Libertarians don’t give a flying fuck about liberty. It is an authoritarian movement that aims to eliminate any force standing in the way of their organizing society into a rigid hierarchy predicated upon wealth. A government that is answerable to the people is a countervailing force against the formation (or re-formation I suppose) of such a system. That was indeed the whole reason such a government was invented in the first place.
I don’t think it’s quite so organized as this mindset leads to extremely self-absorbed and selfish people who arent good at organizing en masse. Multiple times now, libertarians have tried to form their own communities on land and sea and it always falls apart once they actually try to form the communities as it just turns into government rules and taxes like we have now. They don’t even want to live by their own group’s authority.
I’m really upset that the coinbro boat didn’t actually get to set sail. That article was insane. Reading it was like watching a pilot episode to one of the finest shows ever conceived, then learning the show got canceled.
Libertarians are political extremists who hate anything related to the government but don’t care about being oppressed by private businesses, or they think that it simply won’t happen in their utopia. Libertarians are everything they hate about the woke left, only applied to the government.
Libertarians are political extremists who hate anything related to the government but don’t care about being oppressed by private businesses
This is simply describing the idea of “negative liberty” which is, essentially, what libertarianism is more inline with.
My anecdotal experience is ‘temporarily embarrassed millionaires’ lean Libertarian and imagine they’ll be young and healthy until they’re old and wealthy.
Libertarians don’t give a flying fuck about liberty.
Are you talking about people who are misappropriating the term, or the actual philosophy of libertarianism?
Famous libertarian Friedrich Hayek supported universal basic income. As a libertarian myself, I always ask myself: “Will this make people more free?” If the answer is yes, then I support it because that’s what true libertarianism is. In the case of UBI and universal healthcare, both of those would unequivocally make people more free. People will be more free to choose a profession they like rather than one that merely keeps a roof over their heads. America already has a form of limited universal healthcare. It just happens to be restricted to the military and maybe some other government servants. Those members don’t have to worry about their healthcare and it allows them to focus their attention on more important matters, as their healthcare needs are met. Clearly the government has seen that universal healthcare is beneficial.
The sovereign citizens and the right wingers masquerading as Libertarians have given the ideology a bad name.
I recently got out of the military and it’s been a complete shock how bad the private healthcare system is. So much red tape, so many charges, so much money being spent on both ends: to the insurance company, again to the insurance company (copays), and then to the provider when the insurance company won’t cover things.
With Tricare? “Hey doc, I need this med for my migraines.” “Alright, here you go.” No charge.
The American health system is a complete scam keeping people under the boot of their employers and of the for-profit insurance companies.
If anarchists are often misunderstood I’d imagine libertarians even more so. Both philosophies advocate for the lack of a state, splitting between preference towards the community/collective vs individual, and are often misinterpreted to mean every thing the state does or should provide today can’t exist without it.
Both have never heard of Somalia.
[Libertarianism] advocate[s] for the lack of a state
No it doesn’t. Anarchism advocates for the abolition of the state, libertarianism advocates for minarchy — the minimization of the state.
In the case of UBI and universal healthcare, both of those would unequivocally make people more free.
It is important to note that, specifically, they are examples of positive liberty.
The sovereign citizens and the right wingers masquerading as Libertarians have given the ideology a bad name.
I agree.
deleted by creator
American “Libertarians” consider liberty as self-sufficiency, not just freedom from a government, but from being required to contribute to society as a whole.
This is a bit of a loaded question and very poorly written. Bad troll is bad.
The problem stands that modern “Libertarians” have been corrupted by corporations and conservative bigots to mean “elimination of government and regulation” and not “government to uphold liberty” like it originally did. A correctly Libertarian government would write laws that solely uphold the power of the individual’s self determination, which inherently requires restriction of the power of capital.
I consider myself Libertarian, but I feel there now has to be a distinction made between “Capital Libertarians” and “Individual Libertarians”. One wants the liberty of capital, the other wants the liberty of the individual. I find myself in the latter. Corporations can go fuck themselves, the individual is paramount.
“Socialist” things like public infrastructure, and yes, public healthcare, would be supported by individual libertarianism. Social support structures like these support individual liberty but restrict capital liberty by requiring taxes to support them, whereas supporting capital liberty by making it “pay as you go” does nothing but remove the individual liberty of the population that finds themselves without any capital through no fault of their own. I absolutely support universal healthcare.
100% Libertarianism originated as a left wing movement in the 19th century. Right wing libertarianism didn’t ooze out of the swamp till nearly a century later. In the mid 20th century. Post red scare when actual leftist were keeping their heads down due to fascist witch hunts. And unable to really call out the posers.
Real libertarians don’t have a problem with government. They just believe that it should be focused on maximizing freedom, and access to it. Where the larpers are all about maximizing their personal freedom (privilege) and don’t care if others have access.
Right wing libertarianism didn’t ooze out of the swamp till nearly a century later.
Like any good system that is a threat to those in power, it was co-opted and corrupted to remove the threat and turn public perception against it.
“Left wing”, and “right wing” are far too nebulous to really have any continuous historical use. Even in current parlance they are borderline useless terms.
Only to people who don’t understand the difference.
The issue is that most people have slight differences in how those terms are defined, and they morph substantially and continuously over time
This is also known as “Libertarian Socialism.” Interestingly enough, this idea predates the current definition of Libertarianism by decades.
Interesting! I didn’t know this existed, but I can align myself pretty well with this terminus. Thank you :)
This is probably where I align economically, but I support statist mandates that are inconsistent with “individual libertarianism” or “civil libertarianism.”
For example, we should decriminalize drug use, but there should absolutely be a strong statist intervention where people are forced to stop using drugs.
deleted by creator
“Socialist” things like public infrastructure, and yes, public healthcare, would be supported by individual libertarianism.
Huh???
A capital libertarian government would not fund public roads. You would need to pay a toll to drive on every privately built road, because your capital is free to move. But roads to certain places would cost more than others, thus restricting the individual’s liberty to their ability to pay.
A individually libertarian government funds public roads. Individuals then retain the right to self-determination to decide where they want to go without restriction. How they go on those roads might be subject to their capital restrictions- whether they walk, bike, drive, rollerskate, or whatever. But they are at least allowed to use those roads.Certain things will always be needed in our society for humans to function. If humans are not functioning correctly, they are not free to self-determine their path. Gating such a simple thing as healthcare, which again, humans absolutely need to function, behind the ability to pay is inherently restricting their individual liberty in an immoral way.
I feel there now has to be a distinction made between “Capital Libertarians” and “Individual Libertarians”.
You might be interested in Isaiah Berlin’s “Two Concepts of Liberty”.
Basically, there is no absolute thing called “liberty”, because anything you do changes the material world and the state of the material world also shapes what you’re able to do. So you can’t talk about simply “liberty”, and must always describe it in terms of those two relationships. What Berlin calls “freedom to” and “freedom from”.
For instance, I might consider my liberty to mean that I have the “freedom to” shoot a gun in the air. My neighbors might consider their liberty to mean that they have the “freedom from” falling bullets.
We can’t create a policy which guarantees both “freedom to” and “freedom from” for all people. But we can create a policy that guarantees both for some people. We just have to allow that some people get to enjoy both the rights and the protections, while other people lack the rights and must suffer the consequences of others’ actions.
And that might be why the contemporary conservative version of so-called “libertarianism” plays so well with a notion of a superior social class, whether that’s economic, religious, or racial. You can invoke the word “liberty” in support of your attempts to bully others, and then you can invoke it again as a protection against others’ attempts to bully you.
My bad…
I consider myself Libertarian, but I feel there now has to be a distinction made between “Capital Libertarians” and “Individual Libertarians”. One wants the liberty of capital, the other wants the liberty of the individual. I find myself in the latter. Corporations can go fuck themselves, the individual is paramount.
It may be better to stick with existing terms like positive and negative liberty.
It’s not really about liberty, it’s about freedom from taxes and consequences. They don’t get far enough in the reasoning to understand that they would benefit.
Libertarians: maximum freedom for everyone!
Everyone: what about healthcare?
Libertarians: you’re free to die in a gutter!
Because (so-called) “libertarians” aren’t.
The term “libertarian” has been hijacked in the anglophone-world (starting in the US, of course) to essentially just mean “fundamentalist capitalist” - they are right-wingers who have been immunized from reality and mindlessly support only “liberty” as it applies to private corporations and their interests. Therefore, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that you can find these (so-called) “libertarians” anywhere you find neo-nazis and the KKK.
In the non-anglophone world, the term libertarian still holds it’s original meaning - a socialist… or, more specifically, an anarchist.
It does seem to now mean “people that don’t want to pay their taxes”.
The best description for the modern “libertarian” I’ve heard is that they’re just conservatives who smoke weed
Used to think I was libertarian. But now I think it’s too absolute of an ideal to be any good for humanity. I definitely think free healthcare, housing, food, and education should be guarenteed for everyone.
Because they really just don’t want to pay taxes, which are needed to fund universal healthcare.
Also most people who say they’re libertarian have no clue what the word means, and are morons.
Because they really just don’t want to pay taxes, which are needed to fund universal healthcare.
That is rather reductionist — it is more complicated than that.
Also most people who say they’re libertarian have no clue what the word means, and are morons.
I would be very hesitant to say “most” but there is indeed a faction that misappropriates the term.
They don’t want to pay taxes because they don’t like how government uses taxes and don’t trust the government to do a good job. Plus, it’s an additional layer of bureaucracy at the top which costs more money and is less efficient.
If you think private healthcare is more efficient than single payer healthcare when EVERY PIECE OF DATA WE HAVE says the opposite then I think that says more about you than it does about the government.
That graph is relating cost of healthcare to quality. Not necessarily comparing cost of countries with universal healthcare to America. Additonally, most of the healthcare spending in America is already by the government and look how that’s going. America is also significantly larger than any of those countries listed. Overseeing healthcare for a country so large requires way more overhead.
Every graph of healthcare costs vs privatisation with the US in it is necessarily a comparison between private and public healthcare systems since most countries have single payer as most of their healthcare.
The US government healthcare programs are by far the most cost effective offering in the US but it’s hampered by regulations such as not having the ability to negotiate prices (until the recent tiny concession on a handful of drugs that has paid off in spades).
Finally, other large countries including India and China may have lower life expectancy, but they’re close and rising rapidly compared the stagnant US trends. Of course the bang for the buck they get is at least 5x what the US gets with its ridiculous system
No, that’s saying too much. They don’t want to pay. Full stop. That’s it.
There is zero thought beyond being mad about paying something.
Libertarians don’t know what voting is.
They don’t want to pay taxes because they don’t like how government uses taxes and don’t trust the government to do a good job.
The opposition to taxes is generally due to a power imbalance resulting in compulsion through the use of force. Taxes are in opposition to negative liberty, which is what libertarianism generally aligns with.
Libertarians want all the benefits of libertarianism AND socialism, but they don’t want to pay for any of it.
That’s it. That’s the entirety of the political belief.
Or they delude themselves into thinking everyone will pay their fair share voluntarily, forgetting that rich people exist who don’t give a fuck about the common good.
So… Taxes?
How childishly reductive. I can’t believe this got upvoted.
How childishly reductive
Just like libertarian talking points!
Ok, I’ll bite.
How is this childishly reductive if it expresses the root psychology and core motivation for the vast majority of Libertarians? It really does boil down to “I want to do what I want, and not pay for literally anything I’m not using right now”.
That is a childishly reductive mentality, no? It speaks to a deep and fundamentally caustic sociopathy.
“Bb-but… I w-wanna… !”
They want state-enforced socialism for themselves and crushing capitalist competition for all the people they feel are “beneath” them.
In that sense, you are correct.
Libertarians want all the benefits of libertarianism AND socialism, but they don’t want to pay for any of it.
This is conjecture. Based on what are you making this claim? Libertarianism’s main focus is on maximizing the negative liberty of the individual.
Money Babies.
Libertarians want freedom from government force. They want to be able to fund healthcare by choice. They want the freedom to not have taxes being used to send weapons oversees. Libertarians are for social and economic freedom.
Until they get a tooth ache I guess.
Is it morally right to make you pay ten times more when you need it (at the dentist /hospital/…) because you didn’t want to pay before?
I’m not sure what you are implying. An individual can pay for insurance or not. They are free to choose. Or they can pay for the entire cost upfront when problems arise.
Exactly!
So I pay my taxes for decades, and you don’t?
Just going to the doctor for the first time at say 30 (imagining you started working at 20 but “decide” to not pay taxes) would cost you houndred of thousands of missed back pays before you get let into the building.
Is that your libertarian thing? Or do you think you just would never go to the doctor/hospital/dentist/need an ambulance ride, … ?
Or worse, you get it basically free?
Libertarians want freedom from government force.
So where were you “libertarians” when BLM and other leftists were calling to defund and abolish the police?
Right there with you. Chase Oliver is running for libertarian presidential nomination now. https://www.reddit.com/r/Georgia/s/SMorVSokZV
The police can use a bit of de-funding; also wp:Waukesha Christmas parade attack.
Probably defending their shops from BLM rioters
Just be honest about how badly you want to see black people lynched in the streets, white supremacist.
Don’t hide behind dog-whistles.
I don’t.
non-socialist ≠ necessarily racist
Man whatever drugs you on, pass them
I’m not doing white supremacism sprinkled with liberal handwringing - so curb your enthusiasm.
Did Stalin do white supremacism when the USSR was the first country to recognize Israel?
At this point it’s hard to tell
Libertarians are, to an individual, categorical idiots who don’t seem to have the mental capacity to seriously and rigorously analyze and understand what a true “free-for-all” hypercapitalist society would imply. They just want to not pay taxes.
There is no need to be rude. OP asked for libertarian views.
Yeah, but libertarians are antisocial asshole idiots by simple virtue of the fact that they think libertarianism is a viable concept. It’s just not, nor will it ever be going forward.
I can put it another way: I find the ideology offensive and societally caustic in the extreme. We do not live in a vacuum. We live in a society (in a literal sense - not going for the meme here). To pretend that we don’t is incredibly dumb.
Tldr non partisan answer: Libertarian philosophy favors negative rights over positive rights.
Negative rights oblige others to not impede (like not censoring free speech).
Positive rights oblige others to provide something (like healthcare).
Imo, it would be better worded as follows:
- Negative liberty: freedom from something.
- Positive liberty: freedom to do something.
That’s probably the more popular way, but I think it’s easier to misinterpret. For example the freedom of speech, one could think of it as the freedom to speak instead of the freedom from undue censorship. But that right is usually considered a negative one.
For example the freedom of speech, one could think of it as the freedom to speak instead of the freedom from undue censorship.
As I currently understand it, freedom of speech is regarded as a negative liberty because it is purely focused on freedom from the government imposing restrictions on what you can and can’t say. It’s not, however, the government giving you the freedom to say whatever you want, whenever you want, under any circumstance — e.g. people are free to trespass you from their establishment if they don’t like what you are saying.
I agree that it’s a negative liberty. It’s just the from/to language can be misconstrued IMO, the not impede/oblige others framing is more clear without additional information. It’s, again IMO, targeting the core of the differential. Asking of others for inaction vs asking for action.
IIUC, I just think that the intent/mentality is somewhat altered in what you described in this comment. For example, you said “Positive rights oblige others to provide something (like healthcare).” — positive liberty isn’t necessarily about forcing people, in an authoritative manner, to do things for, or to, another person. It’s essentially taking the position that people should have the freedom to experience life on a level playing field, if you will — it is interested in lowering the amount of barriers preventing people from doing what they want. I don’t think your wording is necessarily incorrect, I’m just not convinced that the connotation is the same.
I think this cleared up our disconnect. I chose oblige to indicate that they require others to do something for them to occur. Most often paying taxes, to pay the provider of a service. This typically isn’t a ‘at gunpoint’ interaction. But negative rights will never require another to do something for it to be practiced.
I agree with your highlighting of the philosophy behind them. I was more concerned about a short rememberable way to differentiate the two.
So I chose oblige vs force to make sure it had the connotation of a civil concession.
Disclaimer, I am not a libertarian by a long shot.
But - there is a difference between freedom to and freedom from. I think in general libertarians believe in freedom to, not freedom from. So you are free to yell, but not free from noise. You are free to walk in traffic, not free from being run over.
It almost makes sense, I don’t think people should be free from seeing things that offend them, right? Or free from consequences. So no, they don’t think freedom from sickness is a right.
You’re right especially in that it almost makes sense - the only people I’ve seen who are more allergic to nuance than libertarians are Trumpists
there is a difference between freedom to and freedom from
The terms that you are looking for are postive and negative liberty, respectively.
Libertarians only care about 2 things: lowest taxes possible and legal weed, and they would gladly sacrifice the latter in favor of the former. Anything else is nothing more than lip service.
Universal healthcare means taxes, and that is the one thing Libertarians hate above all. Never mind that it would be cheaper than private insurance. They relish in the fact they can skip buying insurance, and if they get hurt, ERs are required to treat them anyway.
That’s not fair. They also really care about getting rid of age of consent laws!
I think there are roughly three subgenres of libertarian; the two you identify (wants hierarchy with warlords and wants public heroin use without jail time) but then there is also a third group that has focused a lot of rage on age of consent laws for some reason.
Libertarians only care about 2 things: lowest taxes possible and legal weed, and they would gladly sacrifice the latter in favor of the former. Anything else is nothing more than lip service.
This is a very ignorant statement.
Paying lip service is meaningless. I look at who self-professed libertarians actually vote for. That is the basis of my statement.
I look at who self-professed libertarians actually vote for.
Personally, I see this as a very weak metric, if it is measured within a FPTP system. It is generally not within one’s best interest to vote for an entity that perfectly aligns with one’s interests under FPTP — one must often vote strategically.
Libertarians only care about 2 things: lowest taxes possible and legal weed
If you haven’t already, I strongly encourage you to, at the very least, read through the Wikipedia article on libertarianism.
I have read it, and find it bullshit. Libertarians always manage to decide to “strategically” vote for the Republican that promises authoritarianism but also promises low taxes. Again, it’s not about what Libertarians say they support, it’s who they actually support.
I have read it, and find it bullshit.
What exactly do you disagree with? It’s really just a definition. If you are encountering people who are advocating for authoritarianism while calling themselves libertarian, then they are misappropriating the term.
Libertarians always manage to decide to “strategically” vote for the Republican that promises authoritarianism but also promises low taxes.
This is very likely to be a faulty generalization. Also, there are policies on both the Democrat, and Republican side which can be construed as authoritarian.
Again, it’s not about what Libertarians say they support, it’s who they actually support.
I’d be very hesitant to call stategic voting “supporting”.
Libertarian care about maximizing social and economic liberties. Liberty being defined as freedom from authority. Taxes are forced on citizens so libertarians generally want to limit taxes to a minimum. I see no reason to believe that universal healthcare would be cheaper than insurance. The government is an inefficient monopoly where private insurance companies have to compete for the lowest rates.
I see no reason to believe that universal healthcare would be cheaper than insurance.
Private health insurance still has a “profit margin” that boards are legally bound to. The public system removes that line item.
Profit margins are to keep a company out of debt and ensure it can grow as technology advances. Government would still need to pay employees and keep up with tech. But your right, government does need to avoid debt because it can just print money but that leads to inflation. There is no way to make cost just disappear.
You want to maximize liberty, but have a funny way of showing it. Libertarians vote for the most authoritarian they can, as long as they will cut taxes. Even if that means banning abortion, keeping marijuana prohibition, forcing religion on children in schools, supporting civil forfeiture, preventing people from choosing sustainable energy, and so much more.
As has famously been said, taxes are the price we pay for civilized society. The non-aggression principle I believe is absolute bullshit. Libertarian would happily screw over anyone, claiming they are simply exercising their personal liberty. They couldn’t care any less about the well being of anyone else but themselves. Absolute barbarians if you ask me. Personally, I’m happy to get good services for my taxes, and not see my money go to a greedy asshole CEO. Sure, politicians are also greedy assholes, but at least the people can vote them out.
It would cost less because a single entity, costing much less overhead. Also, a single entity would have far more buying power. Almost every doctor would have to accept them, eliminating out-of-network costs. And we wouldn’t have hundreds of overpaid executives that pat themselves on the back with multimillion dollar bonuses for denying sick people coverage. And we can see it in action. Most industrialized countries already have some form of universal healthcare, and they all cost less per capita. People that actually have universal healthcare generally love it. And don’t talk to me about waiting lists. I’ve been on plenty of waiting lists right here, and lots of people can’t even get on them because they can’t afford the care they need.
Competition simply does not work in the healthcare market. When people are sick, they are limited typically to one option. And it has inelastic demand, so changing prices don’t change demand, and thus hospitals and doctors can charge whatever. The system, built on the economic principles libertarians espouse, is god-awful.
Please listen to some of the 2024 libertarian primary debates available on YouTube. The views you attribute to libertarians are not accurate. Most libertarians are against the drug war and would legalize weed, none of the candidates I know of want to impose religion in schools, they are all strongly against civil forfeiture, they are generally pro nuclear energy, and most are pro choice (that one is still a bit sticky, Chase Oliver is pro choice, most of the others are personally pro life but still say they believe it should be the choice of the mother as that is maximizing liberty). These views you list are very Republican and not libertarian. We dislike trump as much as you. I don’t mean to be condescending but please don’t spread rumors. If there are some Internet trolls that claim to be libertarians and say those things please don’t believe them. They do not represent the majority of the party.
I consider myself a libertarian and I believe in free healthcare. I think certain industries should not be run for profit. It creates perverse incentives that harm the common man. For example healthcare.
If there’s a profit incentive in bealthcare, there is incentive for drug companies or hospitals to raise their prices. This would mean less people getting treatment or more people in medical debt.
Another industry I think shouldn’t be for profit is education. We want an educated population. It should be encouraged, so it should be free for anyone who wants it.
In my view, libertarianism is a perspective that the government should interfere with the personal liberties of the individual as little as possible.
Every single government action should be heavily scrutinized and challenged. Some actions are justified. For example regulating healthcare I think is justified. You are taking away the liberty of starting a hospital - but the benefits outweigh the costs.
I believe that cooperatives should be encouraged if not explicitly mandated for large companies.
I think to Chomsky’s conception of anarchism. Look at all hierarchies of power and challenge them. Some are justified - the power a father has over his child. Some are not - the power a cash advance place has over their customer base.
I think governments often make mistakes and through heavy handed actions end up screwing the average person. By dramatically limiting government action, you help prevent this.
Remember the government is not your friend.
It seems like you have an interesting definition of liberty. Liberty (to me) is freedom from authority. Libertarians core value is not having government force individuals to do anything. If people want to opt into a universal healthcare private system they are free to do so (kind of like insurance). A big motivation for this is lack of trust in government to handle the job well. Libertarians see government as inherently prone to corruption and thus want to limit their power as much as possible. The extent to which a given libertarian wants to limit government varies. By appointing government authorities to the system the cost of everything rises as in addition to health care you also have to pay the government workers who oversee the system and it’s not very efficient. Not to mention politicians get to decide how much money goes to these programs etc etc. do you really want politicians involved in your health? With all the inefficiency and corruption in politics why do you trust them to handle your health?
To me, this reads like it implies that government and govt programs are bad because of the govt employees, but if you were to take those same “corrupt” politicians and put them to work at private companies that they would stop being “corrupt.” Like it is a belief/reaction to one specific bad instance of a large government/program. “The government sucks at program X, so if we get rid of that program, the same general population will gain empathy, morals and efficiency if working for a company to run program X.”
It’s a about competition. I’m not saying business owners aren’t corrupt. But if one company, say nestle, turns out to be rotten then you can buy your chocolate chips from another company. But with government I don’t have a say. If I don’t pay taxes I go to jail and if I don’t like how my taxes are spent then too bad. There is no alternative.
How often do we see real competition? Even if a new company comes along with a great idea, it’s more likely to be gobbled up by a bigger company than be left to flourish.
And that’s the right of the individual who owns and started the company. Part of the problem is people don’t seek alternatives and just buy what is convenient. People value the big brand names. If we want competition then look for alternatives. Look around at the brands you use and figure for yourself if you are buying big brands or supporting competition and smaller brands. Focus on your contribution. We can’t and shouldn’t control others. Worrying about what you support is enough on its own.
All the time. Competition is going on all the time. Have you ever worked for any company ever?
Ten major companies control all the food in the US, and six companies control all the media.
So not one? So there’s competition?
Yes, a competition to see which company ends up runnign everything.
There is often no alternative in private business either. Take Nestle for example. Go look up how many different brands they actually own. You may think you’ve boycotted them, but in fact you’re just buying one of their hundreds of other brands. We’re very late in the capitalist system now, and the power has been heavily consolidated. Many industries are completely dominated by 1-3 companies, and they all collude to eliminate competition.
It’s not hard to find alternatives. There are thousands of companies small and large. No one group owns them all. A quick search online can show replacement to every nestle product. Or support small business and buy local. It’s people’s unwillingness to give up convenience or favorite brands that gives these companies all the power to begin with. I guarantee you have options on business. And if not then go on shark tank and start a new company.
Name a nestle product that doesn’t have competition.
Name a Nestle product where the major competition isn’t another Nestle product.
But with government I don’t have a say. If I don’t pay taxes I go to jail and if I don’t like how my taxes are spent then too bad. There is no alternative.
It’s called voting, really basic part of our world you seem to have forgotten about.
You happy with how that’s been going so far? Do you honestly feel represented by trump/biden? We are presented two rotten options and told we get a say in politics. That’s just one more option than dictatorships. If I don’t want us tax dollars gifting missiles to Israel I have no option in either party. That’s not a say in government. I don’t get to tell the president to spend my portion of the taxes. I would rather keep those taxes and voluntarily give to homeless shelters and other charitable groups which do a much better job helping people then the government ever will.
Voting does not excuse you from whatever obligations a majority has decided are best for you.
It’s a about
competitionmonopoly.FTFY.
All monopolizations of power should be held under the utmost scrutiny.
Damn, you’d have to be completely brain dead to still believe anything is more efficient than single payer healthcare. The US has the worst outcomes for the highest cost in terms of life expectancy. Same with roads, utilities, schools etc… the more you privatise the more expensive things get for a lower quality product.
A well regulated, competitive market is good for many things, but for others it’s atrocious. An unregulated market has never produced good outcomes on any scale larger than the board of directors.
If you’re seriously summarizing the libertarian agenda then I can’t believe any one over 14 could hold these ideas unless they were VERY sheltered from reality.
There is no need to be condescending or rude. I’m trying to share my ideas and have a healthy discussion so maybe we can learn from each other.
If you want a healthy discussion, you need better arguments.
Competition is inherently meaningless in the context of healthcare. What are you going to do, shop around while you’re having a heart attack? Also, with single payer, the government is not involved in your healthcare directly. Compare that with the current system where insurance companies often decide if you’re worth the treatment or, if you’re under or uninsured, you get to carry the debt until you die.
I think part of the problem is the blurred lines between routine healthcare and emergencies. You are right, if you are having a heart attack insurance should step in to help you front the unexpected large cost. But for expected care like dentist visits you can and absolutely should shop around.
I like your point about insurance getting to decide but I think it’s important to note you can still get treated even if insurance doesn’t pay. Or you can sue them if you feel they should pay. You make some good points though.
Thanks.
A couple of things you might not have considered:
Preventative care. If you have insurance that covers checkups, screenings, etc. then you get that benefit. If you don’t have the insurance and can’t afford the out of pocket expense, you skip. The issue is that then people wait until they’re in really bad shape before seeking treatment meaning that outcomes are worse and treatment is much more expensive than if the illness had been caught earlier. Who pays for that? We all do through increased premiums.
This doesn’t happen in a well-run single payer system.
But for expected care like dentist visits you can and absolutely should shop around.
Why? I’m not seeing any benefit to your idea vs single payer dental. It’s not like your mouth isn’t a part of your body or that dental issues don’t effect your overall wellbeing.
Or you can sue them if you feel they should pay.
If someone can’t afford insurance, what makes you think they can afford a lawyer?
That’s fair.
It’s very frustrating seeing someone argue for disproven theories (like the government is less efficient than the free market in arenas most countries have socialised) using easily disprovable statements (like single payer healthcare would be more expensive to US citizens than the private system you have now). Especially when those ideologies can only hurt everyone.
I do apologize for the tone since you have been respectful and I have been less so. You don’t deserve the rudeness but your ideas don’t deserve the consideration they get in civilised society either.
Same with roads, utilities, schools etc
Surely you’re not claiming these are free market sectors?
If you listen to online libertarians they seem to believe everything is on the tables. Utilities have already been partially privatised and they’ve successfully impressed the classification of broadband as a utility which would have improved service, accessibility, and price at the cost of corporate profit.
the more you privatise the more expensive things get for a lower quality product.
Err, well, no — a competitive free market will ensure that prices are driven down. What I think you are trying to get at is that healthcare, generally, doesn’t function in a capitalist market, and I would agree. The reason healthcare doesn’t function well under capitalism is because purchases are made under a leonine contract.
Same with roads, utilities, schools etc… the more you privatise the more expensive things get for a lower quality product.
This is the same sort of issue as mentioned above, but for somewhat different reasons — public utilities are intrinsic monopolies, which are inherently anti-competitive.
A well regulated, competitive market is good for many things, but for others it’s atrocious.
It is good under the exact restricitions that you initially described. As soon as you deviate from those restrictions, it breaks down.
How do libertarians generally handle minority rights? Is it as bad as conservatives? A good example are all of these anti-trans and anti choice in abortion bills. What would a libertarian think of these?
Looking on the internet it kind of feels like libertarians are usually suburban people or people so out of the way that the messes in Washington don’t affect them as hard as those in the cities. So I have only met one and he didn’t seem to fond of our black coworkers, if you get what I mean.
Libertarians are just like other political parties. There are different groups that subscribe the the term libertarian each with slightly different beliefs. Whatever extremists people are out there in the Internet do not represent the whole. I really suggest watching some of the 2024 libertarian debates. They are educated smart people who are informed about the complex issues like those you mentioned. This whole thread has been really eye opening for me. I had no idea people had these conceptions about libertarians. I am guessing there are a bunch of far right groups that like to identify as anarchists and throw around the term libertarian while they do. But if you listen to the rhetoric of the political party and the representatives you will see that those ideas are not held by the party as a whole.
To answer your question, libertarians are, in general, pro personal liberties and pro economic liberties. They believe the individual should get to choose. A common line they use is government should not exert force one way or the other. This means they tend to agree with Democrats on issues like race, drugs, LGBTQ etc. The people who actually get a stage in the political party are absolutely against racism, sexism etc. There was a debate recently where the candidates (about 7 primary) were Asked their stance on abortion. Most of them said they were personally pro life BUT they would still veto any bill or cut funding to any program that forced that perspective on others. Any person who goes around saying they think this and they want the government to force and regulate that disagrees fundamentally with the libertarian perspective. I said most, because one of the candidates was unapologetically pro choice. Please don’t think that whatever alt right edge lords are out there actually have any idea what libertarianism is.
I’ll look up some of those debates. Thank you for the explanation.
Libertarians see government as inherently prone to corruption and thus want to limit their power as much as possible.
I prefer voluntary interaction to using force or violence. Personally I believe we’re obligated to help each other and our community and would voluntarily be a collectivist - I’m just not willing to force everyone else to.
We still need to modify liability and IP law to disincentivize megacorps and not use violence to benefit the wealthy.
Government programs IS US HELPING EACHOTHER. Sure corporations have been undermining democracy, but the government is OUR corporation. It’s the only one that we get the choose what it does. The fact we’re obligated to pay taxes is EXACTLY the implementation of your statement “we’re obligated to help eachother”
I don’t understand how you can make statements like this. The threat of violence? The government’s monopoly on violence is rephrased as the will of society to ban violence in public life by restricting violence only to the enforcement of democratically selected laws. There is no other way I can conceive. Should more people have the ability to use violence to enforce their views on others? Should corporations have that right? If no one has that right how can we stop someone who decides THEY have that right?
The whole “government monopoly on violence” is for me the most absurd librarian statement of them all. What’s the alternative? Who should decide what deserves violence? Who should use violence? What do we do if someone breaks this compact? Because the current answers are at least ideally “the people, through democratically enacted, clear and transparent laws”, and “the people, through the police they pay for accountable only to the people” and “apply fair and balanced justice through the judiciary system, run by the people and accountable only to them”. I’m in no way saying that it’s working perfectly as is clear in recent politics, but it’s certainly trending in the right direction in social democracies. We’re closer to that ideal now than we have ever been. As far as I’ve seen libertarian ideology has only come up with absolutely HORRIFYING answers to these questions, or wishy washy nonsense.
but the government is OUR corporation
The issue with this, imo, is that it is a conflict of interest. The government creates the laws — the ultimate restrictions on what a populace can and can’t do. What happens if the government gets perverted to the point where you no longer have a say in changing it?
Should more people have the ability to use violence to enforce their views on others?
It’s about balance. Imbalanced power distribution will lead to abuse. The difference lies in if you want a true democracy, or an oligarchy. In the end, it is always the group that holds the majority power that holds the ultimate say. Would it not be better that this lies in the hands of the people than in the hands of a minority of elected officials?
Dude what the fuck? You do NOT want it to be legal for people to use violence to enforce their views on others. That’s what “might makes right” is and it’s how gangs are run. It’s brutal. Every positive consequence you imagine will be completely dwarfed by the depths of human violence and depravity this would unleash.
The problem lies in the distribution of power. If you have the majority power held within a minority, then that is similar to gang rule, as you have pointed out. Now, if you spread power evenly, and equally, over all people so that there is no imbalance, that puts you on a path to equality. But one must, of course, never forget the saying: “democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what’s for dinner”.
That’s how a lot of stuff works, true. I don’t agree that can work with violence. I also don’t appreciate the conceptual response to very practical questions.
I live in a peaceful society. I wouldn’t want my neighbour to be able to use violence because my tree dropped it’s leaves on his side of the lawn. I wouldn’t want an alternate police force hired and paid by a group of white supremacists (current statistics aside) to enforce laws in a biased manner. Having other corporations able to use violence is an absolute dystopian nightmare and is 100% the cause of every dystopian fantasy world. If the government WASN’T empowered with violence then there is nothing to stop the above 3 scenarios. So I’m not sure what other “equalizing distribution” you’re imagining and I’m not certain a better one exists.
I am open minded, which is why I asked those 3 very specific questions. If your have a better idea I’m all ears. If your idea is just to open up the floodgates and hope for the best because that will equalise access to violence and more equal is more better, then I will keep treating libertarian ideology as a threat to civilization. Mostly ideas that sound nice, but no practicable solutions that don’t destroy society. Like communism.
I don’t agree that can work with violence.
What are you referring to?
I also don’t appreciate the conceptual response to very practical questions.
I apologize if I have offended you — that wasn’t my intent. What exactly do you mean by this?
I wouldn’t want my neighbour to be able to use violence because my tree dropped it’s leaves on his side of the lawn.
This depends. A violent outcome need not be in response to an action, but it can stem from it. Laws carry with them the threat of force.
I wouldn’t want an alternate police force hired and paid by a group of white supremacists (current statistics aside) to enforce laws in a biased manner.
If a country allows for a citizens arrest, everyone holds within themselves the power of enforcing the law. Though you may be referring to the idea of paying for private police and leaving others without. If so, this is more of a question of positive and negative liberties. Having a public police force would be a positive liberty, imo — in that case, it potentially doesn’t align with libertarianism, but that is very debatable.
Having other corporations able to use violence is an absolute dystopian nightmare
Do note that if a corporation is not allowed to use violence, then that means that they cannot take it upon themselves to protect their property. Perhaps you think that that is how it should be?
If the government WASN’T empowered with violence then there is nothing to stop the above 3 scenarios.
I’m not sure I follow this point. I don’t think that I have argued that the government shouldn’t be allowed to use force — it wasn’t my intent if my previous statements were interpreted in that way. The point that I’m trying to make is that the government should be kept in check. You have pointed out that threat of violence is what must be used to uphold the law. The only way for the people to keep the government in check is for the people to keep the government under threat of violence. If the distribution is just right, then no minority group in a democracy can hold the majority of the power.
I am open minded, which is why I asked those 3 very specific questions.
Which 3 questions are you referring to?
more equal is more better
I don’t understand this point. Are you stating that you don’t believe in individual equality?
So just go offer medicine to your community for free. Too bad we don’t have enough of a free market to allow you to do that though, right?
I’m honestly not sure what you think the dunk is here.
I absolutely agree. Let people voluntarily help each other and fund social programs. I think people want to help the poor and I think charities are much more equip for the job then politicians.
The problem with this is that in a free democratic system, government is something you do, not something which is done to you. You can’t just pick and choose which aspects of government you like. Part of the social contract is that if you want clean water and plumbing and shit, then you agree to abide by fair democratic consensus. If you don’t, I suppose you are free to go live in the woods.
You can’t just pick and choose which aspects of government you like.
Right, which is why libertarians what to limit government to just essentials so we have more money to choose which optional programs we take part in via the free market. People still collaborate outside of government bodies.
The problem with this is that in a free democratic system, government is something you do, not something which is done to you.
It is both.
Liberty (to me) is freedom from authority.
The term for this is “negative liberty”: the freedom from something; whereas, “positive liberty” is the freedom to do something. Libertarianism, generally, aligns with the idea of negative liberty.
If there is freedom from a governing authority then there is no one to take away my freedom to do what I like. Sounds like two ways of saying the same thing. Maybe I miss your point.
The distinction between positive and negative liberties is, indeed, a rather blurry one, but there is generally a difference in mindset between the two. That being said, libertarianism seeks to minimize the size and influence of the government, but they don’t seek to abolish it — those that seek to abolish it are anarchists (I’m not sure if I am reading your comment correctly, but it seems that you are advocating for anarchism rather than libertarianism when you said “freedom from a governing authority”). It’s important to note that negative liberty is a concept that distinguishes a certain class of liberties — it doesn’t require the presence of a government.
Well said, I probably wasn’t very clear, but I am not an anarchist. There are certain critical functions that the government must control. When I say freedom from authority I refer to specific government agencies that can exert force on individuals. Government roads don’t force users to do anything but rather empower citizens.
Government roads don’t force users to do anything but rather empower citizens.
Another argument for why government roads are ethical is because they fight off monopolization — property ownership is at high risk for monopolization. I’m not sure if the Georgist idea of taxing the land value that a private road would be on is enough.
Right, government should provide oversight to public goods that, by their nature, require monopolies such as roads or utilities. Government also needs to have a judicial branch that mediates conflicts between individuals and entities.
I agree with both statements.
