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
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.
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.
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:
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?
Yes. Biden didn’t accept, but Trump and RFK Jr. did.
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.
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 is about as good as you get with someone running as a Republican. I would personally make a few changes:
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.
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.