Photograph via //r/Libertarian

Welcome to /r/Libertarian, a subreddit to discuss libertarianism. We are not a generic politics sub. We are a libertarian sub, about libertarianism. We do not owe you a platform to push anti-libertarian ideologies such as socialism/communism. This sub is explicitly against Communism/Socialism as it is antithetical to libertarianism

Welcome to /r/Libertarian

Welcome to /r/Libertarian, a subreddit to discuss libertarianism. We are NOT a generic politics sub. We are a libertarian sub, about libertarianism.

We do not owe you a platform to push anti-libertarian ideologies such as socialism/communism. This sub is explicitly against Communism/Socialism as it is antithetical to libertarianism. In addition everyone must follow the rules below.


View the full Moderation Policy here

Most Important Rules:

0 Follow all site wide rules, NO EXCEPTIONS

1 No promotion of anti-libertarian ideologies (Socialism, Fascism, Communism, etc.). We do not owe you our platform to do such.
2 No Reddit Drama, pretend other subs do not exist.

Editing/Deleting your content post-ban will result in a non-appealable permanent ban. Your content cannot be reviewed as it was, so all appeals are denied out of hand on edited/deleted content.

More Resources

New to Libertarianism? Want to learn more?

There is lots of great info along with links to free books, videos and more in the Libertarian WIKI Here

Have questions about Libertarianism? Check out our Frequently Asked Questions

Want to know if you are a Libertarian? Take the political quiz and find out!

Libertarian Podcasts

Helpful Comment Macros

List of automated comment macros available for use


Libertarian Memes have their own subreddit:


Libertarian subreddits













Topics - Blockchain & Tech:



Topics - Drug Policy Reform:





Topics - Gun Rights:





Topics - Individual Freedom & Civil Liberties:







Topics - State Power & Corruption:









505,411 Subscribers


Why are you people Anti-union?

You're all for not being told what to do and "MUH FREEDUMBS" but people wanting to collectively negotiate their rights at work is bad? Can you guys just admit you're ancap yet?

19:42 UTC


After many years I've consolidated my beliefs in to one sentence.

Maybe it's too simple, maybe it's wrong, but it doesn't seem that way to me, so please inform me of any lapse of judgement I may be having on this topic.

Here's my distilled understanding:

Every ethical lapse is a violation of information or consent.

So when people say they don't want to be lied to or coerced, they are saying they want information and consent. Same thing goes for murder, assault, theft, vandalism, fraud, all of them are just derivatives of the same thing, in different situations, in that each is a violation of information or consent.

So when my liberal friend say something like: "If we have pure freedom there will be chaos because we will wrong one another due to human nature."

I think he is wrongly assuming that libertarians want only consent, such that as long as you could get consent from grandma, you can rob her ethically. This is obviously wrong. I think for any contract to be valid, consent can only exist with sufficient information (hence why we say children cannot consent, and we justify this by saying their OS hasn't been installed enough to process the information properly). In other words there's no such thing as consent without having sufficient information.

So we might say that all laws that are ethical are about providing proper information and consent. Additionally, just as a couple, or business relationships can end when either party no longer consents, so too can provinces/states from their country. Texas seems to be preparing, Quebec and Alberta have these rumblings, and countries breaking away from the EU are demonstrating that it is ok to say "I don't consent" and break up. So doesn't it makes sense that an individual can ethically declare they no longer consent to anything that isn't related to providing proper information and allowing consent?

18:51 UTC


It's Happening!

16:26 UTC


A question from an outsider

note: I put a little screed at the end of this post describing where I am on the political compass (not that one, the hypothetical one that represents preferred ideals) so that there might be a dialogue

So, how do libertarians feel about First Past the Post voting? Would Libertarians, as a group, prefer another system such as Ranked Choice voting, or is there another system Libertarians would prefer?

Finally, would libertarians be willing to work with other third parties to form a coalition of the under-represented to fight for a different voting system to save our country from these two broken parties? How do y’all think we could make this work?

Despite our values being different, I think we can all agree that last night was a horror show; I didn’t expect to watch two senile old men stage, one raving and screaming about issues that don’t exist and one going into senile fugues every other line. We need a better options, and until we do away with first past the post voting, 3rd parties face an uphill battle on an impossibly steep incline.

So, thoughts would be appreciated. I also ask that you approach this with a level head; I don’t mean to call anyone out except for the disappointing two parties that run our country, and I am coming from a place of curiosity, a willingness to learn, and a duty to the people who live in my country. We all deserve better


Hi all, let me just say a lil bit about myself. I am as leftest as you can go without being a tankie. I believe in the Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness our Declaration of Independence called for, and I believe that we have failed this basic message.

I cannot say I agree with some libertarian ideals, such as no taxes, because I believe we should be working together to pay for the basic infrastructure needed for all citizens. Roads, schools, utilities such as water and electric, and I think housing should be included in that.

I do, however, agree that the government has no role to play in the personal lives of its citizens. It is not the role of a government to legislate morality; instead the role of the government is to serve the people in pursuit of those three ideals I mentioned.

I would like for this country and its people to move into a role of a global leader in quality of life for its citizens. We have the resources as well as some of the most intelligent humans on the planet here. However we are squandering those resources and not listening to those that spent their lives studying the problems we face. We have to do something about this.

edit: I took that short quiz to determine my political alignment, and I scored a 100 on personal liberties axis and a 0 on the economic axis, if that tells you anything

16:23 UTC


"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"

16:20 UTC


Feds on suicide watch! The L of all L's has been handed down.

14:43 UTC


Words to live life by

13:27 UTC


Inflation is theft

13:25 UTC


Why the Scottish "Free Banking" Episode Doesn't Justify Fractional Reserves

13:19 UTC


SCOTUS Opinion Megathread: June 28

Rather than separate threads per opinion I will be updating this post with the cases as they come out. It could be a big day, there's 2 scheduled opinion days left, today, and July 1st, but there are still many outstanding cases (I believe 10ish). SCOTUS also tends to hold the "controversial" cases for the end.

SCOTUS could always add more opinion days But the term is coming to a close, and we may get some fast and furious output. Actual SCOTUS reporters believe they may go into July with opinions rather than do "Dump days" Stay tuned, releases generally start at 10am US EST. Thread is in contest mode.

The big two remaining are:

  • Presidential Immunity
  • Chevron Deference

Most of the summaries will be from Amy Howe over at SCOTUSBlog as I'm watching the livefeed.

Updates below this line:

Word is 2 boxes, so 2-4 opinions.

#Case 1: Grants Pass v. Johnson

6-3, Dissenting are Kagan, Jackson, Sotomayor. The Ninth Circuit is reversed and the decision is remanded.

The court holds that the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" barred by the Eighth Amendment.

This was the "Criminalizing homelessness" case.

The court holds that it does not need to reconsider its decision in Robinson v. California, in which the court held in 1962 that states could not criminalize the status of narcotic addiction. Robinson, Gorsuch writes, "cannot sustain the Ninth Circuit's course." In Robinson, he explains, the court "expressly recognized the 'broad power' States enjoy over the substance of their criminal laws." The public camping ordinances at issue in this case, Gorsuch reasons, "are nothing like the law at issue in Robinson."

Gorsuch writes that "Homelessness is complex" and its "causes are many." But the Eighth Amendment, he concludes, does not give federal judges the primary job "for assessing those causes and devising those responses."

In a dissenting opinion, Sotomayor argues that laws like the one at issue in this case punishes people who do not have access to shelter for being homeless and therefore violates the Eighth Amendment. "It is possible to acknowledge," she writes, "and balance the issues facing local governments, the humanity and dignity of homeless people, and our constitutional principles. Instead, the majority focuses almost exclusively on the needs of local governments and leaves the most vulnerable in our society with an impossible choice: Either stay awake or be arrested."

#Case 2: Loper Bright v. Raimondo

6-2 Chevron has fallen! WE DID IT BOYS! ALPHABET ON SUICIDE WATCH!!!!

The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency as acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.

#Case 3: Was included with case 2

See Case 2

#Case 4: Fischer v US

6-3 Barret, Kagan, Sotomayor dissent.

This was a case about whether a federal law that makes it a crime to corruptly obstruct congressional inquiries and investigations can be used to prosecute participants in the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol. The question comes to the court in the case of a former Pennsylvania police officer who entered the Capitol on Jan. 6.

The court holds that to prove a violation of the law, the government must show that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so.

The court reverses the D.C. Circuit, which had adopted a broader reading of the law to allow the charges against Fischer to go forward. The case now goes back to the D.C. Circuit -- which, the court says, can assess whether the indictment can still stand in light of this new and narrower interpretation.

Justice Jackson, who joined the majority opinion, also has a concurring opinion. She stresses that despite "the shocking circumstances involved in this case," the "Court's task is to determine what conduct is proscribed by the criminal statute that has been invoked as the basis for the obstruction charge at issue here."

Monday will be the last opinion day before recess. We WILL get Trumps presidential Immunity ruling on Monday.

13:06 UTC


Agorist Class Theory Summarised

1 Comment
12:56 UTC


How does everyone feel about Thomas Massie?

Since I’ve abandoned leaning in any direction I don’t think I’ve heard such an inspiring political voice. Just listened to his appearance on the Tucker podcast and love this man. Was just curious to hear everyone’s take.

12:51 UTC


Imagine a government that acts as a private institution

Imagine a government that operates like a private institution, investing money for profit.

For example, citizens pay taxes for the security (police) it provides. Citizens pay taxes for the infrastructure it maintains. The rich pay more taxes because they are more likely to utilize the infrastructure more extensively.

Libertarians, do you think the rich should pay more for this reason?

12:50 UTC


I need best book recommendations for Liberalism

It could be Libertarianism, doesn't matter for now.

I can read excessively, so there is no problem with how much book you suggest.

10:09 UTC


Just watched the debate. I’m now fucking begging everyone…

Please, please, vote third party!

There are other options.

You don’t have to vote for these two idiotic, old cunts.

Please. Fucking please.

04:00 UTC


Why can't I see any comments right now?

This is some crazy censorship even for reddit.

No way this is actually happening over that train wreck of a debate.

03:51 UTC


Democracy is a game

03:00 UTC


Batman has a plan

23:57 UTC


Assange and Snowden exposed this

23:54 UTC


How much does Libertarianism contradict Catholic Social Teaching?

I had some discussions going on over at the Catholicism subreddit, and I was basically told that you cannot be a Libertarian and simultaneously a Catholic. Why? Because Catholic Social Teaching is a doctrine which Catholics have to submit to and see as free from error.

i am Catholic, and while I believe in God and the soul, this would mean that I would have to abandon the Church because it directly contradicts my political worldviews (which I will never abandon, because they just seem too logical for me, it's like admitting 2+2=5 if I abandon the libertarian worldview).

So now the question is: Maybe Catholic Social Teaching was just interpreted in a "too leftist" light? Maybe we can interpret it in a Libertarian way?

Anyone has looked into it?

20:39 UTC


Economic freedoms

Fellow libertarians,

this post is gonna be personal,

how are you excercising economic freedoms available to you and what economic freedoms would you like to see implemented in your country.

For example, I would like my country to start recognizing trusts as legitimate business entities.

what about you?

19:41 UTC


Question for anarchist types: what's your goal?

To elaborate, I'm a libertarian in the sense that I'd like to decrease the size of the federal government in most areas, as well as being against most regulations. That said, I am fairly pragmatic about this, working and being involved in politics and government somewhat irregularly to advance these ideas little by little.

It seems a lot of those in libertarian circles who take on titles like anarchist, anarcho-capitalist, minimalist, etc. are opposed to there being a government entirely or close to that. Obviously, this isn't practical. So I guess I'm curious to hear from you guys: what's the point? Do you just enjoy the online social networking and dunking on statists? Are you normal 9-5 people who just want to rant online? Or are some of you relatively serious about desiring a revolution of some kind (be that violent or nonviolent)? Like why do you get online to talk about these ideas when your views will almost certainly never be taken seriously in mainstream discourse?

Tried being as respectful as possible. I don't mean to take shots at any ideologies. Tldr: what do you personallu get out of being an anarchist?

18:39 UTC

Back To Top