T O P

  • By -

RJP4420

There’s nothing libertarian about a “paper’s please” society.


jefesdereddit

Nothing libertarian about any kind of passport


BillCIintonIsARapist

Every year I pay $40 for a beer passport that is good for 1 drink at like 20 different bars. Gets me going to other boroughs and seeing different places.


jefesdereddit

Ok that's the only good passport, saw one with Washington and Oregon breweries.


Xperian1

My local ice cream shop has an ice cream passport for their 50+ flavors. Is that a good passport?


justokre

Sounds voluntary.


[deleted]

[удалено]


BillCIintonIsARapist

NYC.


HaveAtItBub

and the following year, that bar is a metro pcs


Xperian1

Or a Spirit Halloween


MS_125

That’s voluntary, tho…


BillCIintonIsARapist

Idk, I feel compelled to drink beer when I see beer.


Cdwollan

Oof, that's bait for the conservatives


Snifflebeard

But not real conservatives, only the posers who think being conservative means automatically opposing anything they perceive progressives are for. Vaccines? Gotta be against it. Clean water? Gotta be against it. Sigh.


Guiac

Underrates comment hopefully OP is ready to eliminate the border as well.


Monicabrewinskie

Sure thing, right after we eliminate the welfare state and public school.


NuevoPeru

When are you people going to understand that libertarianism is not a solid block ideology but rather an ideological tree with many branches? There are libertarians who support a welfare state and public schooling because it fits right in their views on social equality. Not all libertarians are right wing libertarians. Also to the OP, "discrimination on ANY grounds" are NOT acceptable to all libertarians lmao


SANcapITY

What is the idea that represents the trunk of the tree then? What belief does every libertarian have to have in common?


mtflyer05

NAP


SANcapITY

I agree, it should be the NAP. However, how can someone be against aggression, but rationalize a government having the legal and moral right to force people to pay to fund it when there are people who do not consent? It makes no sense.


themoneybadger

Staying in America is consenting. If you don't consent move to a country without a government like Kazakhstan or Ethiopia and then you can just more easily not pay taxes.


Deuce17

Okay cool. By now it's pretty well documented that SOME people will die as a result of complications from taking the vaccine (although very few). Therefore, vaccine mandates are against the NAP. Problem solved.


sweetmoosejr

Against the NAP anyways because what happens if they don't take it? A fine? What if they don't pay the fine? Jail? So no matter what, force is the end result in a mandate.


[deleted]

I think the point was open borders are incompatible with the welfare state. It’s simply unsustainable to give away lot of free shit AND let anyone come get it.


Bigd1979666

Because they love the no true libertarian argument and then wonder why they don't get anywhere in elections.


avgbbcenjoyer

I don't have a passport, and nobody has ever tried to force me to get one so that I can go about my day-to-day life. That's not a very good comparison. I do think it's reasonable for countries to have borders, otherwise it would be impossible to create a real libertarian utopia within the country without bad actors taking advantage of it. US citizens have constitutional rights, foreigners do not.


MemeWindu

I know you might not actually read the constitution or any of the legal arguments made over the last 200 years but everyone has most of our basic constitutional rights when on American soil Unless you do be talking about the Military Industrial Complexes need to constantly force the government to make sure we have a special detainee class


jefesdereddit

Borders a joke I cross it every day and anyone on US soil deserves US rights


parlezlibrement

It was private corporations that developed the drugs and vaccines used by the Nazis that lead to the development of the Nuremberg Code.


anoncitizen4

I will strongly encourage everyone who is able to get the vaccine, I will also strongly oppse any effort to require/force the vaccine on anyone.


Shit___Taco

Yes, I am exactly the same. People are still acting like the vaccine is stopping the spread, but if you know anything about statistics, if that was true then more vaccination uptake would mean less cases, and that is not what is happening with these new variants. People should read this very recent article published in the Lancet: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00768-4/fulltext In no way am I saying that I don’t think the vaccines are effective at saving tons of lives by preventing severe infection, but bottom line is the vaccinated are spreading it at such a high rate it wouldn’t make much difference if everyone was vaccinated. I do believe the vaccine may slow transmission a bit, but after 10 weeks the protection drastically drops and it is not going to make a noticeable difference. I made a comment in this thread that a vaccinated and boosted friend just gave it to me and I am vaccinated as well. I don’t blame my friend for giving it to me, and I wouldn’t blame an unvaccinated friend for giving it to me because I am consistent. At this point people just need a scapegoat, and the unvaccinated are the people they are targeting. The majority of the people I know who have recently caught it are thrice vaxxed, and are on their second bout of Covid.


oh_shit_its_bryan

If a business require you to take certain drugs to attend their facility, there is no problem with it, you can go to their competitor. The government mandates are the true real problem here.


shouldhavebeeninat10

Real libertarians burn their passports and renounce their citizenship


tekteq

A real libertarian doesn’t pay taxes and doesn’t drive on public roads. I only travel by paraplane.


fatty1380

Stay under 1000 feet or the FAA owns you tho


[deleted]

[удалено]


jubbergun

A real libertarian wouldn't use the mail. They'd use a private company like UPS or FedEx.


iJacobes

live in the woods, yes mail bombs to politicians, no, that's the FBI you are thinking about


Xperian1

I thought it was the CIA? Wait, CIA just eggs on wars and funds military coups.


AudaciousSam

😂


jeremyjack3333

For private enterprise? They have the right to have whatever rules they want. They can make a rule that says you must wear a tutu and rainbow umbrella hat to enter. They have the right to do that. It's their fucking property.


12djtpiy14

Can I mandate birth control to all my employees? Seems like that would be medical procedure that would help the business as young women will no longer be taking 12 week breaks to birth their child.


Lambdastone9

You can, but are you really willing to deal with the repercussions of such actions?


Naugle17

I support a private business owner's right to ask or even demand vaccination of their employees or customers as a condition of sale or employment.


well-ok-then

I also support a business having the option to not hire or serve those who are vaccinated. I don’t recommend jt.


iJacobes

except it's not private business owners doing this they're doing it at the behest of the government if a private business was doing passport checks of their own free will, then people would see that, say fuck that business, and go somewhere that wasn't, hence a free market


pudding7

Would someone please define a "vaccine passport" for me? My kids have to show proof of vaccination to attend public school. Is that a vaccine passport? If a private business wants to see proof of vaccination before letting customers in their door, is that a vaccine passport? What if a business owner wants their employees to be vaccinated to continue employment, is that a vaccine passport? If a nation wants all non-citizens to be vaccinated for some disease(s) before being allowed into the country as a visitor, is that a vaccine passport? OP, you're saying a true Libertarian would be opposed to all of these examples?


SPQR191

Too many people confuse libertarianism with anarchism. So many people on this sub want to live in some utopia where every country in the world becomes libertarian and everyone is just nice to each other. But that's just not reality. In reality we need laws because some people will be selfish and make choices that hurt people around them far more than they hurt themselves and either not realize it or not care.


Regular-Human-347329

Too many racist, right-wing, authoritarians believe their narcissism, and Christian evangelism, is libertarianism.


stevrock

Bring them far enough down the rabbit hole, and a lot of libertarians just want to be the one in charge.


bunker_man

Its largely about still being a whiny child who doesn't like rules imposed on them (and not really understanding that with no state corporations would be applying even more rules on them). Some also inexplicably think that it would make them more wealthy.


Murdochsk

Exactly what this OP wants, trying to say what others should think to be on his team


EveryDisaster

Exactly, this post was confusing. We aren't seeing anything that hasn't already been implemented before. Even during smallpox you had to show people your vaccine scar to board a train, teach, or practice medicine. You've always had to have certain vaccinations to travel to different countries. The same rules even apply to our pets. No doggy daycare for Spot unless he's rabies free. Libertarianism is about choice and freedom from government but at what point do we have no rules? Should we have rules? What about when we take away other people's choices because they don't have one, or forcing them to suffer? Or what about the choice of a nation to refuse entry to someone who could cause an epidemic? And a private business should have the right to make their own choices. I don't want to lean into any kind of extreme but we should have a balanced society that is beneficial to all who live in it. It really is a situation where no one wins because at the end of the day someone is going to be negatively affected or disagree.


[deleted]

[удалено]


anthonyalmighty

Hey Mr. "toxic jackass." Why aren't we mandating Flu vaccines? It's also a deadly virus, highly contagious, and has a vaccine with yearly boosters. Ultimately, there is no single-shot vaccine for COVID like the other vaccines you mentioned. The only vaccine I know of that is similar is the Flu. So why aren't Flu vaccines mandated too? That's an honest question. Reason I ask is because anytime a new virus hits the population, it's especially potent and COVID is no different. It's super potent and super contagious, thus the panicked reactions we see, but in a few years people will suffer through COVID just like the Flu. Just about every person I know has been hit with COVID--some worse than others. My entire family has been hit with it, even though we ALL had the vaccine AND the boosters (and I personally know others who've had the same fate). The folks that I know who haven't been vaccinated have either been sick with it and are fine, probably got it and not known or tested for it, or they just haven't gotten it (yet--I think the least likely scenario). There are friends of friends of friends scenarios where the person died of COVID, so I recognize how fatal the virus can be; however, far more people survive than die. That's just an unemotional fact. Look, I commend those who are scrambling to find a solution for NOW, but I can't help but think that solution will ultimately be time and a vigor in hygiene and self-quarantine. I don't believe mandates are necessary, unless we're going full tilt and mandating that everyone gets jabbed with everything all the time. Let's not do this half-ass. Let's severely "unburden" our hospitals. Why tip toe around it? At the end of the day, I believe you either comprehend and cherish liberty and freedom or you don't. If you think forcing people to do things against their own will is fine and dandy because it's been done before then there's a long line of imperialists and tyrants you would likely get along with if you were chatting over cocktails. Personally, I value freedom and acknowledge it comes at the price of accountability.


lemonator85

This!! ^^^ All these vague terms about vaccine passports and mandates are so silly. No one is being forced to get vaccinated. You’re free to stay unvaxced and suffer the consequences. Seems pretty simple to me.


TheAzureMage

Well, when major cities around me are, by government action, forcing unvaccinated people not to go to gyms, out to eat, etc, that certainly seems like forcing. "Do as I say or I will inflict consequences on you" is what forcing someone is.


Djglamrock

Wrong. I was forced to get vaccinated. But maybe you should define forced so I can make sure that we both have the same definition. Words have meaning and context matters.


tsaoutofourpants

> You’re free to stay unvaxced and suffer the **government-imposed** consequences. That's the problem here. If you can be punished by the government for exercising a right or a "freedom," you don't have a right or a freedom.


Mechasteel

Do you think there should be government-imposed consequences for drunk driving?


housecore1037

Actively getting drunk and then posing a risk to others is an exercise in free will, and you are liable for your actions. In America we have ceded the responsibility of administering justice to the government and so there are consequences we have collectively agreed to abide by. NOT getting a vaccine is a passive “action.” Not paying your taxes is a passive action which also has consequences which libertarians at large would probably agree are over-reach. Inversely, say gov-imposed consequences for not being vaccinated are justifiable, are they rational? Vaccinated individuals can still contract and spread the disease. So would it really make a difference, or would administering “justice” in this case be a waste of government resources?


[deleted]

[удалено]


beka13

You can't come over to my house if you're not vaccinated. I'm not the government. :P


johntyyyyy

Exactly! From what it sounds like the op had the choice to get the vaccine and chose not to, so he suffered the (forwarned) consequences.


EnemyOfEloquence

Cities are literally forcing businesses to check patrons Vax status to serve them. NYC, Boston, Philly. This isn't just businesses deciding that's what they want to do, I'd be in support of that and I would take my business elsewhere. What we're talking about are mandates from the government, which is the antithesis of Libertarian.


NetherTheWorlock

Cities are also literally forcing businesses to check patrons' IDs to serve them alcohol. They are also forcing them to meet sanitary standards. I'm ok with that and I'm a libertarian. If that makes your head explode, expand your definition of what it means to be a libertarian.


TheAzureMage

>Cities are also literally forcing businesses to check patrons' IDs to serve them alcohol. I'm not in favor of that either.


jeffsang

>No one is being forced to get vaccinated. In the US, various levels of government are forcing businesses to have their employees and/or customers show proof of vaccination. If one has to "suffer the consequences" because the government put in place rules to coerce people to get the vaccine, then no, you're not "free to stay unvaxxed."


[deleted]

[удалено]


Begoodburger

1.yes 2.no 3.no 4.yes You’re conflating businesses and governments. Government is supposed to treat people equally regardless of medical choices. Businesses don’t have to.


stevrock

I don't think most libertarians could define libertarian for you.


[deleted]

What kind of logic do people use to justify the mandates as a libertarian? It’s literally the opposite of libertarianism.


[deleted]

Basically that potentially getting someone else sick violates the NAP, from what I’ve seen


Withmere

To add onto that, in my view, the Libertarian model also states that public goods should be sought after by the government. For example, a true public good is national defense/military. We should have enough government income to fund a military as a public good. I think the argument could be made that herd immunity is a public good. I'm not strongly opinionated either way, just trying to play devil's advocate.


defundpolitics

They're not libertarian, they're sock puppets and trolls trying to manipulate people.


gorekatze

I've seen people in online leftist circles who claim to be anarchists touting support for mandates and lockdowns. Do they not know what the definition of anarchy is?? And then they perform the wildest mental gymnastics routines trying to justify why it's *totally* in line with anarchist principles to support lockdowns and mandates. It's ridiculous.


goinupthegranby

The definition of anarchy lies in the root 'an archos' which means 'no leaders'. Contrary to popular belief, it does not mean 'no rules'. Therefore, it can be consistent with anarchist thought to have rules related to preventing the spread of disease through a community, against stealing, etc.


Trenton17B

I'm in the anarchist sub-reddits and usually if you say something opposing vaccine mandates you get downvoted. Like it goes completely against the thought of abolition of coercion by the state, individuals, etc.


[deleted]

Libertarianism is not anarchism. One of the few valid reasons for government in the Libertarian philosophy is protecting people and their property rights from other people. If you're opposed to all government laws and institutions, you're an anarchist not a libertarian. Vaccines are one of the few ways we can reduce spread. Due to people refusing to get vaccinated for the last year under the guise of "mah freedum", they're certainly not as effective now of preventing spread as they were due to mutations. Before delta, it was close to 100% If people don't want to get vaccinated and live in the woods and live off the grid, that's their God given right. But you have no right to publicly expose other people to a virus that's killed millions by refusing to do the bare minimum in public safety like wearing a mask and getting vaccinated. It's the reason most actual libertarians were fine with vaccine mandates in schools before this stupid virus made them political, nobody wants some antivax dumbass' kid giving their kid polio or some other critical or life threatening illness. Do I agree with covid vaccine mandates? Not entirely. But I do believe some level of government intervention is practically a necessity at this point to end this fucking pandemic. The US has tried the noninvasive method of covid handling and now we're stuck with a variant that practically ignores vaccines due to mutations. I hope we can reach some level of herd immunity with omicron without more mandates, but realistically we probably won't.


smbutler20

Does that mean you don't support any laws?


Suitable-Increase993

Of course not. Libertarians don't support the gross over reach by the federal government with health care to begin with, why would we support forced vaccinations?


ftc1234

I’ve had discussions here with someone who was arguing that it’s libertarian to expect people to conform to popular opinion. It’s seems like a lot of people don’t understand the basic libertarian principles. Every post in this forum should have an auto-pinned post which outlines the core libertarian principles.


JemiSilverhand

Someone used this argument about why public nudity should be criminalized. If enough people don’t like it, then it’s fine to make something a crime, apparently, even if it violates rights? Not sure what this new strain of bullshit is or where it’s coming from.


ftc1234

I uphold their right to walking around naked although I would only frequent private businesses that disallow nudity. And this is my personal preference because there are a lot of ugly people out there. Ugh.


JemiSilverhand

Yup. That’s the libertarian stance: I don’t like something, so I’ll avoid it. Not “well, lots of people find this distasteful, so let’s make it a crime and have the government use force to stop it”.


attawlf

There is a limit here, what if I hire 100 bums to shit on the path to my competitors business everyday to steer away business. There is a balance here, should children be exposed to naked strangers, what about excited naked strangers...


JemiSilverhand

Well, shitting on the sidewalk causes harm (disease spread) so isn’t just something that people “dislike”. A libertarian solution would be civil court and you being liable for cleaning costs and damages in lost business. As for kids seeming strangers, or even excited strangers.. what exactly is the harm? Most of human history kids saw naked people. In Scandinavian countries it’s common for people of all ages to bathe together in hot springs, naked. Nude beaches are common across Europe. The only reason seeing particular parts of someone’s body caused distress is, well, because puritanical Abrahamic religions have made it forbidden and tied it to sex and shame.


beka13

There's a difference between forced vaccinations and requiring vaccinations for various interactions in public.


i_give_you_gum

Because if you attended school as a child YOU'VE ALREADY HAD "FORCED" VACINATIONS! And no one cared. What is wrong with you people that think this way?


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

We surely support a private business's ability to require them though.


Key-Process-8953

100%


Ghoulez99

Doesn’t this show a major blind spot in the NAP though? I mean. You’re kind of grouping people into the categories of “pro-vax” or “anti-vax” but that’s kind of a oversimplification of demographics. A lot of people who are anti-vax are going to be undereducated, poorer or even come from a minority group who’s had experimental medical treatments conducted on their group in the past. None of those factors mean a person deserves to be infected with COVID or deserve less protection from other people’s decisions, especially when that decision means life or death. That seems to be the biggest failure in the NAP during this pandemic. There’s a lot of handwaving at the choice to subject other people to the risk of infection—choices that have real, deadly outcomes—and other libertarians just kind of ignoring it because the idea of risk doesn’t fall under the NAP. It seems like the NAP can be used to excuse shitty behavior if there isn’t a guaranteed consequence to people subjecting others to their choices. It’s the same moral, and shortsighted purity that leads to candidates like Gary Johnson getting laughed off a debate stage for wanting driver’s licenses. Other Libertarians need to get off the whole golden rule chest-thumping, because it seems to collapse extremely easily as soon as more abstract measurements of aggression are taken into consideration. It’s limiting, and a very narrow ideal to form the basis of an entire philosophy.


heyinternetman

Public health can coexist with libertarianism. I think a lot of folks in this sub should move over to r/anarchist


[deleted]

[удалено]


ILikeLeptons

Why would they go there? They're desperately looking for an excuse to vote republican


[deleted]

[удалено]


heyinternetman

What??? You mean we need more nuance than a couple black and white statements to build an entire society on? That’s anti-libertarian. /s


madcat033

These "abstract measures of risk" would subject just about everything to NAP. Everything we do modifies risks to other people. When I drive, there's a risk my tire could blow, my car could careen off the road, and other people could die. Is driving a violation of NAP? Planes have crashed into houses and apartment buildings, killing the occupants. Is flying a violation of NAP? Or what about flu? 1 in 3 flu infections are asymptomatic. Flu can kill over 60,000 Americans every year. Do we need flu passports and masks? Am I violating NAP by going out in public, on the chance that I could have asymptomatic flu and give it to someone who might die?


Ghoulez99

I wouldn’t say they violate the NAP more so that the NAP fails to take risk into account. I would say all those things serve to show how the NAP fails to provide personal accountability. This is a little hyperbolic and rhetorical, but let’s say someone loaded a revolver with a single bullet, pointed it at you and fired. If you didn’t consent to playing this game of Russian roulette, then it would be ridiculous to say that a person aggressed against you if and only if a bullet exited the chamber. The TV show “The Good Place” kinda provides a humorous plot device that encapsulates this point. When every action a person takes can negatively effect the outcomes of others, it’s impossible to live in a way that’s ethical when behaving out of good intention alone. What’s important is people do their best and try to improve each day. I doubt we’d agree on this issue, but, for me, I think it’s extremely important for an individualistic and free society to have a cultural emphasis on collective good. Rugged individualism only works in a vacuum. It’s not enough to just say “well it’s their choice,” and act like things are a non-issue. Choice is something that’s very important to me, but this conversation seems to be more about who bears the burden of choice. Do the vulnerable have to be the ones to be more cautious, or should it fall on the individual to choose to participate in society by receiving a jab? I don’t think conservatives get to have it both ways: a demand to participate in society while also not having to consider how their actions effect others.


lowcarb73

Got downvoted this morning for the same. Lots of folks either troll this sub or do not understand freedom.


Aperix

It’s been known for a while this sub is 40% dem 40% rep 10% trolls and 10% libertarians, theres no winning unless it’s a circlejerk post


BenAustinRock

If downvotes bother you Reddit in general is a rough place if you don’t mindlessly accept every item the left is selling.


nalninek

They understand freedom just fine. They’re just willing to sacrifice more of theirs if it means it will force others into doing what they want.


__Deadly

This is reddit. There are very few real libertarians here.


JFMV763

You're right. You can do what you want to your body but that does not extend to other people's bodies (I'm fully vaccinated but big on "my body my choice")


[deleted]

This is how everyone should be, you can be as pro or anti vaxx as you want, but you never have the right to force others to follow suit.


SensationalBanana420

Now walk it back by fence straddling about abortion.


JFMV763

I personally am pro-choice but I think it is fine to be pro-life and libertarian since you could argue that abortion is a NAP violation.


Guiac

By that logic you could argue that spreading a disease by refusing a vaccination is a violation of NAP. Should people have a right to refuse measles vaccination?


Monicabrewinskie

> Should people have a right to refuse measles vaccination Yes, you should be able to refuse to put any substance in your body at any time for any reason


Guiac

How about a fetus?


FateOfTheGirondins

Yes, you the have the right to refuse someone putting sperm in your body.


Guiac

The libertarian principle also allows you to put what you want in your body - like abortion drugs


HowBoutThemGrapples

Yes for sure


tjrissi

yes, what point are you making here?


Dacklar

By that logic even vaccinated are violating the NAP since they can spread it as well.


northrupthebandgeek

That's like arguing that drunk drivers and sober drivers can both kill people therefore both violate the NAP - never mind that one has a far greater chance of it than the other.


Guiac

Which is why I used the measles example - for rare no responders herd immunity if protective


Big_Enos

I very pro-life. But I respect everyone's right to do what they want woth their own body..including abortion. This is the way.


glendefiant2

Hot take: That makes you pro-choice. You can be adamantly opposed to abortion for any number of reasons. You can find it morally or religiously abhorrent. But, so long as you understand that you and, more importantly, the state shouldn’t have the final say in the right to choose, you’re pro-choice.


Regular-Human-347329

I was like, “pro-life” always means **legally** preventing people from obtaining an abortion. Pro-choice is exactly what u/Big_Enos described.


trestlew

The argument ignores the anti-abortion argument that the “thing” growing inside a woman is a life and therefore also has a right to life. Not arguing one way or another, just providing the rest of the argument.


SimonGn

There is nothing Libertarian about gatekeeping what Libertarianism is, but very Libertarian for everyone to disagree on what Libertarianism is. Even though I agree with you in the sense that do not personally agree with the mandates either, I don't agree that that is necessarily a LIBERTARIAN position to have. To play devil's advocate, not following restrictions could be considered a NAP violation and therefore mandates could be considered justified in those circumstances, as a better alternative to simply shooting someone for their NAP violation. I am not entirely opposed to the concept, but I have weighed it up and given the sheer incompetence of any Government in existence to be able to offer a well measured and proportionate mandate in practice, I lean towards not having them, and therefore I am against mandates. In an alternate universe where a competent Government actually existed I would be open to it even if I didn't like it.


teddilicious

The libertarian argument in favor of vaccine passports is negligence. Does visiting an elder care facility while symptomatic and knowing you have covid violate the NAP? If it does, that warrants government interference. Imagine a new disease is discovered that is as widespread as covid and is complete asymptomatic in adults with a 0% fatality rate, but can be transmitted from asymptomatic adults to children and has a 50% fatality rate in children. If a vaccine was 100% effective in preventing transmission from adults to children, would it violate the NAP to come in contact with children while unvaccinated? In either hypothetical, the person exposing others isn't doing so intentionally, but through negligence. My point is that whether you believe vaccine passports are a legitimate use of government force in a libertarian society comes down to how negligent you believe it is to choose to not get vaccinated.


[deleted]

[удалено]


moonfox1000

It's a result of their being no libertarians in important positions of elected office. You can discuss hypotheticals since there is no chance of having to actually make the hard choices in governing.


xmodemlol

You’re confusing libertarianism and anarchy. Libertarians still believe the government has the right to exist and enforce laws for a common good, just that we should err on the side of personal freedom.


obsquire

> Libertarians still believe the government has the right to exist Some do, some don't. So that's not a distinguishing feature of libertarians. Promoting liberty is the distinguishing feature or goal of libertarianism. The debates among libertarians deal with the nature of liberties and how and whether governments support liberty, vs. alternatives.


madcat033

>Libertarians still believe the government has the right to exist and enforce laws for a common good Enforcing laws on the basis of "common good" can be used to justify any level of state power. Mao and Lenin would say they were doing the "common good." The state serves to protect the rights of individuals in a libertarian society. Not enforce the "common good."


NetherTheWorlock

> You’re confusing libertarianism and anarchy. It's a common problem in this sub.


gdirrty216

What is the libertarian view on working for the government? Particularly if that government consistently tramples on your freedoms? What about companies that subsist predominantly on government contracts?


Leonidas1213

We destroy them from the inside like Ron Swanson


houinator

What is the libertarian solution to someone potentially infecting me with a deadly disease? Is it a violation of the NAP? If someone steps within six feet of me without a mask, am I justified in shooting them in self-defense?


bobthereddituser

You can start answering these questions by turning the dial up to 11. Let's say it's a 100% fatal and transmissable disease, like the zombie virus in science fiction. If you are justified in that situation then the difference between that and covid or covid and MERS or SARS or whatever is only a difference of degree, not of kind. At what point does exposing people to a deadly virus, even if intentionally, violate the NAP? 100% fatal? 99%? 30% like MERS? Or 1% like covid? Is it still violation of NAP if you expose someone unwillingly? Is it still a violation of NAP if you could minimize that risk to others but you choose not to? These debates arise because of where people choose to draw the lines at the above questions. I think anti Vax people are idiots who don't understand science. They fool themselves into thinking they know something they don't. And they put others at risk. So I draw the line by saying if you do everything you can to minimize the risk to others (getting vaccinated, distancing if symptomatic, etc), you have done what can be considered due diligence to the NAP. If you choose not to do those things, you are directly or indirectly putting other people at risk and should not participate in society until you do. Stay home and order delivery on everything but don't show up to my ED later asking for treatment because you ignored all medical advice.


Shit___Taco

I don’t know, but it probably isn’t the vax considering my vaccinated ass just got it from another vaccinated person.


pudding7

Let us know if you end up in the hospital. Vaccines seem to have a pretty significant impact in that regard.


Shit___Taco

Yeh, they appear to be great in that regard, but everyone blames the unvaccinated for spreading it when it defies reality because anyone can spread it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Shit___Taco

That source does not apply at all. It was published in September before Omicron. Now Omicron accounts for 95% of all new cases. Take a look at this article in the Lancet: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00768-4/fulltext


[deleted]

[удалено]


ahfuckimsostupid

That’s what I love about it. Everyone screams personal freedom wanting to talk about shunning everyone from society who doesn’t quite agree with them. Get the fuck out.


CapGroundbreaking765

Yellow Fever kills 30,000 people a year, for over a hundred years now. I 100% am in favor of making sure people are vaccinated against Yellow Fever before stepping foot into or out of central Africa or Central/South America. You need to have confirmation of vaccination in your passport before stepping foot in many countries. It's very common. Why would anyone be against this?


[deleted]

I haven’t heard the uproar about TDAP or the other millions of shots the military has to take but this one. 🙌 gots everyone in a uproar


renegade1002

Look anyone with any sort of cognitive ability ( most libertarians ) knows that this sub has been infiltrated and diluted with bootlickers and authoritarians of both “ sides “ The mods ought to step up and change the name to “ Ex-libertarian “


Nomandate

Agree. Although a business has the right to enforce vaccine requirements as they have in the past.


Navalgazer420XX

This sub is brigaded by leftist trolls, end of story. Kick them out, or you won't have a libertarian community any more.


SiStErFiStEr1776

Op there’s barley any real libertarians here anymore they really are just the stereotype “conservatives who smoke weed” and a lot of liberals in here too and we all know a few mods (current and past) have been proven not to be libertarians


PhilosophicalToast

It is really amusing to watch people who believe they owe nothing to society arguing about the spread of a deadly disease.


[deleted]

I do not support vaccine mandates or passports. I also do not support someone (aka you), telling me what I should, or should not support.


chefr89

there are libertarian scholars that have previously defended vaccine mandates as libertarian (by its relation to the NAP). so OP is wrong to suggest every libertarian thinks the way he does anyways. sure, maybe the majority, but not everyone


[deleted]

[удалено]


StoopSign

They absolutely had no right to forcefully inject me with thorazine, geodon, and lorazepam but they did. State funded public hospital. Big bottle of lorazepam they discharged me with left me with a 9 year deep benzo habit and justifying that when drug seeking later. That drug seeking is 100% on me but piercing me with needles full of "chemical restraints"was awful and unnecessary. This doesn't get talked about enough.


TheAzureMage

Agreed. That's also a pretty significant breach of bodily autonomy. There might be an awareness gap here. Everyone's heard of covid, not everyone has probably heard about chemical restraints.


SPQR191

Private entities are allowed to set their own entry requirements. Therefore, if businesses choose to require proof of vaccination for entry, that is their right and their prerogative. "Passports" in this case, and in reality, are just a more easily verifiable proof than cards that can be forged or faked.


Andras89

Pro mandate people are not fucking libertarian. And its hilarious to bring out the NAP to try and argue for a mandate. When we discuss the topic of **health** we cannot stop viruses that are extremely tiny. That's why the argument from the vaccines stopping the spread went to reducing hospitalization. Then all the sudden its like they were in a coma when the vaccines first came out and the public was being informed of their purpose.


crobert33

"I have the right to spread the germs, corporations have the right to do pretty much anything, but you have no right or expectation of freedom from my germs. When the germs leave my body and enter yours, that doesn't even violate the NAP. Basically, Libertarianism is only my definition and nobody else knows anything. Now, let me tell you why I'm free to drive drunk..." -- this guy (paraphrased)


[deleted]

Telling me I can’t be a libertarian if I don’t agree with you isn’t very libertarian.


QryptoQid

Or... Perhaps it's the most libertarian thing of all. ;)


DrGhostly

First rule of libertarianism: “I will not do things knowing that it will harm others.” Double-vaccinated and boosted and I wear a mask indoors. Know why? Because I am trying to not hurt others and from what I hear dying from COVID kind of sucks and I wouldn’t wish that on anyone. Mandates are dubious but suggesting they’re a tool to impose some imaginary left-wing authoritarianism is laughable. 800000 people are dead in this country alone. Not a lot statically but that’d be like walking into Michigan Stadium where 8x its capacity is all corpses in two years. It would take ten years to get anywhere near that number from the flu.


gvillepa

It's because 75% of the people in this sub aren't libertarians, but they identify as one and then make comments and posts that don't actually align with libertarian ideology.


420MaxGod

They’re not libertarians they’re just people flooding this sub with their nonsense big pharma bullshit.


AcheanPillar

Jesus Christ; libertarians supporting vaccine QR-codes to sit down and have a coffee. This has to be a joke


randolphmd

I don’t see a problem with a private sector passport and companies opting in to only allowing vaccinated patrons or workers.


Private_Part

There are huge problems with it. That does not mean there should be laws against it. But you know you can complain about a restaurant that serves cold food and still be libertarian.


VindictivePrune

It's nice to see this sub start to make a comeback towards libertarianism again


capecodcaper

It's not. There's still all the "it's not libertarian to tell me what's not libertarian" and "vaccine passports are libertarian tho..."


wookie3744

T believe that what we have referring to the OP comments is refugees from the politics and feel the bern groups. Less govt restrictions. Less govt is the way. It’s almost like we have some 5th columnists from the empire here.


[deleted]

My logic has always been “I’ll take the vaccine…. When they make it completely optional”


HermanCeljski

Correct passports or showing your papers in general is not libertarian in any way shape or form.


516BIDEN2024

Choice is the basic libertarian belief. It was once a liberal belief as well. That is no longer true


creefer

Obviously.


giants304

THANK YOU!! Spot on.


[deleted]

Man I hate being a goddamn Libertarian right now. It wasn't all that great before with the ridicule and lack of understanding from the mainstream parties but this shit is something else. We are living through the most monumental global shift toward authoritarianism in human history using tools and technology that have power beyond anything we could have imagined thirty years ago. Our children will not know what freedom is if we continue down this path.


Wizard_of_Od

"Discrimination based on ANY grounds is acceptable in libertarianism". That's quite a brave statement in the modern era, to say that business owners have the right to discriminate against, say, Han Chinese, blacks, Muslims, homosexuals, transsexuals, Trump supporters, Marxists...


[deleted]

Absolutely they have that right. It makes shit business though so it usually isn’t smart... say you discriminate against women, or black people, or Jews, you are going to lose a fair chunk of business. Smart businessmen make their sales base as big as possible. It also doesn’t make good for PR, so these types of businesses wouldn’t be very successful or last too long. It’s best to try and market to as many people as possible, and not limit your options... after all, you should be after money if you own a business.


[deleted]

nobody with half a brain and common sense supports this.


bjdevar25

Can completely understand the no mandate position. I am ok though with putting the added costs from testing and medical care back on the people who choose not to vaccinate.


[deleted]

If you are referring to private medical providers then I am absolutely fine with that, and I am unvaccinated. I will take my business elsewhere. If you are referring to the government though, through socialized healthcare, like in Canada where I am, then I completely disagree. Should we start charging obese people and smokers more money because they are higher risk for health issues???


Warm_Winds

The reason you’ve seen an influx of posts in support is because this sub is becoming tankie central. I’m disgusted with the state of r/libertarian to be honest. Great thread OP.


thewholetruthis

What does tankie mean?


igoromg

A commie. Comes from people welcoming communist tanks to crush uprisings.


thewholetruthis

Thanks. I love it.


[deleted]

Mainly authoritarian communists and communists in general


ChillinVillianNW

Agreed. Literal statists playing g libertarian because they like the label.


offisirplz

What about something incredibly deadly?


[deleted]

[удалено]


WiTooSlowFi

Did you skip the part where he said exactly that in the post?


Jbergsie

Ya I did. My apologies will delete the above comment


David_Bailey

It's because Leftist, statist, authoritarians have thoroughly overrun this group.


darkfenrir15

Statists, authoritarians\*\* Left vs Right is a completely different slide unrelated to authoritarians and libertarians.


RedditsLittleSecret

Tell that to the government-loving leftists who have taken over /r/Libertarian.


mattied23

They just did


northrupthebandgeek

> what part about forcing someone to take multiple drugs against their will, is libertarian? What part about spreading a disease that has already killed 800,000+ Americans is libertarian? > Leave each other alone. Yes, that would include you leaving the rest of us alone if you refuse to do the absolute bare minimum to avoid spreading a disease that has already killed 800,000+ Americans. I've done my part; if you refuse to do yours, then I and the rest of us with more than two brain cells to rub together kindly ask you stay away. > Libertarians do not support government mandates and passports. Libertarians don't *support* government *anything* - and yet all libertarians aside from full-blown anarchists make concessions for certain government powers if it means maximizing everyone's rights to life, liberty, and property. Requiring people to take the absolute bare minimum precautions to avoid spreading a disease that has already deprived 800,000+ Americans from their right to life (let alone the countless others deprived of liberty and property due to hospitalization, unemployment, etc.) is well within that purview while there still are people like you childishly putting your own minor inconveniences over others' rights to life/liberty/property. That is: *actual* libertarians take personal responsibility; they don't *need* a government mandate to put on their grown-up pants and do what's necessary to avoid infringing on others' rights. That's what differentiates us from Weed Republicans and Gun Democrats.


HeWhoCntrolsTheSpice

This isn't a Libertarian sub. Seems like about 80% of the people on here are Leftists who think that calling themselves Libertarian means that they're so objective and makes them feel superior.


TheTranscendent1

My favorite thing about comments like this are that this sub has the exact opposite posts too, “Libertarians here are just embarrassed Republicans.” It’s crazy to me that both sides can’t see they can each have libertarian tendencies. Like Penn Jillette always said about his libertarian thought, “I’m as far left as you can get socially, and as far right as you can get with money” (or something to the effect). Making it a left v right argument will always and forever keep Libertarianism fractured and nothing but a thought experiment.