Famous libertarian Friedrich Hayek supported universal basic income. As a libertarian myself, I always ask myself: “Will this make people more free?” If the answer is yes, then I support it because that’s what true libertarianism is. In the case of UBI and universal healthcare, both of those would unequivocally make people more free. People will be more free to choose a profession they like rather than one that merely keeps a roof over their heads. America already has a form of limited universal healthcare. It just happens to be restricted to the military and maybe some other government servants. Those members don’t have to worry about their healthcare and it allows them to focus their attention on more important matters, as their healthcare needs are met. Clearly the government has seen that universal healthcare is beneficial.
The sovereign citizens and the right wingers masquerading as Libertarians have given the ideology a bad name.
I recently got out of the military and it’s been a complete shock how bad the private healthcare system is. So much red tape, so many charges, so much money being spent on both ends: to the insurance company, again to the insurance company (copays), and then to the provider when the insurance company won’t cover things.
With Tricare? “Hey doc, I need this med for my migraines.” “Alright, here you go.” No charge.
The American health system is a complete scam keeping people under the boot of their employers and of the for-profit insurance companies.
Famous libertarian Friedrich Hayek supported universal basic income
That’s a lie people love to repeat. Hayek was in favor of helping people who needed help, he explicitly was against money for freeloaders.
American “Libertarians” consider liberty as self-sufficiency, not just freedom from a government, but from being required to contribute to society as a whole.
Removed by mod
Libertarians are a bunch of myopic cunts.
Libertarians don’t give a flying fuck about liberty. It is an authoritarian movement that aims to eliminate any force standing in the way of their organizing society into a rigid hierarchy predicated upon wealth. A government that is answerable to the people is a countervailing force against the formation (or re-formation I suppose) of such a system. That was indeed the whole reason such a government was invented in the first place.
I don’t think it’s quite so organized as this mindset leads to extremely self-absorbed and selfish people who arent good at organizing en masse. Multiple times now, libertarians have tried to form their own communities on land and sea and it always falls apart once they actually try to form the communities as it just turns into government rules and taxes like we have now. They don’t even want to live by their own group’s authority.
Libertarians are political extremists who hate anything related to the government but don’t care about being oppressed by private businesses, or they think that it simply won’t happen in their utopia. Libertarians are everything they hate about the woke left, only applied to the government.
Because they really just don’t want to pay taxes, which are needed to fund universal healthcare.
Also most people who say they’re libertarian have no clue what the word means, and are morons.
They don’t want to pay taxes because they don’t like how government uses taxes and don’t trust the government to do a good job. Plus, it’s an additional layer of bureaucracy at the top which costs more money and is less efficient.
If you think private healthcare is more efficient than single payer healthcare when EVERY PIECE OF DATA WE HAVE says the opposite then I think that says more about you than it does about the government.
That graph is relating cost of healthcare to quality. Not necessarily comparing cost of countries with universal healthcare to America. Additonally, most of the healthcare spending in America is already by the government and look how that’s going. America is also significantly larger than any of those countries listed. Overseeing healthcare for a country so large requires way more overhead.
Every graph of healthcare costs vs privatisation with the US in it is necessarily a comparison between private and public healthcare systems since most countries have single payer as most of their healthcare.
The US government healthcare programs are by far the most cost effective offering in the US but it’s hampered by regulations such as not having the ability to negotiate prices (until the recent tiny concession on a handful of drugs that has paid off in spades).
Finally, other large countries including India and China may have lower life expectancy, but they’re close and rising rapidly compared the stagnant US trends. Of course the bang for the buck they get is at least 5x what the US gets with its ridiculous system
No, that’s saying too much. They don’t want to pay. Full stop. That’s it.
There is zero thought beyond being mad about paying something.
This is a bit of a loaded question and very poorly written. Bad troll is bad.
The problem stands that modern “Libertarians” have been corrupted by corporations and conservative bigots to mean “elimination of government and regulation” and not “government to uphold liberty” like it originally did. A correctly Libertarian government would write laws that solely uphold the power of the individual’s self determination, which inherently requires restriction of the power of capital.
I consider myself Libertarian, but I feel there now has to be a distinction made between “Capital Libertarians” and “Individual Libertarians”. One wants the liberty of capital, the other wants the liberty of the individual. I find myself in the latter. Corporations can go fuck themselves, the individual is paramount.
“Socialist” things like public infrastructure, and yes, public healthcare, would be supported by individual libertarianism. Social support structures like these support individual liberty but restrict capital liberty by requiring taxes to support them, whereas supporting capital liberty by making it “pay as you go” does nothing but remove the individual liberty of the population that finds themselves without any capital through no fault of their own. I absolutely support universal healthcare.
100% Libertarianism originated as a left wing movement in the 19th century. Right wing libertarianism didn’t ooze out of the swamp till nearly a century later. In the mid 20th century. Post red scare when actual leftist were keeping their heads down due to fascist witch hunts. And unable to really call out the posers.
Real libertarians don’t have a problem with government. They just believe that it should be focused on maximizing freedom, and access to it. Where the larpers are all about maximizing their personal freedom (privilege) and don’t care if others have access.
“Left wing”, and “right wing” are far too nebulous to really have any continuous historical use. Even in current parlance they are borderline useless terms.
Only to people who don’t understand the difference.
Used to think I was libertarian. But now I think it’s too absolute of an ideal to be any good for humanity. I definitely think free healthcare, housing, food, and education should be guarenteed for everyone.
Your comment precisely expresses my attitude. When it came up i used to say that I was fiscally conservative and social liberal. A Libertarian.
But the older I get the more I realize that Libertarianism isn’t the fiction of Atlas Shrugged. There are many people of great worth that cannot be Dagny Taggart or Howard Roark.
Rand failed to take into account that the allure of increasing wealth subverts many bright creators into becoming resource vampires that in turn become oppressors. Ayn Rand would have loved Mark Zuckerberg’s rise through intelligence and hard work, but what would she think of what he’s ultimately built and what it’s done to society?
Real people aren’t as altruistic has her characters.
But now I think it’s too absolute of an ideal to be any good for humanity.
Would you mind elaborating on this?
I’d rather not :D I’m not trying to convince anyone what to think. If you disagree, I trust you have a good reason for it.
I’d rather not :D I’m not trying to convince anyone what to think. If you disagree, I trust you have a good reason for it.
Without elaboration, you are engaging in conjecture. There is no argument to disagree, or agree with.
Well that settles it then :)
Removed by mod
Except the ones that truly understand liberty… That comes with age
Removed by mod
On a political spectrum, the term libertarian should relate to anti-authoritarian. So, I can see how the case can be made against socialized healthcare for them. It’s not really about true freedom or liberty. And in the US anyway, it’s largely just facade co-opted by the
fascist[authoritarian and wealthy] right wing, ironically.The word “Libertarian” in US has less relation to the dictionary definition than “Republican” and “Democrat”. These are names of parties over here, even if they have a namesake of governmental mechanisms.
Examples:
Ron Johnson said in a single breath that he was a libertarian and opposed the legalization of marijuana.
Find the average “libertarian” policy position on border policies.
US politics is unfortunately entrenched in tribalism rather than searching for the right tool to match a job or solve a problem and maximize outcomes, the libertarians over here are no exception.
On a political spectrum, the term libertarian should relate to anti-authoritarian
Sure, but we’re not on a political spectrum. Political names are codified as part of a propaganda campaign advanced by the original party leaders. Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, Constitution Party, Reformers, Socialists (both National and International) are - at their heart - marketing taglines, fully divorced from the beliefs and policies of their constituencies.
Ron Johnson said in a single breath that he was a libertarian and opposed the legalization of marijuana.
He’s only the latest iteration. I might send you back to Murray Rothbard and Ludwig Von Mises, the OG American Anarcho-Capitalists, both of which had some bizarre theories about what constituted “small government” from the perspective of a Washington DC insider.
Marijuana consumption, much like miscegenation and immigration and unionization, might seem at first glance to be a consequence of independent human agency. But they all carry potential social consequences, particularly against individuals with claim on private property.
By getting high, you’re turning yourself into a public nuisance - possibly even a violent threat - to your landlords. By crossing international borders, you are acting as a member of an invading army and threatening the economic livelihood of prior landed gentry. By unionizing, you are forming a labor cartel - almost certainly crafted through the violent agitation of wicked foreign governments employing the mind-altering ideology of Marxist-Leninism. By miscegenating, you are robbing me of the commodity of a virginal daughter to be traded on the open market.
All of these are acts of violence that threaten the property and security of the rightful landed man. We must rely on the good, honest, well-trained battalion of law enforcement officers in order to uphold the security of that property.
US politics is unfortunately entrenched in tribalism rather than searching for the right tool to match a job or solve a problem and maximize outcomes
The US is focused first and foremost on the claim to private property and the fruitful extraction of wealth from that property. Libertarianism, as an ideology, revolves around defining the extent to which individuals can go in defending that property from evil foreign aggressors and corrupted domestic residents. It endorses a state solely for the upholding of this ideology.
When you combine “Libertarian” with the greed that is typical in the ultra wealthy, their core value typically only includes liberty for themselves and no empathy for others. You can use any party label you want but without empathy, members of every party are nothing more than selfish pieces of shit. Just to be clear, I am not a “they’re all the same” idiot, as Republicans clearly think empathy is a four letter word. But there are sociopaths without empathy everywhere in society, especially in the US.
As far as universal healthcare is concerned, we can’t even agree as a society to provide clean water to our population by removing leaded pipes. Why would we expect something as reasonable as universal healthcare?
When you combine “Libertarian” with the greed that is typical in the ultra wealthy, their core value typically only includes liberty for themselves and no empathy for others.
I would argue that, at that point, they are no longer libertarian. To uphold liberty, as described in libertarianism, is to uphold it universally.
Oh I agree. Even F Hayek in “Road to Surfdom” said that government needs to regulate certain industries (he used the example of pollution and environment ironically). Even the founding father of libertarianism knew that the “free market” is incapable of regulating some things.
said that government needs to regulate certain industries
I completely agree. It is often overlooked that this is core to capitalism — capitalism is a market with adequate regulation to ensure fair competition.
he used the example of pollution and environment ironically
Imo, this is more of a Georgist position, but I could certainly see an argument for its overlap with libertarianism.
Tldr non partisan answer: Libertarian philosophy favors negative rights over positive rights.
Negative rights oblige others to not impede (like not censoring free speech).
Positive rights oblige others to provide something (like healthcare).
Imo, it would be better worded as follows:
- Negative liberty: freedom from something.
- Positive liberty: freedom to do something.
That’s probably the more popular way, but I think it’s easier to misinterpret. For example the freedom of speech, one could think of it as the freedom to speak instead of the freedom from undue censorship. But that right is usually considered a negative one.
For example the freedom of speech, one could think of it as the freedom to speak instead of the freedom from undue censorship.
As I currently understand it, freedom of speech is regarded as a negative liberty because it is purely focused on freedom from the government imposing restrictions on what you can and can’t say. It’s not, however, the government giving you the freedom to say whatever you want, whenever you want, under any circumstance — e.g. people are free to trespass you from their establishment if they don’t like what you are saying.
I agree that it’s a negative liberty. It’s just the from/to language can be misconstrued IMO, the not impede/oblige others framing is more clear without additional information. It’s, again IMO, targeting the core of the differential. Asking of others for inaction vs asking for action.
IIUC, I just think that the intent/mentality is somewhat altered in what you described in this comment. For example, you said “Positive rights oblige others to provide something (like healthcare).” — positive liberty isn’t necessarily about forcing people, in an authoritative manner, to do things for, or to, another person. It’s essentially taking the position that people should have the freedom to experience life on a level playing field, if you will — it is interested in lowering the amount of barriers preventing people from doing what they want. I don’t think your wording is necessarily incorrect, I’m just not convinced that the connotation is the same.
I think this cleared up our disconnect. I chose oblige to indicate that they require others to do something for them to occur. Most often paying taxes, to pay the provider of a service. This typically isn’t a ‘at gunpoint’ interaction. But negative rights will never require another to do something for it to be practiced.
I agree with your highlighting of the philosophy behind them. I was more concerned about a short rememberable way to differentiate the two.
So I chose oblige vs force to make sure it had the connotation of a civil concession.
I’d argue we should give voice to actual libertarians instead of trashing them here.
Like, otherwise you at least don’t help people find how actual libertarians respond.
Removed by mod
Why the hell do you think that libertarians don’t believe in universal healthcare?
It’s not the idea of healthcare being provided to everybody that’s the issue for libertarians. Generally, the issue revolves around how funds are raised for the healthcare. Namely, taxes.
And since when did libertarians oppose taxes?
The relationship between libertarianism and taxes is rather complex, imo. The main issue with taxes that a libertarian would have typically revolves around the interpretation of the NAP. It could be argued that the enforcement of taxes is an aggression that has not been consented to, so, since a libertarian is more in favor of negative liberties, they would take the position that they want freedom from being compelled to pay them. Do note that, like many things, there is a spectrum of this belief — not all libertarians completely oppose taxes. Many libertarians recognize that some amount of taxation is necessary for a properly functioning society. What is essentially universal among libertarians, however, is the minimization of taxes.
I think we seem to have different understandings of what “libertarian” means. I think that libertarian is simply the opposite of authoritarian and has little to do with taxes or other economic stuff.
I think we seem to have different understandings of what “libertarian” means.
From my experience, it certainly feels common that people tend to have different definitions and/or misunderstandings of libertarianism.
I think that libertarian is simply the opposite of authoritarian
I take issue with the usage of the word “simply” — I advise against such types of reductionism. That being said, the comparison gets kind of tricky when one considers the different variants/offshoots of libertarianism, or other freedom/liberty oriented political philosophies. It’s tempting to try and reduce political philosophies to a point on a 2D plane, like the political compass, or, worse, a 1D line, like the left/right dichotomy, but it’s often quite a bit more complex — thinking in terms of absolute “opposites” can lead one down the wrong path. That being said, without being overly pedantic, libertarianism can be thought of as in opposition to authoritarianism.
little to do with taxes or other economic stuff.
While it may be possible that a definition of libertarianism doesn’t directly reference economic topics, they still arise as a dependency or result. Economics and politics are often tightly intertwined.
It seems like you have an interesting definition of liberty. Liberty (to me) is freedom from authority. Libertarians core value is not having government force individuals to do anything. If people want to opt into a universal healthcare private system they are free to do so (kind of like insurance). A big motivation for this is lack of trust in government to handle the job well. Libertarians see government as inherently prone to corruption and thus want to limit their power as much as possible. The extent to which a given libertarian wants to limit government varies. By appointing government authorities to the system the cost of everything rises as in addition to health care you also have to pay the government workers who oversee the system and it’s not very efficient. Not to mention politicians get to decide how much money goes to these programs etc etc. do you really want politicians involved in your health? With all the inefficiency and corruption in politics why do you trust them to handle your health?
Liberty (to me) is freedom from authority.
The term for this is “negative liberty”: the freedom from something; whereas, “positive liberty” is the freedom to do something. Libertarianism, generally, aligns with the idea of negative liberty.
If there is freedom from a governing authority then there is no one to take away my freedom to do what I like. Sounds like two ways of saying the same thing. Maybe I miss your point.
The distinction between positive and negative liberties is, indeed, a rather blurry one, but there is generally a difference in mindset between the two. That being said, libertarianism seeks to minimize the size and influence of the government, but they don’t seek to abolish it — those that seek to abolish it are anarchists (I’m not sure if I am reading your comment correctly, but it seems that you are advocating for anarchism rather than libertarianism when you said “freedom from a governing authority”). It’s important to note that negative liberty is a concept that distinguishes a certain class of liberties — it doesn’t require the presence of a government.
Well said, I probably wasn’t very clear, but I am not an anarchist. There are certain critical functions that the government must control. When I say freedom from authority I refer to specific government agencies that can exert force on individuals. Government roads don’t force users to do anything but rather empower citizens.
Government roads don’t force users to do anything but rather empower citizens.
Another argument for why government roads are ethical is because they fight off monopolization — property ownership is at high risk for monopolization. I’m not sure if the Georgist idea of taxing the land value that a private road would be on is enough.
Right, government should provide oversight to public goods that, by their nature, require monopolies such as roads or utilities. Government also needs to have a judicial branch that mediates conflicts between individuals and entities.
I agree with both statements.
Libertarians see government as inherently prone to corruption and thus want to limit their power as much as possible.
I prefer voluntary interaction to using force or violence. Personally I believe we’re obligated to help each other and our community and would voluntarily be a collectivist - I’m just not willing to force everyone else to.
We still need to modify liability and IP law to disincentivize megacorps and not use violence to benefit the wealthy.
Government programs IS US HELPING EACHOTHER. Sure corporations have been undermining democracy, but the government is OUR corporation. It’s the only one that we get the choose what it does. The fact we’re obligated to pay taxes is EXACTLY the implementation of your statement “we’re obligated to help eachother”
I don’t understand how you can make statements like this. The threat of violence? The government’s monopoly on violence is rephrased as the will of society to ban violence in public life by restricting violence only to the enforcement of democratically selected laws. There is no other way I can conceive. Should more people have the ability to use violence to enforce their views on others? Should corporations have that right? If no one has that right how can we stop someone who decides THEY have that right?
The whole “government monopoly on violence” is for me the most absurd librarian statement of them all. What’s the alternative? Who should decide what deserves violence? Who should use violence? What do we do if someone breaks this compact? Because the current answers are at least ideally “the people, through democratically enacted, clear and transparent laws”, and “the people, through the police they pay for accountable only to the people” and “apply fair and balanced justice through the judiciary system, run by the people and accountable only to them”. I’m in no way saying that it’s working perfectly as is clear in recent politics, but it’s certainly trending in the right direction in social democracies. We’re closer to that ideal now than we have ever been. As far as I’ve seen libertarian ideology has only come up with absolutely HORRIFYING answers to these questions, or wishy washy nonsense.
but the government is OUR corporation
The issue with this, imo, is that it is a conflict of interest. The government creates the laws — the ultimate restrictions on what a populace can and can’t do. What happens if the government gets perverted to the point where you no longer have a say in changing it?
Should more people have the ability to use violence to enforce their views on others?
It’s about balance. Imbalanced power distribution will lead to abuse. The difference lies in if you want a true democracy, or an oligarchy. In the end, it is always the group that holds the majority power that holds the ultimate say. Would it not be better that this lies in the hands of the people than in the hands of a minority of elected officials?
Dude what the fuck? You do NOT want it to be legal for people to use violence to enforce their views on others. That’s what “might makes right” is and it’s how gangs are run. It’s brutal. Every positive consequence you imagine will be completely dwarfed by the depths of human violence and depravity this would unleash.
The problem lies in the distribution of power. If you have the majority power held within a minority, then that is similar to gang rule, as you have pointed out. Now, if you spread power evenly, and equally, over all people so that there is no imbalance, that puts you on a path to equality. But one must, of course, never forget the saying: “democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what’s for dinner”.
That’s how a lot of stuff works, true. I don’t agree that can work with violence. I also don’t appreciate the conceptual response to very practical questions.
I live in a peaceful society. I wouldn’t want my neighbour to be able to use violence because my tree dropped it’s leaves on his side of the lawn. I wouldn’t want an alternate police force hired and paid by a group of white supremacists (current statistics aside) to enforce laws in a biased manner. Having other corporations able to use violence is an absolute dystopian nightmare and is 100% the cause of every dystopian fantasy world. If the government WASN’T empowered with violence then there is nothing to stop the above 3 scenarios. So I’m not sure what other “equalizing distribution” you’re imagining and I’m not certain a better one exists.
I am open minded, which is why I asked those 3 very specific questions. If your have a better idea I’m all ears. If your idea is just to open up the floodgates and hope for the best because that will equalise access to violence and more equal is more better, then I will keep treating libertarian ideology as a threat to civilization. Mostly ideas that sound nice, but no practicable solutions that don’t destroy society. Like communism.
I don’t agree that can work with violence.
What are you referring to?
I also don’t appreciate the conceptual response to very practical questions.
I apologize if I have offended you — that wasn’t my intent. What exactly do you mean by this?
I wouldn’t want my neighbour to be able to use violence because my tree dropped it’s leaves on his side of the lawn.
This depends. A violent outcome need not be in response to an action, but it can stem from it. Laws carry with them the threat of force.
I wouldn’t want an alternate police force hired and paid by a group of white supremacists (current statistics aside) to enforce laws in a biased manner.
If a country allows for a citizens arrest, everyone holds within themselves the power of enforcing the law. Though you may be referring to the idea of paying for private police and leaving others without. If so, this is more of a question of positive and negative liberties. Having a public police force would be a positive liberty, imo — in that case, it potentially doesn’t align with libertarianism, but that is very debatable.
Having other corporations able to use violence is an absolute dystopian nightmare
Do note that if a corporation is not allowed to use violence, then that means that they cannot take it upon themselves to protect their property. Perhaps you think that that is how it should be?
If the government WASN’T empowered with violence then there is nothing to stop the above 3 scenarios.
I’m not sure I follow this point. I don’t think that I have argued that the government shouldn’t be allowed to use force — it wasn’t my intent if my previous statements were interpreted in that way. The point that I’m trying to make is that the government should be kept in check. You have pointed out that threat of violence is what must be used to uphold the law. The only way for the people to keep the government in check is for the people to keep the government under threat of violence. If the distribution is just right, then no minority group in a democracy can hold the majority of the power.
I am open minded, which is why I asked those 3 very specific questions.
Which 3 questions are you referring to?
more equal is more better
I don’t understand this point. Are you stating that you don’t believe in individual equality?
To me, this reads like it implies that government and govt programs are bad because of the govt employees, but if you were to take those same “corrupt” politicians and put them to work at private companies that they would stop being “corrupt.” Like it is a belief/reaction to one specific bad instance of a large government/program. “The government sucks at program X, so if we get rid of that program, the same general population will gain empathy, morals and efficiency if working for a company to run program X.”
It’s a about competition. I’m not saying business owners aren’t corrupt. But if one company, say nestle, turns out to be rotten then you can buy your chocolate chips from another company. But with government I don’t have a say. If I don’t pay taxes I go to jail and if I don’t like how my taxes are spent then too bad. There is no alternative.
How often do we see real competition? Even if a new company comes along with a great idea, it’s more likely to be gobbled up by a bigger company than be left to flourish.
All the time. Competition is going on all the time. Have you ever worked for any company ever?
Ten major companies control all the food in the US, and six companies control all the media.
So not one? So there’s competition?
Yes, a competition to see which company ends up runnign everything.
I believe in universal basic income, because it is simple and easy to define, and therefore doesn’t have these two problems
Universal healthcare is problematic because of two things:
- How much is covered? Because healthcare isn’t fungible like money is, unlike UBI, UH has a problem where a ton of attention and discussion is required to determine what’s covered and what isn’t. It becomes a “to each according to his need” scenario where “his need” is being determined by the central committee
- Once society is promising to take care of my body, I now have to promise to society to take care of my body. If I want to take risks with my own health or safety, there is now opposition to that from others on the basis that I’m ruining their investment. This means less self-ownership and less liberty.
Yes, but universal basic income instead of universal healthcare has two issues as well:
- You may not be able to afford expensive healthcare procedures, which may result in all ranges of bad consequences, from lost productivity to death. In either case, there’s a big chance society loses a productive worker for no good reason, and for the person who couldn’t get healthcare it’s obviously super bad, too. All while this expense would be returned in the economy many times over if the person got recovered and continued working, and the person in question could keep living a fulfilling life.
- Relying on private healthcare institutions means falling victim to the price-inefficient businesses, as a lot of your money goes to cover profits of the healthcare organization. When there is no public alternative, prices go through the roof. Even in the US, where there is some government oversight but no full-scale universal healthcare system, the prices for healthcare are insane. Thereby, you either have to hand people a fat UBI check and constantly increase it as companies drive up their appetites, putting more strain on the system than universal healthcare ever could, or let people not have decent healthcare, or control the healthcare institutions (which is not super libertarian), all while living with a reality that many people will not think of their medical needs or will genuinely have other strong priorities and will put money to something else, ending up shooting themselves - and the economy - in the foot.
I often hear criticisms of some “committee” deciding whether you’re gonna get healthcare or not, like here. In an alternative when it is ruled by money, it’s how much you earn that decides it. Someone in a critical condition might not receive help simply because they are poor. Someone will always be cut off, and it’d better be someone who needs the help the least or requires too much resources to help that could be better spent saving more people.
This is constantly ommitted by the haters of planned systems, which I think is very unjust.
Libertarians only care about 2 things: lowest taxes possible and legal weed, and they would gladly sacrifice the latter in favor of the former. Anything else is nothing more than lip service.
Universal healthcare means taxes, and that is the one thing Libertarians hate above all. Never mind that it would be cheaper than private insurance. They relish in the fact they can skip buying insurance, and if they get hurt, ERs are required to treat them anyway.
Libertarians only care about 2 things: lowest taxes possible and legal weed, and they would gladly sacrifice the latter in favor of the former. Anything else is nothing more than lip service.
This is a very ignorant statement.
Paying lip service is meaningless. I look at who self-professed libertarians actually vote for. That is the basis of my statement.
I look at who self-professed libertarians actually vote for.
Personally, I see this as a very weak metric, if it is measured within a FPTP system. It is generally not within one’s best interest to vote for an entity that perfectly aligns with one’s interests under FPTP — one must often vote strategically.
Libertarians only care about 2 things: lowest taxes possible and legal weed
If you haven’t already, I strongly encourage you to, at the very least, read through the Wikipedia article on libertarianism.
I have read it, and find it bullshit. Libertarians always manage to decide to “strategically” vote for the Republican that promises authoritarianism but also promises low taxes. Again, it’s not about what Libertarians say they support, it’s who they actually support.
I have read it, and find it bullshit.
What exactly do you disagree with? It’s really just a definition. If you are encountering people who are advocating for authoritarianism while calling themselves libertarian, then they are misappropriating the term.
Libertarians always manage to decide to “strategically” vote for the Republican that promises authoritarianism but also promises low taxes.
This is very likely to be a faulty generalization. Also, there are policies on both the Democrat, and Republican side which can be construed as authoritarian.
Again, it’s not about what Libertarians say they support, it’s who they actually support.
I’d be very hesitant to call stategic voting “supporting”.
