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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
good to see teller talked some sense into him
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.
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.
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
👍
I wouldn’t have. I’ve never voted party lines.
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.
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! 🫶🏻🙏🏻
to say otherwise is either ignorance, stupidity, or malice
Why not all three?
¿Por qué no los tres?
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.
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.
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.
Self awareness is such a precious thing in people but it is a prerequisite for this type of personal growth. It can be difficult but ultimately it is rewarding and fulfilling to realise there are things that you don’t like about yourself and set about correcting them.
I haven’t always agreed with him politically, but Penn Jillette seems like a good dude.
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.
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)
deleted by creator
LMAO I’m a libertarian who fully realizes that my party is bullshit.
I mean, Democrats and Republicans are both total bullshit too, but at least I’m self-aware enough to know my party is bullshit.
deleted by creator
Why have a party if you know that libertarianism is bullshit?
Because at least when Libertarians fuck everything up, sometimes it’s kinda funny. Ever hear about the time a bunch of Libertarian idiots got an entire town overrun by bears?
If they all suck why not just focus on mutual aid and solidarity with working class folks, instead of siding with billionaires. Because that’s ultimately what libertarianism is you know?
Libertarians aren’t a monolith, y’know. I’m not the “simp for billionaires” type of Libertarian, I hate those people. Rather, I’m the “prepper nutjob who hates the government and is ready to retreat to the woods when everything goes to hell” type of Libertarian.
deleted by creator
Well I think the real question is what are your ethics if you encounter another human being when you have retreated into the woods? … Do you avoid them?
Yes. “Get off my lawn” would be the appropriate response.
Do you try to dominate or exploit them? If so that is libertarianism.
No, that is not Libertarianism. Libertarians want very small government, focusing on protection of one’s rights and one’s property.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism
/ˌlibərˈterēəˌniz(ə)m/
noun: libertarianism
- a political philosophy that advocates only minimal state intervention in the free market and the private lives of citizens.
Do you work toward partnership and mutual aid? If so that’s anarchism.
No, that is not anarchism. Anarchists want no government whatsoever.
an·ar·chism
/ˈanərˌkizəm/
noun
noun: anarchism
- a political theory advocating the abolition of hierarchical government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.
No offense, but honestly? I find anarchism to be even more ridiculous than libertarianism, and us libertarians are absolutely ridiculous. Sure, “voluntarism” sounds good on paper but what ends up happening looks more like Somalia in practice.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I mean, libertarianism in essence, arrived at purely through your own reasoning, is pretty based. Every person should be free to do as they please right up until it infringes on their neighbors’ own similar freedom; the government should be limited in scope to services which uphold that goal.
In practice, its proponents are either selfish pricks who think libertarianism means they specifically get to do whatever they want, or they wind up reinventing the government with Citizen Advocacy Boards and such.
The principle is valid, the company is pretty cringe tho.
Somewhat ironically, we can see virtual libertarianism/Anarcho capitalism evolve by following EVE online: Some of the larger player corporations became de facto states
I always thought I was one of the few people that saw Eve as the libertarian dystopia that it is. I certainly thought I was the only one that held it up as a ready example of what libertarianism looks like when fully executed – now that I think about it, this must be a more popular idea than I realized. Complete with nullsec monopolies and everything. All this in a space that features no scarcity other than real-estate. The end game of libertarian ideals in the Eve example ends in monopoly and the accumulation of absurd amounts of power into the hands of few select individuals. What’s striking is how well run things are on the fleet level, only for the corporate leaders to often be wasteful, populist, of questionable moral fiber, and generally irresponsible – albeit not as a rule. They also have a penchant for casually destroying those that disagree with them. It stands as an excellent example.
deleted by creator
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.
I got turned towards Libertanianism when I lived in Germany for a while and if you ever had you’d know why. Then I lived in Asia where it’s the exact opposite and that turned me towards socialism. My point being is that there’s definitely a golden mean to freedoms and any absolutist should be immediately ignored because they are objectively wrong.
I got turned towards Libertanianism when I lived in Germany for a while and if you ever had you’d know why.
Living in Germany rn. I don’t get it? Can you please explain?
It’s just Kafka-esque bureaucracy of everything. It’s almost impossible to get anything done and it’s incredibly demotivating.
Can you give some examples? I really don’t understand what you’re talking about
Have you ever had to visit a DMV?
No, I’ve never lived in US. Why?
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.
I considered myself a Libertarian for a few years. I was a disillusioned Republican during the George Bush days and Libertarianism really grew on me. I voted for Gary Johnson twice.
As I became more concerned about climate change, I could not see a viable Libertarian solution to it. Private business is more than happy to keep chugging away with fossil fuels until it’s far too late.
For Libertarianism to work, these same private businesses need to do the right thing voluntarily. In Atlas Shrugged, those businessmen and women are doing what is right for their business and it just so happens to be what is right for everyone else, that isn’t always the case. All too often, what is right for business goes against what is right for society. Once I realized this, everything unraveled for me.
So anyway, here I am, years later, voting for Democrats because I’ve got no other option as the GOP became more and more insane since I left.Libertarianism also was my first stop out of my childhood religious right upbringing. I still tend to see issues from a libertarian framing – i.e., if it’s not hurting anybody why should the government care? – but most US libertarians seem weirdly fixated on ideas like “why can’t I dump 5,000 gallons of hydrofluoric acid into a hole in the ground if the hole is on my own property?” or “why shouldn’t I be allowed to enter into a contract with somebody that allows me to hunt them for sport?” or especially “why can’t I have sex with a minor if they say it’s OK?”, where there’s really obvious personal and societal harms involved and the only way that you can think otherwise is if you’ve engaged in some serious motivated reasoning.
Whereas my thinking these days is more like, “who does it hurt if somebody decides to change their outward appearance to match how they feel inside?” and the like – i.e., the right to personal autonomy and free expression, rather than the right to do whatever I want to others as long as I can somehow coerce them into agreeing to it. I don’t have much patience for the anarchist side of left-libertarianism – in my experience you need robust systems in place to keep bad actors from running amok, and a state without a monopoly on violence is simply ceding that monopoly to whoever wants to take it up for their own ends – but that starting point of libertarian thought, that people sold be free in their choices until those choices run up against somebody else’s freedoms – is still fundamentally valid.
Genuine question: why do you care about climate change if you would be dead by then?
Genuine question: why do you care about climate change if you would be dead by then?
Empathy, or caring about how other people are affected, even if it doesn’t affect you personally. Empathy is normal and healthy.
Better question is, why are 60+yo Capitalists who already have more wealth than they could possibly spend before they die, so desperate to hold and collect even more wealth?
But most of this people doesn’t even exist in the present. I mean, isn’t better that stop having kids, you can kill 2 birds this way: Reduce footprint to ZERO, avoid future generations suffering of global warming.
So you don’t feel bad for future humans because they’re assholes for existing?
I can’t feel empathy for people that doesn’t exist. Simple as that.
How about a 1yo baby that will suffer the effects of climate change their whole life, can you feel empathy for a 1yo baby?
I feel more anger about the parents that brings that child to suffer to this world.
Because “A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit” - Greek proverb
If we don’t cover the things that our children (or nieces/nephews) will benefit from, no one else will. There are no adults in the room. It’s just us.
What children? I will not have nieces nor nephews because I do not have first grade brothers or sisters. I mean sorry but I don’t care.
Then you’re a bad person. It’s quite simple.
Whatever quality of life you have enjoyed beyond living naked in a cave eating bugs and berries you owe to the people who came before you. Not just your ancestors, but the people who invented tools and discovered natural laws and organized societies and legal systems, the people who built the cities with their sewage systems and hospitals and electricity, the people who developed fertilizers and antibiotics and undergarnments that don’t itch like a thousand angry fleas are having a rave in your crotch. And now, after enjoying the fruits of 10,000 years of civilization, you decide that you’re the be-all and end-all of people and everybody who comes after you can go fuck themselves? Bad person. Plain and simple.
To be honest I’m in all to human extinction, actually I’m all for all life extinction. Life is based in predatory model mostly with exception of some plants and bacteria.
You have a very limited view of what life is. I pity you deeply.
And what is life? 70 years is shit is crap is nothing.
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.
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.
Induction is your friend
No it isn’t. I’d be willing to try one, but I think gas is better.
“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.
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.
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.”
