0 Follow all site wide rules, NO EXCEPTIONS

I’ve been a libertarian since 20. I read Poor Economics by Banerjee, and I loved it. I’m looking for some good libertarian podcasts now. Thanks

Libertarianism is an inherently individualistic political philosophy that’s only really been around somewhat recently. I hear a lot of people try to talk about how it’s natural but when you look at society group think and community has almost always been a part of civilization. So what do they mean by its natural

YouTubers, tiktokers, film makers, anything?

Strong borders? Seems really weird that a government should control where you live and more importantly work.

Non-existent borders? Everyone and any good should move where it needs to be. Your job goes to Mexico, so do you.

Some middle ground? Let anyone with a written job offer in?

What's the deal? I've always wanted to know.

My opinion would be minimal government and maximum freedom would be no immigration controls would be most consistent with libertarian ideals. People go where they need to in order to be the most productive and live the best life.

How wrong am I?

The notion that America functions as an empire is, on its face, compelling. With military bases scattered across the globe, it's easy to draw parallels to historical empires. But let's look deeper: traditional empires extract wealth and resources from their dominions, funneling them back to enrich the homeland.

Yet, this isn't the American model. Instead of amassing wealth from its global presence, the U.S. operates almost in reverse. It imposes heavy taxes on its citizens, then redistributes much of this wealth abroad. Billions are sent overseas each year through aid, military support, and various programs, often with little to no accountability or clear benefits back to the American populace.

This outflow of resources isn't just a trickle; it's a flood, contributing to an alarming national debt and moving the country towards fiscal insolvency. While historical empires grew rich off their conquests, America is, in some ways, impoverishing itself by funding global influence at the expense of its own economic stability.

Is this the new face of empire, where power is measured not by wealth accumulated but by influence maintained at home and abroad, even at the cost of domestic prosperity? It's a model that might be sustainable in the short term but will ultimately lead to the dissolution of the US. This is not an empire. Idk what it is. But it will echo throughout history as the downfall of the greatest nation to ever exist.

Net support:

China: +31

Mexico: +11

EU: +7

Canada: +4

Japan: +4

UK: +1

Do you think intellectual property is morally right? Also, is it beneficial for prosperity?

Hi everyone,

I used to identify as socialist leaning but after exploring various political concepts, I have found libertarianism to make a pretty compelling case and resonate a lot with my outlook on life. I initially heard about it after studying basic economics and thus was shocked to see how capitalism is often cited as a scapegoat for our economic problems despite the clear absence of a free market. That led me into the more scholarly writings of libertarians like the Austrian School of Economics developed by Mises and others, especially his book Human Action which is just as much a psychological textbook as an economic one.

I frequently see debates about who and what qualifies as libertarian, i.e. if one proposes taxation or a particular governmental regulation then it conflicts with the ideology. Yet, isn't libertarianism founded on the terms limited or minimal, which specifically suggest as small as possible to distinguish it from anarchism? If one can demonstrate the necessity of some tax or regulation then would that really be inconsistent with the concept?

From my understanding of Laissez-Faire capitalism, we as consumers have choice and so if we are not happy with the service we are getting we have the free choice to go elsewhere. This causes fierce competition and hence why collusions or monopolies cannot form under a free market. But I also believe consumers cannot be expected to reliably determine what product or business is trustworthy relative to others. For example, could one argue alternative medicine (most of which is pseudoscience) has arisen largely due to the lack of regulation in that field and hence why consumers are manipulated by things they don't understand? But I also see this may be the result of high costs for normative healthcare due to the government regulation stamping out competition and so people turned to pseudoscience out of desperation, rather than it being attributable to capitalism.

I can certainly see how costs are minimised under the substantial competition of a free market, but would this lead to mass confusion as to which supplier is reputable due to the sheer number of competitors trying to grab people's attention?

How could we also permit the market to self-regulate to protect the environment? After all, free use of chlorofluorocarbons led to a profoundly weakened ozone layer in the past few decades; free dumping of waste products led to the Cuyahoga River catching fire on multiple occasions; free use of pesticides like DDT drove the bald eagle to the brink of extinction, etc. The issue here is while companies may see it as viable in the long-term to protect the environment due to the consequences that would arise, as noted by Mises as well as Russell Barkley, humans steeply discount the value of future consequences. More immediate monetary gratification may therefore be the driving factor instead.

Suppose people, who have attained adulthood and thus responsibility over themselves, had the option to opt out of paying taxes, what would society look like in terms of paying for things that benefit the public good such as defense? Seeing as a secure state benefits everyone, would the protection of those who do not pay taxes rely on the charity of those who do? Should those people also get to participate in the society seeing as they do not contribute toward it? Is there a line where taxation is no longer theft but a necessity of the social contract?

First off I'm working with leadership of atleast one party already for my unique legel issues. And eventually your know about it.

But for the purpose of that I'm gonna start educating 3rd parties about the biggest weakness of the 2 party system. It's the expat vote.

It is only 2 percent of any congressional district but represents. 10 million total votes.

There tax system is a monster just study it.

Forgive my format this is my first reddit post.

After doing a lot of reading online and on this subreddit I've come to realization that a lot of the things libertarians say and believe I also agree with. I'm wondering if anyone could share some articles or things along those lines so I can continue to learn more. Im surrounded by fear mongering and bootlicking and it seems like the only rational and level headed people are on this sub.

I am happy that I am finding a group that has the same views and beliefs as I do. I look forward to learning more.

Let’s just use weed as a basepoint.

Would libertarians prefer totally legal expensive weed (due to government intervention obviously) or cheaper, illegal weed?

I don’t smoke anymore but as a former pothead I think I’d choose the latter. The price differences are astronomical.

It’s interesting because we need to choose between cheap illegal weed versus government-bloated expensive, legal weed.

What do you think?

so a little story about me

I always knew libertarianism was a real movement and I always knew it had something to do with Ayn Rand but as you're about to read more into this I'm not really a fan I don't hate her or anything I think she was a clever woman in her own white but overall that's not what got me into libertarianism

so as a kid I started reading books what my mom had around the house like howl by Allen Ginsberg

I got a little bit older I started reading about Timothy Larry I started listening to music like the Jefferson Airplane the doors the peanut butter conspiracy Jimi Hendrix you know stuff like that and I got into garage Rock later what I liked about all this stuff was the impetus on freedom

so with all this stuff and my love for all this stuff it makes perfect sense I would be into being a leftist or at least a liberal at best with a progressive Edge right? correct and I was for a while

however the problem was I don't live in 1967 I live in 2025 and by the time I was 20 (am 26 now ) I have noticed some things about the modern left I personally disagree with

look for a sample we used to say things in the left like war is evil War kills people war is even murder and now we say things like more than necessary type of evil that war is good for oil

so yeah I became very disillusioned with the left so much so I even tried to become a conservative for a while going back to my roots because that's what I was raised sort of to be however it just didn't work for me I don't hate conservatives or anything I just generally thought it was boring and it didn't really work for me

so I turned 26 on January 4th and I almost gave up on politics

until I started looking at the libertarian party now like I said before I knew it always has been there but I always thought of it as Ayn Rand Puris however the more I look the more I started to realize libertarianism is actually a pretty broad party

there's capitalist Libertarians their socialist Libertarians there's even if you look really hard enough there's communist Libertarians very Broad and I came to find out at the more I look Libertarians actually do have similarities to the 60s counterculture movement in the sense that both of them are against War both of them are for pro drugs and pro sex experimentation just as long as it's consensual

from that day forward I Sergeant I am a progressive libertarian

oh that's my story did anyone get into it by the 60s counterculture? let me know