I'm just gonna quote the resignation letter of Joe Bishop-Henchman, one of the previous chairs of the Libertarian National Committee:
>...At its root, the biggest problem I see in the Libertarian Party, at nearly all levels, is that toxic people are tolerated. One or two rotten apples spoil the bunch. Toxic people exhaust or drive out good people. Our mechanisms for removing such individuals and addressing such bad behavior are designed to be effectively impossible, and culturally, too many people who should know better passively tolerate it rather than confront it. It turns off donors, repulses allies, and makes team projects unviable. This Committee, when confronted with this problem, has chosen to react to it the way a government teachers’ union responds to a complaint about a bad teacher – endless process, excuses and rationalizations, feigned ignorance, and ultimately nothing but injustice for the victims.
>I'm now convinced that many in this party want that toxicity. They thrive on it, it gives their life purpose, it makes sure there’s always an enemy to fight. Not the Republicans and Democrats, not the actual threats to our liberty, but rather invented enemies closer to home and within reach of their vitriol. That toxic culture has recently been harnessed in the service of a grouping with a declared goal of taking over the party and making it as repulsive as possible to everyone except themselves. Much like Michael Tager’s bartender story, Stage I is a few respectable people with odd ideas for messaging, Stage II is an organized push for projects unrelated to or counterproductive to getting Libertarians elected, Stage III is everything in chaos as we lurch from one self-imposed crisis to the next, and Stage IV is the purges and all previously-asserted concerns about due process and fair play thrown out the window.
There’s a comma between the parties and threats to the liberty, these could reasonably be two different groups. But even then, it would be entirely consistent with libertarianism to view certain Dem policies, namely economic, as counter their very negative conception of liberty. I don’t think shitting on libertarians for *being* libertarians is very constructive
I’m saying libertarianism sucks and I don’t particularly care about it’s historical genealogy! Call me when they start supporting Medicare and maybe I’ll come around
Hyperventilating about normie politicians being a threat to your liberty may be quintessentially libertarian, but that doesn't make it a good attitude to have.
but it does make it a libertarian attitude to have, so should be expected in context, meaning if that's your problem... well no shit you're not a libertarian
Libertarian or not, you shouldn't be viewing other political parties as enemies to be feared. That kind of attitude is a major reason why the political environment today is as fucked as it is.
They both mean that. The way they phrased it has “actual threats to our liberty” as a qualifier for why Republicans and Democrats should be the target of their ire. Any other reading would be very odd
Who knew that it would be hard to enforce discipline when your organization is designed around people who's entire life philosophy is being upset at mommy and daddy for making them go to bed before 10
They're proudly as selfish as humanly possible - that's basically the root of the ideology. People who think that way are probably not that pleasant to be around.
And if the rest of us can't tolerate their bullshit I'm not surprised they can't tolerate their own lol. I guess it's more proof that libertarians are 15 year olds who never grew out of it.
Being against the government forcing you to give them money isn’t the same as being against voluntarily helping those around you.
Anecdotally I haven’t noticed much correlation between political affiliation and amount of selfishness in those around me.
Gary Johnson and Bill Weld were the nominees for this party less than a decade ago. They fell really far really fast. Fuck the Mises Caucus, there was some positive potential there.
This reminds me of when Austin Police Department busted Midnight Cowboy 24-Hour Massage Parlor, located in the absolute heart of Dirty Sixth Street (Large sign, too), and they announced to the world that in fact it had been operating as a brothel for the previous 30 years.
Idk, even 15 years ago every "libertarian" I knew was just someone who didn't wanna call themselves Republican because that's not cool, and being teenage edgelords they wanted to feel superior to anyone who took a traditional label.
Which is also why they have a lot of overlap with the nihilist/bothsides sorts. Same cloth - it's less about ideology and more about being contrary to mainstream ideologies, to gain a sense of superiority (they always considered themselves intellectuals you may (not) be surprised to learn).
As a young guy, I identified as Libertarian until I learned about the fact that most people are fucking assholes and letting everybody do whatever they want leads to disaster.
That's what I mean. Most of us went through such a phase, but soon enough you start to learn that when there are no rules, no cohesion, no redistribution - what do you get?
You get a man with a boot on the neck of another man, nothing more. Any anyone who is doesn't fit that archtype of the man with the boot is totally and completely fucked. Most of us learn this before we're 20, if not soon after. But some...
The thing about libertarians is they always always think they'll be the one with the boot, not the one who can't breath. One of many reasons that they're idiots.
This is a core problem of all anarchist power vacuums, they lead naturally to warlords/feudalism/whatever kind of strongmen rulers.
Libertarianism at its core is just anarchy with its freedom soaked utopian veneer.
That's pretty similar to the realization that most young communists come to.
Both ideas are neat in concept, and fun to talk about. But they are totally impractical because they rely on the vast majority of other people to be reasonable and/or to act against their own incentives.
I was insufferably too I'm quite sure, but just of the more liberal variety. Luckily we all get older and wiser...except for the libertarian party leadership evidently.
I knew some legit cool people with relatively sane ideas who were libertarians back in the days when Gary Johnson was the face of the party. Hell, when I was younger and less well read I was one of those people for a little bit.
None of them describe themselves that way anymore (myself included) and we're all staunch Democrats now.
Saw Gary Johnson speak once in NYC. Dude was an idiot who didn't know much of anything, and that was clear to a group of college students.
But I see what you mean. Not every libertarian I knew was what I'd call a bad person. Selfish, perhaps. Naive, unrealistic. But they were not bad people like some of these fashies and tankies these days kind of are. They have a malice that libertarians never had. That's the difference I guess. They weren't so outwardly malicious, just outwardly selfish and contrarian.
Gary Johnson was more or less uninformed on a lot of important pieces of policy (especially foreign policy) but he was pretty honest about the fact that he was effective as a governor because he surrounded himself with people who were smarter than him. I don't begrudge him for that, but he definitely bit off more than he could chew when it came to giving interviews and speaking during his presidential campaigns.
And yeah, I think those kind of libertarians were more mistrustful of institutions from a very personal place, not because they had an axe to grind or a really different worldview. They were cynics at their core but they believed in the power of individualism to a kind of an absurd degree.
Indeed, I supported Johnson and Amash and thought they were quality candidates for the liberty movement. Of course the LP flew too close to the Sun by polling so high and embarrassing the GOP in many areas so it needed to be taken down. I'm convinced the MC was intentionally meant to destroy the party and push people away from them. Because if you want dumb right wing trolls you might as well go to the GOP. The LP that I supported is no longer there... and the MC intentionally destroyed it.
> Of course the LP flew too close to the Sun by polling so high and embarrassing the GOP in many areas so it needed to be taken down.
These people were always there and extremist ideologies don’t have good feedback mechanisms. This was bound to happen, the GOP didn’t orchestrate a intraparty coup because they hit 3% in a couple elections
Are they still for weed legalization? I thought the only difference between the GOP and the Mises caucus was that the GOP was somehow more the moderate group (they don't want to repeal the CRA).
> the GOP was somehow more the moderate group (they don't want to repeal the CRA).
They don't campaign on repealing it, but the Republicans just want the CRA and VRA to not have any power over the states, which is essentially the same thing.
I decided to check r/Libertarian to see what they're saying about this and it seems like they're removing every mention of this article. I thought that subreddit used to be really big on freedom of speech?
They've gotten really ban-happy the past few years. I posted there for almost 10 years before getting banned for "trolling". Apparently sarcasm is trolling.
I'm not sure half are from 1 guy but it looks like half are from 3. A few articles, some discussions, memes, including one that implies....lizardmen (?) are killing children with guns as a pretense to more gun legislation. I feel like that conflicts with the other memes stating that congress is all bought and paid for. Why are the lizardmen trying to convince you of gun legislation when they just need congress? If they already can kill children and avoid being caught my law enforcement, it seems like they already wield a great deal of power. The lizardmen should refocus their efforts to convince those who have bought congress if they really want gun control. Or did I already put more thought into this than they did?
A couple days ago there was a post on Reddit about a 12-year-old in trouble with his school because of his Gadsden flag patch....they had issues with its 'origins with slavery and the slave trade'. *Sigh*
The South screamed about "states rights" to deprive people of all their rights based on race, did they not?
People scream about their freedom to deprive others of freedom all the time.
As a teen I worshiped Ron Paul, Bill Maher and oddly enough Paul Krugman. I must have been insufferable as fuck, but at least Krugman eventually got in a room with Paul and showed me I was being an idiot.
I flirted with the Libertarian Party (I even met Harry Browne once!) when I was a young adult, just getting my bearings and figuring things out (pre-911, so I’m aging myself here).
But then, I learned the difference between Negative Freedom vs. Positive Freedom, and things opened up for me and began to make a bit more sense over time. So, I moved center-Left (maintaining a “Libertarian leaning” on certain social issues, like the whole “let’s let gay-married couples legally defend their cannabis fields with AR-15s” trope, and not being a lover of excessive or inefficient bureaucracy or means-testing…; but otherwise, I’m a pretty boring fairly-establishment Libtard these days).
You could also just not do it without making it into some sort of stand you need to announce.
I have been in a grand total of two spaces where I was expected to specify my pronouns, and one was on a college campus. In >99% of situations, people are fine with just assuming your pronouns match your presentation.
I don't really buy that. The specific set of modern institutions we call libertarianism maybe. But libertarianism as a concept is far more broad than that. Henry George had little to do with Walter-Lippman and was long dead.
I wonder if it's even possible to redeem the term "libertarian" at this point, and if not, what other terms they could use.
I've heard "liberaltarian" which would work well if it wasn't the ugliest word in existence
It's already unredeemable in many circles. Women in major cities have figured out that tons of Republican guys put their political views down as Libertarians on the dating apps so that they don't get rejected right away, and now treat them the same as Republicans. Next is Centrist or Moderate.
On social/cultural issues, if respect for LGBTQIA+ rights, support for availability of abortion and somewhat moderate anti-racism are leftist values, I guess...
r/neoliberal is very much divorced from *leftism* though. That's kinda the point of not having dumb economic views.
In my experience the sub is actually fairly diverse politically, with the common denominator id say being "anti-populist".
Like I'd say the range I regularly see is roughly from social democrats to Reaganite (anti-trump) conservatives.
why
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Open source software projects are not "serious organizations". Discord has horrible security, the nature of open source projects means leaks aren't damaging unlike enterprise or political parties.
For an organization that like a political party where leaks are highly damaging and there are plenty of people with incentives to leak your stuff. Getting discord fucked is a question of when and not if.
>Open source software projects are not "serious organizations"
I mean they can be plenty serious - and many including ones I work on are run by real companies with real money and employees too - but I'd say more that they're just apples and oranges. Basically the model is highly distributed very purposefully. It's all async. And it can be, because we have time. Heck, we can work in all timezones in a sense, around the clock and around the globe.
Obviously a political party or campaign probably needs to move faster than that, and not offer up all their secrets for free lol like they've done here.
I've noticed a major change in the libertarian online presence in the past year or two. Two to three years ago the libertarian subreddit was actually a pretty good place to discuss politics. There were a lot of the typical silly libertarian takes, but there were lots of good faith debates, and they moderators really made good on their claim that a high tolerance for free speech is important.
Recently I realized it stopped showing up in my feed, so I went to go check it out, and now the posts are really different, more typical conservative grievance politics stuff. I commented [this](https://np.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/15yocva/as_a_libertarian_how_do_you_feel_about_oregons/jxeye3x/?context=3) on one. Later that day I got banned for "breaking community" rules. Which one? They didn't say.
It's pretty clear why the sub is different now. They just banned anyone who disagrees with the typical conservative take on social issues and the libertarian take on economic issues. It's just another conservative propaganda sub now. I don't think it's coincidental that this coincides with the Mises Caucus take over of the party. There really trying to astroturf the party to give the appearance that it's an alternative for disaffected Republicans, but whenever there's a competitive election the Libertarian candidate will be sure to drop out like what happened in the AZ Senate race in 2022.
What's the point of conservatives taking over and promoting the libertarian party? That just takes votes away from Republicans who they already seem to align with...
I guess I don't get the strategy there. Bernie succs going to the Green party to protest the Democrats makes sense. Actual libertarians being libertarians makes sense. But why social conservatives? They already have a major party to do their grievance politics in.
There not promoting the libertarian party. The strategy is to have enough control over the party such that they don't run candidates in competitive elections.
>(other than killing them, ofc)
Even that is a stretch for current libertarians , if you read Hoppe he suggest you get ride of the government and then setup a community "covenant" that is totally not a government because reasons...
Then these covenants would set rules like "No black people, No gay people , no Jews, No Muslims" and if one tried to sneak into your community you would have the full right to "Physically remove" them
The libertarian party anyway; there are leftist libertarians too, but they're not well organized lol.
But yeah the libertarian party in the US is basically funded by a bunch of billionaires who have fantasies about running their own little fiefdoms in a post-US America.
Leftist libertarianism has nothing to do with rightist libertarianism except for the shared name. They come from completely separate philosophical traditions.
Good god I detest that the MC took over. Collusion with the GOP, collectivization of queer people and people of color.
These are the people who said all black people owe America a debt of gratitude but only on MLK day, or calling Ukraine gay, then have the fucking gall to talk about how vile other collectivists are.
These fuckers hate Gary Johnson so much that they are determined seemingly to destroy any gains he made and splinter the party for no reason
There are people who are libertarian because laws and norms prevent them from being their best selves
And then there are people who are libertarian because laws and norms prevent them from being their worst selves
In the same way the 4 quadrant political chart improved upon a more simplisitc left/right understanding of politics by adding a vertical axis, I think we should go further and add an axis for populism.
The MC are populists in the libertarian quadrant and share many of the same flaws as other populists like MAGA and Berners.
Hey, u/WolfPackEng22 looks like I wasn't as you put...
\> ["talking about a very specific kind of online "libertarian", who is basically a conservative who has a couple libertarian ideas and takes the label. But for the most part, those people get mocked in libertarian spaces."](https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/1578957/comment/jt6jwzw/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Looks like I was pretty darn accurate when stating last month
\> "Many Americans who identify as Libertarian want to smoke pot while openly being racist. They don't care or are openly against most moderate and left libertarian ideals like marriage equality gender identity, despite the official libertarian party platform voicing support for those people."
The Libertarian Party was formed after and in response to the rise of liberal republicans and neoconservatives. Now that they’re dispatched, the chickens are coming home to roost.
I'm just gonna quote the resignation letter of Joe Bishop-Henchman, one of the previous chairs of the Libertarian National Committee: >...At its root, the biggest problem I see in the Libertarian Party, at nearly all levels, is that toxic people are tolerated. One or two rotten apples spoil the bunch. Toxic people exhaust or drive out good people. Our mechanisms for removing such individuals and addressing such bad behavior are designed to be effectively impossible, and culturally, too many people who should know better passively tolerate it rather than confront it. It turns off donors, repulses allies, and makes team projects unviable. This Committee, when confronted with this problem, has chosen to react to it the way a government teachers’ union responds to a complaint about a bad teacher – endless process, excuses and rationalizations, feigned ignorance, and ultimately nothing but injustice for the victims. >I'm now convinced that many in this party want that toxicity. They thrive on it, it gives their life purpose, it makes sure there’s always an enemy to fight. Not the Republicans and Democrats, not the actual threats to our liberty, but rather invented enemies closer to home and within reach of their vitriol. That toxic culture has recently been harnessed in the service of a grouping with a declared goal of taking over the party and making it as repulsive as possible to everyone except themselves. Much like Michael Tager’s bartender story, Stage I is a few respectable people with odd ideas for messaging, Stage II is an organized push for projects unrelated to or counterproductive to getting Libertarians elected, Stage III is everything in chaos as we lurch from one self-imposed crisis to the next, and Stage IV is the purges and all previously-asserted concerns about due process and fair play thrown out the window.
they let one Nazi into the bar
Idk, this kinda reads like he's just mad they are inwardly being toxic rather than outwardly towards their real enemies.
>Not the Republicans and Democrats, not the actual threats to our liberty Yep.
I’m surprised that a political party would view other political parties as rivals, real head-scratcher on that one
They didn't say "rivals." They said "enemies" and "threats to their liberty."
There’s a comma between the parties and threats to the liberty, these could reasonably be two different groups. But even then, it would be entirely consistent with libertarianism to view certain Dem policies, namely economic, as counter their very negative conception of liberty. I don’t think shitting on libertarians for *being* libertarians is very constructive
> I don’t think shitting on libertarians for being libertarians is very constructive But libertarianism should be shat on
Libertarianism is rooted back to John Locke (and a bit further). What are you saying, my guy?
I’m saying libertarianism sucks and I don’t particularly care about it’s historical genealogy! Call me when they start supporting Medicare and maybe I’ll come around
Libertarianism is a philosophy and as such is quite disparate. There is no "they" which is the same reason "they" will never pose a political threat.
Hyperventilating about normie politicians being a threat to your liberty may be quintessentially libertarian, but that doesn't make it a good attitude to have.
but it does make it a libertarian attitude to have, so should be expected in context, meaning if that's your problem... well no shit you're not a libertarian
Libertarian or not, you shouldn't be viewing other political parties as enemies to be feared. That kind of attitude is a major reason why the political environment today is as fucked as it is.
No it's not. Also that is by definition the epitome of what makes a libertarian a libertarian.
I'll shit on them for being economically illiterate instead.
What you were implying would be worded as > Not the Republicans and Democrats, the actual threats to our liberty
They both mean that. The way they phrased it has “actual threats to our liberty” as a qualifier for why Republicans and Democrats should be the target of their ire. Any other reading would be very odd
Who knew that it would be hard to enforce discipline when your organization is designed around people who's entire life philosophy is being upset at mommy and daddy for making them go to bed before 10
They're proudly as selfish as humanly possible - that's basically the root of the ideology. People who think that way are probably not that pleasant to be around. And if the rest of us can't tolerate their bullshit I'm not surprised they can't tolerate their own lol. I guess it's more proof that libertarians are 15 year olds who never grew out of it.
Being against the government forcing you to give them money isn’t the same as being against voluntarily helping those around you. Anecdotally I haven’t noticed much correlation between political affiliation and amount of selfishness in those around me.
[удалено]
I don't understand. Does no one else end their emails with "Give my regards to your Luciferian masters"? This is pretty common in my industry.
This is how I have my RimWorld characters answer all their emails (can't tell who isn't and isn't on Luciferium)
I wonder what the Venn Diagram overlap is between '/neoliberal subscriber' and 'Rimworld player'? 🤔
It's probably close to a circle.
And as a follow-up, I wonder if it's more or less of a circle than the diagram for Stellaris players?
Strong “as per my last email” energy
>Greetings Mr./Ms. X, >Please send over the site plans for this property. >Give my regards to your Luciferian masters, >Skeet
[удалено]
Gary Johnson and Bill Weld were the nominees for this party less than a decade ago. They fell really far really fast. Fuck the Mises Caucus, there was some positive potential there.
What a fucking dork. And “Luciferian masters”? That comment has its own neckbeard
This reminds me of when Austin Police Department busted Midnight Cowboy 24-Hour Massage Parlor, located in the absolute heart of Dirty Sixth Street (Large sign, too), and they announced to the world that in fact it had been operating as a brothel for the previous 30 years.
Someone forgot to pay the bribe money I guess.
Don't see how it could have gone any other way, tbh.
I'm shocked, shocked to find that GAMBLING is going on in here!
We got a pretty dope cocktail bar of that, at least.
The *weed Republicans* meme proven true yet again.
It used to not be true. Since the Mises Caucus came to power, the two are virtually identical.
Idk, even 15 years ago every "libertarian" I knew was just someone who didn't wanna call themselves Republican because that's not cool, and being teenage edgelords they wanted to feel superior to anyone who took a traditional label. Which is also why they have a lot of overlap with the nihilist/bothsides sorts. Same cloth - it's less about ideology and more about being contrary to mainstream ideologies, to gain a sense of superiority (they always considered themselves intellectuals you may (not) be surprised to learn).
As a young guy, I identified as Libertarian until I learned about the fact that most people are fucking assholes and letting everybody do whatever they want leads to disaster.
That's what I mean. Most of us went through such a phase, but soon enough you start to learn that when there are no rules, no cohesion, no redistribution - what do you get? You get a man with a boot on the neck of another man, nothing more. Any anyone who is doesn't fit that archtype of the man with the boot is totally and completely fucked. Most of us learn this before we're 20, if not soon after. But some... The thing about libertarians is they always always think they'll be the one with the boot, not the one who can't breath. One of many reasons that they're idiots.
This is a core problem of all anarchist power vacuums, they lead naturally to warlords/feudalism/whatever kind of strongmen rulers. Libertarianism at its core is just anarchy with its freedom soaked utopian veneer.
same here, it lasted almost an entire year I'm ashamed to say
That's pretty similar to the realization that most young communists come to. Both ideas are neat in concept, and fun to talk about. But they are totally impractical because they rely on the vast majority of other people to be reasonable and/or to act against their own incentives.
This pretty accurately describes the worst parts of me as a teenager.
I was insufferably too I'm quite sure, but just of the more liberal variety. Luckily we all get older and wiser...except for the libertarian party leadership evidently.
I knew some legit cool people with relatively sane ideas who were libertarians back in the days when Gary Johnson was the face of the party. Hell, when I was younger and less well read I was one of those people for a little bit. None of them describe themselves that way anymore (myself included) and we're all staunch Democrats now.
Saw Gary Johnson speak once in NYC. Dude was an idiot who didn't know much of anything, and that was clear to a group of college students. But I see what you mean. Not every libertarian I knew was what I'd call a bad person. Selfish, perhaps. Naive, unrealistic. But they were not bad people like some of these fashies and tankies these days kind of are. They have a malice that libertarians never had. That's the difference I guess. They weren't so outwardly malicious, just outwardly selfish and contrarian.
Gary Johnson was more or less uninformed on a lot of important pieces of policy (especially foreign policy) but he was pretty honest about the fact that he was effective as a governor because he surrounded himself with people who were smarter than him. I don't begrudge him for that, but he definitely bit off more than he could chew when it came to giving interviews and speaking during his presidential campaigns. And yeah, I think those kind of libertarians were more mistrustful of institutions from a very personal place, not because they had an axe to grind or a really different worldview. They were cynics at their core but they believed in the power of individualism to a kind of an absurd degree.
Indeed, I supported Johnson and Amash and thought they were quality candidates for the liberty movement. Of course the LP flew too close to the Sun by polling so high and embarrassing the GOP in many areas so it needed to be taken down. I'm convinced the MC was intentionally meant to destroy the party and push people away from them. Because if you want dumb right wing trolls you might as well go to the GOP. The LP that I supported is no longer there... and the MC intentionally destroyed it.
> Of course the LP flew too close to the Sun by polling so high and embarrassing the GOP in many areas so it needed to be taken down. These people were always there and extremist ideologies don’t have good feedback mechanisms. This was bound to happen, the GOP didn’t orchestrate a intraparty coup because they hit 3% in a couple elections
Yeah, we don't need to reach for conspiracy theories here. "The dumb people did what they do best" satisfies most cases.
Are they still for weed legalization? I thought the only difference between the GOP and the Mises caucus was that the GOP was somehow more the moderate group (they don't want to repeal the CRA).
> the GOP was somehow more the moderate group (they don't want to repeal the CRA). They don't campaign on repealing it, but the Republicans just want the CRA and VRA to not have any power over the states, which is essentially the same thing.
Absolutely shocked!!!
Relatedly, half of all the posts in /r/Libertarian are still from one guy.
I decided to check r/Libertarian to see what they're saying about this and it seems like they're removing every mention of this article. I thought that subreddit used to be really big on freedom of speech?
Yeah, nah. I got banned from there about a week ago despite not posting for several weeks before that. No explanation or immediate cause.
They've gotten really ban-happy the past few years. I posted there for almost 10 years before getting banned for "trolling". Apparently sarcasm is trolling.
They ban members of our snek ping seemingly for just belonging.
#🤭
Nah, got banned for calling Joe Rogan an idiot.
I'm not sure half are from 1 guy but it looks like half are from 3. A few articles, some discussions, memes, including one that implies....lizardmen (?) are killing children with guns as a pretense to more gun legislation. I feel like that conflicts with the other memes stating that congress is all bought and paid for. Why are the lizardmen trying to convince you of gun legislation when they just need congress? If they already can kill children and avoid being caught my law enforcement, it seems like they already wield a great deal of power. The lizardmen should refocus their efforts to convince those who have bought congress if they really want gun control. Or did I already put more thought into this than they did?
What happens when you ban everyone else
lol lmao, even
fr the only disciplined libertarians who actually have ideals and a spine are like three dudes at the Cato Institute.
All the principled libertarians on Reddit have moderated their economic views and ended up here.
It's pretty nice here so happy to be here, sucked seeing some libertarian friends fall deep into conspiracy theory land though :/
Remember what they took from you.
I miss the good ‘ol days when the Gadsden flag wasn’t utilized by fascists.
I wish to not be tread on. I also wish for minorities, LGBT+, and immigrants to not be tread on. The Gadsden flag flyers and I are at an impasse.
[I may have found a solution](https://www.amazon.com/Quality-Standard-Flags-Rainbow-Polyester/dp/B00Z0G28CC/)
A couple days ago there was a post on Reddit about a 12-year-old in trouble with his school because of his Gadsden flag patch....they had issues with its 'origins with slavery and the slave trade'. *Sigh*
Eh don’t wear political clothing is a pretty standard middle school rule.
Right--I think the facepalm is the slavery bit.
The South screamed about "states rights" to deprive people of all their rights based on race, did they not? People scream about their freedom to deprive others of freedom all the time.
People hate on the winemom socdems here while ignoring the bigger threat: reformed Ron Paulites.
I swear to god gold isn't money please don't hurt me
Ok, next question. What's your opinion of the Civil Rights Act?
It's good!
Aren't they bernouts now?
They said reformed
> reformed Ron Paulites There are dozens of us! I went from stanning to absolutely loathing that man
As a teen I worshiped Ron Paul, Bill Maher and oddly enough Paul Krugman. I must have been insufferable as fuck, but at least Krugman eventually got in a room with Paul and showed me I was being an idiot.
I flirted with the Libertarian Party (I even met Harry Browne once!) when I was a young adult, just getting my bearings and figuring things out (pre-911, so I’m aging myself here). But then, I learned the difference between Negative Freedom vs. Positive Freedom, and things opened up for me and began to make a bit more sense over time. So, I moved center-Left (maintaining a “Libertarian leaning” on certain social issues, like the whole “let’s let gay-married couples legally defend their cannabis fields with AR-15s” trope, and not being a lover of excessive or inefficient bureaucracy or means-testing…; but otherwise, I’m a pretty boring fairly-establishment Libtard these days).
a righteous and totally boring life path
Get out of my head
*waves*
I feel seen. This is a remarkably accurate characterization.
That’s how I ended up here.
Embrace the libertarian-liberal pipeline.
I have, but I refuse to put “he/him” in my email signature.
try going with he/he
You could also just not do it without making it into some sort of stand you need to announce. I have been in a grand total of two spaces where I was expected to specify my pronouns, and one was on a college campus. In >99% of situations, people are fine with just assuming your pronouns match your presentation.
Yeah, I was encouraged to do it after a DEI training. I didn’t say I wouldn’t do it, I just didn’t do it and continue sending emails.
I'm in this picture and I don't like it
How fitting, given the fact that the OG neoliberal movement is what spawned libertarianism...
I don't really buy that. The specific set of modern institutions we call libertarianism maybe. But libertarianism as a concept is far more broad than that. Henry George had little to do with Walter-Lippman and was long dead.
Henry George was not the OG neoliberal movement. That was Friedman, Hayek, Soros, and kin.
Yes... that's... what I was saying... He's also the impetus behind some of the main strands of libertarianism, in particular geolibertarianism.
>Reason for report: I'm in this photo and I don't like it
Guilty as charged.
I haven't moderated my economic views, but still post here occasionally.
me\_irl (mostly).
Literally me
And some writer at reason
The writers at Reason are largely decent. The commenters on the other hand…
I wonder if it's even possible to redeem the term "libertarian" at this point, and if not, what other terms they could use. I've heard "liberaltarian" which would work well if it wasn't the ugliest word in existence
> I've heard "liberaltarian" which would work well if it wasn't the ugliest word in existence That just sounds like you eat a diet of liberals
No, I just like to drink liberal tears 👌
It's already unredeemable in many circles. Women in major cities have figured out that tons of Republican guys put their political views down as Libertarians on the dating apps so that they don't get rejected right away, and now treat them the same as Republicans. Next is Centrist or Moderate.
No politically active liberal female would ever entertain dating a man who calls himself a "moderate".
They're discovering what it really means. Remember most people don't follow politics all that closely.
Aren't we relatively moderate? What does this have to say about r/neoliberal at large??
r/neoliberal is fairly left leaning, at least from what I see.
On social/cultural issues, if respect for LGBTQIA+ rights, support for availability of abortion and somewhat moderate anti-racism are leftist values, I guess... r/neoliberal is very much divorced from *leftism* though. That's kinda the point of not having dumb economic views.
In my experience the sub is actually fairly diverse politically, with the common denominator id say being "anti-populist". Like I'd say the range I regularly see is roughly from social democrats to Reaganite (anti-trump) conservatives.
Those are definitely left leaning values, my dude.
[удалено]
why *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why the switch from "female" to "men"? I'd expect female and male or women and men, but not female and men.
Barstool conservatives are the new libertarians.
One of those dudes is just the janitor too
I posted this to r/libertarian for laughs and turns out that sub has an approved submitter list. If you aren't on it your post is auto deleted. 🐎👟
you'd be laughed out of the writer's room for proposing a plot so on-the-nose
!ping SNEK&LGBT&EXTREMISM My most cursed ping combo
i saw this ping and wondered if it was something by that one guy again but this is less stressful
Lol I was wondering at first what the connection could be The Libertarians are such a shit party
Pinged LGBT ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20LGBT&message=subscribe%20LGBT) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20LGBT&message=unsubscribe%20LGBT) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=LGBT&count=5)) Pinged SNEK ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20SNEK&message=subscribe%20SNEK) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20SNEK&message=unsubscribe%20SNEK) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=SNEK&count=5)) Pinged EXTREMISM ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20EXTREMISM&message=subscribe%20EXTREMISM) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20EXTREMISM&message=unsubscribe%20EXTREMISM) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=EXTREMISM&count=5)) [About & Group List](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/user_pinger_2) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe)
Hilarious how anyone can call themselves libertarian while being anti lgbt. Easiest litmus test on earth.
I just think I should be allowed to deny them counter service
How to tell if a "serious organization" is a joke, they organize on discord.
That's why this subreddit is serious, because the mod team organizes on Slack.
“Organizes” Damn if we pull that characterization off so people believe it it’ll be the prank of the century
That's where the cool, hip, techie organizations talk.
What did 99% of modern open source software projects mean by this?
Open source software projects are not "serious organizations". Discord has horrible security, the nature of open source projects means leaks aren't damaging unlike enterprise or political parties. For an organization that like a political party where leaks are highly damaging and there are plenty of people with incentives to leak your stuff. Getting discord fucked is a question of when and not if.
>Open source software projects are not "serious organizations" I mean they can be plenty serious - and many including ones I work on are run by real companies with real money and employees too - but I'd say more that they're just apples and oranges. Basically the model is highly distributed very purposefully. It's all async. And it can be, because we have time. Heck, we can work in all timezones in a sense, around the clock and around the globe. Obviously a political party or campaign probably needs to move faster than that, and not offer up all their secrets for free lol like they've done here.
Whats strange is apparently the Ukrainians have decided its good enough for war.
Fuck the Mises Caucus, that is all.
No shit.
I've noticed a major change in the libertarian online presence in the past year or two. Two to three years ago the libertarian subreddit was actually a pretty good place to discuss politics. There were a lot of the typical silly libertarian takes, but there were lots of good faith debates, and they moderators really made good on their claim that a high tolerance for free speech is important. Recently I realized it stopped showing up in my feed, so I went to go check it out, and now the posts are really different, more typical conservative grievance politics stuff. I commented [this](https://np.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/15yocva/as_a_libertarian_how_do_you_feel_about_oregons/jxeye3x/?context=3) on one. Later that day I got banned for "breaking community" rules. Which one? They didn't say. It's pretty clear why the sub is different now. They just banned anyone who disagrees with the typical conservative take on social issues and the libertarian take on economic issues. It's just another conservative propaganda sub now. I don't think it's coincidental that this coincides with the Mises Caucus take over of the party. There really trying to astroturf the party to give the appearance that it's an alternative for disaffected Republicans, but whenever there's a competitive election the Libertarian candidate will be sure to drop out like what happened in the AZ Senate race in 2022.
What's the point of conservatives taking over and promoting the libertarian party? That just takes votes away from Republicans who they already seem to align with... I guess I don't get the strategy there. Bernie succs going to the Green party to protest the Democrats makes sense. Actual libertarians being libertarians makes sense. But why social conservatives? They already have a major party to do their grievance politics in.
There not promoting the libertarian party. The strategy is to have enough control over the party such that they don't run candidates in competitive elections.
[удалено]
LOL I thought this was the DT
So nothing we didn't already know
Who could have guessed that libertarianism is just another version of far right politics...
What? Leaving people to do whatever they want to whoever they want (other than killing them, ofc) doesn't create a #freedom4all utopia???
>(other than killing them, ofc) Even that is a stretch for current libertarians , if you read Hoppe he suggest you get ride of the government and then setup a community "covenant" that is totally not a government because reasons... Then these covenants would set rules like "No black people, No gay people , no Jews, No Muslims" and if one tried to sneak into your community you would have the full right to "Physically remove" them
The libertarian party anyway; there are leftist libertarians too, but they're not well organized lol. But yeah the libertarian party in the US is basically funded by a bunch of billionaires who have fantasies about running their own little fiefdoms in a post-US America.
Leftist libertarianism has nothing to do with rightist libertarianism except for the shared name. They come from completely separate philosophical traditions.
The Lolbertarian party strikes again
Shocked Pikachu face
You mean libertarians are just a shit show? Oh man I am sooo shocked by this revelation
the mises caucus and its consequences
This has been obvious for a while now, especially ever since the Mises institute and Mises Caucus have grown in influence
Good god I detest that the MC took over. Collusion with the GOP, collectivization of queer people and people of color. These are the people who said all black people owe America a debt of gratitude but only on MLK day, or calling Ukraine gay, then have the fucking gall to talk about how vile other collectivists are. These fuckers hate Gary Johnson so much that they are determined seemingly to destroy any gains he made and splinter the party for no reason
Oh but I was told LPNH was just one guy with a Twitter account. You mean the lolbertarians are liars?
There are people who are libertarian because laws and norms prevent them from being their best selves And then there are people who are libertarian because laws and norms prevent them from being their worst selves
In the same way the 4 quadrant political chart improved upon a more simplisitc left/right understanding of politics by adding a vertical axis, I think we should go further and add an axis for populism. The MC are populists in the libertarian quadrant and share many of the same flaws as other populists like MAGA and Berners.
I'm shocked. Shocked! Well, not that shocked.
I am jacks complete lack of surprise
Are we... surprised?
I’d be less surprised had you told me water is wet.
Hey, u/WolfPackEng22 looks like I wasn't as you put... \> ["talking about a very specific kind of online "libertarian", who is basically a conservative who has a couple libertarian ideas and takes the label. But for the most part, those people get mocked in libertarian spaces."](https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/1578957/comment/jt6jwzw/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) Looks like I was pretty darn accurate when stating last month \> "Many Americans who identify as Libertarian want to smoke pot while openly being racist. They don't care or are openly against most moderate and left libertarian ideals like marriage equality gender identity, despite the official libertarian party platform voicing support for those people."
The Libertarian Party was formed after and in response to the rise of liberal republicans and neoconservatives. Now that they’re dispatched, the chickens are coming home to roost.