• PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    I did call myself a libertarian at a certain point. Then I realized it’s trash. The political philosophy itself is stupid.

    “Liberty is the most fundamental right.” Why? Who says? Why not…idk, caring for others and being cared for in return?

    It’s an ideology of selfishness fundamentally. And it only makes sense that it was started by a bunch of selfish rich assholes, the same people who champion it now.

    • batmaniam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I can’t speak for everyone but I don’t see much out there that gives me the ground to tell someone else how to live their life. So until it affects me or someone else, I have a hard time justifying violence, which is where the “live and let live” thing comes from.

      I think that gets a lot of people in the door, and then the reality gets messy. But I don’t think that central principle is trash. And the first part of caring for someone else is recognizing their rights as an individual. It’s why the party was the first to include marriage equality explicitly as part of their platform nearly four decades before democrats. When democratic presidents and presidential candidates were pushing DOMA, libertarians had had as a tent pole for decades already. And that is the fundamental difference: it’s not good enough to have a government that agrees good things are good, they can change their mind and have a bad track record. The libertarian view is that it ought to be a high-bar for anyone to presume the ability to intrude on what’s your business alone.

      So yes, there’s a lot of mess where the rubber meets the road, but there’s a lot of good there. A lot of people eventually realize as nice and simple as what I just said above is, there’s very precious little in this world that is exclusively “your business alone”. Still, the principles a good enough starting point, and you’ll find a lot of people are pretty open to things if they’re a net positive and applied equitably. You’ll find a lot of libertarians that are way more opposed to subsidizing the likes of lockheed martin than they are about medicare for all or food stamps. Hell, there are people that still consider themselves libertarians who are proponents of UBI.

      I had hoped the party would siphon off some of the more reasonable republicans rather than catch the crazy itself. Sadly that’s not how it played out. Add that to the crazies (“age of consent is a violation of my rights!”), and I 100% get your take. But man… I don’t know about you but I’d sleep much better in a Garry Johnson/Biden election than a DeSantis/Biden election.

    • havokdj@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Libertarianism is a very wide spectrum and isn’t really nailed down to a single ideology. There’s forms of socialism, capitalism, and communism with libertarian counterparts.

      I don’t really say this outloud because people get the wrong idea but I consider myself a libertarian, but I do not associate with any party (especially not the de facto american libertarian party)

      My beliefs are this:

      • You should be free to do as you wish that does not impede on the freedoms of others. For instance, you should be free to use substances as you wish, but you shouldn’t be free to operate a motor vehicle or heavy machinery under the influence because it is dangerous and could injure or kill someone, therefore impeding their freedoms.

      • The government should have minimal involvement in regulating the people, and the people themselves play a role in governing the country. Get rid of the electoral college, popular vote should be the way to win elections.

      • I have absolutely nothing against taxes, but I think the people should have a choice on where their tax dollars go on an individual level. Everyone gets a budget set accordingly to their income, and the individual chooses (at least a percentage) of where their tax dollars go. Every year when tax time comes, you record this to be audited. This way the government can still allocate funds where needed, but they can’t overinflate anything’s budget without the approval of the people, or vice versa. BTW, no tax cuts for “charitable donations”, if you truly wish to be charitable, then you can donate along with your taxes :).

      This is unironically the best approach in my opinion. Not looking to start a debate or anything, just thought I’d give my .02. I know the system may not be perfect, but no system is.

      • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s forms of socialism, capitalism, and communism with libertarian counterparts.

        Hey hey! I’m partial to libertarian socialism myself, which is really just anarchist-lite.

        You should be free to do as you wish that does not impede on the freedoms of others.

        This sounds nice, but practically it’s impossible. Like, quite literally impossible. You can barely drive the car you want without affecting other people indirectly (thanks climate change)! My solution is that you’re only as free as the next person. It’s fine if you transgress against others if it’s equally fine that others can transgress against you. So, it’s probably fine to demand that people care about you if you also extend your caring for them (with the understanding that they are not obligated to reciprocate). It’s complicated, but it’s certainly better than the non-harm principle.

        • havokdj@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, I agree. It would need modifications to work because not all people have the same belief but I think the ideal world would work like this. Transgression is a bit touchy because while it does inconvenience others, I don’t think that it truly impedes their freedom, rather it just puts a stick in the mud.

          I 100% agree on the car part. Don’t get me wrong, I love my car, but I love my planet more. If it wasn’t necessary to actually get to work where I lived, I wouldn’t even HAVE one. Unfortunately though, my workplace is in a rural area and my city has practically zero public transportation save for taxis, which are still just cars.

        • Anticorp
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s fine if you transgress against others if it’s equally fine that others can transgress against you.

          This is an incredibly selfish statement. No, it is not okay to force your will upon other people against theirs, which is essentially what transgression is, regardless of their ability to do the same to you. Respect people’s liberty to be free of your impositions.

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s the sort of thing that people think they are until they look around and it’s just people who don’t want to pay taxes, and by extension believe that poor people deserve to die.

      Republicans are just libertarians who’ve realised they can weaponise the crazies to win elections.