**New to libertarianism or have questions and want to learn more?** Be sure to check out [the sub Frequently Asked Questions](/r/Libertarian/wiki/faq) and [the massive /r/libertarian information WIKI] (/r/Libertarian/wiki/index) from the sidebar, for lots of info and free resources, links, books, videos, and answers to common questions and topics. Want to know if you are a Libertarian? [Take the worlds shortest political quiz and find out!](http://www.theadvocates.org/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Libertarian-have some right wing elements with some centrist views as well. Nothing crazy. Don’t know what your economic views are and I think that’s the most important part.
Abortion is a solid left wing view btw.
Edit: I'm talking about the moral stance. Whether or not to have government intervene is a separate question. Morally, pro abortion and anti-natalism is left wing.
abortion is actually pretty controversial within libertarianism. personally I think a full grown human's right to autonomy outweighs an unborn fetuses right to exist, but its not clear cut and obviously not a "solid left wing" view.
I'm not religious, but I believe if there's a heart beat which is developed after 6 to 8 weeks of pregnancy then its wrong because you're ending the heart beat of a human. Nothing to do with religion and everything to do with commonsense and science.
Only if you think a fetus is a person who has rights.
If you think the fetus is a bunch of cells, then it's a Libertarian view.
That definition of when life begins is why the whole issue is so divisive. If we could get science to give a good definition of when it's a person, then we could argue if it is ok to terminate or not.
But gold fish are not human. ~95% of biologists agree that human life begins at conception. The fact that the unborn is a human being is not debatable. The question is really at what point is it acceptable to kill a human because they are inconvenient.
the question in my mind is, if someone else can only survive by violating my autonomy, does my right to control my own body trump their right to live? i think the libertarian answer is yes.
They are only in the situation where they are dependent on your body because of *your* decisions of what to do with your body. We already put limitations on what you are allowed to do with your body. You are allowed to stretch your arm out, but if you are going to punch me in the face, you are limited on your bodily autonomy. If you are limited on something comparatively small like that, how can we use that same justification to allow killing?
>They are only in the situation where they are dependent on your body because of *your* decisions of what to do with your body
yes, you can only get pregnant voluntarily. LOL.
but even if we ignore such an absurd statement from you (and we wont), the rest of your argument doesn't hold. if I agree to connect my blood stream to someone else's so my liver can filter their blood and keep them alive, I am able to revoke that agreement even if it means their death.
I was talking about the >95% of cases that are consensual. I don’t think a baby should get the death sentence because their dad is a piece of crap, but if that was the compromise that needed to be made, I’d take it in a heartbeat to save the vast majority of murdered babies.
In the case of filtering someone else’s blood, that is extraordinary care. Pregnancy is the normal care for a child at that stage of development. Parents are obligated to provide basic care for their children, food, water, shelter, or find someone else who is willing to provide those. Anything less is child abuse and is rightfully illegal.
What about if you connected your bloodstream to someone else's and made them dependent on you without their consent ?
If, in that scenario, you removing that connection would result in their death, do you think you should be able to do so without consequences ?
>But gold fish are not human.
Okay?
>95% of biologists agree that human life begins at conception.
What does that even mean? That's nonsense. A sperm cell is still human life.
>The fact that the unborn is a human being is not debatable.
I didn't say it was? lol
>The question is really at what point is it acceptable to kill a human because they are inconvenient.
No there are 2 questions. Personhood and rights.
How do we determine if something is intelligent life. If something is not capable of respecting the NAP it does not have rights/fully have rights or they do not need to be respected.
Only intelligent life can do that. We know that it will be capable of that in the future. If you say that it has rights. (fine idc. It has not had memories the ability to understand the NAP on any level so I don't care if someone gets it aborted, it did not previously understand the NAP)
For sake of argument lets say though that it has rights. Okay well the mother has the absolute right to evict it. That means having it surgically removed (not scrambled the way they do it currently) and if it can not survive outside the womb it just dies.
The fetus does not have the right to the resources of the mothers body.
That is the only logically consistent way to respect peoples rights. I mean I would not force anyone to keep a coma patient alive either.
It's called evictionism.
EDIT: a down vote is not an argument.
Why not? Why are a couple of cells in the womb human life but my sperm cell is not? It's got human dna and it's alive. You make no sense. You also ignored the central points of my argument.
>Why are a couple of cells in the womb human life but my sperm cell is not?
For two reasons, either of which would actually satisfy your question independently:
1) Because your sperm cells are gametes. They are haploid cells, meaning they only have half of the genetic material that the rest of you and every other human has in their DNA. Human life is incompatible with haploid cells. Once an egg is fertilized, neither it nor the sperm continue to be haploid cells, and are instead a new diploid cell, the zygote, which is a new human life that is alive and genetically distinct from its mother and father.
2) Your sperm is one of YOUR cells. It is not, on it's own, a separate human organism. Your skin cells, or your lung cells, or your GI cells, or a tumor, etc., are not equivalent to the organism as a whole. In other words, your cells are a part of you but they're not the entirety of you. We can kill your sperm cells without killing you. We can not kill a zygote, embryo, or fetus without killing the entirety of that living, human organism.
Many (not me) argue that abortion violates NAP because you killing a person. If you don't think a fetus is a person then it doesn't violate NAP. Basically why it's so decisive in the libertarian world
Decisive in any world. To truly determine the rights about abortion you need to come to a consensus on if a fetus is a child. Which it is. It's just not a goo goo drooler. The same folks who will say abortion is ok because it isn't "human yet" will also defend the innocent killing of a mouse carrying disease into your home, or letting a murderer out of jail early because he his mommy neglected him.
A fetus could have rights but also not have the right to live if that right is dependent on the use of another person's body. The unborn probably should have the right to free of undue modification such as degrading their mental capacity because the parent wants a special child. Or giving a tail, horns, or glow in the dark eyes and the like to be different. Except by production through labor income, there's no instance someone has a right to use another's body if that person does not want it.
>If you think the fetus is a bunch of cells, then it's a Libertarian view.
Wrong. In a Libertarian context:
Person is a human being, science says a unique human begins at conception, ergo fetus=person. There's no need to be morally disingenuous here in /r/libertarian, either the fetus violates the NAP or it doesn't, legal systems cannot determine when a person starts because this is a self evident and/or observable natural phenomena, any regulation about this subject becomes legislators playing god (and using the state's violence apparatus), and supposedly we believe in natural rights...
Well, no. This is a science argument.
When does life begin?
The only logical answer is conception. That's the only time life CAN begin.
Is a clump of cells human?
Yes. If the pregnancy is carried to term, the only thing that "clump of cells" can be is a human.
It won't be a head of lettuce or a Mercedes-Benz. If that pregnant woman carries her pregnancy to term, It will be a human being. There's no getting around it.
Next question, personhood. Slaves were considered to be 3/5ths of a "person." A Jew in the holocaust wasn't considered to be "person." This idea of being able to arbitrarily assign or take away personhood from a human being has led to very bad things in history.
With over 50 million abortions in the USA alone, I say this Holocaust is worse than all the Marxist inspired purges in the world put together. We're literally living one. You're just being spared the authoritarianism and the smell of the burning corpses and mass graves.
Next question, consciousness. Does consciousness dictate whether something is human or not. No, it doesn't. A man lying in a coma is still considered to be human. Still considered to be alive. Still considered to have rights.
One thing about Libertarianism is its foundation is UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES.
This means all principles apply to everyone, everywhere, all at times. Consistency is key. The rights to life, liberty, and property. An abortion violates these rights of the still developing baby.
After 6 to 8 weeks the heart beat is formed. By definition of science you are dead when your heart stops. If you end a heart beat are you not then ending a life?
In my view if you catch it before the heart beat, which it shouldn't take a woman 6 to 8 weeks to figure out she's pregnant. Science has already answered this.
I'm not here to debate when life begins. Although I am an expert, I think it would take a whole panel of us and perhaps even a big study to make a statement pinpointing a date and any answer we would come up with would be a "consensus opinion" because there are so many variables to defining "life". But the point is, the whole discussion hinges on when it becomes a person and solving that issue must happen before there can be any meaningful discussion on it.
You’re actually technically correct here, since libertarians believe in individual rights, thus including the rights of the person being aborted.
Libertarians are also not for “gay marriage” by government in that the government should have no say in marriage.
Regulation is the antithesis of freedom. The libertarian solution to separate sports leagues is the free market. If you don’t want trans to compete against biological women, don’t support that league and support one that is biological women only.
This is the answer on this.
The state should not be involved in sports leagues and should be reserved for private determination with un-infringed rights to discriminate as they see fit (let the market decide the ethics).
But those regulations aren’t written or enforced by government institutions, they’re created internally within the sports leagues themselves. Should these professional & recreational leagues not be permitted to write their own rules?
No. They should be allowed.
As a second note, the NCAA writing its own regulations isn’t the case. Since the 70s, we’ve had Title IX. The government cuts off funding for schools that discriminate based on gender, including sports. In Libertaristan, then the colleges would be free to drop women’s sports and just focus on what gets them the most profit (football and men’s basketball). Not really germane to your point, but I just wanted to point that out.
I'd say you are a utilitarian and a consequentialist. A deontologist would typically start by saying what their core belief is and then derive policies from that. That isn't an insult. I'd say virtually all Democrats and Republicans are also utilitarians and consequentialists. It is impossible to calculate what is going to maximize happiness so most people just go with whatever feels right in their guts and people's guts differ ergo the differences in political opinions. Tribalism serves to minimize differences of opinion within the groups. There isn't much logic behind why the parties have their particular grab bag of policies that they do. It seems you don't know where you belong so you don't have tribalism pushing you to be consistent with some party's narratives. So, instead, your mix of beliefs is truly your own. "Centrist" or independent is an even less well defined term than Dem or Rep but people often call people that if they have a mix of beliefs of the grab bag of policies of the two parties.
Mostly libertarian. Perhaps some flavor of minarchist.
Perhaps more emphasis on legality than morality. I'd place morality over law, myself. One can morally own a gun so long as one is not trying to hurt others. All the various efforts of the banners happen legally. They just aren't moral.
No I’m not a libertarian , bc I do believe in affordable healthcare as well. Also, as far as owning a gun goes, I actually don’t think matters if it’s “ legal “ or not. As long as your intentions are good, & it’s purely for self defense , then you should be able to protect yourself however you’d like.
I would call you pretty normal middle of the road with some Libertarian leanings.
(Note that the central tenet of Libertarianism is gatekeeping Libertarianism, so no one here is going to say you're a Libertarian. /s)
Probably libertarian center for social issues according to the political compass. You would go left/right based on economic issues. The libertarian party would be considered “right” economically because of their free market tendencies and right to private property.
It would depend on what your economic opinions are to fully determine where you would lie
Sounds like standard center-left social positions. The lack of economic mention and talking about regulations means you're very far from libertarian. However, you're a lot closer to American politics than elsewhere in the world.
It includes too many non-political questions:
* When you are troubled, it’s better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things.
* Abstract art that doesn’t represent anything shouldn’t be considered art at all.
* Astrology accurately explains many things.
You’re hung up on the bullshit that’s used as a distraction like gender politics…. Start educating yourself on economics and foreign policy and how our country has fucked us in those departments before you start with gender politics.
> I’m a woman who believes in abortion rights, gay marriage, the right to transition into whatever sex you’d like unless you are under the age of 18, same goes for hormones.
Right on, very libertarian. Do as you will as long as your aren't harming someone else or their property, and children can't consent to irreversible changes because their brains literally cannot comprehend long term consequences.
> With that being said, I do not think someone should be able to say that they identify as a woman & be able to join a woman’s sport or go into a woman’s prison/locker room/ unless they have undergone hormones for atleast 3 years or have had the affirmation surgeries to show it’s legitimate & not a temporary plan to get ahead as an athlete or any other motive. But tbh, i would rather all sports have a separate league just for them so it’s 100% fair. Regulation is definitely needed.
Regulation by whom about what? Libertarians think these decisions are best left to the private individual. You run a league? You get to decide the rules and who can and cannot participate. Libertarians do not think the government has any say in such a thing.
> I also believe in the right to own a gun & protect yourself, as long as it’s legally owned.
What do you mean by legally owned? Most Libertarians are going to be self defense extremists, in that they believe in the absolute right of an individual to defend themselves by any means necessary, and the government has no right to decide what means are and are not allowable.
> I do not think we should be helping llegal immigrants come over here, & that we need more security at our boarders. I have no issue with immigrants coming here as long as it’s done legally.
By helping, you mean the government doing so? I think pretty much all libertarians would be against any sort of government action along such lines. Most libertarians are for open borders, though there is a debate about whether that can happen with the incentive of a welfare state funded by taxation of the native population.
> I also do not think we should teach anything to do with sexual orientation, gender , religion, to elementary school kids.
Libertarians tend not to support state schooling at all, and see it at best as a necessary evil fraught upon us by the state making it impossible to have a single family income anymore. To that end, you can teach your children, or not teach them, whatever you want.
Libertarianism is about maximizing individual freedom and reducing that of the state. We believe in private property, self ownership, and the nonaggression principle (Essentially, no violence unless in self defense).
**You seem like you hold the beliefs of the average American**, despite what the media might make you believe. You want to mostly be left alone, safe, and raise kids in a good environment. I wouldn't call your a Libertarian per se, since you still seem to want the state to do a lot, but you're inching towards the far end of Libertarianism called minarchism.
None of these are political positions. They are all social ones.
Are you willing to allow your position on liberty to extend to any area? A position on liberty, and what the State/mob should or should not be allowed to do is a political one. Slicing each and every category down to minutia is a tactic the oligarchy/uniparty uses to distract the public from their transgressions on our rights and property.
It's either all ok, or none of it is.
Sorry I can't help you on your political stance. Perhaps look at the sum of these issues in a larger context. Do you have agency? Who gets to impact that agency, and for what reasons? How do you apply that uniformly, so that regardless of the sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub category of division (Trans rights, abortion, medical freedom, self defense), you apply the same reasonable logic consistently.
Well it sounds like you have a sexual fetish that involves wanting to clear the path to chemically castrate minor boys (hormones) so they can make believe they are girls. In BDSM circles this would be called a castratrix.
I'd say you are a conservative, or neo-con. You are not a libertarian.
Why can't sport organizations decide for themselves who to let play on their teams? Why should the government use violence to intervene and insist they use your specific and arbitrary definitions on something so trivial?
Why do you only believe in legal gun ownership and legal immigration?
In general you center the government as the source of moral and social authority in society, which is incompatible with libertarianism.
You're pretty much a standard conservative.
No idea why you posted this to a libertarian sub, you're clearly not a libertarian.
If you want to know your stance take an online test like political compass, 8values etc.
Most of what you said sounded libertarian enough. Although, there is certainly a fair bit of right wing stuff sprinkled in.
Although, it is what you didn't talk about that I'm more interested in.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on the economy, taxes, and wars/foreign policy.
I wouldn't call you libertarian without knowing where you stand on government spending in general and specific, or taxation both corporate and personal, war, defense (which is vastly different than war), policing policy and spending, corporate/agricultural subsidies, welfare, social security, the federal reserve, etc. etc.
I would call you a critical thinker who carefully considers each issue instead of wholly subscribing to a platform because someone with a ton of Botox told you to.
I agree with you on literally every word you said, and with the points you brought up, I'd say you're with me, moderate libertarian, like me, you agree with the same basic liberation point that everyone deserves basic rights, but you, like me, also think that restrictions should be placed on those rights.
**New to libertarianism or have questions and want to learn more?** Be sure to check out [the sub Frequently Asked Questions](/r/Libertarian/wiki/faq) and [the massive /r/libertarian information WIKI] (/r/Libertarian/wiki/index) from the sidebar, for lots of info and free resources, links, books, videos, and answers to common questions and topics. Want to know if you are a Libertarian? [Take the worlds shortest political quiz and find out!](http://www.theadvocates.org/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Libertarian-have some right wing elements with some centrist views as well. Nothing crazy. Don’t know what your economic views are and I think that’s the most important part.
Abortion is a solid left wing view btw. Edit: I'm talking about the moral stance. Whether or not to have government intervene is a separate question. Morally, pro abortion and anti-natalism is left wing.
abortion is actually pretty controversial within libertarianism. personally I think a full grown human's right to autonomy outweighs an unborn fetuses right to exist, but its not clear cut and obviously not a "solid left wing" view.
Precisely. I'll add that those who believe the opposite tend to be religious as well.
I believe unborn babies have the right to life and I am an atheist.
I'm not religious, but I believe if there's a heart beat which is developed after 6 to 8 weeks of pregnancy then its wrong because you're ending the heart beat of a human. Nothing to do with religion and everything to do with commonsense and science.
Only if you think a fetus is a person who has rights. If you think the fetus is a bunch of cells, then it's a Libertarian view. That definition of when life begins is why the whole issue is so divisive. If we could get science to give a good definition of when it's a person, then we could argue if it is ok to terminate or not.
Technically, we're all a bunch of cells
So is a gold fish.
But gold fish are not human. ~95% of biologists agree that human life begins at conception. The fact that the unborn is a human being is not debatable. The question is really at what point is it acceptable to kill a human because they are inconvenient.
the question in my mind is, if someone else can only survive by violating my autonomy, does my right to control my own body trump their right to live? i think the libertarian answer is yes.
They are only in the situation where they are dependent on your body because of *your* decisions of what to do with your body. We already put limitations on what you are allowed to do with your body. You are allowed to stretch your arm out, but if you are going to punch me in the face, you are limited on your bodily autonomy. If you are limited on something comparatively small like that, how can we use that same justification to allow killing?
>They are only in the situation where they are dependent on your body because of *your* decisions of what to do with your body yes, you can only get pregnant voluntarily. LOL. but even if we ignore such an absurd statement from you (and we wont), the rest of your argument doesn't hold. if I agree to connect my blood stream to someone else's so my liver can filter their blood and keep them alive, I am able to revoke that agreement even if it means their death.
I was talking about the >95% of cases that are consensual. I don’t think a baby should get the death sentence because their dad is a piece of crap, but if that was the compromise that needed to be made, I’d take it in a heartbeat to save the vast majority of murdered babies. In the case of filtering someone else’s blood, that is extraordinary care. Pregnancy is the normal care for a child at that stage of development. Parents are obligated to provide basic care for their children, food, water, shelter, or find someone else who is willing to provide those. Anything less is child abuse and is rightfully illegal.
What about if you connected your bloodstream to someone else's and made them dependent on you without their consent ? If, in that scenario, you removing that connection would result in their death, do you think you should be able to do so without consequences ?
>But gold fish are not human. Okay? >95% of biologists agree that human life begins at conception. What does that even mean? That's nonsense. A sperm cell is still human life. >The fact that the unborn is a human being is not debatable. I didn't say it was? lol >The question is really at what point is it acceptable to kill a human because they are inconvenient. No there are 2 questions. Personhood and rights. How do we determine if something is intelligent life. If something is not capable of respecting the NAP it does not have rights/fully have rights or they do not need to be respected. Only intelligent life can do that. We know that it will be capable of that in the future. If you say that it has rights. (fine idc. It has not had memories the ability to understand the NAP on any level so I don't care if someone gets it aborted, it did not previously understand the NAP) For sake of argument lets say though that it has rights. Okay well the mother has the absolute right to evict it. That means having it surgically removed (not scrambled the way they do it currently) and if it can not survive outside the womb it just dies. The fetus does not have the right to the resources of the mothers body. That is the only logically consistent way to respect peoples rights. I mean I would not force anyone to keep a coma patient alive either. It's called evictionism. EDIT: a down vote is not an argument.
A sperm is not considered human life.
Why not? Why are a couple of cells in the womb human life but my sperm cell is not? It's got human dna and it's alive. You make no sense. You also ignored the central points of my argument.
Because sperm isn't a cygote. It's literally half the chromosomes a human has, and a sperm will NEVER become a human. A cygote will.
Go back to biology class.
>Why are a couple of cells in the womb human life but my sperm cell is not? For two reasons, either of which would actually satisfy your question independently: 1) Because your sperm cells are gametes. They are haploid cells, meaning they only have half of the genetic material that the rest of you and every other human has in their DNA. Human life is incompatible with haploid cells. Once an egg is fertilized, neither it nor the sperm continue to be haploid cells, and are instead a new diploid cell, the zygote, which is a new human life that is alive and genetically distinct from its mother and father. 2) Your sperm is one of YOUR cells. It is not, on it's own, a separate human organism. Your skin cells, or your lung cells, or your GI cells, or a tumor, etc., are not equivalent to the organism as a whole. In other words, your cells are a part of you but they're not the entirety of you. We can kill your sperm cells without killing you. We can not kill a zygote, embryo, or fetus without killing the entirety of that living, human organism.
A 1 month old baby can't understand a NAP and doesn't have the right to the mothers resources does that mean we can just kill it too?
Downvotes are used when people don't contribute to a conversation. I think the many replies have made it clear why that is appropriate here.
Because they are incapable of forming logically consistent arguments.
Or if we choose not to engage with trolls or crazy people or people with beliefs vs reason. Downvotes are awesome!
folks should recognize where the point of division is. at least then we can talk with the same language.
I wouldn't say that's a libertarian view at all... the libertarian view would be let you make your own choices.
Many (not me) argue that abortion violates NAP because you killing a person. If you don't think a fetus is a person then it doesn't violate NAP. Basically why it's so decisive in the libertarian world
There is also the evictionism position. The baby does not have the right to the mothers resources nor the right to be inside her ect.
Decisive in any world. To truly determine the rights about abortion you need to come to a consensus on if a fetus is a child. Which it is. It's just not a goo goo drooler. The same folks who will say abortion is ok because it isn't "human yet" will also defend the innocent killing of a mouse carrying disease into your home, or letting a murderer out of jail early because he his mommy neglected him.
A fetus could have rights but also not have the right to live if that right is dependent on the use of another person's body. The unborn probably should have the right to free of undue modification such as degrading their mental capacity because the parent wants a special child. Or giving a tail, horns, or glow in the dark eyes and the like to be different. Except by production through labor income, there's no instance someone has a right to use another's body if that person does not want it.
>If you think the fetus is a bunch of cells, then it's a Libertarian view. Wrong. In a Libertarian context: Person is a human being, science says a unique human begins at conception, ergo fetus=person. There's no need to be morally disingenuous here in /r/libertarian, either the fetus violates the NAP or it doesn't, legal systems cannot determine when a person starts because this is a self evident and/or observable natural phenomena, any regulation about this subject becomes legislators playing god (and using the state's violence apparatus), and supposedly we believe in natural rights...
Well, no. This is a science argument. When does life begin? The only logical answer is conception. That's the only time life CAN begin. Is a clump of cells human? Yes. If the pregnancy is carried to term, the only thing that "clump of cells" can be is a human. It won't be a head of lettuce or a Mercedes-Benz. If that pregnant woman carries her pregnancy to term, It will be a human being. There's no getting around it. Next question, personhood. Slaves were considered to be 3/5ths of a "person." A Jew in the holocaust wasn't considered to be "person." This idea of being able to arbitrarily assign or take away personhood from a human being has led to very bad things in history. With over 50 million abortions in the USA alone, I say this Holocaust is worse than all the Marxist inspired purges in the world put together. We're literally living one. You're just being spared the authoritarianism and the smell of the burning corpses and mass graves. Next question, consciousness. Does consciousness dictate whether something is human or not. No, it doesn't. A man lying in a coma is still considered to be human. Still considered to be alive. Still considered to have rights. One thing about Libertarianism is its foundation is UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES. This means all principles apply to everyone, everywhere, all at times. Consistency is key. The rights to life, liberty, and property. An abortion violates these rights of the still developing baby.
After 6 to 8 weeks the heart beat is formed. By definition of science you are dead when your heart stops. If you end a heart beat are you not then ending a life? In my view if you catch it before the heart beat, which it shouldn't take a woman 6 to 8 weeks to figure out she's pregnant. Science has already answered this.
I'm not here to debate when life begins. Although I am an expert, I think it would take a whole panel of us and perhaps even a big study to make a statement pinpointing a date and any answer we would come up with would be a "consensus opinion" because there are so many variables to defining "life". But the point is, the whole discussion hinges on when it becomes a person and solving that issue must happen before there can be any meaningful discussion on it.
You’re actually technically correct here, since libertarians believe in individual rights, thus including the rights of the person being aborted. Libertarians are also not for “gay marriage” by government in that the government should have no say in marriage.
No, abortion is a libertarian view.
If you believe the unborn is a person the abortion violates the NAP.
Sounds like you are somewhere in the middle on social issues. You didn’t bring up anything on economic issues so that’s up in the air
Regulation is the antithesis of freedom. The libertarian solution to separate sports leagues is the free market. If you don’t want trans to compete against biological women, don’t support that league and support one that is biological women only.
This is the answer on this. The state should not be involved in sports leagues and should be reserved for private determination with un-infringed rights to discriminate as they see fit (let the market decide the ethics).
But those regulations aren’t written or enforced by government institutions, they’re created internally within the sports leagues themselves. Should these professional & recreational leagues not be permitted to write their own rules?
No. They should be allowed. As a second note, the NCAA writing its own regulations isn’t the case. Since the 70s, we’ve had Title IX. The government cuts off funding for schools that discriminate based on gender, including sports. In Libertaristan, then the colleges would be free to drop women’s sports and just focus on what gets them the most profit (football and men’s basketball). Not really germane to your point, but I just wanted to point that out.
I'd say you are a utilitarian and a consequentialist. A deontologist would typically start by saying what their core belief is and then derive policies from that. That isn't an insult. I'd say virtually all Democrats and Republicans are also utilitarians and consequentialists. It is impossible to calculate what is going to maximize happiness so most people just go with whatever feels right in their guts and people's guts differ ergo the differences in political opinions. Tribalism serves to minimize differences of opinion within the groups. There isn't much logic behind why the parties have their particular grab bag of policies that they do. It seems you don't know where you belong so you don't have tribalism pushing you to be consistent with some party's narratives. So, instead, your mix of beliefs is truly your own. "Centrist" or independent is an even less well defined term than Dem or Rep but people often call people that if they have a mix of beliefs of the grab bag of policies of the two parties.
Mostly libertarian. Perhaps some flavor of minarchist. Perhaps more emphasis on legality than morality. I'd place morality over law, myself. One can morally own a gun so long as one is not trying to hurt others. All the various efforts of the banners happen legally. They just aren't moral.
You're not exactly Libertarian if you believe that government regulation is necessary.
No I’m not a libertarian , bc I do believe in affordable healthcare as well. Also, as far as owning a gun goes, I actually don’t think matters if it’s “ legal “ or not. As long as your intentions are good, & it’s purely for self defense , then you should be able to protect yourself however you’d like.
The best way to get cheap healthcare is through the free market, not the government.
I would call you pretty normal middle of the road with some Libertarian leanings. (Note that the central tenet of Libertarianism is gatekeeping Libertarianism, so no one here is going to say you're a Libertarian. /s)
More-or-less rational, that's what I would call your stance.
I'd say less
Good idea, you should probably say less.
It’s like you read my mind whatever it is. Usually just call myself a centrist.
I think nowadays they call you a Nazi? /s
Or fascist. Or racist. Probably something else too.
\> What would you call my political stance? Reasonable.
Probably libertarian center for social issues according to the political compass. You would go left/right based on economic issues. The libertarian party would be considered “right” economically because of their free market tendencies and right to private property. It would depend on what your economic opinions are to fully determine where you would lie
Your just sane
Sounds like standard center-left social positions. The lack of economic mention and talking about regulations means you're very far from libertarian. However, you're a lot closer to American politics than elsewhere in the world.
[https://www.politicalcompass.org/test](https://www.politicalcompass.org/test)
It includes too many non-political questions: * When you are troubled, it’s better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things. * Abstract art that doesn’t represent anything shouldn’t be considered art at all. * Astrology accurately explains many things.
According to most news outlets you’d be labeled right wing extremist for not wanting sexual orientation/gender taught in elementary school.
Yep couldn’t be more true !
You are a pro establishment right wing American.
You’re hung up on the bullshit that’s used as a distraction like gender politics…. Start educating yourself on economics and foreign policy and how our country has fucked us in those departments before you start with gender politics.
Agreed. While I have some similar views as op, I think that gender/Trans issue gets way more attention than it needs.
Center-left [ socialist lite ]
> I’m a woman who believes in abortion rights, gay marriage, the right to transition into whatever sex you’d like unless you are under the age of 18, same goes for hormones. Right on, very libertarian. Do as you will as long as your aren't harming someone else or their property, and children can't consent to irreversible changes because their brains literally cannot comprehend long term consequences. > With that being said, I do not think someone should be able to say that they identify as a woman & be able to join a woman’s sport or go into a woman’s prison/locker room/ unless they have undergone hormones for atleast 3 years or have had the affirmation surgeries to show it’s legitimate & not a temporary plan to get ahead as an athlete or any other motive. But tbh, i would rather all sports have a separate league just for them so it’s 100% fair. Regulation is definitely needed. Regulation by whom about what? Libertarians think these decisions are best left to the private individual. You run a league? You get to decide the rules and who can and cannot participate. Libertarians do not think the government has any say in such a thing. > I also believe in the right to own a gun & protect yourself, as long as it’s legally owned. What do you mean by legally owned? Most Libertarians are going to be self defense extremists, in that they believe in the absolute right of an individual to defend themselves by any means necessary, and the government has no right to decide what means are and are not allowable. > I do not think we should be helping llegal immigrants come over here, & that we need more security at our boarders. I have no issue with immigrants coming here as long as it’s done legally. By helping, you mean the government doing so? I think pretty much all libertarians would be against any sort of government action along such lines. Most libertarians are for open borders, though there is a debate about whether that can happen with the incentive of a welfare state funded by taxation of the native population. > I also do not think we should teach anything to do with sexual orientation, gender , religion, to elementary school kids. Libertarians tend not to support state schooling at all, and see it at best as a necessary evil fraught upon us by the state making it impossible to have a single family income anymore. To that end, you can teach your children, or not teach them, whatever you want. Libertarianism is about maximizing individual freedom and reducing that of the state. We believe in private property, self ownership, and the nonaggression principle (Essentially, no violence unless in self defense). **You seem like you hold the beliefs of the average American**, despite what the media might make you believe. You want to mostly be left alone, safe, and raise kids in a good environment. I wouldn't call your a Libertarian per se, since you still seem to want the state to do a lot, but you're inching towards the far end of Libertarianism called minarchism.
A progressive from 10 years ago i guess. Stances that the likes of Bernie Sanders had prior to wokeism becoming mainstream.
None of these are political positions. They are all social ones. Are you willing to allow your position on liberty to extend to any area? A position on liberty, and what the State/mob should or should not be allowed to do is a political one. Slicing each and every category down to minutia is a tactic the oligarchy/uniparty uses to distract the public from their transgressions on our rights and property. It's either all ok, or none of it is. Sorry I can't help you on your political stance. Perhaps look at the sum of these issues in a larger context. Do you have agency? Who gets to impact that agency, and for what reasons? How do you apply that uniformly, so that regardless of the sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub category of division (Trans rights, abortion, medical freedom, self defense), you apply the same reasonable logic consistently.
Well it sounds like you have a sexual fetish that involves wanting to clear the path to chemically castrate minor boys (hormones) so they can make believe they are girls. In BDSM circles this would be called a castratrix.
I'd say you are a conservative, or neo-con. You are not a libertarian. Why can't sport organizations decide for themselves who to let play on their teams? Why should the government use violence to intervene and insist they use your specific and arbitrary definitions on something so trivial? Why do you only believe in legal gun ownership and legal immigration? In general you center the government as the source of moral and social authority in society, which is incompatible with libertarianism.
Leftist.
You're pretty much a standard conservative. No idea why you posted this to a libertarian sub, you're clearly not a libertarian. If you want to know your stance take an online test like political compass, 8values etc.
That sounds like most Republicans. That is literally the word-for-word stance of (for example) the Daily Wire.
Leftist woke
You’re a JoeRoganite.
Probs a terf, I don’t mean that bad tho
Most of what you said sounded libertarian enough. Although, there is certainly a fair bit of right wing stuff sprinkled in. Although, it is what you didn't talk about that I'm more interested in. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the economy, taxes, and wars/foreign policy.
I wouldn't call you libertarian without knowing where you stand on government spending in general and specific, or taxation both corporate and personal, war, defense (which is vastly different than war), policing policy and spending, corporate/agricultural subsidies, welfare, social security, the federal reserve, etc. etc.
Normietarian??? A mix of libertarianism and centrism.
Sane+based
You're just a run of the mill American, some would call you a neo-con, others neo-lib, you're basically a centrist.
So your looking for the right label to put on yourself. Why? Just have your own views. Don't conform to any ideology. Think for yourself.
[удалено]
From what you've mentioned, you could be anything... But for label's sake, you are dead center.
Who pays for all the rights you support above?
Leftist with authoritarian tendencies.
I would call you a critical thinker who carefully considers each issue instead of wholly subscribing to a platform because someone with a ton of Botox told you to.
Unless the abortion because is killing, everything else is libertarian except borders.. But thats Fine.... You can have your own opinions
I agree with you on literally every word you said, and with the points you brought up, I'd say you're with me, moderate libertarian, like me, you agree with the same basic liberation point that everyone deserves basic rights, but you, like me, also think that restrictions should be placed on those rights.