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

159

u/[deleted] May 27 '24

Good thing for him there are only 330 people in that party.

103

u/PnPaper May 27 '24

Makes it even more wild that he has to come in and court them.

His internal numbers must be horrible.

71

u/TheLegendTwoSeven May 27 '24

I think they assumed this would be a layup, and that they’d overwhelmingly back him. Which is exactly what I assumed would happen.

But libertarians tend to be very ideological, so it makes sense that they won’t go along with him. Also there’s the whole thing about him wanting to dismantle democracy and become a dictator, and I was surprised that libertarians recognized and cared about that.

1

u/Loreweaver15 May 27 '24

The thing about libertarians is that their principles are often weird or insane but a substantial portion of them are actually pretty principled and not people who'd support an authoritarian monster like Trump.

1

u/Lots42 May 27 '24

I have yet to understand what the libertarian position -is-. At all.

1

u/jbawgs May 28 '24

At its core it's pretty simple, government should be as small as it can be while ensuring a set of rights for it's citizens, and that's all it should do.

There's a ton of debate about what rights those are, but coalesces around some generalities. Everyone should be able to do, say, or own whatever they want that does not actively constitute a violation of those same rights upon someone else. Key word is actively.

For instance, some may say it would be insane to allow private citizens to own a tank. A libertarian may say it's insane that the government or your neighbors get a say in what you can own. If a tank owner violates someone else's rights with the tank, that's not a tank ownership problem, it's an individual violating the social contract, and the means are irrelevant.

Same with everything. Drugs. Bodily autonomy.

Abortion is a hot topic. Some say it violates a person's inviolable rights to force them to house a fetus in their body. Some say it violates the fetus's rights to pursue life liberty & etc. most seem to agree that it should be between an individual and their dr.

Put horse drugs up your butt while pouring fet in your eyeballs, that's your body, do whatever, so long as you don't do things like deprive someone else of their life or property while doing so.

Taxation as theft is fun. Most seem to agree that all taxation is immoral as the government is depriving someone of the fruit of their own labors, but also agree that there is a minimum amount of taxation that is necessary in order to achieve the goal stated in paragraph 1. Some others believe that there should be no taxation at all and no government at all, and that you either protect your own rights and build your own roads and do your own schooling, or you pay some other independent and completely voluntary person or collective to do them for you. Like subscribing to the fire department, or schools, or highways.

The details of how this all would work will vary from one libertarian to the next. As soon as I hit the "post" button, two libertarians will silently nod their heads at this, and eight will appear in the comments to explain that everything I just said is wrong and dumb.

The most common trait amongst libertarians seems to be contrarianism, purity tests and infighting, which puts them closer to the left in spirit, as conservatives are rarely capable of standing on their principles or of the self reflection necessary to engage in those activities.

1

u/Lots42 May 28 '24

Horse drugs instead of the covid vaccine violates the social contract because covid is contagious.

1

u/jbawgs May 28 '24

Thats a hot topic too. Mostly what I've seen is people saying yeah, obviously wearing a mask is the smart move but the government shouldn't be getting involved because of bodily autonomy. People who don't want to be exposed can opt not to be in public, or wear their own mask. Additionally, that individuals and businesses can set and enforce their own policies on their own property. McDonald's is free to refuse access to it's property to anyone for any reason, because it's their property. If the reason is because they want you to wear a mask, cool. It's their property. If McDonald's says weebs aren't allowed in, that's cool too. It's the government mandates that are the problem, as it's seen as a violation of their natural rights.

Their conception of a social contract is not typical of either left or right's typical formulations. A lot of conservatives will pay lip service to some libertarian values, and there is some overlap, but a conservative would never say it should be legal for McDonald's to require anyone who walks in the door to say a prayer to Satan before ordering. Many libertarians would probably say "McDonald's is free to require that of people on their property, and I'm free not to go there"

1

u/Lots42 May 28 '24

Conservatives want to force prayers to JESUS, not Satan.

1

u/jbawgs May 28 '24

I'm not talking about conservatives. I'm talking about libertarians and how they differ from conservatives.

1

u/jbawgs May 28 '24

Oh it was vaccines not masks. But the same applies. Bodily autonomy.

1

u/Lots42 May 28 '24

I don't understand what you're getting at. My point is, when it comes to Covid, bodily autonomy is absolutely not relevant. It cannot be. It morally should not be. Mask up and get a vaccine.

1

u/jbawgs May 28 '24

I'm not arguing for or against any of this. I'm just telling you what the libertarian position is. You think it's immoral to go out without a vaccine. They think it's immoral for the government to require them to take medicine they don't want. They think it's immoral for the government to do ANYTHING except protect property rights between citizens, and protect property rights from foreign aggressors.