i’m not here to defend libertarians, but what you say is incorrect. libertarians would happily dispense with all the religion, and let in the corporate overlords.
In my experience, they’re not embarrassed, they’re just plain confused. Their epistemology stops at the statement, “I don’t want the government to tell me what to do,” and the actual implementation of…well…anything just winds up being reactionary.
I can at least abide a Libertarian since they don’t want the govt to persecute minorities – if they’re actually libertarian and not just saying it, that is.
It’s a sign of the times that my actual policy beliefs could not be further from Libertarian, but they’re still an adjacent ally because they don’t want to lock up LGBT people.
Oh he hasn’t, nor his son. They’re “libertarians” who happen to also want the government to go against any civil liberties they disagree with – the antithesis of being libertarian. I suspect most people who don’t want government to interfere with civil rights are with Democrats honestly
There are sane libertarians. It was the first party to have same sex marriage as an explicit tent pole back in the 70s.
Libertarians aren’t anarchists, laws and enforcement especially around an individuals rights are important, doubly so for any marginalized group. That’s like… THE purpose of government to a libertarian. You’ll also find plenty who are in favor of a strong social safety net.
All that being said, there’s always been loons. People who think things like food safety inspections are an over reach and the like, but it’s in the minority. The climate has definitely gotten worse though. I still describe myself as one but ehhhhh. It’s just not as important to me as avoiding slipping into literal fascism.
Exactly, a true libertarian would be appalled by the government denying same sex marriage or abortion or adoption. Which says a lot about the people who claim to be libertarian.
Absolutely. I’ll always admit that praxis of libertarianism is messy at best, because there isn’t much that really is the business of an individual alone, but anything lgbtq really is that cut and dry.
Abortion is a tricky one for the reason it always has been: if someone genuinely believes a blastocyst is a human, then none of the other arguments are going to matter. I’m not one of those people, by the way. I think Buttigeg put it perfectly in the primaries. If science and philosophy can’t nail down personhood without debate for people who are 30, that leaves someone in the position to choose a termination required, by active decision or default, to choose with imperfect data. Whatever they personally come to then is correct for them and people should receive only support and compassion.
I think you’d find more that support it, but I’m just saying that like always if someone is convinced of the “personhood” of that mass of cells there’s not a belief system out there that’s going to make it acceptable.
All that being said, I get the wrap. It’s messy and scary out there right now.
Look up the political compass. The test is mostly worthless, but the concept is politically true.
You have liberalism (the literal kind: emphasizing personal freedoms and liberties) opposite authoritarianism and conservatism opposite progressivism. American “libertarians” are generally centrist or conservative liberals.
American politics have (mostly on purpose by those who it benefited) twisted together liberalism and progressivism into Left, conservatism and authoritarianism into Right. But there are progressive authoritarians (Stalinists, Maoists) and conservative liberals (Ayn Rand types).
No, Conservatives are fascist conservatives. Libertarians are just conservatives who are too embarrassed to admit it.
i’m not here to defend libertarians, but what you say is incorrect. libertarians would happily dispense with all the religion, and let in the corporate overlords.
Religion is mostly just an excuse to be an asshole, for most conservatives.
looks that way from yours and my perspective, but I encourage not being a dick
In my experience, they’re not embarrassed, they’re just plain confused. Their epistemology stops at the statement, “I don’t want the government to tell me what to do,” and the actual implementation of…well…anything just winds up being reactionary.
I can at least abide a Libertarian since they don’t want the govt to persecute minorities – if they’re actually libertarian and not just saying it, that is.
It’s a sign of the times that my actual policy beliefs could not be further from Libertarian, but they’re still an adjacent ally because they don’t want to lock up LGBT people.
When did Ron Paul stop being a racist?
Oh he hasn’t, nor his son. They’re “libertarians” who happen to also want the government to go against any civil liberties they disagree with – the antithesis of being libertarian. I suspect most people who don’t want government to interfere with civil rights are with Democrats honestly
There are sane libertarians. It was the first party to have same sex marriage as an explicit tent pole back in the 70s.
Libertarians aren’t anarchists, laws and enforcement especially around an individuals rights are important, doubly so for any marginalized group. That’s like… THE purpose of government to a libertarian. You’ll also find plenty who are in favor of a strong social safety net.
All that being said, there’s always been loons. People who think things like food safety inspections are an over reach and the like, but it’s in the minority. The climate has definitely gotten worse though. I still describe myself as one but ehhhhh. It’s just not as important to me as avoiding slipping into literal fascism.
Exactly, a true libertarian would be appalled by the government denying same sex marriage or abortion or adoption. Which says a lot about the people who claim to be libertarian.
Absolutely. I’ll always admit that praxis of libertarianism is messy at best, because there isn’t much that really is the business of an individual alone, but anything lgbtq really is that cut and dry.
Abortion is a tricky one for the reason it always has been: if someone genuinely believes a blastocyst is a human, then none of the other arguments are going to matter. I’m not one of those people, by the way. I think Buttigeg put it perfectly in the primaries. If science and philosophy can’t nail down personhood without debate for people who are 30, that leaves someone in the position to choose a termination required, by active decision or default, to choose with imperfect data. Whatever they personally come to then is correct for them and people should receive only support and compassion.
I think you’d find more that support it, but I’m just saying that like always if someone is convinced of the “personhood” of that mass of cells there’s not a belief system out there that’s going to make it acceptable.
All that being said, I get the wrap. It’s messy and scary out there right now.
I’m a right wing liberal. Libertarians often represent me best, but I vote for who I think would get the best result.
What does that mean?
Like what?
Look up the political compass. The test is mostly worthless, but the concept is politically true.
You have liberalism (the literal kind: emphasizing personal freedoms and liberties) opposite authoritarianism and conservatism opposite progressivism. American “libertarians” are generally centrist or conservative liberals.
American politics have (mostly on purpose by those who it benefited) twisted together liberalism and progressivism into Left, conservatism and authoritarianism into Right. But there are progressive authoritarians (Stalinists, Maoists) and conservative liberals (Ayn Rand types).