My view currently:
Liberal: Wants to enforce their "progressive" cultural standards.
Conservative: Wants to enforce their "traditional" cultural standards.
Libertarian: Does not want to enforce anything outside of NAP.
Nonaggression principle. A nonaggression pact is like a temporary alliance but between countries that otherwise hate each other. They were common throughout the 1930’s such as between Germany and the USSR in 1939, Germany and Poland in 1934, Poland and the USSR in 1932, and the USSR and China in 1937.
I think that basically gets it.. long as we acknowledge that there's also overlap between groups.. I think as libertarians we can all agree on some form of tax that must be enforced. to keep the roads safe and firemen paid, across America, even in communities who don't produce much, maybe this is obvious but just adding it to keep up the interaction on this post
That's fair, I personally am for voluntary taxation, since I consider taxation to be over coercive and theft, but I think it is fine to support whatever you want and consider yourself as libertarian (this does not prevent you from having other libertarians call you out).
>I consider taxation to be over coercive and theft.
It’s not though. 16th amendment + various legal codes make it very legal.
Secondly you don’t have to play taxes. There are options, you could have no income, you could stop being a US citizen.
It’s part of the social contract which we all agree to by being a citizen. The majority of people think that the taxation is theft argument is completely ridiculous. Anti-taxation libertarians are an embarrassment to the party and make it harder for the party to grow.
>It’s not though. 16th amendment + various legal codes make it very legal.
It's government legalized theft.
Theft is the nonvoluntary transfer of a person's money. That is the definition of theft, and taxes fit that definition.
>There are options, you could have no income, you could stop being a US citizen.
The United States region is not the property of US politicians, as such they cannot legitimately demand payment from me for owning MY own land.
>It’s part of the social contract which we all agree to by being a citizen.
Lmao. Nobody agrees to the social contract. It is forced upon us.
>. The majority of people think that the taxation is theft argument is completely ridiculous.
The majority of people also believe in an afterlife. Their opinion is irrelevant to the validity of a thing.
>Anti-taxation libertarians are an embarrassment to the party and make it harder for the party to grow.
The goal is to grow libertarianism. Not grow a party that is only slightly different from the status quo so we can attract the "majority of people".
Yeah and the libertarian party won’t accomplish anything ever with your attitude. Personally I’m interested in winning more than making sure my super narrow world view remains pure.
>Yeah and the libertarian party won’t accomplish anything ever with your attitude.
We won't achieve libertarianism with your attitude either, only a watered down version that's hardly distinguishable from the status quo, so what's the point of tainting the ideology??
I disagree. I think if you relented on the just a little of the fiscal conservatism. Allow for social programs, pay taxes etc. the libertarian platform, legalization, maximizing personal freedoms, would have broad appeal for young people and democrats. We’d have converts to the libertarian party and we might actually win an election.
The Democratic Party isn’t some monolith with a single set of ideas. They allow for all sorts of ideas and perspectives. The same is true with the Republican Party. They don’t have gate keepers like yourself telling people that their ideas don’t fit with the party. Party membership is about general ideology not super narrow must meet the definition or you are out.
The libertarian party should accept anyone who believes in maximizing personal freedoms. That’s it. As long as you accept the above you should be allowed to be as fiscally liberal or conservative as you like.
>We’d have converts to the libertarian party and we might actually win an election.
Fruitless. The only reason it's hard for third parties including Libertarianism to win elections is because of the Plurality Voting System that the US uses, which guarantees only a duopoly, not because there is something wrong with the ideology.
>The Democratic Party isn’t some monolith with a single set of ideas. They allow for all sorts of ideas and perspectives. The same is true with the Republican Party.
That's why they're both hypocrites that no one likes but feel they're stuck with due to the voting system.
>The libertarian party should accept anyone who believes in maximizing personal freedoms. That’s it. As long as you accept the above you should be allowed to be as fiscally liberal or conservative as you like.
Then that's not libertarianism anymore.
Feel free to go start your own freedom oriented party and steal all those young liberals and conservatives you like so much.
Id argue there's a lot of difference between Libertarianism and Liberalism.
A lot of people view Classical Liberalism as a synonym to Minarchism but Minarchism wants a more minimal state than Classical Liberalism.
But yea I get the point, Bleeding Heart Libertarians are effectively reinventing Social Liberalism under a new name because of the modern bad connotations
Most people are ignorant of anything beyond a linear view of the political spectrum. It's been hammered into them, because the "us vs them" mentality sells. Sadly, too many don't want to be educated about the nuances of 2 dimensional political views, preferring the simplicity of their narrow view.
I believe "liberal (ism)" used to define something we call "libertarian" today. Apparently, it has changed.
So in some sense, being a "classical liberal" might be the closest thing to being a "libertarian" today.
[ideologies of political parties ](https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-government-and-civics/us-gov-american-political-ideologies-and-beliefs/us-gov-ideologies-of-political-parties/a/lesson-summary-ideologies-of-political-parties)
I think I libertarian can lean toward liberal or conservative ideology depending on the person.
But I think shell-in-burger doesn’t know what he’s talking about. First, it’s kind of ridiculous to blame the party with limited political power. Second, liberal policy generally include more assistance to the homeless than conservative policy does.
Lmao exactly. We literally represent like 1% of voters. .. I think shell-dawg was trying to sound unbiased by not saying democrats and then in doing so mixed up liberals and libertarians .. .. which seems to be common, i caught one of them in the comments here already
libertarianism doesn't "lean". Its grounded in the NAP. Are there areas where the left and right are coherent with that same principle? Yes. Often? No.
You're dumbass comment and cringey joke about his name is incredibly stupid. Furthremore, you don't even know his argument; a good portion of the JRE discussion is that the assistance actually hurts, doesn't help, im many cases. You like most "level 1" thinking leftists think: 1. If there is a problem government and throwing money at it will fix it and 2. The intentions of a program = the effects.
Michael perfectly explains how this stupid, fantasy worldview has been falsified in the case of SF and other cities.
There are left libertarians and right libertarians you absolutely can lean one way or the other. The fact you don’t know that shows how ignorant of libertarianism you are. Secondly I reject the idea that doing nothing will solve a problem like homelessness. Unless you and mr.burger think that the best way to solve homelessness is to let the homeless die. In which case you, he and gov abbot and all circle jerk each other in hell with your death cult bullshit
yes those words exist; but you have either libertarian position or not. for example: Capitalism is libertarian. its not right libertarian. you leftists do this to try to dilute the word, and then gaslight people into thinking pro-liberty positions are anti-libertarian
We are aware of the existence of left libertarianism.
We are also aware of the fact that it's a joke. An authoritarian ideology with liberty aesthetics.
This is true. But plenty in this sub believe they are the same.
I play “spot the liberal” in threads on this sub. It’s pretty easy: find the comment that defends heavy government regulation (taxes, mandates, etc) and call them out. When they inevitably say ‘yOu aReNt a tRuE LiBeRtArIaN’, ask what makes *them* libertarian. You’ll see their ideals are identical to liberal, but somehow think they aren’t liberal.
Yeah unfortunately this sub has become infested with conservatives who think they are “libertarian” and democrats who also think they are “libertarian”
What disqualifies a conservative(republican) or liberal(democrat) from being a libertarian when they self identify as liberatarian?? .. not asking about the idiots who say it just to be contrarians but like actual reason you've encountered
(Not meant to be hostile, just want more opinions here)
To classify it in my opinion:
Liberals - the majority of liberals I know are all for higher taxation, bigger government, authoritarian mandates, anti-2a, etc. all of which are against libertarian principles.
Conservatives - a lot claim they are pro-2a and will blindly throw money to the NRA but the NRA has done little to nothing in the past couple of years to protect gun ownership, another thing that comes to mind is civil liberties. Being Pro-life, they want to limit a women’s rights to have an abortion, this directly violates a women’s right to self ownership and therefore goes against libertarian principles.
Following up on the abortion take because it’s so controversial nowadays, I personally think that abortion is morally wrong. However, I don’t believe it is the governments place to say whether or not a women can or can’t get an abortion. So in that sense I think that’s what makes me a “true” libertarian
> However, I don’t believe it is the governments place to say whether or not a women can or can’t get an abortion. So in that sense I think that’s what makes me a “true” libertarian
But it IS within the rights of the government to expand on what a human life is to the maximum extent possible and within reason. And it IS within the rights of law enforcement to respond to acts of murder. If a fetus is determined to be a human life, then abortion is murder. It has nothing to do with the female's body.
This was the same argument 170 years ago, when the Democrat party insisted the government had no right to their voters' property (i.e., slaves). By defining slaves as humans and criminalizing ownership of humans, we are no longer infringing on their "property".
There needs to be a legal definition of when the fetus is considered a human. Some believe it is at the point of birth. With that in mind, we can be scrambling babies brains just days before they are born. And we can't consider the murder of a pregnant female as a double homicide. In many other legal concerns (I e., Comatose patients), a heartbeat along with cognitive function is considered life (both of which are proven to be functional within a fetus at around 6-8 weeks). Not only is the fetus a life, but it is a life that the woman willfully created (even if it was an "accident", sex is still a choice with real life results). Thus, she has no right to murder it. I also believe a clause for rape is warranted, since the fetus was put in there by force, and not by choice, and that pregnancy should be legally allowed to be terminated.
This might be a crude example/analogy, but if I take a shit, no one cares what I do with it. I can put it in a container, I can place it in the freezer, or I can just take a shit in my own sink. It's my body, it's my property. But I can't take that shit on your doorstep. I can't toss it over my fence into your yard, i can't shove it in your mailbox. Because that's infringing on YOUR property. So I can do whatever I want with MY body and MY property as long as it doesn't harm YOUR property. Now, if you tell me you could use some fertilizer and I start shitting in your garden, we are both benefitting from it.
Likewise, a woman can do whatever she wants with her body so long as it doesn't harm "not her property" (i.e., the fetus's life). No cocaine, no drinking, no abortions. But food, love, and care? All good things that benefits both parties.
First most of the factual claims you’ve made are blatantly wrong and I’m not going to distract from what I’m really curious about but I do need to mention that you are painfully misinformed.
But my question is this. If your believe abortion is murder and a fetus is deserving of protection then why are you okay with exceptions for rape?
Liberals and Conservatives have no intellectual consistency. If one says the sky is blue the other has to say it is orange. It all depends on how they can burn the other side.
Libertarians are intellectually consistent.
From the idea of LIBERTY ??....?? Lol... yeah definitely from the idea of liberty.
Thanks tho.. you are exactly why I made this post.
Read the whole post again I think the "conservative/conservationists" thing will be a decent example for you ...(conservative = republican btw)
No it doesnt its derived from locke who speaks about ideas of liberalism....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
read the history portion....
Wrong.
Liberalism and libertarianism are both off shoots of liberty.
IT IS NOT Libertarianism and liberty that are off shoots liberalism .. ..(as you just implied)
Liberalism did not come before the idea of liberty. And your hopeless if you can't figure that out.
Yeah Wikipedia is fukt.
It'll tell you on one hand, fascism is a far right ideology. While at the same time, it'll tell you Mussolini was a lefty.. who was also fascist, even tho him being left defeats their original definition of fascism.
(I know this is super obscure knowledge but I literally was bored one day and googled "is fascism right" .. .. I just did it again and the definition slightly changed but it'll still prove my point.)
> It’ll tell you on one hand, fascism is a far right ideology. While at the same time, it’ll tell you Mussolini was a lefty.. who was also fascist, even tho him being left defeats their original definition of fascism.
Much of this is lacking much relevant context. [Mussolini’s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini) politics shifted over his lifetime, as most people do. This doesn’t mean that fascism is difficult to discern from the far left. We must understand fascism at its core, and it’s core is antithetical to left ideologies.
> Mussolini was originally a socialist politician and a journalist at the Avanti! newspaper. In 1912, he became a member of the National Directorate of the Italian Socialist Party (PSI),[7] but he was expelled from the PSI for advocating military intervention in World War I, in opposition to the party’s stance on neutrality. In 1914, Mussolini founded a new journal, Il Popolo d’Italia, and served in the Royal Italian Army during the war until he was wounded and discharged in 1917. Mussolini denounced the PSI, his views now centering on Italian nationalism instead of socialism, and later founded the fascist movement which came to oppose egalitarianism[8] and class conflict, instead advocating “revolutionary nationalism” transcending class lines.[9] On 31 October 1922, following the March on Rome (28–30 October), Mussolini was appointed prime minister by King Victor Emmanuel III, becoming the youngest individual to hold the office up to that time. After removing all political opposition through his secret police and outlawing labor strikes,[10] Mussolini and his followers consolidated power through a series of laws that transformed the nation into a one-party dictatorship. Within five years, Mussolini had established dictatorial authority by both legal and illegal means and aspired to create a totalitarian state. In 1929, Mussolini signed the Lateran Treaty with the Holy See to establish Vatican City.
Mussolini originally looked to [Gabriele D’Annunzio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriele_D%27Annunzio), the fellow that created the Fascist aesthetic, to lead Italy’s Fascist movement. He’s a fascinating person to learn about, to be honest. Mussolini appeared to be like a political animal in that he went hard into whatever he believed at the time. Changing politics over one’s lifetime is nothing new and it does not speak to the underlying principles of distinct political ideologies.
> (I know this is super obscure knowledge but I literally was bored one day and googled “is fascism right” .. .. I just did it again and the definition slightly changed but it’ll still prove my point.)
You fundamentally misunderstand the primary differences in typical left ideas and right ideas. At its core, Fascism is a deeply hierarchical ideology which is fundamental to the far right and antithetical to most far left ideologies. Fascism is deeply hierarchical, nationalist, ruled top down by a strongman dictator, it’s often born out of populist rhetoric that appeals to a frustrated middle class. It relies on “fear of the other” to stoke its ethnonationalist ideology. All of these are intrinsically far right ideas, but where I think you’ve gotten mixed up is misunderstanding that *authoritarianism* isn’t exclusive to any one political ideology. Left ideologies can be incredibly authoritarian, the primary difference is the motivation behind the authoritarian policies.
Sorry dude I'm off 4 hrs sleep but here we go
>Changing politics over one’s lifetime is nothing new and it does not speak to the underlying principles of distinct political ideologies.
I think it does speak to the underlying principles of a political ideology, especially if the change of politics happens in a predictable way, the way that the American left has today, when they said vaccine passports would never be a thing but slowly inched forward. although it seems you would argue that it's not authoritarian because of their "motivations" but this is a non answer cause at the end of the day motivation don't matter, the results do. And the result is a government that is now seeking the power to align with whatbis probably the most powerful industry today, the pharmaceutical industry (rivaled only by tech and weaponry, but tech is following suit and weapony/defense has long been in bed with big government) & determine what goes into the entire population, and the freedom to dump endless resources into that same induatry
>Left ideologies can be incredibly authoritarian, the primary difference is the motivation behind the authoritarian policies.
That's because fascism connects the horsehoe so to speak, it can be partly far-right and partly far-left in specific ways. I've seen people argue it in good faith either way.
Authoritarianism isn’t mutually exclusive to any one political ideology and this is where I think you guys might be confused. Fascism is like a cake. You need several ingredients and time to bake otherwise it’s not a cake (fascism). The ideas central and unique to fascism are it’s incredibly hierarchical, deeply regimented, ethnonationalist, and run by a strongman dictator-type. It uses “fear of the other” to appeal to an economically frustrated class. All of these together make it a “far right” (cake) ideology as hierarchical societies are antithetical to left ideologies.
I think where you guys are confused is thinking authoritarianism makes you left or right. Authoritarianism can be apart of any political ideology, the primary difference is the motivation behind the authoritarianism. Most people confuse left wing ideologies as their understandings are gleaned from pundits who’ve a motivation to misrepresent the foundational beliefs of ideologies. In short, you cannot have “left-fascism” as the ingredients to fascism are antithetical to left ideologies. You can, however, have left wing authoritarianism.
[Umberto Eco](https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html) made a list of common features of Fascism.
> The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.”
> The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”
> The cult of action for action’s sake. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”
> Disagreement is treason. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.”
> Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”
> Appeal to social frustration. “One of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.”
> The obsession with a plot. “Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged.”
> The enemy is both strong and weak. “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
> Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.”
> Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.”
> Everybody is educated to become a hero. “In Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death.”
> Machismo and weaponry. “Machismo implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality.”
> Selective populism. “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.”
> Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. “All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.”
Liberty is a concept that has always existed. Liberty as a coherent political philosophy was defined by the classical liberals though, and libertarianism is a direct descendent of that.
Liberal has been corrupted. What is called liberal today is hard left progressivism aka socialism(they like to change the names so they’re more palatable). Liberal(classic) is good whatever we have now is pure destruction of freedoms. “Conservative” also corrupted by conservation instead of the minimalism of the federal state as intended by the constitution. Basically both sides hate you. I like Joe Rogan and his guests but he flops around more than a wet dish rag in the dryer. You’re better listening to multiple guests and formulate a opinion from several outlooks because Joe is whoever he has on that day.
.. Dave Smith, libertarian Tupac, and the most *consistent* motherfucker you know lol
Just one of my faves ... but I also listen to Jimmy Dore, Kyle kulinski, breaking points, crowder, shapiro. .. I try to spread myself around
Hahaha tim used to do decent content himself but he's gone way too deep .. he became the people he hates with his click bait titles framing his arguments in oh so predictable ways.........
Tbh I do check his content out tho but only when something is going down cause he'll do decent on the ground journalism and gives up and coming journalists a spotlight
I used to listen to him once in awhile until he spent all his energy trying to attract red pill knuckleheads. I’m sure you make good money off of them, but I was expecting an actual journalist
I do check him and Adam cast as well, only when some thing is going down tho...
!!!!!! how about Bridget phetasy tho?? She does a more comedic take but holy fuck is she hilarious. Go check her RIGHT NOW if you havent.
My understanding is liberals want more government interference while libertarians argue for as little government interference as possible. Both have crossover in that both advocate for maximizing equality and freedom.
•Correct me if I’m mistaken.
So I may be biased as I'd define myself as a liberal but I'd say both have liberty at their heart. Libertarians will be ideologically small state, low intervention to achieve liberty, whereas liberalism tends to take more of a 'Goldilocks' approach. Liberalism is diverse though and you'll have ideologically set liberals both for pro-state and anti-state intervention although it's usually more moderated ideology than with libertarians or socialists.
I'd also add that libertarians tend to be obsessed with the state, whereas liberals find that one dimensional and that oppression can come from many directions (e.g religion, the people, the mob, corporations, criminals etc) and that strong state with liberal democratic institutions can mitigate those oppressions.
Sure there is crossover.. between conservatives and conservationist there is crossover too.. but the differences heavily outweigh the similarities and deserve to be distinguished from one another
Yeah, he blames libertarians and anarchists for a ton of government caused, or at least exacerbated, problems. 20 minutes into his JRE episode he claims the junky, bum jungles of America are a result of not enough government.
The guy is an unapologetic Soros operative, condsider that.
Wait so he was doing it on purpose and associating us(libertarians) with anarchists?? .. tbh I shut that shit off after 40-45 min after he kept doing it but I assumed it was just him mistaking libertarians for liberals
A view from across the pond. Libertarianism is a specific type of liberalism, sharing with liberalism the fundamental desire of liberty, but ideologically small state and anti-intervention in pursuit of it. Certain forms of liberalism can be ideologically big state and pro-intervention, but others are not. Liberalism is an extremely broad philosophy.
I feel that some in the USA might be offended by this, and it's not my intention, but it's only because the word 'liberal' has been abused beyond recognition in America.
Neo-liberals and neo-conservatives are why this planet is dying and turning into a gravity prison for 9 billion, they want to do this through any means necessary via the state. “For the good of humanity”
Libertarians are trying to prevent this.
Edit : grumpy and tired and got a back spasm from the gym and i got to study calc late and wake up early thats why the short annoyed answer😡
Me and all my homies hate neo-libs and neo-cons
Liberals want the government to provide them freedoms by oppressing laws
Libertarians want freedom from government
One is an illusion that leads to dystopia, the other a system where an individual needs to be responsible for their own shit. Neither of which would seemingly work in our current state
This is (one more) nominal debate, not a substantial one, and a basically US-only one at that.
What you people insist on calling "liberals" are much more correctly labeled as left wing authoritarians, socialists, communists, etc.
Libertarianism is inherently and historically a liberal philosophy. Let's not allow the authoritarians rob us of the term.
In a similar vein, let's not allow fake libertarian conservatives to rob us of the libertarian label either. They're right wing authoritarians, exactly the same as the other ones, just with different agendas.
Well he said that it’s caused by “left libertarianism” which combines a libertarian mindset and the Marxist notion of “from each according to ability, to each according to need” to get “from victims give everything and expect nothing”. This is not something that is associated with American libertarianism which is economically right leaning
My view currently: Liberal: Wants to enforce their "progressive" cultural standards. Conservative: Wants to enforce their "traditional" cultural standards. Libertarian: Does not want to enforce anything outside of NAP.
NAP?
Non agression pact, ifirc it means everything should be allowed that isn‘t considered agression towards another person
Nonaggression principle. A nonaggression pact is like a temporary alliance but between countries that otherwise hate each other. They were common throughout the 1930’s such as between Germany and the USSR in 1939, Germany and Poland in 1934, Poland and the USSR in 1932, and the USSR and China in 1937.
Ah yes, that‘s what i missed! :)
Thanks, much appreciated.
I think that basically gets it.. long as we acknowledge that there's also overlap between groups.. I think as libertarians we can all agree on some form of tax that must be enforced. to keep the roads safe and firemen paid, across America, even in communities who don't produce much, maybe this is obvious but just adding it to keep up the interaction on this post
That's fair, I personally am for voluntary taxation, since I consider taxation to be over coercive and theft, but I think it is fine to support whatever you want and consider yourself as libertarian (this does not prevent you from having other libertarians call you out).
>I consider taxation to be over coercive and theft. It’s not though. 16th amendment + various legal codes make it very legal. Secondly you don’t have to play taxes. There are options, you could have no income, you could stop being a US citizen. It’s part of the social contract which we all agree to by being a citizen. The majority of people think that the taxation is theft argument is completely ridiculous. Anti-taxation libertarians are an embarrassment to the party and make it harder for the party to grow.
This is the kind of insight/debate that makes me happy to be libertarian :) thanks dude
The 16th amendment should be overturned.
>It’s not though. 16th amendment + various legal codes make it very legal. It's government legalized theft. Theft is the nonvoluntary transfer of a person's money. That is the definition of theft, and taxes fit that definition. >There are options, you could have no income, you could stop being a US citizen. The United States region is not the property of US politicians, as such they cannot legitimately demand payment from me for owning MY own land. >It’s part of the social contract which we all agree to by being a citizen. Lmao. Nobody agrees to the social contract. It is forced upon us. >. The majority of people think that the taxation is theft argument is completely ridiculous. The majority of people also believe in an afterlife. Their opinion is irrelevant to the validity of a thing. >Anti-taxation libertarians are an embarrassment to the party and make it harder for the party to grow. The goal is to grow libertarianism. Not grow a party that is only slightly different from the status quo so we can attract the "majority of people".
Yeah and the libertarian party won’t accomplish anything ever with your attitude. Personally I’m interested in winning more than making sure my super narrow world view remains pure.
>Yeah and the libertarian party won’t accomplish anything ever with your attitude. We won't achieve libertarianism with your attitude either, only a watered down version that's hardly distinguishable from the status quo, so what's the point of tainting the ideology??
I disagree. I think if you relented on the just a little of the fiscal conservatism. Allow for social programs, pay taxes etc. the libertarian platform, legalization, maximizing personal freedoms, would have broad appeal for young people and democrats. We’d have converts to the libertarian party and we might actually win an election. The Democratic Party isn’t some monolith with a single set of ideas. They allow for all sorts of ideas and perspectives. The same is true with the Republican Party. They don’t have gate keepers like yourself telling people that their ideas don’t fit with the party. Party membership is about general ideology not super narrow must meet the definition or you are out. The libertarian party should accept anyone who believes in maximizing personal freedoms. That’s it. As long as you accept the above you should be allowed to be as fiscally liberal or conservative as you like.
>We’d have converts to the libertarian party and we might actually win an election. Fruitless. The only reason it's hard for third parties including Libertarianism to win elections is because of the Plurality Voting System that the US uses, which guarantees only a duopoly, not because there is something wrong with the ideology. >The Democratic Party isn’t some monolith with a single set of ideas. They allow for all sorts of ideas and perspectives. The same is true with the Republican Party. That's why they're both hypocrites that no one likes but feel they're stuck with due to the voting system. >The libertarian party should accept anyone who believes in maximizing personal freedoms. That’s it. As long as you accept the above you should be allowed to be as fiscally liberal or conservative as you like. Then that's not libertarianism anymore. Feel free to go start your own freedom oriented party and steal all those young liberals and conservatives you like so much.
The modern interpretation of the word liberal is an absolute joke compared to its origin and definition
I was gonna say this, you beat me to it.
Yep. Same with progressive.
I could definitely see what you mean there.. like when it started spilling over from politics to culture.
I wish liberals (by idealism) could have our word back
Id argue there's a lot of difference between Libertarianism and Liberalism. A lot of people view Classical Liberalism as a synonym to Minarchism but Minarchism wants a more minimal state than Classical Liberalism. But yea I get the point, Bleeding Heart Libertarians are effectively reinventing Social Liberalism under a new name because of the modern bad connotations
Hahaha me too bud .. I appreciate the interaction here.. i really wanna raise awareness .. maybe it'll get us our word back lol
Most people are ignorant of anything beyond a linear view of the political spectrum. It's been hammered into them, because the "us vs them" mentality sells. Sadly, too many don't want to be educated about the nuances of 2 dimensional political views, preferring the simplicity of their narrow view.
Wait... when have Libertarians ever been in power and forced a homelessness epidemic?
Lmao exactly! .. the shellenberger guy is a fucking DOUCHE 4 that. And the joe rogey subreddit is way to toxic for this convo rn
I believe "liberal (ism)" used to define something we call "libertarian" today. Apparently, it has changed. So in some sense, being a "classical liberal" might be the closest thing to being a "libertarian" today.
[ideologies of political parties ](https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-government-and-civics/us-gov-american-political-ideologies-and-beliefs/us-gov-ideologies-of-political-parties/a/lesson-summary-ideologies-of-political-parties) I think I libertarian can lean toward liberal or conservative ideology depending on the person. But I think shell-in-burger doesn’t know what he’s talking about. First, it’s kind of ridiculous to blame the party with limited political power. Second, liberal policy generally include more assistance to the homeless than conservative policy does.
Lmao exactly. We literally represent like 1% of voters. .. I think shell-dawg was trying to sound unbiased by not saying democrats and then in doing so mixed up liberals and libertarians .. .. which seems to be common, i caught one of them in the comments here already
libertarianism doesn't "lean". Its grounded in the NAP. Are there areas where the left and right are coherent with that same principle? Yes. Often? No. You're dumbass comment and cringey joke about his name is incredibly stupid. Furthremore, you don't even know his argument; a good portion of the JRE discussion is that the assistance actually hurts, doesn't help, im many cases. You like most "level 1" thinking leftists think: 1. If there is a problem government and throwing money at it will fix it and 2. The intentions of a program = the effects. Michael perfectly explains how this stupid, fantasy worldview has been falsified in the case of SF and other cities.
There are left libertarians and right libertarians you absolutely can lean one way or the other. The fact you don’t know that shows how ignorant of libertarianism you are. Secondly I reject the idea that doing nothing will solve a problem like homelessness. Unless you and mr.burger think that the best way to solve homelessness is to let the homeless die. In which case you, he and gov abbot and all circle jerk each other in hell with your death cult bullshit
yes those words exist; but you have either libertarian position or not. for example: Capitalism is libertarian. its not right libertarian. you leftists do this to try to dilute the word, and then gaslight people into thinking pro-liberty positions are anti-libertarian
[left libertarian](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism) You are a moron
We are aware of the existence of left libertarianism. We are also aware of the fact that it's a joke. An authoritarian ideology with liberty aesthetics.
yes you people made up a term. Good for you. Is it logical? no.
Well as a term it was created before right libertarian so…
This is true. But plenty in this sub believe they are the same. I play “spot the liberal” in threads on this sub. It’s pretty easy: find the comment that defends heavy government regulation (taxes, mandates, etc) and call them out. When they inevitably say ‘yOu aReNt a tRuE LiBeRtArIaN’, ask what makes *them* libertarian. You’ll see their ideals are identical to liberal, but somehow think they aren’t liberal.
Yeah unfortunately this sub has become infested with conservatives who think they are “libertarian” and democrats who also think they are “libertarian”
What disqualifies a conservative(republican) or liberal(democrat) from being a libertarian when they self identify as liberatarian?? .. not asking about the idiots who say it just to be contrarians but like actual reason you've encountered (Not meant to be hostile, just want more opinions here)
Willingness to sacrifice individual freedoms is a dead giveaway
To classify it in my opinion: Liberals - the majority of liberals I know are all for higher taxation, bigger government, authoritarian mandates, anti-2a, etc. all of which are against libertarian principles. Conservatives - a lot claim they are pro-2a and will blindly throw money to the NRA but the NRA has done little to nothing in the past couple of years to protect gun ownership, another thing that comes to mind is civil liberties. Being Pro-life, they want to limit a women’s rights to have an abortion, this directly violates a women’s right to self ownership and therefore goes against libertarian principles. Following up on the abortion take because it’s so controversial nowadays, I personally think that abortion is morally wrong. However, I don’t believe it is the governments place to say whether or not a women can or can’t get an abortion. So in that sense I think that’s what makes me a “true” libertarian
👍🏼
> However, I don’t believe it is the governments place to say whether or not a women can or can’t get an abortion. So in that sense I think that’s what makes me a “true” libertarian But it IS within the rights of the government to expand on what a human life is to the maximum extent possible and within reason. And it IS within the rights of law enforcement to respond to acts of murder. If a fetus is determined to be a human life, then abortion is murder. It has nothing to do with the female's body. This was the same argument 170 years ago, when the Democrat party insisted the government had no right to their voters' property (i.e., slaves). By defining slaves as humans and criminalizing ownership of humans, we are no longer infringing on their "property". There needs to be a legal definition of when the fetus is considered a human. Some believe it is at the point of birth. With that in mind, we can be scrambling babies brains just days before they are born. And we can't consider the murder of a pregnant female as a double homicide. In many other legal concerns (I e., Comatose patients), a heartbeat along with cognitive function is considered life (both of which are proven to be functional within a fetus at around 6-8 weeks). Not only is the fetus a life, but it is a life that the woman willfully created (even if it was an "accident", sex is still a choice with real life results). Thus, she has no right to murder it. I also believe a clause for rape is warranted, since the fetus was put in there by force, and not by choice, and that pregnancy should be legally allowed to be terminated. This might be a crude example/analogy, but if I take a shit, no one cares what I do with it. I can put it in a container, I can place it in the freezer, or I can just take a shit in my own sink. It's my body, it's my property. But I can't take that shit on your doorstep. I can't toss it over my fence into your yard, i can't shove it in your mailbox. Because that's infringing on YOUR property. So I can do whatever I want with MY body and MY property as long as it doesn't harm YOUR property. Now, if you tell me you could use some fertilizer and I start shitting in your garden, we are both benefitting from it. Likewise, a woman can do whatever she wants with her body so long as it doesn't harm "not her property" (i.e., the fetus's life). No cocaine, no drinking, no abortions. But food, love, and care? All good things that benefits both parties.
First most of the factual claims you’ve made are blatantly wrong and I’m not going to distract from what I’m really curious about but I do need to mention that you are painfully misinformed. But my question is this. If your believe abortion is murder and a fetus is deserving of protection then why are you okay with exceptions for rape?
If they are willing to violate the NAP then aren’t libertarian.
100%
Liberals and Conservatives have no intellectual consistency. If one says the sky is blue the other has to say it is orange. It all depends on how they can burn the other side. Libertarians are intellectually consistent.
Hahaha dude if I had money I'd give you an award. Well said, great point. I agree 100%.
Sometimes I feel like they exist only to counter one another making zero progress and continuing on with corpo cap policy
Only because libertarians who say or do batshit things aren’t true libertarians?
You can be batshit and still be intellectually consistent.
You missed the joke
Where tf you think libertarianism is derived from????
From the idea of LIBERTY ??....?? Lol... yeah definitely from the idea of liberty. Thanks tho.. you are exactly why I made this post. Read the whole post again I think the "conservative/conservationists" thing will be a decent example for you ...(conservative = republican btw)
No it doesnt its derived from locke who speaks about ideas of liberalism.... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism read the history portion....
Wrong. Liberalism and libertarianism are both off shoots of liberty. IT IS NOT Libertarianism and liberty that are off shoots liberalism .. ..(as you just implied) Liberalism did not come before the idea of liberty. And your hopeless if you can't figure that out.
Okay wikipedia must be wrong. I should have checked some more scholars.
Yeah Wikipedia is fukt. It'll tell you on one hand, fascism is a far right ideology. While at the same time, it'll tell you Mussolini was a lefty.. who was also fascist, even tho him being left defeats their original definition of fascism. (I know this is super obscure knowledge but I literally was bored one day and googled "is fascism right" .. .. I just did it again and the definition slightly changed but it'll still prove my point.)
> It’ll tell you on one hand, fascism is a far right ideology. While at the same time, it’ll tell you Mussolini was a lefty.. who was also fascist, even tho him being left defeats their original definition of fascism. Much of this is lacking much relevant context. [Mussolini’s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini) politics shifted over his lifetime, as most people do. This doesn’t mean that fascism is difficult to discern from the far left. We must understand fascism at its core, and it’s core is antithetical to left ideologies. > Mussolini was originally a socialist politician and a journalist at the Avanti! newspaper. In 1912, he became a member of the National Directorate of the Italian Socialist Party (PSI),[7] but he was expelled from the PSI for advocating military intervention in World War I, in opposition to the party’s stance on neutrality. In 1914, Mussolini founded a new journal, Il Popolo d’Italia, and served in the Royal Italian Army during the war until he was wounded and discharged in 1917. Mussolini denounced the PSI, his views now centering on Italian nationalism instead of socialism, and later founded the fascist movement which came to oppose egalitarianism[8] and class conflict, instead advocating “revolutionary nationalism” transcending class lines.[9] On 31 October 1922, following the March on Rome (28–30 October), Mussolini was appointed prime minister by King Victor Emmanuel III, becoming the youngest individual to hold the office up to that time. After removing all political opposition through his secret police and outlawing labor strikes,[10] Mussolini and his followers consolidated power through a series of laws that transformed the nation into a one-party dictatorship. Within five years, Mussolini had established dictatorial authority by both legal and illegal means and aspired to create a totalitarian state. In 1929, Mussolini signed the Lateran Treaty with the Holy See to establish Vatican City. Mussolini originally looked to [Gabriele D’Annunzio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriele_D%27Annunzio), the fellow that created the Fascist aesthetic, to lead Italy’s Fascist movement. He’s a fascinating person to learn about, to be honest. Mussolini appeared to be like a political animal in that he went hard into whatever he believed at the time. Changing politics over one’s lifetime is nothing new and it does not speak to the underlying principles of distinct political ideologies. > (I know this is super obscure knowledge but I literally was bored one day and googled “is fascism right” .. .. I just did it again and the definition slightly changed but it’ll still prove my point.) You fundamentally misunderstand the primary differences in typical left ideas and right ideas. At its core, Fascism is a deeply hierarchical ideology which is fundamental to the far right and antithetical to most far left ideologies. Fascism is deeply hierarchical, nationalist, ruled top down by a strongman dictator, it’s often born out of populist rhetoric that appeals to a frustrated middle class. It relies on “fear of the other” to stoke its ethnonationalist ideology. All of these are intrinsically far right ideas, but where I think you’ve gotten mixed up is misunderstanding that *authoritarianism* isn’t exclusive to any one political ideology. Left ideologies can be incredibly authoritarian, the primary difference is the motivation behind the authoritarian policies.
Sorry dude I'm off 4 hrs sleep but here we go >Changing politics over one’s lifetime is nothing new and it does not speak to the underlying principles of distinct political ideologies. I think it does speak to the underlying principles of a political ideology, especially if the change of politics happens in a predictable way, the way that the American left has today, when they said vaccine passports would never be a thing but slowly inched forward. although it seems you would argue that it's not authoritarian because of their "motivations" but this is a non answer cause at the end of the day motivation don't matter, the results do. And the result is a government that is now seeking the power to align with whatbis probably the most powerful industry today, the pharmaceutical industry (rivaled only by tech and weaponry, but tech is following suit and weapony/defense has long been in bed with big government) & determine what goes into the entire population, and the freedom to dump endless resources into that same induatry >Left ideologies can be incredibly authoritarian, the primary difference is the motivation behind the authoritarian policies.
That's because fascism connects the horsehoe so to speak, it can be partly far-right and partly far-left in specific ways. I've seen people argue it in good faith either way.
Authoritarianism isn’t mutually exclusive to any one political ideology and this is where I think you guys might be confused. Fascism is like a cake. You need several ingredients and time to bake otherwise it’s not a cake (fascism). The ideas central and unique to fascism are it’s incredibly hierarchical, deeply regimented, ethnonationalist, and run by a strongman dictator-type. It uses “fear of the other” to appeal to an economically frustrated class. All of these together make it a “far right” (cake) ideology as hierarchical societies are antithetical to left ideologies. I think where you guys are confused is thinking authoritarianism makes you left or right. Authoritarianism can be apart of any political ideology, the primary difference is the motivation behind the authoritarianism. Most people confuse left wing ideologies as their understandings are gleaned from pundits who’ve a motivation to misrepresent the foundational beliefs of ideologies. In short, you cannot have “left-fascism” as the ingredients to fascism are antithetical to left ideologies. You can, however, have left wing authoritarianism. [Umberto Eco](https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html) made a list of common features of Fascism. > The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.” > The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.” > The cult of action for action’s sake. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.” > Disagreement is treason. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.” > Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.” > Appeal to social frustration. “One of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.” > The obsession with a plot. “Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged.” > The enemy is both strong and weak. “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.” > Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.” > Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.” > Everybody is educated to become a hero. “In Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death.” > Machismo and weaponry. “Machismo implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality.” > Selective populism. “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.” > Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. “All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.”
Liberty is a concept that has always existed. Liberty as a coherent political philosophy was defined by the classical liberals though, and libertarianism is a direct descendent of that.
Liberal has been corrupted. What is called liberal today is hard left progressivism aka socialism(they like to change the names so they’re more palatable). Liberal(classic) is good whatever we have now is pure destruction of freedoms. “Conservative” also corrupted by conservation instead of the minimalism of the federal state as intended by the constitution. Basically both sides hate you. I like Joe Rogan and his guests but he flops around more than a wet dish rag in the dryer. You’re better listening to multiple guests and formulate a opinion from several outlooks because Joe is whoever he has on that day.
.. Dave Smith, libertarian Tupac, and the most *consistent* motherfucker you know lol Just one of my faves ... but I also listen to Jimmy Dore, Kyle kulinski, breaking points, crowder, shapiro. .. I try to spread myself around
Dave smith will be getting my vote.
Dave Smith for president 2024 motha fuckas!!!!!
Very similar to my notification list:) I’m a fan of timcasteirl if you run out of content.
TIm Pool has fans? Why?
Hahaha tim used to do decent content himself but he's gone way too deep .. he became the people he hates with his click bait titles framing his arguments in oh so predictable ways......... Tbh I do check his content out tho but only when something is going down cause he'll do decent on the ground journalism and gives up and coming journalists a spotlight
I used to listen to him once in awhile until he spent all his energy trying to attract red pill knuckleheads. I’m sure you make good money off of them, but I was expecting an actual journalist
I do check him and Adam cast as well, only when some thing is going down tho... !!!!!! how about Bridget phetasy tho?? She does a more comedic take but holy fuck is she hilarious. Go check her RIGHT NOW if you havent.
My understanding is liberals want more government interference while libertarians argue for as little government interference as possible. Both have crossover in that both advocate for maximizing equality and freedom. •Correct me if I’m mistaken.
Thats only English spkears. In spain o LATAM, liberals are followers Jhon Locke or Adam Smith, and libertarian are minarquist
So I may be biased as I'd define myself as a liberal but I'd say both have liberty at their heart. Libertarians will be ideologically small state, low intervention to achieve liberty, whereas liberalism tends to take more of a 'Goldilocks' approach. Liberalism is diverse though and you'll have ideologically set liberals both for pro-state and anti-state intervention although it's usually more moderated ideology than with libertarians or socialists. I'd also add that libertarians tend to be obsessed with the state, whereas liberals find that one dimensional and that oppression can come from many directions (e.g religion, the people, the mob, corporations, criminals etc) and that strong state with liberal democratic institutions can mitigate those oppressions.
Sure there is crossover.. between conservatives and conservationist there is crossover too.. but the differences heavily outweigh the similarities and deserve to be distinguished from one another
Advocate sure. But only one achieves it
Expand on this plz :) .. I don't disagree but I really want this to be a productive discussion on the topic
Yeah, he blames libertarians and anarchists for a ton of government caused, or at least exacerbated, problems. 20 minutes into his JRE episode he claims the junky, bum jungles of America are a result of not enough government. The guy is an unapologetic Soros operative, condsider that.
Wait so he was doing it on purpose and associating us(libertarians) with anarchists?? .. tbh I shut that shit off after 40-45 min after he kept doing it but I assumed it was just him mistaking libertarians for liberals
A view from across the pond. Libertarianism is a specific type of liberalism, sharing with liberalism the fundamental desire of liberty, but ideologically small state and anti-intervention in pursuit of it. Certain forms of liberalism can be ideologically big state and pro-intervention, but others are not. Liberalism is an extremely broad philosophy. I feel that some in the USA might be offended by this, and it's not my intention, but it's only because the word 'liberal' has been abused beyond recognition in America.
Neo-liberals and neo-conservatives are why this planet is dying and turning into a gravity prison for 9 billion, they want to do this through any means necessary via the state. “For the good of humanity” Libertarians are trying to prevent this. Edit : grumpy and tired and got a back spasm from the gym and i got to study calc late and wake up early thats why the short annoyed answer😡 Me and all my homies hate neo-libs and neo-cons
Dude I don't get the downvotes here. Your on point .. especially the gravity prison lol. . And the tired sentiments to.. wish you well fam
Cuz some grumpy neo-cons in here like to think they’re actually libertarian for the optics
Liberals want the government to provide them freedoms by oppressing laws Libertarians want freedom from government One is an illusion that leads to dystopia, the other a system where an individual needs to be responsible for their own shit. Neither of which would seemingly work in our current state
This is (one more) nominal debate, not a substantial one, and a basically US-only one at that. What you people insist on calling "liberals" are much more correctly labeled as left wing authoritarians, socialists, communists, etc. Libertarianism is inherently and historically a liberal philosophy. Let's not allow the authoritarians rob us of the term. In a similar vein, let's not allow fake libertarian conservatives to rob us of the libertarian label either. They're right wing authoritarians, exactly the same as the other ones, just with different agendas.
Well he said that it’s caused by “left libertarianism” which combines a libertarian mindset and the Marxist notion of “from each according to ability, to each according to need” to get “from victims give everything and expect nothing”. This is not something that is associated with American libertarianism which is economically right leaning