- cross-posted to:
- libertarian@lemmy.today
- cross-posted to:
- libertarian@lemmy.today
You must log in or register to comment.
The CATO Institute is like the Heritage Foundation had a baby with the Island of Misfit Toys from Rudolph.
Then you are totally free not to pay attention to them. I’m fine with them though.
Libertarianism does not exist.
It’s a stalking horse for generic conservatism, where ingroup good and outgroup bad. Then you shuffle cards to form argument-shaped sentences following the word “because.” If they differ from yesterday’s sentences, eh, who cares.
Libertarianism is an approach to policy, not a set of policies itself. Generally speaking, libertarians want to solve problems with more freedom rather than less. They generally don’t think government should make decisions for people, but they do think the government has a role in helping people when they run into problems.
Libertarians disagree with each other on what extent government should be involved, hence why they disagree with each other, but they’re similar in the approach to policy. There isn’t really an in-group or out-group, just people who generally agree that more freedom is better than less.
If you look at the two popular sides of political debate, it’s all about which freedoms we’re willing to give up to accomplish some goal, like giving up guns or privacy. Or in other words, the ends justify the means, provided the means aren’t too bad. In libertarianism, the means are the ends, meaning how we solve a problem is more important than solving the problem, and if the solution to the problem is too intrusive, the problem probably doesn’t need to be solved. For example, let’s say someone decides to tackle gambling addiction. The conservative may want to ban it because gambling is a sin, the liberal may want age restrictions and heavy regulations to prevent companies from taking advantage of people, and the libertarian would maybe say legalize it, and if they’re left leaning, tax it a bit to provide rehab services because anything more is a violation of freedom.
Well said!
Your chosen example is ‘How do we solve this profitable abuse?’ ‘Don’t.’
At best - your philosophy has been co-opted by rich bastards seeking high-minded excuses for destroying all obstacles to their consolidation of wealth and power. At worst they invented it. As they’ve invented countless internally-consistent pretenses they will adopt or abandon as it suits their plain and simple motives.
The best-case scenario, where there really is some core of true believers and they’re all you’d like to talk about, sees you use cigarettes as a positive example. Manufactured desire converted to chemical dependency. It’s a denial of systemic problems, in an era where systemic problems from profitable abuses might end human civilization.
An approach to policy that demands no policy is the sound of one hand clapping. At least I think that’s the gesture it’s making.
At best - your philosophy has been co-opted
If you’re talking about people like Musk and Thiel, then yeah, Musk is only using it to push Twitter and to get that DOGE spot, and Thiel seems like an accelerationist more than anything. But since both are firmly attached to the government teat for their businesses, it makes no sense calling them libertarians. If you’re referring to Trump, I’ll just point to his speech at the LP convention where he got booed.
If you’re talking about someone else, please name them so we can discuss them.
sees you use cigarettes as a positive example
Well yeah, cigarettes are a fantastic example. The conservatives who call themselves “libertarian” only do so for fiscal matters and wouldn’t touch libertarian social policy with a 10’ pole because their socially conservative party mates would roast them for it.
It’s something I think should be 100% legal despite believing nobody should use it since people should be able to choose what to put in their bodies, and we have simple, minimally intrusive laws to protect people from second hand smoke (be X distance from buildings, except in designated smoking rooms/areas). Chewing tobacco is even less intrusive and is covered by littering laws. We can even age restrict it since only adults can properly consent to addictive substances.
Maybe tax tobacco a bit to fund quitting assistance programs and call it good (would be far less than current “sin” taxes). People are unlikely to hurt others due to the effects of nicotine like they could with alcohol or hard drugs, so it’s a pretty simple conclusion.
It’s not a denial of systemic problems, it’s an explicit acknowledgment of a few things:
- bans push the behavior underground, it doesn’t stop it (see prohibition of alcohol in the US)
- freedom to choose is worth some people making poor choices
- punitive taxes to discourage undesirable behavior is immoral, though taxes to correct the effects of undesirable behavior are acceptable
An approach to policy that demands no policy is the sound of one hand clapping
It doesn’t demand it. I gave you examples of policies WRT cigarettes that correct the worst of the problem without violating anyone’s freedom unnecessarily. It’s pretty close to what we have today, minus punitive taxes and with taxes that help correct the problems it creates.
But sometimes no policy is the best policy. Sometimes you just need to let people create solutions for themselves.
Hey, so… do Democrats get invited to LP conventions?
I’ve spent twenty years bickering with libertarians online, in a rich tableau of bickering with damn near everyone online, and the few typical improvements over run-of-the-mill republicans are counterbalanced by suggesting whites-only businesses should be left to the market. As a rule, they’re not bigots… but they view bigotry as individual choice, where prevention means ‘well I wouldn’t–’ and solutions go ‘you should just–.’
Systemic problems are not addressed by individual action. That’s. What makes them systemic. I know you have glimpsed the elephant, walking around feeling its shape, because you’ve said artificial scarcity can violate the non-aggression principle. That doesn’t actually make sense, but it understands something’s fucked, and searches for reasons, using the cards you’re prepared to draw. This was in the thread where you suggested that bombarding people with “SMOKE!” ads and making their deadly chemical dependency as gentle as possible was a perfectly fine level of manipulation for profit. Admirable, even. A commendable example of unrestrained markets doing something good. Like so long as you can say choice with a straight face, problems aren’t real.
Meanwhile this herd of alleged porcupines isn’t notorious for direct action against overbearing police presence, except for those armed pricks harassing meter maids a decade ago. Y’all chided ‘get government out of the marriage business’ like that’d solve corporations excluding a man’s husband from healthcare. All the Ron Paul bros on reddit were fine with state governments doing whatever, so long as the boot on their neck wasn’t federal. Your party convention hosted a fascist. If the grand philosophy was more of an excuse, for the supermajority of those who identify with it, what would look different?
Hey, so… do Democrats get invited to LP conventions?
Yes. Biden didn’t accept, but Trump and RFK Jr. did.
Meanwhile this herd of alleged porcupines isn’t notorious for direct action against overbearing police presence
This isn’t an issue with libertarians, but people generally. Most people are cowards, and libertarians are no different. That said, I’m sure plenty of libertarians have joined protests along with Democrats and independents.
Libertarians at least are pretty consistent in calling for an end to qualified immunity.
Y’all chided ‘get government out of the marriage business’ like that’d solve corporations excluding a man’s husband from healthcare
Ending the government institution of marriage wouldn’t happen without some form of replacement. My proposal here is to replace it with a certain set of contracts, such as joint financial responsibility, joint medical responsibility, etc. Health insurance would no longer be able to use “marriage” as a determining factor for health insurance and would probably use one of those contracts. Doing anything else (i.e. having their own definition) would certainly be considered illegal discrimination, no?
That said, most libertarians support gay marriage since the other option is far less likely to happen and isn’t well defined.
Ron Paul
Ron Paul is about as good as you get with someone running as a Republican. I would personally make a few changes:
- instead of a federal law protecting privacy, make it a Constitutional amendment so it applies to the states as well - this would lay the foundation implied by Roe V Wade
- less focus on elimination of the income tax
- more focus on federal government setting standards (i.e. states must meet X and Y need, states can decide on how)
If the grand philosophy was more of an excuse, for the supermajority of those who identify with it, what would look different?
That’s a loaded question, and I’m not exactly sure what you’re really asking. But generally speaking, if libertarianism was designed to funnel power to the elite, it would be a lot more successful and better funded.
It seems rich people don’t actually want libertarians in power, so they focus their money on the two party system because it’s easier to work with corrupt politicians than idealists.
It seems rich people don’t actually want libertarians in power, so they focus their money on the two party system because it’s easier to work with corrupt politicians than idealists.
That’s 100 percent the answer! It astounds me that Lemmy doesn’t realize that the the people in power, regardless of party, are rich and don’t look out for them. The one thing that both Democrats and Republicans agree on, is that there shouldn’t be third parties! lol
They don’t wanna lose their power.
And that’s the “both parties are the same” argument. Yes, they have very different policies so they’re not literally the same, but both oppose real electoral choice. I think that encourages both parties to grow the power of the federal government, because even if it benefits their opponents in the next cycle, they’re all but guaranteed to get that power back afterward. If we had viable third parties, that guarantee isn’t there.
Your opinion isn’t fact. Bro, you are a well-known duopoly worship promoter. I don’t take anything you say seriously. Republicans suck. Democrats suck. That’s my opinion. You have yours. We’re never gonna agree.
Ooh, I’m well-known. Shame it’s for something made-up. I’ve long been an absolute crank about ranked voting and breaking the two-party system.
I have not seen any alleged third party fall so consistently to one side, as libertarians backing republicans. You can glibly denounce ‘both sides,’ but so does one side, and it’s the side y’all routinely vote for. Pretending the outright fascists are only as bad as the ineffectual liberals is standard rhetoric for those fascists. I have no love for the democratic party, but they’re a thousand times better than the bastards currently snatching people off the street. Your beef with people who want cheaper healthcare needs to be fundamentally distinct from your beef with people openly drooling about rounding up sixty million Americans.
Observable reality is not a matter of opinion. On some subjects, you can speak your mind, and be wrong. Claiming any great bulk of self-professed libertarians are-too distinct from and unaligned with generic conservatives is observably wrong. You know who else claims that? Conservatives. The ones who aren’t fully in the cult act like there’s some silent mass of real conservatives, like however we pretend they were thirty years ago, and they’re gonna ride over the hill and put all this extremism behind us. But no. It’s just the extremism, and a facade.
The facade for this group is a lot of high-minded academic language to say, let rich people wield unchecked power. Pleasant-sounding excuses to eliminate societal guardrails against discrimination, poverty, hunger, and child laborers who can’t count to ten.
Actual pragmatic property-fetishism would still acknowledge the diminishing marginal utility of money and tax the hell out of rich people. A handful of guys being able to shape an entire country is antithetical to any visions of decentralized order. Everyone does better when that excess is spent on infrastructure.
Actual economy-uber-alles thinking would demand a high minimum wage, so people can buy things. If a business can’t afford to pay a comfortable living wage, they fail, oh well.
Actual individualist fixation would expect amazing schools for everyone, so no brilliant budding minds are doomed to obscurity. Do you want meritocracy, or do you want to measure how rich some kid’s parents were? Some beat the odds, but most don’t, because that’s what odds are.
A society arranged on your stated ideals would look nothing like what you advocate. What you advocate looks an awful lot like what republicans advocated, before they went mask-off. A gun in every fridge and private school and deregulated everything and tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts. These are just demands from hierarchy, to increase hierarchy.
I’ll keep voting third party. Thanks! By the way, you aren’t just a “crank,” you’re an outright dick to people on Lemmy. I don’t know what your deal is, but you’re easily one of the biggest jerks I’ve ever witnessed on Lemmy. I’ve seen you advocate violence, stalking, troll accusations, etc. I don’t know what you got going on in your real life, but dude…
The problem with that, is on the few times you aren’t ranting or calling people names, I can’t take ya seriously. And I know you’re ok with that too. So all good.
There are fun chaos trolls, ragebaiters, etc. But you, oy. You are the unhappiest person I have ever come across on the internet. And I’m fucking old. So I think you are either fake and you are trying to confuse people because you work for foreign agents, or you have some condition that makes you chronically bitchy. Either way, nah, I don’t believe a word you are saying. And you worship the duopoly.
I invite you to bring receipts for any of those shrill claims, because it’s inevitably going to be a couple shrugs about Charlie Kirk, and then nothing. Glib frustration with infuriating nonsense, which you’ve somehow twisted up into lurid allegations about… stalking? I cannot even guess what the fuck inspired that fantasy. And you put ‘troll accusations’ in the same breath. Bit of a disconnect, yeah? Arson, murder, jaywalking? I gladly admit to calling people trolls, when they’re trolling.
Like when they just make shit up and don’t have an argument.
Like this directed abuse in the absence of fact.
At no point were you asked to believe me. That denial is a confession. It speaks to a worldview fixated on interpersonal loyalty, where things are true because a trusted person says them. You’ll never agree with me because claims from the outgroup are automatically wrong. That tribalism is the core of conservatism. You don’t have an answer, and that doesn’t bother you, because you’ve already drawn me as the soyjak, and apparently that’s all you think there is to reality. What a shame there’s no way for opposing claims to be settled by lookin’.
Anyone can look at your post history, you’re removed comments, and see how you are. Brah, you know it and you’re proud of it. I don’t even know why you are denying it, since you wear it as a badge of pride.
Also, I’m not conservative. thx
Ohhh, Universal Monk slandered me again. No, an obvious exaggeration about instance-owners escalating their discouragement against Lemmy’s most block-evading troll is not somehow an endorsement of crimes, you adorable little dingus. You adorable vote-manipulating sockpuppet, if we glance at your own modlog and pretend that’s infallible.
So your whole ‘we know you’ schtick is just one guy clutching pearls about me saying what an asshole he is, huh? That’s disappointing. When I argue with sugar_in_your_tea, there’s notes. In our previous interaction he kinda defended actual Nazi newspapers, and I’ll give the benefit of context and nuance, but that shit’s coming up again. You play a weak game if you wanna come out accusing someone of murder fantasies and gangstalking, and your whole basis is - ‘but a tankie said so!’
Meanwhile, you’ve done less than nothing to distnguish yourself from any other conservative. You want to label me, and pretend that’s a substitute for any form of counterargument. Like. The whole accusation was, y’all just sneer at outsiders based on this ideology-as-identity, and reach for excuses to justify that kneejerk conclusion.
And your rebuttal was to do that three times in a row.
I don’t know who the sugar tea monk guy is, but by the sound of your rant, you’re proving my point. I don’t even know where your nazi newspapers example is coming from, or what you’re talking about. I’m not even talking about newspaper?! What?!
We’re talking about you being a jerk and now you are talking about how you read nazi newspapers?! WTF?!
Is your reply meant for me or for someone else?! You sound like you are having an entirely different conversation than what we were talking about.
I knew you were a jerk, but I didn’t know you were a nazi. You read nazi newspapers and brag about it. Fits your presonality, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. Of course you are a nazi. Have you ever heard of the nazi bar? You’re who they talk about. I bet u worship Trump too. Eww, I don’t deal with fascists. Yuck, go away.
