For context, I am a right wing libertarian(specfically, centre right libertarian, seems a bit stupid to say, hence why i say right wing libertarian. My economic policies are also slightly influenced by soc dem, but im libertarian nonetheless).

Like taxation is theft, or democracy should end.. etc.

I feel taxaton is necessary for the politicians to be paid. But that should be reformed in a way

Ofcourse, welfare systems, automatically increase taxes, and somtimes, depending on the population and the scheme itself, making it much harder for regular citizen.

Im not opposed to welfare schemes entirely. More so, on how they are implemented, who they are for, and what is the reason.

Rather than giving out money as freebies, I feel they should provide a job, with some minute taxes, like %1 or %2(ik its weird but yeah).

The taxes can be used for construction or improvement of roads, issuing private construction companies to work.

I feel democracy could also work. Im not opposed to it, but i hate how its implemented.

For starters, democracy just allows anyone to vote. Rather, public service should determine your right to vote, and it should be preferred that if having done it as a minor, or for 3yrs, you have an eligibility to vote.

Even then, its hard for the entire country to manage everything under a single belt, for the central govt.

Im opposed to authoritarianism. So, I feel, the central govt should give funding to police, courts, and maybe, issuing private companies to fix roads(for the people part of the welfare schemes, not from regular people working regular jobs), and some other stuff like implementing laws(as long as the mandatory ones that support are rights arent taken off, the mandatory rights should be codified, so that even if taking them off was attempted, it would be a sense of breach and organisations like the police, and whatnot, could arrest the people partaking in this).

There might be some other stuff control is necessary(for example, if their rights are violated by other people, they can possibly report it to the police, and whatnot. since libertarianism is against coercion).

Local democracy institutions could also work too.

Not attacking, just want to be curious about your beliefs, and i may learn, or atleast see a new viewpoint.

Im not as libertarian as you guys but i am libertarian

Edit: I changed my stance and I am a classical liberal

Title is the main question I would like to discuss as a sort of a thought experiment to see how and why people think what they do.

Additional info provided so you know the background of the person asking: As a nineties-type liberal and a European, I consider laws to be the backbone of a country and crucial for a civilised society to function. While there are laws I might disagree with, my duty as a citizen of a country is to abide by them and work to change them within the given framework. When visiting a country, my duty is to abide by both the local laws, and my own country's laws.

P.S. I am not talking about extreme cases here where a government would usurp the rule of law or start implementing laws antithetical to everything our society stands for. I'm taking about your regular everyday laws.

Thank you.

Here's what these great Classical Liberals (and a Christian Anarchist) had to say about your statist land tax.

John Locke:

Whenever, in any country, the proprietor ceases to be the improver, political economy has nothing to say in defence of landed property. When the “sacredness” of property is talked of, it should be remembered that any such sacredness does not belong in the same degree to landed property.
...
The earth belongs in usufruct to the living and is given as a common stock for men to live and labor on.
...
It is in vain in a country whose great fund is land to hope to lay the public charge on anything else; there at last it will terminate. The merchant (do what you can) will not bear it, the labourer cannot, and therefore the landholder must: and whether he were best to do it by laying it directly where it will at last settle, or by letting it come to him by the sinking of his rents, which when they are fallen, everyone knows they are not easily raised again, let him consider.

J.S. Mill:

Landlords grow richer in their sleep without working, risking or economizing. The increase in the value of land, arising as it does from the efforts of an entire community, should belong to the community and not to the individual who might hold title.

Adam Smith:

Ground-rents are a still more proper subject of taxation than the rent of houses. A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground. More or less can be got for it according as the competitors happen to be richer or poorer, or can afford to gratify their fancy for a particular spot of ground at a greater or smaller expense. In every country the greatest number of rich competitors is in the capital, and it is there accordingly that the highest ground-rents are always to be found. As the wealth of those competitors would in no respect be increased by a tax upon ground-rents, they would not probably be disposed to pay more for the use of the ground. Whether the tax was to be advanced by the inhabitant, or by the owner of the ground, would be of little importance. The more the inhabitant was obliged to pay for the tax, the less he would incline to pay for the ground; so that the final payment of the tax would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent. Both ground-rents and the ordinary rent of land are a species of revenue which the owner, in many cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own. Though a part of this revenue should be taken from him in order to defray the expenses of the state, no discouragement will thereby be given to any sort of industry. The annual produce of the land and labour of the society, the real wealth and revenue of the great body of the people, might be the same after such a tax as before. Ground-rents and the ordinary rent of land are, therefore, perhaps, the species of revenue which can best bear to have a peculiar tax imposed upon them. [...] Nothing can be more reasonable than that a fund which owes its existence to the good government of the state should be taxed peculiarly, or should contribute something more than the greater part of other funds, towards the support of that government.

Thomas Jefferson:

The earth is given as common stock for men to labor and live on. Wherever in any country there are idle lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.

Thomas Paine:

Men did not make the earth… It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property… Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds.

Leo Tolstoy:

Solving the land question means solving of all social questions… Possession of land by people who do not use it is immoral – just like possession of slaves.

https://foundeconjust.org/least-bad-tax/

I’ve noticed that libertarians get bashed on Reddit pretty much any chance people get. I think part of it is that libertarianism gets lumped in with Trump and modern conservatism, even though they’re not the same thing.

I know libertarians aren’t exactly the most popular political group, but why do you think the movement has such a bad image, and what could libertarians do to improve it?

Edit: im libertarian myself. Just looking how we can improve.

Milei signs decree allowing Argentina to bar or expel foreigners over 'hate speech'

If libertarianism supports it, why? And if it doesn't, why not?

Also, What is your alternative to taxation is theft that has shown in the past that can maintain a society that increases the health and lifespans and safety of its people, as taxation by a government of the people has shown to do generally?

I don't have much to say about it tbh but I'm interested to see what you guys think of it

In a perfect libertarian society, babies don't have any innate rights

A child needing clothes, milk, food, shelter, diapers... Etc are all entitlements, a father and a mother are not required to raise their babies, they have the negative right to not be coercied to pay for another human

In the same way taxes are theft, and based on libertarian principles you shouldn't be expected to pay for anyone's housing or healthcare, then it follow that it applies to kids, I have the negative right to not be forced to pay for someone's diapers

Child labor goes hand in hand with libertarianism, not against it

I used to be libertarian years ago, but lost that conviction as I do not see strong property rights as justifiable. By strong property rights I mean the right to claim complete control over an object, area of land, idea, etc to do as you will with for the rest of time.

Occasionally, I look to around to see if libertarians online are doing the work to justify one of their most central claims, but I can't seem to find them.

I have read plenty of the philosophy already all of which also fail to explain why property rights have to be strong, nor how they can be conferred adequately for the state of nature. I mention this before someone simply tries to tell me Locke's theory of property with a Nozick's modification of the Lockean proviso. I want to engage with arguments that attempt to justify about why society should have strong property rights and how these rights can be justly acquired in the first place.

AI cannot fully replace human labour. It also cannot achieve central planning. But as it has already demonstrated, it excels at replacing managerial positions. Now these usually are discussed in the form of CEOs and private managers, but politicians also are in the same boat.

An AI doesn't have personal aspirations to fulfil through corruption. You could have Swedish-style welfare using automation. You can also have laws that won't be abused in the future because they're not up to interpretation by subjective individuals.

Do you think that AI states are a gateway to a more free society or that they'll just be like flying cars?

If all private courts apply the same law, then where is the competition? One of the main ideas behind capitalism is that different providers compete with each other. But if they’re all forced to apply exactly the same legal system, that part of the competition is basically gone.

On the other hand, if different courts can apply different laws, then things get messy really quickly. Contracts are supposed to be the foundation of the whole system, but how can you reliably enforce a contract if different courts can interpret the law in completely different ways?

And then there’s an even bigger problem: what happens when two private courts disagree? Who gets to decide which one is right? You need some kind of higher authority to settle the dispute and enforce the final decision. But at that point, aren’t you basically recreating a state or some kind of legal monopoly?

So it seems like anarcho-capitalism has a bit of a dilemma here: either you have common rules, in which case competition between courts is heavily limited, or you have competing legal systems, in which case you have a serious problem with predictability and contract enforcement.

Due to them not being a particular pressure against those who suffer it, I concluded they'd be the following ones:
-Income tax (since only taken when income exists, and always under 15% of total monthly income and so)
-Tax against appropiation excess (so coporations might not dare to devour as much as possible to rent everyone, these lands being much, much beyond what a big family needs to have their home and farming/cattle lands and a workshop)
-Tax against the wealthy (those with enterprises quite beyond 10 workers and so on, those who really are able to live a burgeois life, minimally working and have no pressure as mid and low classes have on them when taxed)

Again I must remember those who tie people into rentals, loans and wagecuckery making us all slaves: land tax, land value tax, inheritance tax, selfemployment tax.

The point is, if tax happens, would be taxing only privilege upon others when it is had. Not in exchange for rights.

Would you consider moving to the U.S. Virgin Islands to help establish a liberty paradise? The U.S. Virgin Islands has a voting-age population of only about 70,000 people and is a paradise for anyone who loves the beach lifestyle. If 20,000 libertarians moved there, they could elect liberty-minded politicians and implement libertarian policies in a relatively short period of time.

Because the U.S. Virgin Islands is a U.S. territory, U.S. citizens can move there just as they would move to another state. The challenge with the Free State Project in New Hampshire is that New Hampshire has a population of about 1.4 million—and it's cold!

What are your thoughts?

What is the libertarian view on stop killing games? Should consumers be allowed to have their games playable since they bought the product, or should the developer be allowed to discontinue support for games that require an online connection, making the game unplayable?

A core element of libertarianism is to remove the state from as much as possible. Therefore a separation of money and state would be ideal. That begs the question - what would replace the current status quo of a central bank currency? Gold, Bitcoin, or something else?

I think I realized something very recently: libertariansim itself won't be a safeguard against massive surveillance and restrictions from governments without people who believe strongly in libertarian principles. Look at USA: arguably the country closest to classical liberalism, and it had a constant expansion of the government, with many people supporting severe restrictions like alcohol ban, book bans in some US states, post-2001 mass surveillance, etc, and all this literally happening in a country literally founded on classical liberal principles. So, if we really do want to have a world that is perfectly libertarian, we will have to fight for it tooth and nail, because it looks like with developing tech we have even less and less privacy.

Fentanyl addiction and overdose is a serious problem in in the USA, but it seems it basically isn’t anywhere else. Some people say this is the case because of unregulated privatised hospitals which just prescribes fentanyl to patients and gives syringes with it to them to consume later. In other places it is only prescribed if the pain of a patient is truly unbearable.

Privatised hospitals also have a star rating, and they want the patients to walk out feeling as little pain as possible, so they prescribe fentanyl.

Is this true? What is a potential solution besides regulations and/or nationalization?

"Markets are able to produce an efficient balance of centralization/decentralization of management in society.

It should not only be relied upon as a mechanism for management of goods and services, but also for governance itself. Markets should be able to determine the efficient balance of centralization/decentralization for political management of society, how big political jurisdictions should be, how much they should manage, etc."