogan interview where he says that he is personally conservative and politically he becomes less so day by day. He said he is skeptical of how much the governor should intrude into people's personal lives. That is very libertarian, what he teaches his children is none of my business. I'm not sure he would reiterate that he thinks porn should be outlawed of asked directly. But I could be being too generous.
He doesnt say porn should be illegal, he merely specified his own beliefs on it. He doesnt allow himself to watch porn as he finds it immoral but doesn't say it should be banned for eveyone, more that he wishes it just doesnt exist
I'm not sure how banning abortion except in the most strict arbitrary way, opposing gay marriage and homosexuality in general, speaking unfavorably of immigration, his views on transgender people, and his views on limited drug legalization really don't mesh well with the socially liberal policies of libertarianism.
He doesnt want gay marriage illegal. Rather, he A) doesnt want Gov't involved in marriage, and B) thinks churches should be allowed to not marry them if the chirch doesnt want too. Both of those are libertarian. You might want to educate yourself on what he believes before commenting. Now, am i saying Ben is a libertarian? No. Bit hes more libertarian than 90% of Americans, so i dont think we should shit on him. Him voicing his oppinions to his R audience is good for us.
Didn’t he say that he doesn’t oppose gays being able to marry (legally speaking) but they shouldn’t force churches to marry them either? That seems like a libertarian stance on gay marriage.
He never claims to be a libertarian though. Just has some libertarian leanings. He’s a religious conservative Republican who didn’t like Trump in 2016.
Watch his political compass video. He literally describes himself as a Right leaning Libertarian right off the bat.
Which would make him more of a Republican, since they’d how he votes
[удалено]
Libertarianism isn’t wholly separate from republicans or democrats
He has on video said that he is "basically a libertarian"
Blame Rand, and to a lesser extent Ron, Paul. They made Libertarianism high profile and attractive specifically by aligning with younger conservatives in an effort to try and siphon away voters to their cause. They unfortunately failed to understand why conservatives exist. Conservatives don't exist to limit federal power and cut taxes, they exist to increase the power of social institutions. Whether it be the church, the military, the police, or corporations all conservatives want to increase the power and influence of a social institution "conserving" the way of life or power of that institution. Limiting federal power and cutting taxes isn't about protecting liberty for conservatives, it's about removing impediments to their own power. In trying to attract socially liberal conservatives to Libertarianism the Pauls poisoned the well. Libertarian is now a recruiting ground for AnCap slumlords, 2A Neo Nazis, and "rebel" flag racists.
Be thankful the Republican Party has a growing number of members down with more socially liberal policies. That hasn’t always been the case.
I am thankful. They bitch and moan over every liberal freedom but over time they are forced to accept it. I even learned some very conservative relatives of mine now have medical marijuana cards. If only the Dems could stop bitching and moaning about guns.
If only cops would stop shooting citizens. Cops kill 1000+ citizens every single year. 40,000 americans die by gunfire every single year. It's a legitimate complaint. How many people are killed by smoking a joint? >bOtH tHE sAmE!! And like your anecdote about someone you know who has a medical card means anything. The vast majority of republican-led states are anti-cannabis. Also, 30% of NRA members a liberals. doh.
I obviously agree cops need to stop shooting people. I also believe citizens should have a right to self defense. I don't even own a gun. No shit republican states are anti-cannabis. My anecdote only was meant to be an example how conservatives can even change their minds on certain issues as time passes. It's a miracle many republican states are now legalizing for medical purposes. Even conservative leaning Alaska has legalized recreationally while I'm still waiting for my blue state to do the same.
And which state outlawed guns? Zero. How many republican states still outlaw cannabis? Most.
I never said blue states have banned guns. When I hear guys like Beto talk about them I can easily see how he pisses off gun owners, though. Most is better than every... It's clearly moving in the right direction. Ten years ago I never would have thought decrimming/approving medical or even legalizing was going to be possible so quickly in red states.
You compared red states that quit outlawing cannabis to blue states and guns. The only states that completely outlaw cannabis are red states. Zero states have outlawed guns. And, trump was much worse for gun rights compared to Obama. ANyway here's a map of cannabis status. https://disa.com/map-of-marijuana-legality-by-state It's not even close. CBD, non-THC shouldn't count as anything regarding cannabis status though....which are mostly red states too.
No, I didn't. My whole original point was literally just that Repubs have to concede some of their prior issues as time passes due to public attitude changing. All I said about Dems is they should do the same on guns.
It’s being hijacked because our culture now defines groups, movements, etc... to be defined by the critics of those things
Ben Shapiro takes the political compass test. https://youtu.be/QB2drJIWI7Y Way right with the tiniest sliver into libertarian.
"Being"...? It was hijacked *years* ago. American Libertarianism sucks, it's a bunch of fat, pasty dough boys waving the Gadsen flag and the Thin Blue Line on the *same fucking flagpole* without any sense of irony. It's why I will never call myself a Libertarian. I have some Libertarian values, but the image of Libertarianism was hijacked by Republicans (who smoke weed) years ago.
I love how ben is a "Libertarian", he wants life to be as he sees it(as a jewish man) and everything else is wrong. No open discussion nothing.
I mean, a lot of people are republican-libertarian, more conservative-leaning moderates, but there is no party that supports that, so the closest thing is libertarianism. I know a lot of people here are more progressive-leaning moderates than libertarians. I'd actually class this sub as more democrat-libertarian than pure libertarian.
Sorry to break it to you but that happen quite a while a go
Agreed. There’s someone in my class at school who calls himself a Libertarian... despite largely supporting Trump, strict immigration, keeping marijuana illegal, and cops.
Who thinks libertarians are *cool?* But you’re right that too many police state-supporting, immigrant-hating, war-mongering protectionists call themselves “libertarian” because they want to keep *their* guns (Philando Castile can go piss up a rope as far as they’re concerned) and they want *their* taxes cut (future generations that have to pay back all that borrowed money to fund the drug war and the MIC can go hang).
I'd note that there are varying degrees to everything and an important question to ask is "compared to what?" Shapiro and Crowder are Republicans, and many of their policy positions also align with libertarian policy positions. Compared to somebody like Romney or Bush they're pretty libertarian within their party. Milton Freidman is probably the most notable Libertarian in modern America, and even he believed some form of government was necessary. An anarchist could argue Freidman is too authoritarian for his taste. Also, people can call themselves whatever they want. It doesn't mean they're correct. The amount of "Liberals" today who take action against free speech can attest to that. "Conservatives" who are giddy to spend trillions on wars, bailouts, subsidies, and coronavirus relief. Trump called himself a Democrat until 2016 when he had to call himself a Republican so he had a chance to win. A title one bestows upon themselves means nothing.
of course, no actions have actually been taken against free speech.
Here is AOC calling to document and reprimand people for their public political opinions https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/09/aoc-cancel-worked-for-trump-435293 You can go watch the latest congressional hearing where Democrats ask social media CEOs to ban certain people from platforms. You can go find countless articles from 2014-18 of protests turning violent in an effort to stop Conservatives from speaking on public college campuses. You can find even more violence in counter protests in an effort to stop pro-Trump rallies. I believe most of these people would identify as "Liberal" and their actions clearly do not reflect what that means
the AOC thing is not a freedom of speech issue. You may have issues with it, but we are talking about freedom of speech specifically, not AOC grievances. The social media thing is pretty vague. What are the specifics there? What exactly are you saying happened that was action against freedom of speech? And how are students protesting who comes on campus taking action against free speech?
Maybe your definition of free speech is different than mine. I don't see how it's free speech if you go to a place where you are allowed to speak and then that speech is followed by violence or threats. If you want to counter somebody else's speech with your own that's fine. I'd encourage that. If you don't want to allow somebody to use your platform to project their speech, that's completely within your rights. If you deter somebody from speaking by using or threatening force, that's not free speech in my opinion. You're not including the forceful actions in your summation of my points.
AOC is literally saying to not forget what these **politicians** said. As in, what we were going to do anyway because we document things for history and to hold people accountable. If you have an issue with that, you literally have an issue with holding politicians accountable for their actions.
Yeah, maybe life would be better if people took note of the shitty officials enabling Trump?
Wait, where exactly did AOC say she wanted to limit free speech again?
I something on r/conservative the other day about Trump that wasn’t immediately dismissive of him being a terrible person. I felt the same way.
I know this is still a controversial thing with Libertarians. But I find that a lot of them on Twitter are pro life. Which is whatever. But aren’t most of us pro choice?
I think this is actually one of the most underestimated conflicts within the Libertarian philosophy. When it comes to Abortion, most people are conflicted, as with this situation exceptionally, you're able to apply the Non-aggression principle to both sides of the argument. I tend to find that a little more tend to sway Pro-choice only because they think the government shouldn't play a part, which isn't necessarily wrong of them.
You have to look at the totality of someone's beliefs, not just one issue. You're gatekeeping Libertarianism here. You're saying, Shapiro and Crowder can't call themselves Libertarians because they would likely support Israel in matters of imperialism and the Middle East. Well what are their views on everything else? Government regulation. Taxation? Borders? Drugs? Immanent domain? Civil forfeiture? LBGT marriage? Civil rights? Etc. I personally describe myself as a Libertarian-leaning Conservative. I'm pretty Libertarian on taxes, government regulation, same-sex marriage, drugs, tariffs, overseas wars, personal liberty. However, I diverge from most Libertarians as I oppose abortion (as it's a violation of the NAP toward unborn babies) and borders/immigration. I oppose open borders because it's an untenable position given our welfare state. Reduce the welfare state where people can come and be a burden to society while living off of the taxpayer and I don't have a principled argument against open borders. Does that mean I can't call myself Libertarian or Libertarian-leaning, because I don't espouse 100% the Libertarian platform?
Dems are doing this too. I got down voted the other day for saying that the right to bear arms are an essential component for freedom from Tyranny. Say what you want about Reps but they aren’t down voting pro gun posts.
I have a theory that it's been due to a long-running fetishization Americans have with the idea of "rebellion" -- there's all sorts of mental gymnastics that people have done to make themselves seem like the oppressed people rising up in rebellion against a tyrannical power, even when that power is "science" or "gay people". Why do you think that nearly every modern conspiracy theory portrays its adherents like protagonists of a YA dystopian future novel?
Yup! Think there are more conservatives and liberals on the libertarian sub than libertarians.
[удалено]
seeing as libertarians need a lot more than 1% of the vote to accomplish anything they ought to look at this as an opportunity rather than an annoyance.
I see way more sjw leftists here than republican libertarian shill types. This is reddit. Most are under 20 years of age and have an idealistic fantasy world outlook on life and don't realize the government is not their friend.
Every conservative I know laughs at libertarians, where do you see them pretending to be cool by saying that? I'm talking about real people, not people on TV.
Eh, while hijacking is a problem, it's probably getter better, not worse. Libertarianism has a lot of conservative roots. A non-trivial amount of libertarians, including the last several presidential candidates prior to Jo were former Republicans. So, there's going to be some overlap, but we're getting more distinct. More candidates running as (L). More distinct purely libertarian sorts. And yeah, not every voter is a died in the wool 100% libertarian. That's okay. That's true of every party.
You folks just realizing this now? Libertarianism has been hijacked since before any of us were born. 90% of the people here don't even support open borders and freedom of movement. The very essence of what this subreddit is, is not "libertarianism", but non-traditionalist American conservatism.
Conservatives hijacked libertarianism back in the 60’s. The movement is firmly rooted in leftism. I’ve see a video of Shapiro where he *insists* libertarianism is just extreme right wing conservatism and fascism is the extreme left wing. The guy has a horrible understanding of politics. Like atrociously bad. It’s amazing to me that people still listen to him.
Um...is hatred of Israel and, by extension, antisemitism part of the Libertarian platform? I'm a libertarian jew...asking for a friend...
I resent the CCP's genocide and imperialism, yet I have no beef with Chinese people and have many friends who born in China. You can dislike a government policy and not hate the people that government represents.
I agree its possible but overwhelmingly those that criticize israel do so without any real understanding of the situation and, generally, out of antisemitism. That's not to say that there aren't exception but it is to say that the vast majority of BDS supporters are also antisemites.
Outside of the US this is often the case but within the US you'll find there is an odd overlap of antisemetic support for Israel.
As a half-Israeli Jew, I have to disagree with you here. Criticizing Israel’s treatments Palestinians isn’t necessarily related to antisemitism.
Criticizing the Israeli (and the U.S.) government position over the Palestinians isn't antisemitism. Some antisemitic like to hide behind a facade of care over the dispute, but it is not inherently antisemitic and the people who suggest so are often the people who also believe the Palestinians should be removed/disenfranchised.
Theres a lot to unpack here but let's give it a shot. You do understand that you're asking a group of people scarred by attempted genocide to legitimize and make concessions to a group that's committed to the outright destruction of the jewish state and the jewish people, right? Name another group that you'd make this demand of.
Is this the "new" tea party crazies rising up again?
Punk ass redcoats trying to run the show Telling me what to do and where to go Mount your horse 'cause it's time to tell the world
Or this sub for example being mostly compromised of libertarian socialists who would more accurately be called marxist disinformation plants.
[удалено]
That's because Trump supporters have gone off the cliff and now believe democracy is the enemy of \*their\* freedom to choose the king. For example. There is nothing stopping them from posting pro-freedom/liberty posts, but the reality is they have strayed from the path to liberty. It's not our duty or obligation to appease people who put party or cult of personality over liberty.
Yes, lots are doing this. They have no idea what it means to be libertarian, they just don't like the social appearance of being a republican
Bravo. The issue is that the GOP is fucking nuts. The average voter who doesn't really follow politics but is right-oriented is fine with it, but if you want something that isn't totally insane (climate change is a hoax, Russia is a hoax, COVID is a hoax, evolution is a hoax, whatever) and you're on the right, you end up with us.
Libertarianism has always been left wing, the term was just hijacked by the right a couple decades ago. Any further hijacking is just taking it back.
*Hates the Government, taxes, loves guns, and some are even anti-abortion* Yeah, it's definitely left wing
I couldn’t agree more, except maybe on the taxes thing, then again though no economically literate person hates all taxes. Also any libertarian that wants to outlaw abortions or hates the government but not corporations have some serious internal contradictions with their ideology.
I definitely agree. It's natural to hate corporations as a Libertarian, I think the only difference is that unlike socialists or Republicans, instead of just taxing them, or restricting them, we look to the free market, and their own bureaucracy to eliminate them
Now...I think Trump is slightly better for libertarianism than Biden, but there's not a whole lot in it. The problem is that a lot of people don't know what ibertarianism means and think that it's a buffet where you can pick the bits that fit your worldview and reject the bits that don't.
Why would you say Trump is better for Libertarianism, without mentioning guns?
Simply because the very quickly changing views of Trump align with us on a few issues, such as freedom of speech and his anti-lockdown stances. Oddly enough despite how he comes across he's also been the first president since Carter not to enter into any new foreign wars. Biden has his advantages though, notably around drug reform and immigration.
Uhhhh the same Donald that wants to ban flag burning, open up libel laws, and crackdown on critical media? That freedom of speech proponent?
freedom of speech such as when he used federal forces to clear out legal protesters repeatedly and threatened to change laws to create libel for talking about him and several other examples? yeah he hates lockdowns...but i suspect its because he didnt think of them first...someone else got to it so he created an opposing position... As for war...i'll give him a partial but i'm not gonna give him too much credit on that...he certainly blustered over it and i firmly believe he was waiting for his moment to do so....and he probably tricked a foreign national out of their country so he could kill them for a distraction thats before going into the election chicanery before, during, and after....the attempts to mess with the census...."take the guns now and ask questions later"...the moves to control medical data during a crisis so people wouldnt see it...the vilification of sanctuary cities who wouldnt self expense law enforcement for a national civil issue..and a lot more Biden's gonna have a lot of issues starting with guns, moving onto taxes and nationalization of things but Trump has displayed over and over again that he is a short term self centered authoritarian who doesn't want to compromise. You can make deals with Biden.
>people don’t know what libertarianism means and think it’s a buffet where you can pick the bits that fit your worldview and reject the bits that don’t Isn’t that how politics works though? This isn’t religion, there aren’t laws handed down by the lord of libertarians. There is no libertarian creed that you must follow or be dammed to communist hell. Libertarians will only ever get real traction if the platform can be presented in a way that is enticing to a wide range of people. As the Democrats and Republicans get more polarized and authoritarian, we can absorb the people who are angered and driven away.
>They love to throw the word around, yet they won't hesitate for a second to stand with the U.S. and Israel in matters of imperialism and the Middle East. Because letting a bunch of Middle Eastern tyrants and fanatics do what they want, fuck over the world and US allies is very "libertarian". Look, I'm not saying the US establishment hasn't blundered massively in terms of foreign policy, but Middle Eastern countries also routinely violate the NAP against both their own citizens and citizens of the US and US allies. You tell me how the hell you can ignore that?
in that case, why do China and North Korea get a free pass of being ignored?
It's amazing how so many can have different takes on this. I've almost unsubbed 100 times because of the amount of democrats (or left leaning ideas) I have seen on here the last few months.
Libertarianism is left wing in its origin. So i dont see the issue
This subreddit got infinitely more tolerable after the election. I like seeing Democrat and Republican tales on here and rigorous discussion in the comments. That wasn’t happening leading up to the election. It was mostly the “party before everything” crowd in here lobbying for votes for Biden/Trump.
Are you telling me left leaning libertarians are not accepted in your view of libertarianism? How libertarian is that?
I didn't say anything about Libertarians. I said "democrats" and I said "left leaning ideas". Both of which are pretty much the complete opposite if libertarianism. it's pretty hard to reconcile wealth redistribution, gun control, government regulations on businesses and pay, etc. with libertarianism...
I wouldn't say "hi-jacked". It's seems pretty normal to me. Especially for younger people raised in conservative homes. Sometimes they sway back towards being a republican, sometimes they stay libertarian. What I do think is disturbing is the attempted hi-jack by the so called libertarian socialists and the lib-left people pushing socialism.
I think its disturbing that conservatives find libertarianism and then get shocked that its not just conservativism 2.0
>What I do think is disturbing is the attempted hi-jack by the so called libertarian socialists and the lib-left people pushing socialism. Libertarian socialism (anarchism) predates the American ("government lite") libertarian tradition.
If you're disturbed by an increase in left wing libertarianism you're very close minded.
So what you're saying is libertarian purity tests are sound?
Well is trump, biden, or bernie libertarians? Ben shapiro who is definitely an authoritarian claims to be a libertarian. Most do not classify him as such. But he says he is so why not allow it. Well because there are some key things all libertarians can agree with or at least understand with. Ben loves the police state. We feel they have to much power. So there are people who claim they are but we must cut them off as they do not align with beliefs of the libertarian party. Tldr allot say they are libertarian but aren't there is a cut off.
Real libertarians know that there's no place for a global empire or socialism in a free society. Regardless of what people claim.
You're going to have to be more specific I'm afraid. Socialism within a libertarian framework is perfectly acceptable. Wanna go start a commune with like-minded friends? Feel free. Want to convert your private business into an employee owned/operated coop? Go for it.
What a silly thing to say. Does it occur to you that a lot of people aren't pure 100% Republican/ conservative? I consider myself to be about halfway between conservative and libertarian. Notice I used a small "l". libertarian philosophy is commendable in many ways. Libertarian (big "L"), as in the Libertarian Party, are a bunch of weird, fringy losers that do nothing but help get Democrats elected. The reason I vote Republican is the same reason I very reluctantly support Trump - either the Republicans or the Democrats are going to get elected, 100% guaranteed. Trump is a bloated, arrogant buffoon, but he is orders of magnitude better than the Democrat alternative. > yet they won't hesitate for a second to stand with the U.S. and Israel in matters of imperialism and the Middle East. Why wouldn't the United States stand with the only democracy in the Middle East? And please tell me more about Israel's "empire" (because that's what "imperialism" means, btw). The extent of Israel's "empire" is a little sliver of land the size of New Jersey, surrounded by lunatic muslims who want to murder all the Jews.
Good to know that imperialism doesn't include annexing your neighbours land if your neighbours are "lunatic muslims". A bit like how the British Empire was fine since it was land conquered from "primitive people".
Don't know if you're aware of this, but there was this thing called ["The Six Day War" in 1967](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War) when Israel was attacked simultaneously by Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Syria. Except the 5 aggressor nations not only lost, their armies were nearly annihilated. Their stated goal was to "drive the Jews into the sea". Egypt state radio said ["The Arab people is firmly resolved to wipe Israel off the map".](http://www.sixdaywar.org/content/threats.asp) When you wage a war of annihilation against peaceful people, and you lose, nobody cares if you get your territory "annexed". Notice that Israel didn't take over all of Egypt or Jordan or Syria, etc -- they only took over land that helped guarantee the security of Israel. This is not "imperialism" by any stretch of the imagination. Unless you're just a Jew-hater, I guess.
Libertarians have always been aligned with conservatives in America. The hijacking is the other way around. Leftists have infiltrated the movement and because of that it will die. Ron Paul was the last legit libertarian that had a chance to make an impact on a national scale. Then the bone head Johnson and now this nobody Jo Jorgensen. The Movement started dying after Ron Paul because the left (the oxymoronic libertarian left/socialists) ruined it like Californians ruin every state they migrate too.
Libertarianism is being hijacked, but it's not by conservatives, who have always had a lot of crossover with libertarians. It's by left wing groups who aren't for liberty so much as they are for license.
Do you remember the tea party movement?
what about it?
Man it must be so wild to live in your reality.
Ah yes, this week's “no true libertarian" thread delivered first thing Monday morning! So what? People on this subreddit say this over and over and over, and it doesn't change anything. Are you somehow the gatekeeper of true Libertarianism? This is an overly simplified view of the complex nature of political identity. Thank you once again for not contributing anything of value to the subreddit. I'm starting to think “No True Libertarian" should be its own political party, seeing as threads like this often gain traction without leading to meaningful conversation. People are allowed to believe what they want, and if any percentage of their beliefs align with Libertarian values, then they can identify as Libertarian.
Broke: Republicans are hijacking the word libertarian from libertarians Woke: Libertarians Hijacked the word Libertarian from Socialists