The Official Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist Thread

[utvolpj]

I can’t ride with the Libertarian stance on open borders.

But I like a lot of what this guy is selling…

Dig this plenty -

• I will not support any new gun restrictions and will look to repeal the restrictions that exist today.
• I will nominate to the judiciary judges committed to protecting the right of all persons to defend themselves from aggression.
• District of Columbia v. Heller was a seminal moment in our history, affirming not only the right of citizens to own arms, but determining that restrictions such as trigger locks are unconstitutional. I will work to extend this legal concept to all bans, such as bans on bump stocks.

Yep, this -

Immediately abolish the death penalty for all Federal crimes. Not only are mistakes sometimes made that are not discovered until the execution has been carried out, but prosecutors often use the threat of the penalty as a method for extracting confessions in exchange for more lenient sentencing. This presents ethical concerns in itself, such as innocent suspects confessing to crimes they did not commit to escape the needle, the chamber, or the chair.

Right again -

Immediately act to remove all federal laws criminalizing cannabis and end burdensome regulatory hurdles like federal banking regulations, placed on the cannabis industry.

F@&k yea, brother -

• Work with Congress to abolish the Patriot Act, which has unconstitutionally increased the powers and scope of the police and surveillance state.
• Work to repeal the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 which serves as the legal justification for the surveillance abuses disclosed by Edward Snowden in 2013.
• End the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which routinely violates our civil liberties, requires airlines to become agents of Federal surveillance, and whose screening devices, both for luggage and facial recognition, repeatedly exhibit problems that are inexcusable in relation to the taxpayer dollars spent.

Yep, wish he had addressed ALL bodily autonomy-

There are many complex issues in our society which offer no easy solutions. More than a few of these issues involve individuals engaging in activities that may run counter to our personal beliefs. Outside of obvious criminal offenses such as assault, theft, or murder, it is not the role of government in a free society to prohibit such behavior, even when the majority wishes it so. For this reason, activities such as abortion are the province of individual choice and bodily autonomy.

Whew daddy, imma need a shower. Preach -

At the federal level, the best policy on education is to remove the federal government’s involvement in education. I support abolishing the Department of Education and block granting those funds back to states to be returned to taxpayers. I also support getting the government out of the student loan business so market forces can lower the cost of higher education over time.​

Platform

COST OF LIVING & INFLATION “If we really want to fight for people chasing their dreams and achieving their goals in life, the first thing we have to do is make sure we quit robbing them with inflation.

www.votechaseoliver.com

I'm not sure he's for wide open borders based on reading the section.

Student loans should get some discussion


I will immediately end the Federal backing of student loans by asking Congress to make all current loans interest-free, while simultaneously ending all future government-guaranteed loans.


I would then make the discharge of interest revenue neutral by requiring the Department of Defense to cut costs by closing overseas bases and installations and bringing our troops home, instead of engaging in expensive nation-building and peacekeeping missions abroad. It is only right that the DoD bear part of the cost, as mounting debt is as big a threat to our security as any foreign enemy,


Finally, I would allow students to stabilize their financial situations by allowing student loan debt to be dischargeable in bankruptcy just like any other loan. I want a well-educated populace that can compete with the minds of any other nation, but not at the cost of our nation's financial and retirement security.

 

[85SugarVol]

I'm not sure he's for wide open borders based on reading the section.

Student loans should get some discussion


I will immediately end the Federal backing of student loans by asking Congress to make all current loans interest-free, while simultaneously ending all future government-guaranteed loans.


I would then make the discharge of interest revenue neutral by requiring the Department of Defense to cut costs by closing overseas bases and installations and bringing our troops home, instead of engaging in expensive nation-building and peacekeeping missions abroad. It is only right that the DoD bear part of the cost, as mounting debt is as big a threat to our security as any foreign enemy,


Finally, I would allow students to stabilize their financial situations by allowing student loan debt to be dischargeable in bankruptcy just like any other loan. I want a well-educated populace that can compete with the minds of any other nation, but not at the cost of our nation's financial and retirement security.

Absolutely on board with his position to do abolish the Dept of Education and end the Federal Student Loan program.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

Absolutely on board with his position to do abolish the Dept of Education and end the Federal Student Loan program.

Agreed.

I am also 100% against the government stepping in and "forgiving" student loans for some people since everyone else has to pay theirs (or already paid). This is despite me having a son just now finishing up his masters with a 6 figure student debt (barely though) and a 16yo daughter in dual enrollment now who will also amass considerable student loan debt.

Just because a government policy or handout is of great benefit to me or my immediate family DOES NOT make it right, nor something that I will support. If you sign up for student loans, you are bound by contract to repay them. Welcome to adulthood. If the whole country would vote for whats right and best for the nation, rather than "more free crap for me" we would actually prosper as a country rather than bankrupting and destroying our homeland.

Edit: and fwiw, neither of my kids ever attended public school. My wife and I did though. I am sure there are some good public schools out there in rural areas etc ...we went to school in Charlotte and it was terrible. That was 30 years ago almost. I cant even imagine them now.

 

[OrangeTsar]

 

[n_huffhines]

View attachment 645844

Imagine a "libertarian" who thinks being woke and trans supporter is a deal-breaker. It's about liberty, numb nuts. Ron Paul was not vocal about the culture war because he was actually about liberty. Any "libertarian" who prioritizes the culture war is not a real libertarian.

Ron Paul built the biggest liberty tent we've seen in recent times, and he didn't do it by being outspoken about identity politics. He probably believed gay people should be married. He might not think the criminal justice system is racist. I don't remember him ever talking about it. He would just shift every question to individual liberty, rule of law, and the fed, basically.

 

[n_huffhines]

I don't understand how you can be libertarian and not be a little woke. You don't get it if you're not at least a little woke. Who thinks the government/system is full of all kinds of evil, but draws the line at racism? LOL. The government will murder us all with a vaccine but they're not racist.

The outcomes show overwhelming support for the idea that we have racial injustice in our legal system. It's OK to admit things aren't perfectly fair and you're a buffoon if you think they are. That's woke. If you think that, and literally everybody should, then you are at least a little bit woke.

 

[LouderVol]

I don't understand how you can be libertarian and not be a little woke. You don't get it if you're not at least a little woke. Who thinks the government/system is full of all kinds of evil, but draws the line at racism? LOL. The government will murder us all with a vaccine but they're not racist.

The outcomes show overwhelming support for the idea that we have racial injustice in our legal system. It's OK to admit things aren't perfectly fair and you're a buffoon if you think they are. That's woke. If you think that, and literally everybody should, then you are at least a little bit woke.

I don't think you have to be woke to be libertarian. especially as you laid it out. anything that lumps people together and doesn't recognize them first as individuals seems counter to the message; especially when it comes to what the government's response/actions should be.

you can admit things are ok and not bring any other agenda into. for a libertarian it should be enough that the system isn't fair to an individual, their skin color shouldn't make it any better or worse.

I think the government sucks, for everyone. I am not out to fix the government to solve any one race's problem. I think inherently if the government is fixed any inequality, real or perceived, should also go away from a government source; but it would still absolutely exist. but if you just focus on the problem for one race you likely haven't fixed it for everyone, and are just picking winners and losers on something beyond merit of the individual, which is not very libertarian.

trying to remove racism as a concept from anything beyond the government implies a far greater reach than libertarianism espouses.

 

[McDad]

I don't understand how you can be libertarian and not be a little woke. You don't get it if you're not at least a little woke. Who thinks the government/system is full of all kinds of evil, but draws the line at racism? LOL. The government will murder us all with a vaccine but they're not racist.

The outcomes show overwhelming support for the idea that we have racial injustice in our legal system. It's OK to admit things aren't perfectly fair and you're a buffoon if you think they are. That's woke. If you think that, and literally everybody should, then you are at least a little bit woke.

Hmm.

Imma gonna have to think on this.

 

[n_huffhines]

I don't think you have to be woke to be libertarian. especially as you laid it out. anything that lumps people together and doesn't recognize them first as individuals seems counter to the message; especially when it comes to what the government's response/actions should be.

you can admit things are ok and not bring any other agenda into. for a libertarian it should be enough that the system isn't fair to an individual, their skin color shouldn't make it any better or worse.

I think the government sucks, for everyone. I am not out to fix the government to solve any one race's problem. I think inherently if the government is fixed any inequality, real or perceived, should also go away from a government source; but it would still absolutely exist. but if you just focus on the problem for one race you likely haven't fixed it for everyone, and are just picking winners and losers on something beyond merit of the individual, which is not very libertarian.

trying to remove racism as a concept from anything beyond the government implies a far greater reach than libertarianism espouses.

I'm gonna have to totally disagree. The real life concept of racial injustice should matter to everyone, even libertarians. There is nothing anti-libertarian or counter to libertarian philosophy in seeing yourself and others in groups. Policy should be about individual liberty, but you can and should still accept that racial injustice is a problem and propose to solve it with measures that promote individual liberty. What are we talking about here?

 

[McDad]

I'm gonna have to totally disagree. The real life concept of racial injustice should matter to everyone, even libertarians. There is nothing anti-libertarian or counter to libertarian philosophy in seeing yourself and others in groups. Policy should be about individual liberty, but you can and should still accept that racial injustice is a problem and propose to solve it with measures that promote individual liberty. What are we talking about here?

Can you give an example how libertarians would propose to solve racial injustice which didn't involve government?

 

[n_huffhines]

Can you give an example how libertarians would propose to solve racial injustice which didn't involve government?

Libertarians are concerned with government action. Generally, we want inaction or less action, and that is often the best solution. So I think the answer to your question is in policy, but it's laissez faire.

Just in general, I/we believe that less government will result in better racial equality. Throughout our history, government has institutionalized and been maybe the biggest perpetrators of racial injustice. Now the government is full of well-meaning people, but the system is already built and on cruise control, still resulting in racial injustice even though government and maybe cops are probably less racist than ever.

The easiest example of libertarian policy for racial justice would be ending the war on drugs. A huge chunk of the disparity is in drug-related arrests. Libertarians didn't want a war on drugs in the first place. Not sure they knew they'd see these results (I wasn't born yet), but their ideas would have prevented them.

 

[LouderVol]

I'm gonna have to totally disagree. The real life concept of racial injustice should matter to everyone, even libertarians. There is nothing anti-libertarian or counter to libertarian philosophy in seeing yourself and others in groups. Policy should be about individual liberty, but you can and should still accept that racial injustice is a problem and propose to solve it with measures that promote individual liberty. What are we talking about here?

Its matters because individuals A thru Z are restricted in their freedoms by the government. the existence of racism within the government doesn't necessitate the loss of freedoms held by the individual. and there would be plenty of cases of individuals within whatever category not being impacted by that racism, so saying its a racial problem oversimplifies the situation, otherwise it would literally happen to every individual of the race present in the country subject to that government.

not sure which particular government policies you want to talk about, but lets talk education. education has largely been claimed to be unfairly restricting certain minority rights because they can't pass the standardized tests or get the required grades. a racial issue that libertarians should care about is if it was indeed based on their race that they were being failed or marked down. how much of the real life education "systemic racism" is due to the kids simply not passing the tests or whatever standard? Sure real racism exists within it, but claiming every minority who fails is due to systemic racism is lazy and ignores larger problems. and depending on the solution, aka lowering standards, would often be more harmful to the individuals or group, than the maintaining an equal standard and failing those who don't meet it.

a more individualistic/libertarian solution, imo, than lowering/changing the standard is to address the individual failing, not the standard they are failing to meet. the challenge is how does the libertarian version of the government do that? How do you force a kid to study, how do you force a kid to have role models/guardians/parents that give a darn? How do you make sure they have what they need to successfully learn, food, safe places to study, supportive peers? if you were able to build up the individual you could largely make whatever racism there is irrelevant. minorities with straight As aren't being failed, that would draw too much attention, its the borderline kids that are going to suffer. the better solution would be to find ways to help the individuals be less borderline, than to remove the line.

I am not sure the answer, which is why I think the libertarians trying to address large complex issues necessitates them leaving their core smaller government beliefs behind.

welfare is another big government solution to the "racial" problem of small minorities? But how many has it actually lifted up out of poverty? vs how has the percentage of government-dependent minorities INCREASED with welfare, instead of decreasing? The government ran plantations have much better PR, but pretty similar results to their namesake.

I would argue the more libertarian solutions allow for failures, and doesn't assume every issue an individual of a certain race has is part of a systemic failure. and that simply isn't going to be popular to let people fail; but realistically that may be the only way to get people back on their own feet.

 

[85SugarVol]

Can you give an example how libertarians would propose to solve racial injustice which didn't involve government?

If believing the WoD should be ended because, in part, it has unfairly targeted black people and destroyed their communities counts - then I guess I’m “a lil bit woke”.

But it’s a big leap from that to “math is racist” and “being on time is white supremacy”

 

[marcusluvsvols]

If believing the WoD should be ended because, in part, it has unfairly targeted black people and destroyed their communities counts - then I guess I’m “a lil bit woke”.

But it’s a big leap from that to “math is racist” and “being on time is white supremacy”

Its easy to see the WoDrugs have been an abject failure. Drugs has clearly won. As someone whose family has been wrecked by addiction, there are huge problems with the way addiction is handled in this country. Every single treatment facility, detox, rehab etc is absolutely overwhelmed with extremely long wait times to get a bed except maybe the "hollywood" class beachfront rehab places with hot tubs and massages that cost $20k a month etc. We certainly need to focus on making accessible care available for people to get clean/sober and put their lives back together instead of locking everyone up for posession. I cant subscribe to the "all drugs should be legal" nonsense though. People are too easily and quickly addicted to prescription and hard drugs...overdoses are far too common and the difference between effective dose and overdose death dose are way too small especially with opiates and all the crap animal tranquilizers that the cartels now cut them with. These drugs are far too dangerous for legal purchase and use. Weed should be legal and treated like alcohol. Shrooms maybe I guess since overdose and death isnt really an issue...but permanent psychological damage is a very real possibility with any hallucinogen. Hard drugs and man made analogs are just way too dangerous to both individuals and society to be sold legally and available to all. I am all about personal freedoms. I am also a small government conservative. But legalizing all the hard drugs would make large sections of every state become drug fueled wastelands like downtown Philly, Portland, SF and Seattle etc are right now with zombies everywhere and big increases in theft and violence to fuel addicts habits.

 

[MercyPercy]

Its easy to see the WoDrugs has been an abject failure. Drugs has clearly won. As someone whose family has been wrecked by addiction, there are huge problems with the way addiction is handled in this country. Every single treatment facility, detox, rehab etc is absolutely overwhelmed with extremely long wait times to get a bed except maybe the "hollywood" class beachfront rehab places with hot tubs and massages that cost $20k a month etc. We certainly need to focus on making accessible care available for people to get clean/sober and put their lives back together instead of locking everyone up for posession. I cant subscribe to the "all drugs should be legal" nonsense though. People are too easily and quickly addicted to prescription and hard drugs...overdoses are far too common and the difference between effective dose and overdose death dose are way too small especially with opiates and all the crap animal tranquilizers that the cartels now cut them with. These drugs are far too dangerous for legal purchase and use. Weed should be legal and treated like alcohol. Shrooms maybe I guess since overdose and death isnt really an issue...but permanent psychological damage is a very real possibility with any hallucinogen. Hard drugs and man made analogs are just way too dangerous to both individuals and society to be sold legally and available to all. I am all about personal freedoms. I am also a small government conservative. But legalizing all the hard drugs would make large sections of every state become drug fueled wastelands like downtown Philly, Portland, SF and Seattle etc are right now with zombies everywhere and big increases in theft and violence to fuel addicts habits.

You either believe in personal responsibility or you don't.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

You either believe in personal responsibility or you don't.

I think thats a false dichotomy. While it seems logical and sounds good, in the real world things arent always black or white.

i could be totally wrong, but from what I have and now see from the people who live in this country, and the incredible destructive power of the current hard drugs available; i think that if hard drugs were legalized large portions of this country would be an absolute wasteland like parts of most cities are already becoming when these same drugs are available on street corners downtown.

 

[McDad]

I think thats a false dichotomy. While it seems logical and sounds good, in the real world things arent always black or white.

i could be totally wrong, but from what I have and now see from the people who live in this country, and the incredible destructive power of the current hard drugs available; i think that if hard drugs were legalized large portions of this country would be an absolute wasteland like parts of most cities are already becoming when these same drugs are available on street corners downtown.

We only have 3 options to address what you're talking about.
1. Morality or personal responsibility to "just say no" or not allow the use to become a destructive addiction.
2. Change the way we address addiction
3. Make the punishment so severe and so quick people are scared to use drugs.

...or some combo of the above.

Which would you pursue?

 

[LouderVol]

We only have 3 options to address what you're talking about.
1. Morality or personal responsibility to "just say no" or not allow the use to become a destructive addiction.
2. Change the way we address addiction
3. Make the punishment so severe and so quick people are scared to use drugs.

...or some combo of the above.

Which would you pursue?

4. remove safety nets. test positive for drugs or alcohol or nicotine and you don't get any welfare, healthcare, housing, etc. you have to be tested each month before the government cuts you a check.

 

[hog88]

I think thats a false dichotomy. While it seems logical and sounds good, in the real world things arent always black or white.

i could be totally wrong, but from what I have and now see from the people who live in this country, and the incredible destructive power of the current hard drugs available; i think that if hard drugs were legalized large portions of this country would be an absolute wasteland like parts of most cities are already becoming when these same drugs are available on street corners downtown.

My guess is if hard drugs were legalized the addiction rate would stay pretty much the same. People don't use drugs because they are illegal, they don't use because they don't want to and legalizing them isn't going to change many minds.

 

[hog88]

4. remove safety nets. test positive for drugs or alcohol or nicotine and you don't get any welfare, healthcare, housing, etc. you have to be tested each month before the government cuts you a check.

Nicotine?

 

[McDad]

Nicotine?

caffeine?

 

[LouderVol]

Nicotine?

it, and the substances that commonly come with it, are harmful addicting drugs that serves no function the government should be subsidizing, or financially enabling its citizens to use.

 

[hog88]

it, and the substances that commonly come with it, are harmful addicting drugs that serves no function the government should be subsidizing, or financially enabling its citizens to use.

The internet?

 

[LouderVol]

The internet?

I don't think the government should be subsidizing that either.

 

[McDad]

I don't think the government should be subsidizing that either.

You're a real Killjoy, aren't you?