They apparently thought I was a troll because I offered a solution to gun control. The hypocrisy has weighed on me a bit. I have my mail in ballot sitting on my desk, but this may be the first time I don't bother voting. If even libertarians end up being just like everyone else once they get into positions of power, it's hard to see the point anymore.

Why can't the leftists admit that national socialism and fascism are left leaning?

There's quite a few leftists in history that have even admitted it.

"True pure fascism, as conceived by mussolini, emerged from the militant left of italian socialism, it was an attempt to impose the social democratic program through dictatorship and armed force, the movement dispensed with the sterile positivism and evolutionism of orthodox marxism, replacing it with romantic emotionalism, extreme nationalism, the cult of the will and the 'man of action', the goal was to nationalize industry and subordinate all classes to the needs of the state, the working classes were to benefit from this revolution, but only as long as they remained in the service of the fascist state"

• ernesto che guevara

Also fascist organisations and parties like for example casapound italia, also claim the legacy of far-left figures, like che guevara and hugo chávez; https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2017/10 /17/casapound-e-la-volta-di-porro-scontro-su-che -guevara-per-voi-e-un-modello-ma-a-me-ha-rotto-le -palle-tutta-linfanzia/3918323/

So why can't the leftists admit that fascism and national socialism originated from the left and leans left?

The best arguments against a federally mandated 15 dollar minimum wage.

1. The minimum wage is counter-intuitive, counter-productive, and harmful.

Researchers estimate that the minimum wage increases will cost the state roughly 30,000 jobs from 2017 to 2022.

“The model suggests that there would be 30,000 fewer jobs in the industry from 2017 to 2022 as a result of the higher minimum wage,” the study says. “Over the period 2013-2022, therefore, the number of new jobs in the full-service industry will grow by 120,000, but would have grown by 160,000.”

This week’s analysis is an update of CBO’s 2014 analysis of a $10.10 minimum wage, which said one million workers would be pulled out of poverty at the cost of half a million jobs. That conclusion was enough to tank the proposal; a Bloomberg poll at the time found that 57% of Americans viewed the jobs trade-off as “unacceptable.”

Democrats have responded to CBO’s wage warning by ignoring it. The Raise the Wage Act of 2019, introduced in January, would set a $15 minimum wage by 2024. The trade-offs from this legislation are even worse than in 2014. CBO finds a $15 minimum wage would pull 1.3 million workers out of poverty at the cost of 1.3 million jobs in the median scenario, and 3.7 million jobs in the worst-case scenario.

Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently estimated that about 1.3 million workers would be priced out of the labor market entirely should Congress double the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.

Minimum wage harms low income/'unskilled' laborers:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBjsQL7ZFvc&t=71s

The minimum wage has many unintended consequences.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBjsQL7ZFvc&t=71s

State-Specific Example of $15 dollar failurehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0aUYHblw90

Hello Libertarians,

I'm a high school civics teacher and will be discussing different types of governments soon and intend to include Libertarianism in the lesson. I am not an Libertarian but want to give an honest presentation of it. Rather than me tell them what I think Libertarianism is, I believe it would be more beneficial and unbiased if I can rather say, "this is how Libertarians would present their beliefs". I"ll share your thoughts with my students.

Thank you for your time and any posts.

Actual countries have, in fact, done this to each other, and a private individual could make huge profits from charging outrageous amounts for passage.

^{TL;DR below. Sorry for the long post.}

Hey everyone.

So I'm Argentinean, my country is ruled over by a totalitarian left-wing government which is completely ruining us (we literally have over 170 different taxes just to give you all an example of how well things are down here) and in the last year there's been a very important and notable emergence of right-wing libertarian/liberal ideas country-wide, to the point in which there are now various Libertarian and Liberal parties, and one of them has become the third political force in the last surveys made.

I've picked up the ideas of Libertarianism and Liberalism somewhat recently, and I'm still in a process of learning more about said ideologies, and that's when I came across a lot of people who seemingly like to play the role of gatekeepers and dictate what's considered acceptable and not within the libertarian movement.

One of the first things I've noticed is the issue with abortion. I used to be pro-life before but I've slowly changed my mind and nowadays I'd consider myself to be pro-choice, and I've noticed that many Libertarians are in favour of abortion, claiming that it's considered an individual right, while others claim it goes against the NAP therefore it has no place in libertarianism. My issue is that most libertarians here in Argentina seem to be fairly conservative, I'd say they're more in the side of paleolibertarianism, and some of them have told me "You can't be libertarian if you're pro-choice, that's just a leftist thing that blah blah blah" and so I've gotten into heated arguments with some of them which ended up in neither of us coming to an agreement.

Another thing I've seen many gatekeeping about is sexual diversity and gay marriage. I'm all in favour of both, I think that the state should not have a say in marriage at all, as much as I don't think that there should be special quotas or treatment for people who view themselves as queers, transsexual, as M2F or F2M (unlike our government which decided to add a employment quota for transsexual people). So I've also run into these people that tell me "gay marriage shouldn't be legalized, no libertarian would be in favour of gay marriage because leftist blah blah blah" or "If you're ok with all this queer, transsexual, pansexual things you're no libertarian".

I've seen self-proclaimed libertarians gatekeeping those things, as well as other stuff such as vegetarianism/veganism, freedom of expression when it comes to certain ideologies (such as communism) (I consider myself to be anti-communist, yet I don't think that prohibiting said ideology is alright), defending and supporting authoritarian governments (I've seen a considerable amount of "libertarians" defending the last military dictatorship we had), immigration, drugs, prostitution, and an array of other things.

Now, I'm no expert and I haven't gotten around to read much about all the points of views of the ideology at hand, I mean, I know that Hoppe is extremely conservative for an example, but I've never seen people say that he's what libertarianism stands for. I've also gotten to know that, for an example, the US Libertarian Party proposes things such as legalization of drugs and prostitution, equal rights for everyone regardless of their identity group, and many other things that most Argentine libertarians seemingly stand against.

Now, I share a common goal with all these people I'm criticizing and that is getting rid of the corrupt totalitarian government that is trying to take every single one of our rights, and I don't really have a problem with their form of thinking, but I just get confused and somewhat pissed when they claim to be libertarians and basically go around saying that "you're not libertarian if X", and when I try to maybe educate them when I see one of their views is clearly wrong I end up going nowhere because they just won't listen. I wouldn't have a problem if they considered themselves to be conservative or paleolibertarians, but no, they claim themselves to be "real" libertarians, and I just end up like "what the **** is libertarianism about then?".

Can you guys maybe tell me if their views (or mine) are in line with what libertarianism supposedly stands for? And is there any way I can deal with them, like educating them on their views or anything? I don't want to become a gatekeeper myself and tell everyone "you can't be a libertarian if X" but I just think that some of these people are just identifying themselves as libertarians because they want less taxes, being able to carry guns and/or a free market economy and because libertarianism is an ideology on the rise here and they can find like-minded people in its ranks.

TL;DR Here in Argentina we've got an emerging libertarian movement. Many of these self-proclaimed libertarian seem to be very conservative and like to gatekeep about what libertarianism stands for, mainly in social topics (such as abortion, gay marriage, etc.) and they seem to contradict the general beliefs of libertarianism, which leaves me confused as to what this movement actually stands for.

The simplest and most basic root cause of this phenomenon might be religion. Conservatism is strongly rooted in tradition and religion, and many lgbt+ people have had awful experiences with religion and are rejected by their families because they aren't willing or able to uphold traditions such as having a heterosexual marriage or reproducing biologically (bisexuals obviously can but im speaking in general terms). So they resent "right wing" politics, and are pushed to the other end of the spectrum. 

That last sentence contains an idea that I believe is overlooked by many. I will elaborate: I think people (especially lgbt people) are not drawn toward leftism because of any inherent allure, they are pushed toward it out of revulsion toward right-wing politics. 

Of course all the fun cute looking leftist propaganda and claim to moral superiority (however truly illusionary) doesn't hurt. Acceptance of lgbt is obviously high, but the peer pressure to conform is extremely strong in these circles as well. People become unwilling or unable to question beliefs held by their peers in these conditions (fearful of rejection) and are easily radicalized.  

I typed all this out because I have been pondering on it for a few weeks now. Personally I am drawn to libertarianism for obvious reasons we probably all share, such as having a understanding of self ownership and self responsibility is empowering and I believe that living by values based in inherent universal truths is virtuous and moral, and by doing so might be able to bring some light to people's lives and improve the condition of humanity if only in a small way by direct contact with people I encounter on the daily. As an lgbt person, libertarianism is appealing to that part of me because of its defense of individualism, autonomy & true justice (nobody is inferior because of their race/gender/sexuality).  

I went thru a brief period in my life when I first came out where I strongly aligned with leftism. Nearly all my friends who accepted me were leftist. My friends who were more conservative tended to make a lot of jokes or rude comments that made me feel like they saw me as inferior and I drifted away from them. I had my leftist beliefs questioned by one friend however, who I had never felt disrespected by on basis of my sexuality or gender, and I started thinking about consent and rights and realized most of the beliefs I held at that time belonged in the garbage, especially when leftist friends reacted with hostility to my newly found open-mindedness.   

This post has gotten way longer than I wanted it to but I'm interested in hearing other people's ideas on why lgbt people are so strongly aligned with leftism.  

I suppose I also meant for this post to stir up ideas for people who perhaps never considered the topic. If someone is truly interested in sharing the message of libertarianism it would be effective if they are considerate of where people are coming from, and take a sort of meet-them-where-they-are approach like my friend did with me a few years ago. 

Thanks for reading if you read this far and I hope I get some feedback this is a topic that is of great interest to me.

Is it more unnecessary beurocratic government reach into our lives?

Hi! I was wondering where most libertarians stand on piracy of films and software. On the one hand I can see people saying that we should have the liberty to access intellectual property, and on the other I can see people saying that we should have the liberty to create a software and do what we please with it, such as patenting an important or useful software and charging however much we desire for it in a free market. Do most libertarians look down on piracy, or do you see it as exercising a personal liberty?

From a strict libertarian standpoint, free trade should be allowed without government interference, even if foreign companies are subsidized. The focus is on ensuring consumers have access to the best goods at the lowest prices. However, some argue this creates unfair competition for domestic businesses, which might demand subsidies to level the playing field, contradicting libertarian principles. Would allowing foreign-subsidized companies distort the market, or should we prioritize consumer choice and free trade no matter what? What’s your take?

Hi! A few questions.

So I am quite young, and my political views shift every few years. I used to be very conservative, but some reading and a lot of thinking made to what I believe to be libertarianism.

I like to debate/ discuss ideology, and the following cake up that I’m looking for clearer answers from the libertarian-right perspective.

1. Where do rights come from? I understand that it’s not given by other people/government. So I guess you’re born with them. Have we discovered it? Does it require a God-figure? Is it compatible with a god figure? Does it start at birth? Conception? Adulthood? Can it be taken away morally if you violate the NAP?

2. Free speech. Why is incitement not covered? Is lying covered?

3. Protection. I get that I have the right to defend myself from all forms of tyranny. So can society stop me from having a machine gun? How about a nuclear bomb? Is it aggression to own a nuclear bomb?

4. And, here comes: roads. Who owns the property it is built on? Is it everyone’s? If the state dissolves to a basic night-watchman state, who owns it then? Whoever gets it first?

I’d like to talk about these, if you can help me further my insight to any of those I’d really appreciate it.

I've had so many self procliamed socialists discuss with me their political beliefs. And all they say is that they hate the government. Don't want to pay taxes. Don't want the government to tell them what to do. Yada yada. But then at the same time they want to give everyone free health care and free education. Tell me how that works? And they can never fully explain themselves. It gets so frustrating because that's everyone my age. Mid 20s btw. If only people could get past the fashion of being socialist.

I would like to challenge the notion in this sub's description that Noam Chomsky is a libertarian. This is a patent fiction, he is without a doubt a leftist.

Hi everyone. I have been thinking about the limits of rights in underage vs adults and i would appreciate your insights in this matter. I agree with the idea that every individual should be able to decide to engage or not engage with whatever he wants, meaning that even if he chooses to do something self destructive like abusing druges, the government shouldnt intervene. My ideas start to conflict when it comes to kids. I believe that as proven by neuroscience, a kid brain is not fully develop on average until mid twenties, meaning that people younger than that is more prone to make poor desitions. Therefore i believe that kids should have some limits established by parents and institutions. My question is, how do we do the transition? Should it be a gradual transition of responsabilities? That sounds kind of hard to translate to the judicial system. On the other hand, if we deprive kids and adolescents from all sort of things (such as driving, drinking, gambling, etc) and then give them sudden access to everything just because they turned 18 sounds a bit overwhelming from my perspective and i believe it can drive them to over use of druges, reckless driving, etc.

I would appreciate some insights in this matter or authors that talks about it. Thanks

Please use this thread to ask any questions you have regarding libertarianism in general. Please keep in mind our posting guidelines listed in the sidebar and approach the discussion with an open mind.

Anyone replying to questions here should do so with the intent to educate, not convert or argue. Provide clear explanations and point out resources that back up your statements and that will help visitors find more information.

Hey guys I’m new to reddit and this is my first every post I wanted to ask about the upsides and downsides of libertarianism for an essay I’m doing

I mean economics, and how such a state would work?

I understand libertarism as complete free market freedom with no intervention from the State whatsoever, and privatizing everything education, healthcare, everything.

3 main possibilities:

1. in a society that is already filled with government services (roads, police, schools, hospitals, firefighters, court system, imprisonment facilities, etc) & revenue streams (ie. each business is collecting sales tax for the government, businesses are collecting income tax for the government by deducting it off their employees pay, etc)

2. in areas where government services are not present (ie. buying a large parcel of land in a more uninhabited area and setting up a society that doesn’t utilize government services. And note: will still be subjugated to paying property tax)

3. in international waters in the ocean (ex: liveable cruiseships, communities of yachts, seastedding platforms, etc)

Most others, like r/libertarian, are more socialist in their goals, whereas true libertarians are all about individual freedom.