anyone who claims to be “a libertarian” should be forced to watch the libertarian convention which YOU KNOW none of them have ever seen in their lives.
check out the ideas your “party” pushes. real big brain stuff.
there’s nothing wrong with freedom, but regulation is necessary. to say otherwise is either ignorance, stupidity, or malice.
I’m a libertarian because the only thing I hate worse than Democrats are MAGA Republicans - And at least unlike Democrats and Republicans, I’m well aware that my party is a joke.
And before you criticize me, I voted Democrat against that orange wannabe dictator THREE FUCKING TIMES, grinding my teeth and swearing as I did so every time, but I still fucking did so, so spare me the lectures.
People like you should work on splitting the republican party.
And after that establish a more fair voting system that isn’t primed to stall at a two party state from the beginning.
People like you should work on splitting the republican party.
Oh trust me, I’ve been trying to convince any Trump voter who’s willing to listen that Trump is a con-man and a wannabe dictator for the last eight years.
It definitely helps that I speak their language - I’m a construction worker and a vet with a mouth that would probably offend many who consider themselves “woke” - but the most common problem I run in to is that even if I can get them to “see the light” and consider that Trump might be a con-man and a wannabe dictator, inevitably they go back to their own right-wing MAGA echo chambers and much of what I say goes out the damn window.
Damn, but thank you very much for trying! 🫶🏻🙏🏻
Not going to try to preach or anything, but just wondering if you’ve ever read this article? Excellent read that sheds some light on real libertarian experiments and how they’ve gone wrong:
A Libertarian Walks into a Bear: How a New Hampshire libertarian utopia was foiled by bears
LMAO I own the book. I am well aware my party is a clown show, I just want to be able to grow weed, shoot guns, light fireworks, and enjoy the company of sex workers consensually within my poly marriage to my trans wife.
…Okay, I made that last part up, but you never know - I might one day feel the need to marry a trans girl and bang call girls together with her in a poly relationship, dammit, because life is short.
and enjoy the company of sex workers consensually within my poly marriage to my trans wife.
Are you against the government codifying protections for these people due to the undeniable danger that they face?
Nope, but that being said I don’t believe in the government being competent enough to do so in the first place, especially when there’s always going to be Republicans eager to revoke those protections.
That being said, I definitely encourage trans folks to arm themselves because let’s face it, the government will not protect them in any way under the Trump administration. The second amendment applies to all Americans and sadly there’s a lot of bigots around nowadays who are more than happy to commit a hate crime.
Nope, but that being said I don’t believe in the government being competent enough to do so in the first place,
Then I don’t think you’re a libertarian. If you were, you would not believe that this is even a possibility. My understanding is that it’s a core belief that the government, by definition, cannot be competent enough to do things like that.
Then I don’t think you’re a libertarian.
LMAO don’t mansplain Libertarianism to me.
I wouldn’t have. I’ve never voted party lines.
stunning and brave
also the vast majority of dems did the same thing, we just don’t feel the need to tell everyone how different we are because of it
also the vast majority of dems did the same thing, we just don’t feel the need to tell everyone how different we are because of it
^ Translation: “I am too clueless to figure out that this thread is a conversation about Libertarians, and thus discussing Libertarians and Libertarianism is totally appropriate and on-topic.”
By the way, Pumpkin… Who died and made you in charge of what I talk about on the internet with others? Just curious.
yeah im clowning on the entire concept of “being libertarian” rather than libertarian ideas
you can talk about whatever you want, and I can clown on you for doing it. that’s freedom, baby.
or should i say pumpkin
Ah, my mistake. I had assumed you were just too socially clueless to understand how conversations work.
Enjoy being a clown!
lol ok dude
👍
to say otherwise is either ignorance, stupidity, or malice
Why not all three?
¿Por qué no los tres?
Penn Jilletet pulled me 100 % onto the vaccine train with his ball and shield demonstration with teller on their bull shit show. Until this day, I still haven’t seen any demonstration that was more convincing than that on any subject in the amount of time that they used.
Searched for what you mean but can’t find it. Can you link it?
This looks like it (searched
ball and shield penn teller vaccineon Invidious/YouTube)
I mean, good. Because F libertarians.
As a libertarian, I will also say fuck libertarians. Seriously, don’t vote for us. Our party is a fucking joke and many of us are wacky nutjobs.
I am a PJ fan and follower, but I am well aware that he has long been a naive idiot operating from a place of priviledge. He is well insulated from the pitfalls of the ideas he espouses, and it took an UNDENIABLE COLLAPSE into straight up Nazism for him to finally grasp it.
Luv ya Penn, but I ain’t giving you any fucking medals
Yeah, but the bar is through the floor at this point. I’ll take anything I can get.
And the more people come out and say “oh shit I was wrong” the easier it becomes for others to do the same.
Libertarianism is pleasure worship.
Slaanesh approves of this message.
I’ve always considered myself a libertarian, but I’m coming to realize I need to find another word. I used to be able to explain that assholes were ruining the name, but now the assholes outnumber people like me by too much.
I think the real turning point was when Jo Jorgensen said, “It is not enough to be passively not racist, we must be actively anti-racist,” and then she had to walk it back because the libertarian party was so fucking racist. Like, that’s not even a political statement. It’s a moral one, and it’s one I agree with.
Then when the Libertarian Party changed their stance on abortion, I was done with them. I clung to the lowercase L label, but at this point it doesn’t seem worth it anymore.
I just think the government should be limited to things that only the government can handle. Policing? Roads? Business regulations? Those are all things that can only be handled by the government. Restrictions on what kind of stove I can buy? Restrictions on what I can put in my body or how I dress or what my kids can read at school? Those are all bullshit.
I guess it helps that I align with Democrats on most of the major issues now, but I still won’t consider myself a Democrat.
Stoves are a great example of why the richest among us want to push libertarianism. You see the freedom to buy a gas stove. They see the freedom to make products that are one penny cheaper but kill their users.
Libertarianism and anarchism in general fail to account for sociopaths who are willing to make others suffer for their own gain.
Stoves that kill their users should be a violation of the Harm principle. If this isn’t hyperbole then please provide a link to libertarians advocating this — I’m curious to see if/how they’ve carved an exception or otherwise addressed it or weaseled out of it; please link.
Literally one comment up bud, that I responded to.
good to see teller talked some sense into him
Being wrong admitting it and changing your mind with new information is absolutely amazing and a great character trait. Props to him.
Another massive W for Thought, the chief glory of mankind.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
John Kenneth Galbraith
I think Penn went there with a different mindset than those occupying the space now.
I don’t even know who this guy is.
Penn Jillette of Penn and Teller.
Ok that makes sense. Did not know his political view.
I still think the word libertarian should be reclaimed by the left. Fuck the ancaps who took it. Westerners are too scared of it, despite it originally meaning a socialist. Places where white peopl aren’t the majority have no issue with the word. My Filipino family understand that liberty is just another word for freedom, but think socialism is just state communism. Socialists will never win against capitalist propaganda without violence. Too many people hate anarchists and “socialists” but are not at all afraid of the principles of anarchist socialism. It needs better branding, and the word libertarians was literally designed for that. And the ignorant western liberals believed them and hate the word libertarian because of it instead of being educated.
As an Anarcho-Syndicalist I am far more of a Libertarian than the average US “Libertarian”. However I mostly would rather use the word Anarchist due to wanting to absolish all coercion. At the same time “left-libertarian” works, hopefully one day actural Libertarians wont need to differentiate as leftist just as Anarchists dont need to.
How in the world would one abolish all coercion? That seems a basic fact of human nature. People will always try to influence others.
I was referring specifically to the absolution of the state and capital
I actually think the newer meanings is more accurate. Libertarian is now distinguished from anarchism by the presence of a limited government. That’s a necessary distinction. But what should that government do? Right libertarians say defend property rights, Left libertarians would say things like organize production.
The problem is liberals don’t even grasp the concept of a left libertarian. It’s an oxymoron to a liberal. They immediately assume you’re a right winger unfortunately in America at least. Then you have to just say you’re a socialist and then they think you want to put them in the gulags. Then you say well I’m the anarchist kind and then they think you’re going to kill them for liking money or something.
My primary complaint is liberals believe the right when the right try to say what libertarian means, and I think liberals should instead be educated on the word but they are often can’t be convinced , and it’s often too much energy to even try.
(I’m including the modern liberal and conservative in that definition of liberal).
Well I’m fundamentally against language protectionism, basically saying a word used to mean x and it should always mean x. Words should have utility more than history. But I think the struggle you’re having is real.
I’ve frequently said the left needs new words, if not primarily for the reason that all the old words have the baggage of failure from a century ago. But they should also engage in new ideas, hopefully not just new words.
Left libertarianism is not engaged with because it’s often just used as a synonym for left anarchism, whereas right libertarianism is not synonymous with right anarchism. If it doesn’t have a distinct philosophy, they feel you are tricking them, then they are right to just take all the problems with left anarchism and associate them. And IMO all anarchism is equally discredited. As someone who used to be left anarchist.
I’m not talking about protection, I’m talking about reclamation. Ie not all words must be protected, but some words have reason to be reclaimed. Very different things. The right shouldn’t have a monopoly on liberty in political discourse.
Well again, the proper use of the term should not be the implication that libertarian is implied right or left. It’s the axis on which we balance liberties. Both left libertarians and right libertarians want maximal liberty, but they disagree how those liberties are obtained. They both want a minimal government, but a minimal government best ensures liberty how? Both of their relations to anarchy are on the axis of the discussion of the word “maximal/minimal”. Minimum government manifests itself how? Maximal liberty manifests itself how?
The words greatest use is there. Not a political pin to be reclaimed by either side.
There’s libertarian socialism. And anarcho-syndicalism. I’m small government on weed but big government on preventing pollution. Pollution violates the non aggression pact but what’s left of libertarians don’t see it that way.
It’s funny, because in Europe we classify liberals as right wing too.
Over here, Liberals are the people who want liberal economic policies, meaning less rules for the rich. Our left wing are socialdemocratic, with liberal social policies (meaning freedom to live how you want)
In America, they call their left wing liberals, because they are scared of socialism and just the thought of people getting to decide how to live their own lives are semi-radical.
For so many years the American left wing has only been focusing on social issues, while neglecting the more important stuff like healthcare, education, workers rights and affordable housing.
I get wanting to fight for acceptance for all, but its just distractions man. And as soon as gays became accepted, trans people became the new out group. The fascists will always create a perceived enemy that normal people have to defend.
You can fight for their rights without letting it take focus away from the oligarchs trying to fuck everyone.
Yup.
Although I would definitely argue that “Liberal” probably IS more accurate for what the American left is. Even going back to bush era republicans… we as a country tend to be right of center. With the American Left being fairly center-right/center-left and still prioritizing liberal politics to protect donors.
The left/right distinction is just one axis and makes all these discussions complicated (hence the confusion over where anarchy and libertarianism actually falls or the belief that socialism/communism is fundamentally left wing). But it is also important for people to realize that overton windows actually are very important to understand when discussing regional politics.
Which is funny because to me it’s very clear liberal philosophy is leftist. Rawls being more modern liberal is basically distributionist. Classically Rousseau and even Smith were definitely not neoliberal.
I think the right hijacked liberal just like they did with libertarian, but in this case they did it wrong. The left needs liberalism or else they go the way of Stalin and Mao, they need core principles that they don’t sway from even for revolutionary ends such as justice, rule of law, freedom of speech, etc. The Marxist immoralism gave them far too much freedom to be opportunists in their principles basing them literally on material conditions rather than principles like rights and freedoms. As I often say, what revolution is worth anything without principles? If it was just scientific necessity, who would care to do the work?
You… should really educate yourself on what libertarianism actually is. Just because the root word “liberty” is in there does not mean it is a socialist concept.
In fact, libertarianism is kind of anti-socialism as one of the founding principles is individual autonomy. That is in direct opposition to the idea of social ownership of the means of production.
Ironically, you are highlighting what led to a LOT of people self identifying as libertarians in the early 00s. You hear a word that sounds nice to you and figure that must be a good thing. When it is actually in direct opposition to your implied claim of being pro-socialism.
Now, I COULD go on a long rant about how the vast majority of modern socialists ALSO don’t actually understand the political ideology they claim to support. But that just makes people pissy.
I think you missed their point. Contemporary US style libertarianism has taken over the term, historically it meant something very different. They are arguing that people should start using the word again to mean things other than US style libertarianism. They are very obviously not confused about what libertarianism actually is given their knowledge of the history of the term; ironically it seems like you are unaware of this history and are doing something akin to what you accuse OP of doing.
I do agree though that people are generally very ignorant about this sort of stuff and often latch onto words to describe their politics without any genuine understanding of what those words actually mean.
I elaborated on that in the other branch and why, even historically, “libertarian” is MUCH closer to the modern libertarian than the modern socialist. But if the entire argument is “that sounds cooler and we should take it back”… that is a really stupid point.
Americans like to vote Republican. Let’s just call the Democrats “Republicans” and be done with it (bonus points for people who get the historical irony of that).
historically, “libertarian” is MUCH closer to the modern libertarian than the modern socialist
This is factually incorrect.
You’re just factually wrong. The word ‘libertarian’ was first used to describe a political ideology in 1857 by the French Anarcho-Communist philosopher Joseph Déjacque specifically to differentiate his ideology from the mutualist anarchism of Proudhon.
The term ‘libertarian’ took off in popularity in France in the 1880s when the French government began to suppress anarchist newspapers. They just switched to using the word “libertarian” rather than “anarchist” to get around the censor. This is exemplified in the weekly newspaper founded in 1895 called The Libertarian (Le Libertaire in French).
The anarchists in the Russian Revolution and in the Spanish Civil War called themselves interchangeably ‘anarchists’, ‘libertarians’, and ‘libertarian socialists’.
The term didn’t come to be associated with classical liberalism and right-wing ideologies as it is today until the middle of the 20th century. It was a specific attempt by right-wing American political philosophers who held an allegiance to Locke-style 18th century classical liberalism, but felt that the term “liberal” had become too associated with left-wing (within the American context) politics.
Here’s a quote from 1955 from the libertarian writer Dean Russell:
Many of us call ourselves “liberals.” And it is true that the word “liberal” once described persons who respected the individual and feared the use of mass compulsions. But the leftists have now corrupted that once-proud term to identify themselves and their program of more government ownership of property and more controls over persons. As a result, those of us who believe in freedom must explain that when we call ourselves liberals, we mean liberals in the uncorrupted classical sense. At best, this is awkward and subject to misunderstanding. Here is a suggestion: Let those of us who love liberty trade-mark and reserve for our own use the good and honorable word “libertarian.”
Here’s a quote from the libertarian writer and philosopher Murray Rothbard from the early 1970s:
One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy. ‘Libertarians’ had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over.
Here’s a quote from Ronald fucking Reagan in 1975:
believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism
Modern libertarianism in the context of American politics is synonymous with classical liberalism and conservatism (up until the MAGA movement co-opted conservatism and just made it synonymous with fascism). But in the US prior to the middle of the 20th century, and outside of the US until much more recently, libertarianism was synonymous with anarchism and was very much a leftist ideology.
Your historical analysis is nicely summarized. But words change meaning, they always have. ,"Don we now our gay apparel"used to mean festive clothing. Well I guess it still does in a different way, wtf do I know lol. Carry on.
I’m not arguing anything about the modern meaning. I’m providing historical context as to where the word comes from, and correcting the previous commenter who was asserting ‘libertarian’ had no connection to socialist political theory.
One could argue that many modern right wing libertarians are closer to anarchism than some of their left wing equivalents. Back when I was on reddit there was much discussion of what they called watermelons - green on the outside, red on the inside. Meaning they presented themselves as anti authoritarian but in reality wanted to use the power of the state to enforce their ideal version of societal freedom. There are also differences in how the words are understood today in different places - Europe, the US, other places in the world. I did commend your historical representation btw.
One could argue that many modern right wing libertarians are closer to anarchism than some of their left wing equivalents.
Only if you don’t understand what right-wing libertarianism is. It is 100% reliant on the state monopoly on violence and coercive authoritarianism.
Only if you paint with broad strokes. They are more diverse than that, and some are very anti government. The same is true of those more on the Left.
Queer used to be a slur (and still can be) and before that it had a different meaning, but it has since changed again to be reclaimed by those it was intended to hurt. Words change, of course, but that must mean they can change back too. I’m not saying we must take the word back, mind you, I’m only suggesting it. I personally think it’s a good idea but I’m not gonna make anyone who doesn’t want to do it. I also am very aware of the challenge to reclaim it, I only brought it up because it was relevant to the thread. Penn Gillette is most likely a left-ish libertarian and doesn’t even know it, but obviously no longer associates with the term for understandable reasons. I am wishing he didn’t have to abandon the term libertarian and instead wish American society was able to comprehend left libertarianism.
I already addressed all of that in the other branch (its cool, you probably started typing that before I posted) but, the super short version:
As you yourself acknowledge, the “libertarian” part of that is related to the “anarchist” part of “anarcho-communism” which came out of the anarcho-capitalist movements of the era.
And, over the past 150 years or so, modern libertarians have continued to embrace ideologies of personal liberty that align more with the anarchist movements. Whereas modern socialists have largely decided that The State needs to provide for its people (with lots of arguments as to what The State should actually be).
Insisting that “libertarianism” should somehow be used by socialists because they came from a similar root movement is like insisting that all socialists should ACTUALLY call themselves feudalists because you can draw a line from the various philosophers back to concepts from feudalism (and beyond). It ignores WHY different philosophies and forms of government were constructed but it sounds much better, I guess?
And if the argument is that you consider yourself a libertarian because of your pseudo-anarchist leanings and don’t like that other people ALSO consider themselves a libertarian becuase of their pseudo-anarchist leanings… tough titties?
My argument here is that when the term ‘libertarian’ was created it was specifically used by leftists to describe a leftist political ideology and the only reason it is not still associated with leftist politics is because right-wing conservatives very specifically and intentionally “stole” the term in the middle of the 20th century.
Further, in the right-wing context, 'libertarianism" is synonymous with classical liberalism and conservatism. The idea that right-wing libertarians embrace the ideology of personal liberty is just plain horseshit. They embrace personal liberty for one person and one person only: themself. They want 0 personal liberty for anyone other than themself, and if you tell them they are not allowed to restrict the liberties of others, they take that as an attack on their personal liberty. Modern right-wing libertarian political “philosophy” is no more developed than the political ideology of a toddler.
I don’t have any personal attachment or desire for myself or other leftists to use the term libertarian. The petulant children can have it.
No. Right wing politics is 100% about “personal liberty”… for them.
It is the problem with trying to implement theoretical socioeconomic and political models in reality. Because WE can all agree “nobody should be enslaved”. But… who actually WANTS to dive into the sewers to break up the fatbergs?
Because personal liberties inherently conflict. You want to be free to let your dog roam wherever he wants. I want to be free to let my cat out on her catio without fear of neighbor dogs attacking her. Which of us get our personal liberty respected? And so forth in terms of religion and speech and choice of labor and so forth.
Thank you for the summary, I got in a discussion on the same point some time ago, it seems that people who grew up in the USA culture associate libertarian and right wing in a very deep way.
Id just like to add that in french nowadays, we have two words for libertarian : Libertaire for the left-wing anarchist meaning, and Libertarien for the USA right-wing version. Libertaire is still widely used by anarchists here, so there’s no reason it could not be the case in USA, though it will be a pretty tough challenge.
You… should really educate yourself on what libertarianism actually is. Just because the root word “liberty” is in there does not mean it is a socialist concept.
It seems to me that @[email protected] actually has a better grasp on the historical context of “libertarianism” than you.
“Libertarian socialist” was what you called collectivist/communist anarchists in French.
Both have their roots in anarcho-capitalist movements and the idea that The State must be abolished.
The root anarchy and libertarian aspect of that is the idea that The State must be abolished. The difference is that (libertarian flavored) socialism is largely based on the idea of small communities to replace The State (and if that sounds contradictory…). Whereas (modern) libertarianism, is that the idea is that you replace The State with individual enclaves with the remnants existing solely to protect those rights. The “libertarian” aspect fundamentally boils down to the idea of individual liberty (hence the name) at the cost of The State and the distinctions between that and anarchy is, to put it bluntly, questionable.
It would be like insisting that those in favor of socialist democracies rebrand themselves as anarcho-communists because it sounds cooler and there IS a direct line between libertarian communists/anarcho-communists and modern socialist democratic thought. Which ignores that there is a reason that said thought evolved.
Both have their roots in anarcho-capitalist movements
Lolwut? Left wing anarchism is decades older than anarcho-capitalism (which basically started with the austrian school). Do you think Mikhail Bakunin was an Ancap, too?
You’re simply misrepresenting anarchism, homie.
It was an intentional co-opt of a left wing term, as the right consistently does (steal our ideas/terms/strategies)
“One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy. ‘Libertarians’ had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over.”
-murray rothbard (“founder” of American libertarianism)
Realistically, from an anarchist perspective, the battle on the word is lost, we simply do not have the resources to combat that in the sphere of public consciousness.
Arguably, it’s a better use of our time demonstrating and connecting our ideas (namely, opposition to hierarchy) to the working class directly rather than fret over terminology but I digress
I actually think it is incredibly important to understand these distinctions. There is an entire generation of people who grew up with “I want weed and to not pay taxes. I guess that makes me a libertarian?” just like we have a generation of people who grew up with “I think it is stupid that I will be in debt forever because of college. I guess I am a communist?”
Understanding these distinctions is important.
Just because someone aligns with socialism doesn’t mean they are a libertarian socialist or a communist. Just like how someone can also be a libertarian but not be a socialist. The reason there are two words in that term is because it is a merging of multiple ideologies.
We see it all the time. Leftists become tankies because they listened to the equivalent of a facebook post at a drum circle and don’t want to actually understand their own ideologies. So rather than being a socialist democrat or a libertarian socialist or any other flavor, they become full on tankies because “Well. I like socialism and socialism is communism so the CCP never did anything wrong”. And that is used by right wing governments because… the vast majority of communist governments were evil and corrupt fascists (also many had stopped being communist along the way but…)
And same here. You and others are insisting that it was “co-opted”. But if you actually go back to the roots of the movements and even look at how the left uses it, it is one aspect. And yeah, right wing politics did push to use the term… because the idea of “tear it all down and make it better” aligns well with youths. But… just because they “won the branding” doesn’t mean that their pseudo-anarchists aren’t libertarians.
And I also very much argue it is worth making people look themselves in the mirror to actually understand what they are advocating for with “libertarianism” regardless of if it is “polite anarchy” or not.
I actually think it is incredibly important to understand these distinctions.
From a historical perspective, absolutely. My point is that it’s not worth attempting to “out message/propagandize” literal billionaires that own the platforms in which we would attempt to do so.
And same here. You and others are insisting that it was “co-opted”.
Rothbard quite literally claims this, this isn’t an opinion lmao.
But if you actually go back to the roots of the movements and even look at how the left uses it, it is one aspect.
Yes and? What is your point even supposed to be? That it’s not an umbrella term that comprehensively covers conceivable form of socialism? I don’t think anyone is arguing that.
We are simply pointing to the historical usage of the word, it’s origins.
But… just because they “won the branding” doesn’t mean that their pseudo-anarchists aren’t libertarians
In the modern, Americanized version of the word sure. But that doesn’t change the fact that historically, and originally, it meant something entirely different.
And I also very much argue it is worth making people look themselves in the mirror to actually understand what they are advocating for with “libertarianism” regardless of if it is “polite anarchy” or not.
Again, not sure who your arguing with here. The problem isn’t that it’s “polite” anarchism (whatever that even means), it’s that they stole and corrupted terms, ideas, etc, the very bastardization itself.
I agree with you but it’s just difficult when you have groups like Libertarians of NH posting this shit
Ugh. New Hampshire once again proves they are the worst of New England, by a huge margin!
As a lifelong NHer, I feel obligated to say fuck you buddy. Nobody calls NH shit but NHers.
As a person with a brain though you’re pretty much right lol
But idk I mean I think I’d rather live here than like Connecticut or Rhode Island.
I drive through NH every time I visit my sister in Maine. Call it the southern kid in me, but I enjoy a few tiny minutes of no seatbelt 🫣 but I’ve been in a horrible car accident where I was the only one with a seatbelt so don’t take that the wrong way 😅
Of course nh doesn’t have seatbelt laws lol
Or mandatory car insurance I think
Heh, fair enough!
As a lifelong Masshole, I already live in the best state in the country - but, believe me when I say that New Hampshire isn’t that bad when you factor in the many many shithole states that aren’t in New England.
Yeah it really depends what you’re talking about. Our politics are pretty whack. There’s a small amount of that good libertarian socialist energy here that bleeds over from Vermont and Maine, and I do feel like that is intensifying as Trump wields his heavy hammer of federal government, but I think a good chunk of that energy gets stolen and redistributed by bigots. We’ve never really had someone like Bernie to channel it.
But outside of politics we’ve got mountains, we’ve got lakes, we’ve got beaches, we’ve got some small cities, and Boston’s just a day trip away. I’ve always enjoyed that aspect. But yeah. New Hampshire. Live restrained and hike a little. See a loon. Then die.
Trust me I’m very well aware of the libertarian party and its various caucuses etc. They’re part of the problem.
I still think the root word of liberty has meaning to Americans that can make it easy to grasp anarchist socialism, even if they don’t fully buy in to the anarchist part. As long as Americans don’t associate it with communism or socialism they can often buy socialist anarchist ideas. It’s stupid, but it is what it is
Left libertarians and right libertarians are both separate real things and they don’t agree on everything at all. It keeps them from gaining traction which our two uniparties appreciate because it keeps them in power. I’m anti-authoritarian so I dislike both parties for different reasons. Many libertarians describe themselves as classic liberals, saying “the party left me” but we’ve never had leadership that reflected either right or left libertarians whatsoever. Although I’m anti-authoritarian, I don’t consider myself libertarian. It’s too full of abuses like wanting child labor and approval of sex with minors that enables child sex trafficking. And complete removal of any regulation. The US has too much regulation, but there is good regulation.
His name is Rebo.
Cool to see the meme applied to someone who genuinely went to clown college!
I’ll thank you not to refer to Princeton that way.
Eh, Princeton WISHES it were as effective and useful as Clown College
Sorry, I thought he went to Princeton-Plainsboro.
I considered myself a Libertarian for a few years. I was a disillusioned Republican during the George Bush days and Libertarianism really grew on me. I voted for Gary Johnson twice.
As I became more concerned about climate change, I could not see a viable Libertarian solution to it. Private business is more than happy to keep chugging away with fossil fuels until it’s far too late.
For Libertarianism to work, these same private businesses need to do the right thing voluntarily. In Atlas Shrugged, those businessmen and women are doing what is right for their business and it just so happens to be what is right for everyone else, that isn’t always the case. All too often, what is right for business goes against what is right for society. Once I realized this, everything unraveled for me.
So anyway, here I am, years later, voting for Democrats because I’ve got no other option as the GOP became more and more insane since I left.The problem with Communism is that it requires non greedy people.
The problem with Libertarianism is that it requires non greedy rich people.Exactly. We’re nothing but monkeys in trousers. We have a lot of evolving yet to do, psychologically speaking.
One of the biggest failings with a lot of idealist political systems (anarchism, libertarianism, communism, etc.) is that they try to do away with hierarchies and bosses. But, those are inevitable for great apes. A good setup provides a way to limit and manage the bosses that will inevitably appear. Yes, it legitimizes their power, but by acknowledging it, it also provides a way to limit it.
You guys are wearing trousers? I find it slows down the whole process of throwing feces at my enemies.
Oh, so it’s faster for you to take a shit on command than it is to have trousers to collect the shit so you can just reach back and grab it when you want to?
If so, I’m impressed.
I imagine you haven’t flung much shit or spent much time thinking about it. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe you can just shit when you want to. You’re probably just a beta trying to impress the shit flinging alpha shit veterans though. :p
If I’m wrong though, all hail floofloof. We’re not worthy!
Genuine question: why do you care about climate change if you would be dead by then?
“Why should I care about other people?” is a question that comes up a lot, and I am deeply suspicious of people who don’t care about others.
But we are talking about future here, some of that people doesn’t even exist
Because “A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit” - Greek proverb
If we don’t cover the things that our children (or nieces/nephews) will benefit from, no one else will. There are no adults in the room. It’s just us.
What children? I will not have nieces nor nephews because I do not have first grade brothers or sisters. I mean sorry but I don’t care.
That is the definition of unbridled selfishness, bordering on sociopathy.
If this is truly what you think and drives how you behave then you are a leech on everyone else that will follow in your footsteps.
I won’t have children either, but I still want the world to be better for them, and I do the best within my means to make that happen.
People like you, when they’re competent, are the ones that rise to the top of the corporate ladder and own businesses that expound the worst parts of capitalistic society. Greed, selfishness, disdain for the plight of others, no thought for consequences as long as they don’t affect you personally.
So, don’t care if you don’t want to. But internalize that you’re a POS if that’s actually how you feel.
Still I can’t feel that because first those future people doesn’t exist and second I prefer that future people don’t exist
pissing in your water supply rn cuz i dont care
We were talking about global warming here
Yeah, which could also affect me. But pissing in your water supply doesnt affect me, why should i care :)
Well if you do on 30 years you are free to do so. I won’t be here anyway…
Then you’re a bad person. It’s quite simple.
Whatever quality of life you have enjoyed beyond living naked in a cave eating bugs and berries you owe to the people who came before you. Not just your ancestors, but the people who invented tools and discovered natural laws and organized societies and legal systems, the people who built the cities with their sewage systems and hospitals and electricity, the people who developed fertilizers and antibiotics and undergarnments that don’t itch like a thousand angry fleas are having a rave in your crotch. And now, after enjoying the fruits of 10,000 years of civilization, you decide that you’re the be-all and end-all of people and everybody who comes after you can go fuck themselves? Bad person. Plain and simple.
To be honest I’m in all to human extinction, actually I’m all for all life extinction. Life is based in predatory model mostly with exception of some plants and bacteria.
You have a very limited view of what life is. I pity you deeply.
And what is life? 70 years is shit is crap is nothing.
… It’s happening right now bro. You’re alive right now, and we’re having extreme weather events right now.
Climate change isn’t a point in which either before that point nothing happens and after that point something bad happens, instead as we continue with bad practices, things get continually worse.
We’re having extreme heat, right now. Places with longer hurricane seasons, or where hurricanes are now way worse, etc. And things can still worsen.
What you seem to be saying is that, you don’t care about your future and minimizing future issues, but also don’t care about any family or friends that you have. Society has done so much, that here you are born, with Internet access to a federated app, electricity, many of life’s privileges compared to our ancestors, people now and in the future would appreciate what help you can provide now.
you are born, with Internet access to a federated app, electricity, many of life’s privileges compared to our ancestors. Those were knowledge, most of things were born because our ancestors needed them for own benefit. Here with climate change. First of all, My small country doesn’t make a difference, I don’t have a car, I don’t spend more than 400 kw monthly. If you really want to make a change, stop having kids. Less carbon print to ZERO carbon print, but a lot aren’t willing to do it. I am not willing to do anything that involves changing my ways of life.
Genuine question: why do you care about climate change if you would be dead by then?
Empathy, or caring about how other people are affected, even if it doesn’t affect you personally. Empathy is normal and healthy.
Better question is, why are 60+yo Capitalists who already have more wealth than they could possibly spend before they die, so desperate to hold and collect even more wealth?
But most of this people doesn’t even exist in the present. I mean, isn’t better that stop having kids, you can kill 2 birds this way: Reduce footprint to ZERO, avoid future generations suffering of global warming.
So you don’t feel bad for future humans because they’re assholes for existing?
I can’t feel empathy for people that doesn’t exist. Simple as that.
How about a 1yo baby that will suffer the effects of climate change their whole life, can you feel empathy for a 1yo baby?
I feel more anger about the parents that brings that child to suffer to this world.
Damn. You’re a cold motherfucker.
I’m sorry to see downvotes on a genuine question. From a libertarian point of view, the question is very valid.
The basis of classical libertarianism is the non-aggression principal, which basically means “don’t harm others.” Seems like that would include causing harm after you die. But modern libertarianism seems to have a very strange interpretation of that principal…
…do you not care?
Not really, I would be dead by then, no family. I mean if I have to make a great change in my life because of climate change, forget about it.
I’ll give you a point for honesty, but to also be honest, I think you’re a selfish arsehole.
So? Doesn’t matter I’ll be dead.
I think if you’re under 50 years old, you’ll probably be impacted by the effects of climate change for a majority of your life at this point. The change won’t be an instant thing like in The Day After Tomorrow after you’re long dead, it’s happening now when you’re alive.
You are so optimistic you think I will be living more than 30 years since now lol. Bad lifestyle.
Well, aren’t you just a ray of sunshine? Bless your heart.
Libertarianism also was my first stop out of my childhood religious right upbringing. I still tend to see issues from a libertarian framing – i.e., if it’s not hurting anybody why should the government care? – but most US libertarians seem weirdly fixated on ideas like “why can’t I dump 5,000 gallons of hydrofluoric acid into a hole in the ground if the hole is on my own property?” or “why shouldn’t I be allowed to enter into a contract with somebody that allows me to hunt them for sport?” or especially “why can’t I have sex with a minor if they say it’s OK?”, where there’s really obvious personal and societal harms involved and the only way that you can think otherwise is if you’ve engaged in some serious motivated reasoning.
Whereas my thinking these days is more like, “who does it hurt if somebody decides to change their outward appearance to match how they feel inside?” and the like – i.e., the right to personal autonomy and free expression, rather than the right to do whatever I want to others as long as I can somehow coerce them into agreeing to it. I don’t have much patience for the anarchist side of left-libertarianism – in my experience you need robust systems in place to keep bad actors from running amok, and a state without a monopoly on violence is simply ceding that monopoly to whoever wants to take it up for their own ends – but that starting point of libertarian thought, that people sold be free in their choices until those choices run up against somebody else’s freedoms – is still fundamentally valid.
Anyone who is a libertarian is unfamiliar with game theory. Some problems happen when individual people act in their own self-interest, but the collective outcome is harmful. Climate change is a prime example.
It seems to me like American libertarianism isn’t truly libertarianism - its focus is on freedom for capitalists, not freedom for people (corporations are not people). In theory, libertarianism is guided by the principal of non-aggression. Passing laws to fight climate change does not violate the principal of non-aggression, despite what the capitalists claim.
I wish this were true, but what you are describing is more akin to the Democratic party’s platform. Laws by the Democratic party are passed so people and companies don’t violate the principle of non-aggression. For example, besides climate change, regulation on banking is to prevent banking from taking people’s money and just going out of business.
The Libertarian party doesn’t support the principle of non-aggression in practice. By this definition, the Democratic party would be the true libertarians or liberals.
For example:
Australia: https://www.libertarians.org.au/wa_platform
Ending Climate Alarmism Policies: Repeal state laws and subsidies tied to net-zero targets. Let the free market decide the energy mix.
And like you said, the US one too: https://lp.org/environment-energy-resources/
When governments try to tackle environmental issues (which is hypocritical, as governments are the largest polluters), they use a punishing approach that rarely, if ever, solves the problem
I think you misunderstood my point. What you’re referring to as “libertarianism” and “the Libertarian party” is what I referred to as “American libertarianism.”
I don’t believe true libertarianism exists in the USA. I agree with your point that the Democratic party most closely aligns with the theory of libertarianism. It sounds like you agree with the point I was trying to make, but maybe misinterpreted it.
Edit: I want to add that the Libertarian party in America doesn’t follow the principal of non-aggression as I understand it.
The closest thing the US has to a true libertarian is Bernie Sanders.
Very true, at least at that level in politics.
Oh yeah, I think I was confusing in my response. I should have said:
All libertarian parties both in and outside of the United States don’t ascribe to your interpretation of the theory of libertarianism.
I included Australia as an example, but here is Canada’s platform as well.
https://libertarian.on.ca/platform/2011/environment Agreements among neighbours would be another factor that would replace top-down regulations.
That’s disappointing. Maybe “modern libertarianism” would have been more accurate than “American libertarianism.” According to Wikipedia, in the 1950’s libertarianism was synonymous with liberalism, which seems to align much better with my interpretation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Etymology
I wonder if Penn’s (old) interpretation of libertarianism was the same as mine.
I love how they just drop the statement that governments are the largest polluters with no sources, supporting evidence, or even explanation. Just saying something obviously does not make it true.
Progressive policies tend to line up with classic Libertarianism.
Also, modern Libertarians tend to be literally just the dissolution of the federal government and their own personal rights at the expense of other’s rights, none of which is Libertarianism.
You said this much better than I did. One of the reasons why Democrats are called liberals.
Or they’re so used to their privilege that they don’t understand how protected they are by society.
Exactly, they ask why they should have to contribute to letting disabled people not have to work. I ask why people too disabled to work should have to beg for sustainance or live in poverty
American Libertarians have no experience dealing with other people and are incredibly naive. At least one customer service job would be very horizon-broadening for them.
As I became more concerned about climate change, I could not see a viable Libertarian solution to it.
The libertarian solution to climate change would involve privatizing the commons: sell off the atmosphere to some private entity which would then issue licenses for emitting, have standing to sue unlicensed polluters for violating its property rights, etc.
In other words, basically cap & trade but with a for-profit corporation in charge instead of the government, for no good reason.
At least, that’d be the theory. In reality, that’s how you get Spaceballs.
I always say it’s not crazy to become a Libertarian as much as it is to remain one. It just astounds me that anyone could debate those positions for a length of time without starting to realize how tenuous most of them are.
Disclaimer: I support pigouvian taxes on greenhouse gas emissions.
Long ago, one libertarian solution to climate change was insurance. So you’d buy disaster insurance for your house, then the insurer would bet that pollution would go up. This creates a financial incentive to reduce emissions. Best case scenario, your insurance payments are a slight reimbursement for a voluntary reduction. Worst case scenario, your insurance payments essentially bribe their workers to sabotage.
However, the Coase Theorem says this only works while transaction costs are low. And you’d need long-term contracts that aren’t realistic with today’s interest rates. So it would take decades to establish the financial infrastructure necessary.
