anyone who claims to be “a libertarian” should be forced to watch the libertarian convention which YOU KNOW none of them have ever seen in their lives.
check out the ideas your “party” pushes. real big brain stuff.
there’s nothing wrong with freedom, but regulation is necessary. to say otherwise is either ignorance, stupidity, or malice.
to say otherwise is either ignorance, stupidity, or malice
Why not all three?
¿Por qué no los tres?
I’m a libertarian because the only thing I hate worse than Democrats are MAGA Republicans - And at least unlike Democrats and Republicans, I’m well aware that my party is a joke.
And before you criticize me, I voted Democrat against that orange wannabe dictator THREE FUCKING TIMES, grinding my teeth and swearing as I did so every time, but I still fucking did so, so spare me the lectures.
People like you should work on splitting the republican party.
And after that establish a more fair voting system that isn’t primed to stall at a two party state from the beginning.
People like you should work on splitting the republican party.
Oh trust me, I’ve been trying to convince any Trump voter who’s willing to listen that Trump is a con-man and a wannabe dictator for the last eight years.
It definitely helps that I speak their language - I’m a construction worker and a vet with a mouth that would probably offend many who consider themselves “woke” - but the most common problem I run in to is that even if I can get them to “see the light” and consider that Trump might be a con-man and a wannabe dictator, inevitably they go back to their own right-wing MAGA echo chambers and much of what I say goes out the damn window.
Damn, but thank you very much for trying! 🫶🏻🙏🏻
stunning and brave
also the vast majority of dems did the same thing, we just don’t feel the need to tell everyone how different we are because of it
also the vast majority of dems did the same thing, we just don’t feel the need to tell everyone how different we are because of it
^ Translation: “I am too clueless to figure out that this thread is a conversation about Libertarians, and thus discussing Libertarians and Libertarianism is totally appropriate and on-topic.”
By the way, Pumpkin… Who died and made you in charge of what I talk about on the internet with others? Just curious.
yeah im clowning on the entire concept of “being libertarian” rather than libertarian ideas
you can talk about whatever you want, and I can clown on you for doing it. that’s freedom, baby.
or should i say pumpkin
Ah, my mistake. I had assumed you were just too socially clueless to understand how conversations work.
Enjoy being a clown!
lol ok dude
👍
Not going to try to preach or anything, but just wondering if you’ve ever read this article? Excellent read that sheds some light on real libertarian experiments and how they’ve gone wrong:
A Libertarian Walks into a Bear: How a New Hampshire libertarian utopia was foiled by bears
LMAO I own the book. I am well aware my party is a clown show, I just want to be able to grow weed, shoot guns, light fireworks, and enjoy the company of sex workers consensually within my poly marriage to my trans wife.
…Okay, I made that last part up, but you never know - I might one day feel the need to marry a trans girl and bang call girls together with her in a poly relationship, dammit, because life is short.
and enjoy the company of sex workers consensually within my poly marriage to my trans wife.
Are you against the government codifying protections for these people due to the undeniable danger that they face?
Nope, but that being said I don’t believe in the government being competent enough to do so in the first place, especially when there’s always going to be Republicans eager to revoke those protections.
That being said, I definitely encourage trans folks to arm themselves because let’s face it, the government will not protect them in any way under the Trump administration. The second amendment applies to all Americans and sadly there’s a lot of bigots around nowadays who are more than happy to commit a hate crime.
Nope, but that being said I don’t believe in the government being competent enough to do so in the first place,
Then I don’t think you’re a libertarian. If you were, you would not believe that this is even a possibility. My understanding is that it’s a core belief that the government, by definition, cannot be competent enough to do things like that.
Then I don’t think you’re a libertarian.
LMAO don’t mansplain Libertarianism to me.
I wouldn’t have. I’ve never voted party lines.
I am a PJ fan and follower, but I am well aware that he has long been a naive idiot operating from a place of priviledge. He is well insulated from the pitfalls of the ideas he espouses, and it took an UNDENIABLE COLLAPSE into straight up Nazism for him to finally grasp it.
Luv ya Penn, but I ain’t giving you any fucking medals
Yeah, but the bar is through the floor at this point. I’ll take anything I can get.
And the more people come out and say “oh shit I was wrong” the easier it becomes for others to do the same.
good to see teller talked some sense into him
I see what you did there.
I haven’t always agreed with him politically, but Penn Jillette seems like a good dude.
he always seemed like more of a michael badnarik libertarian than the current far right social libertarians.
Cool
We need to start sending the youths to the last bastion of American education.
This clown school graduate is walking circles around the Harvard and Yale doctorates.
What if the government is like Reddit? We move to lemmy to get away from their influence and to have our own values.
Why does this not make sense when it comes to politics? Communities are captured by network effects. It’s an uphill battle to make things right if the idiots have to be dragged along.
Even when it comes to racism, let people be racist somewhere. Let them live their miserable life while there is no need to waste resources on making them treat all humans with respect. However, unlike the North after the war, help those who are stuck with them, to get away.
What?
let people be racist somewhere
No.
Let them live their miserable life while there is no need to waste resources on making them treat all humans with respect.
Where exactly is that supposed to happen? And how do you envision this working? You want us to enable a state run entirely by people who are racist and violent and give them their own place to do whatever they want? What exactly do you propose we do with the folks who live wherever this is already? Because it seems like in your scenario their choices are leave or live with racist assholes. Have you not even heard of Israel? Or are you just a racist fan of genocide?
However, unlike the North after the war, help those who are stuck with them, to get away.
…
Because it seems like in your scenario their choices are leave or live with racist assholes.
If it is not a matter of principles, what is so bad about moving as long as you are supported? When done right, things should be better than living with assholes.
Have you not even heard of Israel?
Good point. There is just no need to support that.
Many libertarians believe that the concept of freedom is in accord with the Non-Aggression Principle, according to which each individual has the right to live as they choose, as long as they do not violate the rights of others by initiating force or fraud against them.
Okay. How does kicking a bunch of people off their land so you can have your own extra-white version of Israel fit into that?
Not at all. If Israel were a libertarian country with a non-aggression principle then they wouldn’t do it.
My understanding is that the freedom of each person has to be protected or everthing falls back to tribalism where everybody has to seek membership in a group to be protected.
Because it seems like in your scenario their choices are leave or live with racist assholes.
If it is not a matter of principles, what is so bad about moving as long as you are supported? When done right, things should be better than living with assholes.
…
… So do you not see how you’re advocating for an aggressive removal of people to make room for violent colonizers? You know, like Israel?
I said moving, not being moved or forced. Is there something wrong with moving if it is not forced?
Okay. I’ll play along. Who / what country are you going to get to willingly give up their homes and land and everything that is included in that? With what resources will you ensure they are taken care of in… wherever they’re being deported to? Where, by the way, is that? I’m sure you’ve thought that far ahead if you’re serious about this. What will you do if someone doesn’t want to go from their home? I’m certain you have a non - genocidal answer, because you seem pretty sure this is happening peacefully. What about disabled and elderly folks that can’t travel at all let alone move to another country? You wouldn’t be suggesting eugenics and race based large scale ethnic cleansing obviously.
Penn Jilletet pulled me 100 % onto the vaccine train with his ball and shield demonstration with teller on their bull shit show. Until this day, I still haven’t seen any demonstration that was more convincing than that on any subject in the amount of time that they used.
That series is really more relevant than ever.
Searched for what you mean but can’t find it. Can you link it?
This looks like it (searched
ball and shield penn teller vaccineon Invidious/YouTube)
Being wrong admitting it and changing your mind with new information is absolutely amazing and a great character trait. Props to him.
Except that he lives a life of high privilege and has spent YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS saying the rest if us were wrong and immoral. It took straight up Nazism for him to back down. If Kamala were President now he would have doubled down on his philosophy
Penn Gilette has always seemed to be driven by a level of honesty and compassion and valued the freedom to choose where to direct that compassion. I think earlier on he viewed other libertarians as having the same level of honest compassion as he does but over time it’s become more and more clear that libertarians are overwhelmingly selfish rich white guys who don’t want to be called Repuiblicans.
I mean in the early 2000s he was calling bullshit on the hysteria over the vaccine autism link saying the alternative of kids dying to preventable diseases is so much worse. He even gave the tenuous link a benefit of the doubt and accepted that even if they did cause autism,t he alternative is so much worse.
There aren’t many people who are willing to evaluate their entire political decisions and come to the conclusion that they were wrong. Even fewer who will admit it publicly. Even fewer still who will accept responsibility and then do something about it.
Of the people I have respectfully disagreed with, the fact that he’s come around is a huge testament to his willingness to be humbled and corrected.
There aren’t many people who are willing to evaluate their entire political decisions and come to the conclusion that they were wrong
I doubt that his ideology actually changed much, but instead he just realized that the Libertarian Party didn’t actually match it like they claimed to do.
The New Hampshire libertarians went full tea party and dragged the rest down with them. I never expected to see anti LGBT rhetoric from a party that enshrined gay rights in their charter way back in 1972, at a time when the Democrats and Republicans were holding hands and chanting “God hates fags” in unison
Yeah I remember when libertarians were “I want a good old fashioned mom and mom Marijuana farm where they defend it with machine guns if they so choose”. And back then my beef with them was climate change requires everyone to work in tandem and is an existential threat. These days, libertarians are Republicans who know to be ashamed to call themselves that
I never thought they were a viable option for taking one of the two main party slots, but I thought they had some good things to say and their voice should be heard. Now they’re just part of the far right noise machine.
DAE DEI IS BAD???
No, LPNH, no I don’t.
They’re not even real NH people-- after the internet was invented all these freaks found each other across the country and made a pact to move to NH. Then there were enough of them to implement all the absolute stupidest of libertarian ideals in one place (not that I have much hope for even the best of their ideals to succeed).
They essentially astroturfed a party and made NH look like shit. Which is why this sweaty mutant is talking about toaster licenses.
Was that when a bunch of libertarians flooded a town as new residents, dismantled the municipal government and ended up being overrun by bears because they didn’t lock up their garbage cans after dismantling the requirements to lock up garbage cans?
he viewed other libertarians as having the same level of honest compassion as he does but over time it’s become more and more clear that libertarians are overwhelmingly selfish rich white guys who don’t want to be called Repuiblicans
I had a similar progression myself when I was in my teens, maybe even early 20s.
The basic principle of libertarianism is appealing: mind your own damn business and I’ll mind mine. And I still agree with that in general — it’s just that a single generality does not make a complete worldview. It took me a while to realize how common it is for self-identifying libertarians to lack any capacity for nuance. The natural extreme of “libertarianism” is just anarchy and feudalism.
In a sane world, I might still call myself a libertarian. In a sane world, that might mean letting people live their own damn lives, not throwing them to the wolves (or more literally, bears ) and dismantling the government entirely.
I’m all for minding my own business, but I also acknowledge that maintaining a functional society is everybody’s business (as much as I occasionally wish I could opt out and go live in a cave).
One problem with libertarianism and the other selfish philosophies is that humanity absolutely cannot survive at all without a massive amount of cooperation.
Assholes who think they can do it on their own are completely delusional.
If you eliminate everything from your life that required the cooperation of another human being, it’s likely you’re naked, starving, and freezing to death.
"Oh, I can hunt for food.’
Really? With just your bare hands? Maybe your naked ass will get lucky and nail a squirrel with a rock, but what are you going to do when a mountain lion decides you’re the squirrel?
Even if you manage to make some rock tools and weapons, you didn’t figure that out on your own. Someone told you about it.
Knowledge is the biggest advantage humans have going for them. Without sharing knowledge that others discovered, most people wouldn’t last long enough to matter.
Too damn right. Community is what makes humans strong. Eventually from those communities we form institutions which build nations, which may even build empires and coalitions.
A human alone is just potential food for something else.
The basic principle of libertarianism is appealing: mind your own damn business and I’ll mind mine. And I still agree with that in general — it’s just that a single generality does not make a complete worldview
The problem is obviously that nobody lives in isolation. Everyone takes actions which impact other people.
If there are going to be laws, then the government needs a police force and a judiciary that are big enough to enforce those laws. If there are going to be companies, the government has to be bigger than the biggest company, otherwise it won’t be able to effectively enforce anything. The bigger the biggest company gets, the bigger the government has to be in order to be able to enforce the laws. But, big government is antithetical to the libertarian philosophy. If you want to limit the size of the government but still want government to be able to enforce laws, you need to limit the size of companies. But that’s a regulation, and government regulations are antithetical to the ideas of libertarianism.
Arguing for the idea that the government should generally let people mind their own business as long as nobody is getting hurt, or that consenting adults are knowingly and willingly consenting to being hurt, that’s fine. Same with the idea that regulations shouldn’t be overly burdensome. There’s always going to have to be a line drawn somewhere, but it’s fine if you tend to want that line to be drawn in a way that allows for more freedom vs. more babysitting by the government.
The ridiculous bit is when libertarians try to argue that some extreme form of libertarianism is possible. Anarchy is certainly possible, but it isn’t something that most people, even libertarians, think is a great plan.
The extreme forms of Libertarianism or Anarchy are only possible if everyone engages in good faith. They have no built-in protections against bad actors. Someone wants to divert a river for any reason? Sucks to be downstream.
Anarchism can. Anarchism is not the stupid “no rules” thing the media portrays. It’s a lack of hierarchy, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have government, rules, and protections. In fact, I think any Anarchist would agree they’re required or else people can be exploited and lose their freedom, or things like your example can happen. We should just do it in a more cooperative form, not with a ruling class making the rules for us peasants.
How can rules be enforced without a heirarchy of privilege? What stops someone from saying “I don’t consent to being told what to do”?
To use a real world example of anarchism in action, shopping carts in a parking lot. I’m doubtful anyone has said “you have to return your shopping cart to a cart return” but the generally people do return their shopping carts. There’s also people in vests that come around and clean up the parking lot of loose shopping carts. Sometimes people might offer to pass off a cart they just finished using to someone else, or maybe even snag and extra errant cart on their way to cart return. There’s no heirarchy, no authority on high dictating the rules, just people doing their thing and generally following the rules but there is someone who is paid to make sure things get cleaned up when the inevitability of stupidity happens.
People can cooperate without the need for a hierarchy. They can agree that some actions are bad and to punish people without an elite doing so.
If you want to learn more, there are tons of resources. Here’s a few:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/john-r-what-is-anarchism
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-full
You don’t need an “elite” for there to be a heirarchy. I know what anarchism is I just disagree that it’s an effective ideology for post-industrial humanity. The world is too complex, our choices have too many consequences, for individuals to make good decisions without ceding some responsibility of knowledge to specialists. This means regulatory bodies, lobbyists, and ideally a democratic means of appointing people to these bodies without being at the short-sighted whims of whoever is suddenly mad that they aren’t allowed to fill in a bunch of marshes to build a commune.
I don’t think heirarchy intrinsically means class divide, which is the part I see as important. Full disclosure: I most identify with authoritarian-leftism with sympathies to anarchism as a utopian ideal. My education in ecology taught me that people are not to be trusted without strong regulatory agencies, as much as I’d like to believe that individuals generally want to do right.
The core political belief I hold is that so long as you are not directly harming someone else, you should be free to do that. That said, I have a lot built up on that.
I do not extend it to corporations or government. I believe that regulation is undoubtedly necessary for a functioning society.
And with laws, nuance is in everything. Nothing is ever so black and white to have a zero tolerance policy.
The perverse ideas that money is speech and corporations are people can make a lot of simple common-sense statements suddenly completely insane.
I support free speech. Money is not speech.
I support personal freedom. Corporations are not people.
Why limit it to direct harm? There’s tons of easily avoidable ways to indirectly cause harm. The most obvious to me are about our natural world: taking anything in an unsustainable way deprives others of opportunity, up to and including their ability to feed themself. Reckless hunting or fishing, poisoning water with agriculture runoff, introducing invasive species for personal gain or through negligence, even just cutting down all the trees around you can have loads of consequences with the impact to animal habitat and increased soil erosion.
Indirect becomes nebulous. At what degree of indirect harm do we set that limit. Almost every action we do may cause indirect harm to others. It might be better phrases as “physically” harms someone. I don’t want to get into someone doing something to themselves like taking drugs and restrict it solely on the basis that it will hurt their family and friends to see what happens to them.
I use it as the core base of my beliefs, but that doesn’t mean I don’t think that freedom divests them of any responsibility for their indirect actions. It’s the default position until something convinces me why it should be restricted or outlawed.
I also limit it to individuals working alone. Once they work in groups and organize the damage that can be done is different. Or doing it for commercial reasons. I believe private businesses can only exist under strict regulation.
My indirect harm litmus test would fall along the lines of like an OSHA style philosophy of regulation, for example for any kind of ledges we generally require rigid hand railings. If someone got hurt falling off a ledge at my workplace sure I didn’t do anything to cause it, but I’d still be on the hook for their injury because I didn’t take the required steps to reasonably prevent unnecessary injury.
When I was younger I called myself a libertarian. This was progression from a somewhat conservative family, with my ideal that people should be left to do what they want as long as it doesn’t harm others. I eventually progressed towards a leftist mindset and now consider myself an anarchist. Same idea, except libertarians mostly want no protections and are pro-hierachy, which leads to a lack of freedom not more freedom. If companies are free to do what they want they will use their position to remove the freedom of workers to make choices freely, for example.
I still hold most of the same ideals as I did then, as I’m sure Penn Jillette probably does too. I just have a better view of the consequences of the policies that they push for.
Edit: reread this and it comes off as accuaation. Im not accuijng you, just typed the thing in second person.
Often l have found that libertarians aren’t so much pro hierarchy, so much as blind to the role they play in the existing heirarchy.
It seems common to not turn a critical eye to yourself to see where you actually fit into the scene of things, and missing that you are in fact doing harm yo others by being ignorant of the impact of your actions is super on brand.
Libertarianism always felt like 2/3s of the way there, where the only remaining domino is to recognize “wealth is a thing I have because of circumstance… If someone else had this wealth, what would they do with it, and if they had Elon Musk billions what would that look like?”
Yeah, I don’t have any problem with libertarianism in theory. Pro-civil liberties, anti-racism, anti-war, pro-choice, pro-guns, free markets, etc. I disagree with the value of some of it, but I can see why someone might thoughtfully and sincerely come to that sort of rationale. I’ve never really had a problem with Penn’s (and Teller’s) views because of that.
But the reality is that the majority of modern libertarians are just narcissist capitalists that do not like rules or laws that restrict them from doing anything they want. That or, way worse, they’re Ayn Rand ideologues who genuinely believe that self-service is a moral imperative, charity is immoral, poverty is personal failure, human life is measured in productivity, and the sick, poor, or malformed should be left to whatever fate the market gives them. Those types are some of the worst people on the planet. They see a wealthy capitalist as inherently a leader and role model and think he should be unconstrained from accumulating more wealth without concern for society, employees, or individual rights. We’re living in the light version of their ideal, and it gets closer to that ideal every day.
Agreed. If right-libertarianism could work at all, they’d need to be on the frontlines of boycotting companies that do bad things.
They claim that the government doesn’t need to force desegregated lunch counters; people would stop eating there until that place either changed or went out of business. Alright. Are they going to be the first ones to stand up and boycott companies that do anything like that? Because from what I saw, they were the first ones to say “they technically have a right to do that” and then do nothing. Almost like letting them get away with it was the actual point.
Gilette seems to have caught on to this trick at some point.
I feel the same with Unions and the broader Right. Like the whole point of Unions is they’re the “free market” equivalent of government regulation. If you’re pro free market but anti-union, then you’re not actually pro free market, you’re just pro exploitation.
Absolutely. It’s no coincidence that anti-union sentiment is common among right-libertarians.
“A lot of the illusions that I held dear, rugged individualism, individual freedoms, are coming back to bite us in the ass. It seems like getting rid of the gatekeepers gave us Trump as president, and in the same breath, in the same wind, gave us not wearing masks, and maybe gave us a huge unpleasant amount of overt racism.”
Hats off to a man willing to admit he made a mistake.
Removed by mod
We should remember that at the time there was a severe lack of masks of any kind available. So creating a masking culture and blocking as much as possible was seen as better than just rawdogging the atmosphere.
the shortage was for a few months at best, I was working as a trucker hauling grain then, wheat dust is fucking nasty, I often wore a mask for that, an N95, which I went out of my way to get in bulk. Cloth masks can’t keep grain dust out of your lungs, don’t tell me they do anything as to a virus.
don’t tell me they do anything as to a virus.
Okay. I won’t, but the NIH would like a word.
Removed by mod
Grain dust PPM to a person working in a grain dust rich environment ≠ covid particles in every day air, So…. I don’t know why you feel the need to make such a bad faith a comparison of the two.
Additionally, masks of ANY type are helpful as they can assist in the virus containment of the WEARER should they be the one exposed.
Lastly, seriously… How do you not understand that there are two sides to a mask and that air travels in more than one direction through them?
Removed by mod
That’s a common misconception of how masks work during an epidemy. The main reason to wear a mask is not to be safe from other people. It’s to not spread the virus (that may not cause any symptoms yet but be present in you) to others. That’s why doctors wear masks during surgeries - to not harm the patient. A proper mask works better and can protect you as well, but a cloth mask can limit the amount of breath you spread all around you and can be effective enough to limit the spread of the disease. So it’s not the same situation as with grain dust, where you need to protect yourself, not the others.
I tried saying the same thing. It’s clear that they aren’t here to have a reasonable discussion.
Removed by mod
And those were also the few months that NYC was using refrigerated semi trailers as extra morgue space because so many people were dying. And yeah they do. Some virus particles will be too small to be stopped but some will be riding larger particles and be stopped with them. Reducing the sheer amount of virus in an area is always better. Whether it’s by 10 percent or 90 percent.
sorry I had to block the community because the mod is a dumbass fuck who can’t handle very simple and demonstrable facts.
It’s more the Japanese way, wear a mask to protect others.
There used to be a time back when libertarianism was anti-capitalist. Then right wingers stole it and turned it into a circus.
Long before most of us were alive yes.
Yep, in fact the first known person to describe themselves as libertarian was anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque[1]. It was only around the 1940s in the US where it turned into a term meaning liberal.
As a trivia note, there’s a socialist caucus in the US Libertarian Party, at least when I checked a few years ago. Quote from Vermin Supreme in 2020, who takes influence from Peter Kropotkin and Situationism among others:
[The US Libertarian Party] has a spectrum. It has a left and right spectrum going on there. I’m talking to older lefties. It’s like, “You do know they have a Libertarian Socialist Caucus. Did you know that?”. Add they’re like, “Really?”. That simple fact that the Libertarian Party has a Libertarian Socialist Caucus, just that alone tends to make people really have to reconsider what they think that the Libertarian Party is. My own campaign is causing people to take a second look at it. I’ve got a fair amount of political goodwill and capital, and certainly I’ve taken some hits for my involvement with the Libertarian Party, but I have found so many beautiful people and they are quite receptive to the concept of mutual aid.
I do not endorse or justify that party as a whole, again, this is a trivia note.
I think this citation on Wikipedia pinpoints the turning point. Yet another thing ruined by conservative McCarthyism?
Russell, Dean (1955). “Who is a libertarian?”. Foundation for Economic Education. Archived from the original on 28 November 2019. Retrieved 28 November 2019.
Many of us call ourselves ‘liberals.’ And it is true that the word ‘liberal’ once described persons who respected the individual and feared the use of mass compulsions. But the leftists have now corrupted that once-proud term to identify themselves and their program of more government ownership of property and more controls over persons. As a result, those of us who believe in freedom must explain that when we call ourselves liberals, we mean liberals in the uncorrupted classical sense. At best, this is awkward and subject to misunderstanding. Here is a suggestion: Let those of us who love liberty trade-mark and reserve for our own use the good and honorable word ‘libertarian’.
I’ve always considered myself a libertarian, but I’m coming to realize I need to find another word. I used to be able to explain that assholes were ruining the name, but now the assholes outnumber people like me by too much.
I think the real turning point was when Jo Jorgensen said, “It is not enough to be passively not racist, we must be actively anti-racist,” and then she had to walk it back because the libertarian party was so fucking racist. Like, that’s not even a political statement. It’s a moral one, and it’s one I agree with.
Then when the Libertarian Party changed their stance on abortion, I was done with them. I clung to the lowercase L label, but at this point it doesn’t seem worth it anymore.
I just think the government should be limited to things that only the government can handle. Policing? Roads? Business regulations? Those are all things that can only be handled by the government. Restrictions on what kind of stove I can buy? Restrictions on what I can put in my body or how I dress or what my kids can read at school? Those are all bullshit.
I guess it helps that I align with Democrats on most of the major issues now, but I still won’t consider myself a Democrat.
Stoves are a great example of why the richest among us want to push libertarianism. You see the freedom to buy a gas stove. They see the freedom to make products that are one penny cheaper but kill their users.
Libertarianism and anarchism in general fail to account for sociopaths who are willing to make others suffer for their own gain.
Libertarianism and anarchism in general fail to account for sociopaths who are willing to make others suffer for their own gain.
Yeah this is the main thing keeping me from adopting anarchism in any meaningful way… I like the concept of mutual aid, but I think anarchism itself relies too heavily on the idea that all people are inherently good. I think that the events of the past decade or so have eliminated all doubt for me that this isn’t the case.
Don’t get me wrong, I think there’s useful lessons in anarchism and leftist libertarianism. They aren’t bad philosophies, just not workable in a pure state
For sure.
Stoves that kill their users should be a violation of the Harm principle. If this isn’t hyperbole then please provide a link to libertarians advocating this — I’m curious to see if/how they’ve carved an exception or otherwise addressed it or weaseled out of it; please link.
Literally one comment up bud, that I responded to.
You missed the part where moakley mentioned business regulations, and the part where I pluralized libertarians and used the word “advocating”.
Please don’t get me wrong — I do want to see links, as it’s unlikely you chose those words without seeing a prior scenario or two.
Anarchism accounts for them just fine. The solution is to kick them out of society.
It’s just a damn shame that we’ve all proven to be cowards and unwilling to do it.
So if we all got together and voted someone out? What if we don’t have time? Should we use representatives?
I mean, how is that any qualitatively different than people enforcing stove regulations themselves? They could do it themselves, with enough motivation.
Conservatives didn’t ruin libertarianism. Libertarianism has always been bad.
Restrictions on what kind of stove I can buy?
Stuff like this is a perfect example of the issues with libertarian ideology. They want freedom to continue to destroy the environment.
I don’t want to destroy the environment. I just like cooking. Surely there are solutions that allow me to still have a nice stove.
“I should be able to have everything exactly the same and it’s the others that need to change”. Induction stoves work fine.
Yeah, I never said anything like that. That’s reductive.
It’s not reductive. You think you should be fine with having your gas stove, no matter what. It demonstrates no willingness to compromise to save the planet.
Induction is your friend
No it isn’t. I’d be willing to try one, but I think gas is better.
I’ve always considered myself a libertarian, but I’m coming to realize I need to find another word.
Other libertarian here. Let me know when you find one.
Then when the Libertarian Party changed their stance on abortion, I was done with them.
Oh, that enraged me. How the hell can these mother fuckers claim to be against big government when they support the government literally policing people’s bodies?
I guess it helps that I align with Democrats on most of the major issues now, but I still won’t consider myself a Democrat.
Same here. Democrats spent too many years telling me I’m “toxic” and “privileged” and treating me as if I’m a problem to be dealt with rather than a human being, plus let’s face it, they’re fucking pussies with no spine who will never grow balls big enough to stand up to Trump in any meaningful way. The ONLY reason I voted Democrat the last three Presidential elections was because Trump and MAGA were obviously worse.
That was pretty much my story until a few years ago, but once I moved past the ‘us vs them’ paradigm, I switched. I’m a Democrat now
I don’t really identify with parties. I just tell people I’m “me”.
“I’m not a member of any organized political party; I’m a Democrat.”
I just think the government should be limited to things that only the government can handle… Business regulations? Those are all things that can only be handled by the government. Restrictions on what kind of stove I can buy? …Those are all bullshit.
So the government should be able to regulate what businesses can do, but not what businesses are allowed to sell? Seems legit.
Libertarianism is just Conservative Lite. They do t want to look like they are associated with the crazy Ultra-Right but still want to participate.
That’s not the case for me.
The smartest people in the room are those who are willing to admit a mistake, or that their opinions have changed.
The wisest people in the room will be able to do that, but I don’t think you have to have had different/the wrong opinion to have that status. The wisest people listen, consider, and use all available information to make the best possible decisions.
Wise is definitely the better word to use here.
Reminds me of an anecdote about Robert Kennedy Sr. He was approached by a reporter on the campaign trail that asked him his stance on capital punishment.
“I’m against it,” Kennedy told the reporter.
“When you were at the Justice Department, that wasn’t your position.”
Kennedy replied, “That was before I read Camus.”
Our media now rails on politicians “flip flopping” if their opinion is different than it was in the past. I always get angry when I hear them say that because, to me, it’s a good thing. I want someone who has new experiences and changes their opinions with that. I don’t want someone who learns something and dismisses any information they gained because it doesn’t match their current beliefs.
Personally I believe flip flopping and changing your mind are 2 very different things, flip flopping is making an appearance of change in response to social pressures, ie “I need to appeal to this specific group of voters” or “I’m suffering backlash for something I said” where as changing your mind is “I’ve learned something I didn’t know before and I am changing as a result”
The media uses the term for any change of opinion. For example, I think I recall hearing some media saying Biden “flip flopped” from the position he held on crime 20+ years ago since he realized it wasn’t effective.
What the term should mean is you changing your opinion flippantly, whenever it’s useful. It shouldn’t be when you adjust your stance on a topic (for any reason) to a new one. It’s when you go back and forth and aren’t consistent with a new position.
I got to meet him in Vegas. He was really nice to a nervous nerd. Now I’m even more impressed he has the courage to change his beliefs in public.
I used to practically idolize Penn and Teller and had all their books and STILL use their card-forces and other goofy, effective performances with friends. It made me a legend with friends and family.
I lost track in adulthood but am glad to see that Penn didn’t turn into a grifting chud like so many from the time, and practiced what he preached in using critical thought and self-examination.
A sign of true intelligence is the ability to change your opinions after consideration and evidence. Penn always struck me as a very intelligent man.
Yeah, they’re really nice guys. I got to go up on stage for one of their shows and participate in a trick. We went to a lot of shows on that trip (seven, i think?), they were the only ones that stand outside the exit and greet ever person leaving that wants to meet them. They sign autographs, take pictures, etc. with hundreds of people after each show. And they stopped to talk to my friend and I for a couple minutes as we left and Penn thanked me for participating and let me keep a prop from the act as a souvenir. Great dudes.
The souvenir is a good example of the libertarian aspects of their show. It was a metal card with the bill of rights on it, with the 4th amendment (the freedom from unwarranted search and seisure) highlighted in red. The premise was you should put it in your pocket when walking through the metal detectors or scanners at TSA at the airport. When the machines go off and they question you about out it, you were meant to pull it out and snarkily go “oh sorry, that’s just my bill of rights”. It was a good for a bit of a laugh in theory, but way too obnoxious to actually do in real life. I packed it away in my carry-on instead. I still have it in a keepsake box somewhere.
