/r/AskLibertarians

Photograph via snooOG

A friendly place to learn about, critique, and question libertarians and their views. r/AskLibertarians is for any questions about the philosophy of libertarianism, libertarian movements and traditions, libertarian opinions on certain situations or current events, or anything else you feel is relevant. No question is too basic (or advanced!) to ask, so don't be shy. Subscribe :)

AskLibertarians is for any questions about the philosophy of libertarianism, libertarian movements and traditions, libertarian opinions on certain situations or current events, or anything else you feel is relevant. No question is too basic (or advanced!) to ask, so don't be shy :)

Subscribe

Introductory Resources

Suggested Literature

Suggested Media

Suggested Subreddits

/r/AskLibertarians

11,129 Subscribers

1

Is this a big thing in many countries?

https://www.reddit.com/r/exchristian/comments/1bxeon3/what_nudged_you/kyg0f27/

Say a woman regularly have sex with a man. She lives with him. Like Danny Masterson.

One day, the woman argue that one of the sex is not consensual.

Is this a big thing?

I mean if the woman no longer think that the arrangement with the guy is mutually beneficial she can just leave. It's kind of weird to keep having sex with the same guy and argued latter that one of the sex is not consensual.

Are there actually court cases?

Here is another case that bothers me. A beautiful woman I like marry another guy. She can't easily get divorce. To me that's closer to rape and slavery. However, most people are like, ah but she agreed before. Also the husband truly love her and she's lucky. To me that's disgusting.

But yea how does it work in your culture and many various culture you know?

If it's a big thing can this be resolved through contract. Like the woman agree to keep having sex while she is living and leave within reasonable time when she is no longer interested with the arrangements.

0 Comments
2024/04/08
05:36 UTC

6

Is maritime law anarchic? If so, how? Also, what is this "common law" I hear about from anarchists?

Please also provide any videos, literature, and more that can help me learn more about law in AnCapistan. Historical examples would especially be nice. Thank you.

2 Comments
2024/04/07
18:16 UTC

3

Should there be an income requirement for immigrants coming to the US?

13 Comments
2024/04/07
16:39 UTC

5

Is a 100% private healthcare systems without government regulation cheaper than (and more moral than) a universal single payer healthcare system? Why or why not? What’s a real world example?

26 Comments
2024/04/07
11:00 UTC

6

Why do major corporations, businesses, and other firms still have presences in the South California area when it's so hard to operate there?

7 Comments
2024/04/06
00:01 UTC

0

Do we owe god our lives because he gave us birth?

23 Comments
2024/04/05
04:19 UTC

12

Shouldn’t all libertarians be anarchists?

If you believe taxes are theft, then the government (the state) can’t exist. Thus, whether you like the idea of anarchy or not, anarchy is the logical reality in a world without taxes, no?

If you don’t believe taxes are theft, then why don’t you just call yourself a conservative? I know you may say, “I’m libertarian because I believe the state should only provide police protection.” But why stop at police protection? Where is the objective line at which too much government becomes too much? And what makes that line objective?

118 Comments
2024/04/04
21:03 UTC

2

Do you think Israel is committing war crimes/terrorism/genocide?

76 Comments
2024/04/04
13:51 UTC

2

The implications of private property

Was thinking about the open borders discussion, which got me thinking about the implications of private property.

Some libertarians justify border restrictions by saying that you can keep people off your own private property, and your country is simply a collective "private property" of the citizens.

In some ways, this seems reasonable. If one Amish farmer has the right to keep people off their land, then many Amish farmers have the right to keep people out of their community.

Some would even say that you can use violence, even lethal, against people intruding on your private property. Or you can "tax" people on your property (eg. Condo fees). Or make arbitrary rules (No shirt, No shoes, No service)

If we accept then that one has the power of a dictator within one's own private property, and if a collection of private property can be ruled by the collection of property owners, then does that mean the government is actually justified in whatever it wants to do to the residents of its domain? At least on public property such as roads, etc.?

For example, the government could say that all taxes, regulations, etc. are simply the cost of residency, and they are therefore justified imposing anything they like, no?

11 Comments
2024/04/03
23:25 UTC

4

Need help to understand "homesteading".

So basically from what I understand if you find something in nature that doesn't belong to anyone (which according to Rothbard also includes collective ownership goods), you can claim property?

So if I wanted to homestead the Pacific Ocean and then charge everyone wanting to cross it, I could ?

Or if I wanted to homestead Mars, could I charge Elon Musk in the future for landing his ships there ? Or better yet, could I prevent him from landing ships altogether ?

46 Comments
2024/04/02
23:08 UTC

5

From A Libertarian Perspective, How Did The Trump Presidency Go?

Hi all

So I was wondering just in general, how did Libertarians see the Trump presidency? I've heard a few people say it was bad, a few saying it was good, and some others not giving a rats ass. Would like to hear your thoughts.

50 Comments
2024/04/02
14:23 UTC

0

Is there a real reason why Trump received many hate from the internet?

I know that he’s not a libertarian but dad keeps making these things up that many never trumpets in the internet are bots.

79 Comments
2024/04/01
21:27 UTC

0

Do you think that it is immoral for someone to be late?

Some people will say it is immoral to be late because it is a form of fraud. In my opinion it is not immoral to be late because you should be allowed to quit at any time, otherwise you would be a slave. People say that you steal from someone else if you are late, but to me it seems that the libertarian position would be that you would just not be giving something to someone if you are late. Because it can be difficult to be on time, it would seem like you are punishing someone for not being very skilled or punishing someone for being disabled if you punished someone for being late. It seems wrong to punish people for not doing something that is very difficult. If something is so difficult that there is a large chance you would not be able to do it, it would seem wrong to force you to do it and to punish you if you are not able to do it. People getting mad at those that are late can cause social anxiety.

12 Comments
2024/04/01
19:16 UTC

2

How would Libertarianism address Exclusivity Contracts?

A seller could presumably contract a buyer to only buy from their business and none of the competitors in a libertarian society due to freedom of contract.

Could that be applied to hospitals, where the patient (who agreed to the contract under some degree of duress due to their sickness/pain and urge to treat it and only went to the hospital that was nearest to them) can only receive services from one hospital provider and none of the others?

21 Comments
2024/04/01
07:34 UTC

5

How would Libertarianism solve titanic-businesses?

If a massive firm arises with no government assistance, it is successful, and is essentially able to maintain 100% market share, how would Libertarianism solve that? The massive firm could radically price out any competition that tries to get into that market and thus will be able to maintain a constant monopoly. How would something like that be stopped / collapse in a Libertarian or AnCap society?

Answered: The "Too Big to fail" firm I described would fall underneath its own weight or become inefficient and eventually will loose out to the competition.

62 Comments
2024/03/31
18:10 UTC

0

What does it mean by consent can always be withdrawn? And why?

What does it mean by consent can always be withdrawn?

Can you dodge draft?

Can you legally evade tax?

Can you agree to be drafted and latter dodge draft? I mean consent can always be withdrawn. So I sign for draft, and latter after getting free college degrees, I just withdraw consent.

Can you borrow money and latter withdraw consent to pay for it? Sure I agree to pay when I signed the loan, but consent can always be withdrawn. So bye....

I think people keep saying that things like consent can always be withdrawn but they only mean it in one very specific case. Women offering sex.

Men in trenches warfare cannot withdraw consent.

Men sued for alimony or even palimony can't withdraw consent.

But people simply say consent can't be withdrawn on very specific case while hiding those very specific case.

Another similar phrase. What does it mean by women's body women's choice?

Can women rent her body for money? Can women have sex for money? Can women decides amount of child support before conception?

Again, women's body women's choice only mean right to abortion and that's it. Why?

It seems that it's one of the thing where the word "consent" is grey area and there's insidious agenda to actually force women or prohibit women from doing things, and call it defending women's choices.

8 Comments
2024/03/31
07:54 UTC

0

What is the right-libertarian stance on essentialism?

This question gets a bit technical and philosophical.

What do rightist/pro-capitalist libertarians think of metaphysical essentialism?

I will link you some resources to give you the background knowledge required to answer my question.

22 Comments
2024/03/31
05:14 UTC

3

How would libertarians address corruption within capitalism /crony capitalism?

Hello guys. So I'm a centrist who occasionally leans left (very libertarian on social issues but centrist/center left on economic issues.) atleast by US standards. I've been reading libertarian ideology but one thing that bothers me is how libertarians ignore corruption within capitalism.

Here's an example of what I mean, I come from Pakistan/ India. Its a market society with "state own" enterprises (basically the ceos are government officials in theory.) Due to this theres alot of nepotism,cronyism and mismanagement to the point a Pakistan is a failed state. Furthermore we also have landlords who keep entire populations in wage slavery. Including one landlord who burned a school because he was afraid educated children would leave his farm.

39 Comments
2024/03/30
23:09 UTC

0

Would you become angry if your dad screamed “get here now!” to you and then expected you to move without asking for your consent? How would a libertarian deal with situations like this?

I have heard people say that in real life people will just expect you to move, and that you can’t only do what you want to do in real life. They then said people will get angry with you if you don’t help them. What do you think about that? Has being a libertarian given you anger issue with people that casually support slavery?

20 Comments
2024/03/30
19:19 UTC

4

Libertarian Education

If the libertarian dream of a tax free society came true, how would education work? I live in a poorer school district that likely wouldn't be willing/able to pay for private school. Even with the extra money they'd have, I don't think they'd be able to pay the teachers the same salary and they're already underpaid. They could get new jobs at a higher pay but then rural schools are going to close and kids will be traveling hours just for education, if they can afford it.

17 Comments
2024/03/30
00:40 UTC

2

If tax laws are coercive and therefore should not exist, are some negligence laws (such as making it illegal for someone to intentionally leave a loaded firearm around children) also coercive and should not exist?

63 Comments
2024/03/29
12:20 UTC

0

How do we deal with situation where win win things can happen but it's not exactly consensual?

For example.

Someone put the gun on my head. If I give him cash in my wallet and he lets me live both are better off.

It's a contract, though not a libertarian one.

Of course, I prefer to promote the extermination of all robbers before that ever happens. However, if push comes to shove it happens then what? The situation is similar to contracts.

A similar situation happened a lot in life.

Someone sues you, and you can settle out of court or bleed both of you die.

Or what about the Hamas vs Israel situation right now? If there is peace then both sides will be profited. But Hamas doesn't want peace. If Israel stops war Hamas will keep attacking.

Or what about territories that are moving back and forth due to war? Neither side is consensual. Both Ukraine and Russia will be better off if they settle for something. But will that encourage more incursion? Should they keep fighting? Should we ever appease? Should we never appease?

Perhaps the most obvious sample is paying taxes. Both of us are better off if we pay our taxes and the government doesn't send us to jail. So we pay taxes in exchange for not being sent to jail. How would libertarians handle such a situation? Does libertarian have nothing to say? Like anything goes.

One interesting case is when a country is attacked by another country and the attacked country ask for help from a third country.

Sikkim chose to join India because it fears China. It seems that even though Sikkim does that under duress, the contract is nevertheless amicable and valid. Mutual defense pacts against mutual threats is a reasonably win-win solution. Besides, it's not India that's the threat to Sikkim.

When India itself is a threat, such as during the India accusation of Goa, the contract may be more difficult to justify. However, Goa is too weak to resist anyway and hence "agreed" to join India. As long as India doesn't do extraordinarily evil things like genocide, the whole world will just let it go.

For similar reasons, a bunch of people forming a private city or a country collectively may be considered legitimate to prevent themselves from being conquered by larger states.

If a state can vote for lower taxes, the state, for example, is beneficial, even though it's technically a state and not a pure ancap. As individuals, we can't fight bigger government. But collectively we stand a chance and if the result is lower tax, why not?

And this is why low tax states, at least for the time being, are better than pure ancap that doesn't exist and can be easily conquered by other states anyway.

Does any libertarian philosopher consider this?

9 Comments
2024/03/29
09:17 UTC

1

Can any Libertarian psychologists explain this persistent restraint drive?

People want to ban things rather than educate about them.

People want a state instead of charity.

People when lacking answers about life want to turn to a deity that more often than not restrains them and calls it "freedom from sin/rebirth" or anything to prohibit "materialism".

Can someone explain this to me?

4 Comments
2024/03/26
22:58 UTC

4

Wouldn't negative income tax discourage work?

16 Comments
2024/03/26
21:35 UTC

3

Ayn Rand's argument for patents and copyright

Excerpt from Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal:

Every type of productive work involves a combination of mental and physical effort: of thought and of physical action to translate that thought into a material form. The proportion of these two elements varies in different types of work. At the lowest end of the scale, the mental effort required to perform unskilled manual labor is minimal. At the other end, what the patent and copyright laws acknowledge is the paramount role of mental effort in the production of material values; these laws protect the mind’s contribution in its purest form: the origination of an idea. The subject of patents and copyrights is intellectual property. An idea as such cannot be protected until it has been given a material form. An invention has to be embodied in a physical model before it can be patented; a story has to be written or printed. But what the patent or copyright protects is not the physical object. as such, but the idea which it embodies. By forbidding an unauthorized reproduction of the object, the law declares, in effect, that the physical labor of copying is not the source of the object’s value, that that value is created by the originator of the idea and may not be used without his consent; thus the law establishes the property right of a mind to that which it has brought into existence. It is important to note, in this connection, that a discovery cannot be patented, only an invention.

Im personally against both copyright and patents, but Im not too involved in the whole discussion surrounding the various opinions about it. I oppose patents and copyright from both a practical perspective but also because I do not think that ideas should be nor can be legally owned. Its at least not entirely clear that they are part of property rights to me.

Do you guys have any takes on what Ayn Rand thought about patents and copyright?

5 Comments
2024/03/26
19:34 UTC

2

What is the difference between authoritarianism and totalitarianism and Autocracy and Dictatorship?

9 Comments
2024/03/26
16:02 UTC

0

What is the libertarian center?

If libertarian socialists and ancoms are left wing libertarians and voluntaryists and ancaps are right wing libertarians, what are center left and center right wing libertarians?

29 Comments
2024/03/25
21:03 UTC

2

How is the mere existence of prisons justified under NAP?

I’m not just referring to the fact that most Prisons are funded with tax dollars. Just the concept of prisons is aggressive, because detaining someone against their will is inherently aggressive. Someone punches you, you punch them back. That’s self defense. Someone punches you, you send goons to restrain, possibly beat up, and detain them for an arbitrary period of time? Yeah, no. Not self defense.

44 Comments
2024/03/25
17:40 UTC

0

Fellow Libertarians: I've seen that most libertarians (myself excluded) oppose the decision by the US government to force TikTok to remove Chinese controlling interest, or be banned. Please explain your argument as to why this goes against the NAP.

My argument is this:

A hostile, foegien nation, actively attempting to spread propaganda to our youth and destabilize the US socially (as well as perhaps spying on US citizens without permission) IS an act of aggression, and thus the US is ethically justified in demanding aggression cease, and stopping further aggression if they fail to do so.

61 Comments
2024/03/25
14:17 UTC

2

If the ultimate response to corporate abuse is for consumers to patronize businesses elsewhere, was the existence of discriminatory businesses under Jim Crow justified by the lack of pushback from consumers till the civil rights era?

I had this in mind as I was making this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/libertarianmeme/s/HU5Fbafzpm

Apparently, so goes the meme, by keeping on buying from a abusive near-monopoly like Amazon, those who affect indignation are ultimately being hypocrites for not changing their behavior -- apparently, it is not in the business to change its model, whether by government action (obviously) or even consumer protest.

If that is the case, then wouldn't have the enduring corporations and mom and pop stores of the southern United States under Jim Crow have been as justified in sticking to their guns, refusing to serve customers whatever their hue, and berating customers who keep paying them, even if only because there is no other game in town? Would they have been just as legitimate, till changing cultural mores and the government forced them to adapt?

7 Comments
2024/03/25
14:01 UTC

Back To Top