Housecats.

American "libertarianism" is a correct identification of the issue with oppressive use of force by the state, coupled with a somewhere-between-ambiguous-and-incorrect interpretation of when force is oppressive and when it's not. It's my stance that American libertarianism (based on the NAP definition) with a properly calculated ethical interpretation of justifiable "property" simply reduces to anarchocommunism, as many unexamined assumptions about when a "property" claim is justifiable and when it is not simply accept a capitalist market economy, and any inequality that may result, out of sheer laziness. A lot of people find this way of looking at it jarring, usually because they just try to cram it somewhere on the "left/right" scale without really examining each ideological underpinning, or by really examining the range of thinking within the space. And some of that results from fascist groups trying to coopt the label as well. Good litmus test for that is asking a self-identified "libertarian" what they think about immigration, or the justifiability of a given war. The "MAGA LINO" types will justify immigration crackdowns and wars, the dyed-in-the-wool "libertarians" will oppose them, and so on with other oppressive policies that leftists also oppose. Which leaves the main point of contention being how the economic system works and how property distribution works, something which the "NAP" is ambiguous about. Therefore...

In Poland most libertarians are at best petty bougie failchildren thinking they would be billionaires when they grow up, those that do grow up without touching grass (or too dense to feel the grass) are usually turning into unhinged austrian cultists with monarchist and nazist inclinations. Deeply unserious people

In this thread.... People arguing about multiple strawman definitions of Libertarianism.

My opinion is that it's a useless term because nobody agrees on what it means.

I do support the basics of Libertarianism, but I can't support the extreme-versions of it left or right sides.

Naive idiots at best genocidal Maniacs at worst.

I've known a bunch of them and I think their ideology is fine on the surface, but full of small contraddictions, for example:

• they believe freedom is the utmost important thing, but their freedom is always threatened so they always should do what they do want, even if that limits other people freedom. For example: I should not be forced to pay taxes if I don't want to because noone should be forced to pay for a "service", it should always be a choice (but if my country gives me healthcare without paying taxes, I should also use the service). However, things like paying tolls for private highway is also bad, because one should be able to go wherever they want withou paying.
• they don't believe in "rights" as anything imposed from the top is bad. If a category is persecuted (black people, gays, whatever) they should not be protected, but fight on their own
• according to them, in true capitalism, free market is perfect and the most just, and monopolies will not never happen, now they do only because laws allow them to "manipulate" the market.
• they often spiral down alt-right conspiracies theory with a libertarian flavour, like a deep-state working hard to limit even more your freedom, or everything even remotely "politically correct" (even things like protection against protection against being fired because you are homosexual) is woke propaganda and also aimed to limit your freedom.

That's my experience with a few tens of people, so I don't know if that's representative of the whole community, bu my own little consipracy theory is that libertarianism as I know it was crafted by the US alt-right to subtly manipulate people into fascism, the premises are all there: hatred for the current state, bigotry, extreme victimism, a willingness to strip down thenselves of hard-fought rights and a hustle/grinding mentality to slave yourself down to work and enrich other people

Libertarians are grumpy indoor cats. They’re violently independent and want to be left alone, but their survival is also entirely dependent on the systems surrounding them, which they completely take for granted.

The grumpy indoor cat doesn’t want your attention, they just want their auto-feeder to activate like it always does. Never mind the fact that you’re the one who keeps the auto-feeder filled. They don’t care about that, they just care that the auto-feeder dispenses food.

Left wing (actual OG) Libertarianism is great. Right wing Libertarianism is basically a bunch of antisocial/intellectually lazy people who think the ideal society is one where everybody has a few acres of land with a little shack that they built themselves where they subsist on potatoes, carrots, and chicken eggs and stockpile gold and silver to trade with another libertarian twice a year.

Left libertarianism is great and serves as an effective counterbalance to many issues. Right libertarianism is often foolish at best and rarely includes the freedom to do things like live your life as you please

"libertarians generally advocate for minimal government regulation, believing that businesses should operate freely and regulate themselves through voluntary exchange and competition. They argue that over-regulation can stifle innovation and economic growth."

So in my opinion, they are dumbasses. Yeah let's get the Nestles and Monsanto's of the world to regulate themselves. Honestly just unserious people with no critical thinking skills in my opinion.

Either incredibly selfish /self centered people, incredibly uninformed on the real world, or a combination of both.

The “I can’t bring myself low enough to identify as republican anymore”. Still a conservative if not even now leaning harder to the right. They are house cats. Utterly and totally dependent upon a system that they have absolutely no appreciation or respect for.

I can only speak for America, but here they're all a bunch of corporate-sponsored anarchy LARPers.

It's funny that in the classic Libertarian novel "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" the rule free society only works because there are no guns and literally everything is controlled by a single giant computer.

Objectivism creator Ayn Rand ended up on welfare after she lacked the will power to give up smoking.

Need I say more?

Hooray for me, and fuck you!

Anyone I've ever heard talking about the non-aggression principle spat red flags faster than a machine gun.

At best, they're truly so dense and unsympathetic they don't recognize actions that aren't directly or intentionally causing harm do still cause harm (example, the free state project people leaving food out for black bears "because they can" without thought for their neighbors who then have to deal with more bears). At worst, it's rape apologia (crap like statutory rape doesn't exist because that minor "totally asked for it" and the rape didn't cause physical damage).

I think it's nonsense.

The "free market" is never truly free, and if there isn't something holding the capitalist class back, they will always dominate the working class until the system just breaks. The only way for a stable society to exist is for checks and balances.

The best right wing libertarians end up being left wing libertarians.

Pedophiles trick children into thinking they're libertarians because cops are bad and weed is good

Depends on how it's defined.

Current libertarianism is just rebranded reactionary conservatism.

Classically though, "libertarian" simply referred to someone who advocated for maximum individual liberty and minimum state intervention. The term first gained popularity in the US in the wake of the New Deal, when the term "liberal," which had up until then referred to that position of maximum individual liberty and minimum state intervention, was coopted by leftist authoritarians. Since the classical liberals needed a new term, they shifted to "libertarian." And notably, at that point, libertarians were at least as likely to be left-wing as right, with the two groups merely splitting on which specific government services should be counted among the minimum.

That started to go wrong when the Libertarian party was established, and finished going wrong when the Tea Party was transformed from a series of protests against the Wall Street bailouts to a traveling carnival of hate.

And there's also the political compass sense of "libertarian" as simply the opposite of authoritarian, by which I'm as "libertarian" as it's possible to be. It should be noted though that in recent years, mostly through meme communities, even that conception of "libertarian" has been increasingly characterized as more of an alternate authoritarianism.

So there's a conception back behind each use of the term "libertarian" that is at least close to mine (I'm actually an anarchist). But IMO not coincidentally, the term has been in all cases warped to refer to some form of authoritarianism, which I unequivocally oppose.

If you mean the Statesian, pro-capitalist kind, it's mostly a silly ideology pushed by small business owners and other highly individualist classes that are nonetheless pushed towards the working classes by competing against ever-growing monopolies.

The left wing version, I disagree with as you can't dismantle the state without removing the basis of the state, class, and you can't remove class without collectivizing production and distribution. Small, local cells loosely organized in a decentralist fashion would still result in class struggle and thus a form of state to hold one class over the others. That said, the leftists are valuable allies at times despite disagreements.

afaik it was originally about freedom from oppression. as with so many things, it has been hijacked by bigots and they've twisted it to now mean their freedom to oppress others.

I don't think libertarianism works, it relies naively on how the free market is omnipotent, how freedom is everything and how having a small government is somehow good. There are no countries that are entirely libertarian, that also tells a lot about the ideology's applicability in practice. A brilliant book about why libertarianism doesn't work is a book "A Libertarian Walks into a Bear". In the book, a group of libertarians decides to take over the small town of Grafton in New Hampshire en masse as part of their "Free Town Project". Of course this group cares neither about the town's original inhabitants nor their rights. What's the result? They hollow out pretty much everything from the library, to the school, the fire department and the police. No regard is given to any laws on hunting or food disposal, and that lures in bears, who turn so aggressive that they invade people's homes. In addition to bears, sex offenders and all kinds of criminals are also lured into Grafton. It's pretty entertaining book, I recommend it.

Another reason why I dislike libertarianism is that it can function as a gateway to fascism. This is a known phenomenon. Several key figures in the alt-right for example used to be libertarians. I stumbled into a clip from some American Libertarian Party convention where Richard Spencer was with Ron Paul. I had to rub my eyes a bit.

It’s depends on what you mean…it’s a fraught term, to say the least.

Actual definition of the word…or the Ron Paul (etc) nuts?

I think Libertarianism is incompatible with the way that humans operate as a society. Almost all flavors of libertarianism puts an individual's right to live as they choose as long as that doesn't violate the rights of others through force or fraud. Humans like to associate themselves into groups, and in almost any group there will be an imbalance in power, whether that's economic power, physical power (strength), or even something as abstract as eloquence or how outgoing you are. The issue then becomes that someone somewhere has to enforce the right to not be forced into giving up rights. In the classical construction of how libertarians view government, it is very easy to become more powerful than those meant to enforce limits on power. Even in our current political system, you see this when companies will spend more on their anti-trust court cases than the entire FTC spends total in a decade. Libertarianism has no mechanism to keep the enforcer the most powerful party involved

Sounds great on paper, in practice it’s almost entirely old white men who want to get rid of age of consent laws or people who want to be able to do insane, dangerous to others shit like feeding bears without anyone being able to stop them.

In summary, the ideology of selfish jackasses at best and pedophiles at worst.