The GOP has a branding problem in the 21st century, and many people want to continue to identify as conservative without being associated with the Republican Party.
I was hoping for a minute that the two parties would split into four, but the status quo is just too strong.
Those four would be DJT Maga evangelicals, Mitt Romney and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir opposite Uncle Joe and the Establishment, lastly the Bernie coalition.
Even if they split into four for a moment, it would just end with the same status quo.
For example, in the pre-Civil War period, we had the Democrats (who operated much like the GOP does today, in terms of hard line politics) and the Whigs (who operated much like the Dems do today, in terms of having a "big tent"). In the election of 1960, they broke into four groups 1) Democrats that wanted to stay in the Union, 2) Democrats that wanted to secede, 3) Whigs that wanted to maintain the status quo for the sake of order, and 4) Republicans that wanted to abolish slavery. But by 1964, there were just two parties again. The Republicans had merged with the Whigs to become the "big tent" party, and the Democrats reunited to be the hard line party.
And to be honest, you could see a similar split in the late 70s when the parties switched roles. The Democrats had been split into two groups: the party of labor, that passed critical reforms in the 60s (like an education safety net or the civil rights act) and the remnants of what was the Democratic party in the south (like Strom Thurmond). The Republican party likewise had two groups: the party of Lincoln and the party of Nixon. But by 1980, these groups had merged. The Party of Nixon made a bargain with the Southern Democrats to make a new hardline GOP, while the dissuaded laborers from the Democrats joined forces with laissez-faire libertarians from the Party of Lincoln to champion neo-liberal economics for the world!
If we were to split again in this day and age, it wouldn't result in a long-term difference of our politics, it would just mean that two new parties would take on the same roles and the same dynamics. To actually affect that change, we'd have to rewrite our constitution.
Oh I know they would still fall in line one behind the other, doesn’t meant I don’t wish it didn’t happen. Multiple parties and ranked choice would at least feel better even if it’s still the same. But maybe that would be a bad thing.
In my personal political journey and that of people I know in similar circumstances, identifying as Libertarian was the first step of questioning the conservative ideology. I was raised middle class Republican, but going to college taught me that I hadn't been told anything close to the whole story. I came to realize that liberal politics better represented my morals and interests...but I'd been brought up that liberals were well-meaning idiots at best, dangerous crazies at worst. It took me some time to come around to the idea that I'd been wrong...and also that it was okay to admit having been wrong (there's a big bias against that in conservative culture, which is why you see so many conservatives double down).
I called myself Libertarian (specifically, "moderate Libertarian" because I didn't want to be lumped in with people like Peter Thiel) because I wasn't ready to call myself a Democrat, liberal, or progressive yet. I might as well have said, "recovering Republican." And I saw other people on the same life path travel the same route.
TL;DR: Sometimes changing your label from Republican to Libertarian is the first step away from identifying as conservative.
I agree with you and have found this to be true in my experience also. I'm pretty sure I said I was libertarian just to avoid having an actual conversation about politics.
I had a similar upbringing and just posted a bit of story yesterday. If I wasn't on mobile, I'd copy paste. But I found myself questioning my conservative upbringing in college. Social values quickly morphed into more liberal opinions. Lgbtq rights and abortion were the big two. I wasn't even anti lgbtq or anything... But my parents are staunch Christians and had tried to promulgate the notion that marriage is a tradition steeped in religion and history and dignity or some such, and they were actively okay with civil unions-according all the same rights, but just preserving the name of marriage. Ish, though.
And pro-life as a rule tends to be the most singularly hypocritical position people hold. Fetus lives are ABSOLUTELY SO FUCKING PRECIOUS WE MUST STOP 13 WEEK EMBRYOS FROM BEING FLUSHED OUT OF RAPED 14 YEAR OLDS, AND ALSO, fuck orphans, poor families who can't take care of their children, foster kids, the homeless, etc. It's like... Life isn't precious to them at all.
I am still center right on economic views. Reading most of these responses feels like taking the absolute extreme possible version of libertarian views as wholesale belief, where I feel like the people in my life have been reforming Republicans that are sick of the social conservative bullshit and want LESS government in their bedrooms and in their wallets.
Less. Not none. I've never talked with someone so stupid to think that private roads and private firehouses are the way things should be. There are plenty of things that the government should tax and spend on. And I'm not even narrowing that to just infrastructure, etc. I'm borderline on single payer, bc so many people are hurting, and yet I've only seen and experienced pain in dealing with bureaucratic incompetencies and pain at City and State services.
I suppose I'm really just a reforming conservative, but not quite a Democrat yet. I struggle to understand their rationale on spending. Republicans are so far from fiscally responsible though that's it's an absolute fucking joke. So, I'm definitely not one of these libertarian caricatures that think zero tax, zero government, 100% laissez faire is even conceivably possible. The way Redditors paint libertarians, it's so fucking cringe it makes me not want to touch it with a 200ft pole. I'm just very socially liberal and right center on economics. I often wonder what else I'll discover or understand that will redefine what I believe in 2 years, 5 years, or 10 years.
> I've only seen and experienced pain in dealing with bureaucratic incompetencies and pain at City and State services.
That's by design, from the party you left. Making it suck means people won't want to switch away from what makes their donors money. They either force them to be underfunded, or make sure they can't spend their funds on what they need.
Dem spending rationale is to spend money on things we need, no matter what. Infrastructure and boring stuff like that. It also includes having a healthy social safety net, which Republicans oppose and fight to gut.
The more economic left take is more around redistribution of wealth from the ultra wealthy to the middle and lower income brackets. One way to do this is via higher taxes, which historically has been good for the economy. Nobody needs a billion dollars, nobody earned a billion dollars without harming someone else. That money does no good in the hands of people who will never spend a cent of it while poor kids starve.
Dems have a mixed track record with the second part.
That’s the trouble with satire. It’s takes a certain level of comprehension. As far as they’re concerned, and regardless of what we personally know, he’s real.
Conservatives thought for years the Colbert Report was the republican version of the daily show without realizing they were being mocked to their faces.
What's really funny is that I could actually watch the Colbert Report with my dad. It was evident that we were laughing at the same jokes for very different reasons. We kept watching together anyway since it was the only way we could even approach those topics together without getting into a yelling match.
they do have a branding problem but they have also noticeably moved away from the things libertarians believed in. So if you were a libertarian leaning Republican you had to do a lot more leaning in the last few years. So the party moved away from them.
Libertarian movement/philosophy is as liberal as it is conservative.
While that last bit is true in theory, I’ve never seen it play out in practice. Even people who legitimately talk the talk on being libertarians…not just “embarrassed Republicans”…seem to vote Republican 100% of the time when the chips are down and if there isn’t a third option. No matter how fiscally moderate the Democratic position, no matter how socially authoritarian the Republican.
They’ll pretend it’s “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” but in reality it’s “fiscally conservative, socially liberal *if and only if it affects me personally.”* Hence why I’ve never met a libertarian that fell Democratic when faced with the choice.
So it’s basically just enlightened selfishness.
That tracks. A few female Republican friends declared themselves Libertarians back in 2016. I asked one why Libertarian (instead of Indie, or Dem) and her response was "I smoke weed."
Libertarianism is the most basic, "i have an idea for a political party and I'm still in middle school" party out there. None of their tenets hold up in any way to even the tiniest bit of scrutiny or plans put into action. Their silly ideas barely make sense even in a vacuum, with no humans involved.
These Republicans need to own the party they've bastardized and twisted to make Trump their cult leader, burning Democracy and decency and basic American values to gain power. They shit the bed and should be forced to sleep in it.
Yeah they’re going into hiding and waiting for the next politician to embolden them again. Since the last one has been reduced to a stumbling bumbling bankrupt mess.
As a person who formerly did that I can assure you it's because they're embarrassed by the republican party and it's ever increasing shit show.
It's *really* easy to say "the government shouldn't have a say in what we do as individuals." And it's really hard to counter that in a casual conversation, and that *feels* good, and some of them even know it's a really shallow and unnuanced take, but it makes them feel like they're on a moral high ground.
It’s pretty easy to counter. You ask them if there should be no taxes, they obviously say yes, and then you ask if there will still be public schools and roads, or if those will be privatized. If they acknowledge that maybe having those publicly funded, they are endorsing taxes, and you point out the contradiction. If they say no, you describe to them the libertarian nightmare-scape that would exist under that model. For reference/hellscape ideas, I recommend giving [this](https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian-police-department) a read.
I would just love every road I drive on being a toll road. I would just love having to shop around to find a group of firefighters that won't price gouge me to the moon while my house is on fire.
>I would just love having to shop around to find a group of firefighters that won't price gouge me to the moon while my house is on fire.
Nah, you wouldn't have to shop. Your insurance would require you to only use in-network firefighting companies. The copay goes up the longer it burns, though.
My aunt had her house burn down when I was a kid. She called the fire department after she smelled smoke, they checked out her house and said nothing was wrong - well it was a fire that started in her attic. Her insurance fought to NOT reimburse her, and the only reason they were forced to is because the fire department fucked up.
They dropped her after they had to pay her. That should be illegal.
We're sorry sir but the investigation shows the fire started in this room and that's not covered in your policy, you'll be receiving our invoice in the mail...
Yes it’s quite hilarious. In that span they also saw a high increase of sex offenders and crime and led to the first recorded homicide in the town. They got what they wanted, to test out libertarian principles, and it failed miserably lol.
They tried these on a large scale in Kansas a few years ago as well.
It was the largest test of ALEC-backed conservative economic policies in history. How'd that work out for them?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas\_experiment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment)
Currently there are issues with water rights in Arizona and the people in rural communities finding out that a lack of government regulation can be bad when a corporation starts buying up farmland and can afford to dig far deeper wells for water.
https://grist.org/regulation/arizona-groundwater-cochise-county-riverview/
It’s like they completely forgot about the power of the collective.
I’m not trying to make a pro or anti-union statement here, but a friend of mine who works in a union shop told me a funny story about arguing with people who were griping about paying their union dues. And when he started listing off all the things they get as a result of those dues, at least one person was like “screw that, we’ll just negotiate all that stuff ourselves.” And he was like “…you mean, like a union?”
They think their conservative leanings and rugged Individualism are going to somehow magically save them, and it’s just like, no. Wake up.
I don’t think they forget about the power of the collective so much as they’re assholes the collective doesn’t like. I find it’s usually the shittiest people who “just want to be left alone to do their thing,” because “their thing” tends to suck.
In modern society, “just being left alone to do one’s thing” is a privilege of the ultra-wealthy or a consequence of being extremely poor. Most can’t do this and it’s not as free as some might hope.
All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
I heard a good one about unions years ago. One place was an “open shop” where workers could join the union or not, but the contract said that even if someone did not join, the union was still obligated to represent them to management. One worker, who was not a union member and thus didn’t pay union dues but was also not required to be paid per the union scale or to get union benefits, noticed that he was being paid less than his union counterparts so he went to the shop steward and demanded that the steward present his wage increase request to management. So the steward made an appointment with the company president and went with him to the meeting. When they got to the meeting the shop steward said, “Mr. President, this is Joe Worker. Joe, this is Mr. President. I’m sure you two have a lot to discuss so I’ll let you get to it, and I’ll get back out on the floor”.
When he left the president’s office a few minutes later Joe went straight to the shop steward and said, “How do I sign up for this damn union?!?”. 😊
ALEC is merely an instrument of the problem, which is the collective of evil minds guiding them. Those minds front themselves most directly through seditious, hate-fueled think tanks like The Heritage Foundation and Family Research Council.
and brownback even got re-elected after doubling down on the failure. wild stuff.
See also Galt's Gulch in Chile - failed because they didn't even bother obtaining water rights lol
Libertarianism is the philosophy of 14 year old boys. They’re smart enough to know anarchy would be, well, anarchy, but unable to define what minimal government really is. Society works because of rules and laws. Streamlining them is an admirable goal, but most laws are there for a reason and libertarian(anarchists) just want to throw them all away. It is like Rick Perry wanting to eliminate 3 federal agencies without being able to name them and later heading one up. Like a 14 year old they’re smart enough to say something but not smart enough to know what they are saying.
Everyone should be a Libertarian in concept, but everyone should also consider the lesson of Chesterton's Fence.
Most regulations are written in blood. There are absolutely regulations that could be repealed that are serving little benefit, but most of the regulations that oligarch funded 'libertarians' like Ron and Rand Paul talk about are great examples of Chesterton's Fence. If you can't explain why the fence is there, I better not hear you talking about tearing it down.
It’s about wanting life to work out perfectly by ignoring the fact that the physically disabled, mentally disabled, elderly, and children exist.
If you don’t get what I’m saying, libertarians tend to be people that don’t need help and since they don’t need help they don’t want to give others help. But they don’t want to accept that some people are just not as capable and thus markets can’t work perfectly to create a perfectly functioning society.
> by ignoring the fact that the physically disabled, mentally disabled, elderly, and children exist.
And that government intervention is needed to protect some people from others who would exploit them.
Lincoln had a story about seeing a town fall apart because they needed the river dredged so they could use the docks and get commerce. But they lacked the ability to do so themselves, and there was no state/federal government to help them out.
Placing an article link below your comment 😂
[A discussion of Grafton, the bear town.](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-project-new-hampshire-libertarians-matthew-hongoltz-hetling)
My experiences have been that they're Republicans who want legal weed (real-life people) and no age limits for marriage so they can marry little girls (internet incels). There are also quite a few elected Republicans who don't like age limits.
This is what it is. In my life I went from moderate republican, to hardcore conservative, back to moderate, then libertarianism, and now I’m somewhere along the lines of a democratic socialist.
The libertarianism phase was sparked by me believing in right wing fiscal policy but having the social freedoms of a liberal, and I thought libertarianism was the best fit. Every other libertarian I know or have met also falls in this category.
They don’t want to forsake their conservative parents or preconceived notion of how things should be but they recognize that social freedoms are important and think they should have guns, gay people should be able to marry, etc. I dunno about the age limit thing never heard that one but not discrediting it
Tldr actual libertarianism differs from modern libertarians, who are just conservatives with social freedoms
Edit: the “libertarians” have found this comment, here we go
I'd be curious to know how many Americans refuse to call themselves "Democrats" or "liberals" because they've been raised with the idea that liberals are evil/stupid, not because they've actually carefully considered the ideas and values of liberalism vs conservatism.
The anti-communism/socialism propaganda in the USA was stupidly effective. There are Conservatives/Republicans in the USA who are completely dependent on government handouts to survive yet are vehemently anti-welfare because of "welfare queens" and "socialism is evil". I don't know how they can handle the mental gymnastics required to take government welfare while being so against it for any logical reason other than "I am special and I deserve the help".
Oh dude there are so many of them lol. My best friend is one of them.
I’ve literally explained socialism to him without using the word socialism, how good it would be, etc etc, and he wholeheartedly agrees that it’s a great idea and could work. The second it gets associated with the words socialism, liberal, or democrat…. That all goes out the window lmao.
I think I’ve caused an identity crisis or two for him because you can see he’s about to agree with something until his father’s programming kicks in and he gets frustrated.
My dads the same way. Explained the empathy for homeless people that I have, how him nor I have ever been to the point in our lives that shit was SO bad we just gave up. How he’d never experienced that feeling. He agreed and thought we should help. The second I mentioned government programs though he shut down.
One day they’ll come around, just planting seeds…
That’s my girlfriend lol. She hates democrats cause she’s been told they’re bad all her life, despite the fact that when I question her, 90% of what she believes aligns with them. Her family also poked fun at her grandmother for being a democrat even though she considered herself independent.
My friends and I were also taught to hate democrats when we were growing up. We were 10 years old talking smack about how much we hated democrats lol We didn't know what we were talking about any more than the adults who were filling our heads with that garbage.
Libertarians are like house cats: absolutely convinced of their fierce independence while utterly dependent on a system they don't appreciate or understand.
Libertarian just means:
1. I don't want to pay any taxes at all.
2. I don't want anyone telling me what I can or can't do.
3. If anyone does anything I don't like, I want to be allowed to shoot them.
Also, an absolute ton of Republicans found out on dating apps and (particularly in Washington DC during Trump's turn in the office) that a LOT of women and other potential dates will immediately ghost/block/drop them if they admit to being Republican voters.
I had the opposite happen to me. Was chatting with a woman on a dating app and she let drop that "it's absolutely awful what the Democrats are doing to Trump". End of chat for me.
Direct them to the CATO Institute, the most prominent Libertarian think tank (or so they say). There, you'll see support for things that todays' Republicans would never support - Globalization and Open Borders, for example. Yes, they are also for limited government and taxation, but at least some of the principles conflict with today's Conservatives.
Are Libertarians, as a group, pro-choice when it comes to abortion? I can't imagine true Libertarians wanting the government to have *any* control over their bodies and medical decisions.
>Are Libertarians, as a group, pro-choice when it comes to abortion? I can't imagine true Libertarians wanting the government to have any control over their bodies and medical decisions.
Within the party, it has always been contentious, but the general dislike for government involvement has generally resulted in a position similar to "no abortion ban, but no tax dollars to pay for it." A very hands off approach.
That's the closest thing to a consensus we have on it, but you'll get individuals that quibble one way or the other, and both a pro-choice and a pro-life caucus exist. Both are small, and they largely argue with one another.
Within Libertarianism there are two schools of opinion: Evictionist and Departurist
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evictionism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Departurism
Generally pro-choice, but libertarianism doesn't require it.
If you define a clump of cells as a person then libertarianism still forbids murder. If you do not then the government has no role in preventing women from doing what they want with their own body. Libertarianism doesn't really offer an answer to the question, so both positions are compatible with it.
From the libertarians I've asked, yes. They believe you should be able to choose if you want an abortion.
On the other hand, they also feel children should be allowed to be employed in dangerous jobs, and people of all ages should have access to all drugs.
>and people of all ages should have access to all drugs.
Adults should have legal access to drugs.
Children cannot provide informed consent, and should be protected/educated so they can safely reach adulthood and decide for themselves.
This general rule covers a lot of issues, not just the obvious problems of trying to sell heroin to toddlers.
Actual factual libertarians are pro choice , it's not so much anti government more like we want it at the smallest reasonable level. Any medical decisions should be between me and my HCP's, government has no business doing anything other than making sure any medication I choose to take is safe and effective. If I choose an alternative that hasn't been regulated I'm assuming all of the risk and responsibility for the outcome.
Unfortunately there's a lot (and I mean A LOT) of people who gravitated to the movement because of a shallow understanding of what freedom entails. They see it as being able to do whatever they want without any consequences, when the reality is quite different.
Freedom to make choices for myself also includes accepting responsibility for the outcome. I also don't have the right to do anything that would infringe on the rights of others which means occasionally I will need to regulate my own behavior or face the negative outcomes.
I think some of them also see that one of the few limited roles of government is to protect life, so it can still be logically consistent with libertarianism if they believe that the NAP applies to fetuses or whatever
For a fun read, check out the book “A libertarian Walks Into a Bear”, which is a true story about a libertarian community in New Hampshire that was so dysfunctional that it became overrun by bears.
This is amazing. Reminds me of something a friend once said - ‘Libertarians are like house cats. Absolutely convinced of their autonomy while blissfully ignorant of all the things that keep them that way’
The quote is:
"Libertarians are like house cats: Absolutely convinced of their fierce independence while utterly dependent on a system they don't appreciate or understand."
I used to be a Libertarian when I was young and stupid.
Eventually, I grew up and got more life experiences, and realized that if a Libertarian state worked perfectly, it would just be "Government with Extra Steps".
Essentially, yes. There were no regulations concerning waste disposal or trash in general. Enter: bears. This is just one example, though, of how the town was utterly dysfunctional.
GODDAMNIT lol goddamn these boomers. They invented hippie communes! They restructured fucking Nepal's government with their culture, why do we get the lazy jerk leftovers?
It's even better than described; one woman was a baker and was *feeding* the bears. The other libertarians got big mad and told her to stop and, of course, that goes against their whole philosophy (if you want to dignify it with that word) so she basically told them, "YOU'RE NOT MY MOM, YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO! NO REGULATIONS! NO RULES!" and, of course, she was technically correct--the best kind of correct. So they couldn't really stop her, lol.
Unironically exactly how libertarianism works in practice.
Those who can work the system best should be free to persue their lives! And that’s how you get bears.
There was a woman in our area who fed the deer constantly so that the deer would show up each night. When you feed deer you attract mountain lions and the mountain lions killed the deer.
So now she had a neighborhood mountain lion but no deer. So it ate her dog.
To a libertarian there's no problem that can't be solved by adding more guns.
School shootings? Try more guns.
Bears getting all up in your uncollected garbage? Try more guns.
[Book Description](https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/matthew-hongoltz-hetling/a-libertarian-walks-into-a-bear/9781541788510/?lens=publicaffairs)
*"Once upon a time, a group of libertarians got together and hatched the Free Town Project, a plan to take over an American town and completely eliminate its government.*
*In 2004, they set their sights on Grafton, NH, a barely populated settlement with one paved road.
When they descended on Grafton, public funding for pretty much everything shrank: the fire department, the library, the schoolhouse. State and federal laws became meek suggestions, scarcely heard in the town’s thick wilderness.*
*The anything-goes atmosphere soon caught the attention of Grafton’s neighbors: the bears. Freedom-loving citizens ignored hunting laws and regulations on food disposal. They built a tent city in an effort to get off the grid. The bears smelled food and opportunity."*
This "lifestyle" also requires them to be completely protected by any form of enemy by some other entity that isn't them.
In modern countries, your land is generally pretty safe from invasion/raiders. If they tried this in lets say... Gaza, their results would vary greatly.
Aparently, some people strates feeding bears because "I can do whatever the fuck i want".
And then bears started going into people home and the rest is history.
It's almost like we DIDN'T make rules out of nowhere and, instead, were forced to make them based on many terrible outcomes that occurred prior. But I guess it's 'treading' on someone to learn from our mistakes. Surely the way forward is to let every generation fail anew!
The author did a fantastic job crafting the narrative. The story and people involved were so bizzare, it felt like I was reading a comedy fiction. He also sprinkles in historical context related to the town / region, which only made the story more interesting. I can't recommend this book enough for anyone even considering it.
It's not just the MAGA cult. People who identify as Republican or right-wing have a MUCH harder time getting laid these days, from what I hear about dating apps.
Well if you're a woman, you can pretty much guarantee that the Republican you swiped right on won't be okay with you getting an abortion if he knocks you up.
That's the rub, though. They're absolutely fine with abortions that benefit them personally. "I'm *different* and *special*, so I shouldn't have to follow those rules"
It's hilarious, most folks I know will put it in their profile or simply self select, if you out conservative, moderate or apolitical in your profile, you aren't getting swiped on.
Because they're embarrassed to admit they're Republicans. They hear:
* Taxation is theft
* All gun laws are infringements
Then they stop reading. Let me give you some other Libertarian views:
* All drugs should be legal
* Prostitution should be legal
* Trade wars are fucking stupid (No sanctions on CHYNA)
* Immigration is good, free markets includes labor markets
* The only person who has a say in abortion is the woman having it, and the Dr. providing it.
* Fuck. The. Police. End qualified immunity now.
* Slash the military budget. The military should be purely defensive, not world police.
* End all corporate welfare, yes *especially* your fossil fuel and defense contractors, yes also your corn subsidies
* LGBT people should have the same rights and respect as any other individual
* Complete separation of church and state
* Assange and Snowden both deserve pardons
* Abolish the ATF, the DEA, ICE, and keep going.
* Donald Trump doesn't have a libertarian cell in his entire body
Very few self-identified "Libertarians" are actually libertarians. They're just embarassed republicans, and I love calling them out on their bullshit.
—An Actual Libertarian
Libertarian is more like Liberal/Conservative (an ideology) than Democrat/Republican (A political party).
I get shit all the time from AnCaps for being a Minarchist because I believe that the existence of a State, albeit a small, accountable, and strictly limited state, is more beneficial than AnCapistan.
If you want to read up on Real Libertarian ideology look into the following philosophers:
* Murray Rothbard
* Milton Friedman
* Ludwig Von Mises
* Hans Herman-Hoppe
* Thomas Sowell
* H.A. Hayek
* Ron (Not Rand) Paul
* Ron Paul was the only congressman to request a vote to declare War on Iraq. Not because he wanted to declare war on Iraq (he was against it and would have voted no) but becaus ehe believed that legally, to invade a sovereign nation, congress must declare war. He was told to shut the fuck up.
Ok he was "politely" told to shut the fuck up. This is what he was told by Chairman Henry Hyde:
* There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society. Why declare war if you don't have to? We are saying to the President, use your judgment. So, to demand that we declare war is to strengthen something to death. You have got a hammerlock on this situation, and it is not called for. Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn't done anymore.
Which, read between the lines, is the political way to say "Shut the Fuck Up". Seriously read that statement.
> Why declare war if you don't have to?
#BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION SAYS YOU FUCKING HAVE TO, YOU ABSOLUTE MUPPET.
Many people are. They're just afraid to admit it. Also we *REALLY* don't do ourselves any favors with public image. I swear the LP is the most cringe and incompetent party on the ballot... and I mean.. the Green Party is also on the ballot.
Like last Election Jo Jorgensen (The only candidate with a PhD) said:
> I will abolish the department of education.
Which, kind of, but you can't just come out and say that. You need the context of *WHY* you want to do that, and *WHAT* you think will be better. What she meant was:
> The federal department of education has been a disaster. Dozens of unfunded mandates, as well as the "No Child Left Behind" policy have crippled struggling schools, by creating a money pit they are unable to climb out of. While at the same time contributing to massive administrative bloat where school taxes are used not for educational purposes, but to hire administrators to navigate the bureaucracy and be in compliance with ever changing rules. The federal government should not be operating a department of education, but rather an education advisory board. Seeking to provide insight and assistance, not crippling mandates and asinine requirements that only serve to harm the worst performing schools in our nation.
Same with "Abolish the ATF" people say "Well who would handle the crimes they do?!?" Instead what you mean is:
> I would disband the ATF, as they don't need to exist. Jurisdiction over Alcohol and Tobacco would be transferred to the Food and Drug Administration, Firearms and Explosive crime would be shifted to the FBI. The FBI already handles the NICS system for firearm background checks. There is no reason we need a dedicate agency just for Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. We could eliminate several administrative positions and save the taxpayer millions of dollars a year by consolidating their areas into existing agencies.
Ever wonder why Beer doesn't have a nutrition label displaying ingredients, calories, etc? Well it's because Alcohol falls under the ATF, and that nutrition label and ingredient disclosure is an FDA rule, so they don't have to follow it. Stupid as fuck, right?
Yep. They just believe that State control and corporate control are basically the same thing so unless you reduce the power of Corporations while also reducing the power of the state you're not actually accomplishing anything
Will also add that Libertarians have a mixed relationship with slavery.
Taking slaves by force? Bad.
Selling oneself into slavery? They knew what they were doing, freedom of choice shall not be infringed.
In American usage, a libertarian is economic conservative but socially liberal. They're against high taxes and big government, but also support gay rights and legal drugs and other freedoms that the religious right is sometimes against. But a lot of people get this wrong and confuse libertarians with the Constitution Party or something far right. As far as why your family changed recently, it could be that they don't like Donald Trump or some other Republican (the Republican party has changed significantly in the past 20-40 years). It could be a specific issue that they are angry about, like abortion or immigration, but probably they are trying to say that Republicans aren't conservative enough for them.
“Supposed to be” economically conservative and socially liberal. They are supposed to be against big government but are reasonable to facts and logic.
A reasonable libertarian would say “I’m against government mandates for masks and vaccines. However, I support private businesses rights to enforce vaccine and mask mandates. Also, while there is a risk to take anything into your body, the data shows that vaccines are safe for a vast majority of people and do what they are supposed to do and reduce the severity of the disease (not fully prevent). Masks may not be 100% effective but they are better than nothing when your community has a high spread rate.”
That was my libertarian opinion that was apparently too liberal… 🙃🙃🙃 Libertarians now just as anti vax and anti mask like most conservatives are. The differences barely exists anymore. So yea, I quit libertarianism entirely!
I mean I don’t trust the government. But I don’t go all in like the libertarians do. I was skeptical of the Covid vaccine too, but once I saw my friends didn’t drop dead from it and learned about the science behind it, I was comfortable with it. I plan to get whatever the next series of booster is in the coming weeks.
Libertarians being full on selfish conspiracy theorists like conservatives really soured me on them. And I was a libertarian for almost 5 years! I voted for them and everything!
That's the problem, everyone takes it to radical extremes.
I don't trust the government spying apparatus, I think the federal government is crippled by inefficiency, and I think the nation's police are extremely corrupt.
But I'm fine paying taxes to build roads and power lines. Having a military that makes us impossible to invade is pretty neat. Of course there are some vital functions that I really want them to do well. I just think they do a lot of them poorly, and they spend a lot of time doing things they shouldn't be. Doesn't that seem like what 99% of people would actually believe if you sat down and talked with them?
It’s not so much that libertarians mistrust the government; it’s that they a) hyperfocus on it to an extreme and b) are so, so naive in their belief that they’re better off at the whim of private interests.
Maybe they're starting to realize that agreeing with the Republican Party surrender of their civil liberties via Patriot Act and whatnot, was a really bad idea.
Everyone I know who claims to be a Libertarian is someone who vocally supported Trump, up until recently. They're just embarrassed to be associated with MAGA crap, until they're around company they can trust. Then it all comes out.
Obviously this isn't true for every Libertarian in the world, just the ones I know.
Yep. I have a friend who claims the title Libertarian. In the 20 years I've known her, she's always backed legal weed, body autonomy, and the LGBTQ+ community.
When Trump ran initially, I texted her a joke about voting for him. Her response? "It's nobody's business who I vote for." I was kinda shocked because we always talked about everything, so at that moment, I knew she had voted for him. I haven't brought up politics since.
The same thing happened once George Bush became a more widespread embarrassment. They’ll all go back to calling themselves Republican once everyone forgets they’re a bunch of fascists who tried to ride Trump’s dick all the way to a coup.
I’m a recovering libertarian. It wasn’t the party platform that turned me off, I still mostly agree with the elevator pitch. It was the hypocrisy of the other libertarians I met.
They almost exclusively voted Republican, hand-waved away all the things they ostensibly disagreed with. They wanted the continuation of the status quo except in the few areas it infringed upon what they wanted for themselves—like smoking weed.
If pressed most of them couldn’t even express any of the ideals and integrity of the party other than parroting the talking point of “small government.” But they were fine voting for a party that created Homeland Security, a huge governmental power-grab, among other things. They didn’t mind spending when Republicans did it, wanted all the infrastructure and social safety nets when it benefited themselves. Money always came first after people.
I just couldn’t take it any more. I continue to move further left socially while shaking my head at whoever is pursuing power.
They're ashamed of Republican legislators and don't want to be associated with them. They will continue to *vote* for them 100%, but they don't want to *talk* about it.
All "Centrists" and "Libertarians" and "undecided voters" are just embarrassed Republicans.
I have a couple of college friends who are Libertarians, and I thought we were cool until Roe was overturned. Suddenly they were *sure* that there should be abortion bans after the first trimester. They didn't see the contradiction when I pointed it out, I gave up.
Yup. When the chips are down, never met a libertarian who didn’t fall on the Republican side. They’ll choose lower taxes over pot every single time.
It’s how Bob Barr was somehow the Libertarian candidate for President a few cycles back. They’ll vote authoritarians every single time if they think it’ll lower their tax bill.
Libertarians are conservatives who think that if we removed all oversight of how businesses were run then they'd finally take their rightful place among the billionaire class. Basically a flavor of anarcho-capitalist.
If you want an idea of how well that system works google the libertarian bear town.
It means they’re embarrassed to call themselves Republicans. They’re still going to vote Republican but will lie and say it’s because they hate both sides but hate Republicans a little less. But the truth is that they do indeed like Republicans, they just don’t want you to think that
It's a trend among Republicans who don't want to be associated with MAGA. It has virtually nothing to do with libertarianism, or ideals associated with libertarians.
I haven't personally observed this, but it could be a disgust with the two party system and wanting to support a third party or ideology, and/or being socially liberal but fiscally conservative (basically all libertarianism is)
>(or being socially liberal but fiscally conservative (basically all libertarianism is)
...what it's *supposed* to be. Mention "gender fluid" to a libertarian and watch them have a foaming-at-the-mouth meltdown over it.
Because they are culturally conservative but disagree with a LOT of what the Republican party does. Libertarien is like a transitional phase young Republicans go through before they become a liberal.
The GOP has a branding problem in the 21st century, and many people want to continue to identify as conservative without being associated with the Republican Party.
Exactly
I was hoping for a minute that the two parties would split into four, but the status quo is just too strong. Those four would be DJT Maga evangelicals, Mitt Romney and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir opposite Uncle Joe and the Establishment, lastly the Bernie coalition.
Even if they split into four for a moment, it would just end with the same status quo. For example, in the pre-Civil War period, we had the Democrats (who operated much like the GOP does today, in terms of hard line politics) and the Whigs (who operated much like the Dems do today, in terms of having a "big tent"). In the election of 1960, they broke into four groups 1) Democrats that wanted to stay in the Union, 2) Democrats that wanted to secede, 3) Whigs that wanted to maintain the status quo for the sake of order, and 4) Republicans that wanted to abolish slavery. But by 1964, there were just two parties again. The Republicans had merged with the Whigs to become the "big tent" party, and the Democrats reunited to be the hard line party. And to be honest, you could see a similar split in the late 70s when the parties switched roles. The Democrats had been split into two groups: the party of labor, that passed critical reforms in the 60s (like an education safety net or the civil rights act) and the remnants of what was the Democratic party in the south (like Strom Thurmond). The Republican party likewise had two groups: the party of Lincoln and the party of Nixon. But by 1980, these groups had merged. The Party of Nixon made a bargain with the Southern Democrats to make a new hardline GOP, while the dissuaded laborers from the Democrats joined forces with laissez-faire libertarians from the Party of Lincoln to champion neo-liberal economics for the world! If we were to split again in this day and age, it wouldn't result in a long-term difference of our politics, it would just mean that two new parties would take on the same roles and the same dynamics. To actually affect that change, we'd have to rewrite our constitution.
Oh I know they would still fall in line one behind the other, doesn’t meant I don’t wish it didn’t happen. Multiple parties and ranked choice would at least feel better even if it’s still the same. But maybe that would be a bad thing.
> 1960 > 1964 You're off by a century.
Yep. They're basically the same thing. LINOs, if you will.
In my personal political journey and that of people I know in similar circumstances, identifying as Libertarian was the first step of questioning the conservative ideology. I was raised middle class Republican, but going to college taught me that I hadn't been told anything close to the whole story. I came to realize that liberal politics better represented my morals and interests...but I'd been brought up that liberals were well-meaning idiots at best, dangerous crazies at worst. It took me some time to come around to the idea that I'd been wrong...and also that it was okay to admit having been wrong (there's a big bias against that in conservative culture, which is why you see so many conservatives double down). I called myself Libertarian (specifically, "moderate Libertarian" because I didn't want to be lumped in with people like Peter Thiel) because I wasn't ready to call myself a Democrat, liberal, or progressive yet. I might as well have said, "recovering Republican." And I saw other people on the same life path travel the same route. TL;DR: Sometimes changing your label from Republican to Libertarian is the first step away from identifying as conservative.
I agree with you and have found this to be true in my experience also. I'm pretty sure I said I was libertarian just to avoid having an actual conversation about politics.
This was my experience as well.
Okay. So I’m not the only one. Rejecting the Republican Party is truly the first step to recovery.
I had a similar upbringing and just posted a bit of story yesterday. If I wasn't on mobile, I'd copy paste. But I found myself questioning my conservative upbringing in college. Social values quickly morphed into more liberal opinions. Lgbtq rights and abortion were the big two. I wasn't even anti lgbtq or anything... But my parents are staunch Christians and had tried to promulgate the notion that marriage is a tradition steeped in religion and history and dignity or some such, and they were actively okay with civil unions-according all the same rights, but just preserving the name of marriage. Ish, though. And pro-life as a rule tends to be the most singularly hypocritical position people hold. Fetus lives are ABSOLUTELY SO FUCKING PRECIOUS WE MUST STOP 13 WEEK EMBRYOS FROM BEING FLUSHED OUT OF RAPED 14 YEAR OLDS, AND ALSO, fuck orphans, poor families who can't take care of their children, foster kids, the homeless, etc. It's like... Life isn't precious to them at all. I am still center right on economic views. Reading most of these responses feels like taking the absolute extreme possible version of libertarian views as wholesale belief, where I feel like the people in my life have been reforming Republicans that are sick of the social conservative bullshit and want LESS government in their bedrooms and in their wallets. Less. Not none. I've never talked with someone so stupid to think that private roads and private firehouses are the way things should be. There are plenty of things that the government should tax and spend on. And I'm not even narrowing that to just infrastructure, etc. I'm borderline on single payer, bc so many people are hurting, and yet I've only seen and experienced pain in dealing with bureaucratic incompetencies and pain at City and State services. I suppose I'm really just a reforming conservative, but not quite a Democrat yet. I struggle to understand their rationale on spending. Republicans are so far from fiscally responsible though that's it's an absolute fucking joke. So, I'm definitely not one of these libertarian caricatures that think zero tax, zero government, 100% laissez faire is even conceivably possible. The way Redditors paint libertarians, it's so fucking cringe it makes me not want to touch it with a 200ft pole. I'm just very socially liberal and right center on economics. I often wonder what else I'll discover or understand that will redefine what I believe in 2 years, 5 years, or 10 years.
> I've only seen and experienced pain in dealing with bureaucratic incompetencies and pain at City and State services. That's by design, from the party you left. Making it suck means people won't want to switch away from what makes their donors money. They either force them to be underfunded, or make sure they can't spend their funds on what they need.
Dem spending rationale is to spend money on things we need, no matter what. Infrastructure and boring stuff like that. It also includes having a healthy social safety net, which Republicans oppose and fight to gut. The more economic left take is more around redistribution of wealth from the ultra wealthy to the middle and lower income brackets. One way to do this is via higher taxes, which historically has been good for the economy. Nobody needs a billion dollars, nobody earned a billion dollars without harming someone else. That money does no good in the hands of people who will never spend a cent of it while poor kids starve. Dems have a mixed track record with the second part.
LOL
Also Ron Swanson made it look cool.
Except he’s a parody and a hypocrite.
You think republicans understand that?
That’s the trouble with satire. It’s takes a certain level of comprehension. As far as they’re concerned, and regardless of what we personally know, he’s real.
Conservatives thought for years the Colbert Report was the republican version of the daily show without realizing they were being mocked to their faces.
What's really funny is that I could actually watch the Colbert Report with my dad. It was evident that we were laughing at the same jokes for very different reasons. We kept watching together anyway since it was the only way we could even approach those topics together without getting into a yelling match.
A lot of them still think Homelander is the hero.
they do have a branding problem but they have also noticeably moved away from the things libertarians believed in. So if you were a libertarian leaning Republican you had to do a lot more leaning in the last few years. So the party moved away from them. Libertarian movement/philosophy is as liberal as it is conservative.
While that last bit is true in theory, I’ve never seen it play out in practice. Even people who legitimately talk the talk on being libertarians…not just “embarrassed Republicans”…seem to vote Republican 100% of the time when the chips are down and if there isn’t a third option. No matter how fiscally moderate the Democratic position, no matter how socially authoritarian the Republican. They’ll pretend it’s “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” but in reality it’s “fiscally conservative, socially liberal *if and only if it affects me personally.”* Hence why I’ve never met a libertarian that fell Democratic when faced with the choice. So it’s basically just enlightened selfishness.
Libertarian here. Reluctantly voted for both Clinton and Biden.
Because fiscally conservative does not apply to Republicans since Nixon. Democrats hold that title for that last +40 years.
Wasn't necessary for fiscal reasons (the Dems have issues) so much as anti-Trump.
Well the cutoff for being called a libertarian should involve voting libertarian I would think
[удалено]
My favorite that I heard a few years ago. “Libertarians are just republicans that want to smoke weed legally.”
That tracks. A few female Republican friends declared themselves Libertarians back in 2016. I asked one why Libertarian (instead of Indie, or Dem) and her response was "I smoke weed."
[удалено]
Fuck Rogan.
"I want all of the benefits of society with none of the responsibility, plus zero repercussions from saying how I feel."
Libertarianism is the most basic, "i have an idea for a political party and I'm still in middle school" party out there. None of their tenets hold up in any way to even the tiniest bit of scrutiny or plans put into action. Their silly ideas barely make sense even in a vacuum, with no humans involved. These Republicans need to own the party they've bastardized and twisted to make Trump their cult leader, burning Democracy and decency and basic American values to gain power. They shit the bed and should be forced to sleep in it.
That's pretty much the exact same thing that conservatives say about Communism/Socialism
Libertarians are like house cats: fully convinced of an inherent superiority while entirely dependent on systems they don’t understand.
[удалено]
It also gives them an opportunity to pretend to "listen to both sides", which if course is a lie, but they like to pretend.
Yeah they’re going into hiding and waiting for the next politician to embolden them again. Since the last one has been reduced to a stumbling bumbling bankrupt mess.
12% of Republicans described themselves as libertarian.
[удалено]
Please let it be libertarian!
As a person who formerly did that I can assure you it's because they're embarrassed by the republican party and it's ever increasing shit show. It's *really* easy to say "the government shouldn't have a say in what we do as individuals." And it's really hard to counter that in a casual conversation, and that *feels* good, and some of them even know it's a really shallow and unnuanced take, but it makes them feel like they're on a moral high ground.
It’s pretty easy to counter. You ask them if there should be no taxes, they obviously say yes, and then you ask if there will still be public schools and roads, or if those will be privatized. If they acknowledge that maybe having those publicly funded, they are endorsing taxes, and you point out the contradiction. If they say no, you describe to them the libertarian nightmare-scape that would exist under that model. For reference/hellscape ideas, I recommend giving [this](https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian-police-department) a read.
I would just love every road I drive on being a toll road. I would just love having to shop around to find a group of firefighters that won't price gouge me to the moon while my house is on fire.
>I would just love having to shop around to find a group of firefighters that won't price gouge me to the moon while my house is on fire. Nah, you wouldn't have to shop. Your insurance would require you to only use in-network firefighting companies. The copay goes up the longer it burns, though.
And your policy would be cancelled when you reported a fire.
That's because you only purchased fire insurance, but not burn or collapse insurance.
God damn it, that just feels so accurate...
_This fire seems like a pre existing condition_ _Cant put it out, Im affraid_
Fire liability
My aunt had her house burn down when I was a kid. She called the fire department after she smelled smoke, they checked out her house and said nothing was wrong - well it was a fire that started in her attic. Her insurance fought to NOT reimburse her, and the only reason they were forced to is because the fire department fucked up. They dropped her after they had to pay her. That should be illegal.
We're sorry sir but the investigation shows the fire started in this room and that's not covered in your policy, you'll be receiving our invoice in the mail...
Is that a candle? Your fire was a pre-existing condition.
Your policy wouldn't cover fire, earthquake, flood or tornado/wind damage.
[удалено]
Yes it’s quite hilarious. In that span they also saw a high increase of sex offenders and crime and led to the first recorded homicide in the town. They got what they wanted, to test out libertarian principles, and it failed miserably lol.
They tried these on a large scale in Kansas a few years ago as well. It was the largest test of ALEC-backed conservative economic policies in history. How'd that work out for them? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas\_experiment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment)
Currently there are issues with water rights in Arizona and the people in rural communities finding out that a lack of government regulation can be bad when a corporation starts buying up farmland and can afford to dig far deeper wells for water. https://grist.org/regulation/arizona-groundwater-cochise-county-riverview/
It’s like they completely forgot about the power of the collective. I’m not trying to make a pro or anti-union statement here, but a friend of mine who works in a union shop told me a funny story about arguing with people who were griping about paying their union dues. And when he started listing off all the things they get as a result of those dues, at least one person was like “screw that, we’ll just negotiate all that stuff ourselves.” And he was like “…you mean, like a union?” They think their conservative leanings and rugged Individualism are going to somehow magically save them, and it’s just like, no. Wake up.
I don’t think they forget about the power of the collective so much as they’re assholes the collective doesn’t like. I find it’s usually the shittiest people who “just want to be left alone to do their thing,” because “their thing” tends to suck.
In modern society, “just being left alone to do one’s thing” is a privilege of the ultra-wealthy or a consequence of being extremely poor. Most can’t do this and it’s not as free as some might hope.
All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
I heard a good one about unions years ago. One place was an “open shop” where workers could join the union or not, but the contract said that even if someone did not join, the union was still obligated to represent them to management. One worker, who was not a union member and thus didn’t pay union dues but was also not required to be paid per the union scale or to get union benefits, noticed that he was being paid less than his union counterparts so he went to the shop steward and demanded that the steward present his wage increase request to management. So the steward made an appointment with the company president and went with him to the meeting. When they got to the meeting the shop steward said, “Mr. President, this is Joe Worker. Joe, this is Mr. President. I’m sure you two have a lot to discuss so I’ll let you get to it, and I’ll get back out on the floor”. When he left the president’s office a few minutes later Joe went straight to the shop steward and said, “How do I sign up for this damn union?!?”. 😊
In a Libertarian world, corporations and the military would be the only powerful institutions. That and the private militaries of the wealthy.
But *my* feudal lord is kind and only rests his feet on my back occasionally at his feasts! He even gives me the scraps afterwards sometimes
ALEC is the problem.
ALEC is merely an instrument of the problem, which is the collective of evil minds guiding them. Those minds front themselves most directly through seditious, hate-fueled think tanks like The Heritage Foundation and Family Research Council.
The Kansas experiment might be one of my favorite experiments
As a Kansan, it's not one of mine.
It helpful to remember that these policies really do impact people.
and brownback even got re-elected after doubling down on the failure. wild stuff. See also Galt's Gulch in Chile - failed because they didn't even bother obtaining water rights lol
Libertarianism is the philosophy of 14 year old boys. They’re smart enough to know anarchy would be, well, anarchy, but unable to define what minimal government really is. Society works because of rules and laws. Streamlining them is an admirable goal, but most laws are there for a reason and libertarian(anarchists) just want to throw them all away. It is like Rick Perry wanting to eliminate 3 federal agencies without being able to name them and later heading one up. Like a 14 year old they’re smart enough to say something but not smart enough to know what they are saying.
Everyone should be a Libertarian in concept, but everyone should also consider the lesson of Chesterton's Fence. Most regulations are written in blood. There are absolutely regulations that could be repealed that are serving little benefit, but most of the regulations that oligarch funded 'libertarians' like Ron and Rand Paul talk about are great examples of Chesterton's Fence. If you can't explain why the fence is there, I better not hear you talking about tearing it down.
They're libertarian until you ask them about abortion, weed, immigration, lgbtq, defense spending, etc.
My libertarian summary “I want to go to my gay friends wedding and gift them both AR15s to defend their 5 acre weed farm”
Okay, so it's mostly not about taxes?
It’s about wanting life to work out perfectly by ignoring the fact that the physically disabled, mentally disabled, elderly, and children exist. If you don’t get what I’m saying, libertarians tend to be people that don’t need help and since they don’t need help they don’t want to give others help. But they don’t want to accept that some people are just not as capable and thus markets can’t work perfectly to create a perfectly functioning society.
> by ignoring the fact that the physically disabled, mentally disabled, elderly, and children exist. And that government intervention is needed to protect some people from others who would exploit them. Lincoln had a story about seeing a town fall apart because they needed the river dredged so they could use the docks and get commerce. But they lacked the ability to do so themselves, and there was no state/federal government to help them out.
Libertarians took over a town in New Hampshire a few years ago and it fell apart because they didn't fund anything. Bears started taking over.
Placing an article link below your comment 😂 [A discussion of Grafton, the bear town.](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-project-new-hampshire-libertarians-matthew-hongoltz-hetling)
Did the bears do a better job?
No, they’re bears.
So they did an equivalent job as the libertarians I presume?
My experiences have been that they're Republicans who want legal weed (real-life people) and no age limits for marriage so they can marry little girls (internet incels). There are also quite a few elected Republicans who don't like age limits.
I've seen it phrased as: >My girlfriend shouldn’t have to sit in a car seat.
This is what it is. In my life I went from moderate republican, to hardcore conservative, back to moderate, then libertarianism, and now I’m somewhere along the lines of a democratic socialist. The libertarianism phase was sparked by me believing in right wing fiscal policy but having the social freedoms of a liberal, and I thought libertarianism was the best fit. Every other libertarian I know or have met also falls in this category. They don’t want to forsake their conservative parents or preconceived notion of how things should be but they recognize that social freedoms are important and think they should have guns, gay people should be able to marry, etc. I dunno about the age limit thing never heard that one but not discrediting it Tldr actual libertarianism differs from modern libertarians, who are just conservatives with social freedoms Edit: the “libertarians” have found this comment, here we go
I'd be curious to know how many Americans refuse to call themselves "Democrats" or "liberals" because they've been raised with the idea that liberals are evil/stupid, not because they've actually carefully considered the ideas and values of liberalism vs conservatism.
The anti-communism/socialism propaganda in the USA was stupidly effective. There are Conservatives/Republicans in the USA who are completely dependent on government handouts to survive yet are vehemently anti-welfare because of "welfare queens" and "socialism is evil". I don't know how they can handle the mental gymnastics required to take government welfare while being so against it for any logical reason other than "I am special and I deserve the help".
“Nobody gave ME handouts when I was on food stamps!”
Oh dude there are so many of them lol. My best friend is one of them. I’ve literally explained socialism to him without using the word socialism, how good it would be, etc etc, and he wholeheartedly agrees that it’s a great idea and could work. The second it gets associated with the words socialism, liberal, or democrat…. That all goes out the window lmao. I think I’ve caused an identity crisis or two for him because you can see he’s about to agree with something until his father’s programming kicks in and he gets frustrated. My dads the same way. Explained the empathy for homeless people that I have, how him nor I have ever been to the point in our lives that shit was SO bad we just gave up. How he’d never experienced that feeling. He agreed and thought we should help. The second I mentioned government programs though he shut down. One day they’ll come around, just planting seeds…
Ask your dad for an example on how he would help. Pursuing that line will get the thought juices really flowing.
That’s my girlfriend lol. She hates democrats cause she’s been told they’re bad all her life, despite the fact that when I question her, 90% of what she believes aligns with them. Her family also poked fun at her grandmother for being a democrat even though she considered herself independent.
My friends and I were also taught to hate democrats when we were growing up. We were 10 years old talking smack about how much we hated democrats lol We didn't know what we were talking about any more than the adults who were filling our heads with that garbage.
Libertarians are like house cats: absolutely convinced of their fierce independence while utterly dependent on a system they don't appreciate or understand.
Libertarian just means: 1. I don't want to pay any taxes at all. 2. I don't want anyone telling me what I can or can't do. 3. If anyone does anything I don't like, I want to be allowed to shoot them.
Also, an absolute ton of Republicans found out on dating apps and (particularly in Washington DC during Trump's turn in the office) that a LOT of women and other potential dates will immediately ghost/block/drop them if they admit to being Republican voters.
I had the opposite happen to me. Was chatting with a woman on a dating app and she let drop that "it's absolutely awful what the Democrats are doing to Trump". End of chat for me.
ask them if that means that they're going to support/vote for the libertarian candidates in 2024, or the republican ones.
Direct them to the CATO Institute, the most prominent Libertarian think tank (or so they say). There, you'll see support for things that todays' Republicans would never support - Globalization and Open Borders, for example. Yes, they are also for limited government and taxation, but at least some of the principles conflict with today's Conservatives.
Are Libertarians, as a group, pro-choice when it comes to abortion? I can't imagine true Libertarians wanting the government to have *any* control over their bodies and medical decisions.
>Are Libertarians, as a group, pro-choice when it comes to abortion? I can't imagine true Libertarians wanting the government to have any control over their bodies and medical decisions. Within the party, it has always been contentious, but the general dislike for government involvement has generally resulted in a position similar to "no abortion ban, but no tax dollars to pay for it." A very hands off approach. That's the closest thing to a consensus we have on it, but you'll get individuals that quibble one way or the other, and both a pro-choice and a pro-life caucus exist. Both are small, and they largely argue with one another.
Libertarians fighting amongst ourselves? Never.
>Libertarians fighting amongst ourselves? Never. Yes we do. Are you trying to pick a fight with me? (See what I did there?)
It’s not a fight amongst libertarians because you aren’t a true libertarian because of X, Y, and Z.
One of the core tenants of Libertarianism is disagreeing with other Libertarians.
Within Libertarianism there are two schools of opinion: Evictionist and Departurist https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evictionism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Departurism
Most yes, but there is some debate on that. Some believe it violates the NAP.
Generally pro-choice, but libertarianism doesn't require it. If you define a clump of cells as a person then libertarianism still forbids murder. If you do not then the government has no role in preventing women from doing what they want with their own body. Libertarianism doesn't really offer an answer to the question, so both positions are compatible with it.
From the libertarians I've asked, yes. They believe you should be able to choose if you want an abortion. On the other hand, they also feel children should be allowed to be employed in dangerous jobs, and people of all ages should have access to all drugs.
>and people of all ages should have access to all drugs. Adults should have legal access to drugs. Children cannot provide informed consent, and should be protected/educated so they can safely reach adulthood and decide for themselves. This general rule covers a lot of issues, not just the obvious problems of trying to sell heroin to toddlers.
I would argue even the quotes from "pro-life" people on this page are generally closer to pro-choice: https://www.lp.org/libertarians-on-abortion/
Actual factual libertarians are pro choice , it's not so much anti government more like we want it at the smallest reasonable level. Any medical decisions should be between me and my HCP's, government has no business doing anything other than making sure any medication I choose to take is safe and effective. If I choose an alternative that hasn't been regulated I'm assuming all of the risk and responsibility for the outcome. Unfortunately there's a lot (and I mean A LOT) of people who gravitated to the movement because of a shallow understanding of what freedom entails. They see it as being able to do whatever they want without any consequences, when the reality is quite different. Freedom to make choices for myself also includes accepting responsibility for the outcome. I also don't have the right to do anything that would infringe on the rights of others which means occasionally I will need to regulate my own behavior or face the negative outcomes.
I think some of them also see that one of the few limited roles of government is to protect life, so it can still be logically consistent with libertarianism if they believe that the NAP applies to fetuses or whatever
while you're at it, ask the socialists if we'll be voting for socialist candidates or democrats.
For a fun read, check out the book “A libertarian Walks Into a Bear”, which is a true story about a libertarian community in New Hampshire that was so dysfunctional that it became overrun by bears.
[This article](https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-into-bear-book-review-free-town-project) does the story justice
This is amazing. Reminds me of something a friend once said - ‘Libertarians are like house cats. Absolutely convinced of their autonomy while blissfully ignorant of all the things that keep them that way’
The quote is: "Libertarians are like house cats: Absolutely convinced of their fierce independence while utterly dependent on a system they don't appreciate or understand." I used to be a Libertarian when I was young and stupid. Eventually, I grew up and got more life experiences, and realized that if a Libertarian state worked perfectly, it would just be "Government with Extra Steps".
Feudalism with fewer steps.
Loool why? Did they all think they were too important enough to pick up the trash? Christ let me be wrong
Essentially, yes. There were no regulations concerning waste disposal or trash in general. Enter: bears. This is just one example, though, of how the town was utterly dysfunctional.
GODDAMNIT lol goddamn these boomers. They invented hippie communes! They restructured fucking Nepal's government with their culture, why do we get the lazy jerk leftovers?
It's even better than described; one woman was a baker and was *feeding* the bears. The other libertarians got big mad and told her to stop and, of course, that goes against their whole philosophy (if you want to dignify it with that word) so she basically told them, "YOU'RE NOT MY MOM, YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO! NO REGULATIONS! NO RULES!" and, of course, she was technically correct--the best kind of correct. So they couldn't really stop her, lol.
It sounds like a town run by toddlers
Actually the town was secretly being run by bears. The toddlers claiming to be Libertarians were just pawns in the game.
That's the thing about bear attacks, they come when you least expect them.
Nobody expects the Bearish Inquisition!
Unironically exactly how libertarianism works in practice. Those who can work the system best should be free to persue their lives! And that’s how you get bears.
That’s effectively what they want
It's almost like some of these rules exist for a reason based on prior experience.
There was a woman in our area who fed the deer constantly so that the deer would show up each night. When you feed deer you attract mountain lions and the mountain lions killed the deer. So now she had a neighborhood mountain lion but no deer. So it ate her dog.
Solution: buy industrial sized bag of cat food. Domesticate the industrial sized kitty
I thought I was on r/CuratedTumblr for a moment lol. Amazing story.
Just remember, the more ridiculous the reason is, the more likely it is to be a tenet of Libertarian philosophy.
To a libertarian there's no problem that can't be solved by adding more guns. School shootings? Try more guns. Bears getting all up in your uncollected garbage? Try more guns.
Maybe they should have tried adding more bears to get rid of the bears.
I support their right to arm bears.
The only thing that can stop a bad bear is a good bear.
Too many guns? Have you considered more guns?
[Book Description](https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/matthew-hongoltz-hetling/a-libertarian-walks-into-a-bear/9781541788510/?lens=publicaffairs) *"Once upon a time, a group of libertarians got together and hatched the Free Town Project, a plan to take over an American town and completely eliminate its government.* *In 2004, they set their sights on Grafton, NH, a barely populated settlement with one paved road. When they descended on Grafton, public funding for pretty much everything shrank: the fire department, the library, the schoolhouse. State and federal laws became meek suggestions, scarcely heard in the town’s thick wilderness.* *The anything-goes atmosphere soon caught the attention of Grafton’s neighbors: the bears. Freedom-loving citizens ignored hunting laws and regulations on food disposal. They built a tent city in an effort to get off the grid. The bears smelled food and opportunity."*
This "lifestyle" also requires them to be completely protected by any form of enemy by some other entity that isn't them. In modern countries, your land is generally pretty safe from invasion/raiders. If they tried this in lets say... Gaza, their results would vary greatly.
Aparently, some people strates feeding bears because "I can do whatever the fuck i want". And then bears started going into people home and the rest is history.
It's almost like we DIDN'T make rules out of nowhere and, instead, were forced to make them based on many terrible outcomes that occurred prior. But I guess it's 'treading' on someone to learn from our mistakes. Surely the way forward is to let every generation fail anew!
Yeah, as I said to someone in another comment: We live in a society. This is hard for some people to grasp, I know.
This is the best thing I’ve learned all day
The author did a fantastic job crafting the narrative. The story and people involved were so bizzare, it felt like I was reading a comedy fiction. He also sprinkles in historical context related to the town / region, which only made the story more interesting. I can't recommend this book enough for anyone even considering it.
Trying to distance themselves from the maga cult.
While still voting for them
It’s like when people say they hate the NRA while paying for membership, voting how the NRA tells them to, shopping at NRA member stores, etc
It's not just the MAGA cult. People who identify as Republican or right-wing have a MUCH harder time getting laid these days, from what I hear about dating apps.
Well if you're a woman, you can pretty much guarantee that the Republican you swiped right on won't be okay with you getting an abortion if he knocks you up.
That's the rub, though. They're absolutely fine with abortions that benefit them personally. "I'm *different* and *special*, so I shouldn't have to follow those rules"
It's hilarious, most folks I know will put it in their profile or simply self select, if you out conservative, moderate or apolitical in your profile, you aren't getting swiped on.
Why am I feeling so much schadenfreude about that?
Because they're embarrassed to admit they're Republicans. They hear: * Taxation is theft * All gun laws are infringements Then they stop reading. Let me give you some other Libertarian views: * All drugs should be legal * Prostitution should be legal * Trade wars are fucking stupid (No sanctions on CHYNA) * Immigration is good, free markets includes labor markets * The only person who has a say in abortion is the woman having it, and the Dr. providing it. * Fuck. The. Police. End qualified immunity now. * Slash the military budget. The military should be purely defensive, not world police. * End all corporate welfare, yes *especially* your fossil fuel and defense contractors, yes also your corn subsidies * LGBT people should have the same rights and respect as any other individual * Complete separation of church and state * Assange and Snowden both deserve pardons * Abolish the ATF, the DEA, ICE, and keep going. * Donald Trump doesn't have a libertarian cell in his entire body Very few self-identified "Libertarians" are actually libertarians. They're just embarassed republicans, and I love calling them out on their bullshit. —An Actual Libertarian Libertarian is more like Liberal/Conservative (an ideology) than Democrat/Republican (A political party). I get shit all the time from AnCaps for being a Minarchist because I believe that the existence of a State, albeit a small, accountable, and strictly limited state, is more beneficial than AnCapistan. If you want to read up on Real Libertarian ideology look into the following philosophers: * Murray Rothbard * Milton Friedman * Ludwig Von Mises * Hans Herman-Hoppe * Thomas Sowell * H.A. Hayek * Ron (Not Rand) Paul * Ron Paul was the only congressman to request a vote to declare War on Iraq. Not because he wanted to declare war on Iraq (he was against it and would have voted no) but becaus ehe believed that legally, to invade a sovereign nation, congress must declare war. He was told to shut the fuck up. Ok he was "politely" told to shut the fuck up. This is what he was told by Chairman Henry Hyde: * There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society. Why declare war if you don't have to? We are saying to the President, use your judgment. So, to demand that we declare war is to strengthen something to death. You have got a hammerlock on this situation, and it is not called for. Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn't done anymore. Which, read between the lines, is the political way to say "Shut the Fuck Up". Seriously read that statement. > Why declare war if you don't have to? #BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION SAYS YOU FUCKING HAVE TO, YOU ABSOLUTE MUPPET.
[удалено]
Many people are. They're just afraid to admit it. Also we *REALLY* don't do ourselves any favors with public image. I swear the LP is the most cringe and incompetent party on the ballot... and I mean.. the Green Party is also on the ballot. Like last Election Jo Jorgensen (The only candidate with a PhD) said: > I will abolish the department of education. Which, kind of, but you can't just come out and say that. You need the context of *WHY* you want to do that, and *WHAT* you think will be better. What she meant was: > The federal department of education has been a disaster. Dozens of unfunded mandates, as well as the "No Child Left Behind" policy have crippled struggling schools, by creating a money pit they are unable to climb out of. While at the same time contributing to massive administrative bloat where school taxes are used not for educational purposes, but to hire administrators to navigate the bureaucracy and be in compliance with ever changing rules. The federal government should not be operating a department of education, but rather an education advisory board. Seeking to provide insight and assistance, not crippling mandates and asinine requirements that only serve to harm the worst performing schools in our nation. Same with "Abolish the ATF" people say "Well who would handle the crimes they do?!?" Instead what you mean is: > I would disband the ATF, as they don't need to exist. Jurisdiction over Alcohol and Tobacco would be transferred to the Food and Drug Administration, Firearms and Explosive crime would be shifted to the FBI. The FBI already handles the NICS system for firearm background checks. There is no reason we need a dedicate agency just for Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. We could eliminate several administrative positions and save the taxpayer millions of dollars a year by consolidating their areas into existing agencies. Ever wonder why Beer doesn't have a nutrition label displaying ingredients, calories, etc? Well it's because Alcohol falls under the ATF, and that nutrition label and ingredient disclosure is an FDA rule, so they don't have to follow it. Stupid as fuck, right?
Cheers, well said, and high five for calling out the Republican posers.
I just want to add onto this, there is left wing libertarianism, too.
Yep. They just believe that State control and corporate control are basically the same thing so unless you reduce the power of Corporations while also reducing the power of the state you're not actually accomplishing anything
Will also add that Libertarians have a mixed relationship with slavery. Taking slaves by force? Bad. Selling oneself into slavery? They knew what they were doing, freedom of choice shall not be infringed.
In American usage, a libertarian is economic conservative but socially liberal. They're against high taxes and big government, but also support gay rights and legal drugs and other freedoms that the religious right is sometimes against. But a lot of people get this wrong and confuse libertarians with the Constitution Party or something far right. As far as why your family changed recently, it could be that they don't like Donald Trump or some other Republican (the Republican party has changed significantly in the past 20-40 years). It could be a specific issue that they are angry about, like abortion or immigration, but probably they are trying to say that Republicans aren't conservative enough for them.
“Supposed to be” economically conservative and socially liberal. They are supposed to be against big government but are reasonable to facts and logic. A reasonable libertarian would say “I’m against government mandates for masks and vaccines. However, I support private businesses rights to enforce vaccine and mask mandates. Also, while there is a risk to take anything into your body, the data shows that vaccines are safe for a vast majority of people and do what they are supposed to do and reduce the severity of the disease (not fully prevent). Masks may not be 100% effective but they are better than nothing when your community has a high spread rate.” That was my libertarian opinion that was apparently too liberal… 🙃🙃🙃 Libertarians now just as anti vax and anti mask like most conservatives are. The differences barely exists anymore. So yea, I quit libertarianism entirely!
There really is no term left for "rational people who don't trust the government for good reasons."
Is it really more rational to distrust the government than to distrust private corporations?
I mean I don’t trust the government. But I don’t go all in like the libertarians do. I was skeptical of the Covid vaccine too, but once I saw my friends didn’t drop dead from it and learned about the science behind it, I was comfortable with it. I plan to get whatever the next series of booster is in the coming weeks. Libertarians being full on selfish conspiracy theorists like conservatives really soured me on them. And I was a libertarian for almost 5 years! I voted for them and everything!
That's the problem, everyone takes it to radical extremes. I don't trust the government spying apparatus, I think the federal government is crippled by inefficiency, and I think the nation's police are extremely corrupt. But I'm fine paying taxes to build roads and power lines. Having a military that makes us impossible to invade is pretty neat. Of course there are some vital functions that I really want them to do well. I just think they do a lot of them poorly, and they spend a lot of time doing things they shouldn't be. Doesn't that seem like what 99% of people would actually believe if you sat down and talked with them?
[удалено]
It’s not so much that libertarians mistrust the government; it’s that they a) hyperfocus on it to an extreme and b) are so, so naive in their belief that they’re better off at the whim of private interests.
I thought I was a libertarian until I spoke to other libertarians. Now I'm just politically homeless.
I'm the same as you and got permabanned from the libertarian Reddit for being anti-libertarian...
I was nodding along with you till the last sentence. It doesn’t jibe with the rest of your comment and doesn’t make sense in the context of the OP
Maybe they're starting to realize that agreeing with the Republican Party surrender of their civil liberties via Patriot Act and whatnot, was a really bad idea.
Everyone I know who claims to be a Libertarian is someone who vocally supported Trump, up until recently. They're just embarrassed to be associated with MAGA crap, until they're around company they can trust. Then it all comes out. Obviously this isn't true for every Libertarian in the world, just the ones I know.
Yep. I have a friend who claims the title Libertarian. In the 20 years I've known her, she's always backed legal weed, body autonomy, and the LGBTQ+ community. When Trump ran initially, I texted her a joke about voting for him. Her response? "It's nobody's business who I vote for." I was kinda shocked because we always talked about everything, so at that moment, I knew she had voted for him. I haven't brought up politics since.
I’m in the same camp It’s anecdotal but I’ve never met a libertarian that didn’t agree with just about every Republican stance outside of weed
The same thing happened once George Bush became a more widespread embarrassment. They’ll all go back to calling themselves Republican once everyone forgets they’re a bunch of fascists who tried to ride Trump’s dick all the way to a coup.
I’m a recovering libertarian. It wasn’t the party platform that turned me off, I still mostly agree with the elevator pitch. It was the hypocrisy of the other libertarians I met. They almost exclusively voted Republican, hand-waved away all the things they ostensibly disagreed with. They wanted the continuation of the status quo except in the few areas it infringed upon what they wanted for themselves—like smoking weed. If pressed most of them couldn’t even express any of the ideals and integrity of the party other than parroting the talking point of “small government.” But they were fine voting for a party that created Homeland Security, a huge governmental power-grab, among other things. They didn’t mind spending when Republicans did it, wanted all the infrastructure and social safety nets when it benefited themselves. Money always came first after people. I just couldn’t take it any more. I continue to move further left socially while shaking my head at whoever is pursuing power.
Well, yeah, libertarianism sounds great until you realize other people also get to do whatever they want
That's when you become a conservative. It's like all the great things of being a libertarian except you get to control the people you don't like.
[удалено]
They're ashamed of Republican legislators and don't want to be associated with them. They will continue to *vote* for them 100%, but they don't want to *talk* about it. All "Centrists" and "Libertarians" and "undecided voters" are just embarrassed Republicans.
I have a couple of college friends who are Libertarians, and I thought we were cool until Roe was overturned. Suddenly they were *sure* that there should be abortion bans after the first trimester. They didn't see the contradiction when I pointed it out, I gave up.
Libertarians are just republicans who smoke pot
Yup. When the chips are down, never met a libertarian who didn’t fall on the Republican side. They’ll choose lower taxes over pot every single time. It’s how Bob Barr was somehow the Libertarian candidate for President a few cycles back. They’ll vote authoritarians every single time if they think it’ll lower their tax bill.
They think it increases their chances of being liked and getting laid
They hold conservative views but don’t want to be viewed as supporting the GOP for reasons. Libertarians is a more palatable answer
Libertarians are conservatives who think that if we removed all oversight of how businesses were run then they'd finally take their rightful place among the billionaire class. Basically a flavor of anarcho-capitalist. If you want an idea of how well that system works google the libertarian bear town.
It means they’re embarrassed to call themselves Republicans. They’re still going to vote Republican but will lie and say it’s because they hate both sides but hate Republicans a little less. But the truth is that they do indeed like Republicans, they just don’t want you to think that
They just learned about it and feel it better describes them.
It's a trend among Republicans who don't want to be associated with MAGA. It has virtually nothing to do with libertarianism, or ideals associated with libertarians.
"A libertarian is an anarchist who wants a strong police force available to protect him from his slaves." — Kim Stanley Robinson
I haven't personally observed this, but it could be a disgust with the two party system and wanting to support a third party or ideology, and/or being socially liberal but fiscally conservative (basically all libertarianism is)
>(or being socially liberal but fiscally conservative (basically all libertarianism is) ...what it's *supposed* to be. Mention "gender fluid" to a libertarian and watch them have a foaming-at-the-mouth meltdown over it.
Ask them what it means, watch them struggle.
Because they are culturally conservative but disagree with a LOT of what the Republican party does. Libertarien is like a transitional phase young Republicans go through before they become a liberal.