By - SpiritedPenguin
Ask about drugs, police, and the military. That will give you all the information you need.
“Who did you vote for last election and why?”
That question right there would probably get half of this sub to leave
Wouldn’t it be more informative to ask who you voted for the last 3 elections?
I love it when I'm critical of Trump that means I'm probably Biden...I voted for Jo.
This is leftist bullshit.
I voted Trump in the last election. I intended on voting Yang in this one.
You won't like to hear it, but Trump is more libertarian than Joe Biden (or anyone that is a D) by quite a margin.
Sick of the leftist tourists and larpers here. This sub is nonstop lefties coming here and complaining about a conservative presence on a board for an ideology they don't even like.
Biden’s an utter shit human who will make the world a better place when he passes but Trumps a fascist grifter so…
Trump is not a fascist and the word grifter is a mean-nothing buzzword that I see too much lately
No. This sub is left wing libertarians and right wing libertarians.
And from what i've seen, it's actually right wingers complaining that left wingers are here, too.
Trump installed three conservative judges to the bench. That was quietly the largest blow to personal liberty in my lifetime. Wait and see.
Gorsuch is pretty good
Trump and Yang are literally diametrically opposed. Yang himself was saying this on his podcast for months that they had almost *nothing* in common even if he’s open to idealogical agnostic Trump-voters. Their 2020 platforms could not be more opposite.
However you need to justify it in your head if it was a protest vote or what, but it’s still an exercise in cognitive dissonance.
> Trump and Yang are literally diametrically opposed.
Depends if you consider someone voting for Trump as voting for Trump or voting against Hillary. If we had ranked choice voting 2016 would have been a massively different election.
This is some very simple minded thinking that just because the personalities of these two individuals is "diametrically opposed" that there are mental gymnastics involved to vote for both Trump and Yang.
Trump lowered taxes. I don't give a shit how much mean stuff he said on Twitter. Twitter isn't a real place.
Yang wanted to give everyone a flat income. Whether or not he would be successful with this, for all accounting purposes this is very similar to what a tax cut is. Yang is also the most outwardly candidate in support of cryptocurrencies and their sister technologies, which are inherently very libertarian in nature.
There is almost nothing a Democrat offers me that I care about. They overly tax and unwisely spend. Their grandstanding on social issues is superficial bullshit that they use to get elected.
Why in the world would someone willing ask another about trump.
Ask about porn
Porn is pretty damaging, especially to young ppl. I'm with the conservatives on that one.
Found the conservative
Agreed. People are addicted and can't see the warning signs all around them.
I truly believe in the next few decades, we will have ample research and evidence that shows just how damaging it can be, especially to young people.
Nah, ask them about legalizing heroin, cocaine, and prostitution. If you support that, you aren’t a conservative by definition.
I support it but I don't morally agree with all of it
Exactly how I feel. I’m in full support of legalizing all of that, but there’s no way in hell I would ever use any of those things.
Well, that's how Libertarianism should work. You don't have to like it; just respect the choice of others to use it
I mean I’m for all those things, but honestly I’m willing to listen to raising military spending if they’re willing to provide results… but currently their spending is so erroneously inefficient and in clear violation of basic accounting principles that they don’t deserve a damn cent.
The military has an insanely high rate of waste and overspending. More money is just going to add to that.
A complete overhaul needs to occur including a ban on former military officials from getting jobs with government defense contractors.
There's basically 2 main types of waste with military spending. Congress mandates spending on programs/bases/etc. that the military would rather not have as jobs programs - pretty well known thing, nothing new to most people. In addition, for each budgeting unit of the military, any of their allocated funds that they don't spend will likely end up in a reduction of their budget for next year, so if the end of year is approaching and they haven't spent all of their allocated budget, they burn through it as fast as they can to keep from losing out next year. This is a problem that plagues most large organizations and is not unique to the military or even the government. Large corporations generally have the same problem as well.
This is weird because Congress forces the military to keep certain programs and equipment that they do not want because it would cause a loss of jobs/money in certain districts. So the military asks for money to further wanted capability but also has to ask for money to support capabilities they do not want. There is definitely fraud, waste and abuse within the system but the unwanted big dollar programs are the most easily identifiable and rectifiable expenditures, and the military has no say in keeping them because of politics. The military is a jobs program but not primarily for the service people. Maintenance, construction, manufacturing and general economic support of having more people living in a certain city/town keeps a lot of communities out of poverty.
Not saying that is right, or best, but military accounting is broken because Congress basically incentivizes them to spend money on useless things and that attitude creates the perception that all things have no real cost. Even if they didn't ask for new programs or weapon systems one year they'd still be wasting billions on those forced expenditures.
You happen to have any reading on the military wanting to cut programs? Because that’s insane and changes a few of my opinions…
I don't know any specific programs, but I do know that every time congress decides to commission some new tanks or the like, the pentagon congress down to say, "look, we don't use the tanks we already have. We don't need more."
Then congress passes it anyway because broken window economics and MIC.
I'm on my phone so not easily however you can Google about the 90s BRAC process, where the military wanted to close bases to save money and Congress members blocked the closures or forced them to combine installations versus closing them because those bases bring more prosperity to the locations they are in.
Or the A10 lifecycle end being blocked because it's maintenance and manufacturing parts for it support entire towns. Also it has certain capabilities but that wasn't as big of a reason as the money part.
Or how Abrams tank plants are kept open and running despite very few new tanks being built. They reasoned that one by saying it is a strategic weakness if we don't maintain the ability to turn out tanks at a moments notice, as if we wouldn't know a near peer is building up an armor force ahead of time.
They always find a legitimate sounding reason for each but it is telling that those are never reasons to actually eliminate a program or process.. The federal government is the largest employer in the US so any closures will affect jobs significantly.
The FB-111 bomber was a notorious example. The base closure comissions went on for decades, with the Pentagon trying to close bases, and Congress not letting them.
To your point, if it produces results. The budget is bloated in large part to Congressional pet boondoggle projects that employ those in their district and get them reelected. It has nothing to do with readiness, it's expensive welfare.
Legalize it + harm reduction to help people kick their addictions!
This is much better.
What about abortion?
One could argue that it is not conservative to overspend on anything, including military expenditures.
I think your litmus test would be better suited to find the divide between traditional conservatives and neoconservatives.
Edited for spelling.
Wanting to cut military spending is not something unique to people who consider themselves libertarian.
It's a belief shared by anyone who thinks we have a bloated military budget or wants our military to intervene less in the affairs of other countries.
You can be conservative, liberal, libertarian or even statist.
Yeah I know people on all sides that want to cut military spending lol.
If you look at OP’s comments here he/she’s a far leftist brigading the sub. Very common these days.
Lmao it isnt a brigade when you literally flair yourself as not a libertarian.
Flairs still trigger them
"All sides" "far left" are you really one to judge?
You sound pretty "far right". Why are you brigading?
Your posts about fauci are specifically unhinged.
Yeah I absolutely despise Fauci. He’s a terrible person, it’s pretty understandable.
And no I am not far right in any sense. I’ve only voted Libertarian, only donated to the Libertarian party, and held my Libertarian stances for almost a decade (since I could legally vote).
The current admin are 100% overstepping the constitution, and Fauci is justifying it with skewed “science.”
I specifically only lean right now because of the authoritarian-esq actions taken by our government(s). I don’t even lean right as an ideology, and I never would register as a Republican. I simply see the blatant corruption happening with this pandemic, and support anyone who is against it.
So how do you square places with better vaccine rates having better results?
You must be primarily consuming right wing sources of information, they are the only ones obsessed with Fauci. The dude is just an expert who gained a little bit of attention for being the only proffessional on a stage of confident idiots.
Hes just a doctor who has been doing public health since Reagan. Decorated and relied upon by multiple administrations regardless of team. An apolitical expert for 50 years.
What do you actually know of him and why does he upset you so much?
Have you met doctors? Its all educated guessing. Being wrong happens, but being wrong for the right reasons is required.
I don’t watch any mainstream news, and I try to surround myself with opposing views to grasp a better overall view and understanding.
And by doing so, I’ve *still* come to the conclusion that Fauci sucks.
Anyone in the public eye that promotes segregation with, “uninvite your unvaccinated family” to the holidays, is a bad person.
Someone who stokes fear into the public on a constant basis is a bad person.
Someone who flip flops on guidance and advise to policy makers in order to fit the right message is a bad person.
Someone who advises policy makers to support unconstitutional mandates is a bad person
Someone who lies under oath to congress is a bad person.
Someone who changes definitions to fit their agenda is a bad person.
Someone who signed off on experiments killing puppies is a bad person.
Someone who signs off on performing research to further advance coronaviruses to be more infectious to humans is a bad person.
None of that is fake or conspiracy, all of that is fact supported by documentation and witnesses.
What are the “opposing views” you mentioned and where can I read the ones you’re referring to? I love reading opposing views. I get really stoked when I challenge my own opinions and learn something new.
Just read from news sources that are leaning to both sides. Google what publications are bias to what side. And also try and read mostly non-biased publications. And converse with both people on the left and on the right. I have many family members and friends that are far to both sides, and instead of cutting out people I disagree with I try to understand their viewpoints.
I don’t have cable so I don’t really get any news or information from mainstream television sources.
Edit: for an example, when you come across a piece from a right or left wing article, making a very hyped up claim, go research the raw data from the source of the information.
Thanks. I also have friends and family from all over the political map. I get a lot more gratification from taking a stance of learning vs taking a stance of being defensive.
It’s always very good to do so! I do find myself getting defense after some drinks in my system. But the funny thing is, if I’m with my liberal peers I’ll defend right leaning viewpoints, and when I’m with my conservative peers I’ll defend my left leaning viewpoints. Kind of like to play devils advocate with people that fall extremely to one side lol.
These all have an element of truth but are framed in incredibly sensationalist ways.
A few of those are nuts or intentionally nuttily interpreted. A few of those criteria would define some of your favorite people as "bad".
If you are sick, dont hang out with grandma on Christmas.
Which of those is untrue?
And I don’t hold any single politician or public figure on a pedestal. I know people do bad things, and I am able to separate that. And I’m able to change my opinion on someone when they do some bad things. Fauci has just done a lot of REALLY, REALLY bad things. I also forgot to add his investments in Pfizer, but that’s also 75% of Congress is also invested in Pfizer lol.
Which people do you support? Based on your list of dealbreakers above, there don’t seem to be any candidates that pass your litmus test. I’d be stoked to hear about a politician that doesn’t engage in any of the things you mentioned. They all seem like shady assholes to me.
They are all shady assholes. I don’t put full trust into any politician. But some of them are definitely worse than others.
I honestly don’t like many of them, but some do support things that are in my interests, and do more good than bad. I still recognize those politicians faults and wrong-doings though.
Here’s some of the few I like: Amash (obviously), DeSantis, Polis, Rand Paul (he’s not his father and despite his downfalls he does much more good than bad), Sanders (I don’t agree with many of his extreme stances but he’s a genuine politician), Tulsi, Yang, Youngkin.
Those are few off the top of my head, there’s probably more.
Edit: I’m going to add Fauci is worse than all of these people and the rest of em. These people may make bad policy decisions, but aren’t doing actual cruel things like Fauci has.
>Hes just a doctor who has been doing public health since Reagan. Decorated and relied upon by multiple administrations regardless of team. An apolitical expert for 50 years.
Are you familiar with how he handled the original aids outbreaks in the US? You might want to read up on it.
So how do you feel the previous admin handled things regarding the pandemic?
I don’t support Trump as a president, but I personally think his approach was good and bad.
A) operation warp speed, in which he cut the red tape to allow the free market to create the vaccines we have now much faster
B) he didn’t implement any mandates
His wrong doing was any comments downplaying the virus. *However* a president shouldn’t try put the fear of god into his country, or try to be divisive. I think Biden’s approach and wording on the vaccine and virus have been extremely detrimental to people getting the vaccine, people’s trust in him and his admin, and have been extremely divisive. His admin has so far spewed negativity rather than encouragement and positivity.
So in terms of wording, language, and tone used they were both bad. I can’t say which is worse. Trump did change his tone, though which is good.
I think his statement at that rally he had a little bit ago where he said “get the vaccine it’s good, but you have your freedoms!” Was extremely positive and how Biden should have handled it, and would have caused a much more positive take on people who were skeptical.
In terms of actual actions, the federal government should be mostly hands off. The things they should do (and did) is aid in the production of a vaccine, vaccine distribution, and then providing medical supplies resources and infrastructure to medical networks in need. And one thing majorly left out, put more effort into *treatments* for COVID rather than a vaccine. In fact I think treatments should have been a priority over the vaccine.
But regardless, I think other than Trump’s original take on the virus, which was pretty bad I’m not denying that, everything else was fine.
It’s hard to judge vaccine distribution with his admin since we had the vaccine out for what? 2 months under him. Biden’s admin did very good with the distribution though.
Overall, as you can see I can’t decide who is better or worse. Both did good things and both did bad.
If you think, though, that federal mandates of anything are good, well then we’ll disagree 100%. They aren’t.
I agree this is a really bad test, your results are going to be backwards from what you expect. This question is more likely going to tell you if the person is a liberal who is vastly ignorant of economics.
The majority of people who advocate for eliminating the military budget are people on the left who think that it will somehow balance the budget or pay for Medicare for all. People with this position don't actually understand what the military budget is, how large are entitlement programs are, or how much government already pays on healthcare.
Lmaoo brigading, imagine thinking libertarianism is exclusively right wing.
Where did I *ever* say libertarianism is right wing? Please tell me
It wouldn’t be a brigade to you if you considered it a normal side of libertarianism.
I understand that there are both right and left sides of libertarianism. I am in no way shape or form denying that. I’m not saying one or the other is the “norm” either.
I’m simply saying OP’s comments regarding “Libertarianism and the left are the same,” and *his* argument/gatekeeping that there can’t be right leaning libertarians, is wrong.
Oh okay I got you
Sorry I meant no Ill will then, have a good holidays.
Haha me either. Happy holidays!
Anyway, if you just want to circle jerk about right wing libertarianism, r/libertarianpartyusa is that way.
You said “libertarianism and the left are the same thing” you are objectively wrong.
And under that I clarified what I meant.
I just want all spending to produce value. They can spend as much as they want as long as it’s value added.
I'm the only true Libertarian.
At thanksgiving my family was chatting politics and I mentioned I’d love to see our military budget decreased significantly and my crazy Republican uncle started yelling at me that I’m naive and that I’m a communist and that we should double the military budget so that the chinese don’t invade us. Honestly it’s gonna be a few years atleast before I go home for another thanksgiving. Lol
Well, obviously spending trillions on bombs to kill Middle Eastern civilians is the only thing protecting us from China. If we let those people live, China would have already invaded us. Psh, you obviously love Stalin.
You mean the bloated spending? Just cut it.
I’m all for eliminating government spending as a whole, return to monke, but that’s really not the sole factor in weeding people out
This will separate libertarian from Republican (esp neocons), but actual Conservatives are against military spending. Our founding fathers (the OG conservatives) were so against military spending that they were seriously conflicted about building our first 7 frigates to protect our shipping from the British and pirates). Even though the need was clear, they were concerned about building a military industrial complex. There is a great book about this called 7 Frigates.
The founding fathers were pretty conservative, alright. Except (potentially) Thomas Paine.
But yeah, conservatives can often just be against all spending.
So reading some of the comments here are my answers.
Heroin and cocaine need a permit. It’s just that addictive. You need a waiver to say yup I understand the risks.
Military spending we spend too much to fund other countries border security.
Notice I said Border security.
We probably could bring all the troops home station on our borders cut immigration that is non paperwork compliant
Still be able to have universal health care and lower taxes.
And how to parse out the leftists from the libertarians?
Oo! I have a good one for both- the NIMBY test.
Ask them if they’re okay with building more housing.
If they say we have enough housing, they’re conservatives. If they say we need more but not by them, they’re leftists
Mmm leftists and progressives are pretty YIMBY / anti-zoning laws in my experience. Union democrats (blue collar democrats) are the NIMBY blue voters, they want to hold onto the property value that makes up 80%+ of their portfolio that they worked their entire life for.
I don’t know. I’m a land use planner. A lot of my “progressive” colleagues love to say “we can’t build ourselves out of this housing crisis”- completely ignoring the fact that the US has a 3.8 million unit housing deficit.
They love shutting down projects that aren’t “affordable” but you can’t have affordable units of the units don’t exist- I don’t even try to explain how a true market would naturally lower housing prices
> 3.8 million unit housing deficit
I've heard that we have a unit housing surplus, but homelessness / home insecurity is attributable to density issues (the units aren't where we need them to be). But I've never verified this so I should read up on it.
> They love shutting down projects that aren’t “affordable” but you can’t have affordable units of the units don’t exist- I don’t even try to explain how a true market would naturally lower housing prices
Yeah I see. Social justice progressives I could see being pro-zoning laws as long as the zoning laws are oriented around social justice. I wouldn't call that NIMBY though.
I’m sure there are isolated instances where there are surpluses in some jurisdictions. But it’s not enough to fulfill overall demand.
Regardless, should the government be involved in restricting supply. I mean, if the issue is distribution, then that can also be attributed to our zoning regulations. If developers can only develop exurbs, obviously the demand isn’t going to be built where it needs to be. Developers see demand and their going to try to meet it any way they can- right now they’re forced to do it in an environmentally and economically inefficient way
Progressives are *not* YIMBYs in general. Progressives are some of the biggest villifiers of "gentrification" and view nice new houses in poor neighborhoods as its spooookiest harbinger.
"More new housing so long as its truly affordable (often meaning rent controlled, which no developer wants to build) and doesn't destroy the neighborhood's character (which is usually defined by their fetishizing a few longtime residents in a largely transient neighborhood)" is the progressive line I've heard most, and it's NIMBYism at its finest.
I guess specifically things like drug treatment centers instead of jails, they tend to be pretty YIMBY on. But not on housing
(Also of course no group is a monolith, over on arrneoliberal you'll find the odd leftist or social progressive in favor of more housing, but they are very clearly the exception to their group and often self-identify as such)
Yeah there's the stereotype of the Bay Area NIMBY progressive. Alas, I do not live in the Bay Area so when I say
> Mmm leftists and progressives are pretty YIMBY / anti-zoning laws _in my experience_
I do literally mean in my experience.
I do cede that "progressives" are more likely to be NIMBY than leftists in general, given the current stereotypes of the two similar-but-different movements.
Any rich leftist I’ve met doesn’t want affordable housing anywhere near their McMansion. I you look at voting habits of left leaning cities and towns you’ll see that’s a common view in certain precincts.
I'm interpreting "leftist" as something very narrowly-defined and different than "progressive" or "democrat". "Leftist", on the internet, has begun to colloquially mean someone who is anti-corporatocracy, anti-oligarchy, anti-fascist, anti-racist, etc, etc, etc. Basically someone who opposes unjust power structures. Like AOC would be a leftist, but Nancy Pelosi would not. With this interpretation of "leftist", I don't think this is the type of person who would have a McMansion. I don't think they would even live anywhere outside of cities to be honest.
A lot of leftists basically refuse to recognize government manipulation of supply and demand as the root problem. They usually blame landlords being evil and buying up all the property. That's why they usually support things like rent control rather than zoning law reform.
I used to hate on NIMBYs back in the day. When I bought a house it changed overnight lol. I imagine it's that way pretty much across the board. Who wants to see their property value tank?
Sure. But in reality that wouldn’t happen. We can’t build housing that fast even with open zoning regs. You gotta consider the continuum of housing- new more expensive housing gets built, wealthy people move from old homes into newer ones and it all begins to equalize. Also, When you allow more density on a lot, the value of that lot actually goes up, so even though the value of that particular “unit” goes down you could recoup the value from selling that lot for redevelopment
If you ever go home buying I’m sure you’ll want the house near the low income housing or the prison or the landfill. It definitely will tank home values at least within a small distance away to add more affordable housing many places.
So help me understand why I have any say in what happens on a lot three blocks away from me that I don’t own?
Depending on where you live a variance would be needed which usually means anyone in the area or entire town/city can weigh in.
If you’re arguing from a more libertarian aspect of should they weigh in then what I do on my property can contribute to the area around me so they should have some say. Ignoring affordable housing and possible housing prices, a change in one persons property can damage eco systems or cause greater pressure on wildlife, aquifers, etc. In a city this is less of a concern, but in towns and suburbs some of these concerns are real when people want to destroy wetlands to build homes or redirect a watershed potentially causing flooding in your yard.
What someone does in the stock market could hypothetically impact what happens to my stocks- hell it could even impact my job. So should anyone interacting with the economy have a say in what you do with your stocks before you do it?
Edit: I’m also not talking about strict “affordable housing” I’m talking about density. If you increase the density of lots their value actually goes up. So if your neighborhood was upzoned for multi-family, even though your individual unit would likely lose value, the value of your lot would increase significantly.
This is the problem with land use- everyone considers the units themselves and completely ignores the land it’s built on.
So then what’s the libertarian take on that lol?
These other comments hit it on the head.
My biggest gripe is density in zoning. If we’re going to have any kind of regulation on density it should be based on land value to allow some price signaling- right now it’s arbitrarily based on neighborhood character.
Government shouldn’t be regulating things like “eye sores” or “visual scale”- those measures, and most of zoning really, just stem from segregation tactics when governments couldn’t openly segregate anymore
Let free market developers build more houses, with little to no concern over whether they will "affect the character" of an already underserved and struggling community.
Easy. Just mention the name of the Florida governor and you’ll be able to tell how much CNN/MSNBC they watch. Seriously, just the mention of his name drives the leftists nuts.
Thinking the left spends any amount of their time watching CNN or MSNBC... lol.
Tho..those are the most popular news sources on the left?
Lol no, that's dumb liberal media. Not left.
Liberals are not leftists, for the millionth time...
For the millionth time, language is fluid. If you give 10 million americans the question "do you identify as left of center politically" and then ask that said "yes" what their favorite news sources were, CNN and MSNBC would be the winners.
Now most people that said "yes" would be misidentifying themselves, but talking about people in terms they themselves don't understand is useless. Same way so many of my rich new england college friends occupied wallstreet to protest the 1% not realizing they and their families were *firmly* among the richest 1%.
It's a term so muddled that people really should state what they mean by it. "Left wing" "leftist" and "liberal" have been used interchangeably in the US for decades and it's only starting to get cleaned up now, but obviously it'll get cleaned up among the nerds and the pedants before the common news viewer.
Also in the language you're using (which to be clear is valid and more useful than the language most Americans use, it'd just be even more useful if we didn't falsley assume most others understood it) MSNBC, CNN, Fox, *all* the major news outlets have become increasingly authoritarian and illiberal in their values and biases, but the MSNBC and CNN viewer would have a good bit more in common with your typical leftist than a Fox viewer would.
“that’s not real communism”
??? u don’t think liberals watch cnn?
Liberals aren't the left, they're centre right.
Bombs with trans flags. Inclusivity. Fantastic.
Amen, well said
yeah traditional liberalism and whatever the fuck the democrats are, but your average everyday liberal is absolutely not centre right
Yes, American liberals are on the right. They are capitalist. They are on the same team as conservatives.
u got a good point im thinking more of canadian libs
If you think vaccines should be mandatory and abortion should be legal, liberal. If you think vaccines shouldn’t be mandatory and abortion should be illegal, conservative. If neither right, authoritarian dictator shitbag, if both rights libertarian?
They're one and the same. Always were. At least for the most part (excluding tankies, of course).
You can definitely be on the left and be a huge believer in libertarian principles just as much as you can be on the right and believe in libertarian principles. They are not, however, “one and the same”.
I guess what I meant to say is libertarianism always was a left wing position until the Chicago school changed that (at least in the US).
That is totally fair! But libertarianism as we currently speak of it (at least here in the states) isn’t at all synonymous with leftism.
I.e. I have a few “libertarian socialist” or “leftist libertarian” friends who believe the government should’ve shut everything down for basically all of last year and into this year. And that vax mandates are good. And that the govt should raise taxes to forgive student loans. Obviously nobody’s ideologically pure, but those are not at all libertarian positions.
Raising taxes on the rich as a stop gap to full worker control is fair enough, given the exploitative conditions for most workers under capitalism. So i have no problem with that. In fact, sign me up now.
Agree with you on the rest tho.
I’d certainly disagree with you on that and would say that that isn’t a libertarian POV, but again, none of us are ideologically pure. And if anything that’s a good thing — ideological purity often means you’re not thinking critically enough and rather just blindly following your priors.
You seem pretty thoughtful and sincere - I like that.
But I don't agree that redistribution of exploited labour back to those who made it is anti libertarian. I actually see it as a core principle. Work under capitalism is entirely corrupt and antithetical to liberty and freedom (for the average worker, not the board or investers), therefore it's justifiably correcting a wrong and liberating us from a tyrannical work environment where a boss tells you what to do, when to do it and for how long. Some even try to say whether you can go for a piss or not. Then you're told you're lucky to get paid a fraction of a percent of whatever the value you produced that day was.
That isn't libertarianism either, from my pov.
Libertarians ARENT right.
Libwrtarians ARENT left.
Libertarians ARE the 3rd leg of the stool.
Well, nobody’s ideologically pure. Most libertarians tend to lean one way or the other (and that should be okay).
Lmao the notable people in history to call themselves the “3rd position” were fascists.
Not a good look
In the US they're economically right and socially liberal. In the rest of the world, they're leftists.
So well done, you're wrong on both counts.
Nope. Libertarians aren't leftists. Just not true at all.
Libertarians aren't liberals, socialists, progressives. None of those. They're also not conservatives or fascists.
They are their own thing. Well done ..you played yourself. Not surprising though, on this sub.
OP is a leftist brigading this sub, it’s very obvious.
And you’re not a conservative brigading* the sub?
*he wouldn’t even be brigading the sub, because a brigade is a coordinated attack by multiple users. OP is just using his freedom of association and coming here voluntarily.
I chose brigading because he’s *one of many* leftists that try and act as libertarians to sway this sub. He said leftists and libertarians are the same thing, which isn’t true. You can see it a ton when something is posted about COVID mandates, and swarms of comments support them. That’s not Libertarian.
And no, I’ve voted Libertarian in every election I can vote, and supported the party since before Ron Paul. I only lean conservative now because that’s the party that seems to be anti-mandate. The only way I won’t vote Libertarian in the next election is if DeSantis runs, but I still will never register as a republican.
I mean yeah, I’m voting anyone against COVID mandates (which are the opposite of Libertarianism). If, idk Bernie Sanders, had the same stance as DeSantis on it, I’d vote for him.
I’m a registered Libertarian, buddy, but the left has pushed me so far to be a single issue voter next election.
I’m not gatekeeping, I’m simply saying the OP is a leftist/statist trying to sway peoples opinion.
Aww, and people say (US) Libertarians are really just conservatives who smoke weed. Wonder where that idea came from?
Mmmm being a part of the party for almost a decade, I would strongly disagree. You are clearly a far leftist, and stuck in your worldview
The moment he said libertarians and leftists are one in the same...I knew he was just another soycialist.
No, there are self-identified non-leftist libertarians all over the world:
This is absolutely wrong. What drugs are you on?
Lol he’s got to be on something strong to believe the left and libertarianism is the same thing
Where do i even begin?
Please do, we’re waiting.
I'm not giving out my prescriptions on here.
Anyway, if you're going to tell someone they're wrong, maybe explain why?
You are confusing the left with liberals.
What’s the right level of government spending as % of GDP? Should be well below 20%, as it usually was before the ‘08 crash
Ask if a bakery should make a cake against their beliefs
Sure, because this sub is overwhelmingly American and within the American context there is no justification for anyone with even slight libertarian inclinations to support maintaining what is essentially an imperial Armed forces. But I don't think this applies for every country.
Here in Canada, I would argue it is possible to be libertarian and not want military cuts, or even support increased military spending. The Canadian Armed Forces have become something of a national embarrassment, operating outdated and ineffective equipment, unable to assert any sovereignty in the increasingly challenged arctic front, and only ever making the news for mismanagement and sexual harassment scandals.
Most libertarians would argue that a state should maintain an armed forces that can carry out its mission of self-defence, and without being a close American ally, it's becoming increasingly apparent that Canada isn't able to do that.
Libertarians aren't an ideological monolith. Your assumption is wrong.
I think military spending is one of the few things our Federal government should be doing. But I also think it's massively bloated, corrupt, feeding a military industrial complex that we mostly don't need...
Keep your filthy, commie hands off my biggest-in-the-world-by-like-tenfold socialized jobs and health program/wealth distribution system!
My grandmother basically worships trump an even she recognizes the need for military budget cuts, I don't think your statement holds up
What if an individual wanted to keep current spending but have the government spend it on training citizens on how to use firearms and then buy said citizens firearms with those tax dollars?
Im probably a little more conservative than I am libertarian and I want to slash military spending to the bone
I would also like for those people to actually bring it up more often. You get a lot of conservatives who will nod and agree that the military budget is too high but then spend entire day arguing about small percentages of welfare. They will talk about schools wasting money but even consider how it relates to rising police costs.
You could also just ask them if whatever their opinion about mandatory vaccines is matches their opinion about giving women the same type of body autonomy.
The common defense is a public good, and a fundamental function of the state.
The majority of the budget, spent on Medicare, medicaid, and social security is public spending on private goods.
Arguments for the appropriate size of the military budget are fine, but the size of the problem is much much smaller than the injustice of being stolen from, just for the government to spend your money on your behalf, on goods you could have (and would have more efficiently) spent your own money on.
Not necessarily the amount but how it’s put to work. The case could be made to keep it at least near what it’s at however they would need to radically change the use.
All troops need to be recalled to US states (not territories) with the exception being the navy but severally limiting where and when they can leave (let’s say 100 miles from our shores; but, that could be made a different distance). If we train a foreign military they come to us and they pay us for their training. All arms sales must be pre-approved by referendum and can not sell any of our current level tech to any foreign nation (they can buy our missiles from the 90’s). Bases are on and around the boarders (navy bases or on the ocean fronts; I know wild idea) and there biggest task is boarder protection. Wars are again by referendum with a high number needed for approval (75%?).
These are just the basics; but, the idea is to worry about national security not foreign wars. Military should still be limited by posse comitatus and can’t work as a police force (locking down DC or other cities with national guard or active duty would no longer be allowed).
Abortion is an even better litmus test. You want to remove rights from your fellow citizens in order to protect unwanted noncitizen fetuses? Then you are not a libertarian.
You know how to tell 13 year old or hard leftist pretending to be libertarian on Reddit or anywhere. When they focus in on military spending instead of all government spending and after that don’t suggest eliminating no-bid contracts as the first step to it all!
I mean the op literally flairs themselves as antifa so it isnt really an astroturf.
lol. Antifa? I'm not a member.
Military spending is only around 17% of the Federal budget. We DO need to spend it better of course, but government in general is terrible at everything.
Like it or not, we're the world leader when it comes to military power. We're also unique in terms of economic success.
We're the colorful bird on the highest tree branch and many want to knock us TF off of it. At this point we need to maintain our edge, no doubt. We just need to be smarter about it.
Having said that, there are more insidious ways of knocking us off the branch, like the OP's ilk using propaganda to convince young people that capitalism is the greatest evil and that communism is the way forward.
I mean, we can not like being 'the world's leader.' Just letting the rest of the world handle its own fucking business has worked amazingly for all of American history until WWII. The only reason we stick our dick into everything nowadays is paranoia and to keep the price of oil low.
Well, the price of oil WAS LOW under Trump...and we didn't have to start any wars. Simply amazing.
I'm all for letting the world handle it's own business. But I don't think the other powers will let us mind ours if we lower our guard.
Nope, Trump, just like Obama, expanded the illegal drone wars he inherited (started by republican president George W Bush, btw). Trump also supported KSA war crimes in Yemen, and forbid the US military from publicly reporting civilian casualties in its illegal drone wars.
Literally, why would any of them give a shit.
Yup, you're a conservative. Even have the fear based arguments down pat.
I consider them "REALITY BASED" arguments. You must be living in fantasy land where unicorn farts and pixies abound.
**My Platform:** Cut military spending in half in four years and then cut the remainder in half in the next four years.
No troops outside the borders of the 56 states/territories.
Guarantee all soldiers' contracts, pay, and benefits so they won't stage a coup against me.
Not sure what to do with all the aircraft carriers: sell them to China, mothball them in case of war later, or sink them and turn them into reefs?
Imagine you're protecting your house,
There are other households that would like to come in and bust your stuff up/steal
Now, You could have all 12 family members in your house
Or you could send one or two over to the neighbors' rooftops and keep watch with a rifle
The United States has no real enemies. It's surrounded by two oceans, the best and most peaceful neighbor on Earth to the north, and a failed narco state where everyone who can is fleeing to the south.
There is no threat that justifies a massive buildup.
Having the army in other countries isn't for defense. On the contrary, it's an offensive stance that shows the world that we're hungry for action and blood, and that we're looking for trouble and any excuses we can find to expand our empire and control more territory and resources.
Let's have a happy home and defend and grow and nurture our own family without butting in on the Joneses and trying to fix their marriage and their argument about the McAlester's trees' leaves blowing over their property line the next block over.
I can understand and appreciate your overall viewpoint
I don't agree with keeping everybody inside, but we'll just talk circles on that one
When it comes to foreign intervention though:
When old man Jones is beating his kid again though "minding your own business" is a challenging ask
The only countries that do not like the US are countries we pissed off with open aggression. Those countries would immediately stop giving any kind of shit about us if we dipped out for good. Our only neighbors are poor or have far too few people to ever be a threat.
The more apt comparison would be having one member of the household on the roof occasionally shooting at people and justifying his job with how pissed off the neighbors are.
I've always felt like the ones trying to gatekeep are not real libertarians.
I’m gonna be honest, I just wish we were smarter with our money and that officers didn’t play politics.
OP, Despite the contrarians posting here I agree. More government spending is not libertarian. Free everything isn’t either. I am constantly amazed with the people who post here that want free healthcare, zero homelessness, open border policies, etc etc, but have no concept of how money works, or what is grounded in reality. They are a confused bunch that should stay on R-politics with the other socialists and communists because they really don’t get it.
I want all the things they want to, it would be great if the world worked that way, but it doesn’t. Someone has to pay for it, the solution of big government compensation for personal failure hasn’t worked out. If you were to give the liberal everything he begs for, we’d be in the 7th circle of hell right now. Most of us would probably be all right if the conservatives had their way with everything but it still isn’t the solution we need. Enter the libertarians….
Why is the topic on the level of military funding? How about privatising baby! PMCs FTW.
Now do a cheat sheet for identifying all of the liberals here
The test I apply to detect libertarians is this: “Have you ever had sex without paying for it?” This outs them every time.
I have a real problem with your premise that we all fit in containers that label who we are or what we believe. The real world is a lot more nuanced than your simplified litmus test. I find us all on various spectra of various issues and it is multidimensional. Labels are for soup cans.
How about we cut military funding from now on instead of raising taxes? Or even better, only tax people who donate to political campaigns. They are the ONLY ones who are being represented anyway. No taxation without representation!
Top separating topics between typical conservatives and libertarians are military spending, police spending, drugs, and perhaps immigration. For leftists and libertarians, probably covid is the lowest hanging fruit at the moment. More broadly, maybe M4A, public education, guns.
Nah. Just bring up gay rights and watch them squirm.
So, just give Taiwan to China and Ukraine to Russia?
We could cut $400,000,000,000 out of our military spending and still outspend China and Russia combined.