There is no such thing as a right wing libertarian
No S
I’m serious
Removed by mod
Obviously, the fake libertarians do it every day, lib.
You’re correct. It’s a spectrum, not a line. Social and economic policy are two independent axes in defining political ideology.
Ugh
Go ahead and draw a line that encompasses these ideologies:
Libertarians support high social liberty and low economic support
DemocratsLiberals support high social liberty and high economic supportRepublicansConservatives support low social liberty and low economic supportEdited to clarify ideology vs. party. My original labels caused a lot of confusion.
Republicans support … low economic support
Except for when it comes to GOP public office holders and corporations. In both those cases Republicans support high economic support.
Low economic support means lower taxes and minimal social programs, along with minimal subsidies and regulations on business.
🤢
I’m assuming that means you’re not capable of defining those ideologies on a line.
It’s kind of silly to think that all political ideologies can be defined on one line isn’t it?
Which is a different thing than a spectrum, right? Putting your little data points on a line, assigning number values to seizing the means and chattel slavery?
Its a spectrum that exists on the left running from libertarian to authoritarian. Not from capitalist to socialist. Democrats, Democratic socialist, social Democrats are not the same thing or part of a spectrum of Democrats. They are distinct and different ideologies that share a term but disagree on many other things. There are no left wing Republicans despite authoritarians existing on both the left and the right.
Libertarianism is a left wing ideology born of the 19th century. The concept of a right-wing libertarian was not widely accepted before the red scare of the 1950s and '60s. Nearly a century later. Because it is quite literally impossible to be a capitalist and favor that kind of freedom. When your concept of freedom is the freedom of capital. If capital is free we are all slaves to it. And therefore not free.
Deeper than that be very basic concept of capitalism is authoritarian in nature. It’s concept of private property as opposed to personal property requires a strong authority to enforce it and protect it. Being absolutely incompatible with actual libertarianism. Or the concept of public property as as envisioned by Actual libertarianism.
Further it is a gross misrepresentation to saying that Libertarians or even anarchists are anti-government, or anti-economic redistribution. Strictly speaking that’s just capitalists. All Libertarians or anarchists want is small, more granular, and accountable government. Said government to collecting funds via taxing for robust public housing is not anti libertarian or even anti-anarchist. It’s just anti-capitalist.
And just to finish off. Wikipedia isn’t necessarily authorative. And political Compass despite being wildly more accurate than the political Spectrum as often portrayed in Western Nations is still a misrepresentation.
Just one of many examples of how a linear scale cannot place all ideologies are current Libertarians. For example, I’m friends with a libertarian couple that are fiscally conservative, and socially liberal. Where would you place them? What about someone who supports social economic systems as well as Christian Nationalism? You can’t force data to fit into an assigned scale. A scale must be selected to accommodate the available data. There’s a reason professors have been using the political compass or Nolan Chart in higher education for the last twenty years.
That organizational need only applies to ideologies, however. The current state of political parties in the US, for example, is somewhat linear.
Confused.
Socially liberal fiscally conservative is the most meaningless label/platitude in American politics for sure. Even some Republicans will classified themselves that way. As well as Larp-atarians and democrats. Truly meaningless. Of the three groups Democrats probably come closest to actually being that. While still falling well far of it. Literally everyone is conservative with their resources, but wants everyone to believe they aren’t anti social.
Homeless as an example. Everyone treats it like some complex unsolvable problem. When everybody knows the solution. Give them actual housing. The kind that allows them to have stability and security in their life. Not just access to a shower, and overnight use of a random cott in a roach/rat infested building that they’re forcefully turned out of every morning. With no regular access to actual meals. If we just “gave actual housing” to them. That would take care of 60 to 80% of homeless. The few that would remain don’t have homeless as a primary problem.
A libertarian might debate whether we should do this at the town/city, county, state or national level. They wouldn’t argue that we shouldn’t, or already are doing too much to address it. As many larp-atarians do. Larp-atarians can’t even agree on a basic concept of freedom beyond capital/capitalism.
Many, but not all support legalization of marijuana. Many but not all even support equal rights. Whether it’s about racial, gender, or sexual lines. The term that best describes Larp-atarians, is selfish. Their views on freedoms etc don’t really extend much beyond themselves. And worse. Many will vote Republican if there isn’t a Larp-atarian on the ballot. Which considering how anti free speech etc they’ve been for decades. Makes them an extremely anti libertarian group to vote for whether you consider yourself right or left.
And what about the Christian Nationalist who supports increased social programs from my example? Or are you going to redefine their beliefs with arrogant condemnation to fit your analysis as well?
Fascist. Because they only support that with the expectation of being given deference or increasing their power at the cost of everyone who rejects or refuses them. Not to compare them literally to Hitler or the nazis. But Hitler offered social support to his chosen people as well. That doesn’t make him a good person. Or even right.
Take the proselytization out. Give it unconditionally like the Samaritan did. It’s one of the biggest parables in Christian teaching. So It’s oddly suspicious they all ignore it. Either they’re not really Christian. Or they could use to read their book.
There’s no arrogance or redefinition of beliefs involved anywhere here. It’s all facts and history. You are welcome to believe anything you want. Because belief specifically does not require truth facts or knowledge. Often it’s the opposite.
Also note when I use the term fascist to describe them I made a point of specifically not comparing them directly to Hitler or the nazis. Just because someone’s a fascist does not necessarily mean they are a monster. Fascism however always leads to monsters.
And just to finish since I sense that you’re getting emotional and defensive here. I see you around quite a bit and generally upvote your posts. Because you seem generally pretty on the ball and have a reasonable understanding. I simply disagree with you on this point. And have pointed out factually, philosophically, and historically why. I just hope at some point you take the time to read and consider. You are more than welcome to disagree after that. Just consider that because something is written, no matter where it is written. Does not inherently make it true.
That’s just, like, your opinion man!
Progressives are more in support of authoritarianism than they realize. Censoring speech is authoritarian by definition. It’s the primary reason I don’t identify as one.Edit: Consider putting the power, and setting the precedent, of subjectively altering the first amendment in the hands of this conservative SCOTUS. Is that really a great idea? Fascism arrives as your friend.Second edit: It turns out that I’ve been misinformed about progressives supporting hate speech censorship. Sorry about the confusion. Have a good night.
Since when do progressives censor speech?
Edit:
Consider putting the power, and setting the precedent, of altering the first amendment in the hands of this conservative SCOTUS. Is that really a great idea? Fascism arrives as your friend.
Again, when have progressives done this? How are progressives responsible for how a conservative SCOTUS rules on First Amendment rights? Specifically, what legislation has been drafted by progressives that censor hate speech? I have yet to see anyone aside from social media, who have their own set of codes of conduct, be censored by the government over hate speech.
A perfect example would be how Republicans say the craziest racist shit and aren’t censored for it. If anything, it gets plastered all over the news. So your logic is highly flawed, champ.
Literally everyone censors speech, and is fine with it. Everyone, with exceptions so scant that may as well not exist at all.
Laws that prohibit workplace harassment. Defamation. Laws that punish incitements to violence. Laws that punish fraud and confidence scams. Laws against insider trading. Even things like RICO. These are ALL, in varying forms, limits on speech that are basically uncontentious to most normal, well-balanced people. These are limits on speech so ubiquitous and accepted that people have actually somehow convinced themselves that somehow “free” speech is clearly categorically different than these other things even when it plainly isn’t.
The only people sincerely for (edit: total) free speech are honest-to-god anarchists. True “free speech absolutists” basically do not exist, and when someone claims to be one it really just means they want to be able to get away with using racial slurs in public.
I completely agree, I was just thrown off by OP’s statement that progressives censor hate speech since I am not aware of any legislation specifically passed that makes it illegal for the common person to make hate speech.
I don’t think he’s being sincere.
I was. I’m learning now that I’ve been misinformed. I’m very happy to be wrong about this.
Not at all. I don’t need laws to be a respectful person. Do you need religion to be a good person?
I’m educated enough in political science to know that one of the most common ways to create a dictatorship is to leverage fear of the right to enact socially controlling legislation with the support of the left, then slowly begin to leverage that same legislation against the leader’s enemies. It’s prevalent throughout human history, and a proven system for inevitable authoritarian control.
Incidentally, the other most common way to create a dictatorship is by leveraging the military and police forces against the people, as Trump plans to do in Project 2025. Just food for thought.
In modern history, it’s typically the right wing dictators that got voted in through “legal” means, and it’s the right wing dictators that achieve power by slowly controlling what can and cannot be said by the media. The leftist dictatorships, if you want to call the soviet-style ones as such, do so through violence and the military. You have it exactly backwards which sins here come from which wing. It doesn’t pass a common sense test, so I think you may need to go back to school.
And let’s not get bogged down in utter bullshit. We’re talking about “progressive” censorship here, which almost certainly means hate speech laws. There have been exactly zero dictatorships that flowed out of political movements of intentional inclusivity. Neither the Nazis nor Soviets were concerned with “hate speech”. They both were all about it.
I didn’t say the dictators were left wing. You’re right, they’ve been almost exclusively right wing leaders. I said they begin by getting support from the left to enact social legislation against the right, then begin to leverage that newly created power against the enemies of the government, including media. It’s the most common first step onto the slippery slope.
You said it yourself. Media censorship leads to authoritarian control.
But literally all modern states have media censorship. Literally all of them. For example, prohibitions on libel or fraud. That’s censorship. Confidentiality of national secrets is a form of censorship. Hell, even copyright laws can be interpreted as a form of censorship.
When it’s hate speach
I have yet to see any legislation passed by progressives that censor hate speech.
It’s been my understanding that hate speech censorship has been a progressive ideal for many years now. I’m learning tonight that it’s not actually the case. It was the primary reason I drifted from the ideology.
I am very aware of how free speech is already regulated in regards to inciting violence or a riot, as well as its hierarchical place regarding a content or conduct policy. What concerns me, is regulating speech in regards to an intangible.
I’m a very empathetic person, and it’s painful for me to say, but I don’t believe it’s safe to empower our government to legislate speech in regards to feelings. Unlike inciting violence, the impact is subjective. If we define it as verbal or written attacks on a protected class, then who is to define what classes are protected? How often do we amend it as new classes are created? How do we define a verbal attack? That is a slippery slope of precedent that can be used against all of us, as well as journalists, under the wrong administration.
With that being said, I’m very surprised to learn that all of the calls for hate speech censorship from the far-left have faded away. I’m very happy to hear it, and I’m sorry for causing such a commotion with my misunderstanding.
It’s been my understanding that hate speech censorship has been a progressive ideal for many years now.
Progressives prefer direct means to combat hate speech, instead of relying on legislation. And if you see one punch a nazi, no you didn’t. That nazi fell.
In all seriousness, I absolutely believe private platforms owe their users a content policy that protects them from attacks. I just don’t think it should be legislated. If Elon want to turn X into a cesspool, it’s no different than your local bar becoming a racist dive. You just find a new place to go with your friends on a Saturday night.
deleted by creator
Second edit: It turns out that I’ve been misinformed about progressives supporting hate speech censorship. Sorry about the confusion. Have a good night.
No, you were LIED to by malicious actors trying to turn you against people who are, at least broadly speaking, more aligned with your goals than against. There is a reason communists historically kill social democrats before going after fascists, because they’re afraid of diluting power between similar parties. They want sole power so badly they are willing to risk fascists getting it if they think it gives them a better chance.
Then here you come with “sorry I’ve been misinformed” like it was an innocent mistake. Either you know you’re acting in bad faith or you’re uncritically regurgitating what others have told you in bad faith. The people telling you that stuff are not your friends, they are just manipulators who want to stir shit between two groups fighting the same enemy.
So you weren’t misinformed, you just fucked up, try taking some personal responsibility and go back to figure out where you went wrong and who you should be trusting.
Ok, then I fucked up. I wasn’t protecting my pride. I was legitimately misinformed, and haven’t had this conversation until now. Call it whatever you’d like. Your opinion of me is of no consequence.
Most of my friends are liberals, some are republicans, others libertarians. I haven’t been close with my progressive friends since I used to tour with Phish in the ‘90s. Lol
Sometime around ten years ago, I distinctly recall reading articles and seeing videos of progressive politicians calling for censorship. In hindsight, that was leading up to the mass disinformation campaigns of the 2016 election, so it makes sense how I could’ve made the mistake of consuming media at face value. I remember centrists began referring to progressives as “the regressive left” due to the initiative. None of those calls came from Bernie, so I still voted for him in the primary, but it certainly turned me off to the ideology.
As I said, I’m happy to have learned otherwise. I’ve been supporting progressive ideals since the ‘90s. That hasn’t changed, only my comfort identifying as one.
Kennedy was eliminated in the first round of voting after receiving support from 19 delegates, or just 2.07% of delegates.
Earlier, Libertarian Party Chair Angela McArdle had ruled that former president Donald J. Trump was not even qualified to be considered for nomination because he did not submit the proper nominating papers. Trump, however, received six write-in votes – defeating Stormy Daniels, Denali the Cat, and Sean Ono Lennon.
I mean, if it was Stormy v Biden, we might have us a horse race . . . But it ain’t.
I imagine the Stormy write-ins were trolling Trump
I’ll allow it
Good. He should be rejected by everyone. First libertarians boo Trump, then they reject Brainworm.
They were right twice in the same 24 hour period. The adage about broken clocks is true.
Nitpick: Stopped, not broken. A stopped clock is right twice a day. A broken clock may never be right at all.
It’s really the end times when Libertarians seem like the more well-adjusted, rational crowd compared to Republicans.
I dunno, I think they booed because trump isn’t insane enough, and they probably realize rfk Jr was an op to steal dem votes from biden.
There’s a bunch of sane Libertarians out there, believe it or not.
I choose not
Fair.
… If they set up a hologram of John McAfee, with Ai voice mod, like a VTuber sort of, I am 100% certain it would win.
Eh, he lost the nomination every time he ran iirc
Dude was like the tiger King with a bit more cocaine
There’s a tiny part of me that believes he said the CIA was after him then faked his own death and is in hiding on a secret island surrounded by hookers and blow.
Make Whalefucking Great Again!
Yo know you fucked up when the people normally telling everyone to shhhhh are making noise by booing you.
It’s too bad the worm didn’t have what it took to finish the job.
Wait, then who will be their nominee? Will we finally have one, even minor, candidate that is anti-genocide?
Removed by mod
Oh, they won’t win, but it is very curious that a position held by a great number of Americans isn’t even represented as a candidate. Of course, the same goes for marijuana legalization and a lot of other things that Biden breaks with the democrats on, but it still is odd that no small party is filling the void.
Sort of like if the British lib-dems were against rejoining the E.U.
Removed by mod
I don’t think either are supposed to have a shot. They were supposed to bring media attention to the libertarians (which they did)
Chase Oliver is the libertarian nomination and one of his common quotes is that he is “anti-war to the core”. Anybody with sympathy towards Gaza should absolutely be considering voting for Chase in November.
They’re clearly Bernie Bros, all of them
Libertarians?
It’s an obvious joke, but Bernie actually did pretty well in that crowd. A lot of libertarians are ultimately just rural voters who think anything out of Washington is the enemy, and thus anything anti-establishment is on their side.
That’s some wishful thinking nothing libertarian about it though
That’s libertarianism in a nutshell, though. A political ideology founded from liberalism which claims to reject all of liberalism while also being just the same as liberalism embraced by people who actually kind of hate liberalism. It’s a lot of very confused voters registered to that party.
While you are entitled to your opinion I’m pretty sure I would be the authority having been in the party for over a decade. Libertarians in general care about the Non aggression principal. Beyond that we don’t agree on much we are a contentious bunch.
Look, there’s definitely some people who lean “libertarian” on paper who have valuable and interesting insights. Chuck Mahron/Strong Towns, for example. They’re A+ in political ideas and messaging and you can definitely see NAP center stage if you read between the lines of what they are saying. Except I’ve never heard him use the word “libertarian”. I suspect because he knows it is a poisoned brand and just generally doesn’t like labels, though that’s just supposition.
But apply some Bayesian theory here and don’t engage in any No True Scotsmanship. If someone tells you they are a “libertarian”, that information on its own should give you HIGH confidence the person is somewhere between “Republican who has a gay daughter he doesn’t want to see lynched” and “total crank sovereign citizen type”. There’s 1,000 false positives for every true one.
If I were you, holding the sincere beliefs I have no reason to question you having, I would not want to be identified by that word.
Online in particular is a crap shoot. It’s a small enough demographic that it’s easy to be overrun.
In 15 years my local LP has gone from weird old racist fucks to younger people that are pretty fantastic. The 2020 state convention had me pleasantly surprised. We were heavily involved in supporting the pro-choice vote we had (and won) and, while the dinosaurs aren’t dead, they were completely ostracized.
Everything is allowed except aggression, defined as disproportional (non-similar) force, meaning force that would exceed a targets momentary aggressiveness (see meter) defined as the total (cumulative) aggression applied by the target minus the cumulative force received (in response) by the target at that moment.
You’re saying the only thing libertarians have in common is a poorly defined, subjective “principal”…
I’m glad you want to have a discourse and aren’t being disingenuous, oh wait…
The NAP is a moral rule that states that any person is permitted to do whatever they want with their property except when such action agressess on someone elses property, which is in turn defined as the application of or threat of physical interference or breach of agreement. The principle is also called the non-initiation of force
It’s a belief in personal liberty, but the NAP is a useful analytical tool. Different people have different limits, though. It’s a fairly robust way to approximate negative rights.
Sounds like every other party.
Democratic socialists have quite a lot in common with real libertarians.
Just not in regards to what these chuckleheads think is the most, and usually only, important human right.
Trump and jr sure know their audience.
