I've never seen a libertarian who thinks drugs and prostitution should be illegal.
Immediately looks for justifications when there's an incident of police brutality
It's not immediately clear to me what you are implying with this statement. Is it that you think that any justification of the use of force by the police is un-libertarian, is it that you think it is un-libertarian to question an official verdict of "police brutality", or something else?
Pro-death penalty
This is a difficult statement to tackle. I would argue that, at the very least, it is not as cut and dry as you appear to be making it out to be. There could certainly be arguments both for, and against capital punishment from a libertarian perspective. This being said, a libertarian would generally seek to minimize the power, and authority of the state, and fully recognize its fallibility. Being cognizant of the state's fallibility, I would argue, is mutually exclusive with the death penalty -- if the state wrongfully imprisons someone, there is no turning back, in the case of newly found evidence exonerating the individual, should they be killed.
Has both of these flags, doesn't notice the contradiction between them
I tried to do some research on the "Blue Lives Matter"/"Thin Blue Line" flag(s), and the Blue Lives Matter movement, but, I must say, it is very difficult to find any unified information, vision, or platform for it -- it's hard to find evidence of the idea that the Blue Lives Matter flag is mutually exclusive to the Gadsden Flag (which is a symbol of libertarianism). I am, of course, not naive to the fact that a very specific faction of people enjoys sporting that symbol, but I must be careful in laying any judgement, as I am frequently annoyed when I come across misappropriations of the Gadsden Flag, which, in my opinion, is one of the best symbols of libertarianism that exists. I would, at the very least, say that I don't believe that libertarianism is opposed to law public enforcement.
Aside: If you have any good resources that outline the actual symbolism represented by the flag, then I would really appreciate it if you could share it so that I might try to ameliorate my understanding.
~~Protesting banned books, voter roll purges, anti-protest laws, Assange, Snowden, etc.~~ Complaining about cancel culture
Protesting banned books
If books are banned by law, this a violation of freedom of speech, so supporting that would indeed be non-libertarian.
voter roll purges
Would you mind specifying what you mean by this? I'm not familiar with it.
anti-protest laws
Again, this is a violation of freedom of speech, as well as freedom of assembly, freedom of association, etc. so supporting it would, indeed, be non-libertarian.
Assange, Snowden
What specifically about them are you referring to? Are you talking about their leaking of state-classified information, their individual principles, or something else?
In favor of anti-trans bathroom laws
Any law which would prevent a private establishment from setting its own such rules would, indeed, be non-libertarian.
Believes drugs and prostitution should remain illegal
Any laws that restrict the freedoms of the individual, if those freedoms do not infringe on those of others, is, indeed, non-libertarian.
"I am a libertarian, I just think the left has gone too far recently and needs to be pushed back against!"
I don't understand what you are implying here. There are plenty of non-libertarian things that the "modern left" political faction supports.
Only actual libertarian principles are being pro-2A and hating the IRS
While, yes, supporting the 2A falls in line with libertarian principles, I'm not convinced that abolishing the IRS would be. The IRS's purpose is to collect taxes. A libertarian doesn't necessarily have to be completely opposed to taxation, and if there exists taxes, then you need state agency to collect them -- of course, a libertarian would certainly seek to minimize taxation to the greatest extent feasible.
Says “I’m a libertarian but I’m not one of those crazy ones”.
My followup question is usually what’s your opinion on seatbelt laws and drivers licenses.
Libertarianism isn’t a monolithic ideology, and opinions vary widely among libertarians. Furthermore, one who identifies as libertarian doesn’t inherently reject all utilitarian or communitarian values. Some may argue against seatbelt laws and drivers’ licenses on the basis of personal freedom and responsibility, while others might see the value in certain regulations that protect public safety. What unites libertarians is a belief in limiting government intervention to essential functions, but defining those ‘essential functions’ can differ greatly among individuals within the libertarian community. Libertarians often share common ground with leftists on social values, differing significantly from mainstream Republican politicians.
My followup question is usually what’s your opinion on seatbelt laws and drivers licenses.
Seatbelt laws would really only make sense if their purpose was to protect others from harm, but, as far as I've been able to think, this would only make sense in 2 scenarios:
As for driver's licenses, that's actually a rather complicated issue.
EDIT 1: As pointed out in this post, there is a third case that I hadn't originally considered in that, in a crash, one's limp, and unrestrained corpse could fly through the windshield and end up causing damage to someone else's property, or bodily harm to another.
There are cases where in a head on collision the person not wearing a seatbelt is launched out of the car like a missile killing people in the opposite car.
Yeah, I came across that point in this post, a little while after I had written the above comment. I will update my comment accordingly.
Both are necessary, there's an argument to strengthen the latter, and neither violate the NAP. I'm not one of those crazy ones 😁
violate the NAP
not one of those crazy ones
These two statements contradict each other.
The NAP is a substitute for laws for "libertarians" who can't tolerate the thought of other people actually being free.
The entire point is to have something that proactively justifies the forcible imposition of your will upon others. So the instant that somebody does something of which you disapprove, you can decree, by whatever rationale might serve, that it's a violation of the NAP, so you're now entirely justified in shooting them.
Not really. It only seems that way because most of us have only had experiences with the psychotic capitalist neo-libertarians of the Murray Rothbard school.
Actual libertarians, left libertarians. Can definitely get pretty squirrely when you get out on the fringes of ideologic anarchists etc. But many are fairly rational and even generally pro social democracy.
Right-wing libertarians are just an oxymoron. Under capitalism none of us can truly be free and we are all subject to the whims of wealth hoarding psychotic oligarch monkeys. They'll tell you that you're free not to work for them. The only problem is choosing not to work for them means choosing starvation, homelessness, and death. Which isn't the sort of thing that should be considered a choice in any civil society. But absolute necessities for unsustainable systems such as capitalism.
If this is what a fake libertarian is, there's no such thing as a real one. This is every single libertarian I've ever conversed with.
How many have you talked to? I'm guessing the root cause is your sample size is too small.
This is a faulty generalization.
Commenting on a 2 month old comment. Sure got me.
The age of the post should protect your statements from future criticism...?
When I considered myself libertarian, I was not a fan of police brutality, pro LGBTQ rights, more open border, and legalized drugs. I still hold all of those views but have gotten a lot more to the left from am economics standpoint. A lot of that is die to my econ degree.
That said, post 2016 I definitely noticed a ton of faux libertarians who were very defensive of Trump. If you voted for Trump, I don't think you can consider yourself libertarian. I think I recall hearing that the whacko New Hampshire libertarians basically took over the party. Those guys are a bunch of racist fascists.
If you voted for Trump, I don’t think you can consider yourself libertarian.
I wouldn't go so far as to draw that line at voting, as one could certainly be voting strategically -- it's possible that they don't agree with many, if any, of Trump's policies, but they were of the belief that voting for Trump would push policy in a direction that would be in their interest -- this is, of course, a symptom of FPTP, and it could be possibly solved with a ranked ballot. That being said, I do completely agree that if one is a vehement supporter of Trump, and his policies in a similar fassion to the usual MAGA group, then they cannot call themselves a libertarian in good concience -- there are many policies of, and actions by Trump that are very un-libertarian.
Mfw I vote for a 3rd party candidate who aligns with many of my ideals and both a Democrat and a Republican break down my doors screaming that I wasted my vote and should vote (person) because its (not the other person) even though I don't agree with either shitheads policies or agendas.
It's funny, because I watched it play out in real time on Reddit.
It all changed with the Tea Party. Not at first - a fact that the statists on both sides of the aisle want to bury is that the first couple of Tea Party protests were genuinely libertarian, and were in fact against the Bush administration.
But when Obama was elected, the Republicans moved to co-opt the Tea Party, and succeeded, and both they and the statists on the left were then more than happy to pretend that it was always a Republican thing, since as much as they might differ on the details, they both agree that the idea of being free of government entirely cannot be allowed to prosper.
And almost immediately, r/libertarian went to complete shit, as it was taken over by overt authoritarians who just want to eliminate all of the bits of the government they don't like - like gun laws and public assistance of any form - so the rest of the government can then focus entirely on punishing people for being too liberal or too brown or too smart, and they themselves can be free to just shoot anyone they want.
It took me a while to figure out that that change wasn't limited to just Reddit - that libertarianism as a whole had been co-opted by those violently authoritarian shitstains.
And it's certainly not a coincidence that the net result of that is that there's no longer an umbrella term in the US for people who just want people to be more free, and "libertarianism" has become just another variety of authoritarianism.
that libertarianism as a whole had been co-opted by those violently authoritarian shitstains.
I'm of the belief that the libertarian philosophy must be defended. We cannot roll over and let it be twisted and contorted to the wills of another. The same goes for the Gadsden Flag.
In the context of the comments here, no one really wants to give any libertarians the benefit of the doubt huh? Like maybe there are some folks out there who have a well thought out perspective and aren't a caricature you learned about from memes.
I'm not libertarian, I'm just tired of the brain dead political takes you can find on the internet.
Maybe I should quit the internet.
I often say that the only thing more embarrassing than being a Libertarian is not growing out of it
What do you think is embarrassing about libertarianism? What is so objectionable about resisting oppression? What is so objectionable about maximising each individuals rights, and freedoms?
You've hit on exactly what I think is embarrassing - Libertarians claim to champion those things but in practice they are all cover for ultra individualist 'I got mine' ways of thinking. I've seen that kind of thinking take over in some towns near me where they weren't sure how they were going to repair streets or keep the streetlights on because "private entities will have a natural interest in handling those things" but they never do.
I'm a huge fan of half of the libertarian platform - legal abortions, legalized drugs, etc. - but those are the things Libertarians seem the least interested in actually enacting. And that's because sure maybe some of them support those ideas, but they like the idea of fewer taxes and fewer regulations to help their bottom line a lot more.
It's embarrassing because it is conclusive that we are better when we work together and combine our efforts, and Libertarianism only drags us apart.
they are all cover for ultra individualist ‘I got mine’ ways of thinking.
Maximizing individual freedoms is not implying that it is at the expense of the freedoms of others.
I’ve seen that kind of thinking take over in some towns near me where they weren’t sure how they were going to repair streets or keep the streetlights on because “private entities will have a natural interest in handling those things” but they never do.
Hm, streetlights would fall into a category of something called a natural monopoly. A Georgist would probably say that natural monopolies should be owned, or tightly regulated by the state -- a monopoly is inherently anti-competitive, as a result, it is fundamentally opposed to a competitive free market.
legal abortions
I will say, with certainty, that there is borderline zero consensus across all libertarians on how abortions should be handled. This is a tricky issue. I personally think that any solution will lie entirely within the grey, rather than the black and white. I suspect that no solution will be agreeable to all.
Libertarians seem the least interested in actually enacting
This is a dubious statement -- it falsely generalizes to all libertarians. It entirely depends on who you talk to.
And that’s because sure maybe some of them support those ideas, but they like the idea of fewer taxes and fewer regulations to help their bottom line a lot more.
While, yes, fewer taxes, and regulation increase profits, that's not their only purpose. Reductions in those result in increases in scale of the free market. It could be argued, dependent on circumstance, whether such decreases are actually beneficial, or not, but, at any rate, reductions in taxes and regulations don't only serve the purpose of lining the pockets of special interest groups.
It’s embarrassing because it is conclusive that we are better when we work together and combine our efforts, and Libertarianism only drags us apart.
While, idealistically, it would be great if all humans could work together, real life is unfortunately far from ideal.
I appreciate your point by point response but I need to clarify that I am not arguing with you about Libertarianism in theory but in a tual practice. it is one thing to get behind it theoretically, but to see how it works in practice and still support it is what I find embarrassing.
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
