There are a lot of crazy libertarians, and this saddens me, because they’re obviously responsible for so many negative associations with libertarianism that I’m seeing expressed in this thread. It makes me want to hate whatever y’all are describing, except, you’re describing something that’s not what it is. There are crazy dems, crazy republicans, and crazy people from all over. I don’t know why only the crazies seem to represent libertarian thought.
Asking around here for what libertarians are like is kinda like asking the KKK what African-american culture is like. So many of the posters clearly only use the term as a slur.
Speaking as a life-long libertarian, it is because of the first past the post voting system in the US. Means only two parties can really get any significant number of people elected. So moderate, reasonable libertarian leaning folks who care more about social liberties end up calling themselves Democrats and the ones who care more about economic liberties end up calling themselves Republicans. Leaves only the extremists embracing the label.
Reminds me of the old joke about how lawyers aren’t all bad: it’s just that 95% percent of them give all the rest a bad name.
Do those of you with libertarian leanings have any thoughts on systemic election reform?
[…]
[Bolding mine]
Maybe people here use ‘Libertarian’ as a slur because it refers to a bunch of extremists? And maybe that’s partly why 'L’s have a reputation for being crazy? Because they’re extremists?
Careful now, wouldn’t want to “slur” anyone.
Talk about a self-own.
I’ve always identified Libertarianism as Conservatism without the religious overtones and backward social views.
It still sucks.
And the fetishization of the military and police.
Yeah, I’m usually negative about most of the arguably wide-ranging libertarian views I see but I am very curious about how they would approach policy and governance should they ever be given the opportunity by a better election system.
Post 10.
This is very plausible.
It’s also a fully general argument against any kind of anarchism, based on the total inability to enforce any kind of mutual agreement – including money, but obviously not limited to that. Monetary obligations between individuals aren’t substantively different from any other kind of promise. If any one such mutual agreement can’t be enforced without state power, then no other version of non-hierarchical agreement can be enforced either.
There was a poster earlier in this thread who professed to be an anarchist.
I hope that poster returns to read your argument here, and pays very close attention to your message.
Historically, most types of money were some form of commodity money. For just one example, metal as a medium of exchange predates coinage.
It is not government imprimatur that gives gold 79 protons.
Well, it’s a good general argument against most people’s notion of anarchy. But it endorses my own assertion, which is that the economy of an anarchy is general reciprocity. That means not keeping track of who did what work or who consumed what goods and services. Hence no money and no barter and no market.
So basically - from each according to ability, to each according to need.
Sounds good to me!
So long as you’re not someone with great ability and not much need.
Well, there’s “from each according to what WE determine to be your ability” and then there’s “from each according to their own assessment of their ability”, and likewise that distinction for need. It does make a difference. But yeah, it’s a good catchphrase for sure.
In which case, lucky you, you’re doing fine. The real problem is people who have ability but decide they would rather rely on someone else’s ability than put in the effort, or decide that they need a bit more than they actually do (i.e. human nature).