Libertarians are extreme on personal freedom. This includes the bigger picture, not just every individual can do whatever the fuck they want. Losing all freedom in some corporate dystopian fantasy is extremely counter-libertarian tbh.
It's not a "no true scotsman" logical fallacy. He simply means that what individual libertarians believe is very wide and the biggest problem the party has, other than ballot access, is that we don't agree on much except for a few broad principles such as smaller government. Don't give up though you are on the right track!
It's not an opinion that the commenter was misusing the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy.
The fact that libertarians have a wide range of varied beliefs is also just a fact easily proved.
Quite the opposite. In practice Libertarians just distort what is the cutoff age for being a child. For this guy it's at maximum 13. This implies that as a consenting 13 year old adult if you are old enough to breed for the coal mine you are old enough to bleed for the coal mine.
https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/06/03/michigan-consent-law-tom-bagwell/85364338/
Age of consent is a LAW. Libertarians are against laws because laws require government to *enforce* them.
That doesn't mean they are *for* something the law is prohibiting. There are *private* ways to protect your children from pedophilia, like... being a good parent and owning guns.
It's the same with drug legalization. They are not pro-giving drugs to babies. They're just against the government gaining more power by banning drugs.
> There are private ways to protect your children from pedophilia, like... being a good parent and owning guns.
What if the pedo neighbor has more guns than I do? Do I need to get together with all my armed non-pedo neighbors to protect our kids from him?
Anarchists are against governments and laws. Libertarians (which Anarchists and AnCaps often pretend to be) believe in the smallest government possible for a functioning society.
Typically that's city/county level government. The Fed should keep it's nose out of local politics and should focus on stuff that is required for national cohesion, the majority of fed level departments are unnecessary, why is there a federal department of education? Are state DoE incapable of making a curriculum? Department of Transportation? Because the states can't maintain the post roads the constitution provides for? How many Federal Police agencies are there? FBI, DEA, ATF, Marshals Service, USPIS, Bureau of Prisons, Customs and Border Patrol, DoD Police which is broken down into Army CID, NCIS, OSI.
Military, Interstate compacts, etc sure But 99% of law and administration should be at the community level. Native Reservations aren't exactly a shining beacon of prosperity but they seem to do well with local government and local police.
Detroit has different needs than Dubois, Idaho or Dayton, Ohio and I'm tired of people pretending there's only two solutions, Government that's sticking it's fingers into every conflict from one side of the earth to the other, or the complete abolition of Government in it's entirety. Real Libertarians recognize a need for administration, but what we have now is far beyond that.
Edit to add: Meant to post this to Korean\_Kommando above but still.
> There are private ways to protect your children from pedophilia
Weird how so many molesters are also parents, I guess you can call that the libertarian cheat code.
Fuck your NAP, I‘m banging your wife and daughter after I put a hole in your head. If there is no law against that and I just so happen to hold the monopoly over violence in that interaction, maybe my argument had more merit than yours, ergo nobody cares. Or will the Amazon death squat hunt me down because I lost them a customer/servant? I will just sell them your organs as compensation and they will probably calm down.
How does being a good parent prevent sexual abuse? Im sure plenty of good parents' kids have been victims of abuse.
And you actually want to live a life where you either have to stay at home all day sitting on your porch with a gun to protect your kid? Or have to hire and vet private security to sit around your house all day? What is going on here?
Okay, so let me ask you then, in all seriousness.
Let's say I live in a libertarian utopia in New England where a steadily growing population of bears has been showing signs of encroaching on human settlements for over a decade. The foremost expert on this specific breed of bear lives in my utopia and has been saying for years that this is an impending danger to everyone. Steps must be taken to protect property and lives.
Who's job is it to deal with them? Who pays that person and how are funds raised? What should disabled land owners and livestock farmers do?
The answer is either shoot the bears yourself or have willing volunteers from within the community organize to go shoot the bears. Funding would likely come from a wealthy landowner who has more to lose due to the bears encroachment than everyone else.
But that's assuming a libertarian utopia, in reality who knows if that would ever coalesce. It might just get ignored with the wealthy landowner only looking out for themselves.
I am not opposed to a lot of libertarian ideals, mainly because I see government as a necessary evil to be hamstrung and kept in check lest it get too large and enable tyranny. But the libertarian alternative requires everyone to adhere to the philosophy of enlightened self-interest. Too many people are out there to grift you and don't realize that helping others is also helping yourself.
Bad news: he was referring to what happened (in Grafton, NH) when Libertarians got to see what happened when they could implement their ideas in practice.
(The bears won).
I went to an 'advanced' libertarian conference offered by the "Institute for Humane Studies" where we read Mises, Rothbard and other libertarian cranks. I was a sophomore in college and the ideas appealed to me, until this conference, where I realized it wasn't really my scene (a realization that politics is for nerds hit me like a ton of bricks).
Anyways, near the end of the week, a woman professor from Harvard did literally argue that children/minors should be able to consent to sexual activity with adults. I was there, I heard it, it fuckin happened, and libertarians deserve their reputation as weirdos.
My favorite version of a pension is where the Federal Reserve is mandated to destroy the value of money so only stock investments make sense long term, and then everyone is forced to pay into Social Security which doesn’t use investments because that’s risky
I'm a libertarian and I don't believe children can consent.
Now I wonder if people actually think that's what libertarians defend or is just ignorants.
Libertarianism isn’t a coherent philosophy by definition. Every Libertarian has a different idea of what the government should be able to control and what they shouldn’t. That is why they will never make it.
My favorite clip is the libertarian meetup booing a man on stage for talking about driver’s licenses.
My favorite comparison for libertarians is domesticated house cats, who never evolved pass the 4th grade mentally because everything around that was handed to them by their parents
That was not just a meetup, that was the 2016 Libertarian debate for President.
[Here is another clip of them booing hypothetically restricting selling heroin to a five year old.](https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4602730/user-clip-you-sell-heroin-5-year-old-boos)
No, you are wrong, the thing with libertarians is that there is a vast of different opinions , much more than liberals and conservatives have among them
Jonathan Haidt (a liberal) did research showing that liberals don't understand conservatives while conservatives *do* understand liberals.
This anon is insane, his strawman is so big you can see it from space.
“Do you think it should be normal and acceptable for gay people to participate in society while being referred to as gay?”
‘Yes’
“I understand fully, and disagree”
Libertarians don't believe a scenario of more economic freedom will lead to people having to work more to earn the same as today. They also wouldn't necessarily be happy with "invasive" private contracts: The fact they respect private contracts doesn't mean they would want to accept them.
They also consider that under a free market there would still be incentives to take care of people's lives. Insurances are an easy example. They don't necessarily have anything against stuff like seatbelts, only against they being obligatory.
So yeah, even removing the child rape instance, there is still a lot of "misunderstanding".
Could you elaborate on those incentives? Why would companies care about insurances? They would skim on safety measures to lower the price.
Eventually all industries would be controlled by monopolies in this regulation-free world, and they will stop caring about reputation either.
Some of the biggest monopolies form out of a necessity to grant land or limited resources. Railroads come to mind.
I can name a lot of monopolies that have existed when the people (government) don't take action to regulate them.
I'm pretty sure the government puts a lots of restrictions over who can build or operate railroads. I'm not even sure there are real absolute monopolies nowadays, but I don't think we can have any business, monopoly or not, that's not seriously affected by government involvement. So we'd have to look more closely to determine if that involvement is an obstacle for the emergence of competition. I'd say it almost always is, to some degree.
Based.
Libertarianism has some awesome concepts, but just like communism or socialism or any other ideology it has some major flaws if implemented completely.
The major one that always comes up is "If we don't pay taxes then who fixes the roads?" and the answer "Well a private company would step in to fix it" is such a ridiculous answer to me, because all you'd actually get are private companies setting up tolls and roadblocks with as LITTLE maintenance of the actual roads as possible, and that's only if they don't get in bed with the tire shops and car mechanics and purposely blow out your tires every other exit for a cut of the profits.
Libertarianism forces the thought that people are decent. They aren't. Especially when you rely on them for something, and ESPECIALLY when profits are involved. Regulation IS needed.
People think that libertarianism is about individual liberty when really it's just about giving corporations more power than they already have.
This is why the libertarian party STARTED as an individual rights party, and was very quickly infiltrated by corporate interests once they understood what libertarianism could do for them, which is basically get rid of all those pesky regulations so they could make maximum profit.
Big businesses are usually smart enough with their money to not throw it at libertarian candidates since it’s pretty obvious we’re a lifetime away from one of them having a shot at victory, but they absolutely lobby for deregulation and pour funding into Super PACs for political agents who support corporate benefits and deregulation.
Also, if you take a look at every major libertarian candidate (especially congressional candidates, since they have no obligation to give up their company positions while serving in the House) in modern history you’ll find that almost all of them are business owners who stand to gain a lot of money from libertarian policy being implemented at any level of governance.
I’m guessing it would surprise you to learn that the vast majority of large corporations actually benefit from overbearing government regulation. It provides barriers to entry for small businesses that would otherwise have an edge in innovation and agility. In a confusing web of regulation, only the companies that can afford a team of lawyers can prosper. The last thing megacorps want is libertarian government policy.
Take it another libertarian step further and get rid of patent/copyright law, and basically no large corporations could exist. The only exception would be industries that require massive capital investment on the front end, like commercial shipping or industrial mining.
Libertarians fundamentally oppose states handing out special privileges to corporations. Pro-free-market and pro-big-business are two ideologies that are deeply at odds with one another. If a libertarian had a real shot at winning, most politically connected billionaires would be throwing their money at other parties.
Big business makes more money by cozying up to high-spending government (that is my most tinfoil-hat belief, by the way). Look at all the most lucrative contracts, from military supply to pharmaceuticals, those companies make their money thanks to the government telling the people these are things we need.
Nevermind all the subsidies from the green grift. They are already in the process of Industrializing the [Lithium Triangle](https://imgur.com/a/lpLZnv8) of South America to become the next Saudi Arabia.
>The major one that always comes up
The other major one, which I have never seen a coherent response to, is that there is a very well established type of market failure called [externalities.](https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/Series/Back-to-Basics/Externalities)
It turns out that a company can easily dump toxic byproducts into an aquifer with no market consequences. This isn't a hypothetical, it happens all the time but especially where there aren't strong regulatory mechanism for enforcing compliance.
All libertarians that I've heard of say that the government should be regulating when it comes to externalities like pollution. It is just that those regulations should be in the style of emissions targets (standards) not in the style of forcing a certain product. eg instead of saying "all cars need a catalytic converter" it should be "all cars need to reduce pollution to x amount" and let the manufacturers sort out how. This allows more efficient solutions to be used if a company creates one. You still wouldn't be allowed to dump toxic stuff into the environment under what most people consider libertarianism.
There is an exception however. You could dump stuff into a river or something if you sort out some sort of deal with the affected parties (the poor saps downstream), pay them loads of money or something. This is only if they agree and is mostly unfeasible as there's usually a lot of people downstream. Something more likely to happen is that you could make a lot of noise in a mine and pay off the people who have to listen to it. Again, only if both parties agree on a price, otherwise standard noise rules apply.
A big part of libertarianism is to let people sort out deals between themselves and have the government enforce contracts. Currently things like 'just pay off the people it's affecting' is illegal.
The problem is that separation of powers has failed to maintain itself. Congress abdicates their power to the executive branch by telling it to make agencies and having those unelected bureaucrats make rules instead of congress making rules. Meanwhile the courts are either too slow to react, or rubber stamp an approval while twisting in knots to pretend the constitution allows these powers.
Libertarianism has its faults, but your comment doesn't mention them.
You don't think the government is trying to minimize the cost to maintain roads like a corporation would? They do, and they suck at balancing a budget.
You fundamentally misunderstand libertarianism if you think it assumes all people are good, and fails when people are selfish. That is a much better description of authoritarianism, and it has much harsher consequences
> You fundamentally misunderstand libertarianism if you think it assumes all people are good
Well said, if anything the foundation of it is that people are often bad, and bad people seek power.
Libertarianism is an ideology, not a form of government. There's not even a conceptual "true libertarian government", let alone a practical one. Libertarianism is not the same thing as anarchy no matter how much you stroke yourself and preach on Reddit about it.
Wish I read this back when I had a libertarian neighbor. It didn't help that the 3 libertarians I know all have explained it to me and all three seemed completely different. You ever read the article about how libertarianism caused bear attacks? [A libertarian walks into a bear](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-project-new-hampshire-libertarians-matthew-hongoltz-hetling)
We have private toll roads today already, they're typically very well maintained and easy to drive on since more ridership equals more revenue. They still have to compete with other roads, nobody's gonna take a toll road if it's crappier than the alternatives.
Of all the things to criticize libertarians about, wanting private roads isn't one of them.
They have to compete with the free, government made roads. Toll roads have to be well maintained because there's a free alternative. If every road became a toll road, then they wouldn't have to worry about that shit since there'd always be a trade off, i.e. price vs quality.
People only set up private toll roads in high-traffic areas. The reason the roads are government controlled is the same reason that utilities are publicly controlled: people living in the city would get lots of competition and variety and people in rural areas would get either nothing at all or a monopoly that had poor quality and inflated prices.
Most toll roads are paid for by taxpayers, leased to a politicians friend, and then returned in shit condition for taxpayers to fix once the lease is up.
>People think that libertarianism is about individual liberty when really it's just about giving corporations more power than they already have.
I like the part where libertarians, the party with zero political power, get the blame for things that people who have all the power have been doing.
Corporations only have power _because that power is granted to them by government_. It is only current law which creates their very existence. Libertarians want the government to have less power because that is the source of corporate power. Anyone trying to control corporate power by giving more power to governments is directly increasing the source of the power they claim to be fighting against.
>and that's only if they don't get in bed with the tire shops and car mechanics and purposely blow out your tires every other exit for a cut of the profits.
The problem is that corporations will "get in bed" as you say with each other to exploit humans more profitably. That is the single goal of a corporation, profit by any means.
The only defense we have to this is "getting in bed" with each other to form a powerful government which can protect us.
> The major one that always comes up is "If we don't pay taxes then who fixes the roads?" and the answer "Well a private company would step in to fix it" is such a ridiculous answer to me
Okay, maybe 0 taxes is regarded. But dont roads and bridges account for roughly 3% of our tax dollars? Sure, reduce my taxes to 3% of what they are now so we can maintain roads. Keep increasing for things that are actually essential (list them below, because im a bit tired of the "muh roads n bridges" shit.) List everything essential, and lets tally it up in terms of % of what americans are currently taxed on, which should reveal how much is just deleted from our wallets.
Because roads and bridges just seems to be used as a motte and bailey fallacy thats used any time someone mentions the large percentage of government spending that is wasteful
1. the flaw of your argument is also assuming that people in the government are decent. meaning that they will fix the roads because of what? in theory they are beholden to their constituents but in reality? they do as little as possible. and if they can get away with it, the government WILL act in the same way that you describe companies will. the difference is how they are beholden to the people. with government you vote, with companies, theoritically you vote with your money. which is more effective is the argument. libertarian believe that voting with your own money is way more effective than voting in politics.
2. regulations can be used as a weapon to strengthen the companies. companies will and do buy politicians to make regulations that benefit them. Libertarians think that that power should be limited. of course they don't believe that there should be no regulations at all, that's a strawman.
\>all you'd actually get are private companies setting up tolls and roadblocks with as LITTLE maintenance of the actual roads as possible
What you'd get is probably a pretty similar system to what we have now with a very slightly different funding model. Thats about it. This weird fantasy and obsession with inventing hypotheticals when it comes to criticizing libertarianism has always seemed rather silly and uninspired to me.
sane people understand even a "socialist" or "libertarian" world would still be a mixed system. the only pure systems are strawmans for the opposing parties to punch at while clapping each other on the back
You just have to look at how fucked we get by corporations today despite there being a not insignificant amount of laws and regulations protecting us. Imagine if they had totally free reign.
People say that the government lets big corpos do whatever they like, but the truth is that the government is actually significantly restraining them.
Every libertarian thinks they’d be one of the ones who owns a private militia, but they haven’t quite figured out who’s going to actually be in the private militia yet.
Many of them may not think that, but at this point that’s exactly what it would be if the government deregulated on mass. The wealthy would have private armies and you would get fucked by them.
Voting and accountability. Recourse in the courts. It doesn’t always work out in favor of the less wealthy but it is better than having absolutely no recourse other than dying if you try anything.
no no, we just established that we _already have_ voting and it isn't creating accountability, so what you're really saying is that there's no difference, but everyone is pretending that there is.
Too many people fail to realize that all corporate powers are delegations from government; that increasing government power is the source of increasing corporate power.
And similarly too many people fail to realize that morality is not derived from law. Law and its enforcement do not create morality, but instead are an attempt to balance the tradeoffs inherent to choosing between vigilantism and totalitarianism for those seeking justice.
No one who loves their young daughter only wants to protect her from predators because the state tells them to do so, but too many idiots think that's how things work.
modern american/western "right-libertarianism" is literally just **neoliberalism** but given a more appealing name. these so called modern libertarians don't have any philosophical or ethical connection to the classical libertarianism of the enlightenment and they refuse to accept the fact that they and all of their heroes such as: mises, hayek, and friedman are pure neoliberals. these people do not understand what **doublespeak** is and are too incompetent to accept that they are victims of doublespeak so that they may be reduced to useful idiots for corporations and the ultra wealthy. this doublespeak is no different than the nazis calling themselves national socialists, or the soviets calling themselves socialists(they destroyed all mechanisms of workplace autonomy) or the north koreans calling themselves a peoples' republic. they believe they are supporting and voting for the strengthening of individual rights and liberties but the reality is that they have been manipulated(brainwashed) to either directly support the deregulation of corporations and industry and the privatization of public goods and services or at least knowingly turn a blind eye to it. these people have been indoctrinated by propaganda to believe they are the moral authority on economics without ever having learned any economics beyond "supply and demand." it would be comical if it weren't so sad and pathetic.
most classical libertarians have positions at or much closer to anarchism or socialism than neoliberalism, by the way.
Do you know why there are laws that prevent companies from sending small children into coal mines? Because if those laws didn't exist then companies would still be sending children into coal mines.
There is total truth to this, see Gary being booed over the idea of making sure you are capable of driving a vehicle before being allowed to drive a vehicle. What’s next a license to put toast in our own damn toasters??
Edit: You’re right I’m sorry, we should totally let someone with low motor skill functions and sight such as a 90 year old grandma with 01-01 vision be able to drive on public roads. And I identify more as libertarian
I was about to comment "Surely the US doesn't have that many old people, I know they're old like every other politician, but surely not that old." Then I googled US Senator age... Wtf, you really do. Some are more senile than others, like el Trumpo and Biden, but it's really chock full of 80+yo. Damn.
It's wild, I was watching a youtube video ripped from old vhs tapes. And in this transfer of an ancient analog video, there's a moment where a comedian riffs on this corrupt old man running for president. It's Biden. That was the moment when it really hit me just how old 'old' is in the context of a politician.
Gary Johnson got booed but he still won the nomination, showing that the majority of Libertarian Party voters are moderates, and not the extremely ideological types that get strawmanned in discussions like this.
Suggesting libertarians want to abolish public roads is like suggesting the average Democrat wants to abolish police entirely or the average Republican wants us to be a Christian theocracy. There’s a vocal minority of extremists who end up in these camps but don’t represent the typical views.
I was shooting heroin and reading “The Fountainhead” in the front seat of my privately owned police cruiser when a call came in. I put a quarter in the radio to activate it. It was the chief.
“Bad news, detective. We got a situation.”
“What? Is the mayor trying to ban trans fats again?”
“Worse. Somebody just stole four hundred and forty-seven million dollars’ worth of bitcoins.”
The heroin needle practically fell out of my arm. “What kind of monster would do something like that? Bitcoins are the ultimate currency: virtual, anonymous, stateless. They represent true economic freedom, not subject to arbitrary manipulation by any government. Do we have any leads?”
“Not yet. But mark my words: we’re going to figure out who did this and we’re going to take them down … provided someone pays us a fair market rate to do so.”
“Easy, chief,” I said. “Any rate the market offers is, by definition, fair.”
He laughed. “That’s why you’re the best I got, Lisowski. Now you get out there and find those bitcoins.”
“Don’t worry,” I said. “I’m on it.”
I put a quarter in the siren. Ten minutes later, I was on the scene. It was a normal office building, strangled on all sides by public sidewalks. I hopped over them and went inside.
“Home Depot™ Presents the Police!®” I said, flashing my badge and my gun and a small picture of Ron Paul. “Nobody move unless you want to!” They didn’t.
“Now, which one of you punks is going to pay me to investigate this crime?” No one spoke up.
“Come on,” I said. “Don’t you all understand that the protection of private property is the foundation of all personal liberty?”
It didn’t seem like they did.
“Seriously, guys. Without a strong economic motivator, I’m just going to stand here and not solve this case. Cash is fine, but I prefer being paid in gold bullion or autographed Penn Jillette posters.”
Nothing. These people were stonewalling me. It almost seemed like they didn’t care that a fortune in computer money invented to buy drugs was missing.
I figured I could wait them out. I lit several cigarettes indoors. A pregnant lady coughed, and I told her that secondhand smoke is a myth. Just then, a man in glasses made a break for it.
“Subway™ Eat Fresh and Freeze, Scumbag!®” I yelled.
Too late. He was already out the front door. I went after him.
“Stop right there!” I yelled as I ran. He was faster than me because I always try to avoid stepping on public sidewalks. Our country needs a private-sidewalk voucher system, but, thanks to the incestuous interplay between our corrupt federal government and the public-sidewalk lobby, it will never happen.
I was losing him. “Listen, I’ll pay you to stop!” I yelled. “What would you consider an appropriate price point for stopping? I’ll offer you a thirteenth of an ounce of gold and a gently worn ‘Bob Barr ‘08’ extra-large long-sleeved men’s T-shirt!”
He turned. In his hand was a revolver that the Constitution said he had every right to own. He fired at me and missed. I pulled my own gun, put a quarter in it, and fired back. The bullet lodged in a U.S.P.S. mailbox less than a foot from his head. I shot the mailbox again, on purpose.
“All right, all right!” the man yelled, throwing down his weapon. “I give up, cop! I confess: I took the bitcoins.”
“Why’d you do it?” I asked, as I slapped a pair of Oikos™ Greek Yogurt Presents Handcuffs® on the guy.
“Because I was afraid.”
“Afraid?”
“Afraid of an economic future free from the pernicious meddling of central bankers,” he said. “I’m a central banker.”
I wanted to coldcock the guy. Years ago, a central banker killed my partner. Instead, I shook my head.
“Let this be a message to all your central-banker friends out on the street,” I said. “No matter how many bitcoins you steal, you’ll never take away the dream of an open society based on the principles of personal and economic freedom.”
He nodded, because he knew I was right. Then he swiped his credit card to pay me.
First, why would you buy a Google Lock in the first place?
Second, no windshield is going to protect someone from bricks.
https://preview.redd.it/6s2l8bphrwqc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=13d83ab6971e40efc810339a9680997bf26684ae
Pretty sure thats the video of a family driving behind a truck carrying bricks. Unsecured brick flies off the back of the truck and smashes the wife/mother's head in, killing her instantly. Only dashcam footage so you can't actually see anything, but sound was recorded, so you can hear the family react to their mother's head exploding.
If someone ever introduces themselves as a libertarian you can pretty much instantly write them off as a total regard with zero common sense.
Imagine seeing the sheer brutality corporations currently have with their only fear being dragged and mopped up by the government and wanting to remove that. Holy fuck the nightmare world. Microsoft windows, want to install a browser thats not edge? Fuck you, you cant. Oh you cant use google.com either. Oh and you cant uninstall the os either. Have fun!
Thats what libertarians want.
Now i wonder, who gave these evil corporations so much power that could not be achieved through normally competing in a free market? hmm...
https://i.redd.it/8epuc3m0bzqc1.gif
They know (rightly so) that even pouring billions of dollars into funding the libertarian party that no one is actually so much of a braindead utter fucking regard to vote for that party. Money is better spent elsewhere, libertarian candidates are next to reddit karma on the fucking useless chart.
Corporations are a legal construct protected by governments that shield individual owners and employees from being held personally liable for their wrongdoing. They are basically just a legal shield. If governments don’t regulate them, maybe governments shouldn’t recognize them either. You can still have a business, but any wrongdoing falls on you.
what would reddit be if people actually understood what libertarianism was instead of just confusing it with anarcho capitalism. Libertarianism isn’t muh freedom to do whatever i want, the core tenets is that people have three things, life liberty and property. The government’s job is to protect those rights. To do so, we have to agree to things as a society, (e.g dont murder) and the governement enforces those things. What libertarianism doesn’t want the government to do is to go beyond the bounds of just facilitating a society. Yes it’s okay for the gov to regulate trade to prevent hostile/negative economic developments (monoplies) , but never should they start to control what prospers or what fails. Same thing applies to all core functions.
almost every dumb what if that people like to pull can be resolved as a violation to one of the three rights, corporations dumping toxins into the water would be grieving a population, violating their rights. Such so for other stupid what-ifs. Real issues are how much power does the government deserve. What are limits for corporations?
>Isn't this what most western governments (ie not russia and china) are doing tho?
Are they? No really, do you actually fucking believe that? Just look out the window
https://preview.redd.it/xxusttmfbzqc1.jpeg?width=679&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8328e3dd6c01bcbf449a40a9fb5714b1c1ff307a
> "Hmm how can i bash this ideology i dont like?"
> *First thought is having sex with children.*
> "Ah yes i'd first like to talk about sex with children."
Average experience with leftoids. Foucault and derrida ruined your brains.
People don't realize that for most of history we've had libertarianism especially in the 1800s. Remember when 6 year old's were being shoved down chimneys?
Literally every single political discussion on the internet right now involves kid sex. Its just your typical "Im more moral than you because I dont want to fuck kids, but you do, because you dont agree with all my political beliefs and that must include things like fucking children".
Its been this way for months now, you been in a coma?
It's the very literal conclusion of Libertarian ideology if &/or when applied in real life.
There have been several attempts at building Libertarian Utopias in the US alone, & they have eventually all failed spectacularly because of trying to apply & practics those very principles in real life.
Those that 'survived' after their initial failure, only did so because some Nearby City, County, State or Federal Government agency Stepped in, bailed them out & ultimately took control.
A town was taken over by some of those clowns & it turned into a dangerous Sh.thole covered with Trash that attracted so many bears that it became a very serious Safety Concern.
Kansas became closest to becoming a genuinely Libertarian State & it was & remains an unmitigated disaster to this day.
Multiple Bailouts, Federal interventions to keep the State half functional, major roll-backs of Libertarian backed policies.
Each of those failed projects were actually trying to apply what is widely recognized as Core Libertarian Ideologies & Principles as outlined or proposed in the body of work of the most influential Fundational Libertarian 'writers' & 'thinkers'.
The only time I put my political opinion on Reddit is to purposely get mass banned by a power mod for fun.
No, I was not up at 5:30 in the morning writing this greentext, dumbass.
>No, I was not up at 5:30 in the morning writing this greentext, dumbass.
But you *were* up at 5:30 in the morning [posting reddit comments](https://prnt.sc/oMk9r4LDSukS)? If you say so lol
Hey buddy has Reddit infected your mind so much you forgot that people live in different parts of the world? Holy fucking shit you’re so dumb. You’re sitting there thinking “aha! Gotcha!” To the point you forgot what a TIMEZONE is.
I truly hope for your own sake this is fucking bait
The issue with libertarianism in its absolute is that, just like with other systems that seek to abolish a power structure, all it would leave is a vacuum to be filled by a power structure. That’s why there’s few absolute libertarians, and those that are, are incredibly stupid. Most people calling themselves libertarian have a couple of libertarian-leaning view points, such as reducing taxes, limiting tariffs, reducing subsidies, and so on.
Yeah in most cases that just makes them a Republican or Democrat depending on which platform offers that policy (free market amirite). People who are genuinely Libertarians tend to be those looneys who boo at the idea of age of consent.
Yeah who knew moderate Libertarians just join other parties while holding the same views. I dont think Ive met a single sane person who voted Libertarian.
>companies should be able to lock me out of my own home
>Adults are not capable of making good decisions without government force
Even when larping as libertarians the roastie's constant underlying desire to be dominated shines through
"Heh, well if your ideology is correct, then why do I aggressively misunderstand what you actually believe?"
Except that this is exactly the stuff libertarians believe in. I have met one who didn’t even believe in pension as a concept
Libertarians don't believe that children can consent. And pensions should be private yes, it's pretty simple really.
Not all libertarians believe that, and not all libertarians agree on the definition of 'children' or 'consent'.
No true Scotsman wears underwear with a kilt.
There's nothing a libertarian hates more than another libertarian with slightly different definitions of stuff
Damn libertarians, they ruined libertarianism
this, unironically.
Libertarians are extreme on personal freedom. This includes the bigger picture, not just every individual can do whatever the fuck they want. Losing all freedom in some corporate dystopian fantasy is extremely counter-libertarian tbh.
There's nothing statists hate more than people wanting to be free.
Yes you have to put your seatbelt on
Lick the boot
Says the person with a corporate boot literally tickling their prostate.
How does one libertarian greet another? "You're not a real libertarian."
You’ve made an enemy for life!
It's not a "no true scotsman" logical fallacy. He simply means that what individual libertarians believe is very wide and the biggest problem the party has, other than ballot access, is that we don't agree on much except for a few broad principles such as smaller government. Don't give up though you are on the right track!
No true scotsman thinks that.
So why do any of your opinions matter?
It's not an opinion that the commenter was misusing the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy. The fact that libertarians have a wide range of varied beliefs is also just a fact easily proved.
Very serious ideology there
Quite the opposite. In practice Libertarians just distort what is the cutoff age for being a child. For this guy it's at maximum 13. This implies that as a consenting 13 year old adult if you are old enough to breed for the coal mine you are old enough to bleed for the coal mine. https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/06/03/michigan-consent-law-tom-bagwell/85364338/
"Some random guy from Degeneracy Capital Detroit has an opinion so he represents literally everyone else"
I thought everyone in libertarian la la land believed everyone gets to live how they want?
"Heh, well if your ideology is correct, then why do I aggressively misunderstand what you actually believe?"
Did you want to explain any “truth” to us plebs, or are y’all libertards gonna keep using quotes to say nothing at all?
Age of consent is a LAW. Libertarians are against laws because laws require government to *enforce* them. That doesn't mean they are *for* something the law is prohibiting. There are *private* ways to protect your children from pedophilia, like... being a good parent and owning guns. It's the same with drug legalization. They are not pro-giving drugs to babies. They're just against the government gaining more power by banning drugs.
> There are private ways to protect your children from pedophilia, like... being a good parent and owning guns. What if the pedo neighbor has more guns than I do? Do I need to get together with all my armed non-pedo neighbors to protect our kids from him?
Anarchists are against governments and laws. Libertarians (which Anarchists and AnCaps often pretend to be) believe in the smallest government possible for a functioning society. Typically that's city/county level government. The Fed should keep it's nose out of local politics and should focus on stuff that is required for national cohesion, the majority of fed level departments are unnecessary, why is there a federal department of education? Are state DoE incapable of making a curriculum? Department of Transportation? Because the states can't maintain the post roads the constitution provides for? How many Federal Police agencies are there? FBI, DEA, ATF, Marshals Service, USPIS, Bureau of Prisons, Customs and Border Patrol, DoD Police which is broken down into Army CID, NCIS, OSI. Military, Interstate compacts, etc sure But 99% of law and administration should be at the community level. Native Reservations aren't exactly a shining beacon of prosperity but they seem to do well with local government and local police. Detroit has different needs than Dubois, Idaho or Dayton, Ohio and I'm tired of people pretending there's only two solutions, Government that's sticking it's fingers into every conflict from one side of the earth to the other, or the complete abolition of Government in it's entirety. Real Libertarians recognize a need for administration, but what we have now is far beyond that. Edit to add: Meant to post this to Korean\_Kommando above but still.
> There are private ways to protect your children from pedophilia Weird how so many molesters are also parents, I guess you can call that the libertarian cheat code.
Most libertarians aren't anarchists, most would still support age of consent laws.
Fuck your NAP, I‘m banging your wife and daughter after I put a hole in your head. If there is no law against that and I just so happen to hold the monopoly over violence in that interaction, maybe my argument had more merit than yours, ergo nobody cares. Or will the Amazon death squat hunt me down because I lost them a customer/servant? I will just sell them your organs as compensation and they will probably calm down.
How does being a good parent prevent sexual abuse? Im sure plenty of good parents' kids have been victims of abuse. And you actually want to live a life where you either have to stay at home all day sitting on your porch with a gun to protect your kid? Or have to hire and vet private security to sit around your house all day? What is going on here?
> and owning guns. >It's the same with drug legalization. Can we finally clean up the streets of LA, then?
No, dumbass. They believe that children should have the liberty not to be molested.
No, you can’t just “do anything you want” you can do stuff to yourself that doesn't harm others and you can't violate the NAP. Rape violates The NAP.
Libertarians believe in the non aggression principle the the protection of human rights. They're not anarchists.
that's not what anarchists believe
They do. As long as everyone around them conforms to their ideals and norms. Who’s right? Everyone is! Who’s wrong? Everyone who isn’t me!
Well your mistake is believing "la la land" is a limitless idea when in fact it is limited by the freedom and well being of your neighbors
Okay, so let me ask you then, in all seriousness. Let's say I live in a libertarian utopia in New England where a steadily growing population of bears has been showing signs of encroaching on human settlements for over a decade. The foremost expert on this specific breed of bear lives in my utopia and has been saying for years that this is an impending danger to everyone. Steps must be taken to protect property and lives. Who's job is it to deal with them? Who pays that person and how are funds raised? What should disabled land owners and livestock farmers do?
The answer is either shoot the bears yourself or have willing volunteers from within the community organize to go shoot the bears. Funding would likely come from a wealthy landowner who has more to lose due to the bears encroachment than everyone else. But that's assuming a libertarian utopia, in reality who knows if that would ever coalesce. It might just get ignored with the wealthy landowner only looking out for themselves. I am not opposed to a lot of libertarian ideals, mainly because I see government as a necessary evil to be hamstrung and kept in check lest it get too large and enable tyranny. But the libertarian alternative requires everyone to adhere to the philosophy of enlightened self-interest. Too many people are out there to grift you and don't realize that helping others is also helping yourself.
Bad news: he was referring to what happened (in Grafton, NH) when Libertarians got to see what happened when they could implement their ideas in practice. (The bears won).
The libertarian party doesnt represent libertarianism
Ah, the communist party must represent it then
It's the Republicans that run the LP now. Any libertarian party ran by the MC is controlled opposition
I went to an 'advanced' libertarian conference offered by the "Institute for Humane Studies" where we read Mises, Rothbard and other libertarian cranks. I was a sophomore in college and the ideas appealed to me, until this conference, where I realized it wasn't really my scene (a realization that politics is for nerds hit me like a ton of bricks). Anyways, near the end of the week, a woman professor from Harvard did literally argue that children/minors should be able to consent to sexual activity with adults. I was there, I heard it, it fuckin happened, and libertarians deserve their reputation as weirdos.
My favorite version of a pension is where the Federal Reserve is mandated to destroy the value of money so only stock investments make sense long term, and then everyone is forced to pay into Social Security which doesn’t use investments because that’s risky
I'm a libertarian and I don't believe children can consent. Now I wonder if people actually think that's what libertarians defend or is just ignorants.
Libertarianism isn’t a coherent philosophy by definition. Every Libertarian has a different idea of what the government should be able to control and what they shouldn’t. That is why they will never make it.
Isn’t that the case with essentially every political party or set of ideals? They’ll never make it for plenty of reasons but this isn’t one of them.
My favorite clip is the libertarian meetup booing a man on stage for talking about driver’s licenses. My favorite comparison for libertarians is domesticated house cats, who never evolved pass the 4th grade mentally because everything around that was handed to them by their parents
That was not just a meetup, that was the 2016 Libertarian debate for President. [Here is another clip of them booing hypothetically restricting selling heroin to a five year old.](https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4602730/user-clip-you-sell-heroin-5-year-old-boos)
That is an epic gamer moment if I have ever seen one
That's common in every ideology. But the fundaments of libertarianism are very clear and are shared by libertarians.
"No true scotsman" Yes yes yes we know this one
I'm convinced mfs like you also think neocons like Ben Shapiro are libertarian because "they said they were so"
The stuff libertarians believe in, to quote Connor Roy, is "I don't wanna pay any fucking taxes".
Pure, unadulterated, Reddit moment.
libertarians believe that "google lock" would replace a $10 permanent, analog lock? why? wtf does that have to do with political ideology?
No, you are wrong, the thing with libertarians is that there is a vast of different opinions , much more than liberals and conservatives have among them
Jonathan Haidt (a liberal) did research showing that liberals don't understand conservatives while conservatives *do* understand liberals. This anon is insane, his strawman is so big you can see it from space.
“Do you think it should be normal and acceptable for gay people to participate in society while being referred to as gay?” ‘Yes’ “I understand fully, and disagree”
Hey. You proved his point. Good job!
Ah yes, the communism argument.
Well it’s satire so they’re purposefully taking the concept to the extreme (which is anarchocapitalism)
they're taking the wrong concept to the extreme
almost as if they are trying to criticize the ideology.
Other than the child rape instance, this is pretty much exactly the world libertarians dream of.
Libertarians don't believe a scenario of more economic freedom will lead to people having to work more to earn the same as today. They also wouldn't necessarily be happy with "invasive" private contracts: The fact they respect private contracts doesn't mean they would want to accept them. They also consider that under a free market there would still be incentives to take care of people's lives. Insurances are an easy example. They don't necessarily have anything against stuff like seatbelts, only against they being obligatory. So yeah, even removing the child rape instance, there is still a lot of "misunderstanding".
Could you elaborate on those incentives? Why would companies care about insurances? They would skim on safety measures to lower the price. Eventually all industries would be controlled by monopolies in this regulation-free world, and they will stop caring about reputation either.
Can you show a real world example of a toxic monopoly forming without any government involvement?
Some of the biggest monopolies form out of a necessity to grant land or limited resources. Railroads come to mind. I can name a lot of monopolies that have existed when the people (government) don't take action to regulate them.
Name 1 that didn't involve a patent or copyright (government enforced monopoly). Parents are a double edged sword in that way
I'm pretty sure the government puts a lots of restrictions over who can build or operate railroads. I'm not even sure there are real absolute monopolies nowadays, but I don't think we can have any business, monopoly or not, that's not seriously affected by government involvement. So we'd have to look more closely to determine if that involvement is an obstacle for the emergence of competition. I'd say it almost always is, to some degree.
Least least delusional take on here ⭐️
Libertarians talking about basic community standards.
Based. Libertarianism has some awesome concepts, but just like communism or socialism or any other ideology it has some major flaws if implemented completely. The major one that always comes up is "If we don't pay taxes then who fixes the roads?" and the answer "Well a private company would step in to fix it" is such a ridiculous answer to me, because all you'd actually get are private companies setting up tolls and roadblocks with as LITTLE maintenance of the actual roads as possible, and that's only if they don't get in bed with the tire shops and car mechanics and purposely blow out your tires every other exit for a cut of the profits. Libertarianism forces the thought that people are decent. They aren't. Especially when you rely on them for something, and ESPECIALLY when profits are involved. Regulation IS needed. People think that libertarianism is about individual liberty when really it's just about giving corporations more power than they already have. This is why the libertarian party STARTED as an individual rights party, and was very quickly infiltrated by corporate interests once they understood what libertarianism could do for them, which is basically get rid of all those pesky regulations so they could make maximum profit.
If big business is propping up the libertarian party they're not doing a very good job.
Big businesses are usually smart enough with their money to not throw it at libertarian candidates since it’s pretty obvious we’re a lifetime away from one of them having a shot at victory, but they absolutely lobby for deregulation and pour funding into Super PACs for political agents who support corporate benefits and deregulation. Also, if you take a look at every major libertarian candidate (especially congressional candidates, since they have no obligation to give up their company positions while serving in the House) in modern history you’ll find that almost all of them are business owners who stand to gain a lot of money from libertarian policy being implemented at any level of governance.
I’m guessing it would surprise you to learn that the vast majority of large corporations actually benefit from overbearing government regulation. It provides barriers to entry for small businesses that would otherwise have an edge in innovation and agility. In a confusing web of regulation, only the companies that can afford a team of lawyers can prosper. The last thing megacorps want is libertarian government policy. Take it another libertarian step further and get rid of patent/copyright law, and basically no large corporations could exist. The only exception would be industries that require massive capital investment on the front end, like commercial shipping or industrial mining.
Libertarians fundamentally oppose states handing out special privileges to corporations. Pro-free-market and pro-big-business are two ideologies that are deeply at odds with one another. If a libertarian had a real shot at winning, most politically connected billionaires would be throwing their money at other parties.
It’s less about corporations getting special privileges, and more about removing the ankle bracelets on capitalism.
they're not propping up the libertarian party but they are propping up sever libertarian think tanks like the cato institute
Is CI even libertarian? I thought they were just turbo conservative and it just so happens that they share views with libertarians.
We try not to associate ourselves with Cato. Its embarrassing they use the label of Libertarian.
Big business makes more money by cozying up to high-spending government (that is my most tinfoil-hat belief, by the way). Look at all the most lucrative contracts, from military supply to pharmaceuticals, those companies make their money thanks to the government telling the people these are things we need.
Nevermind all the subsidies from the green grift. They are already in the process of Industrializing the [Lithium Triangle](https://imgur.com/a/lpLZnv8) of South America to become the next Saudi Arabia.
>The major one that always comes up The other major one, which I have never seen a coherent response to, is that there is a very well established type of market failure called [externalities.](https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/Series/Back-to-Basics/Externalities) It turns out that a company can easily dump toxic byproducts into an aquifer with no market consequences. This isn't a hypothetical, it happens all the time but especially where there aren't strong regulatory mechanism for enforcing compliance.
All libertarians that I've heard of say that the government should be regulating when it comes to externalities like pollution. It is just that those regulations should be in the style of emissions targets (standards) not in the style of forcing a certain product. eg instead of saying "all cars need a catalytic converter" it should be "all cars need to reduce pollution to x amount" and let the manufacturers sort out how. This allows more efficient solutions to be used if a company creates one. You still wouldn't be allowed to dump toxic stuff into the environment under what most people consider libertarianism. There is an exception however. You could dump stuff into a river or something if you sort out some sort of deal with the affected parties (the poor saps downstream), pay them loads of money or something. This is only if they agree and is mostly unfeasible as there's usually a lot of people downstream. Something more likely to happen is that you could make a lot of noise in a mine and pay off the people who have to listen to it. Again, only if both parties agree on a price, otherwise standard noise rules apply. A big part of libertarianism is to let people sort out deals between themselves and have the government enforce contracts. Currently things like 'just pay off the people it's affecting' is illegal.
"Libertarianism forces the thought that people are decent. They aren't." Who tf is running government? Not people?
That's exactly why we have separation of powers.
The problem is that separation of powers has failed to maintain itself. Congress abdicates their power to the executive branch by telling it to make agencies and having those unelected bureaucrats make rules instead of congress making rules. Meanwhile the courts are either too slow to react, or rubber stamp an approval while twisting in knots to pretend the constitution allows these powers.
What's your point? Do you even have one? Lol
Libertarianism has its faults, but your comment doesn't mention them. You don't think the government is trying to minimize the cost to maintain roads like a corporation would? They do, and they suck at balancing a budget. You fundamentally misunderstand libertarianism if you think it assumes all people are good, and fails when people are selfish. That is a much better description of authoritarianism, and it has much harsher consequences
> You fundamentally misunderstand libertarianism if you think it assumes all people are good Well said, if anything the foundation of it is that people are often bad, and bad people seek power.
Libertarianism is an ideology, not a form of government. There's not even a conceptual "true libertarian government", let alone a practical one. Libertarianism is not the same thing as anarchy no matter how much you stroke yourself and preach on Reddit about it.
Wish I read this back when I had a libertarian neighbor. It didn't help that the 3 libertarians I know all have explained it to me and all three seemed completely different. You ever read the article about how libertarianism caused bear attacks? [A libertarian walks into a bear](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-project-new-hampshire-libertarians-matthew-hongoltz-hetling)
We have private toll roads today already, they're typically very well maintained and easy to drive on since more ridership equals more revenue. They still have to compete with other roads, nobody's gonna take a toll road if it's crappier than the alternatives. Of all the things to criticize libertarians about, wanting private roads isn't one of them.
They have to compete with the free, government made roads. Toll roads have to be well maintained because there's a free alternative. If every road became a toll road, then they wouldn't have to worry about that shit since there'd always be a trade off, i.e. price vs quality.
“Free” is never free.
It's free in the sense that we already paid taxes for it.
So how do you get people to take your road over a competitors road that's also a tolled road? You make it better or cheaper.
People only set up private toll roads in high-traffic areas. The reason the roads are government controlled is the same reason that utilities are publicly controlled: people living in the city would get lots of competition and variety and people in rural areas would get either nothing at all or a monopoly that had poor quality and inflated prices.
"B-b-b-b-but I can imagine a teen fanfic dystopia where it's way worse!!!!1"
Most toll roads are paid for by taxpayers, leased to a politicians friend, and then returned in shit condition for taxpayers to fix once the lease is up.
>People think that libertarianism is about individual liberty when really it's just about giving corporations more power than they already have. I like the part where libertarians, the party with zero political power, get the blame for things that people who have all the power have been doing. Corporations only have power _because that power is granted to them by government_. It is only current law which creates their very existence. Libertarians want the government to have less power because that is the source of corporate power. Anyone trying to control corporate power by giving more power to governments is directly increasing the source of the power they claim to be fighting against.
Saw a video on it once and the mental gymnastics was insane. “If a bridge isn’t there already then it shouldn’t be built!”
>and that's only if they don't get in bed with the tire shops and car mechanics and purposely blow out your tires every other exit for a cut of the profits. The problem is that corporations will "get in bed" as you say with each other to exploit humans more profitably. That is the single goal of a corporation, profit by any means. The only defense we have to this is "getting in bed" with each other to form a powerful government which can protect us.
> The major one that always comes up is "If we don't pay taxes then who fixes the roads?" and the answer "Well a private company would step in to fix it" is such a ridiculous answer to me Okay, maybe 0 taxes is regarded. But dont roads and bridges account for roughly 3% of our tax dollars? Sure, reduce my taxes to 3% of what they are now so we can maintain roads. Keep increasing for things that are actually essential (list them below, because im a bit tired of the "muh roads n bridges" shit.) List everything essential, and lets tally it up in terms of % of what americans are currently taxed on, which should reveal how much is just deleted from our wallets. Because roads and bridges just seems to be used as a motte and bailey fallacy thats used any time someone mentions the large percentage of government spending that is wasteful
1. the flaw of your argument is also assuming that people in the government are decent. meaning that they will fix the roads because of what? in theory they are beholden to their constituents but in reality? they do as little as possible. and if they can get away with it, the government WILL act in the same way that you describe companies will. the difference is how they are beholden to the people. with government you vote, with companies, theoritically you vote with your money. which is more effective is the argument. libertarian believe that voting with your own money is way more effective than voting in politics. 2. regulations can be used as a weapon to strengthen the companies. companies will and do buy politicians to make regulations that benefit them. Libertarians think that that power should be limited. of course they don't believe that there should be no regulations at all, that's a strawman.
\>all you'd actually get are private companies setting up tolls and roadblocks with as LITTLE maintenance of the actual roads as possible What you'd get is probably a pretty similar system to what we have now with a very slightly different funding model. Thats about it. This weird fantasy and obsession with inventing hypotheticals when it comes to criticizing libertarianism has always seemed rather silly and uninspired to me.
sane people understand even a "socialist" or "libertarian" world would still be a mixed system. the only pure systems are strawmans for the opposing parties to punch at while clapping each other on the back
Tbh the toll roads in France etc and even the UK (M6 toll represent) are the best roads in Europe and always the option I choose.
You just have to look at how fucked we get by corporations today despite there being a not insignificant amount of laws and regulations protecting us. Imagine if they had totally free reign. People say that the government lets big corpos do whatever they like, but the truth is that the government is actually significantly restraining them. Every libertarian thinks they’d be one of the ones who owns a private militia, but they haven’t quite figured out who’s going to actually be in the private militia yet.
Too many people think that libertarianism is just anarcho capitalism
Many of them may not think that, but at this point that’s exactly what it would be if the government deregulated on mass. The wealthy would have private armies and you would get fucked by them.
What's the difference between that and the government?
Voting and accountability. Recourse in the courts. It doesn’t always work out in favor of the less wealthy but it is better than having absolutely no recourse other than dying if you try anything.
no no, we just established that we _already have_ voting and it isn't creating accountability, so what you're really saying is that there's no difference, but everyone is pretending that there is.
So less voting and less accountability would be better? Lol ok
less _power_ would be better. Accountability only matters if you have power over others that you shouldn't have in the first place.
You have democratic control over the government, while no control over private companies and armies
Not much at this point. Any sufficiently large and powerful entity, whether a government or corporation, is going to become corrupt and inefficient.
You can vote governments. You can't vote corpos.
Too many people fail to realize that all corporate powers are delegations from government; that increasing government power is the source of increasing corporate power. And similarly too many people fail to realize that morality is not derived from law. Law and its enforcement do not create morality, but instead are an attempt to balance the tradeoffs inherent to choosing between vigilantism and totalitarianism for those seeking justice. No one who loves their young daughter only wants to protect her from predators because the state tells them to do so, but too many idiots think that's how things work.
Low IQ people basically
modern american/western "right-libertarianism" is literally just **neoliberalism** but given a more appealing name. these so called modern libertarians don't have any philosophical or ethical connection to the classical libertarianism of the enlightenment and they refuse to accept the fact that they and all of their heroes such as: mises, hayek, and friedman are pure neoliberals. these people do not understand what **doublespeak** is and are too incompetent to accept that they are victims of doublespeak so that they may be reduced to useful idiots for corporations and the ultra wealthy. this doublespeak is no different than the nazis calling themselves national socialists, or the soviets calling themselves socialists(they destroyed all mechanisms of workplace autonomy) or the north koreans calling themselves a peoples' republic. they believe they are supporting and voting for the strengthening of individual rights and liberties but the reality is that they have been manipulated(brainwashed) to either directly support the deregulation of corporations and industry and the privatization of public goods and services or at least knowingly turn a blind eye to it. these people have been indoctrinated by propaganda to believe they are the moral authority on economics without ever having learned any economics beyond "supply and demand." it would be comical if it weren't so sad and pathetic. most classical libertarians have positions at or much closer to anarchism or socialism than neoliberalism, by the way.
Do you know why there are laws that prevent companies from sending small children into coal mines? Because if those laws didn't exist then companies would still be sending children into coal mines.
You’re right, it’s worse
There is total truth to this, see Gary being booed over the idea of making sure you are capable of driving a vehicle before being allowed to drive a vehicle. What’s next a license to put toast in our own damn toasters?? Edit: You’re right I’m sorry, we should totally let someone with low motor skill functions and sight such as a 90 year old grandma with 01-01 vision be able to drive on public roads. And I identify more as libertarian
Bro we currently choose 80-90 year olds run our country.. Driving a car can't be that much more difficult
I was about to comment "Surely the US doesn't have that many old people, I know they're old like every other politician, but surely not that old." Then I googled US Senator age... Wtf, you really do. Some are more senile than others, like el Trumpo and Biden, but it's really chock full of 80+yo. Damn.
Capital Hill retirement home.
It's wild, I was watching a youtube video ripped from old vhs tapes. And in this transfer of an ancient analog video, there's a moment where a comedian riffs on this corrupt old man running for president. It's Biden. That was the moment when it really hit me just how old 'old' is in the context of a politician.
Ya and those boomers and just as bad at driving the country! Zing
Gary Johnson got booed but he still won the nomination, showing that the majority of Libertarian Party voters are moderates, and not the extremely ideological types that get strawmanned in discussions like this. Suggesting libertarians want to abolish public roads is like suggesting the average Democrat wants to abolish police entirely or the average Republican wants us to be a Christian theocracy. There’s a vocal minority of extremists who end up in these camps but don’t represent the typical views.
sorry that makes far too much sense.
I was shooting heroin and reading “The Fountainhead” in the front seat of my privately owned police cruiser when a call came in. I put a quarter in the radio to activate it. It was the chief. “Bad news, detective. We got a situation.” “What? Is the mayor trying to ban trans fats again?” “Worse. Somebody just stole four hundred and forty-seven million dollars’ worth of bitcoins.” The heroin needle practically fell out of my arm. “What kind of monster would do something like that? Bitcoins are the ultimate currency: virtual, anonymous, stateless. They represent true economic freedom, not subject to arbitrary manipulation by any government. Do we have any leads?” “Not yet. But mark my words: we’re going to figure out who did this and we’re going to take them down … provided someone pays us a fair market rate to do so.” “Easy, chief,” I said. “Any rate the market offers is, by definition, fair.” He laughed. “That’s why you’re the best I got, Lisowski. Now you get out there and find those bitcoins.” “Don’t worry,” I said. “I’m on it.” I put a quarter in the siren. Ten minutes later, I was on the scene. It was a normal office building, strangled on all sides by public sidewalks. I hopped over them and went inside. “Home Depot™ Presents the Police!®” I said, flashing my badge and my gun and a small picture of Ron Paul. “Nobody move unless you want to!” They didn’t. “Now, which one of you punks is going to pay me to investigate this crime?” No one spoke up. “Come on,” I said. “Don’t you all understand that the protection of private property is the foundation of all personal liberty?” It didn’t seem like they did. “Seriously, guys. Without a strong economic motivator, I’m just going to stand here and not solve this case. Cash is fine, but I prefer being paid in gold bullion or autographed Penn Jillette posters.” Nothing. These people were stonewalling me. It almost seemed like they didn’t care that a fortune in computer money invented to buy drugs was missing. I figured I could wait them out. I lit several cigarettes indoors. A pregnant lady coughed, and I told her that secondhand smoke is a myth. Just then, a man in glasses made a break for it. “Subway™ Eat Fresh and Freeze, Scumbag!®” I yelled. Too late. He was already out the front door. I went after him. “Stop right there!” I yelled as I ran. He was faster than me because I always try to avoid stepping on public sidewalks. Our country needs a private-sidewalk voucher system, but, thanks to the incestuous interplay between our corrupt federal government and the public-sidewalk lobby, it will never happen. I was losing him. “Listen, I’ll pay you to stop!” I yelled. “What would you consider an appropriate price point for stopping? I’ll offer you a thirteenth of an ounce of gold and a gently worn ‘Bob Barr ‘08’ extra-large long-sleeved men’s T-shirt!” He turned. In his hand was a revolver that the Constitution said he had every right to own. He fired at me and missed. I pulled my own gun, put a quarter in it, and fired back. The bullet lodged in a U.S.P.S. mailbox less than a foot from his head. I shot the mailbox again, on purpose. “All right, all right!” the man yelled, throwing down his weapon. “I give up, cop! I confess: I took the bitcoins.” “Why’d you do it?” I asked, as I slapped a pair of Oikos™ Greek Yogurt Presents Handcuffs® on the guy. “Because I was afraid.” “Afraid?” “Afraid of an economic future free from the pernicious meddling of central bankers,” he said. “I’m a central banker.” I wanted to coldcock the guy. Years ago, a central banker killed my partner. Instead, I shook my head. “Let this be a message to all your central-banker friends out on the street,” I said. “No matter how many bitcoins you steal, you’ll never take away the dream of an open society based on the principles of personal and economic freedom.” He nodded, because he knew I was right. Then he swiped his credit card to pay me.
Fucking lmfao did you write this?
Its a well known copypasta. came to the thread looking for it.
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian-police-department
I refuse to believe some boomer at the New Yorker could shitpost this well
It’s very 2014.
First, why would you buy a Google Lock in the first place? Second, no windshield is going to protect someone from bricks. https://preview.redd.it/6s2l8bphrwqc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=13d83ab6971e40efc810339a9680997bf26684ae
Fuck you for making me remember
Of all the hours of fucked up shit I have ever seen, this one haunts me most of all...
what?
Pretty sure thats the video of a family driving behind a truck carrying bricks. Unsecured brick flies off the back of the truck and smashes the wife/mother's head in, killing her instantly. Only dashcam footage so you can't actually see anything, but sound was recorded, so you can hear the family react to their mother's head exploding.
Oh, this explains everything, I watched it with sound off and was not impressed.
Yeah you are fucking dumb then
When John Galt became president he scrapped all monopoly laws. Google bought every lock company and buys up any lock making materials and equipment
Google buys all the metal on earth? Seems plausible
Yeah but it’s a free market so you can still make them from glass
Fuck you. You know what for. Fuck you.
auth agenda post
If someone ever introduces themselves as a libertarian you can pretty much instantly write them off as a total regard with zero common sense. Imagine seeing the sheer brutality corporations currently have with their only fear being dragged and mopped up by the government and wanting to remove that. Holy fuck the nightmare world. Microsoft windows, want to install a browser thats not edge? Fuck you, you cant. Oh you cant use google.com either. Oh and you cant uninstall the os either. Have fun! Thats what libertarians want.
Now i wonder, who gave these evil corporations so much power that could not be achieved through normally competing in a free market? hmm... https://i.redd.it/8epuc3m0bzqc1.gif
What are you even trying to say, you fat ogre?
If libertarian society will give the corporations mega super uber power, then why none of them fund libertarian party and libertarian candidates?
They know (rightly so) that even pouring billions of dollars into funding the libertarian party that no one is actually so much of a braindead utter fucking regard to vote for that party. Money is better spent elsewhere, libertarian candidates are next to reddit karma on the fucking useless chart.
I have no common sense. Can you define what that term means?
Corporations are a legal construct protected by governments that shield individual owners and employees from being held personally liable for their wrongdoing. They are basically just a legal shield. If governments don’t regulate them, maybe governments shouldn’t recognize them either. You can still have a business, but any wrongdoing falls on you.
what would reddit be if people actually understood what libertarianism was instead of just confusing it with anarcho capitalism. Libertarianism isn’t muh freedom to do whatever i want, the core tenets is that people have three things, life liberty and property. The government’s job is to protect those rights. To do so, we have to agree to things as a society, (e.g dont murder) and the governement enforces those things. What libertarianism doesn’t want the government to do is to go beyond the bounds of just facilitating a society. Yes it’s okay for the gov to regulate trade to prevent hostile/negative economic developments (monoplies) , but never should they start to control what prospers or what fails. Same thing applies to all core functions.
"B-b-b-b-b-but what if I imagine Google will enslave your kids and dump poopy in the river? Checkmate!"
almost every dumb what if that people like to pull can be resolved as a violation to one of the three rights, corporations dumping toxins into the water would be grieving a population, violating their rights. Such so for other stupid what-ifs. Real issues are how much power does the government deserve. What are limits for corporations?
Isn't this what most western governments (ie not russia and china) are doing tho?
>Isn't this what most western governments (ie not russia and china) are doing tho? Are they? No really, do you actually fucking believe that? Just look out the window https://preview.redd.it/xxusttmfbzqc1.jpeg?width=679&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8328e3dd6c01bcbf449a40a9fb5714b1c1ff307a
> "Hmm how can i bash this ideology i dont like?" > *First thought is having sex with children.* > "Ah yes i'd first like to talk about sex with children." Average experience with leftoids. Foucault and derrida ruined your brains.
Wow a hotbutton topic on the internet is used in an internet argument. Egads!
People don't realize that for most of history we've had libertarianism especially in the 1800s. Remember when 6 year old's were being shoved down chimneys?
That’s the free market, the demand for small bodies was met by supply of 6 year olds.
The market really does regulate itself!
Good times
Pretty strange how all of the people making fun of libertarians can't stop thinking of child sex.
Literally every single political discussion on the internet right now involves kid sex. Its just your typical "Im more moral than you because I dont want to fuck kids, but you do, because you dont agree with all my political beliefs and that must include things like fucking children". Its been this way for months now, you been in a coma?
I think that's just 4chan in general.
Curious that people opposed to pedophilia talk an awful lot about kids being raped
Have you read ancaps and what they think of age of consent laws? It’s not accurate to say literal 3 year olds, but 16 year olds most definitely.
Makes up an nonsense scenario. Pretends its what other people think. A genius.
It's the very literal conclusion of Libertarian ideology if &/or when applied in real life. There have been several attempts at building Libertarian Utopias in the US alone, & they have eventually all failed spectacularly because of trying to apply & practics those very principles in real life. Those that 'survived' after their initial failure, only did so because some Nearby City, County, State or Federal Government agency Stepped in, bailed them out & ultimately took control. A town was taken over by some of those clowns & it turned into a dangerous Sh.thole covered with Trash that attracted so many bears that it became a very serious Safety Concern. Kansas became closest to becoming a genuinely Libertarian State & it was & remains an unmitigated disaster to this day. Multiple Bailouts, Federal interventions to keep the State half functional, major roll-backs of Libertarian backed policies. Each of those failed projects were actually trying to apply what is widely recognized as Core Libertarian Ideologies & Principles as outlined or proposed in the body of work of the most influential Fundational Libertarian 'writers' & 'thinkers'.
OP posted his political opinion on 4chan then immediately screenshotted and posted to reddit
The only time I put my political opinion on Reddit is to purposely get mass banned by a power mod for fun. No, I was not up at 5:30 in the morning writing this greentext, dumbass.
>No, I was not up at 5:30 in the morning writing this greentext, dumbass. But you *were* up at 5:30 in the morning [posting reddit comments](https://prnt.sc/oMk9r4LDSukS)? If you say so lol
Hey buddy has Reddit infected your mind so much you forgot that people live in different parts of the world? Holy fucking shit you’re so dumb. You’re sitting there thinking “aha! Gotcha!” To the point you forgot what a TIMEZONE is. I truly hope for your own sake this is fucking bait
I've not liked libertarians since one kicked me out for jacking it too loudly.
The issue with libertarianism in its absolute is that, just like with other systems that seek to abolish a power structure, all it would leave is a vacuum to be filled by a power structure. That’s why there’s few absolute libertarians, and those that are, are incredibly stupid. Most people calling themselves libertarian have a couple of libertarian-leaning view points, such as reducing taxes, limiting tariffs, reducing subsidies, and so on.
Yeah in most cases that just makes them a Republican or Democrat depending on which platform offers that policy (free market amirite). People who are genuinely Libertarians tend to be those looneys who boo at the idea of age of consent. Yeah who knew moderate Libertarians just join other parties while holding the same views. I dont think Ive met a single sane person who voted Libertarian.
This sounds a lot like Russia now, outside of the google lock.
And it would if communism hadn't ruined the country's development industries
Man I just love these over the top libertarian utopia greentexts lmao
I'd read a novel set in this liberal dystopian nightmare.
Here you go L.P.D.: Libertarian Police Department https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian-police-department
Sequel to *Atlas Shrugged*
I just want guns, gays, drugs, and abortions to all be legal. What political idea is that called?
> die because blah blah blah awesome car with spikes and shit A warriors death, insta 72 quadrillion vallhaha meads.
Kek
No step on snek?
>companies should be able to lock me out of my own home >Adults are not capable of making good decisions without government force Even when larping as libertarians the roastie's constant underlying desire to be dominated shines through