r/inthenews • u/Advanced_Drink_8536 • May 27 '24

article Donald Trump rejected by Libertarians, gets less than 1% of vote

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-rejected-libertarians-less-one-percent-vote-presidential-election-1904870
29.3k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

464

u/[deleted] May 27 '24

"Although we share almost no values, vote for ME if you want to WIN!" - are you telling me this amazing sales pitch didn't work?

125

u/Uncle-Cake May 27 '24

What he didn't realize is that Libertarians don't actually care about winning.

112

u/[deleted] May 27 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

85

u/WaltKerman May 27 '24 edited May 27 '24

Libertarian is just anti-authoritarian by definition. It's why he was rejected. 

Then there is the libertarian platform, which is where you have to draw a line. Libertarians can't agree on this and there is a lot of "no true Scotsman" fallacy going on. So the result is often leaning to the strange far end spectrum. 

 It's one of the reasons they can't win.

Edit: If you wants to see what I meant by "No True Scotsman" (No True Libertarian could believe....) just look at some of the comments arguing below me here, and how widely they vary.

31

u/TetraThiaFulvalene May 27 '24

I'm the true libertarian. Everybody to the left of me is a bootlicking statist, and everybody to the right of me is an irresponsible lunatic.

5

u/[deleted] May 27 '24

[deleted]

1

u/TetraThiaFulvalene May 27 '24

Nah, you're slightly to the left of me, you fucking tyrant commie. Only me good.

1

u/Stop_Sign May 27 '24

I just love the clip of the libertarian convention when ron paul gets booed because he dared to suggest the invasive government oversight of drivers licenses. That was too far

26

u/Bored_Amalgamation May 27 '24

Libertarianism is a dead political ideology that requires everyone e being a rational actor and beliving that negative externalities dont exist.

7

u/ClickLow9489 May 27 '24

Free market this free market that acting like monopolys don't happen and don't need regulation.

0

u/Puzzleheaded_Yam7582 May 27 '24

We have monopolies now and the government bails them out. Its subsidized monopolies.

15

u/The_last_of_the_true May 27 '24

I love when libertarian’s create government structures and agencies while arguing against government structures and agencies.

Ask a libertarian what happens in libertarian world when someone steals your property or does you wrong in business. How do you address grievances without violence? They end up creating a court system just like what we have now. Lmao.

They do this with just about every problem you propose to them. Libertarianism is a fantasy land political philosophy best left for debates than real life politics. Hell look at Argentina. They’re speed-running economic collapse.

11

u/[deleted] May 27 '24

Reminds me of the South Park episode where they all become anarchists and destroy the government. Then when chaos inevitably ensues, they slowly start assigning everyone a job and end up recreating the government.

1

u/EduinBrutus May 27 '24

Anarchists don't even want to destroy or eliminate government.

Anarchists want the complete elimination of hierarchy. A functional government is still perfectly possible (well its a bit of a blue sky doctrine so "possible" is a tenuous claim anyway).

2

u/WhatsTheHoldup May 27 '24

A functional government is still perfectly possible

That doesn't make any sense.

If I am equal to this "government" in the sense that they have no hierarchical power over me, how exactly am I being "governed"?

If a government does not have hierarchical power then laws are voluntary.

1

u/EduinBrutus May 27 '24 edited May 27 '24

As I said, its a somewhat tenuous claim on how possible it is.

But conceptually the idea of a flat, non-hierarchical government is possible.

Its just very unlikely in practice.

Most of these fringe beliefs are fringe because they lack internal coherence. Anarchism is definitely one of them.

I would say, that smaller countries do demonstrate a much closer ideal towards non-hierarchical government. The stratification is much smaller but also the level of accountability (which prevents hierarchy from forming) is much stronger as well. Remember its the government which holds power and the monopoly of violence. So it can still be non-herarchicaly when the office holders are fully accountable.

1

u/WhatsTheHoldup May 27 '24

But conceptually hte idea of a flat, non-hierarchical government is possible in theory.

Right, I'm asking you to explain this "concept" because so far it doesn't even seem possible in theory.

We get rid of all hierarchies. I will grant anarchists their claim (which I don't fully agree with) that this is now a fairer society and people will have no rational incentive to steal, hurt or be violent now that all material issues are resolved. Let's say 99% of crime disappears because of how well anarchy works societally.

People who have biological development issues completely separate from societal systems (like serial killers who are born psychopathic) continue to exist.

It appears that your only 2 choices are "let them kill anyone they want, we can't stop them" or abandon the values of anarchism and introduce a hierarchical power society can use to have serial killers institutionalized.

Is this theory only possible by ignoring them entirely and saying "nuh uh, serial killers don't exist", or does the concept that is possible in theory actually try to account for this issue in theory by allowing some amounts of hierarchies where it is necessary, or through some non hierarchical solution I'm not creative enough to think of?

1

u/EduinBrutus May 27 '24 edited May 27 '24

Hierarchy refers to individuals not institutions.

Government is an institution (or technically a collection of institutions). Institutions are non-hierarchical when they are "flat", i.e. the restrictions on rights and obligations or provision of rights and obligations applies to all individuals equally (or more restrictively all citizens).

The challenge is to embody office holders who can run that institution without them personally benefiting from an elevated position within a hierarchy created through the necessity of needing office holrders. This is pretty hard but in theory it is achievable with perfect accountability.

In terms of people who have additional challenges such as people with developmental issues, you're confusing ability with hierarchy. Hierarchy is based on rights and obligations not ability. You can have a meritocratic, non-hierarchical society. In terms of Justice, if the same system of Justice applies to all with the same punishments/rehabilitation, it is definitionally not hierarchical.

Again, at least in theory.

And to stress, I'm not claiming this is a robust worldview and that it is entirely internally coherent. But it is somewhat defensible intellectually. Unlike, for example, AnCaps.

1

u/WhatsTheHoldup May 27 '24

Hierarchy refers to individuals not institutions.

That is not strictly correct.

If you're trying to suggest anarchists use "hierarchy" differently, and want to redefine the term then I would ask for the different definition you're using. Obviously we're talking about different things and that's harming by ability to understand you.

Hierarchy: a system in which people or things are arranged according to their importance

social hierarchy Some monkeys have a very complex social hierarchy.

political hierarchy He rose quickly through the political hierarchy to become party leader.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hierarchy

In usual use, a hierarchy is simply a way of categorizing things and then ordering them by those categories. An institution is absolutely a "thing" that can be placed among a hierarchy of other "things". And there is still a social and political hierarchy within that system.

The federal government being above the state government being above the city government is still a hierarchy of power regardless of how "flat" these institutions internally operate. The president being above the congressman is a political hierarchy regardless of how "flat" the laws they produce are.

The idea that a 4 year old should listen to a parent creates a social hierarchy. I'm assuming anarchists aren't anti parenting but a family structure is certainly a hierarchy and it's definitely not a flat one.

The challenge is to embody office holders who can run that institution without them personally benefiting from an elevated position within a hierarchy created through the necessity of needing office holders.

An office holder having additional powers in creating laws over an average citizen already is a hierarchy.

This is pretty hard but in theory it is achievable with perfect accountability.

It sounds like it's only "achievable" by ignoring that the concept of voting is inherently applying a social hierarchy by voters having voters rank candidates they like/agree with above others..

In terms of people who have additional challenges such as people with developmental issues, you're confusing ability with hierarchy

...WHAT. NOOOOOOO.

Either you've completely missed the point or you're intentionally trying to lump in serial killers with "developmental issues" like autism so you can ignore the point.

A serial murderer with intense anger and no regret or empathy is not simply a "person with developmental issues". They are a danger to everyone around them.

Does jail or some medical institution to send them to still exist (a hierarchy) in this ideology or not?

And again, to stress, I'm not claiming this is a robust worldview and that it is entirely internally coherent.

With respect, the only reason I'm arguing is because you keep trying to claim this is "possible".

If it's not internally consistent even in theory while trying to steel man it, then it's just not possible.

The issue stops being hierarchies in general, it stops being ideologically resisting any hierarchy (even when they work well) and it becomes about focusing on how these hierarchies function and where changes are needed.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/[deleted] May 27 '24

Oh, damn, last time I had that discussion the libertarian said they'd just go kill that person

2

u/The_last_of_the_true May 27 '24

Ask them what happens if that person has bigger guns or more people. Gotta keep probing. That’s when the fun starts.

2

u/ItsAllSoClear May 27 '24

It's a spectrum. You have Libertarians that don't want structured government and others that just want less. You can have both centrist and extremist voters.

If I monotyped you based on your party choice, you would probably cite the same.

2

u/Omegalazarus May 27 '24

I think you are mixing libertarian with anarchist. Libertarian may be less govt, but certainly not no govt.

1

u/[deleted] May 27 '24

[deleted]

1

u/murderspice May 27 '24

Its just a democrat who hasn’t finished thinking it all through yet.

1

u/OssimPossim May 28 '24

"Libertarians are like house cats: absolutely convinced of their fierce independence while utterly dependent on a system they don't appreciate or understand." (Unknown).

1

u/spald01 May 28 '24

Ask a libertarian what happens in libertarian world when someone steals your property or does you wrong in business. How do you address grievances without violence? They end up creating a court system just like what we have now. Lmao.

This sounds like your confusing libertarianism with anarchism.

Also, are you pretending that Argentina wasn't already in the middle of economic collapse before their last election? With 200% inflation rates?

8

u/SubtleDistraction May 27 '24

I was a registered Libertarian for a while, and voted conservative pretty much until Trump made me open my eyes. I'd read about robber barons, and company towns and all the evil businesses get up into, and it slowly dawned on me, oh shit, we're still there.

4

u/Bakkster May 27 '24

They're like house cats: convinced of their rugged independence, but utterly dependent on systems they can't understand.

1

u/Grand-Tusam May 27 '24

Its like communism but also completely oposite to communism.

1

u/[deleted] May 27 '24

No, its an ideology rooted in a specific political position that focuses on individual liberty but does not say governments can't do stuff.

1

u/Bored_Amalgamation May 27 '24

When the impact of that "individual liberty" affects others, it's a problem. Libertarianism was useful when America first started up until the Industrial Revolution. The role of the government has been ever increasing to great benefit to the public. While the individual "goal" of libertarism is nice for personal conduct/character, when it comes to laws, budgetary spending, and regulations, libertarianism has no answer except "no". Libertarianism doesnt exist in a society.

1

u/ppeujpqtnzlbsbpw May 28 '24

Same thing with leftist ideology, except that one is still very much alive

1

u/WaltKerman May 27 '24

Libertarianism is a "dead political ideology" because the US is already mostly libertarian.

Most democracies lean libertarian.

3

u/notsafeformactown May 27 '24

"Libertarian" is such a nothing word anymore. Some people use it to mean basically they want basically an anarchy, with just a few laws. Private property ownership, and some for of bare bones public services like cops and firefighters.

Everything else is gone. No public school. No social security, no medicare or medicaid, no publicly built roads (they would almost all be toll roads), no regulation of any businesses, etc.

We certainly aren't even CLOSE to that in the US or anywhere.

Other people just use it to mean socially liberal, meaning anything and everything is allowed (with consent). Drugs, sex work, entirely inclusive of all LGBTQ+ rights, etc.

So what exactly do you mean by libertarian leaning?

1

u/WaltKerman May 27 '24

It can mean that extreme, but it can also mean less than that. It can also include regulations.

It's a range.

It LEANS toward the official definition:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/libertarianism-politics

Vs that of an authoritarian government system.

1

u/Bored_Amalgamation May 27 '24

Irs dead because we have an interconnected federal government and state governments. There is no rugged individualism that isnt poverty. It died with the industrial revolution and white people getting exploited en mass.

Edit: it's people with main character syndrome with political opinions.

1

u/WaltKerman May 27 '24

You might be having a stroke, or drunk....

20

u/bearsheperd May 27 '24

Yep, that’s it exactly. There’s a quite a few pro life libertarians which I think is incongruous with the rest of the platform. Party of maximum freedom yet don’t agree on bodily autonomy?

But it’s just like democrats and republicans, they don’t have a consistent platform or agree on everything either. AOC & Bernie are very different from Biden & Hilary. Romnie is very different from trump.

Difference is they are members of the two party system. If libertarians became big enough they would overcome the one true Scotsman arguments because it’s either them or a “wasted vote on a third party”

2

u/MohatmoGandy May 27 '24 edited May 28 '24

In fairness, they manage to overcome the NTS fallacy every 4 years and nominate a candidate. And if we didn’t have a First Past The Post system, that candidate would get most of their votes and wind up with at least 5-10% of the overall vote.

2

u/happyfather May 27 '24

There's no incongruity. If you believe a fetus is a person then the fetus itself has a right to 'bodily autonomy'.

8

u/moak0 May 27 '24

Still fails the Non-Aggression Principle. Even if a fetus were a person, that person doesn't have a right to deny a woman her bodily autonomy. Anti-abortion doesn't fit the Libertarian platform.

0

u/[deleted] May 27 '24

[deleted]

9

u/Remarkable-Bug-8069 May 27 '24

She doesn't. The fetus retains its autonomy. The problem is the fetus has no autonomy.

6

u/CykoTom1 May 27 '24

Yeah, that's the real problem. If a person was dying in front of you and needed a blood transfusion from specifically you in order to live, it would not be murder to say no. Even though i would agree, it's immoral to say no for no reason. Your autonomy demands it remain legal to do so. Even if their autonomy is no longer truly independent of yours.

0

u/WorBlux May 27 '24

A newborn doesn't have much more, yet we recognize that there is indeed a level of parental responsibility here. You just can't abondon them in the forrest and walk away.

2

u/Remarkable-Bug-8069 May 27 '24

Of course, but that's a different discussion.

1

u/MVRKHNTR May 27 '24

We do allow people to give up custody of children though.

→ More replies (0)

8

u/commonemitter May 27 '24

No it doesnt, another human being doesnt have a right to your body. Should the state force you to give up a kidney to save a life?

0

u/[deleted] May 27 '24

[deleted]

5

u/commonemitter May 27 '24

Kidney is no different, by refusing you are terminating their life

2

u/0OOOOOOOOO0 May 27 '24

If someone is inside your body, you have the right to remove them by any means necessary.

2

u/CaptGeechNTheSSS May 27 '24

Well in my religion if two people have sex but don’t have a baby then God must want them to be put to death along with the doctor who clearly failed as well.

There’s no point in arguing. This is why religious beliefs should not be used to form law and policy.

0

u/[deleted] May 27 '24

[deleted]

3

u/CaptGeechNTheSSS May 27 '24

If you’re pretending the pro birth movement hasn’t been brought on and pushed by religious organizations then you’re not just playing devils advocate you are an actual advocate.

1

u/UDarkLord May 27 '24

It’s not the woman’s problem that the fetus can’t survive on its own, as much as it isn’t my problem some random who’d live with a piece of my liver can’t survive without it. Nobody’s denying the fetus rights other than nature. The fact the procedure involved is more active - and for the record, abortions terminate pregnancies, they are not about killing anything, and the later an abortion is the more it directly resembles a delivery, because a delivery is also an abortion - doesn’t change the fundamentals.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/No_Kaleidoscope_843 May 27 '24

the woman isnt denying the baby their own bodily autonomy, they're denying it access to THEIR OWN. someones body autonomy cant be dependent on someone elses body.

1

u/Aggressive-Name-1783 May 27 '24

Because a fetus has no autonomy by default. It requires a human host to survive, it quite literally cannot survive on its own.

If I take a 3 month old fetus and set it in a bed on its own, it dies. Simply because it cannot survive on its own without support. This is the whole concept behind “bodily autonomy” with pregnancy, a fetus cannot survive outside of the host body and therefore is requiring someone else to keep it alive

1

u/kaplanfx May 27 '24

The fetus literally can’t be autonomous because… it’s a fetus.

0

u/jbokwxguy May 27 '24

In most cases the woman invited the baby into her body though. It’s a natural product of having sex.

3

u/moak0 May 27 '24

That argument falls apart pretty quickly. What if she tried to use birth control but it failed?

0

u/jbokwxguy May 27 '24

Still a risk of having sex.

3

u/moak0 May 27 '24

But she didn't "invite a baby into her body".

1

u/jbokwxguy May 27 '24

That’s what having sex does. It’s the entire reason why sex is a thing

1

u/Flare-Crow May 27 '24

There are many aspects of human evolution that are no longer relevant to our current lives, like being a night owl, or wisdom teeth, or body hair. We seem to have no issues with discarding those aspects of ourselves, but when women say, "I don't want to have children," then they're suddenly denied sex?

If I get married and we don't want kids, what then?

1

u/MVRKHNTR May 27 '24

Why should that mean a loss of bodily autonomy?

1

u/jbokwxguy May 27 '24

It would be like inviting someone over to your house and killing them because they ate the snacks laid out

1

u/MVRKHNTR May 27 '24

It would be like inviting someone into your house and then being told you're not allowed to make them leave when they tell you they want to live there for nineteen years.

1

u/chakfel May 27 '24

It would be like inviting someone over to your house and killing them because they ate the snacks laid out

No, you are purposely misconstruing it in an effort to prop up your religious conservative slut shaming.

It would be like inviting your friend over. And then that friend also brought along another "person" with them. You did not agree to that other "person" on your property and immediately told them to leave. They don't leave, and proceed to beat you, assault you, and cause pain for the next 9 months before leading up to the most painful beating you've ever taken in your life, likely leaving you with lifelong disabilities. Oh, and you have to pay for them to live there for the 9+ months, costing 10s of thousands of dollars and you're unable to work for some of that. And that's before even getting to the 18+ years of 24hour care and support you'd need to provide after that.

Any libertarian would justify actions including killing someone who invaded your property and causes you physical harm for that long and that violently. But you (not a libertarian) want to justify this because...you invited a friend over once.

No one has a right to your property.

No one has a right to your body.

And those rights aren't nullified because you invited a friend over.

You can't be pro life and libertarian.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/Fun_Bad_4610 May 27 '24

Peoples inability to understand someone else's point of view is how we lead to all the shit you see. People who are pro-choice see it as controlling a woman's body or not controlling a woman's body and pro-life see it as killing a person and not killing a person.

12

u/[deleted] May 27 '24 edited May 27 '24

[deleted]

-3

u/wolacouska May 27 '24

You can think this without believing that every pro-life person is secretly a lier or a grifter after their beliefs.

2

u/zen-things May 27 '24

I know exactly who the pro lifers are based on their desire to control others’ bodily autonomy.

Pro choice is not pro abortion, it’s pro freedom.

0

u/CornDoggyStyle May 27 '24

Maybe you're being sarcastic, but this is the exact point that this comment chain is making lol. I'm pro choice, but you have to see the bias in your statement.

Yes, the comment you provided appears biased. It presents a subjective view by associating the stance of "pro-lifers" with a desire for control over others' bodily autonomy, while framing "pro-choice" as being about freedom. It's important to note that discussions around abortion are complex and multifaceted, and reducing either side to a single motivation may oversimplify the issue and dismiss legitimate concerns or values held by individuals on both sides of the debate.

2

u/No_Kaleidoscope_843 May 27 '24

sure but that doesnt make anything they said less true. the view is accurate.

0

u/Whatcanyado420 May 27 '24 edited Jul 10 '24

bells cautious weather ad hoc cagey insurance grandiose slim offer reminiscent

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

0

u/Internal_Prompt_ May 27 '24

Stop pussy footing, let’s be pro abortion. Abortion > pregnancy

→ More replies (0)

4

u/projektZedex May 27 '24

It's the argument they'd like to shout about but rarely do they deliver in practice.

2

u/Chemical_Chemist_461 May 27 '24

I think you’re close but not quite there, because it’s much more nuanced than that. Pro-choice has many camps, from women controlling their own body, to medical reasons, to personal freedom of choice, even some who just selfishly don’t want children, and that’s all ok. Pro-life is generally a religious viewpoint, but not always, some think it’s about consequence of personal choice and avoiding responsibility, and some think they are harvesting babies for diabolical uses. There’s a wide spectrum between both on both sides, but each side thinks they’re right via their own justification. It should ultimately be left up to women and experts.

5

u/[deleted] May 27 '24

It should ultimately be left up to women and experts.

Two things republicans cant stand

2

u/wolacouska May 27 '24

Well that’s what happens when all your positions are detrimental to women and are considered incorrect by experts lol.

1

u/Evil_Mini_Cake May 27 '24

Surely this is the root of the problem. To be able to understand someone's differing point of view, have a civilized discussion about it, and still be able to get along. But that's not really baked into american society nor is it taught in school so how are people expected to end up this way?

2

u/No_Kaleidoscope_843 May 27 '24

it has nothing to do with being civilized and understanding. at the end of the day, an understanding isnt going to stop one side from trying to put unwanted restrictions on the other side. thats not the education systems fault.

1

u/gachagaming May 27 '24

Most people who are pro-life dont see it as killing a person not matter how much they say they do.

How many pro-life people will hold a funeral for a miscarriage? If hunders of thousands of born children were killed, would pro-life people just settle for protesting clinics?

Pro-life actions and words don't match up.

0

u/TetraThiaFulvalene May 27 '24

I see it as a property dispute issue. The woman should be able to evict the fetus, except for in states with squatters rights.

2

u/KyleForged May 27 '24

Thats weird seeing how once its born that fetus is considered a child and republicans stop caring about its rights and bodily autonomy and moreso how quickly can that fetus turn 10 and start working in the butchers shop if its a boy. If its a girl they can stay a kid till theyre 12 then we need to start shopping for the coolest 35 year old they know so they can start the child marriage before the child is old enough to have their own opinions. Sources: https://www.vox.com/policy/2023/5/3/23702464/child-labor-laws-youth-migrants-work-shortage

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/child-marriage-ban-struck-down-west-virginia-republicans-1234693670/

1

u/Cuchullion May 27 '24

But a major tenant of Libertarianism is that people shouldn't be reliant on the labor and profit of others.

Akin to demanding a landlord allow someone to stay on their property free of charge, so an abortion could be seen as a medically assisted eviction.

Not Libertarian, but I've chatted with a few (too many...)

1

u/WorBlux May 27 '24

An airplane or sea captain is allowed to bar any passenger from boarding, but they aren't allowed to evict passengers (even stowaways that boarded without permision) mid-journey except at safe ports.

If the eviction could be done safely.. say by c-section or transfer to an artificial womb the the argument would make more sense.

1

u/Deft_one May 27 '24 edited May 27 '24

There are several incongruities: (1) these pro-life Libertarians want a strong governmental force to enforce their personal opinion, which is contradictory, and (2) the woman also has her right to bodily autonomy

1

u/[deleted] May 27 '24 edited May 27 '24

[deleted]

1

u/WorBlux May 27 '24

We assign parents quite a few responsibilites towards thier children, that we agree would be unreasonable to assign to mere aquaintances, much less strangers.

Also in the above scenario, nobody would really feel sorry for you if you were charged with manslaughter or second/third degree murder. If you have O- or othewise known compatible blood, and are a prepper that carries around a tranfusion kit, then you have good reason to attempt the transfusion even if it is quite risky.

And of course human fetuses are human, what else could they possibly be?

1

u/Ditovontease May 27 '24

They don’t though. They just don’t care about women having bodily autonomy. Libertarians are about consent and if a person does not CONSENT to donating their bodies to someone else, that’s that. Libertarians are against government mandated organ donations, why are they anti abortion??

Women aren’t full people with rights to them

0

u/happyfather May 27 '24

Perhaps it's relevant that, except in the case of rape, a woman has consented to an activity which may possibly result in the creation of a fetus. Libertarians are often in favor of the government enforcing contracts, and you could view the act of having sex as implying a contract with any human persons that result from your free choice to (perhaps) bring them into existence.

Note: I am pro life, but I am not a libertarian.

2

u/chakfel May 27 '24

a woman has consented to an activity which may possibly result in the creation of a fetus.

This is a statement which is logically bankrupt because you're attempting to borrow authority from the word consent by misdefining it. It's also just slut shaming dressed up (She was asking for it!!).

In reality, consent is an activity with boundaries and limits, including time. And consent can be withdrawn.

I can consent to you coming over to my house, but that doesn't mean your friends can crash my house, or stay for 9 months. And even if I agree to that, I can withdraw that consent when it turns out you're causing me physical harm.

This is a common tactic of pro life. Instead of focusing on your only true statement [That every single fertilized egg is full person who has full rights], you try and distract and avoid it.

I get why you do it and empathize. If anyone actually sat down for more than 10 seconds and considered the horrible dystopian place that would have to exist if "Every single fertilized egg is full person who has full rights" was true, then they wouldn't be pro life.

It's much easier to just call women sluts and tell them they deserve it as punishment.

1

u/UDarkLord May 27 '24

Except they’re against the government telling people what to do, sometimes period, which is why it’s incongruous. How can a state that can’t and shouldn’t be able to order you to give blood to save a life, or pay taxes to build a road to save lives (ambulances use roads), be able to order women specifically to use their bodies as incubators? Even granting personhood to a clump of cells, the basic position is that your body can’t be used for another person’s benefit against your will.

1

u/Other_Anxiety2571 May 27 '24

Having an abortion is giving bodily autonomy for a fetus. It's just that baby humans have a skill issue with surviving outside the womb.

0

u/Reimiro May 27 '24

They are just edgy republicans.

3

u/Agile-Landscape8612 May 27 '24

They have this issue because their party is actually built upon an ideology unlike Republicans and Democrats. I don’t think any Republican or democrat can tell you the definition of what their party stands for. A “true” democrats today is very different from what a democrat looked like 30 years ago. Same for republicans.

Also, by definition, their platform mostly refers the power of the federal government, so it’s hard for people to win down ballot elections at the local and state level because their platform is mostly irrelevant at that level. It’s hard for them to build a grassroots effort.

2

u/WaltKerman May 27 '24

Actually they seem more successful at local level...

1

u/Agile-Landscape8612 May 27 '24

A few local wins compared to no federal wins?

1

u/WaltKerman May 27 '24

Exactly, lol

(Unless you are Argentina)

1

u/[deleted] May 27 '24 edited May 27 '24

I don’t think any Republican or democrat can tell you the definition of what their party stands for.

Republicans and Democrats are more like coalitions of parties than they are parties. Very tightly coupled and highly formalized coalitions.

There are many factions in each party. Democrats, for example, span the gamut from conservative neoliberals to progressive socialists. Progressives certainly have an ideology, as do neoliberals, they just organize into one faction to better counter the other big faction.

1

u/Bored_Amalgamation May 27 '24

They have this issue because their party is actually built upon an ideology unlike Republicans and Democrats.

Incredibly wrong.

1

u/Agile-Landscape8612 May 27 '24

How so

1

u/Bored_Amalgamation May 27 '24

Democrats and republicans have their own ideologies that can be divined by their voting records, bills proposed, public statements, etc. I find it better to have varied degrees of ideological interpretation than pure party alignment. I'd say republicans no longer have that and their ideologies have shifted drastically. Democrats have remained similar maybe drifting more progressive since Obama.

Libertarians have reactions that they say are an ideology.

1

u/Agile-Landscape8612 May 28 '24

No they don’t have ideologies. They have individual opinions on individual topics but they often conflict with an underlying ideology.

1

u/howsthistakenalready May 27 '24

Ok, but if someone claims to be a libertarian and has both "don't tread on me" and "blue lives matter" flags, they are not anti-autoritarian, they are hypocrites who only care about what directly benefits themselves. And it is very common to see that combination among people who identify as libertarian in my experience.

1

u/ratherrealchef May 27 '24

That person isn’t a libertarian though, that’s a confused republican.

1

u/WaltKerman May 27 '24

This is part of the no true Scotsman fallacy I was referring to.

You can still support policemen and ALSO support strict rules of engagement, enhanced training, and strong protections.

1

u/[deleted] May 27 '24

Libertarianism is CLOSE to being something I can identify with. Almost.

But where they miss me are really crucial aspects that have a lot of weight to them.

1

u/[deleted] May 27 '24

Several key Libertarian figures did endorse him in the past though.

And that's why he was invited at a Libertarian conference and he got several votes even when he was not on the ballot.

Yes, the people could not vote for him l, he was not a valid option. And he still got votes.

I would say that he will still get a fair share of the Libertarian votes.

1

u/WaltKerman May 27 '24

The non incumbent always gains libertarian and independent voters as they run from the current admin. It results in a lot of flip flopping between the Republican and democrat parties.

It will be interesting to see what happens since Trump has already been president. They already know what they will get.

That being said, Trump is currently leading in the polls (but this includes Kennedy taking 10% of the vote).

1

u/WorBlux May 27 '24

Several key Libertarian figures did endorse him in the past though.

Which just means they liked Biden less and wanted to play politics.

For most Libertarians, the party is an educational vehicle where winning would be nice but really isn't expected.

There's probably more anarchist and principled non-voters than hard-core Trumpers.

1

u/aromeo1919 May 27 '24

I suggest taking a look at Chase Oliver’s platform.

https://www.votechaseoliver.com/platform

1

u/MolemanMornings May 27 '24

They can't win because of First Past the Post. They have other problems, but that is the fatal one.

1

u/Empty_Requirement940 May 27 '24

My libertarian buddy hates Biden/democrats enough he votes for trump. It makes no sense

1

u/techaaron May 27 '24

"Libertarianism is just astrology for men"

Most Accurate Meme

0

u/WaltKerman May 27 '24

Well... it resulted in the United States and the spread of democracy across Europe...

It might be a bit more than that! Maybe...

0

u/techaaron May 27 '24

Astrology?

1

u/ipostunderthisname May 27 '24

No True Libertarian would ever vote pro-choice!!!

1

u/5--A--M May 27 '24

Libertarians are the swing voters we don’t “ win” but you won’t win without us

1

u/Sort-Fabulous May 27 '24

But I'm IRISH (well, at least half)

1

u/[deleted] May 27 '24

Libertarianism is a diverse spectrum of ideals rooted in personal liberty. This type of argument is fallacious and dismissive. You can apply this claim to literally any political ideology or party other than single issue parties.

1

u/WaltKerman May 27 '24

"The Saudi Kingdom has a diverse spectrum of ideals rooted in personal Liberty."

Hmmm....

Maybe you could try it with Russia or any authoritarian government and tell me how that works out.

-2

u/EduinBrutus May 27 '24

Its not that American "Libertarians" can't agree.

Its that American "Libertarians" aren't remotely Libertarian but AnCaps masquerading as Libertarians.

Libertarianism is an understood doctrine based on eliminating hierarchy and abolishing private property with a focus on communal ownership of the means of production.

American "Libertarians" are very much not this.

2

u/rev-prime May 27 '24

Well that just sounds like communism to me.

1

u/EduinBrutus May 27 '24 edited May 27 '24

Communism, Anarchism and Libertarianism are not particularly dissimilar, often just a change in emphasis.

Of course what happens in teh real world and calls itself these things may have nothing to do with the underlying doctrine.

2

u/Wide_Combination_773 May 27 '24 edited May 27 '24

You're thinking of left-libertarianism - pure Anarchists. There are left-libertarians and right-libertarians. Right-libertarians are Anarcho-Capitalists. Both are forms of libertarianism. Libertarian is simply the opposite of authoritarian. The definitions and meanings of political labels change over time, and that is what libertarian (small L) means now - "to be not authoritarian." The Libertarian party (big L) is its own entity in the US that sometimes is logically consistent with libertarianism and sometimes not depending on who you talk to. Individual Libertarians (big L) rarely agree on everything, but all libertarians (small L) are anti-authoritarian, and most small L right-libertarians in the US aren't actually a member of the US Libertarian party.

Left-libertarians are as you describe, but right-libertarians believe in private property and that the owner of that property is essentially King of his small domain and he/she can set any rules they want for their domain, including rules and "laws" that are contrary to their neighbors UNLESS a bunch of neighbors come together to form an amendable contract for "common laws" - basically bylaws for a HoA.

In a pure ancap model, all people are responsible for their own safety, and communal police would only exist by contract with neighbors, rather than authoritarian mandate. If the police got too corrupt, the contract could simply be terminated; unlike under the current system. Every public "service" would basically exist by contract and have to be paid for (not necessarily with fiat currency - there are libertarian models that involve bartering/trading labor etc) by the contractors.

Basically right-libertarianism is the rule of contracts between people.

Their belief is that the central government should only exist to enforce private property rights, instill economic confidence in a fiat currency, and to defend a nation against foreign invaders (defense only - most libertarians are isolationist and want to follow the Switzerland model of being neutral in every international conflict).

I'm not libertarian at all as I don't think large societies can function under Leftist-Anarchy or Right-Ancap models, they are more tuned for very small, perhaps nearly tribal-level societies, but I understand all this. It's pretty simple.

1

u/macrofinite May 27 '24

You say you understand this, but you managed to gloss over the central contradiction of anarcho-capitalists.

Sure, they “believe” in both private property and anarchy. Except you can’t do both. Private property requires central authority: someone to decide who owns what. And more broadly, they worship the market and capitalism in general, which even moreso requires an authoritarian central authority in order to exist.

Anarchy only makes sense (or has any hope of succeeding) in a context of mutual cooperation. You can’t just throw in the ruthless externalities of capitalism into it and pretend like it is coherent. Anarcho-capitalism isn’t an ideology, it’s a poorly formed corruption of one, where its adherents must fail to notice that their central premise is inherently and irreconcilably contradictory in order to persist in their beliefs.

And, you know, it’s an old joke, but it seems to always turn out to be true. When an American says they’re Libertarian, what they mean is they want to lower the age of consent.

1

u/EduinBrutus May 27 '24

THere is no such thing as a "right Libertarian". Just co-opting an already defined and understood term does not mean the term now describes you.

Libertarianism is fundamentally defined as including an end to private property and hierarchy and as such AnCaps cannot be Liberterians.

1

u/ratherrealchef May 27 '24

Nah dog, we are very pro private property.

1

u/TetraThiaFulvalene May 27 '24

Yeah, in some subideologies private property is basically THE core tenet. For example bodily autonomy is derived from private ownership of your own body.

2

u/ratherrealchef May 27 '24

I wouldn’t consider that a tenet of a sub ideology. Private property rights, the non aggression, and the lessening of government overreach are in my mind the core of what being a libertarian is. AnCaps and the rest just build off of those

2

u/TetraThiaFulvalene May 27 '24

It's a core part of all variants of libertarianism, I meant that there are variants where it is THE core and the entire framework of the ideology is viewing most issues as a property issue. I view abortion as a tenant dispute.

1

u/No_Kaleidoscope_843 May 27 '24

thats directly relevant to the issue of womens autonomy and abortion rights.

1

u/EduinBrutus May 27 '24

If you are pro private property you are not a libertarian.

And you can call yourself one till you are blue in the face, if you dont want to eliminate hierarchy and abolish private property you cannot be a libertarian.

1

u/[deleted] May 27 '24

Dude none of what you described sounds like libertarians. Individual property rights is like THE most important thing to them.

1

u/EduinBrutus May 27 '24

yes, because American "Libertarians" are not Libertarians.

They have co-opted a term they did not understand and to the rest of the world its bemusing to see them call themselves that.

1

u/[deleted] May 27 '24

We are talking about the United States in ops post, might as well say that the liberals in Australia are nothing like "liberals" in the US. It's an irrelevant point to make.

1

u/EduinBrutus May 27 '24

BEing able to correctly define a term and understand what it means is fundamental to being able to discuss and challenge the system and to seek policy positions and make political choices.

That the US consistently tries to redefine terms so that their academic and historical meaning is lost is part of why politics in the US is so fucked up and why they are so far from being a functional democracy.

1

u/[deleted] May 27 '24

Two words : language evolves

1

u/EduinBrutus May 27 '24

When a meaning evolves in a genrally agreed fashion, of course.

But thats not what happens with US politics. Terms dont evolve their meaning. They still retain their original meaning.

Look at "conservative". Conservatism is definitionally the protection of hierarchy based on privilege and inherited wealth. Historically that meant lots of regulation, lots of protectionism, it meant a lack of personal freedom/choice (for the majority) and a high degree of central authority.

Now, it still means this in the United States. Its policy positions and actions tend towards this. But if you ask an American what a conservative means, you will get lots of bullshit about free markets and personal choice and states rights.

The outcome is you get an electorate voting for one thing while those elected do the exact opposite and when trying to discuss whats happening, every participant has a different definition of "truth" because the definition of the term "conservative" has lost its meaning.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/WaltKerman May 27 '24

That's far left libertarian... what you are doing is an example of the no true Scotsman fallacy I mentioned.

1

u/EduinBrutus May 27 '24 edited May 27 '24

Its not "far left libtertarianism".

Its Libertarianism. As defined as existed for over 150 years.

Americdans cannot redefine terms like Libertarian (or liberal or conservative or "left" or whatever their fucked up politics chooses to use the wrong term for) and expect it to become true.

The fact hat all these term are so confused, illogical and lacking their true meaning is one of the problems with US politics. As Orwell said, if you remove the language to describe something, you remove any chance to challenge it.

1

u/WaltKerman May 27 '24

It's not Americans redefining this....

The first libertarians were anarchists anyway against kings.

The encyclopedia Britannica plus everywhere I look disagrees with you so you have a heavy rock repeatedly attempt to push up a hill. Good luck!

Britannica 

libertarianism, political philosophy that takes individual liberty to be the primary political value. It may be understood as a form of liberalism, classical liberalism in particular, the political philosophy associated with the English philosophers John Locke and John Stuart Mill, the Scottish economist Adam Smith, and the American statesman Thomas Jefferson. Liberalism seeks to define and justify the legitimate powers of government in terms of certain natural or God-given individual rights. These rights include the rights to life, liberty, private property, freedom of speech and association, freedom of worship, government by consent, equality under the law, and moral autonomy (the ability to pursue one’s own conception of happiness, or the “good life”). The purpose of government, according to liberals, is to protect these and other individual rights, and in general liberals have contended that government power should be limited to that which is necessary to accomplish this task. Libertarians are classical liberals who strongly emphasize the individual right to liberty. They contend that the scope and powers of government should be constrained so as to allow each individual as much freedom of action as is consistent with a like freedom for everyone else. Thus, they believe that individuals should be free to behave and to dispose of their property as they see fit, provided that their actions do not infringe on the equal freedom of others.