Asklemmy

Big L, I see. The american Libertarian Party is a combination of 99% of the people who still want to vote but can't fit in with the dominant two, with 127 reasons per 5 members. Lots of them are just looking for a way to be allowed to do whatever they want that is currently illegal, whether that's as banal as recreational drugs or as oppositional to society as child slave torture-rape. Whatever their 'thing' is, they want to be allowed to do it, the rest of society be damned.

if you're talking about libertarianism as in minarchism and antiauthoritarianism, i think the state should be downsized before it even withers away under socialism.

as for Libertarianism, that term is being used by anyone who thinks they can get away with doing drugs in public or marrying kids, and it must be reclaimed. seriously!

American Conservatives think they are Libertarian but theyre actually more liberal (towards the right) than they would like to be told they are.

My only real take here is basically every single libertarian eventually becomes a technofascist. Why is that? Idk. But it happens over and over again.

Housecats.

It is an ideology for selfish amoral oppotunists

In my experience, libertarianism appeals to a particular type of naive and possibly insecure person, who has some kind of emotional need to make broad declarations about things/people they have no real-world experience with.

🔫

The best right wing libertarians end up being left wing libertarians.

I've been a libertarian for 25 years, but that and the recently improved Green Party didn't gather enough signatures in New York. I wouldn't vote to let millions of people starve (instead of taxing the very rich) or not regulate monopolies.

American "libertarianism" is a correct identification of the issue with oppressive use of force by the state, coupled with a somewhere-between-ambiguous-and-incorrect interpretation of when force is oppressive and when it's not. It's my stance that American libertarianism (based on the NAP definition) with a properly calculated ethical interpretation of justifiable "property" simply reduces to anarchocommunism, as many unexamined assumptions about when a "property" claim is justifiable and when it is not simply accept a capitalist market economy, and any inequality that may result, out of sheer laziness. A lot of people find this way of looking at it jarring, usually because they just try to cram it somewhere on the "left/right" scale without really examining each ideological underpinning, or by really examining the range of thinking within the space. And some of that results from fascist groups trying to coopt the label as well. Good litmus test for that is asking a self-identified "libertarian" what they think about immigration, or the justifiability of a given war. The "MAGA LINO" types will justify immigration crackdowns and wars, the dyed-in-the-wool "libertarians" will oppose them, and so on with other oppressive policies that leftists also oppose. Which leaves the main point of contention being how the economic system works and how property distribution works, something which the "NAP" is ambiguous about. Therefore...

afaik it was originally about freedom from oppression. as with so many things, it has been hijacked by bigots and they've twisted it to now mean their freedom to oppress others.

Go read/listen A Libertarian Runs into a Bear.

It will tell you everything you want to know.

In. Short they are lazy assholes who want to mooch off everyone else.

They're morons, and they're just conservatives who want to smoke weed. Whatever your opinion of size of government, you have to have some central systems to run a society.

It's dumb.

Property for s theft, through the state