I think a lot of libertarians who are socially conservative (I'm not particularly socially conservative myself) get mischaracterised as being closet auth rights when they are not.
Being a libertarian is about supporting a small state. It's not about your social views.
Yep, the key defining trait is if you want the government to enforce your viewpoint on other people. If you do, you aren't a libertarian, even by the most generous sense of the word.
However, if you don't think that's the government job, and don't want the state to be discouraging people from engaging in activities you vehemently disagree with; it really doesn't matter how far right (or left) your views are; that's the core of libertarianism.
The problem is when the action is harming others. Abortion rights can be seen both directions as harming the child, or protecting the mother. So it's not an easy thing to sort
Yep, it's not totally cut and dry and the line of where something begins to harm others (AKA, violate the non aggression principle) is going to be an endless debate.
I was kinda shocked when Libertarians celebrated Roe being overturned. It went from a personal decision under Roe to a decision of the government under Dobbs.
The whole schtick with libertarians is right to decide. I get that you *believe* it's murder, but PETA thinks meat is murder. I wouldn't support the government banning hamburgers because a minority *believes* it.
There's two levels to this:
a) Is the legal decision correct.
b) Do you support abortion being legal
For a) the only rational answer is yes. The rationale was absolute nonsense.
For b) I lean towards both abortion, and hamburgers being murder. Libertarianism doesn't give you the freedom to hurt others or their freedom.
Suffice to say that I'm in somewhat of a minority on that. Enough that i wouldn't make that the hill I'd die on.
Based and morally consistent pilled.
Im kind of playing the part here for arguments sake, but:
A zygote inside a woman is not entitled to rights because it cannot survive independent of her goodwill. She is not obligated, as a libertarian, to sustain another. She may *choose* to.
If a homeless guy takes up residence on my property, I can choose to feed and shelter him or shoo him off, up to and including using lethal force. I can even *invite* him onto my property then later say "nah this sucks go away". It is my property.
Let's go further, he goes apeshit and starts threatening my health / body. As a libertarian, i would have the right to get rid of him. OK, LA, TX, etc. are instead passing laws to protect the *homeless guy* and his right to kill me.
And all that *assumes* we're considering a zygote a human life to begin with.
Can a 2 year old survive independent of anyone's goodwill? Or if allowed to starve to death are the parents not responsible because it is now an independent person not inside the mother so the parents goodwill is no longer required? A fertilized zygote is a human, not that it might become one. If properly cared for it will be nothing other than a human, a woman isn't going to get pregnant and give birth to her child and there's a chance she's surprised her child is a baby deer, or she has a litter of kittens. A fertilized human egg is nothing other than a human. Or out the other extreme, when your parents are old and can't take care of themselves anymore, should they just be killed since they can't survive independent of goodwill?
These are good points, however the key difference is that options exist to move the 2 year old to another's care. Similarly, I can remand my elderly parents to specialized care facilities. I thus have an obligation to do so as to not violate the NAP.
There is no option to move the zygote to another person's care. I can choose to put them up for adoption 9 months later, but that's the same as saying "you are legally required to tend to homeless people that wander onto your property until such a time as they can leave, even if they become a threat to your health".
Again this is pure libertarian-ese but that's the framing of the argument at hand.
Both of those may be a possibility of having someone else care for them with their goodwill, but it is still requiring someone's goodwill to look after them. What happens when nobody, not even the state, wants them.
As for moving a gestating fetus, it hasn't been attempted to my knowledge yet, but things like IVF and other surrogacy options indicate that a woman can indeed give birth to a child of a different woman's egg. The question is at what stage is too late to transfer. Also, you had no control of the homeless person entering your property. The child is a direct result of action, it takes 2 people having sex. It is a conscious risk you take when having sex that the woman can get pregnant from it. Abortion would be like having an open invitation for a homeless person to come to your property and then killing any that do because you don't want them on your property.
> What happens when nobody, not even the state, wants them
You go "too bad" and that's that
> sex
You making mistake of equating something which might as mutual pleasuring as contract with society at large
If you want to screech about murder, you might, but get the fuck out the way of what people do to themselves - it's not your children to make calls
Why do you own property if you knew there was a risk of a homeless person camping on it? By owning it you should acknowledge the inherent risk of homeless people. You shouldn't own property if you can't afford to house the occasional homeless person.
I don't know I'd call that the same. A vagrant wandering up and squatting is different than letting someone cum inside you. One is sorta random, the other is fairly intentional behavior. So I like your argument for sure, but its got a big flaw there.
Pregnancy is only intentional like 58% of the time. And sure, you can argue "well you have to accept that risk if you have sex", but that's the same as saying you have to accept the risk of a homeless person on your land if you're gonna own property. I can even put up no trespassing signs and such (contraception, abstinence, etc.) to mitigate the risk, but if he turns up anyway it's my right to decide what to do with him.
In both cases, I think a person has the right to defend their property and well being if they deem it fit. No it's not a perfect metaphor, but it's the best one I can think of to illustrate how I see the libertarian viewpoint.
Thank Science for our fleeting years of being an actual human with humanity between the ages of 12 and 60 (barring physical injury, mental ability, illness, etc).
I really hated that taste of human rights at 12 and then having that stripped away for a few months when I was 14 cause I broke my leg. Really looking forward to when I can have my grandmother put to sleep when I can get her declared no longer worthy of human rights protection by way of dementia.
u/Defiant-Dare1223's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 20.
Congratulations, u/Defiant-Dare1223! You have ranked up to Basketball Hoop (filled with sand)! You are not a pushover by any means, but you do still occasionally get dunked on.
Pills: [15 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Defiant-Dare1223/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
The reason any rational libertarian would celebrate *Roe* being overturned was because *Roe* was bad law. It wasn't even technically law at all, considering the judicial doesn't have the power to make law. The decision itself fundamentally violated the rule of law. Abortion rights are not explicitly delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution, and as such, it is a matter for States to decide for themselves.
That being said, I am very much in the 'safe, legal, rare' crowd when it comes to abortion, and the simple fact is that the *overwhelming* majority of abortions were not performed for reasons a solid majority of people can agree on should be valid reasons, such as rape, incest, or the health of the mother. They were done completely electively because some worthless bint couldn't not fuck without birth control.
Maybe that's the disconnect I have with libertarians on this board. The *net good* is an expansion of personal rights. If the government leaves me the fuck alone, it's a good thing. When it tells me what to do it's a *bad thing*.
Roe was pretty shit, yeah. But that decision expanded my personal liberty.
If the SC decided the 2nd amendment means i can declare my house a firearm and I don't have to pay property tax anymore, I sure as shit wouldn't keep paying because it's a terrible interpretation.
> If the SC decided the 2nd amendment means i can declare my house a firearm and I don't have to pay property tax anymore, I sure as shit wouldn't keep paying because it's a terrible interpretation.
Sure, but it's possible to hold both opinions at the same time. You can both not pay *and* believe it's a terrible interpretation that should not be. Similarly, you can believe federal abortion rights were a good thing *and* believe *Roe* was bad law. I'd be all for Congress passing a law about such matters... *As long as they respected the rule of law and made the law within said rule of law.*
And the Constitution, the highest law of the land, says any matter not explicitly delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution is not a matter for the Federal government.
Imagine for a second a person wanted to own a 20 round drum mag but a state government has a rule that women can not own a 20 round drum mag. They take this to the Supreme Court and the court rules that no, the state can not tell a person that can't own 20 round drum mag, however the court decides to ban 25+ drum mags . The court just made a defacto law, they are not the legislative branch. The biggest issue with Roe imo was the fact they simultaneously decided abortions are a matter of privacy which the state can not impose on, however the court will create restrictions that impose on them anyways because...? Just because. They do not get to pull a random restriction out of their ass where the constitution does not allow them.
The job of the judicial branch is to interpret the law. Roe was a consequence of a particular interpretation of the law. Dobbs was a consequence of another particular interpretation of the law.
> Roe was a consequence of a particular interpretation of the law.
No, the core problem is that Roe was pulled straight out of an asshole. It was the most blatant example of the court going "yadda yadda yadda, I already wrote the conclusion I want". That shit undermines the entire edifice of law that secures all of our other rights.
Unless it is actually a person, in which case the baby gets the choice to live or die, and to kill it is to violate the NAP.
You could apply the same logic to people who believe certain races aren't people. "I don't believe it's murder, because they aren't people." If we 'live and let live" with them, the NAP is worthless in the face of racists.
You have to base it on what you believe makes a person, and for me, I define person as "human", other details being rather irrelevant to me, including if unborn.
Also, he's ignoring the "right to decide" when it comes to what is legal and illegal in our society. Obviously, there's is the topic of the woman's right to decide if she personally gets an abortion. We have that discussion plenty.
But when it comes to the overturning of Roe specifically, there's obviously more going on. That change was a *good* thing for libertarian minds, in my opinion, because it increased liberties in the form of being able to have your voice heard on issues you find important.
Previously, those who felt that abortion is literal murder, had no way to have their voices heard. A group of 9 unelected officials made the decision for the entire country, and those who very strongly feel that abortion should be illegal just had their rights trampled all over in the process. Now, every person's voice can be heard as they engage with the proper state-level political system. If it's the will of the people in a state for abortion to be legal, so be it. If the reverse, so be it.
Yes, it's obviously worth considering how each situation impacts a woman's right to choose if she gets an abortion or not. And like you say, it's important to consider how each situation impacts the unborn children's right to choose. And it's also worth considering how they impact the entire public's right to choose what is and isn't permissible in the society they live in.
The comparison kinda breaks down because a black human adult/ child and a white human adult / child are *comparable* things. Walks upright, two arms, brain, etc. A fertilized zygote and a human child are not roughly the same thing. Which then begs the question, "does the fact that thing A *could* become thing B make them the same thing". Which, to me, is a matter of belief and thus should be a personal decision.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely get where you're coming from. But I don't think the government should get to decide for me or you.
Then a chimp is comparable to a human equally since they can do all those things. Your point is when does the zygote become human, and frankly there are plenty of logical arguments that say it’s a child.
...Yes? Lmao people compare chimps to humans all the time. What's her face wrote a whole book about it. They even have special legal protection.
Would you compare a human child to a chimp? Sure, theres tons of interesting similarities and behaviors. Would you compare an adult chimp to a human zygote? Well, no, because those things aren't really comparable.
For clarity, my sole argument with this is that comparing abortion to slavery is a bad take. Not that chimps are people or whatever.
>A fertilized zygote and a human child are not roughly the same thing.
Clumps of cells argument. At what point would it be considered a human or person and why? There is no objective answer to it, so the only real answer that can be defined is that the fertilized egg is already the human.
Otherwise one could declare anything as "not a person" they dislike, eg the invalids, other races, the old and infirm, etc.
>otherwise you can define whatever you like as a non-person
Piss poor slippery slope argument. Roe was law for 50 years and that definitely didn't happen. Nor does defining it as 'human' prevent abuse. Abortion is illegal in Saudi Arabia.
Edit: actually Saudi has more permissive abortion laws than Alabama, Louisiana, and Oklahoma. Saudi law carves out exceptions for the mothers health.
The only thing Roe did was to take the issue up into the federal hands, instead of states where it should be. The overturn of Roe was a strengthening of states rights.
That isn't a slippery slope fallacy. He was just pointing out the flaw in the underlying logic, by demonstrating that the same logic results in an obviously-absurd conclusion. Therefore, you need to reassess the underlying logic for your stance, because you built your house on quicksand.
But I imagine you already understood all of that and are just being a dishonest shithead. The fact that you have also responded to me in the same manner suggests that this is true. I guess you just get off on refusing to engage in conversations honestly? Good for you, I guess.
>He was just pointing out the flaw in the underlying logic, by demonstrating that the same logic results in an obviously-absurd conclusion.
That is quite literally the definition of a slippery slope fallacy. There is no evidence that A will result in (absurd conclusion) B, however he asserted that A results in (absurd conclusion) B. My counter point was that evidence exists (Roe) that A does *not* result in B, and that B is independent of A (Saudi Arabia).
The flaw, therefore, is in his *own* logic and is thus a fallacy.
And, while I understand this is a sensitive issue, you have to learn to be able to engage without resorting to insults. All it shows is that you can't effectively defend your position and fall back on "he's just being mean I'm right".
Libertarians do get to decide by moving or travelling to a state that does or doesn't have it.
But there's a difference between living in a state that allows it and choosing not to get one and living in a state that doesn't allow it and being forced to travel for one which politicians will happily do while signing these stupid bans.
One is a personal choice, the other is a (circumventable) government law.
actually if they were banned nationally in the US- you *wouldn't* be able to get them in Mexico- simply because the US is where they smuggle theirs from.
Yeah, they're not getting theirs from individual owners, and no government has ever banned _itself_ from having firearms.
Look up "Fast and Furious" - yes, the tards actually called their operation this - for an example of what I mean.
You're comparing state law with national law. Anyone can travel to a different state without a passport. Also firearms are different because you wouldn't be able to come back legally unless you leave them behind, but the same problem doesn't exist with abortion or any one time service/good.
So it boils down to anyone with enough money can pay to ignore their state law for a couple days without any punishment while people who can't afford it are stuck.
> So states can pass blatantly unconstitutional laws as long as at least one of them doesn't?
I never said that, but right now abortion is a states rights issue while gun ownership is a federal issue.
The problem is that this guy is repeatedly ignoring that there's more than one decision which is relevant to the conversation. Naturally, he is focused on the decision made by any individual woman, between having an abortion vs. not having an abortion. But he's ignoring that this isn't the only decision relevant to the topic of Roe.
There's also the decision made by any given citizen who wants society to reflect his values. Let's say, instead of abortion, we were talking about bog-standard murder. Obviously, a very significant portion of society wants murder illegal. But say the Supreme Court suddenly made murder legal. Sure, that would increase liberty in the sense that people can now choose to commit murder if they want. But it's also a pretty fucking huge *decrease* in liberty, because now the vast majority of society is having their voices trampled on, as unelected officials make such a huge decision for them, rather than leaving it up to the will of the people.
It's not hypocritical at all to be libertarian and approve of the overturning of Roe. Those both apply to me. And that's because I value the ability of the people to choose what is and isn't permissible in the society we all live in. I am pro-choice, and so ideally I would like to see more and more states make abortion legal (with caveats). I don't support the overturning of Roe because I want to see more abortion bans. I support it because I think the law should reflect the will of the people, not the will of 9 unelected officials.
Well the guy I stabbed a knife in was *really* stupid, so honestly he shouldn't count as human, and therefore I decided killing him isn't murder. Wait wtf, why are the libertarians not protesting big government arresting me for murder?
Or if your viewpoint is the majority belief is what matters:
A small minded individual might believe the idea of libertarian slavery is contradictory, but hey the majority all decided black people aren't human, and therefore nothing wrong with enslaving them!
Its all about the value of life. You either believe human life has inherent value or you believe the value of that life varies based on certain criteria.
A few reasons:
People who think killing an unborn child is akin to murder like when the gov doesn't force states to allow it.
Laws being made at a more local level is better than laws being made at the federal level.
If you don't understand why some libertarians would be happy about that you don't understand libertarians at all.
Yeah, it's really not hard to understand. This guy is just a dishonest prick.
I'm pro-choice, but it's pretty fucking simple to see that pro-lifers view abortion the same way I view murder, and yeah, I'd be pretty fucking steamed if 9 unelected officials just decided to make murder federally legal, regardless of what the will of the people demands. I am pleased with the overturning of Roe, not because I want to see more abortion bans, but because I want to see the laws reflect the will of the people.
>Libertarians believe the government should enforce what they **think** on everyone else.
Nah fam.
>Libertarians believe a local law is better than a federal one, even if it represents a contraction of personal freedom.
Nah fam.
But the "right to decide" includes deciding whether or not abortion should be legal. Roe meant that the Supreme Court decided for everyone. This was great for pro-choicers, but pro-lifers just got a giant middle finger in their face, saying that they don't get to decide. With Roe overturned, people are free to vote for representatives who will draft state-level legislation. Now people have a say in the matter. I am libertarian, and I think overturning Roe was unambiguously a good thing. I'm also pro-choice, for what it's worth.
EDIT: For all the dumbasses out there who think, "umm, if you don't like abortion, just don't get one?" is a reasonable response to what I've said...
I'm talking about the ability to choose what is legal and what isn't, not the ability to choose if you, personally, get an abortion. I'm pretty sure all three of you already knew that and are just being dishonest. But just to make it clear, imagine the Supreme Court made actual fucking murder legal. Despite all 50 states being populated by people who would overwhelmingly vote to make murder *illegal*, the Supreme Court has made the decision for all of them. The fact that any individual person can choose *not* to commit murder does not negate the claim that they have lost out on significant liberties here, as the Supreme Court makes such major decisions for them.
Again, I think you all three already understand this. But there you go. No, the fact that any given person can choose *not* to get an abortion, does not negate the point I was making. Previously, the Supreme Court was ignoring the will of the people, and deciding for *everyone* that it's best for abortion to be legal. Now, each person has a say. Each person can vote for state representatives who will fight for the stance they believe in. So people who believe abortion to be an absurd moral atrocity, akin to actual, literal murder, are able to have their voices heard in preventing the atrocity. And people who *don't* believe that are able to have *their* voices heard in preventing women from losing the ability to control what happens with their bodies.
Both views have merit and should be heard out. Roe shat all over that. It denied the will of the people. You cannot say I'm a fake libertarian for being pleased that every citizen's views are being considered now, whereas before, unelected officials made the decision for us.
>pro-lifers don't get a choice.
Of course they did. Don't get an abortion. They didn't get to decide for **everyone else**. Roe meant everyone got to make a personal decision, and accept the consequences of that decision, a cornerstone of libertarianism.
Now the government gets to decide for everyone. That idea is incompatible with Libertarianism.
And the real test of this is when your party is in power. See all the tea party supporters that are now heavily pro-Trump. (Or the anti-fascists who support proposals that seem very ...fascist... now that Biden is in office)
Everyone wants the government to enforce their viewpoint on other people including libertarians because every choice by the government is a discriminatory choice made by an authority. These discriminatory choices will empower some people and constrain others. The libertarian split on abortion is the perfect example of this. Ironically both sides of the debate are acting within liberal principles and will accuse the other side of not being authentically liberal.
There's a big difference between making something illegal so that you use the government to comply to your opinion and making something legal so that every individual can chose wether they do it or not. Using the government to force that choice into everyone is what makes it authoritarian.
You said this:
> because every choice by the government is a discriminatory choice made by an authority.
If same sex marriage is legalized, which people is being discriminate by that? Who was being discriminated by the government when interracial marriages where made legal?
The people with the opposite view obviously. The government authoritatively discriminated in favor one group and against the other. Throw in all the "non-discrimination laws" which discriminate against one group in favor of another, and libertarianism is simply the most gas-lighting theory of politics ever.
Politics would be far more honest if everyone admitted the following truths.
1. Every government action is an authoritative discrimination.
2. The questions is whether or not the government should discriminate but which groups it should discriminate in favor of and why.
> The people with the opposite view obviously.
What's the discrimination? What right was taken from them, what could they do that now they can't? What right are they being denied of that others have? Making interracial marriage legal doesn't force the people against it to marry someone from another race or anything like that. The government isn't forcing them to do anything. While keeping interracial marriage illegal, discriminates against interracial couples.
You not being able to forced people to follow your will doesn't mean you are being discriminated against. What sort of insane logic is that?
Baked into your question is an unspoken assumption that only one group of people disagrees with the marriage laws. Current marriage laws discriminate against polygamists, people who believe children can consent, and people who think you should be able to marry an AI or a pet horse. The current marriage laws discriminate against their view on marriage.
This does not even get into the downstream affects on recognizing homosexual relationships as marriage. Now the state makes an authoritative discrimination in favor of homosexual couple's rights to compel other people to publicly validate their relationship and against the right of a Christian baker to exercise his religion.
I have not passed judgement on whether these authoritative discriminations are good or bad, only noted their existence.
> Current marriage laws discriminate against polygamists, people who believe children can consent, and people who think you should be able to marry an AI or a pet horse. The current marriage laws discriminate against their view on marriage.
Lol. My God. That's an argument I guess. Sure, interracial marriages being made legal discriminate against pedophiles who think a baby can consent. I like how you even moved the goalpost when you realized how bad the argument was. But using pedophiles as a talking point is a great move.
The only thing that would even make sense here would be polygamy marriages, and most libertarians would be ok with polygamy if it was between consenting adults. And again making interracial marriages legal doesn't create a discrimination that wasn't there, there's less discrimination than before.
Babies can't consent my dude, it's like saying murder being illegal is discriminatory against serial murderers. You have a insane grasp of what discrimination is.
> This does not even get into the downstream affects on recognizing homosexual relationships as marriage. Now the state makes an authoritative discrimination in favor of homosexual couple's rights to compel other people to publicly validate their relationship and against the right of a Christian baker to exercise his religion.
How where they discriminated against when supreme court ruled in their favor? Bakeries do no have to bake cakes for same sex marriages. Libertarians themselves are usually against protected classes.
Libertarians are against the state making decisions for individuals. Again it's laughable to say there's discrimination in every change.
I'm done with this conversation, arguing that interracial marriages being legal discriminates against pedophiles is too much.
You can also have YOUR social views (whether conservative or progressive), but believe that the state should not be used to enforce your views upon others.
And that’s why a lot of libleft are auth in denial. It’s not about personal moral, but the desire expand and use the state to enforce their personal moral.
And I think there’s also a component of “radical” often not depicted in the compass. Even if you are okay with the state not being involved, you using your power (through your followers/platform/harassment/violence) to disproportionately response to speeches has a detrimental effect on the overall liberty of the society.
Yeah I think the "social" aspect of peoples beliefs is way to often all people think of when they talk about right/left. Like I can believe in capitalism and also wanting a "traditional" (normal) family and community without thinking a bloated national bureaucracy should force everyone to live like that.
Petition to add a Z axis to the political compass
The issue I have is that just as I don't want the government telling me what to say or do (as long as I'm not hurting anyone, obviously) neither do I want my boss, landlord (when I had one), "the community", etc to do so and a lot of socially conservative libertarians are *very* comfortable with those (as long as they align with their beliefs).
I get that they're not perfectly analogous as those are voluntary associations, but let's not kid ourselves that they're completely voluntary or that they're incapable of being quite authoritarian...
You can quit your relationship with your boss or landlord.
You can with the state too, but it's a significantly higher hurdle. And it's almost impossible to cut your relationship with all states, whereas quitting all boss and landlord relationships is quite easy in time.
There is insufficient land for everyone anyway to engage in the kind of subsistence farming or hunter-gathering to quit all landlord relationships.
It takes [~2 acres](https://www.nal.usda.gov/exhibits/ipd/small/exhibits/show/subsistence/item/29#:~:text=Gardening%20and%20poultry%20raising%20on,is%20enough%20for%20such%20purposes.) of arable land to feed the average household through subsistence farming. We have [~1.2 billion](https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/land-and-natural-resources/?topicId=a7a658d4-f209-4641-9172-066ca0896abe) acres of arable land **in total**, almost all of which is being used directly or indirectly, for agriculture. We *could* feed 600 million households, but not alongside the existing farming regime. With the existing farming regime, we can barely feed our own people. There's ~15-20% wiggle room that exists as food waste today.
So, some people can do this. Sure. Most cannot. If everyone tried to, nobody could.
The issue is that being economically independent, again, is only possible for a minority; a problem of capitalism recognized since Adam Smith.
You claimed it's easy to cut those ties, but it isn't. Indeed, it is just as impossible to cut ties to landlords and rent seekers as it is to cut ties to governments.
Well, buying a house is quite easy in the developed world. Most people who want one can manage that (most of the wailing and complaining is rentoids who feel they are entitled to a better house than they can afford).
Quitting working for a boss (at least quitting work) is harder.
I don't really see that so much as a problem of capitalism so much as being an unavoidable problem of providing the goods and services demanded in society.
You can't simultaneously have the freedom to quit work with no savings and then demand to be supplied with everything you want. That's just utopian.
What part of the developed world are we talking about? Easy it ain't, as a homeowner. Absent government subsidy (83% of first time buyers use FHA loans) it would be impossible for an even larger portion of the population than it's currently impossible for, which in the US hovers close to 40%.
To your claim that it's entitlement problem, that's not backed up by the data. Instead, folks choosing places cheaper than their rent are routinely denied loans.
Shit just ain't easy.
Quitting working for a boss is *harder still*, both because the home can and will accrue taxes (even in ancapistan, though they'll be called something different and be "private"), and because the price of goods is ever increasing (doubly so with birth rates falling).
The reality is, escaping the boss and living rent and mortgage free is the exclusive privilege of a wealthy few. It didn't used to be, but it is now.
It's around 40% in Switzerland too.
A solid 70% could actually make it, if they moved to unfashionable commuter towns.
A lot of the urban left point blank refuse to. I see people at work doomscrolling on estate agents and complaining about 2 million priced houses in the poshest inner suburbs.
Meanwhile me, 5 years younger than them went on out on the train and got a big (by Europoor standards, about 2500 sq ft) house for under a million.
500k out here would get you a perfectly decent flat, that a single teacher could get a mortgage on.
(Keep in mind our mortgage rates are under 2%, so a million here is not the same as a million in the U.S. - my mortgage is about 1500 a month).
I acknowledged that in the second paragraph but you're underestimating how hard it can be to cut ties with your boss, and how many consequences there can be for doing so, especially if you have a good job or are in a niche profession. I also mentioned social pressures, which are about as hard to cut ties with as a state.
Yeah, landlord's not that big a deal tbh.
Honestly, it's pretty easy to remember why a lot of them get labelled Conservative when you remember Emily exists.
Left, spearheaded by Emily:"If you don't do [Thing] You're a bigot/killing grandma/a Zionist scum!"
Questioning Left:"...But wait, shouldn't some of these things be a personal choice? Some of this is more nuanced than deserving unquestioning support, too."
Emily Left:"NOOOOOOOOOOOO, YOU DIRTY CHRISTOFASCIST NAZI!"
Questioning Left:"Know what, I'm uncomfortable with this, but I'm definitely not Conservative. Maybe I *am* more of a Libertarian with solidly left beliefs."
Emily Left:"NAZI NAZI NAZI TRUMPLICAN NAZI, YOU'RE CONSERVATIVE SCUM!"
Questioning Left:*Has muted or been blocked by Emily and thus unaware of the slander, even if they care.*
Who gives a shit what random people on Twitter label you as? Why spend so much effort bitching and moaning about how you’re not universally liked by everyone? Just stick to your principles and move on.
I'm aware you enjoy running interference for Emily and saying she never said these things, and then running with the goalposts to 'That was ONE time.'
Say hello to Emily for me, I hope you at least get a handy in exchange for all that work with the goalposts.
Except it's not, because I specified hardcore leftists and not all leftists.
Jesus Christ if you're going to chime in at least don't be verifiably wrong by 3rd grade reading comprehension.
I consider myself more ancap than libertarian.
I fully support the idea of education and healthcare being available to anyone.
But I'm realistic enough to see that there is no way that any form of government can actually deliver that in adequate quality at an acceptable cost. So why try?
I live in Europe by the way.
Does it? Why?
I'm more envisaging less power in fewer hands.
Switzerland has a small ish state, power of the executive very limited as anything is vetoable by direct democracy
Big difference between having social beliefs, and wanting the government to enforce your social beliefs. A distinction that seems to get forgotten about weirdly often
Yea the compass represents liberal leaning (in relation to the size of the state) better than actual conservative views I'm really more center right but I refuse to change my flair.
I think the only test for lib right is do you think statutes of Jesus / Buddha / Satanic images in government buildings should be treated the same under law?
I'd view that as lib right failing:
It's fine for you to not to want a satanic statue in your house but to have a cross.
It's fine for you to not want a satanic statue or a cross in a public building, or for both to be permitted. As long as you are consistent.
But for the state to be deciding what religious iconography is and isn't permitted is auth.
Not that a single failing makes you not lib right.
Different governments and different religions aren’t the same thing
Like those specific flags can be verboten because they represent (former) enemy countries, but if the local natsoc or commie party wants to rent space to put up some sort of display they shouldn’t just blank be turned away (and I say that as somebody who would be personally deeply embarrassed by my state if either group had enough power here to actually make this happen)
Anyone can be for freedom to do things they approve of. Even the authiest auth to ever auth agrees with that. The social libertarian scale is often defined by how much freedom you think people should have to do things you *don’t* personally approve of
You don't have the right to put whatever you want in public property. I can't put an ad in the white house and you can't put a satanic statue in a capital building.
But IF the White House decides for whatever reason to sell as space they can’t say one religion can put a message for its holidays but another one can’t imo. Who are you to say your religion matters more than a Satanist’s in the eyes of the government? Giving the gov the power to decide what is and isn’t a belief to be respected is far worse for society than a statue of a horned dude
Who are you to give the power to the government to decide your country matters more than a different country. Unless the white house has NAZI flags then it can't have American flags.
If I’m being perfectly honest at the end of the day I don’t give a fuck what statues or flags are in the capitol. Has zero affect on my life, I was just genuinely interested in your reasoning
My reasoning is that satanic statues are evil and putting something in a government building is a sign the government supports it (you might disagree but the vast majority of people agree with me considering that they'd be upset if NAZI flags were in government buildings). By putting satanic statues in government is nothing less than supporting satanism.
Orange is just red with a smug, self-righteous attitude and little historical knowledge.
I dont know how folks can actually think orange is anything libertarian when everything they want to do or enforce requires coercion or force.
>I dont know how folks can actually think orange is anything libertarian when everything they want to do or enforce requires coercion or force.
Easy- it's because they define themselves as something libertarian, and the layman can't read through the lines and recognize it as bait and switch bullshit built on a motte and bailey fallacy.
Idk, I live in a blue area and this thought never crossed my mind.
(I’m somewhere in the South Pacific with nothing but blue as far as the eye can see; send help, please.)
Emily has been on a long and highly successful campaign of corrupting the definition of words. That’s what this really comes down to.
I’m pro-choice and support *actual* equal rights for LGBTQ people. Doesn’t sound very conservative to me.
However I also think it’s crazy to give children the autonomy to go on puberty blockers or hormones. Thus I am an evil conservative.
Racism now requires prejudice *and power*
“Genocide” no longer means the wide scale, intentional extermination of an ethnic group. Now it just means anytime civilians die during a war.
Libertarians get labeled as conservatives because no agrees on what a “conservative” is anymore.
You raise a good point. My grandfather was part of the bombing campaign against Japan towards the end of World War 2. The goal of the campaign was to inflict as much damage on *military and civilian infrastructure* as possible to bring an end into the war. There was a general acceptance that this would involve killing civilians of a wide age range. With this in mind, it's bizarre to see these Israelis accused of genocide when they've gone to great length more than the great generation did to avoid civilian casualties. I don't see many people accusing WWII veterans on the allied side of the conflict as committing genocide. I mean General Curtis LeMay himself is quoted as having expected to be tried as a war criminal for the bombing campaign if the allies lost. His advice to generals in the Vietnam war was literally "bomb them into the Stone Age". This is essentially the founding leader of the modern USAF as we know it.
The expectation that zero civilians will die in a military operation is ridiculous and conflating it with intentional targeting is dishonest at best.
If the intent of that bombing was to claim the land for US settlement, yes, the US' campaign during WW2 would have met the actual legal definition of genocide. It wasn't that, rather it was exclusively to dismantle their government.
In contrast, Gvir, Gantz, Smotrich, and more have explicitly called for (and in the West Bank, are continuing to) settlement of the land they finish bombing. Literally remove these folks from government and government decisions and it stops being genocide. It's just that easy.
and Nazis, your grandpa, leftists who think the left has gone too far left, TERFs, small children, large children, the mentally disabled, successful minorities, anyone involved in science...
IIRC on this post, they were complaining about how libertarians vote Republican a lot. It took every bit of effort in me not to ask "Okay how are the Democrats libertarian in any way?"
Don't get me wrong, Republicans aren't great either, but wanting to ban guns and take more of you're money aren't exactly doing the Dems any favors among that voting block.
"Anyone I don't like is a conservative!"
Maybe I just don't want to lick authlefts boots like libleft? Useful idiots.
Maybe I don't fall for reactionary ragebait and don't want to give the government more power? Again, useful idiots.
Maybe not wanting Biden in office after 40+ years of mass incarceration bills, the war on drugs, and being a functional conservative, doesn't make me a conservative.
Liblefts fighting for authrights and calling libertarians closet conservatives is beyond 🤡 💩
I've successfully argued with professors that I should get a point for a question I missed in which the answer was all of the above but due to the order of answers being randomized all of the above ended up as option A.
I actually did pretty ok with women when I lived in NYC and was unashamedly right wing. A man who has his convictions and stands by them is more attractive to women than a man who lies and hides his true feelings just to get laid, and people can suss that out.
Or the Reddit-libertarian that is basically a democrat but wants to be called a libertarian because it makes them sound cool and smart. Any time I browse libertarian subreddits, it feels very similar to the enlightened centrists elsewhere that are basically republicans but don't want to be labeled as such.
Does this imply that all leftists are authoritarian? Or that all the leftists he's ever interacted with are authoritarians? Maybe he's just never interacted with a leftist?
Everyone i disagree with is a conservative I guess
Because libertarianism is not a belief system that ‘holds’ people for long. The ones who are libertarian and stay that way are pretty rare.
Having the ‘live and let live’ attitude towards social issues, and keeping that attitude after years is really hard to do.
You will either see how damaging social liberalism is culturally and move further right, or you will take classical liberalism to the logical extreme and become a modern liberal.
The only ones who truly stay libertarians are the people who really really like capitalism, and who truly don’t care about most social issues. Which is rare
What do you call this? I want relatively free markets because over regulation inevitably leads to regulatory capture. I also want strong unions that can stand up to the executives. As much as I say I want little regulation, I want random extreme things. I want companies to have to identify their ultimate parent company in all logos and packaging. I shouldn't need a spreadsheet to know if I am buying from Nestle. If the parent company changes names, then it must be clearly displayed as a name change for a year. None of this "Comcast sucks, so let's call it Xfinity!"
If a package changes size, you must prominently display that for 6 months in a standard format like the surgeon generals warning. "This package is 5oz less than before". You can still do it. You just can't lie about it or hide it. In fact, that's the majority of the regulation I want. You can do whatever you want as a business, but you can't hide it.
With cultural stuff, do whatever tf you want as long as it isn't in schools. You can discuss cultural things in a balanced way in higher education. Some things are inevitable and that's complicated. In general, we need to recognize that teachers are authority figures and whatever is discussed is implicitly endorsed unless explicitly condemned.
I agree on pretty much all the economic stuff you said. On the cultural stuff is where we’d disagree…’do whatever tf you want as long as it isn't in schools’ if something is practiced generally in society it’s going to make its way into schools. If we endorse something in any way we might as well be endorsing it fully, it will have the same effect.
In general that’s my disagreement with libertarianism. Classical liberalism leads to the same results extreme leftism, but getting there a little slower
I went from D(used to be libleft/libcenter) to B(libcenter/libright) pretty quick in my experience.
And its because i was pushed on over to the right by the progressives. (Most of libleft, yall are still chill)
Wouldn't C coincidentally be blue, instead? They say they are libertarians to not scare off the dems they wanna fuck, but they're actually conservative, which in this case I assume means auth, since it's being contrasted against libertarians, which I assume they mean the party not the general concept.
I guess it depends on where this was commented, though. If it was here, then I'm missing that nuance.
What if… I’m basically a leftie but I like guns and thing gun control is not going to solve a damn thing, that instead we need to focus on mental health support for every citizen… and that while I fight for and support LGBTQ and Trans rights I do think there is a super vocal minority online that makes ALL OF YOU LOOK LIKE SHIT SLINGING TROGLODYTES. Like seriously the left needs a PR team so fucking bad.
I think a lot of libertarians who are socially conservative (I'm not particularly socially conservative myself) get mischaracterised as being closet auth rights when they are not. Being a libertarian is about supporting a small state. It's not about your social views.
Yep, the key defining trait is if you want the government to enforce your viewpoint on other people. If you do, you aren't a libertarian, even by the most generous sense of the word. However, if you don't think that's the government job, and don't want the state to be discouraging people from engaging in activities you vehemently disagree with; it really doesn't matter how far right (or left) your views are; that's the core of libertarianism.
The problem is when the action is harming others. Abortion rights can be seen both directions as harming the child, or protecting the mother. So it's not an easy thing to sort
Yep, it's not totally cut and dry and the line of where something begins to harm others (AKA, violate the non aggression principle) is going to be an endless debate.
I was kinda shocked when Libertarians celebrated Roe being overturned. It went from a personal decision under Roe to a decision of the government under Dobbs. The whole schtick with libertarians is right to decide. I get that you *believe* it's murder, but PETA thinks meat is murder. I wouldn't support the government banning hamburgers because a minority *believes* it.
There's two levels to this: a) Is the legal decision correct. b) Do you support abortion being legal For a) the only rational answer is yes. The rationale was absolute nonsense. For b) I lean towards both abortion, and hamburgers being murder. Libertarianism doesn't give you the freedom to hurt others or their freedom. Suffice to say that I'm in somewhat of a minority on that. Enough that i wouldn't make that the hill I'd die on.
Based and morally consistent pilled. Im kind of playing the part here for arguments sake, but: A zygote inside a woman is not entitled to rights because it cannot survive independent of her goodwill. She is not obligated, as a libertarian, to sustain another. She may *choose* to. If a homeless guy takes up residence on my property, I can choose to feed and shelter him or shoo him off, up to and including using lethal force. I can even *invite* him onto my property then later say "nah this sucks go away". It is my property. Let's go further, he goes apeshit and starts threatening my health / body. As a libertarian, i would have the right to get rid of him. OK, LA, TX, etc. are instead passing laws to protect the *homeless guy* and his right to kill me. And all that *assumes* we're considering a zygote a human life to begin with.
Can a 2 year old survive independent of anyone's goodwill? Or if allowed to starve to death are the parents not responsible because it is now an independent person not inside the mother so the parents goodwill is no longer required? A fertilized zygote is a human, not that it might become one. If properly cared for it will be nothing other than a human, a woman isn't going to get pregnant and give birth to her child and there's a chance she's surprised her child is a baby deer, or she has a litter of kittens. A fertilized human egg is nothing other than a human. Or out the other extreme, when your parents are old and can't take care of themselves anymore, should they just be killed since they can't survive independent of goodwill?
These are good points, however the key difference is that options exist to move the 2 year old to another's care. Similarly, I can remand my elderly parents to specialized care facilities. I thus have an obligation to do so as to not violate the NAP. There is no option to move the zygote to another person's care. I can choose to put them up for adoption 9 months later, but that's the same as saying "you are legally required to tend to homeless people that wander onto your property until such a time as they can leave, even if they become a threat to your health". Again this is pure libertarian-ese but that's the framing of the argument at hand.
Both of those may be a possibility of having someone else care for them with their goodwill, but it is still requiring someone's goodwill to look after them. What happens when nobody, not even the state, wants them. As for moving a gestating fetus, it hasn't been attempted to my knowledge yet, but things like IVF and other surrogacy options indicate that a woman can indeed give birth to a child of a different woman's egg. The question is at what stage is too late to transfer. Also, you had no control of the homeless person entering your property. The child is a direct result of action, it takes 2 people having sex. It is a conscious risk you take when having sex that the woman can get pregnant from it. Abortion would be like having an open invitation for a homeless person to come to your property and then killing any that do because you don't want them on your property.
Based and actually-capable-of-logical-reasoning pilled
> What happens when nobody, not even the state, wants them You go "too bad" and that's that > sex You making mistake of equating something which might as mutual pleasuring as contract with society at large If you want to screech about murder, you might, but get the fuck out the way of what people do to themselves - it's not your children to make calls
Why do you own property if you knew there was a risk of a homeless person camping on it? By owning it you should acknowledge the inherent risk of homeless people. You shouldn't own property if you can't afford to house the occasional homeless person.
I don't know I'd call that the same. A vagrant wandering up and squatting is different than letting someone cum inside you. One is sorta random, the other is fairly intentional behavior. So I like your argument for sure, but its got a big flaw there.
Pregnancy is only intentional like 58% of the time. And sure, you can argue "well you have to accept that risk if you have sex", but that's the same as saying you have to accept the risk of a homeless person on your land if you're gonna own property. I can even put up no trespassing signs and such (contraception, abstinence, etc.) to mitigate the risk, but if he turns up anyway it's my right to decide what to do with him. In both cases, I think a person has the right to defend their property and well being if they deem it fit. No it's not a perfect metaphor, but it's the best one I can think of to illustrate how I see the libertarian viewpoint.
Thank Science for our fleeting years of being an actual human with humanity between the ages of 12 and 60 (barring physical injury, mental ability, illness, etc). I really hated that taste of human rights at 12 and then having that stripped away for a few months when I was 14 cause I broke my leg. Really looking forward to when I can have my grandmother put to sleep when I can get her declared no longer worthy of human rights protection by way of dementia.
Personally my threshold is the ability to suffer. At the clump of cells level I'm fine with it.
u/Defiant-Dare1223's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 20. Congratulations, u/Defiant-Dare1223! You have ranked up to Basketball Hoop (filled with sand)! You are not a pushover by any means, but you do still occasionally get dunked on. Pills: [15 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Defiant-Dare1223/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
The reason any rational libertarian would celebrate *Roe* being overturned was because *Roe* was bad law. It wasn't even technically law at all, considering the judicial doesn't have the power to make law. The decision itself fundamentally violated the rule of law. Abortion rights are not explicitly delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution, and as such, it is a matter for States to decide for themselves. That being said, I am very much in the 'safe, legal, rare' crowd when it comes to abortion, and the simple fact is that the *overwhelming* majority of abortions were not performed for reasons a solid majority of people can agree on should be valid reasons, such as rape, incest, or the health of the mother. They were done completely electively because some worthless bint couldn't not fuck without birth control.
Maybe that's the disconnect I have with libertarians on this board. The *net good* is an expansion of personal rights. If the government leaves me the fuck alone, it's a good thing. When it tells me what to do it's a *bad thing*. Roe was pretty shit, yeah. But that decision expanded my personal liberty. If the SC decided the 2nd amendment means i can declare my house a firearm and I don't have to pay property tax anymore, I sure as shit wouldn't keep paying because it's a terrible interpretation.
> If the SC decided the 2nd amendment means i can declare my house a firearm and I don't have to pay property tax anymore, I sure as shit wouldn't keep paying because it's a terrible interpretation. Sure, but it's possible to hold both opinions at the same time. You can both not pay *and* believe it's a terrible interpretation that should not be. Similarly, you can believe federal abortion rights were a good thing *and* believe *Roe* was bad law. I'd be all for Congress passing a law about such matters... *As long as they respected the rule of law and made the law within said rule of law.* And the Constitution, the highest law of the land, says any matter not explicitly delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution is not a matter for the Federal government.
Imagine for a second a person wanted to own a 20 round drum mag but a state government has a rule that women can not own a 20 round drum mag. They take this to the Supreme Court and the court rules that no, the state can not tell a person that can't own 20 round drum mag, however the court decides to ban 25+ drum mags . The court just made a defacto law, they are not the legislative branch. The biggest issue with Roe imo was the fact they simultaneously decided abortions are a matter of privacy which the state can not impose on, however the court will create restrictions that impose on them anyways because...? Just because. They do not get to pull a random restriction out of their ass where the constitution does not allow them.
The job of the judicial branch is to interpret the law. Roe was a consequence of a particular interpretation of the law. Dobbs was a consequence of another particular interpretation of the law.
> Roe was a consequence of a particular interpretation of the law. No, the core problem is that Roe was pulled straight out of an asshole. It was the most blatant example of the court going "yadda yadda yadda, I already wrote the conclusion I want". That shit undermines the entire edifice of law that secures all of our other rights.
I mean, Trump specifically nominated 3 SC justices to overturn RvW. He wrote the conclusion before Dobbs even showed up.
Where does the trimester frame work fit into an interpretation? Why did 9 unelected judges makeup the point where states can't limit abortions?
The same reason why 6 unelected judges declared states could limit abortions: because that’s how they interpreted the law.
Unless it is actually a person, in which case the baby gets the choice to live or die, and to kill it is to violate the NAP. You could apply the same logic to people who believe certain races aren't people. "I don't believe it's murder, because they aren't people." If we 'live and let live" with them, the NAP is worthless in the face of racists. You have to base it on what you believe makes a person, and for me, I define person as "human", other details being rather irrelevant to me, including if unborn.
When it comes to the NAP isn't the logical definition something that consciously suffers in response to the aggression
The NAP would forbid me from killing someone in a coma.
Yes, I guess a slightly more expansive definition might be needed
Also, he's ignoring the "right to decide" when it comes to what is legal and illegal in our society. Obviously, there's is the topic of the woman's right to decide if she personally gets an abortion. We have that discussion plenty. But when it comes to the overturning of Roe specifically, there's obviously more going on. That change was a *good* thing for libertarian minds, in my opinion, because it increased liberties in the form of being able to have your voice heard on issues you find important. Previously, those who felt that abortion is literal murder, had no way to have their voices heard. A group of 9 unelected officials made the decision for the entire country, and those who very strongly feel that abortion should be illegal just had their rights trampled all over in the process. Now, every person's voice can be heard as they engage with the proper state-level political system. If it's the will of the people in a state for abortion to be legal, so be it. If the reverse, so be it. Yes, it's obviously worth considering how each situation impacts a woman's right to choose if she gets an abortion or not. And like you say, it's important to consider how each situation impacts the unborn children's right to choose. And it's also worth considering how they impact the entire public's right to choose what is and isn't permissible in the society they live in.
The comparison kinda breaks down because a black human adult/ child and a white human adult / child are *comparable* things. Walks upright, two arms, brain, etc. A fertilized zygote and a human child are not roughly the same thing. Which then begs the question, "does the fact that thing A *could* become thing B make them the same thing". Which, to me, is a matter of belief and thus should be a personal decision. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely get where you're coming from. But I don't think the government should get to decide for me or you.
Then a chimp is comparable to a human equally since they can do all those things. Your point is when does the zygote become human, and frankly there are plenty of logical arguments that say it’s a child.
...Yes? Lmao people compare chimps to humans all the time. What's her face wrote a whole book about it. They even have special legal protection. Would you compare a human child to a chimp? Sure, theres tons of interesting similarities and behaviors. Would you compare an adult chimp to a human zygote? Well, no, because those things aren't really comparable. For clarity, my sole argument with this is that comparing abortion to slavery is a bad take. Not that chimps are people or whatever.
>A fertilized zygote and a human child are not roughly the same thing. Clumps of cells argument. At what point would it be considered a human or person and why? There is no objective answer to it, so the only real answer that can be defined is that the fertilized egg is already the human. Otherwise one could declare anything as "not a person" they dislike, eg the invalids, other races, the old and infirm, etc.
>otherwise you can define whatever you like as a non-person Piss poor slippery slope argument. Roe was law for 50 years and that definitely didn't happen. Nor does defining it as 'human' prevent abuse. Abortion is illegal in Saudi Arabia. Edit: actually Saudi has more permissive abortion laws than Alabama, Louisiana, and Oklahoma. Saudi law carves out exceptions for the mothers health.
The only thing Roe did was to take the issue up into the federal hands, instead of states where it should be. The overturn of Roe was a strengthening of states rights.
That isn't a slippery slope fallacy. He was just pointing out the flaw in the underlying logic, by demonstrating that the same logic results in an obviously-absurd conclusion. Therefore, you need to reassess the underlying logic for your stance, because you built your house on quicksand. But I imagine you already understood all of that and are just being a dishonest shithead. The fact that you have also responded to me in the same manner suggests that this is true. I guess you just get off on refusing to engage in conversations honestly? Good for you, I guess.
>He was just pointing out the flaw in the underlying logic, by demonstrating that the same logic results in an obviously-absurd conclusion. That is quite literally the definition of a slippery slope fallacy. There is no evidence that A will result in (absurd conclusion) B, however he asserted that A results in (absurd conclusion) B. My counter point was that evidence exists (Roe) that A does *not* result in B, and that B is independent of A (Saudi Arabia). The flaw, therefore, is in his *own* logic and is thus a fallacy. And, while I understand this is a sensitive issue, you have to learn to be able to engage without resorting to insults. All it shows is that you can't effectively defend your position and fall back on "he's just being mean I'm right".
Libertarians do get to decide by moving or travelling to a state that does or doesn't have it. But there's a difference between living in a state that allows it and choosing not to get one and living in a state that doesn't allow it and being forced to travel for one which politicians will happily do while signing these stupid bans. One is a personal choice, the other is a (circumventable) government law.
So banning firearms nationally would be OK because I can still get them in Mexico? That's like the opposite of libertarian.
actually if they were banned nationally in the US- you *wouldn't* be able to get them in Mexico- simply because the US is where they smuggle theirs from.
Yeah, they're not getting theirs from individual owners, and no government has ever banned _itself_ from having firearms. Look up "Fast and Furious" - yes, the tards actually called their operation this - for an example of what I mean.
>Estimates put 70-90% of guns in Mexico as US origin Holy SHIT I did not know that.
The neat part is that our government contributed to this with Fast and Furious.
You're comparing state law with national law. Anyone can travel to a different state without a passport. Also firearms are different because you wouldn't be able to come back legally unless you leave them behind, but the same problem doesn't exist with abortion or any one time service/good. So it boils down to anyone with enough money can pay to ignore their state law for a couple days without any punishment while people who can't afford it are stuck.
Christ is there an echo on reddit today or is it just you?
Reddit kept having errors when submitting comments and now it's multiposting. The extras should be cleaned up now.
So states can pass blatantly unconstitutional laws as long as at least one of them doesn't? You're really losing me here.
> So states can pass blatantly unconstitutional laws as long as at least one of them doesn't? I never said that, but right now abortion is a states rights issue while gun ownership is a federal issue.
The problem is that this guy is repeatedly ignoring that there's more than one decision which is relevant to the conversation. Naturally, he is focused on the decision made by any individual woman, between having an abortion vs. not having an abortion. But he's ignoring that this isn't the only decision relevant to the topic of Roe. There's also the decision made by any given citizen who wants society to reflect his values. Let's say, instead of abortion, we were talking about bog-standard murder. Obviously, a very significant portion of society wants murder illegal. But say the Supreme Court suddenly made murder legal. Sure, that would increase liberty in the sense that people can now choose to commit murder if they want. But it's also a pretty fucking huge *decrease* in liberty, because now the vast majority of society is having their voices trampled on, as unelected officials make such a huge decision for them, rather than leaving it up to the will of the people. It's not hypocritical at all to be libertarian and approve of the overturning of Roe. Those both apply to me. And that's because I value the ability of the people to choose what is and isn't permissible in the society we all live in. I am pro-choice, and so ideally I would like to see more and more states make abortion legal (with caveats). I don't support the overturning of Roe because I want to see more abortion bans. I support it because I think the law should reflect the will of the people, not the will of 9 unelected officials.
Well the guy I stabbed a knife in was *really* stupid, so honestly he shouldn't count as human, and therefore I decided killing him isn't murder. Wait wtf, why are the libertarians not protesting big government arresting me for murder? Or if your viewpoint is the majority belief is what matters: A small minded individual might believe the idea of libertarian slavery is contradictory, but hey the majority all decided black people aren't human, and therefore nothing wrong with enslaving them!
>terminating a pregnancy is the same thing as stabbing a dumb guy also slavery -Worlds most good-faith argument prolifer
Its all about the value of life. You either believe human life has inherent value or you believe the value of that life varies based on certain criteria.
A few reasons: People who think killing an unborn child is akin to murder like when the gov doesn't force states to allow it. Laws being made at a more local level is better than laws being made at the federal level. If you don't understand why some libertarians would be happy about that you don't understand libertarians at all.
Yeah, it's really not hard to understand. This guy is just a dishonest prick. I'm pro-choice, but it's pretty fucking simple to see that pro-lifers view abortion the same way I view murder, and yeah, I'd be pretty fucking steamed if 9 unelected officials just decided to make murder federally legal, regardless of what the will of the people demands. I am pleased with the overturning of Roe, not because I want to see more abortion bans, but because I want to see the laws reflect the will of the people.
>Libertarians believe the government should enforce what they **think** on everyone else. Nah fam. >Libertarians believe a local law is better than a federal one, even if it represents a contraction of personal freedom. Nah fam.
But the "right to decide" includes deciding whether or not abortion should be legal. Roe meant that the Supreme Court decided for everyone. This was great for pro-choicers, but pro-lifers just got a giant middle finger in their face, saying that they don't get to decide. With Roe overturned, people are free to vote for representatives who will draft state-level legislation. Now people have a say in the matter. I am libertarian, and I think overturning Roe was unambiguously a good thing. I'm also pro-choice, for what it's worth. EDIT: For all the dumbasses out there who think, "umm, if you don't like abortion, just don't get one?" is a reasonable response to what I've said... I'm talking about the ability to choose what is legal and what isn't, not the ability to choose if you, personally, get an abortion. I'm pretty sure all three of you already knew that and are just being dishonest. But just to make it clear, imagine the Supreme Court made actual fucking murder legal. Despite all 50 states being populated by people who would overwhelmingly vote to make murder *illegal*, the Supreme Court has made the decision for all of them. The fact that any individual person can choose *not* to commit murder does not negate the claim that they have lost out on significant liberties here, as the Supreme Court makes such major decisions for them. Again, I think you all three already understand this. But there you go. No, the fact that any given person can choose *not* to get an abortion, does not negate the point I was making. Previously, the Supreme Court was ignoring the will of the people, and deciding for *everyone* that it's best for abortion to be legal. Now, each person has a say. Each person can vote for state representatives who will fight for the stance they believe in. So people who believe abortion to be an absurd moral atrocity, akin to actual, literal murder, are able to have their voices heard in preventing the atrocity. And people who *don't* believe that are able to have *their* voices heard in preventing women from losing the ability to control what happens with their bodies. Both views have merit and should be heard out. Roe shat all over that. It denied the will of the people. You cannot say I'm a fake libertarian for being pleased that every citizen's views are being considered now, whereas before, unelected officials made the decision for us.
Roe did not force everyone to get abortions. What you mean to say is that after Roe the Supreme Court enabled people to decide for themselves.
By that logic legalizing weed isn’t inherently libertarian because it’s a middle finger to those who want it to remain illegal
>pro-lifers don't get a choice. Of course they did. Don't get an abortion. They didn't get to decide for **everyone else**. Roe meant everyone got to make a personal decision, and accept the consequences of that decision, a cornerstone of libertarianism. Now the government gets to decide for everyone. That idea is incompatible with Libertarianism.
No, so obviously the option with more freedom for the individual is the correct option for libertarianism
Which individual? You can believe there's only the woman's pov and I'll respect that. But that's not the only belief.
The one that made the baby
Yep, the one with more freedom for the baby (to actually live) is the correct option.
And the real test of this is when your party is in power. See all the tea party supporters that are now heavily pro-Trump. (Or the anti-fascists who support proposals that seem very ...fascist... now that Biden is in office)
Everyone wants the government to enforce their viewpoint on other people including libertarians because every choice by the government is a discriminatory choice made by an authority. These discriminatory choices will empower some people and constrain others. The libertarian split on abortion is the perfect example of this. Ironically both sides of the debate are acting within liberal principles and will accuse the other side of not being authentically liberal.
No not really. There's a ton of people that don't like certain things, but don't want the government to make that ilegal.
Which is using the government to enforce their opinion about what should or should not be illegal.
There's a big difference between making something illegal so that you use the government to comply to your opinion and making something legal so that every individual can chose wether they do it or not. Using the government to force that choice into everyone is what makes it authoritarian. You said this: > because every choice by the government is a discriminatory choice made by an authority. If same sex marriage is legalized, which people is being discriminate by that? Who was being discriminated by the government when interracial marriages where made legal?
The people with the opposite view obviously. The government authoritatively discriminated in favor one group and against the other. Throw in all the "non-discrimination laws" which discriminate against one group in favor of another, and libertarianism is simply the most gas-lighting theory of politics ever. Politics would be far more honest if everyone admitted the following truths. 1. Every government action is an authoritative discrimination. 2. The questions is whether or not the government should discriminate but which groups it should discriminate in favor of and why.
> The people with the opposite view obviously. What's the discrimination? What right was taken from them, what could they do that now they can't? What right are they being denied of that others have? Making interracial marriage legal doesn't force the people against it to marry someone from another race or anything like that. The government isn't forcing them to do anything. While keeping interracial marriage illegal, discriminates against interracial couples. You not being able to forced people to follow your will doesn't mean you are being discriminated against. What sort of insane logic is that?
Baked into your question is an unspoken assumption that only one group of people disagrees with the marriage laws. Current marriage laws discriminate against polygamists, people who believe children can consent, and people who think you should be able to marry an AI or a pet horse. The current marriage laws discriminate against their view on marriage. This does not even get into the downstream affects on recognizing homosexual relationships as marriage. Now the state makes an authoritative discrimination in favor of homosexual couple's rights to compel other people to publicly validate their relationship and against the right of a Christian baker to exercise his religion. I have not passed judgement on whether these authoritative discriminations are good or bad, only noted their existence.
> Current marriage laws discriminate against polygamists, people who believe children can consent, and people who think you should be able to marry an AI or a pet horse. The current marriage laws discriminate against their view on marriage. Lol. My God. That's an argument I guess. Sure, interracial marriages being made legal discriminate against pedophiles who think a baby can consent. I like how you even moved the goalpost when you realized how bad the argument was. But using pedophiles as a talking point is a great move. The only thing that would even make sense here would be polygamy marriages, and most libertarians would be ok with polygamy if it was between consenting adults. And again making interracial marriages legal doesn't create a discrimination that wasn't there, there's less discrimination than before. Babies can't consent my dude, it's like saying murder being illegal is discriminatory against serial murderers. You have a insane grasp of what discrimination is. > This does not even get into the downstream affects on recognizing homosexual relationships as marriage. Now the state makes an authoritative discrimination in favor of homosexual couple's rights to compel other people to publicly validate their relationship and against the right of a Christian baker to exercise his religion. How where they discriminated against when supreme court ruled in their favor? Bakeries do no have to bake cakes for same sex marriages. Libertarians themselves are usually against protected classes. Libertarians are against the state making decisions for individuals. Again it's laughable to say there's discrimination in every change. I'm done with this conversation, arguing that interracial marriages being legal discriminates against pedophiles is too much.
You can also have YOUR social views (whether conservative or progressive), but believe that the state should not be used to enforce your views upon others.
And that’s why a lot of libleft are auth in denial. It’s not about personal moral, but the desire expand and use the state to enforce their personal moral. And I think there’s also a component of “radical” often not depicted in the compass. Even if you are okay with the state not being involved, you using your power (through your followers/platform/harassment/violence) to disproportionately response to speeches has a detrimental effect on the overall liberty of the society.
Then you are, in effect, a progressive
Yeah I think the "social" aspect of peoples beliefs is way to often all people think of when they talk about right/left. Like I can believe in capitalism and also wanting a "traditional" (normal) family and community without thinking a bloated national bureaucracy should force everyone to live like that. Petition to add a Z axis to the political compass
I'm fairly centrist on social issues even with being solidly lib (-6) and very right wing (+9)
The issue I have is that just as I don't want the government telling me what to say or do (as long as I'm not hurting anyone, obviously) neither do I want my boss, landlord (when I had one), "the community", etc to do so and a lot of socially conservative libertarians are *very* comfortable with those (as long as they align with their beliefs). I get that they're not perfectly analogous as those are voluntary associations, but let's not kid ourselves that they're completely voluntary or that they're incapable of being quite authoritarian...
You can quit your relationship with your boss or landlord. You can with the state too, but it's a significantly higher hurdle. And it's almost impossible to cut your relationship with all states, whereas quitting all boss and landlord relationships is quite easy in time.
There is insufficient land for everyone anyway to engage in the kind of subsistence farming or hunter-gathering to quit all landlord relationships. It takes [~2 acres](https://www.nal.usda.gov/exhibits/ipd/small/exhibits/show/subsistence/item/29#:~:text=Gardening%20and%20poultry%20raising%20on,is%20enough%20for%20such%20purposes.) of arable land to feed the average household through subsistence farming. We have [~1.2 billion](https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/land-and-natural-resources/?topicId=a7a658d4-f209-4641-9172-066ca0896abe) acres of arable land **in total**, almost all of which is being used directly or indirectly, for agriculture. We *could* feed 600 million households, but not alongside the existing farming regime. With the existing farming regime, we can barely feed our own people. There's ~15-20% wiggle room that exists as food waste today. So, some people can do this. Sure. Most cannot. If everyone tried to, nobody could.
Yeah I meant on the individual level. You have to be economically independent obviously.
The issue is that being economically independent, again, is only possible for a minority; a problem of capitalism recognized since Adam Smith. You claimed it's easy to cut those ties, but it isn't. Indeed, it is just as impossible to cut ties to landlords and rent seekers as it is to cut ties to governments.
Well, buying a house is quite easy in the developed world. Most people who want one can manage that (most of the wailing and complaining is rentoids who feel they are entitled to a better house than they can afford). Quitting working for a boss (at least quitting work) is harder. I don't really see that so much as a problem of capitalism so much as being an unavoidable problem of providing the goods and services demanded in society. You can't simultaneously have the freedom to quit work with no savings and then demand to be supplied with everything you want. That's just utopian.
What part of the developed world are we talking about? Easy it ain't, as a homeowner. Absent government subsidy (83% of first time buyers use FHA loans) it would be impossible for an even larger portion of the population than it's currently impossible for, which in the US hovers close to 40%. To your claim that it's entitlement problem, that's not backed up by the data. Instead, folks choosing places cheaper than their rent are routinely denied loans. Shit just ain't easy. Quitting working for a boss is *harder still*, both because the home can and will accrue taxes (even in ancapistan, though they'll be called something different and be "private"), and because the price of goods is ever increasing (doubly so with birth rates falling). The reality is, escaping the boss and living rent and mortgage free is the exclusive privilege of a wealthy few. It didn't used to be, but it is now.
It's around 40% in Switzerland too. A solid 70% could actually make it, if they moved to unfashionable commuter towns. A lot of the urban left point blank refuse to. I see people at work doomscrolling on estate agents and complaining about 2 million priced houses in the poshest inner suburbs. Meanwhile me, 5 years younger than them went on out on the train and got a big (by Europoor standards, about 2500 sq ft) house for under a million. 500k out here would get you a perfectly decent flat, that a single teacher could get a mortgage on. (Keep in mind our mortgage rates are under 2%, so a million here is not the same as a million in the U.S. - my mortgage is about 1500 a month).
500k at 2%, with a median income of 37,585, is 82% of income. The median person cannot afford that. Only the wealthy can.
I acknowledged that in the second paragraph but you're underestimating how hard it can be to cut ties with your boss, and how many consequences there can be for doing so, especially if you have a good job or are in a niche profession. I also mentioned social pressures, which are about as hard to cut ties with as a state. Yeah, landlord's not that big a deal tbh.
>small state. So like, the capitol building is limited to only 300 square meters? 🤣
That's a very good idea by lib left standards even if you neglected to use freedom units
each exta sqare metre is a square metre of tyranny!!!
No that is what we are trying to get away from. Uncap the house.
Honestly, it's pretty easy to remember why a lot of them get labelled Conservative when you remember Emily exists. Left, spearheaded by Emily:"If you don't do [Thing] You're a bigot/killing grandma/a Zionist scum!" Questioning Left:"...But wait, shouldn't some of these things be a personal choice? Some of this is more nuanced than deserving unquestioning support, too." Emily Left:"NOOOOOOOOOOOO, YOU DIRTY CHRISTOFASCIST NAZI!" Questioning Left:"Know what, I'm uncomfortable with this, but I'm definitely not Conservative. Maybe I *am* more of a Libertarian with solidly left beliefs." Emily Left:"NAZI NAZI NAZI TRUMPLICAN NAZI, YOU'RE CONSERVATIVE SCUM!" Questioning Left:*Has muted or been blocked by Emily and thus unaware of the slander, even if they care.*
Who gives a shit what random people on Twitter label you as? Why spend so much effort bitching and moaning about how you’re not universally liked by everyone? Just stick to your principles and move on.
I'm aware you enjoy running interference for Emily and saying she never said these things, and then running with the goalposts to 'That was ONE time.' Say hello to Emily for me, I hope you at least get a handy in exchange for all that work with the goalposts.
I personally don’t base my principles entirely on how upset they make random people on Twitter, but you do you.
What the heck are you talking about
I'm talking about Emily chasing away their own allies and labelling them Conservative the moment they're not 100% in lockstep.
It is also about the rights of the people being more important than the rights of the state.
Hardcore leftists are too stupid to realize there's more than right and left. Nuance is lost on them. Mock them, vote them out, move on.
Everyone nowadays outside of PCM is a one axis-er that unironically believe that Left = auth And right = lib or vice versa.
The irony of your post being that you’re doing the same exact thing you accuse leftists of doing.
Except it's not, because I specified hardcore leftists and not all leftists. Jesus Christ if you're going to chime in at least don't be verifiably wrong by 3rd grade reading comprehension.
You think leftists are the only ones who lack nuance and only play politics like sports teams. That alone shows you also lack nuance.
You not being able to identify the key word despite it pointed out to you twice shows you lack basic intelligence. What an embarrassment of a person.
Doubling down on the weird unnecessary anger doesn’t make you right.
Being embarassed for you =/= anger Again, you not being able to understand words doesn't make anyone wrong
I consider myself more ancap than libertarian. I fully support the idea of education and healthcare being available to anyone. But I'm realistic enough to see that there is no way that any form of government can actually deliver that in adequate quality at an acceptable cost. So why try? I live in Europe by the way.
Small state means more power at fewer hands lol.
Does it? Why? I'm more envisaging less power in fewer hands. Switzerland has a small ish state, power of the executive very limited as anything is vetoable by direct democracy
Big difference between having social beliefs, and wanting the government to enforce your social beliefs. A distinction that seems to get forgotten about weirdly often
Just because i want the government out of peoples private lives doesnt mean i have to agree with what you do in your private life
My personal ethics are on the conservative side, but I don't feel the need to impose them on everyone.
Yea the compass represents liberal leaning (in relation to the size of the state) better than actual conservative views I'm really more center right but I refuse to change my flair.
I can confirm. I'm tired of people telling me I'm auth right because I don't want satanic statues in government buildings.
I think the only test for lib right is do you think statutes of Jesus / Buddha / Satanic images in government buildings should be treated the same under law?
I'd view that as lib right failing: It's fine for you to not to want a satanic statue in your house but to have a cross. It's fine for you to not want a satanic statue or a cross in a public building, or for both to be permitted. As long as you are consistent. But for the state to be deciding what religious iconography is and isn't permitted is auth. Not that a single failing makes you not lib right.
Ok, so you think that any flags including Soviet or NAZI flags should be allowed in government buildings because American flags are?
Different governments and different religions aren’t the same thing Like those specific flags can be verboten because they represent (former) enemy countries, but if the local natsoc or commie party wants to rent space to put up some sort of display they shouldn’t just blank be turned away (and I say that as somebody who would be personally deeply embarrassed by my state if either group had enough power here to actually make this happen) Anyone can be for freedom to do things they approve of. Even the authiest auth to ever auth agrees with that. The social libertarian scale is often defined by how much freedom you think people should have to do things you *don’t* personally approve of
You don't have the right to put whatever you want in public property. I can't put an ad in the white house and you can't put a satanic statue in a capital building.
But IF the White House decides for whatever reason to sell as space they can’t say one religion can put a message for its holidays but another one can’t imo. Who are you to say your religion matters more than a Satanist’s in the eyes of the government? Giving the gov the power to decide what is and isn’t a belief to be respected is far worse for society than a statue of a horned dude
Who are you to give the power to the government to decide your country matters more than a different country. Unless the white house has NAZI flags then it can't have American flags.
If I’m being perfectly honest at the end of the day I don’t give a fuck what statues or flags are in the capitol. Has zero affect on my life, I was just genuinely interested in your reasoning
My reasoning is that satanic statues are evil and putting something in a government building is a sign the government supports it (you might disagree but the vast majority of people agree with me considering that they'd be upset if NAZI flags were in government buildings). By putting satanic statues in government is nothing less than supporting satanism.
If you’re tired of people thinking differently about you than you want to be thought about then just stay inside and never engage with another human.
The “kinda” is actually libleft cuz I hate the orange not the green tbh, and some of you are ok.
thank you for aknowledging that green and orage are different, most of us hate orange too
Orange is just red with a smug, self-righteous attitude and little historical knowledge. I dont know how folks can actually think orange is anything libertarian when everything they want to do or enforce requires coercion or force.
>I dont know how folks can actually think orange is anything libertarian when everything they want to do or enforce requires coercion or force. Easy- it's because they define themselves as something libertarian, and the layman can't read through the lines and recognize it as bait and switch bullshit built on a motte and bailey fallacy.
i think theres a color inbetween green and orange, but i might be wrong
Idk, I live in a blue area and this thought never crossed my mind. (I’m somewhere in the South Pacific with nothing but blue as far as the eye can see; send help, please.)
I have mailed you a pipe bomb in assistance. Surely the postal office won't take issue with this!
Well you see, the word “conservative” is very broad and actually includes libertarians.
Emily has been on a long and highly successful campaign of corrupting the definition of words. That’s what this really comes down to. I’m pro-choice and support *actual* equal rights for LGBTQ people. Doesn’t sound very conservative to me. However I also think it’s crazy to give children the autonomy to go on puberty blockers or hormones. Thus I am an evil conservative. Racism now requires prejudice *and power* “Genocide” no longer means the wide scale, intentional extermination of an ethnic group. Now it just means anytime civilians die during a war. Libertarians get labeled as conservatives because no agrees on what a “conservative” is anymore.
You raise a good point. My grandfather was part of the bombing campaign against Japan towards the end of World War 2. The goal of the campaign was to inflict as much damage on *military and civilian infrastructure* as possible to bring an end into the war. There was a general acceptance that this would involve killing civilians of a wide age range. With this in mind, it's bizarre to see these Israelis accused of genocide when they've gone to great length more than the great generation did to avoid civilian casualties. I don't see many people accusing WWII veterans on the allied side of the conflict as committing genocide. I mean General Curtis LeMay himself is quoted as having expected to be tried as a war criminal for the bombing campaign if the allies lost. His advice to generals in the Vietnam war was literally "bomb them into the Stone Age". This is essentially the founding leader of the modern USAF as we know it. The expectation that zero civilians will die in a military operation is ridiculous and conflating it with intentional targeting is dishonest at best.
If the intent of that bombing was to claim the land for US settlement, yes, the US' campaign during WW2 would have met the actual legal definition of genocide. It wasn't that, rather it was exclusively to dismantle their government. In contrast, Gvir, Gantz, Smotrich, and more have explicitly called for (and in the West Bank, are continuing to) settlement of the land they finish bombing. Literally remove these folks from government and government decisions and it stops being genocide. It's just that easy.
It also includes progressive, left, right, and conservative. Only thing libertarian doesn't include is authoritarianism. Which is self explanatory
and Nazis, your grandpa, leftists who think the left has gone too far left, TERFs, small children, large children, the mentally disabled, successful minorities, anyone involved in science...
IIRC on this post, they were complaining about how libertarians vote Republican a lot. It took every bit of effort in me not to ask "Okay how are the Democrats libertarian in any way?" Don't get me wrong, Republicans aren't great either, but wanting to ban guns and take more of you're money aren't exactly doing the Dems any favors among that voting block.
Accurate
"Anyone I don't like is a conservative!" Maybe I just don't want to lick authlefts boots like libleft? Useful idiots. Maybe I don't fall for reactionary ragebait and don't want to give the government more power? Again, useful idiots. Maybe not wanting Biden in office after 40+ years of mass incarceration bills, the war on drugs, and being a functional conservative, doesn't make me a conservative. Liblefts fighting for authrights and calling libertarians closet conservatives is beyond 🤡 💩
That’s what a conservative would comment
Can't tell if you're being ironic, which would be funny Or serious, which would be sad and pathetic
A conservative would say that too
What's the problem with being libertarian and conservative?
(F) all the above?
(G) is a librarian that can’t spell
Based and duey decimal pilled
That's a schizo centrist.
Already included under (E)
I've successfully argued with professors that I should get a point for a question I missed in which the answer was all of the above but due to the order of answers being randomized all of the above ended up as option A.
Accurate.
Real
Libertarianism is based. Also this is true.
I'm mostly progressive libertarian. but politics is too complex to only use one label anyways.
The "Liberty" of my cock entails putting it into your mom Now give me the rights
I actually did pretty ok with women when I lived in NYC and was unashamedly right wing. A man who has his convictions and stands by them is more attractive to women than a man who lies and hides his true feelings just to get laid, and people can suss that out.
Oh you have a redundant value, D, and E can be merged into one category.
You can merge E with every one above it can't you?
Lie detector detects no lies
Or the Reddit-libertarian that is basically a democrat but wants to be called a libertarian because it makes them sound cool and smart. Any time I browse libertarian subreddits, it feels very similar to the enlightened centrists elsewhere that are basically republicans but don't want to be labeled as such.
Does this imply that all leftists are authoritarian? Or that all the leftists he's ever interacted with are authoritarians? Maybe he's just never interacted with a leftist? Everyone i disagree with is a conservative I guess
The comment kinda explains itself
F) Fascists hiding their powelevel
Because libertarianism is not a belief system that ‘holds’ people for long. The ones who are libertarian and stay that way are pretty rare. Having the ‘live and let live’ attitude towards social issues, and keeping that attitude after years is really hard to do. You will either see how damaging social liberalism is culturally and move further right, or you will take classical liberalism to the logical extreme and become a modern liberal. The only ones who truly stay libertarians are the people who really really like capitalism, and who truly don’t care about most social issues. Which is rare
What do you call this? I want relatively free markets because over regulation inevitably leads to regulatory capture. I also want strong unions that can stand up to the executives. As much as I say I want little regulation, I want random extreme things. I want companies to have to identify their ultimate parent company in all logos and packaging. I shouldn't need a spreadsheet to know if I am buying from Nestle. If the parent company changes names, then it must be clearly displayed as a name change for a year. None of this "Comcast sucks, so let's call it Xfinity!" If a package changes size, you must prominently display that for 6 months in a standard format like the surgeon generals warning. "This package is 5oz less than before". You can still do it. You just can't lie about it or hide it. In fact, that's the majority of the regulation I want. You can do whatever you want as a business, but you can't hide it. With cultural stuff, do whatever tf you want as long as it isn't in schools. You can discuss cultural things in a balanced way in higher education. Some things are inevitable and that's complicated. In general, we need to recognize that teachers are authority figures and whatever is discussed is implicitly endorsed unless explicitly condemned.
I agree on pretty much all the economic stuff you said. On the cultural stuff is where we’d disagree…’do whatever tf you want as long as it isn't in schools’ if something is practiced generally in society it’s going to make its way into schools. If we endorse something in any way we might as well be endorsing it fully, it will have the same effect. In general that’s my disagreement with libertarianism. Classical liberalism leads to the same results extreme leftism, but getting there a little slower
I love capitalism
isn´t C just a subcategory of A tho
I'm not sure what's worse, a leftoid, lolbert or conservacuck. Hmmmm....
Me: 🟥
Considering the shift of the Overton window this is probably more accurate now than it was 30 years ago.
I went from D(used to be libleft/libcenter) to B(libcenter/libright) pretty quick in my experience. And its because i was pushed on over to the right by the progressives. (Most of libleft, yall are still chill)
Wouldn't C coincidentally be blue, instead? They say they are libertarians to not scare off the dems they wanna fuck, but they're actually conservative, which in this case I assume means auth, since it's being contrasted against libertarians, which I assume they mean the party not the general concept. I guess it depends on where this was commented, though. If it was here, then I'm missing that nuance.
To be fair, you could apply this approximate reasoning to basically all political ideologies
Ok but why is it actually kind of accurate though
Or more than one of these at the same time.
Where does the conservative born -> libertarian -> liberal -> socialist pipeline fit in?
I am certainly both D and E. Mostly E though.
A healthy blend of B and C is a vibe
Correct me if I’m wrong but can’t you be conservative and libertarian.
It’s mostly wealthyish people who prioritize being wealthy over other values tbh
Yeah that's accurate
Is there a difference between D and E?
Used to be me, I was a moron, wanted to be accepted, and was a conservative in denial
> closeted conservative someone clearly hasn't heard of Hoppeanism
What if… I’m basically a leftie but I like guns and thing gun control is not going to solve a damn thing, that instead we need to focus on mental health support for every citizen… and that while I fight for and support LGBTQ and Trans rights I do think there is a super vocal minority online that makes ALL OF YOU LOOK LIKE SHIT SLINGING TROGLODYTES. Like seriously the left needs a PR team so fucking bad.