Even those who work very hard. Should "taxation is theft" mean that your firefighter mom, cop dad, professor aunt, etc. are bad people?

There are many things we disagree with conservatives.

Not all conservatives support drug legalization. but number of republicans that's pro legalization is about the same with democrats. Also I like their idea of pushing it to the state.

I like abortion. Again, republican idea of pushing it to the state is good.

Conservatives may want to insert religion but they can't anyway. They want to censor movies. All censorship I see is from the left.

Am I missing something?

If you are a consequentialist, it seems that Republicans have much more in common than Democrat. Elon, Ron Paul, and Milei support Trump. They don't support Oliver or Kamala.

What do you think?

Any libertarians that say Kamala is much better than Trump in some important issue that may actually affect your life?

No, not Aristotle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1UucF11oms&list=PLuBvcIVom1uOoLAuOEPIxZlPU6xfJ-Diz&index=4

The Philosopher is a libertarian rapper.

Better than Keynes at least

I'm Libertarian but here's why I support tariffs

Blue-collar tradesmen in the lumber or steel industry benefit, these men tend to be LIBERTARIANS

Blue-haired freaks in Silicon Valley and Wallstreet don't benefit, these people tend to be LIBTARDS.

By subsidizing the local manufcaturing industries at the expense of the rest of America, we are redirecting resources from the libs to the Libs-ertarians.

I am curious why any Libertarians would vote for trump considering his tariffs (which are anti-free trade), a huge increase to the deficit, and his threats to use the military against civilians (which strikes me as the most anti-libertarian thing a major candidate has said in my lifetime).

Edit: added huge deficits. Before people say "he's too dumb to do any of this," there were several reported instances during Trump's presidency where military leaders and advisors intervened or pushed back on potential actions, including the use of military force against civilians. The people who pushed back have been pushed out.

Here are my points and arguments I have so far:

1. If you like socialism so much, why don't you move to Russia or China?

2. If you like socialism so much, why do you have an Iphone? Why do you drink Starbucks?

3. Hitler, Stalin, Mao were all socialists, Martin Luther King Jr, Rosa Parks, and Mother Teresa are all Capitalists

4. The New Deal was actually capitalist, it was Roosevelt saving capitalism from a potential Marxist revolution

5. Billionnaires are job creators, if we had socialism we would have no more billionaires and thus no more jobs.

6. You are clearly just jealous you are not one of the rich people, if you were rich you'd be a capitalist too.

Doesn't Donald Trump go against core conservative values? Why still vote for him? I'm just going by actual facts and evidence. For one, he's a convicted criminal, and number two, he incited a riot to overturn an election. This goes against the Constitution and the law. Why still vote for him? It seems like a lot of conservatives only care about the Constitution and the law when it's convenient.

I spoke with a very successful friend of mine, he's a Conservative bigshot. He basically said he sympathizes with a lot of Libertarian ideals and is for reducing the size of government, but he takes issue with the lack of RESPECT and DECOR that Libertarians have towards the State. He says if you want to oppose government expansion and overreach, do so, but don't disrespect our institutions, that is something that has no place in civilized debate.

He is put off by the fact that Libertarians don't respect the Federal Reserve, he's put off by how Libertarians don't respect the CIA, he's put off how Libertarians don't respect the Federal authorities and agencies that currently exist, they don't respect lawmakers.

This is why he's a huge fan of Friedman. Friedman was a Libertarian but he respected the FED, he respected Alan Greenspan, he respected the President, and he respected our institutions.

Much like how Marxism sees to overturn the existing establishment of Royals and Bourgoise interests and replace them with a new elite known as "Vanguards of the Revolution" of whom will rule the Dictatorship of the Proletariet, Rothbardism seeks to overthrow the existing financial system and replace it with a Neo-Feudal system.

Instead of violent revolution, Rothbardism will achieve this through DEBT REPUDIATION, which is in effect a financial revolution and a massive transfer of wealth. The U.S owes $35 TRILLION to bond holders, if it defaults, that would be an instant vaporization of $35 trillion held by Pension Funds, Bond Funds, Money Market Funds, all of whom report to their depositors. A debt default in this sense is not that much different from a Marxist revolution, whereas instead of seizing the means of production from the capitalists, we eviserate the claim on wealth of the debt-holders.

The dollar would crash to almost nothing, so leveraged capital-intensive industries like Big Oil and Big Agriculture would thrive. The real value of their debts would be wiped away as the USD becomes worthless. The new elites will be the Koch Brothers and Tech Billionaires like Peter Thiel, perhaps this is why they funded the CATO institute and gave Rothbard money to spread his views.

Been pondering tariffs, and one common reason given for them is that they keep jobs in our own country.

But is that even logically or mathematically possible?

In order for Canada to buy something from China, doesn't China necessarily have to buy something of equivalent value from Canada?

I realize I have greatly simplified this, but isn't it true that because Canadian dollars can only buy Canadian goods, Canada literally cannot lose a single dollar of GDP (and maybe even a single job) by importing goods from other countries, since they are essentially paying them in "gift cards for Canadian products"?

I would appreciate feedback on if I am overlooking anything here.

I used to be a pure libertarian. Now, I don't know. I am more of a moldbugians I guess. While I like government to be small, I think societies' norms and laws should be decided by the market. Network of private cities provide anything libertarians want. Network of competing nation states are pretty similar to network of private cities and if we play our cards right, we can make the world more libertarians. Bitcoin allows tax free income already in many area, for example.

I can think of a few. Notice that many libertarians have this mindsets, but smarter libertarians, like Herman Hoppe, Moldbug, David Friedman do not think the same way. They, for example, advocate borders so people can live freely with people they like. It's called freedom of association.

1. Voting is useless. Saying that is like saying that infantry is useless. Yea of course voting alone won't work and have many limitation. But when ownership of a territory isn't clear, voting is a good way to resolve conflicts with less violent. My favorite ways to achieve libertarianism is making privatized libertarian countries. But when push come to shove, voting is fine.
2. Another variant is that voting is aggression and hence libertarians shouldn't do it. Yes voting is aggression. So is shooting people in war. Once the game is pretty much voting games or shooting games then you play what's available. In ideal world people can't vote to get your tax money for welfare. We don't live in ideal world. Like Ron Paul said, just steal it back.
3. No borders. There are reasons why we have voluntary gated community. People near you will have power over you. So there are reasons why a group of people want to exclude people from their community.
4. Concentrate on negative choices. Government shouldn't prohibit drugs, government shouldn't prohibit prostitution, and porn. And so on and so on. Well... that's fine. I agree. But what about positive choices? Imagine an arrangements where cities live nearby and one prohibit drugs and another legalize it? To me, that's good enough. I will just move to cities that legalize drugs. In fact, it's better. Say conservatives don't want to live near drug users, shouldn't we respect their rights too? As long as we have our own legalized drugs cities so what?
5. Abhor power. Wealth is power (I think libertarians do not consider wealth as power). If we define power to be ability to get what we want, then we can't abhor power. Freedom is power too. Also many business transactions require some understanding of power game. For example, I will lost money if I buy product and don't complain for more than 2 days. I got to check products I buy within 2 days so I am in more powerful bargaining position.
6. Think all taxes are robbery and hence equally bad. Nope. Inflation, is tax for those who hold fiats. Lottery is tax for those who are stupid at Math. I don't mind those taxes. Besides, US dollar is just another alt coin. Why should we care that some alt coin value go up or down? Again, positive choices matter here. As long as you an buy bitcoin you shouldn't care about inflation.
7. Not selfish enough. If welfare parasites starve it's their problems not us.
8. Not allying with conservatives. Until today, I am still very confused. What is so evil about conservatives in US that libertarian hate them so much. They want to lower tax and they did. That's all. Yes conservatives often want to ban porn and stuff. But they can't. No real damage there. They're against gay marriage. Again, not an issue because no body should get married anyway and government shouldn't get involved in the marriage in the first place.
9. Don't think in terms of winning election. Any ideology need to win election or civil war to win. Otherwise, what? You don't win you become slaves like tax payers I guess. You got to win politically.
10. Not being grateful enough for what's already working fine. As a businessman I think it's much easier to achieve more wealth to look at what's already working fine and then go all the way enlarging it instead of complaining on things that don't work. We now have privatized currency, namely bitcoin, and privatized taxis, namely Uber, and privatized things. We even have private cities and private government like Prospera. Things are working. Many libertarians just blame welfare parasites. Welfare parasites will be parasitic but we can protect our money.

That's what I think why libertarian movements is self defeating. Do you agree or disagree?

What do you think?

Imagine if we had a Libertarian President that achieved everything he wanted, and a Libertarian governor of a State that also dismantled the State down to its bare bones.

Wouldn't it be possible for local communities and townships/cities to vote for public utilities like sewage, power, water, and roads? Under a Libertarian order, you could have small Democratic Socialist Communities.

In his previous term, Trump reduce taxes. That's something libertarians and conservatives agree with. Reduce taxes. Trump also promised to free Ulbricht and embrace bitcoin. As a libertarian I am impressed.

If you are a libertarian, chance is you are economically enlightened individuals and economically productive.

If your government is in financial strain, then they will save money, and welfare will be reduced by it self. So huge budget deficit is good because it eliminates welfare, public schools, and stuffs we libertarians don't like.

Ah but what about if that's not the case. What about if it causes inflation? Instead of taxing people the government just devalue currency? That fiats will be toilet papers anyway. What is inflation for those who hold bitcoin? Nothing. Something to laugh at. You'll get maids at cheaper price when inflation go up and so is bitcoin.

You think inflation will go up, put your wallet in your faith is. Buy bitcoin, pax gold or monero. If you are not smart enough to figure this out, then remember this. There is one thing libertarianism won't protect you from. Your own stupidity.

We're libertarians. We're smart. We understand economy. We know where things are headed. Why worry about inflation?

Tax sucks. But tax you don't have to pay and benefit you is awesome.

Inflation is tax for those holding fiats. We libertarians know better to hold bitcoins. It's the one thing being libertarians pay off.

Then don't worry about inflation.

What about the poor?

Fuck the poor.

I think Trump is the most libertarian presidential candidate that can win, among the current 2 definitely.

He lowered tax on his first term.

Many said that he should have reduce government spending first. Well, he probably can't. If he could, he would have eliminated welfare but that means not winning election. He did what he can. He reduce tax. Isn't that good enough?

But Trump will raise tariff...

Oh..... another tax.

What else? But he will create lottery, which is tax for the stupid.

Why do you fear tax for the stupid. You are smart. I am a libertarian because I like getting rich according to my Karma. I think I am wise and if people disagree, let them try and see who got rich.

You see. Tariff is a very REGRESIVE tax.

Regressive tax is easy to avoid. Get rich and your portion of those taxes will be negligible.

That's probably the only 2 things non libertarian that Trump will do. Hell, not bad at all.

What else? Close borders. You want lots of commies voters voting for more socialism? About half of libertarians are pro borders anyway. You don't accept people to your house and let them rule the house, why would you want to allow anyone to come to your place AND then vote socialism increasing tax for you?

Without welfare and without democracy then yea open border maybe nice. But that's just not reality.

How would a Libertarian country go about defending itself against a modern military?

From what it looks like, it seems like it to me when it comes to the articles. Other than that, I noticed Connor O'Keefe posting more than a couple of articles there. Looks pretty interesting so far.

Building off my last post - for my podcast this week, we started reading Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of The Internet by Julian Assange (et al.). In it, Assange suggests that encryption is actually a stronger force than decryption and will essentially remain a step ahead due to it being the natural state of the universe. Building from there, he suggests that this is the reason crypto technologies will be the path to freedom from authoritarian governments. So even as authoritarians figure out hoe to decrypt some old technology, new encrypted technologies will emerge.

I think there is something deep to this idea. However, I don't have any idea if it is actually 'true', but I do enjoy the optimism of it.

What do you think?

The universe believes in encryption. It is easier to encrypt information than it is to decrypt it.

We saw we could use this strange property to create the laws of a new world....And in this manner to declare independence.

Scientists in the Manhattan Project discovered that the uni- verse permitted the construction of a nuclear bomb. This was not an obvious conclusion. Perhaps nuclear weapons were not within the laws of physics. However, the universe believes in atomic bombs and nuclear reactors. They are a phenomenon the universe blesses, like salt, sea or stars.

Similarly, the universe, our physical universe, has that property that makes it possible for an individual or a group of individuals to reliably, automatically, even without knowing, encipher something, so that all the resources and all the political will of the strongest super- power on earth may not decipher it. And the paths of encipherment between people can mesh together to create regions free from the coercive force of the outer state. Free from mass interception. Free from state control. (Assange - Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of The Internet)

If you're interested, here are links to the full episode:
Apple - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pdamx-31-3-the-cryptographic-arms-race/id1691736489?i=1000674227020

Youtube - https://youtu.be/T1FvCJ0ase8?si=sthUAxjqE3TC3kx8

Plus minus of each?

What's major minor?

Hoppe and Rothbard imagined a bunch of tiny city states, much like the Holy Roman Empire, all peacefully cooperating and existing in peace.

Ayn Rand imagined a skyline of Art Deco architecture with beams shooting off into the sky, construction and innovation everywhere.

Ron Paul imagines a very rural Jeffersonian America where each person has a plot of land, with a small homestead, and within being a iron vault filled with gold. On the wall is a deer head and a loaded musket.

However, I was wondering what kind of Libertarian I am? I imagine wild anarchy but in a good way. I imagine gay black dudes making out and twerking on the city streets. I imagine a bunch of people shitting in public for-profit toilets that require change, the toilets have no stalls or privacy blockers so everyone can see them shitting. I imagine gay sex on every club dancefloor and parties 24/7. This is what I imagine.

The entire point is to emulate violence in a way that is labeled as permissible, but there's still something that attracts someone to appreciate this violence. Isn't it basically just getting as close to the violence as one can without being punished for it? Isn't it essentially just an urge for violence but mixed with a cowardice that prevents people from following through on it?

Essentially, why are radfems allegedly wrong about CNC and rape roleplay?

American's Milei.....

Love bitcoin

Free Ross Ulbricht (hopefully with Ian Freeman)

Want to abolish income taxes.

That seems like libertarian enough.

Sure there are other libertarian issue. Things like gay marriage. But that's lame. You can easily avoid gay marriage by avoiding all marriage. Marriage is shit.

Any difference with republicans can be resolved peacefully. Just move to different state where weed and abortion is legal and buy bitcoin.

Commie Kamala makes communism you can't avoid.

But tariffs will increase costs. Yea.... for the poor commie that are already bloated with income taxes.

Tariffs are easy to avoid. Live a thrifty life. That's all.

Income taxes? Now that's a lot tougher.

As a selfish libertarian that mainly interested in MY freedom, I would say Trump hit key points more.

In non swing state? Yea vote Oliver whatever. In swing states? You want another 4 years of communism?

What are your thoughts here?

I'm debating with someone and trying to crowd source a response to this:

People seem to think Democracies never crumble. It’s very weird because they absolutely do. We have to get out of this “it can never happen here” mentality because it CAN.

My guess is he pulls some type of Hitler move. He clearly likes his playbook. Our government isn’t the same as Germany’s was but there are still holes.

-step one is place: a conservative Supreme Court that just ruled that president’s can do illegal thing when acting in the capacity of president. And only they can decide what an “official act” is.

-replace the joint chiefs with loyalists. That’ll be pretty key imo

• some type of false flag event where he blames “the enemy within” I.e democrats. Think Reichstag Fire type moment

-based on that Trump unleashes the military to root out said enemy (with his lackies falling in line) - now this would be illegal but with step 1 in place, it’s ruled legal as an “official act”. He’ll pass an EO limiting freedoms for “the good of the people” once again ruled legal by the Supreme Court -if the GOP has majority he’ll pass some bullshit authoritarian legislation give him all power a la the Enabling act -if GOP is does not have the majority he’ll find another way probably via EO and the Supreme Court.

People seem to not realize one of our checks and balances- the Supreme Court- has fallen. They are corrupt and will do whatever the fuck he says. Ruling that the president can do illegal things shows you that. It is egregious and people are like “oh well” it’s a BIG deal.

The only reason Trump wasn’t successful the first time is because he had sane people checking him. Those people are ALL gone (and speaking against him because he is a fascist. The military and trumps inner circle saved us last time). He is now surrounded by his brown shirts who will go along with what he wants. So I repeat - it can happen here and a Trump win makes it extremely likely it WILL. Stop burying your head in the sand. The threat is real. It’s not fear mongering from the dems - it’s fucking real and we’re watching it play out in real time. People are just “it could never happen here”ing it when it is literally happening in front of our faces.

Lest us not forget - Hitler rose to power legally and manipulated the system to seize control.

https://www.britannica.com/question/How-did-Adolf-Hitler-rise-to-power#:~:text=Hitler’s%20various%20maneuvers%20resulted%20in,giving%20full%20powers%20to%20Hitler.

I don't think trump is very popular among military leaders. He never has been and certainly isn't now. That seems kind of necessary when it comes to over throwing the government. The other thing is that there are too many factions within the government and they're basically all against him. Anyway, can you guys do better or point me to some good sources?

As libertarian philosophers Matt Zwolinski and John Tomasi recount in their recent book The Individualists, libertarians’ sympathy for right-wing social causes has grown over the decades. Indeed, contemporary libertarians have far too often prioritized smaller violations of liberty and justice that affected whites over far bigger ones that affected oppressed minorities, a fundamental distortion of their philosophy. Take the libertarian-conservative political godfather of the movement, Barry Goldwater. He was a member of the NAACP and an ardent opponent of Jim Crow. Yet he voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act because its ban on discrimination by private businesses ran afoul of his free-market commitments. Goldwater wasn’t a racist. But his natural instinct was to prioritize white business interests rather than the plight of blacks suffering under the brutal boot of Southern apartheid. Even if one grants that the act wasn’t perfect, passing it represented a far bigger advance for liberty of the most subjugated people than not doing so. Holding it hostage to purist concerns showed just how little black concerns factored into the libertarian calculus at the time. Libertarian thinkers by and large simply did not believe that any efforts beyond an unfettered market were needed to accomplish black equality. They’ve never really developed a policy agenda for targeting racist state structures that kept—and still keep— blacks down.

I’m not entirely sure I follow this logic since violating property rights & voluntary association wasn’t ipso facto necessary for ending Jim Crow. Am I missing something? What are your thoughts?

My dad is the shareholder of a Private Prison company (CoreCivic), and from his understanding it is very profitable, albeit many on the right argue that forced labor isn't productive. Milton Friedman argued that slavery and forced labor costed more than the returns gained from doing so. This seems unreasonable to me because with forced labor costs are significantly lower.

For example, when my dad ran a business with employees, he had to give them washroom breaks, each washroom had privacy stalls and took up lots of space, that was on top of wages.

In CoreCivic Prisons, they save tons of money on that by lining up all the toilets in a big row against the wall... no privacy blockers. This is done to keep prisoners safe (so they can't attempt suicide in the stalls or craft shanks) but it also keeps them on the toilet less because they're embarrassed they have to do it in front of everybody so they get back to work sooners.

How is it that forced labor is less profitable than voluntary labor in a competitive market?

1. Trump

2. Oliver

3. Trump in swing states, Oliver in non swing states

4. Ask Milei?

Seriously.

What's the difference between Oliver and Trump anyway? Who can beat Kamala now? Who will make USA more libertarian in the next 4 years and longer?

He was the gateway drug to libertarianism for me. If it wasn't for him, I probably would have never discovered other libertarian thinkers.