0 Follow all site wide rules, NO EXCEPTIONS

What do ya’ll think of ben? He’s obviously at least a conservative. But just curious on what you think of him.

I’ve been seeing a fair amount of anti-Democratic posts and comments on this sub. Is this just edgy teens or is there an actual proposal for a replacement?

Also, if your answer is “constitutional republic” please explain how you view a constitutional republic as different from the current system and why you’re under the impression a constitutional republic is not a democracy.

Hi everyone, I have a question I have had trouble getting a clear answer on in my google searches.

Everyone seems to criticize the US government Israel policy by saying that we are "funding" Israel's brutality against the people of Gaza by "giving" them weapons. My understanding is that the US government is selling these weapons to the Israelis, not giving it to them.

I feel that a more accurate description of the situation is that American taxpayers are being forced to fund the US government who buys weapons and is then selling these weapons to the Israelis, not "giving" them away or "funding" their war, so it would be more accurate to say the Israelis are buying the weapons from the stockpile the taxpayers are forced to buy.

The government forcefully funded by the taxpayers is out zero dollars, they have only essentially acted as a middle man between weapons companies and the IDF.

Am I missing something?

I ask because many leading libertarians like Scott Horton, Tom Woods, Dave Smith, etc. describe the situation as "funding" Israel, but that doesn't seem to be an accurate description of the situation to me, as the US is not giving them weapons, but is selling to them.

None of this is to say that America is justified in selling them these weapons, only that it is different than literally "giving" the weapons to the Israelis for nothing. I would prefer the Israelis just buy the weapons straight from the weapons companies and leave the American taxpayers out of it.

Thanks to anyone who can help answer my question!

https://massie.house.gov/uploadedfiles/endthefed.pdf

Thoughts?

Over the last 10 years I have watched a lot of former Republicans migrate to Libertarianism. On one hand, I love the self awareness to leave an imploding party - on the other, I’ve noticed some ideas cross over that I believe are fundamentally incompatible with Libertarianism. I wish I would have put pen to paper earlier, but here are my thoughts.

Libertarianism, at its core, champions individual liberty, personal responsibility, and minimal government interference in private lives. As we dive into the contentious debate surrounding abortion, its evident that a pro-life stance is fundamentally incompatible with libertarian principles.

Individual Liberty and Bodily Autonomy

Libertarianism is rooted in the principle of individual liberty, emphasizing the right of individuals to make choices about their own lives without undue interference. This extends to bodily autonomy—the idea that each person has sovereignty over their own body. In the context of abortion, a pro-choice stance upholds a woman's right to decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term. This decision is deeply personal and should not be dictated by the state or external forces.

Pro-life advocates, on the other hand, argue that the fetus's right to life supersedes the woman's right to bodily autonomy. However, this perspective contradicts the libertarian emphasis on personal freedom. Forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will constitutes a significant violation of her bodily autonomy, infringing on her individual liberty.

The Non-Aggression Principle

The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) is a cornerstone of libertarian philosophy, which asserts that individuals should not initiate force against others. Pro-life libertarians argue that abortion is an act of aggression against the fetus, thus violating the NAP. However, this interpretation overlooks the aggression inherent in compelling a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy.

From a pro-choice libertarian perspective, the NAP supports a woman's right to choose. Forcing a woman to endure the physical and emotional demands of pregnancy and childbirth against her will is an act of aggression. By allowing women to make their own reproductive choices, we adhere more closely to the NAP, promoting non-aggression and respecting individual autonomy.

Limited Government Intervention

Libertarians advocate for limited government intervention in personal matters, believing that individuals are best suited to make decisions about their own lives. Pro-life policies, which call for government restrictions on abortion, stand in stark opposition to this principle. By enacting laws that control a woman's reproductive choices, the government oversteps its bounds, intruding into deeply private aspects of life.

A pro-choice stance aligns with the libertarian call for minimal government interference. It acknowledges that the state should not have the power to make personal decisions for individuals. Instead, the government should protect the right of women to make their own choices about their bodies, free from coercion or undue influence.

Defining Personhood

A significant point of contention in the abortion debate is the definition of personhood. Pro-life advocates often argue that personhood begins at conception, granting the fetus the same rights as a born individual. However, this definition is not universally accepted and remains a deeply personal and philosophical question.

Libertarians value diverse perspectives and resist imposing a singular moral viewpoint through government action. A pro-choice stance respects this diversity, allowing individuals to make their own moral and ethical decisions regarding abortion. By not imposing a rigid definition of personhood, libertarians uphold the principle of personal responsibility and freedom of belief.

In Conclusion

Throughout her work, Ayn Rand defined a concept that is central to our ideology:.

1. Oppression of the Minority: Rand believed that protecting the rights of minorities is crucial. In her view, a society must ensure that smaller or less powerful groups are not oppressed or mistreated by larger, more powerful ones. This aligns with her broader philosophy of individual rights and freedoms.

2. The Smallest Minority is the Individual: Rand argued that the individual is the smallest and most fundamental minority. She believed that every person's rights should be protected because each person is a unique entity. By protecting individual rights, a society inherently protects all minorities.

I don’t think this principle can be violated. I know some will argue the unborn fetus falls into the category of smallest minority, but I don’t believe that can be reconciled with “personhood” or, even if the fetus did meet that definition, justify the creation oppressive laws.

The Libertarian party has grown over the last decade, but I believe it risks compromising some of its core tenants, in favor of a larger voter base. I am not trying to make a moral argument and say what is “right,” or suggest Libertarianism should dictate individual belief - a person can be individually pro-life as long as they don’t impose those morals on others in the form of laws etc. But one cannot be in favor of pro-life laws and policy and call themselves Libertarian.

Sorry for my English, I'm just about to learn.

I'm gonna talk about a after war, or apocalypse scenario. There is no capital in a country, how can a government attract foreign investors?

Think about it, our interpersonal morals developed because they were the best way for the individual to succeed in an ancient society, like getting married. These morals were later cemented into religion. In the modern world this is still very much true. Take drug legalization, for example. Those who do not take drugs will not get addicted, and thus not spend all of their money and destroy their brain. Because of nature, society will be separated into the more successful smart, religious, and moral people, and the idiotic, immoral people. The smart people will then set the example and hopefully try to reach out to the slightly less smart members of society. To a Christian Conservative, it could be argued that the abolition of the Nanny State and drug laws could actually be the key to the Christian utopia they imagine, as getting high and dying is a much larger punishment then the government would be willing (allowed) to deal out.