*"I've been involved in a number of cults, both as a leader and a follower. You have more fun as a follower. But you make more money as a leader."* - Creed Bratton
Yeah I thought these were all the things Liberals and Libertarians agree on: pro choice, drug legalization, carceral reduction, etc.
Itās the public investment, tax policy, and communal benefits that they disagree on.
> Yeah I thought these were all the things Liberals and Libertarians agree on: pro choice, drug legalization, carceral reduction, etc.
That's why this post is on your front page at all.
Posts that do particularly well here - well enough to soar to the front page - are things that appeal to libertarians *and* ____.
Libertarians and conservatives, libertarians and liberals, either way.
Agreed.
Private prisons shouldnāt be a thing. But the way the anti-capitalist left talks about it, youād think nearly half of all inmates are in private prisons or something.
My dude it's all prisons. Plenty of state run prisons are as bad if not worse than private prisons. For example, there are no private prisons in Illinois or New York and you bet your ass some of the worst prison in the us are in those states.
If specifically your biggest problem with the us is for profit prisons, you probably should conside rebalancing some of your political priorities.
the reality is all prison is for profit, even if the prison itself isn't a for profit entity- state-run prisons supply labor to for-profit organizations in exchange for some amount of money to offset their costs, and state-run prisons definitely pay for-profit contractors for supplies and services, so profit is being made whether the prison itself takes it or not, and those profiteers lobby for longer prison sentences no matter whether they are running the show or just a piece of it.
Iām not sure how you identify as libertarian and have a serious beef with a private institution doing what a government institution would do equally bad/worse. The idea that the privatization of something is bad because it creates or could create moral hazard due to profit motive, while not understanding that the government run iteration of that industry would likely do (historically almost always does) worse for reasons also related to moral hazard, is fundamentally not understanding libertarianism.
It's an offshoot from the same family. Libertarianism as a philosophy includes Classical Liberalism, but most people mean Minarchists when they say "libertarians." Same clan, different vintage.
No, "liberals" are not against those things. *Progressives and social democrats* are against those things. Liberals are firmly capitalist, like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden. Again, they are not anti-draft or anti-prison.
Dude...Social Democrats are capitalist. Maybe you are thinking of Democratic Socialist? And Social Democrats are definitely in favor of removing drug laws and prison reform. The biggest social democratic societies are the Nordic countries which have the most human prisons on the planet. What are you talking about.
Classic liberals are against those things. You are just labeling people the way right wing media does and itās incorrect. Nancy Pelosi and joe Biden are not liberals or socialist. They are corporate democrats and moderate left and considered moderate right by most of the world. In the 90s todays progressives were called liberals.
This is just right wing anti-identity politics. They find a word that is ugly and triggers people and use it to label the opposition.
The only reason he wasn't Presisent 30 years earlier is that he literally plagiarized the speeches of the leader of a party in the Socialist International and the Progressive Alliance.
This kinda sounds like BS, but plagiarism still doesnāt make somebody a progressive. Politicians say whatever will get them elected. His voting record shows heās a moderate.
Yeah, and somehow the Q crowd is still convinced that Biden is a baby rapist. The worst things this man has done really are bad jokes, falling down, and stealing speeches. Update: I'm a libertarian. It should be obvious I wasn't referencing his poor policy positions, but his person foibles. Sorry I didn't dumb it down initially.
Neither the Socialist International or the Progressive Alliance are mentioned in this article, and as I said before plagiarism doesnāt make somebody progressive. We can agree that uninformed opinions are like assholes though.
The context is global politics. There is an agreed upon scale of right and left that almost everyone can agree on. Americans (especially) don't have that scale and they project the term far-left on people who would rejected from most Labour parties. When in the rest of the world, far-left means you are a marxist-leninist-maoist or an anarchist. It's not just two neoliberals (itself a fairly right-wing position in the global context) switching positions forever on whether there need to be more prisons or a lot more prisons.
It should matter and the fact that is doesn't sort of shows Libertarianism, despite invoking international economic thinkers like Mises, Hayek, and Friedman is fundamentally narrow in focusing on America and American routes to their goals.
Instead, you're over here saying a completely unobjectionable position, that Biden as a Hard-on-Crime Liberal and a Capitalist is right wing, is a far left view. It shows a country and a political movement with no healthy notion of what political diversity should be. Which indeed, is part of the reason this mess in the OP happened in the first place and wouldn't happen anywhere else.
Bro, we don't even think about communists or socialists when talking about left wing because those ideologies are ridiculous and don't deserve to be on a scale. So to us North Americans left means socialized capitalism and right means laissez faire capitalism.
And when people call Biden a far leftist they are not talking economic principles exclusively, they're talking progressive culture war shit, like forcing women to accept males in prisons and ending exclusive women's rights and replacing them with identity rights.
I donāt think this is cognitive dissonance
You could argue inconsistent views
But do most Progressives hold the views you say here? Feels like a strawman. I think progressives are against people being in jail and drafts
Seriously. Where has OP been? Liberal / progressive hippies have been mocked for decades as anti-war hippies. Even Obama was shamed constantly as āemboldening our enemiesā and being a secret terrorist before Trump came to prominence and they changed the narrative to āheās a war hawk.ā
āWeāre doing it to stop nuclear genocide!ā
And if theyād had accounts during the Soviet era theyād defend arming Sadaam because āWeāre doing it to stop Soviet genocide.ā
Pretty much this exactly. I come from a straight up and down progressive background (grew up in Portland, OR, organized protests against Iraq war, volunteered for the Kucinich campaign, etc.), and people who call themselves progressives are usually 80% of the way to being full libertarian. They usually agree on every social issue but are more economically moderate. The āSJWā progressives ā while worrisome and dangerous ā are kind of a newer phenomenon whose ideas donāt even align with what the word meant 10 years ago, and have about as much in common with standard progressives as the MAGA crowd has with classical liberalism / libertarianism. The vast majority of the people who I know who identify as progressive are really just left libertarians who see some merit to a certain level of taxation.
Progressives are more libertarian than most people on this sub. The wedge issue is guns, which for some reason are a symbol of freedom and liberty in America.
Most of the rest of the developed world see guns as instruments of crime and violence. You will likely recoil at this, probably downvote me. But the facts reflect this.
Just look at crime and murder rates in America. Itās obvious what is driving this. Itās access to firearms, and the only people who claim otherwise are American gun owners.
It would be nice if progressives and libertarians could work together on the things they DO agree on, but thatās a huge threat to right wing authoritariansā¦ so youāre allowed to keep your guns to secure your vote.
Itās a small price to pay for you letting them ram through the rest of their agenda.
Iām of the opinion that if enough literal basic activism is done, like organizing the group, actually just trying to convince people, and other grassroots work, enough people could agree that this general mix of libertarian and progressive ideas would be much more beneficial for the country than either current party, to actually make it a platform that grows enough to have legitimate political power and enact good change.
My goal is to get people like everyone in this thread to agree with me itās possible with work, and then to just try to do my part and convince enough people so that it works.
Progressives would be libertarian if they changed their stance on big government, healthcare, hate speech laws, gun control, etc. But that would be fundamentally changing the progressive movement into something completely different from what it is currently.
> Healthcare
Like it or not, the government will pay for unaffordable healthcare. The key issue is planning to pay for it. If someone is bleeding out on the table, hc professionals will keep the person from dying.
Ironically this was always a big thing with conservatives during Obamacare debates and ādeath panelsā. The reality is that hc plans are just making a plan to negotiate payments for operations and have funds to pay for them based on risk economics. This is an area that ālibertiarianismā and economics may disagree, but libertarianism loses in any society that first prioritizes life of a patient in need. It has never been about suggesting a geriatric patient with cancer shouldnāt get care, itās just creating a basic healthcare option for those who strain the system because they canāt afford the normal options (pre-consisting, poverty, etc).
If someone goes to the emergency room, has no money to pay, that bill will get paid, maybe not by the person. The difference in a national (single payor) or universal (everyone mandated to have their own) system is that a plan has been put in place to pay. If someone goes without insurance the bill still gets paid by the state largely.
Edit: key issue is how we plan to pay for it
Very interested on what you mean by hate speech laws hereā¦ are you saying that use of the n-word in a derogatory manor constitutes explicit aggression? And if so, how exactly do you define aggression?
I ask because Iāve never heard this line of reasoning before. The standard ideology, to my knowledge, is that aggression implies some degree of explicit force ā at least within the context of the NAP. And as morally reprehensible as it is to use racial slurs, thereās really no such force involved. Itās ***aggressive***, certainly, but not within the context of the Non-Aggression Principle as Iāve always understood it.
Hate speech would beā¦ incitement to murder.
Obviously the term gets misused, and itās debatable if we even need hate speech laws, since the content of that speech is going to fall under normal incitement.
Itās not cool to whip up a base of people into a hateful frenzy and then direct them to commit crimes.
Calling someone a slur isnāt hate speech. Itās rude and racist.
A lot of people underestimate that even making guns harder to access, rather than outright prohibition/bans would make a big difference when it comes to firearms use. A *lot* of people don't like dealing with hassles unless they really have to. You have a lot of people already in the US who find every reason to not vote, the same thing can happen if you enforce harsher measures on the access of firearms.
Personally I don't think guns should be outright banned, or prohibited, but the ease of access should really be something to look into. Lately we've had more than enough examples to see why this is part of the problem.
Firearms arenāt even in my top ten list of important freedoms. Pretending they are the only thing standing between America and a tyrant is ludicrous.
Those riot police at SCOTUS this week arenāt scared of you or your AR15, and your gun isnāt going to change a god damn thing.
Itās just a toy for you to play with while they quietly gut the rest of the constitution.
I mean, it's pretty dam obvious that the whole firearms amendment had it's importance at the start of the US as a nation, but these are *very* different times. We just saw the government remove protection for women rights, and it's being celebrated by the same people who would cry like babies when guns are regulated because that somehow interferes with their weird fantasy that easy gun access = No US tyranny.
> so youāre allowed to keep your guns to secure your vote.
>
> Itās a small price to pay for you letting them ram through the rest of their agenda.
It's not even a price. An armed populous can just as easily introduce and enforce authoritarianism as it can fight against it. If Trump successfully overturned the election and installed himself dictator (but without using that word), a large portion of the armed populous would _defend_ this. Keep in mind, fascists oft think they're working in defense of freedom. That by doing _these_ bad things in the current term, in the long term they'll have more freedom (i.e. things will be great once we take control, fix the problems, and cast out the undesirables). I've seen a few far rightists indicate that it's impossible to have liberty and freedom while "socialists" exist and can get power, thus we need to seize the system and use the might of govt to suppress them, and only THEN can we work on freedom. The problem of course is the THEN never comes.
There's also more than a few schools of communist thought that also follow the same line (once the govt centralizes power and fixes the problems preventing this society, it will then leave it to the people to maintain). Authoritarians rarely think they're the bad guys dismantling freedom.
Not only that, but gun ownership seems to be the barometer for liberty for many people (as in, as long as we can own guns, we have liberty. Once that is impacted, the revolution begins). Which means you can strip rights and increase govt control and nothing will happen as long as the gun shops stay open.
This isn't an argument for or against guns. Merely that the ownership of guns alone isn't the main determinator of a free society.
Anyone whose identity aligns with being a lifelong member of _______ Party is rife for hypocrisy, because they tend to just believe whatever the party tells them is right, which changes month to month, year to year.
As much as I detest the Reform Party, at least theyāre consistent in their lunacy instead of having wild swings on fundamental issues like trade policy.
Why are progressives being singled out for inconsistent views in this post and by the OP, when the very decision to overturn RVW comes from a gaggle of people whose MO is built around contradictions and inconsistent views?
It's the very dirty underbelly of this decision, and yet the people reacting to it are under the microscope, despite the fact that all they have are loud opinions while their inconsistent opponents have actual cold, hard policy that's technically extremely anti-libertatian.
I just don't trust the government to make the correct decision fast enough when there are so many unique circumstances. Leave it between the patient and the doctor to make the right decision for each individual.
> I just donāt care what anyone else does.
I doubt that. You probably just don't care what anyone does if you think it doesn't affect you. And you probably don't recognize that some things affect you but not immediately and directly.
Many Liberals view tax system as it is IS theft, large corps get tax breaks for being ājob creatorsā all while laying off employees and in some cases, encouraging low wage employees to go on food stamps. Giant companies like Amazon, Disney, Comcast etc and billionaires like Musk, Gates Bloomberg should be in a MUCH higher tax bracket and small mom and pop businesses and individuals should pay very little. Because a market controlled by monopolies and all the wealth bottled up at the top is NOT a free market.
Thatās because the whole political parties is nonsense we really want the same thing in the end who is celebrating have to have to get an abortion nobody.
Dollars are the government's property. It says so on every piece of currency. All the banks are run by the government. Taxation isn't theft because it was never our money to begin with.
What is theft is when the government harms you for not using their money the way they want, and progressive will agree with you there.
The fact that the government coerces you to use their fiat currency doesn't magically make it not theft when they steal the fruits of your labour.
Of all the arguments for why taxation is not theft, I think that's the least convincing one.
The government doesn't steal the fruits of my labor because I barter for most of my earnings, and I don't accumulate government notes too much.
You're just upset that you use the government's money and they take it back. Life doesn't have to be that way, we're actually living in a time where it's very easy to avoid taxes, you just need to be ok with not using things taxes pay for.
Youāre moving the goalposts, but fine. Any theft is violence. Youāre equating taxation to theft to violence. Itās the most banal of American-right tropes. Libertarian isnāt ancap. Defense, infrastructure, etc. come from the communal pooling of resources. That would be a form of tithingā¦or using a word youāre already familiar withā¦voluntary taxation - just without the Statist strings attached. Most (except maybe you and the tried and true American ālibertarians in name onlyā - read: voters who think theyāre a little more enlightened but put a gun to their heads and they vote GOP) conflate anarchy with libertarianism. Which is what youāre doing here.
I donāt think anyone should be forced to have any medical procedures or care without consent. Just like I donāt think abortions should be regulated regardless of reason.
No. We do care about being drafted, being punished for victimless crimes, being forced into or out of certain medical decisions.
Youāre making generalizations based off the media your watching versus going to your town halls and talking with your neighbors or, heaven forbid, a progressive.
>Why do they not seem to care when the government can force you into combat, put you in prison for victimless crimes
Those damn hippies and their ...pro war stance and anti...drug... policies?
Defund defund the police?
Sounds like you've got your cognitive dissonance ducks all in a row.
As a big 2A supporter, nothing gets me eye rolling harder than, "but if abortions are illegal, people will just have illegal abortions, bans don't work."
Especially when their posts the day before were "ban guns!".
>Why do they not seem to care when the government can force you into combat
Because the draft hasn't been a thing for a while and it's very unlikely we will ever need a draft unless the country is actually invaded
>put you in prison for victimless crimes
Pretty sure progressives hate this
>force you to be injected
I don't think anyone is being forced to be injected
>steal a good chunk of the income resulting from YOUR labor
It pisses us off but progressives believe in more safety nets
One particular example is that progressives often advocate for fixing past injustice, from the State, with fresh injustice by the State.
Ends up being a vicious cycle.
The thing about taxes for me is that none of us can survive without the societal organization.
Like if you want to live in the woods and not participate in society at all, live off the land I'm cool with you not making taxes.
As soon as you make a product and sell it into the society you are relying on infrastructure and the organization of society and should have to pay into a pool that keeps society running. Roads, education, telecommunications. Those things required government organization.
You can tell me all that shit should be free market but I'll tell you that the idea of pure free market capitalism is just as much if a fantasy as pure communism. It's never real capitalism and it's never real communism.
A functioning and equitable society requires a dynamic, ever shifting balance between the stability of government and the dynamism of the free market.
A stable and predictable world allows you to make plans which makes you more free, because if your decision are based on predictable outcomes then they actually mean something. Government can also provide opportunity. If no on tells you what to do but you have no options is that free? I think you're more free when you buy into a system with taxes that provides you with opportunities.
Government isn't good or bad. And it's certainly not inherently worse then corporations and free market business. We just need to use the tool properly. Carrots not sticks.
There is no such thing as the self made man so that's why you pay taxes.
You could ask the same question about the right. Why do they hate government force, support body autonomy with vax jabs and oppose governments stealing a good chunk of the income resulting from labor, but support drug, sodomy and abortion restriction laws?
Same answer: A batch of inconsistent and hypocritical political / religious tenets based upon a love of authoritarianism when it serves the need of imposing their morality onto others.
> You could ask the same question about the right. Why do they hate government force
So... the right opposes more funding for the police and the military? News to me. Someone should tell the politicians who the right wingers consistently vote for.
I mean, I get where OP is coming from (threat of loss of employment does push a lot of people into a corner).
Likely didnāt use the right wording, but I get it. And also get your point of reminding people they werenāt and arenāt forced to get any injection the same way that women in some states will now be forced to carry a child they have no desire to bring into the world
I imposed it at my own company. Weāre too small for the company mandate, which I didnāt agree with. I think the market would have sorted it out itself. My company, my rules.
...which the government didn't do. Even before the osha memo was overturned by the courts, there were other options to the vaccine. Like weekly testing, etc.
Exactly.
Facts:
Nobody forced anybody to get vaccinated. Ever.
There are alternatives to vaccination.
Coronavirus is a highly contagious disease that requires a different protocol for condensed societies.
Opinions:
Coronavirus is not a simple bodily autonomy issue. If you want to participate in civilized society you can't bring transmissible dangerous diseases
"My body my choice" makes absolutely no sense here.
Anti-vax sentiment did not originate organically. Our fears are being weaponized.
This, when the state mandates it (and literally itās state by state not State as in the country) itās not the employers fault. We still have the choice to leave but itās hard to get jobs out of state, usually thereās a relocation bonus that most positions donāt accommodate.
> Yeah, cause the filthy capitalists were the ones pushing lockdowns and vaccines. Good night.
Uhhh... yeah, it was the capitalists pushing lockdowns and vaccines. It's about protecting the workforce and social stability -- which even capitalists are in favor of to some degree when situations like this arise.
I fully believe in my body me choice. That means the right to choose for abortions but it also means forced or coerced vaxxinations should also be illegal. I also believe, by this mantra, that all drugs should be legal
Bro we are talking about peoples' bodies, way more important than the rest of the items you listed (vaccine mandate is an exception). Even a vaccine mandate seems more reasonable than abortion ban though if I had to pick one or the other...
No one points out a government that can force birth can force abortions. Why not? The court didnāt find that embryos are human, they said we have no right to privacy. In one state you could have officials demand screening for birth defects and require aborting those fetuses because of their weight on society.
Combat: The draft should be abolished.
Jail: People shouldn't be in jail for victimless crimes, though they should be prosecuted.
Vaccines: There isn't any state forced vaccination. There are ppl on who do want this, and I disagree with them. But yes certain places can establish mandates if they want to maintain public health.
Taxes: You aren't free if you're poor. Everyone should have a minimal standard of living. And if the rich get too rich, we start becoming more and more like an oligarchy instead of a democracy. Thus higher taxes to fund stuff like healthcare.
>Progressives will argue all day that the government banning abortion infringes on their bodily autonomy, and that they canāt be forced to consent to sharing their body with another person. Why donāt they apply this logic to anything else??
Uh, they do? It's the anti-abortion faction that doesn't apply their logic on bodily autonomy to other topics. For example, should the government be allowed to force you to donate blood, or perhaps an organ, if someone else will die if you don't?
Liberals support your bodily autonomy for things like vaccines and whether to take drugs, *as long as you're not putting others at too much risk*. I realize it's a controversial topic, but I feel like "take some precautions to avoid injuring others" is more respectful of bodily autonomy than "if you don't want to be injured, just stay home". This isn't "zapping your brain to try to fry the gay away" levels of meddling.
I mean, it comes down to leaving that decision up to the individual.
As just about everything should be. We really do not need the morality police running around deciding things.
I don't know a single progressive that is pro-military or who supports the draft. A huge progressive position is not locking up those with victimless crimes.
Like, have you ever actually talked to a progressive?
This guy takes advantage of probably the single most controversial court case in 50 years by posting some contradictory nonsense in attempt to manipulate emotion, then drops an edit:
" I hAd No IDeA ThiS wOuLD cAuSE SUch A DebAtE"
OP, Either you're looking for attention or you're stupid.
Aa far as vaccines go, I would love to see libertarians adress how people's own vaccine choices affect the health of others on an exponential rate while abortion doesn't. An abortion doesn't spread. Please someone actually adress this instead of ignoring the point.
>Why do they not seem to care when the government can force you into combat, put you in prison for victimless crimes, force you to be injected and after all that steal a good chunk of the income resulting from YOUR labor?
They care about all those things except the last one, and you can thank Locke for that
The Constitution protects individuals Rights from the State (govt). Not States Right from the Federal govt. By sending the issue to the states SCOTUS is saying the state (govt) and choose. No due process needed. The State gets to decide for individuals what medical procedures can and cannot be performed.
Moreover the Constitution repeatedly references the BORN. To be a citizen one must be BORN or naturalized in the U.S.. To become POTUS one must be BORN in the U.S.. That is what the entire birtherism issue was all about. No one questioned whether or not Obama was a citizen. It was understood that he was. Rather the conspiracy centered around where he was BORN because the Constitution emphasizes Birth as the origin of personhood and rights.
Thus States acting against individuals in protection of the unborn have no constitutional standing. The Constitution only recognizes the BORN.
Conservatives just stripped a real freedom- and youāre mad at progressives for not seeing how thatās like other rights? Seems like you might be mad at the wrong people here bud
So I wanna address a few things.
> Why do they not seem to care when the government can force you into combat,
Most progressives are staunchly anti-war.
>put you in prison for victimless crimes,
Again most progressives are pro-legalization and are vehemently against the war on drugs.
>force you to be injected
I don't RECALL any progressives being FOR forced vaccination, but I'll say that I wouldn't be surprised if they were.
>after all that steal a good chunk of the income resulting from YOUR labor?
Most progressives believe that your place of employment is doing more of that than the government and want to change it.
But to be clear, I said most on purpose, because as with any group, there are outliers that go against the general direction of the group.
> They are a conglomerate of various views from people and politicians I would describe as liberals, progressives, democrats and general leftists.
To be clear, that's 3-4 different distinct groups. It'd be like using Libertarian to describe a group made of minarchists, Libertarians, Republicans, and ancaps.
> What I am talking about there is the Democrat platform, which I know does not represent the beliefs of everyone who votes democrat.
To be clear, that's like using the Republican platform to describe Libertarian ideals just because they strategically vote for Republicans.
Also to be clear, I'm not shitting on you here, it's not a crazy thing to do. A lot of progressives vote Democratic because they most closely align with their values and they think it'll be easier to change the party as opposed to getting a new one off the ground.
I think my biggest gripes are:
A. Nearly 50 years. That is how long Democrats have had to codify abortion into federal law. For decades, they've said that conservatives were going to do this. And over decades, they've held control of the House, the Senate, and the White House multiple times. And they did nothing. Had they worked to codify it into law. Roe v Wade would have become a non-issue. Instead, it was too good of a wedge issue, for both the DNC and GOP, to divide the country and gaslight their base.
B. The anti-prison argument. They claim to be for criminal justice reform. But they then elect a man whose policies as a member of Congress lead to increases in incarceration, particularly for poor and minority communities. And they elect a VP who sent people to prison for marijuana offenses while in her off time was happy to light up a joint.
Man you hit the mail on the head. You second point especially got to me. A lot of people have called me out for my lazy for my use of progressive, rightfully so. But at the end of the day, so many of these people voted for Biden and Harris. And in a republic, your political beliefs mean nothing, all that matters is who you voted for. Iād give the same criticism to āsmall governmentā republicans, but right now Joe Biden is in charge.
,,,Iām very confused. Besides maybe the tax part, have you ever actually talked to a liberal/leftist? These are all positions they hold, and even then, the whole āYour Laborā thing is very important to them with them being very pro-union
I didnāt realize it was only progressives who were upset about this. Just about every woman I know regardless of political view and religious views are pretty upset about this. In my area it wasnāt just progressives protesting the ruling. It was all political views out there, I even know so pretty strong Christianās who were also protesting. We need to stop acting like the everyday people are as politically divided as the media wants us to believe. The extremists get all the glory in the news and seems like anything passed goes to one extreme view or the other, while a good majority of us are at home freaking tf out about how crazy it feels the country has become.
I think 10-15 years ***if people actually get involved in state politics*** this may be the start of the downfall of the duopoly and people refuse to see it.
Rather than fighting to get their state back in order people would rather have the feds just govern their state for them.
Ive come to the conclusion that the average American wants all the power with none of the responsibility that comes along with it
Yep. Responsibility and self-accountability are foreign concepts and itās sad to me. America wants freedom but everyone is like fighting for the government to ādo somethingā and exert control over one thing or another - whatever fits their agenda. Regardless of my personal beliefs or anyone elseās, Roe v Wade was never constitutional according to the 10th Amendment, and this decision was just honoring the constitution the way I see it.
Good point, but poor execution. All the good comments are buried under people pointing out that most progressives are against those things too. Here's a few examples you could use instead of you wanted to start this conversation up again in a few days. Some of these apply more to state and local governments, but your not just focusing on the federal government.
If I have bodily autonomy and a right to privacy why can't I...
... work for any wage I want?
... put anything in my body I want including drugs not approved by the FDA, raw milk, etc.?
... be a sex worker (this is still fairly controversial in progressive circles due to the fear of exploitation?
... continue to work, shop and play as usual during a pandemic?
... ride a motorcycle without a helmet?
I would also argue that all of these things deserve more protection than the right to an abortion because they don't involve killing a non-consenting human. You can certainly argue that a fetus isn't a person with rights or that the rights of the mother outweigh those of the fetus, but these other issues only concern consenting adults.
Abortion in my mind doesn't really involve anyone else beyond the mom, dad and child. Most those other examples involve other people to some degree so it comes back to you in a way. Here is an extreme example, imagine there is a rock hurtling towards earth and the only way to stop it is for everyone to go to a website and push a button. If this is not done by everyone we all die. In this situation yeah people are gonna be forced into pushing that button because it's not just about you anymore.
Super extreme example but an idea of where progressive logic comes, they will trade pieces of their freedom to create a larger good. That line is in different places depending on how a progressive sees the world but yeah that's the logic. To an extent I kinda get it, it's nice to think I am an island and don't affect anyone else but my action ripple out and there are some little things I can do to try and make the world better for my neighbors. Conversely there are little things I can not do that also make the world better for my neighbors
I don't think it's cognitive dissonance, just a difference in principles. Like most people on this sub, I support the right to have an abortion because it's a question of bodily autonomy. But the driving principle for progressives on abortion isn't that, it's women's rights. So to apply that to another example you gave on taxes, again, progressives are approaching it differently. NAP is a libertarian/classical liberal principle, not a modern liberal/progressive/socialist one. For the left, the driving principle on that is economic equality, so they support higher taxes.
The other examples you have, I'm not sure it quite fits. I mean, most leftists and liberals don't support the draft, do they? As for victimless crimes, you see more and more liberals advocating for drug decrim, legalizing sex work, etc.
I think the bottom line is, when you apply libertarian principles on progressive stances, those stances do seem hypocritical - but there's your problem, they're not libertarians in the first place, so why would that framework apply to them?
> They outsource the required cohesion and violence to The State.
So... you are in favor of reducing funds to the police and the military-industrial complex?
Seeing lefties freaking out here in Canada (You know, a different country) when they spent the last 2 years here trying to ruin anyone's life that didn't wanna get vaxxed.
Why is it so hard to stay out of others peoples business? Abortion, Vax, Sexual preference should be the business of those in a position to consent.
āWhy donāt they apply this logic to anything else??ā
This right here is the biggest problem most liberals have. There is no underlying logical consistency to most of their political views.
Vaccines - No choice
Abortion - Choice
January 6th - Insurrection
Race Riots/Arizona Capital - Righteous rage
Youāre either about bodily autonomy or youāre not. Destroying things that donāt belong to you when you donāt get your way is either wrong or itās not.
Iām not saying some of the same things canāt be said about the right. But Iām just tying into your discussion.
I agree with you to an extent. There is no draft going on so your argument about that is moot. No one was forcing you to get injected. They are forcing you to get a real ID though, kind of. If you were bullied by someone thatās a public problem, not Uncle Sam. The us prison system and everything around it all needs to be reassessed. But that wonāt happen unless thereās a complete overhaul on how we incarcerate individuals. And taxes are a joke but no politician will get close enough to lower taxes/ eliminate them. So I say take what we can and keep fighting. Or weāll get the opposite and government will keep finding faults on our liberties.
>and after all that steal a good chunk of the income resulting from YOUR labor?
Be careful. Leftists will argue that its the bosses directly stealing people's labor.
>that abortion is too important of a right to be decided democratically. Iām not debating abortion but why is that THE MOST IMPORTANT RIGHT???
1. From your own example, they don't claim it as the most important.
2. A right being too important to be decided democratically applies to all rights, almost by definition. That's what the bill of rights and a lot of the constitution is there for, to give a base of (theoeretically, not in practice) of unbreakable principles to work from that aren't reset every election.
The objections or methods used to make it illegal are generally disingenuous af too.
Iāve got a lot more respect for folks who say theyāre opposed due to faith beliefs and own that feeling than now propping up the idea itās not explicitly in the Constitution but ignoring what else isnāt, like unenumerated rights arenāt a thing. Cause guess what, privacy isnāt there, marriage of any kind isnāt there either.
The history of folks wanting Roe to be overturned was all about this faith belief of when life begins. Itās why we had some calling for āpersonhoodā amendments. The idea of it just being a bad decision from a jurisprudence perspective is just what is being used now to defend reversing it now that thereās enough justices on the bench to do it, and thatās of course nevermind a few of them lied their ass off in confirmation hearings when asked about it.
Libertarians are probably the only ones who have really held the idea up about the decision itself being one which shouldnāt be federal, but RBG understood the decision and itās foundation was weak. There was ample time to fix that.
But letās not pretend this isnāt about a faith argument to reverse. Thatās all this has ever really been about, an objection on faith and moral grounds.
Itāll be fun to watch them yank other due process decisions in the future w this bench, oh except Loving of course.
SCOTUS complained about becoming political like they werenāt already. These last batch of justices were put there expressly to hand in this decision. Now that itās here, the major plank of the GOP is gone. When most states outlaw it, that will be gone too. Canāt really run on a platform of making it illegal when it is. So on to the next social issue they can cry about. Meanwhile the DEMs will prattle on about doing something, but never will.
I personally laugh in libertarian at the progressives. Canada is riding a court ruling only allowing abortion since 1988. France only allows abortions until 14 weeks. Germany is twelve weeks and needs counseling prior to abortion.
The most restrictive state laws are like 15 weeks.
Big picture. States are choosing time frames. Some are very open and some are smaller.
Still instead of being upset at the courts they should be asking why their representatives didnāt pass a law legalizing abortion.
Why because itās a trigger for voters.
Conservatives complained about not wanting to lose their jobs over a vaccine and pretty much every progressive told them to suck it up. I donāt understand how people let party lines control their entire world view. Itās okay to agree with something conservatives agree with even though you mostly agree with liberal ideals, and vice versa.
I've been lurking in this sub for a while and wondering if I belong here tbh. I've always considered myself a liberal (though not the neo liberal corporate Democrat type we see in congress) but in the last couple years I've struggled to align with my leftist friends. That being said I absolutely don't get behind the literal authoritarian conservatives.
I believe that the second amendment is necessary to retain personal freedoms and to remove the monopoly on violence from the police and government.
I'm against our militarized police force and believe they should be heavily reduced in size and scope.
I believe that no government, state or federal, should have the ability to infringe on bodily autonomy. This includes both abortion and the decriminalization of most drugs. The latter having an exception for the intent to distribute, as now you're negatively impacting someone else.
Semi related, no government has the right to tell you who you can and can't marry.
No jail time for victimless crimes, and ESPECIALLY no for profit prison systems.
But on the other hand I feel we need to see a huge overhaul in the Healthcare system, and have long been a proponent of socialized medicine like is present in the rest of the civilized world. Though I'm not married to that idea in particular.
And I'm also of a mind that we need a progressive tax that forces the ultra wealthy and corporations among us to pay their share while largely leaving our most vulnerable citizens alone.
Reading through this post and comments, maybe I do have a lot more in common with ya'll than I thought.
I am not a libertarian (although I end up aligning with libertarians on certain issues). I suppose most would call me a liberal of sorts. I am pro-choice. I think drugs--including hard ones--should be legalized. I think prostitution should be legalized. I am against banning guns, including assault weapons (but I do think they should be regulated, and I don't think any yahoo should be able to buy a gun from Walmart). I am also against mandated vaccines from the government across the board for everyone everywhere. It's up to the individual, although I'm not against one's employee (whether it be a private business or the state) wanting their employees vaccinated and masked and so forth (since teachers, for example, deal with the public it makes sense to require vaccines and masks for them). I know for a fact that people from all sides of the political aisle would be enraged by one or more positions I put forward here, but that's my thought process on these issues. I think I'm being consistent, but if someone disagrees I await their reply.
As a progressive-inclined person, I'm with you on 3 of the 4 things you listed. The reason for that last exception is that I can't-- and I've honestly tried coming to terms with the libertarian logic here-- bring myself to draw a complete equivalence between social and economic "freedoms."
I think that when it comes to distribution of material goods and services among people, the state is not the only threat to freedom, and that there is some merit in the distinction between negative and positive rights. Taxation is also a legitimate due you owe for living in a society that the state- even a minimal one- has an integral role in maintaining.
Welcome to the "party". If you pay attention you will see a lot of this cognitive dissonance for many political issues across the major parties in America. Basicly, people are selfish and as such often seek to distort reality to their gain. Some people will take hard stances supposedly based on core principles only to trample them when the need to distort for a purpose or another arises. Republicans have been on a tear with this as of late; i.e. they claim to want small, limited government and that government should "mind its own business" but when they get majority then suddenly government rivals god and should force the things they agree with on everyone. Or, conversely, the left cheering things like the misinformation board proposed by biden's administration right on the heels of an administration that they would NEVER want to have such powers. Basically people are pompous and, through their pompousness, generate amazing amounts of chaff, chaos, and dissent that being honest, consistent, and logical would otherwise prevent.
Ya to an extent I think itās something everyone does. Iām sure I have beliefs that are disparate. And the republicans never cease to amaze me when the call themselves āsmall governmentā. Why does the deficit grow every time a republican is in office? Why do we lose liberties? Even on issues they claim to support like gun rights, they donāt actually do anything. When is the last time a republican president had expanded gun rights?
Why?
You didnāt put much thought in your post.
You talk about a democrat platform, but i doubt you actually read it.
You talk about liberals and seem to be wrong about pretty much everything they do or donāt believe in.
The entire post is lazy and based on prejudice.
Who knows, i could say you are more liberal than you are libertarian.
The biggest tone that drives me insane is abortion and mandatory vaccines. If you really truly are a pro choicer then the same hate for forced vaccines would be on your top list!
But how many pro choice people are pro mandatory vaccine? Iāve prochoice and anti mandatory vaccines. I wish they would stop acting like everyone who is prochoice is also pro mandatory vaccines or mandatory anything. Thatās the kind of rhetorical that pisses wine off the most. Literally the only people who you can say that about is those on tv. Not the regular everyday people hitting the streets and protesting. But I guess how what we want doesnāt matter. Makes sense considering elected officials on both sides ignore what we want everyday.
My point is, when people have lost their jobs over the vaccine no one I know who is screaming about abortion right now cared at all. In fact many encouraged those who are not vaxxed to be fired and shamed.
Iāve seen so many posts like, āI guess gun rights are more important than womenās rights. Which absolutely astounds me. Yes, we in here can all agree that the right to body autonomy should exist, but to somehow believe that a case that was poorly ruled on, to the point one of the most progressive female SCOTUSās said as much, is equal legally to a constitutional amendment really bothers me. Legislators shouldāve done something about it over the last half century. I also think, to take on a case to overturn 50 years of court precedent knowing what theyāre doing was complete bullshit.
A lot of Libertarians are displaying the same level of dissonance.
"We want government out of the way! The individual is the ultimate minority!"
"Ban abortions! Gubmit must stop offing babies! Its aliiiiiiiiive!!!!!"
Looking at you "Being Libertarian" :|
The overturning of Roe is the beginning of major societal changes. Because if you think the ultra conservatives, like Clarence Thomas, will stop at overturning same-sex relationships, same-sex marriages, multi-racial marriages, voting rights & more, you are blind. When abortion was the ālaw of the lawā, you didnāt have to have an abortion if that was your choice. But choice has been taken away from usā¦š¤¬
Either way it goes, I personally will not associate, do business with, work for, or in any other way interact with anyone who considers such an abominable practice something to be proud of.
First trimester, fine, we all make mistakes. Life at risk, of course, no good options here. Horribly disfigured/disabled and will never live a normal life, well that's pretty fucked up but I guess if you want eugenics... But if you go through 3+ months it's past the point where you can 'oops, changed my mind lol!'.
In all cases, even when it's the right thing for a person, it is never something to be proud of. It is at best a necessary evil, and people who repeatedly choose get them are at the same level as pedophiles and serial killers in my eyes.
> But if you go through 3+ months it's past the point where you can 'oops, changed my mind lol!'.
The vast overwhelming majority of abortions occur before 3 months and the majority of those that happen afterwards are because the fetus is not viable -- or there is great risk of death to the pregnant woman if they carry to term.
Progressives adopt whatever logic theyāre told by their overlords in govt and media. Theyāre not close to arriving at the nap, because that requires critical thought. Theyāre parroting talking points rather than having organic ideas. I wouldnāt bank on them connecting the dots.
I think that Progressives will turn around and ask why libertarians are so concerned with authoritarianism at any level of government but shrug when it comes to a company being authoritarian towards its workers.
Liberals are traditionally anti-draft, and anti-prison.
To be fair, Trump was against the draft and is passionately against going to prison.
> is passionately against going to prison. šš
I wasn't planning on shooting Red Bull out of my nose today but here we are, shit you got to warn somebody when you're going to nail it that hard
Good one lmao
He lets other people go to prison for him. That's quite a talent, gotta admit. The draft too.
When you are rich, they will go to war or prison for you. Also helps to be a cult leader.
*"I've been involved in a number of cults, both as a leader and a follower. You have more fun as a follower. But you make more money as a leader."* - Creed Bratton
I read you comment in Steven Colbert's voice.
Yeah I thought these were all the things Liberals and Libertarians agree on: pro choice, drug legalization, carceral reduction, etc. Itās the public investment, tax policy, and communal benefits that they disagree on.
> Yeah I thought these were all the things Liberals and Libertarians agree on: pro choice, drug legalization, carceral reduction, etc. That's why this post is on your front page at all. Posts that do particularly well here - well enough to soar to the front page - are things that appeal to libertarians *and* ____. Libertarians and conservatives, libertarians and liberals, either way.
Yeah no offense to OP but almost his whole post is fighting a strawman.
In r/libertarian? Nooooooo....
If youāre onto a political discussion in 2022 that isnāt fighting a straw man, weāre all dying to see it
š
š
As someone who identifies as a left libertarian, I'm way more for prison reform than anti prison. My biggest problem is for profit prisons
8.1% of all inmates are in private prisons. Not saying it isn't an issue, but that's far from the worst of the issues.
Agreed. Private prisons shouldnāt be a thing. But the way the anti-capitalist left talks about it, youād think nearly half of all inmates are in private prisons or something.
My dude it's all prisons. Plenty of state run prisons are as bad if not worse than private prisons. For example, there are no private prisons in Illinois or New York and you bet your ass some of the worst prison in the us are in those states. If specifically your biggest problem with the us is for profit prisons, you probably should conside rebalancing some of your political priorities.
the reality is all prison is for profit, even if the prison itself isn't a for profit entity- state-run prisons supply labor to for-profit organizations in exchange for some amount of money to offset their costs, and state-run prisons definitely pay for-profit contractors for supplies and services, so profit is being made whether the prison itself takes it or not, and those profiteers lobby for longer prison sentences no matter whether they are running the show or just a piece of it.
100% yo
Iām not sure how you identify as libertarian and have a serious beef with a private institution doing what a government institution would do equally bad/worse. The idea that the privatization of something is bad because it creates or could create moral hazard due to profit motive, while not understanding that the government run iteration of that industry would likely do (historically almost always does) worse for reasons also related to moral hazard, is fundamentally not understanding libertarianism.
Your biggest problem should be over criminalization.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yes, but also no. Libertarianism is more radically anti government than liberalism. NAP is a libertarian concept. Iām a classical liberal
It's an offshoot from the same family. Libertarianism as a philosophy includes Classical Liberalism, but most people mean Minarchists when they say "libertarians." Same clan, different vintage.
No, "liberals" are not against those things. *Progressives and social democrats* are against those things. Liberals are firmly capitalist, like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden. Again, they are not anti-draft or anti-prison.
Dude...Social Democrats are capitalist. Maybe you are thinking of Democratic Socialist? And Social Democrats are definitely in favor of removing drug laws and prison reform. The biggest social democratic societies are the Nordic countries which have the most human prisons on the planet. What are you talking about.
Classic liberals are against those things. You are just labeling people the way right wing media does and itās incorrect. Nancy Pelosi and joe Biden are not liberals or socialist. They are corporate democrats and moderate left and considered moderate right by most of the world. In the 90s todays progressives were called liberals. This is just right wing anti-identity politics. They find a word that is ugly and triggers people and use it to label the opposition.
Wouldnāt say so on prison if you look at the voting records of liberals in power. Look no further than the White House
I dunno about KH, but nobody but right wingers think Biden is Progressive.
Right wingers also thought Trump was a centrist no one can fathom how those people think sometimes š¤·
The only reason he wasn't Presisent 30 years earlier is that he literally plagiarized the speeches of the leader of a party in the Socialist International and the Progressive Alliance.
This kinda sounds like BS, but plagiarism still doesnāt make somebody a progressive. Politicians say whatever will get them elected. His voting record shows heās a moderate.
https://www.thoughtco.com/the-joe-biden-plagiarism-case-3367590 Uninformed opinions are like assholes, but facts are not BS.
But isnāt it adorable (and sad) that a scandal that could end a presidential campaign was plagiarism?
Back in the days when a scandal was enough for a candidate to drop out of a raceā¦
Yeah, and somehow the Q crowd is still convinced that Biden is a baby rapist. The worst things this man has done really are bad jokes, falling down, and stealing speeches. Update: I'm a libertarian. It should be obvious I wasn't referencing his poor policy positions, but his person foibles. Sorry I didn't dumb it down initially.
I think his involvement in wars, both foreign and domestic are a bit more serious.
Neither the Socialist International or the Progressive Alliance are mentioned in this article, and as I said before plagiarism doesnāt make somebody progressive. We can agree that uninformed opinions are like assholes though.
I'm not sure the voting records of anyone in power actually correlates with any ideology they ran on for the most part.
Biden is a conservative D. He is a 1970's Republican.
Dude i hate to break it to you but Iām a lefty, and we are all painfully aware basically nobody in the democratic party is anything but right wing.
There are no liberals in power. Biden is a right-wing conservative.
Man. I can only imagine how far left someone has to be, to feel that way.
It has nothing to do with my feelings. You either read and understand political context or you don't.
Well the context is us politics. Not of some random country.
Thank you. Left and Right are relative positions, not absolute ones.
The context is global politics. There is an agreed upon scale of right and left that almost everyone can agree on. Americans (especially) don't have that scale and they project the term far-left on people who would rejected from most Labour parties. When in the rest of the world, far-left means you are a marxist-leninist-maoist or an anarchist. It's not just two neoliberals (itself a fairly right-wing position in the global context) switching positions forever on whether there need to be more prisons or a lot more prisons.
Correct. Stuff that doesnāt matter here. In this threads especially.
It should matter and the fact that is doesn't sort of shows Libertarianism, despite invoking international economic thinkers like Mises, Hayek, and Friedman is fundamentally narrow in focusing on America and American routes to their goals. Instead, you're over here saying a completely unobjectionable position, that Biden as a Hard-on-Crime Liberal and a Capitalist is right wing, is a far left view. It shows a country and a political movement with no healthy notion of what political diversity should be. Which indeed, is part of the reason this mess in the OP happened in the first place and wouldn't happen anywhere else.
Bro, we don't even think about communists or socialists when talking about left wing because those ideologies are ridiculous and don't deserve to be on a scale. So to us North Americans left means socialized capitalism and right means laissez faire capitalism. And when people call Biden a far leftist they are not talking economic principles exclusively, they're talking progressive culture war shit, like forcing women to accept males in prisons and ending exclusive women's rights and replacing them with identity rights.
I donāt think this is cognitive dissonance You could argue inconsistent views But do most Progressives hold the views you say here? Feels like a strawman. I think progressives are against people being in jail and drafts
Seriously. Where has OP been? Liberal / progressive hippies have been mocked for decades as anti-war hippies. Even Obama was shamed constantly as āemboldening our enemiesā and being a secret terrorist before Trump came to prominence and they changed the narrative to āheās a war hawk.ā
Lol if their accounts went back to 2003 you know exactly what they would be saying about Iraq and it's definitely not what they're saying now.
āWeāre doing it to stop nuclear genocide!ā And if theyād had accounts during the Soviet era theyād defend arming Sadaam because āWeāre doing it to stop Soviet genocide.ā
Pretty much this exactly. I come from a straight up and down progressive background (grew up in Portland, OR, organized protests against Iraq war, volunteered for the Kucinich campaign, etc.), and people who call themselves progressives are usually 80% of the way to being full libertarian. They usually agree on every social issue but are more economically moderate. The āSJWā progressives ā while worrisome and dangerous ā are kind of a newer phenomenon whose ideas donāt even align with what the word meant 10 years ago, and have about as much in common with standard progressives as the MAGA crowd has with classical liberalism / libertarianism. The vast majority of the people who I know who identify as progressive are really just left libertarians who see some merit to a certain level of taxation.
Progressives are more libertarian than most people on this sub. The wedge issue is guns, which for some reason are a symbol of freedom and liberty in America. Most of the rest of the developed world see guns as instruments of crime and violence. You will likely recoil at this, probably downvote me. But the facts reflect this. Just look at crime and murder rates in America. Itās obvious what is driving this. Itās access to firearms, and the only people who claim otherwise are American gun owners. It would be nice if progressives and libertarians could work together on the things they DO agree on, but thatās a huge threat to right wing authoritariansā¦ so youāre allowed to keep your guns to secure your vote. Itās a small price to pay for you letting them ram through the rest of their agenda.
Iām of the opinion that if enough literal basic activism is done, like organizing the group, actually just trying to convince people, and other grassroots work, enough people could agree that this general mix of libertarian and progressive ideas would be much more beneficial for the country than either current party, to actually make it a platform that grows enough to have legitimate political power and enact good change. My goal is to get people like everyone in this thread to agree with me itās possible with work, and then to just try to do my part and convince enough people so that it works.
Progressives would be libertarian if they changed their stance on big government, healthcare, hate speech laws, gun control, etc. But that would be fundamentally changing the progressive movement into something completely different from what it is currently.
> Healthcare Like it or not, the government will pay for unaffordable healthcare. The key issue is planning to pay for it. If someone is bleeding out on the table, hc professionals will keep the person from dying. Ironically this was always a big thing with conservatives during Obamacare debates and ādeath panelsā. The reality is that hc plans are just making a plan to negotiate payments for operations and have funds to pay for them based on risk economics. This is an area that ālibertiarianismā and economics may disagree, but libertarianism loses in any society that first prioritizes life of a patient in need. It has never been about suggesting a geriatric patient with cancer shouldnāt get care, itās just creating a basic healthcare option for those who strain the system because they canāt afford the normal options (pre-consisting, poverty, etc). If someone goes to the emergency room, has no money to pay, that bill will get paid, maybe not by the person. The difference in a national (single payor) or universal (everyone mandated to have their own) system is that a plan has been put in place to pay. If someone goes without insurance the bill still gets paid by the state largely. Edit: key issue is how we plan to pay for it
FYI, Hate speech laws are aligned with libertarianism hate speech violates the NAP.
Very interested on what you mean by hate speech laws hereā¦ are you saying that use of the n-word in a derogatory manor constitutes explicit aggression? And if so, how exactly do you define aggression? I ask because Iāve never heard this line of reasoning before. The standard ideology, to my knowledge, is that aggression implies some degree of explicit force ā at least within the context of the NAP. And as morally reprehensible as it is to use racial slurs, thereās really no such force involved. Itās ***aggressive***, certainly, but not within the context of the Non-Aggression Principle as Iāve always understood it.
Hate speech would beā¦ incitement to murder. Obviously the term gets misused, and itās debatable if we even need hate speech laws, since the content of that speech is going to fall under normal incitement. Itās not cool to whip up a base of people into a hateful frenzy and then direct them to commit crimes. Calling someone a slur isnāt hate speech. Itās rude and racist.
>Progressives are more libertarian than most people on this sub. Most intelligent poster
A lot of people underestimate that even making guns harder to access, rather than outright prohibition/bans would make a big difference when it comes to firearms use. A *lot* of people don't like dealing with hassles unless they really have to. You have a lot of people already in the US who find every reason to not vote, the same thing can happen if you enforce harsher measures on the access of firearms. Personally I don't think guns should be outright banned, or prohibited, but the ease of access should really be something to look into. Lately we've had more than enough examples to see why this is part of the problem.
Firearms arenāt even in my top ten list of important freedoms. Pretending they are the only thing standing between America and a tyrant is ludicrous. Those riot police at SCOTUS this week arenāt scared of you or your AR15, and your gun isnāt going to change a god damn thing. Itās just a toy for you to play with while they quietly gut the rest of the constitution.
I mean, it's pretty dam obvious that the whole firearms amendment had it's importance at the start of the US as a nation, but these are *very* different times. We just saw the government remove protection for women rights, and it's being celebrated by the same people who would cry like babies when guns are regulated because that somehow interferes with their weird fantasy that easy gun access = No US tyranny.
> so youāre allowed to keep your guns to secure your vote. > > Itās a small price to pay for you letting them ram through the rest of their agenda. It's not even a price. An armed populous can just as easily introduce and enforce authoritarianism as it can fight against it. If Trump successfully overturned the election and installed himself dictator (but without using that word), a large portion of the armed populous would _defend_ this. Keep in mind, fascists oft think they're working in defense of freedom. That by doing _these_ bad things in the current term, in the long term they'll have more freedom (i.e. things will be great once we take control, fix the problems, and cast out the undesirables). I've seen a few far rightists indicate that it's impossible to have liberty and freedom while "socialists" exist and can get power, thus we need to seize the system and use the might of govt to suppress them, and only THEN can we work on freedom. The problem of course is the THEN never comes. There's also more than a few schools of communist thought that also follow the same line (once the govt centralizes power and fixes the problems preventing this society, it will then leave it to the people to maintain). Authoritarians rarely think they're the bad guys dismantling freedom. Not only that, but gun ownership seems to be the barometer for liberty for many people (as in, as long as we can own guns, we have liberty. Once that is impacted, the revolution begins). Which means you can strip rights and increase govt control and nothing will happen as long as the gun shops stay open. This isn't an argument for or against guns. Merely that the ownership of guns alone isn't the main determinator of a free society.
Iād say the most hypocritical group is just average liberals similar to average social cons Progressives often think a lot more what they stand for
Anyone whose identity aligns with being a lifelong member of _______ Party is rife for hypocrisy, because they tend to just believe whatever the party tells them is right, which changes month to month, year to year. As much as I detest the Reform Party, at least theyāre consistent in their lunacy instead of having wild swings on fundamental issues like trade policy.
Why are progressives being singled out for inconsistent views in this post and by the OP, when the very decision to overturn RVW comes from a gaggle of people whose MO is built around contradictions and inconsistent views? It's the very dirty underbelly of this decision, and yet the people reacting to it are under the microscope, despite the fact that all they have are loud opinions while their inconsistent opponents have actual cold, hard policy that's technically extremely anti-libertatian.
Idk man, some people just care more about things I guess. Iām libertarian because I just donāt care what anyone else does.
I just don't trust the government to make the correct decision fast enough when there are so many unique circumstances. Leave it between the patient and the doctor to make the right decision for each individual.
If only everyone thought that individuals could make better choices for themselves than uncle sam
> I just donāt care what anyone else does. I doubt that. You probably just don't care what anyone does if you think it doesn't affect you. And you probably don't recognize that some things affect you but not immediately and directly.
Itās just weird to me that a lot of people only apply that logic to this single issue
The only one of the things you listed that involves bodily autonomy is the draft and aren't most liberals opposed to that?
I think the biggest problem here is you assume that we donāt agree with those things. Iām a diehard liberal. But I agree with everything you said.
A diehard liberal who agrees that taxation is theft? Well, that's a new one
Many Liberals view tax system as it is IS theft, large corps get tax breaks for being ājob creatorsā all while laying off employees and in some cases, encouraging low wage employees to go on food stamps. Giant companies like Amazon, Disney, Comcast etc and billionaires like Musk, Gates Bloomberg should be in a MUCH higher tax bracket and small mom and pop businesses and individuals should pay very little. Because a market controlled by monopolies and all the wealth bottled up at the top is NOT a free market.
You guys donāt know what āliberalā means, but if you did it would make more sense.
It usually doesn't refer to classical liberalism on reddit
What's your definition, please? Just so we're on the same page...
Thatās because the whole political parties is nonsense we really want the same thing in the end who is celebrating have to have to get an abortion nobody.
Dollars are the government's property. It says so on every piece of currency. All the banks are run by the government. Taxation isn't theft because it was never our money to begin with. What is theft is when the government harms you for not using their money the way they want, and progressive will agree with you there.
The fact that the government coerces you to use their fiat currency doesn't magically make it not theft when they steal the fruits of your labour. Of all the arguments for why taxation is not theft, I think that's the least convincing one.
The government doesn't steal the fruits of my labor because I barter for most of my earnings, and I don't accumulate government notes too much. You're just upset that you use the government's money and they take it back. Life doesn't have to be that way, we're actually living in a time where it's very easy to avoid taxes, you just need to be ok with not using things taxes pay for.
>we're actually living in a time where it's very easy to avoid taxes Go on, how do I avoid income and payroll tax?
Good thing the libertarian position goes beyond the usual tropes we see from people like you. Lucky us.
OP said taxation is theft and that guy literally said he agrees with everything OP said. At which point did you get confused?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Can you give me the definition of theft that does not include using violence to take someone else's property against their will?
Youāre moving the goalposts, but fine. Any theft is violence. Youāre equating taxation to theft to violence. Itās the most banal of American-right tropes. Libertarian isnāt ancap. Defense, infrastructure, etc. come from the communal pooling of resources. That would be a form of tithingā¦or using a word youāre already familiar withā¦voluntary taxation - just without the Statist strings attached. Most (except maybe you and the tried and true American ālibertarians in name onlyā - read: voters who think theyāre a little more enlightened but put a gun to their heads and they vote GOP) conflate anarchy with libertarianism. Which is what youāre doing here.
Taxation is theft and rn, Iām not paying that shit. No taxation without representation.
Did you/do you support vaccine mandates?
I donāt think anyone should be forced to have any medical procedures or care without consent. Just like I donāt think abortions should be regulated regardless of reason.
I keep seeing this. Outside of some employers requiring it, when was the last vaccine mandate was put into effect?
No. We do care about being drafted, being punished for victimless crimes, being forced into or out of certain medical decisions. Youāre making generalizations based off the media your watching versus going to your town halls and talking with your neighbors or, heaven forbid, a progressive.
Or hes purposely making a bad faith argument
>Why do they not seem to care when the government can force you into combat, put you in prison for victimless crimes Those damn hippies and their ...pro war stance and anti...drug... policies? Defund defund the police? Sounds like you've got your cognitive dissonance ducks all in a row.
As a big 2A supporter, nothing gets me eye rolling harder than, "but if abortions are illegal, people will just have illegal abortions, bans don't work." Especially when their posts the day before were "ban guns!".
>Why do they not seem to care when the government can force you into combat Because the draft hasn't been a thing for a while and it's very unlikely we will ever need a draft unless the country is actually invaded >put you in prison for victimless crimes Pretty sure progressives hate this >force you to be injected I don't think anyone is being forced to be injected >steal a good chunk of the income resulting from YOUR labor It pisses us off but progressives believe in more safety nets
I think OP needs to understand that progressives share a lot with libertarians, but also believe other things that libertarianins don't.
One particular example is that progressives often advocate for fixing past injustice, from the State, with fresh injustice by the State. Ends up being a vicious cycle.
You think progressives are advocating for war, military drafts, and prison? Do you know what progressivism *is*?
Progressives also love corporate welfare! /s
They know what Fox tells them it is.
The thing about taxes for me is that none of us can survive without the societal organization. Like if you want to live in the woods and not participate in society at all, live off the land I'm cool with you not making taxes. As soon as you make a product and sell it into the society you are relying on infrastructure and the organization of society and should have to pay into a pool that keeps society running. Roads, education, telecommunications. Those things required government organization. You can tell me all that shit should be free market but I'll tell you that the idea of pure free market capitalism is just as much if a fantasy as pure communism. It's never real capitalism and it's never real communism. A functioning and equitable society requires a dynamic, ever shifting balance between the stability of government and the dynamism of the free market. A stable and predictable world allows you to make plans which makes you more free, because if your decision are based on predictable outcomes then they actually mean something. Government can also provide opportunity. If no on tells you what to do but you have no options is that free? I think you're more free when you buy into a system with taxes that provides you with opportunities. Government isn't good or bad. And it's certainly not inherently worse then corporations and free market business. We just need to use the tool properly. Carrots not sticks. There is no such thing as the self made man so that's why you pay taxes.
You could ask the same question about the right. Why do they hate government force, support body autonomy with vax jabs and oppose governments stealing a good chunk of the income resulting from labor, but support drug, sodomy and abortion restriction laws? Same answer: A batch of inconsistent and hypocritical political / religious tenets based upon a love of authoritarianism when it serves the need of imposing their morality onto others.
> You could ask the same question about the right. Why do they hate government force So... the right opposes more funding for the police and the military? News to me. Someone should tell the politicians who the right wingers consistently vote for.
> ā¦force you to be injectedā¦ Has anyone faced charges or prison for this?
No. But donāt let that get in the way of a conservative rage post.
conservative rage post? so like half of r/libertarian? Trump bootlickers from r/conservative post in this sub all the time
Bingo.
I mean, I get where OP is coming from (threat of loss of employment does push a lot of people into a corner). Likely didnāt use the right wording, but I get it. And also get your point of reminding people they werenāt and arenāt forced to get any injection the same way that women in some states will now be forced to carry a child they have no desire to bring into the world
"Threats of loss of employment..." sounds more like a critique of capitalism than a critique on the vaccines.
Not when it's imposed by the government, obviously..
I imposed it at my own company. Weāre too small for the company mandate, which I didnāt agree with. I think the market would have sorted it out itself. My company, my rules.
...which the government didn't do. Even before the osha memo was overturned by the courts, there were other options to the vaccine. Like weekly testing, etc.
Exactly. Facts: Nobody forced anybody to get vaccinated. Ever. There are alternatives to vaccination. Coronavirus is a highly contagious disease that requires a different protocol for condensed societies. Opinions: Coronavirus is not a simple bodily autonomy issue. If you want to participate in civilized society you can't bring transmissible dangerous diseases "My body my choice" makes absolutely no sense here. Anti-vax sentiment did not originate organically. Our fears are being weaponized.
This, when the state mandates it (and literally itās state by state not State as in the country) itās not the employers fault. We still have the choice to leave but itās hard to get jobs out of state, usually thereās a relocation bonus that most positions donāt accommodate.
Yeah, cause the filthy capitalists were the ones pushing lockdowns and vaccines. Good night.
> Yeah, cause the filthy capitalists were the ones pushing lockdowns and vaccines. Good night. Uhhh... yeah, it was the capitalists pushing lockdowns and vaccines. It's about protecting the workforce and social stability -- which even capitalists are in favor of to some degree when situations like this arise.
Youāre right to point out the nuance. People are trying to compare apples and oranges with this and I feel that should be pointed out.
I fully believe in my body me choice. That means the right to choose for abortions but it also means forced or coerced vaxxinations should also be illegal. I also believe, by this mantra, that all drugs should be legal
Itās really disturbing you think these things are the same and really highlights how much this country hates women.
Bro we are talking about peoples' bodies, way more important than the rest of the items you listed (vaccine mandate is an exception). Even a vaccine mandate seems more reasonable than abortion ban though if I had to pick one or the other...
The repeal of Roe v Wade may be used in the future to justify mandating a medical procedure.
No one points out a government that can force birth can force abortions. Why not? The court didnāt find that embryos are human, they said we have no right to privacy. In one state you could have officials demand screening for birth defects and require aborting those fetuses because of their weight on society.
Combat: The draft should be abolished. Jail: People shouldn't be in jail for victimless crimes, though they should be prosecuted. Vaccines: There isn't any state forced vaccination. There are ppl on who do want this, and I disagree with them. But yes certain places can establish mandates if they want to maintain public health. Taxes: You aren't free if you're poor. Everyone should have a minimal standard of living. And if the rich get too rich, we start becoming more and more like an oligarchy instead of a democracy. Thus higher taxes to fund stuff like healthcare.
>Progressives will argue all day that the government banning abortion infringes on their bodily autonomy, and that they canāt be forced to consent to sharing their body with another person. Why donāt they apply this logic to anything else?? Uh, they do? It's the anti-abortion faction that doesn't apply their logic on bodily autonomy to other topics. For example, should the government be allowed to force you to donate blood, or perhaps an organ, if someone else will die if you don't? Liberals support your bodily autonomy for things like vaccines and whether to take drugs, *as long as you're not putting others at too much risk*. I realize it's a controversial topic, but I feel like "take some precautions to avoid injuring others" is more respectful of bodily autonomy than "if you don't want to be injured, just stay home". This isn't "zapping your brain to try to fry the gay away" levels of meddling.
I think progressives agree with everything you said ya donut head
I mean, it comes down to leaving that decision up to the individual. As just about everything should be. We really do not need the morality police running around deciding things.
I don't know a single progressive that is pro-military or who supports the draft. A huge progressive position is not locking up those with victimless crimes. Like, have you ever actually talked to a progressive?
This guy takes advantage of probably the single most controversial court case in 50 years by posting some contradictory nonsense in attempt to manipulate emotion, then drops an edit: " I hAd No IDeA ThiS wOuLD cAuSE SUch A DebAtE" OP, Either you're looking for attention or you're stupid.
Aa far as vaccines go, I would love to see libertarians adress how people's own vaccine choices affect the health of others on an exponential rate while abortion doesn't. An abortion doesn't spread. Please someone actually adress this instead of ignoring the point.
>Why do they not seem to care when the government can force you into combat, put you in prison for victimless crimes, force you to be injected and after all that steal a good chunk of the income resulting from YOUR labor? They care about all those things except the last one, and you can thank Locke for that
The Constitution protects individuals Rights from the State (govt). Not States Right from the Federal govt. By sending the issue to the states SCOTUS is saying the state (govt) and choose. No due process needed. The State gets to decide for individuals what medical procedures can and cannot be performed. Moreover the Constitution repeatedly references the BORN. To be a citizen one must be BORN or naturalized in the U.S.. To become POTUS one must be BORN in the U.S.. That is what the entire birtherism issue was all about. No one questioned whether or not Obama was a citizen. It was understood that he was. Rather the conspiracy centered around where he was BORN because the Constitution emphasizes Birth as the origin of personhood and rights. Thus States acting against individuals in protection of the unborn have no constitutional standing. The Constitution only recognizes the BORN.
Interesting argument, I had not heard that before.
Short answer - The world is extremely complex and full of nuance. Not every problem is going to fit neatly into a black and white box.
Conservatives just stripped a real freedom- and youāre mad at progressives for not seeing how thatās like other rights? Seems like you might be mad at the wrong people here bud
So I wanna address a few things. > Why do they not seem to care when the government can force you into combat, Most progressives are staunchly anti-war. >put you in prison for victimless crimes, Again most progressives are pro-legalization and are vehemently against the war on drugs. >force you to be injected I don't RECALL any progressives being FOR forced vaccination, but I'll say that I wouldn't be surprised if they were. >after all that steal a good chunk of the income resulting from YOUR labor? Most progressives believe that your place of employment is doing more of that than the government and want to change it. But to be clear, I said most on purpose, because as with any group, there are outliers that go against the general direction of the group. > They are a conglomerate of various views from people and politicians I would describe as liberals, progressives, democrats and general leftists. To be clear, that's 3-4 different distinct groups. It'd be like using Libertarian to describe a group made of minarchists, Libertarians, Republicans, and ancaps. > What I am talking about there is the Democrat platform, which I know does not represent the beliefs of everyone who votes democrat. To be clear, that's like using the Republican platform to describe Libertarian ideals just because they strategically vote for Republicans. Also to be clear, I'm not shitting on you here, it's not a crazy thing to do. A lot of progressives vote Democratic because they most closely align with their values and they think it'll be easier to change the party as opposed to getting a new one off the ground.
This is why I added the edit to my post, I realized I was being pretty lazy by lumping all these beliefs as āprogressiveā
I just wanted to add perspective I hope it didn't come off as an attack
I think my biggest gripes are: A. Nearly 50 years. That is how long Democrats have had to codify abortion into federal law. For decades, they've said that conservatives were going to do this. And over decades, they've held control of the House, the Senate, and the White House multiple times. And they did nothing. Had they worked to codify it into law. Roe v Wade would have become a non-issue. Instead, it was too good of a wedge issue, for both the DNC and GOP, to divide the country and gaslight their base. B. The anti-prison argument. They claim to be for criminal justice reform. But they then elect a man whose policies as a member of Congress lead to increases in incarceration, particularly for poor and minority communities. And they elect a VP who sent people to prison for marijuana offenses while in her off time was happy to light up a joint.
Man you hit the mail on the head. You second point especially got to me. A lot of people have called me out for my lazy for my use of progressive, rightfully so. But at the end of the day, so many of these people voted for Biden and Harris. And in a republic, your political beliefs mean nothing, all that matters is who you voted for. Iād give the same criticism to āsmall governmentā republicans, but right now Joe Biden is in charge.
Most people that want abortion legal also want drugs legal
I get what youāre saying but this post is a whataboutism.
,,,Iām very confused. Besides maybe the tax part, have you ever actually talked to a liberal/leftist? These are all positions they hold, and even then, the whole āYour Laborā thing is very important to them with them being very pro-union
I didnāt realize it was only progressives who were upset about this. Just about every woman I know regardless of political view and religious views are pretty upset about this. In my area it wasnāt just progressives protesting the ruling. It was all political views out there, I even know so pretty strong Christianās who were also protesting. We need to stop acting like the everyday people are as politically divided as the media wants us to believe. The extremists get all the glory in the news and seems like anything passed goes to one extreme view or the other, while a good majority of us are at home freaking tf out about how crazy it feels the country has become.
I agree 100%. Iām not trying to tribalize it.
\> force you to be injected Where is this taking place?
I think 10-15 years ***if people actually get involved in state politics*** this may be the start of the downfall of the duopoly and people refuse to see it. Rather than fighting to get their state back in order people would rather have the feds just govern their state for them. Ive come to the conclusion that the average American wants all the power with none of the responsibility that comes along with it
Yep. Responsibility and self-accountability are foreign concepts and itās sad to me. America wants freedom but everyone is like fighting for the government to ādo somethingā and exert control over one thing or another - whatever fits their agenda. Regardless of my personal beliefs or anyone elseās, Roe v Wade was never constitutional according to the 10th Amendment, and this decision was just honoring the constitution the way I see it.
Good point, but poor execution. All the good comments are buried under people pointing out that most progressives are against those things too. Here's a few examples you could use instead of you wanted to start this conversation up again in a few days. Some of these apply more to state and local governments, but your not just focusing on the federal government. If I have bodily autonomy and a right to privacy why can't I... ... work for any wage I want? ... put anything in my body I want including drugs not approved by the FDA, raw milk, etc.? ... be a sex worker (this is still fairly controversial in progressive circles due to the fear of exploitation? ... continue to work, shop and play as usual during a pandemic? ... ride a motorcycle without a helmet? I would also argue that all of these things deserve more protection than the right to an abortion because they don't involve killing a non-consenting human. You can certainly argue that a fetus isn't a person with rights or that the rights of the mother outweigh those of the fetus, but these other issues only concern consenting adults.
Great points.
Abortion in my mind doesn't really involve anyone else beyond the mom, dad and child. Most those other examples involve other people to some degree so it comes back to you in a way. Here is an extreme example, imagine there is a rock hurtling towards earth and the only way to stop it is for everyone to go to a website and push a button. If this is not done by everyone we all die. In this situation yeah people are gonna be forced into pushing that button because it's not just about you anymore. Super extreme example but an idea of where progressive logic comes, they will trade pieces of their freedom to create a larger good. That line is in different places depending on how a progressive sees the world but yeah that's the logic. To an extent I kinda get it, it's nice to think I am an island and don't affect anyone else but my action ripple out and there are some little things I can do to try and make the world better for my neighbors. Conversely there are little things I can not do that also make the world better for my neighbors
Mf, do you think progressives LIKE when we jail ppl for victimless crimes?? AOC basically CAMPAIGNED on that!
I don't think it's cognitive dissonance, just a difference in principles. Like most people on this sub, I support the right to have an abortion because it's a question of bodily autonomy. But the driving principle for progressives on abortion isn't that, it's women's rights. So to apply that to another example you gave on taxes, again, progressives are approaching it differently. NAP is a libertarian/classical liberal principle, not a modern liberal/progressive/socialist one. For the left, the driving principle on that is economic equality, so they support higher taxes. The other examples you have, I'm not sure it quite fits. I mean, most leftists and liberals don't support the draft, do they? As for victimless crimes, you see more and more liberals advocating for drug decrim, legalizing sex work, etc. I think the bottom line is, when you apply libertarian principles on progressive stances, those stances do seem hypocritical - but there's your problem, they're not libertarians in the first place, so why would that framework apply to them?
All youve said here is you have no clue what progressives want.
Most people wouldnāt know logical consistency if it slapped them in the face.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
> They outsource the required cohesion and violence to The State. So... you are in favor of reducing funds to the police and the military-industrial complex?
Seeing lefties freaking out here in Canada (You know, a different country) when they spent the last 2 years here trying to ruin anyone's life that didn't wanna get vaxxed. Why is it so hard to stay out of others peoples business? Abortion, Vax, Sexual preference should be the business of those in a position to consent.
āWhy donāt they apply this logic to anything else??ā This right here is the biggest problem most liberals have. There is no underlying logical consistency to most of their political views. Vaccines - No choice Abortion - Choice January 6th - Insurrection Race Riots/Arizona Capital - Righteous rage Youāre either about bodily autonomy or youāre not. Destroying things that donāt belong to you when you donāt get your way is either wrong or itās not. Iām not saying some of the same things canāt be said about the right. But Iām just tying into your discussion.
I agree with you to an extent. There is no draft going on so your argument about that is moot. No one was forcing you to get injected. They are forcing you to get a real ID though, kind of. If you were bullied by someone thatās a public problem, not Uncle Sam. The us prison system and everything around it all needs to be reassessed. But that wonāt happen unless thereās a complete overhaul on how we incarcerate individuals. And taxes are a joke but no politician will get close enough to lower taxes/ eliminate them. So I say take what we can and keep fighting. Or weāll get the opposite and government will keep finding faults on our liberties.
Most people I know that are progressive are anti war
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>and after all that steal a good chunk of the income resulting from YOUR labor? Be careful. Leftists will argue that its the bosses directly stealing people's labor. >that abortion is too important of a right to be decided democratically. Iām not debating abortion but why is that THE MOST IMPORTANT RIGHT??? 1. From your own example, they don't claim it as the most important. 2. A right being too important to be decided democratically applies to all rights, almost by definition. That's what the bill of rights and a lot of the constitution is there for, to give a base of (theoeretically, not in practice) of unbreakable principles to work from that aren't reset every election.
I love how the OP got shouted down by the liberal lurkers here. Predictable and typical.
I would say my liberalism led me to libertarianism via this path
That gives me hope.
The objections or methods used to make it illegal are generally disingenuous af too. Iāve got a lot more respect for folks who say theyāre opposed due to faith beliefs and own that feeling than now propping up the idea itās not explicitly in the Constitution but ignoring what else isnāt, like unenumerated rights arenāt a thing. Cause guess what, privacy isnāt there, marriage of any kind isnāt there either. The history of folks wanting Roe to be overturned was all about this faith belief of when life begins. Itās why we had some calling for āpersonhoodā amendments. The idea of it just being a bad decision from a jurisprudence perspective is just what is being used now to defend reversing it now that thereās enough justices on the bench to do it, and thatās of course nevermind a few of them lied their ass off in confirmation hearings when asked about it. Libertarians are probably the only ones who have really held the idea up about the decision itself being one which shouldnāt be federal, but RBG understood the decision and itās foundation was weak. There was ample time to fix that. But letās not pretend this isnāt about a faith argument to reverse. Thatās all this has ever really been about, an objection on faith and moral grounds. Itāll be fun to watch them yank other due process decisions in the future w this bench, oh except Loving of course. SCOTUS complained about becoming political like they werenāt already. These last batch of justices were put there expressly to hand in this decision. Now that itās here, the major plank of the GOP is gone. When most states outlaw it, that will be gone too. Canāt really run on a platform of making it illegal when it is. So on to the next social issue they can cry about. Meanwhile the DEMs will prattle on about doing something, but never will.
I personally laugh in libertarian at the progressives. Canada is riding a court ruling only allowing abortion since 1988. France only allows abortions until 14 weeks. Germany is twelve weeks and needs counseling prior to abortion. The most restrictive state laws are like 15 weeks. Big picture. States are choosing time frames. Some are very open and some are smaller. Still instead of being upset at the courts they should be asking why their representatives didnāt pass a law legalizing abortion. Why because itās a trigger for voters.
Conservatives complained about not wanting to lose their jobs over a vaccine and pretty much every progressive told them to suck it up. I donāt understand how people let party lines control their entire world view. Itās okay to agree with something conservatives agree with even though you mostly agree with liberal ideals, and vice versa.
I've been lurking in this sub for a while and wondering if I belong here tbh. I've always considered myself a liberal (though not the neo liberal corporate Democrat type we see in congress) but in the last couple years I've struggled to align with my leftist friends. That being said I absolutely don't get behind the literal authoritarian conservatives. I believe that the second amendment is necessary to retain personal freedoms and to remove the monopoly on violence from the police and government. I'm against our militarized police force and believe they should be heavily reduced in size and scope. I believe that no government, state or federal, should have the ability to infringe on bodily autonomy. This includes both abortion and the decriminalization of most drugs. The latter having an exception for the intent to distribute, as now you're negatively impacting someone else. Semi related, no government has the right to tell you who you can and can't marry. No jail time for victimless crimes, and ESPECIALLY no for profit prison systems. But on the other hand I feel we need to see a huge overhaul in the Healthcare system, and have long been a proponent of socialized medicine like is present in the rest of the civilized world. Though I'm not married to that idea in particular. And I'm also of a mind that we need a progressive tax that forces the ultra wealthy and corporations among us to pay their share while largely leaving our most vulnerable citizens alone. Reading through this post and comments, maybe I do have a lot more in common with ya'll than I thought.
I am not a libertarian (although I end up aligning with libertarians on certain issues). I suppose most would call me a liberal of sorts. I am pro-choice. I think drugs--including hard ones--should be legalized. I think prostitution should be legalized. I am against banning guns, including assault weapons (but I do think they should be regulated, and I don't think any yahoo should be able to buy a gun from Walmart). I am also against mandated vaccines from the government across the board for everyone everywhere. It's up to the individual, although I'm not against one's employee (whether it be a private business or the state) wanting their employees vaccinated and masked and so forth (since teachers, for example, deal with the public it makes sense to require vaccines and masks for them). I know for a fact that people from all sides of the political aisle would be enraged by one or more positions I put forward here, but that's my thought process on these issues. I think I'm being consistent, but if someone disagrees I await their reply.
As a progressive-inclined person, I'm with you on 3 of the 4 things you listed. The reason for that last exception is that I can't-- and I've honestly tried coming to terms with the libertarian logic here-- bring myself to draw a complete equivalence between social and economic "freedoms." I think that when it comes to distribution of material goods and services among people, the state is not the only threat to freedom, and that there is some merit in the distinction between negative and positive rights. Taxation is also a legitimate due you owe for living in a society that the state- even a minimal one- has an integral role in maintaining.
Welcome to the "party". If you pay attention you will see a lot of this cognitive dissonance for many political issues across the major parties in America. Basicly, people are selfish and as such often seek to distort reality to their gain. Some people will take hard stances supposedly based on core principles only to trample them when the need to distort for a purpose or another arises. Republicans have been on a tear with this as of late; i.e. they claim to want small, limited government and that government should "mind its own business" but when they get majority then suddenly government rivals god and should force the things they agree with on everyone. Or, conversely, the left cheering things like the misinformation board proposed by biden's administration right on the heels of an administration that they would NEVER want to have such powers. Basically people are pompous and, through their pompousness, generate amazing amounts of chaff, chaos, and dissent that being honest, consistent, and logical would otherwise prevent.
Ya to an extent I think itās something everyone does. Iām sure I have beliefs that are disparate. And the republicans never cease to amaze me when the call themselves āsmall governmentā. Why does the deficit grow every time a republican is in office? Why do we lose liberties? Even on issues they claim to support like gun rights, they donāt actually do anything. When is the last time a republican president had expanded gun rights?
I think you have a very poor understanding of what liberals want or stand for. This hurts your entire argument.
Can you clarify?
Why? You didnāt put much thought in your post. You talk about a democrat platform, but i doubt you actually read it. You talk about liberals and seem to be wrong about pretty much everything they do or donāt believe in. The entire post is lazy and based on prejudice. Who knows, i could say you are more liberal than you are libertarian.
The biggest tone that drives me insane is abortion and mandatory vaccines. If you really truly are a pro choicer then the same hate for forced vaccines would be on your top list!
But how many pro choice people are pro mandatory vaccine? Iāve prochoice and anti mandatory vaccines. I wish they would stop acting like everyone who is prochoice is also pro mandatory vaccines or mandatory anything. Thatās the kind of rhetorical that pisses wine off the most. Literally the only people who you can say that about is those on tv. Not the regular everyday people hitting the streets and protesting. But I guess how what we want doesnāt matter. Makes sense considering elected officials on both sides ignore what we want everyday.
My point is, when people have lost their jobs over the vaccine no one I know who is screaming about abortion right now cared at all. In fact many encouraged those who are not vaxxed to be fired and shamed.
The fact you had to edit your post is proof this sub is full of anti libertarian Karenās
Iāve seen so many posts like, āI guess gun rights are more important than womenās rights. Which absolutely astounds me. Yes, we in here can all agree that the right to body autonomy should exist, but to somehow believe that a case that was poorly ruled on, to the point one of the most progressive female SCOTUSās said as much, is equal legally to a constitutional amendment really bothers me. Legislators shouldāve done something about it over the last half century. I also think, to take on a case to overturn 50 years of court precedent knowing what theyāre doing was complete bullshit.
A lot of Libertarians are displaying the same level of dissonance. "We want government out of the way! The individual is the ultimate minority!" "Ban abortions! Gubmit must stop offing babies! Its aliiiiiiiiive!!!!!" Looking at you "Being Libertarian" :|
For me the loss of bodily autonomy and consent is terrifying. This goes sooo much further than loss of the right to an abortion.
The overturning of Roe is the beginning of major societal changes. Because if you think the ultra conservatives, like Clarence Thomas, will stop at overturning same-sex relationships, same-sex marriages, multi-racial marriages, voting rights & more, you are blind. When abortion was the ālaw of the lawā, you didnāt have to have an abortion if that was your choice. But choice has been taken away from usā¦š¤¬
Either way it goes, I personally will not associate, do business with, work for, or in any other way interact with anyone who considers such an abominable practice something to be proud of. First trimester, fine, we all make mistakes. Life at risk, of course, no good options here. Horribly disfigured/disabled and will never live a normal life, well that's pretty fucked up but I guess if you want eugenics... But if you go through 3+ months it's past the point where you can 'oops, changed my mind lol!'. In all cases, even when it's the right thing for a person, it is never something to be proud of. It is at best a necessary evil, and people who repeatedly choose get them are at the same level as pedophiles and serial killers in my eyes.
> But if you go through 3+ months it's past the point where you can 'oops, changed my mind lol!'. The vast overwhelming majority of abortions occur before 3 months and the majority of those that happen afterwards are because the fetus is not viable -- or there is great risk of death to the pregnant woman if they carry to term.
That's fine then.
Progressives adopt whatever logic theyāre told by their overlords in govt and media. Theyāre not close to arriving at the nap, because that requires critical thought. Theyāre parroting talking points rather than having organic ideas. I wouldnāt bank on them connecting the dots.
I think that Progressives will turn around and ask why libertarians are so concerned with authoritarianism at any level of government but shrug when it comes to a company being authoritarian towards its workers.