I am trying to understand more about there people here. Engaging in chats is confusing and am not sure what the angle is here.

libertarianism? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States)

Or libertarianism? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

The Government does not only practice agression through taxes, it actually murders people, bit by bit.

In my country (Portugal), people lose their homes which they worked all their life for, to premeditated wild fires. This means the life they dedicated to this project of owning a house for their families is gone. A waste of Time = Life.

People have to drive far away in order to born babies.

People die because there is a promise for health for everyone, but then they wait in lines until death.

Police is late and ignores ocurrences, leading to death and violence. Some of it not even accounted for as it was not paid attention to by official authorities.

Education is nothing more than a prison, which burns people's lives, and doesn't prepare them for the reality of economy and business.

Killers stay in prison for only 18 years, they eat, drink and have clean clothing and honest workers expense. After that, they are free to kill again after that.

Some people get so pressured by IRS that they end up killing themeselves.

I could go on and on... but I do think that governments are just homicidal, although quite sneaky about it, they're killing us slowly.

What is your opinions about that?

From a strict libertarian standpoint, free trade should be allowed without government interference, even if foreign companies are subsidized. The focus is on ensuring consumers have access to the best goods at the lowest prices. However, some argue this creates unfair competition for domestic businesses, which might demand subsidies to level the playing field, contradicting libertarian principles. Would allowing foreign-subsidized companies distort the market, or should we prioritize consumer choice and free trade no matter what? What’s your take?

Why is bodily autonomy and "private medical decisions" only brought up in the context of abortion? I think I have another example that doesn't get enough attention.

​

If someone wanted to do a really long water fast wouldn't they be involuntarily hospitalized against their will and force fed simply for choosing not to eat? If someone is extremely underweight and is refusing to eat and is just drinking water isn't that alone grounds to have them be hospitalized against their will? What happens then they are? Won't they not be released after 72 hours if they continue not to eat while in the hospital? Could they get a lawyer to get themselves released even if they can't afford one? Wouldn't they be restrained and tube feed against their will? Can they or a lawyer representing them prevent them from doing that to them and would they be allowed to fast themselves to death in or outside of the hospital in peace? If they did hospitalize them against my will, hold them for longer than 72 hours or tube feed them against their will could they sue them(whoever would originally call the police on them to do a wellness check, the police themselves, The paramedics, the hospital, judge, the staff, etc) After they get out of the hospital and would they win?

​

Can they invoke religious freedom to prevent them from tube feeding them and to make them leave them alone to starve to death or would that not work? Can they use it to sue them when they get out if they prevent them from fasting?

​

It seems so unfair that everytime I look online or on TV I see people chanting about bodily autonomy when it comes to abortion which is legal by pill in all 50 states and in many places it's tax payer funded and the clinics are protected by police but while mothers can kill their unborn with complete impunity others have to worry about being kidnapped and restrained and tube fed against their will while they're fully conscious and saying "no". They have the right to kill and are celebrated for it but others don't have the right to not eat/die and be left alone?

My mind has recently been on the idea of complete privatization of the roads. Currently I am thinking about how those companies running the roads would be funded and make a profit. Would there just be tolls on every single road? If so, wouldn't this congest traffic because you constantly have to pay a toll every time you get on a new road?

Also, are the any essays or books talking about the privatiziation of roads so that I may better understand the concept and how it would work?

I have been a supporter of Libertarianism for several years, but I am interested in one question. As you know, artificial intelligence and robots are getting better every day. There is a widespread opinion that robots will do from 90% to 100% of the work in the future for us. As far as I know, there are two solutions to this problem in the world. "Unconditional basic income" and "Resource-based Economy (Venus Project)". Both require high involvement of the state in the lives of citizens in order to constantly pay them money or provide citizens with goods and services completely free of charge. On the other hand, Libertarianism tries to minimize the involvement of the state in the lives of ordinary citizens. How will Libertarianism respond to a situation where most of the population will not be able to find work, and only 1% of the world's population will have money? P.S. I apologize for the mistakes, English is not my native language and the post was translated by Yandex translator.

As far as I can remember, Vaporwave and Synthwave were pretty much against capitalism in their inception. Is this just a shift in audience or another example of freedom loving individuals singing their enemy's songs ironically to mock them?

They apparently thought I was a troll because I offered a solution to gun control. The hypocrisy has weighed on me a bit. I have my mail in ballot sitting on my desk, but this may be the first time I don't bother voting. If even libertarians end up being just like everyone else once they get into positions of power, it's hard to see the point anymore.

My 101 year old grandfather lives with me. He's enrolled in the VA's in-home care program, including visits from a home health aid several days a week. The agency we've been using for 2 years has the WORST administration. Excellent carers, no complaints about them, but I couldn't take dealing with their bosses anymore, so I called the VA to switch agencies. New agency whom I've spoken with before and has done a home visit calls me today and says it's all set up for them to start on Monday. So we go over all the care he needs, what I want the aid to do every day, and when I get to applying ketoconazole cream to his feet every visit, they first drop this bomb: "Oh, we're not allowed to handle medications! That means we can't apply PRESCRIBED creams to his skin!" WTF?! You just asked me 1 second prior about his oral meds! "Yeah, we can REMIND him to take them, but we can't give them to him!"

What the everloving...?! WHAT USE IS A HOME HEALTH AID IF THEY CAN'T APPLY CREAM TO THE CLIENT'S SKIN! I guess the crappy agency I've been using is slack about following regs. I explain this arrangement won't work, then, and I can't use them, and they say they're going to look into it. I hang up and dial the woman at the VA, desperately hoping I can reach her before she makes the switch, but get the voicemail.

So, thank you, government regulators, for making it impossible for me to get some worthwhile, helpful help taking care of my 101 year old grandfather! I guess now that the cat's out of the bag about the cream caregivers have been rubbing on his feet being a PRESCRIPTION, no care agency can help me. I'll tell my uncle to expect less money to mooch because Pap's gonna have to pay for our friend out-of-pocket and off the books to come do his care several times a week because I work full-time and have a whole household to care for and should be allowed to hire help to bathe and shave my grandfather and apply presciption antifungal cream to his feet, prescription diaper rash cream to his groin, and triamcinolone cream to his back while I'm busy doing his laundry and groceries and meals and meds and trash and everything else!

But at least I know innocent patients are safe from the danger of people without a medical or nursing degree rubbing antifungal PRESCRIPTION cream on their feet! Something patients are expected to do for themselves without a medical degree.

Every time I think Libertarians are too extreme, you run into more proof of how bureaucracy only makes life miserable and never helps. I have NEVER been so personally infuriated by a pointless law before. NEVER. I need a way to ACTUALLY make significant change to the government and legal codes that control my life and those who want to help me but are forbidden from doing so!

Why can't the leftists admit that national socialism and fascism are left leaning?

There's quite a few leftists in history that have even admitted it.

"True pure fascism, as conceived by mussolini, emerged from the militant left of italian socialism, it was an attempt to impose the social democratic program through dictatorship and armed force, the movement dispensed with the sterile positivism and evolutionism of orthodox marxism, replacing it with romantic emotionalism, extreme nationalism, the cult of the will and the 'man of action', the goal was to nationalize industry and subordinate all classes to the needs of the state, the working classes were to benefit from this revolution, but only as long as they remained in the service of the fascist state"

• ernesto che guevara

Also fascist organisations and parties like for example casapound italia, also claim the legacy of far-left figures, like che guevara and hugo chávez; https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2017/10 /17/casapound-e-la-volta-di-porro-scontro-su-che -guevara-per-voi-e-un-modello-ma-a-me-ha-rotto-le -palle-tutta-linfanzia/3918323/

So why can't the leftists admit that fascism and national socialism originated from the left and leans left?

Hi, I am a foreigner, and I want to ask questions about libertarianism and conservatism ideologies. First, in terms of the economy, is it true that conservatism aligns with libertarianism in economic terms? Second, is it true that there are libertarians in the Republican Party?

New to libertarianism here, so please bear with me. Want to learn more about it. Some of my reasons are personal.

Lived in New York and had largely liberal/Progressive friends most of my adult life. Now I live somewhere else. Anecdotally speaking, my experience with the woke was horrendous. Even when I gently disagreed with them and questioned anything they said - they would get strident and confrontational. It was getting kinda toxic. I was told libertarians, among other things, are kinda easy-going and chill.

I was curious though : having spent the better part of 2015 - 2019 around wokies - Ibram X. Kendi, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Robin DiAngelo are heroes to that community. They also like anti-foundationalist French philosophers like Paul-Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida. What kind of reputation do these thinkers have in the libertarian community?

Hello

Anyone know any publishers that focus on Libertarian works?

*Before anyone ask I am not a writer. I’m looking to give membership in my group some extra value.

"Being a libertarian means not only refraining from harming the rights of other people, namely, respecting the rules of justice with regards to other people, but algo equipping youself mentally to understand what it means for people to have rights, how rights create the foundation for peaceful social cooperation, and how voluntary societies work. It means standing up, not only for your own freedom, but for the freedom of other people"

Tom Palmer

I am in this debate online about free speech. The other person is actually arguing that nazis should not enjoy freedom of speech. The argument is literally;

Free speech should not include ideas that would end free speech.

What do you think of that? If you disagree with that idea, what would you say to someone who makes that argument?

I recently got involved in this online debate about freedom of speech.

It is my opinion that freedom of speech applies even to nazis. The other person argued that nazis should be censored.

The debate went like this.

Other person:

When the nazis where not censored in 1930’s Germany, it lead to the holocaust and situation. That is what happens when nazis enjoy freedom of speech.

Me:

Using that logic, I could say that an anti-abortion advocate should not be allowed to express their views openly, because historically abortion bans have lead to 13 year old rape victims being forced to remain pregnant.

Other person:

Only fascist ideas should be censored.

Fascism is pretty well defined. Fascism, by definition, is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy. Fascism rose to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, before spreading to other European countries, most notably Germany. Fascism also had adherents outside of Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Only if the idea for which you advocate fits the above definition should the idea be censored. Abortion bans are a bad idea, but they do not fit the definition of fascism and therefore should not be on the chopping block for censorship.

Before having that debate, I was 100% positive that censoring nazis is a bad idea. Now I’m wavering at 80-90% certainty. What do you think? Should nazis be censored? Should we encode a law stating that advocating for fascism is not protected by freedom of speech? Let me know.

I am currently having this debate online. I am all about free speech. I might not agree with what you say, but I will fight like hell for your right to say it.

These people, with whom I am debating, believes that it should be illegal to place nazi flags on your front lawn and that, if you openly advocate for genocide, that you should be subject to legal recourse for inciting imminent and lawless action.

I replied to this argument with the following two points;

1. Advocating for something, that is currently illegal, to be made legal, is different from committing (or threatening to commit) an illegal act while it is still legal.
2. The logic being used to justify censoring nazis could also be used, by a vegan, to censor anyone who advocates for eating meat.

The other person accused me of setting up a slippery slope fallacy. The other person even said that Germany has been fining people for having nazi imagery for quite a long time and it is still legal to eat meat there. This supposedly proves that my slippery slope argument is wrong.

If you disagree with me, why am I wrong? How is my example of a vegan trying to stop people from being allowed to advocate for eating not exactly the same thing as censoring nazis?

If you agree with me, how do I debunk this argument? What examples, from real life, could I point to, to prove that my slippery slope argument is clearly accurate?

I am currently having this debate online. I am all about free speech. I might not agree with what you say, but I will fight like hell for your right to say it.

These people, with whom I am debating, believes that it should be illegal to place nazi flags on your front lawn and that, if you openly advocate for genocide, that you should be subject to legal recourse for inciting imminent and lawless action.

I replied to this argument with the following two points;

1. Advocating for something, that is currently illegal, to be made legal, is different from committing (or threatening to commit) an illegal act while it is still legal.
2. The logic being used to justify censoring nazis could also be used, by a vegan, to censor anyone who advocates for eating meat.

The other person accused me of setting up a slippery slope fallacy. The other person even said that Germany has been fining people for having nazi imagery for quite a long time and it is still legal to eat meat there. This supposedly proves that my slippery slope argument is wrong.

If you disagree with me, why am I wrong? How is my example of a vegan trying to stop people from being allowed to advocate for eating not exactly the same thing as censoring nazis?

...What is the name, in English, of that system proposed by some libertarians in which representatives are not elected, but kind of "drafted" like a jury?

Again, sorry... But for the second time in all of my life my Google-fu has failed me. It's almost as if Google is trying to hide it from me at all costs :P I just need it to include in a paper.

Original comment

If no one would pay more than they are currently paying

That's not what I'm saying, I said businesses would never pay more than the employee's marginal productivity. An increase in marginal productivity increases the equilibrium price of labor, ceteris paribus.

then why do a lot of companies survive minimums wage changes

Some do, others don't. Regardless, you can't conduct controlled experiments in the social sciences as ceteris is never paribus.

In the past, changes in the minimum wage have been relatively small, the MW's effects on employment could be offset by coinciding factors. As for specific companies' balance sheets before and after MW changes, I'd need to see the relevant studies and data before commenting this. Just to hypothesize, it could be that businesses choose to retain workers in the short term due to the transaction cost of replacing them, or, alternatively, they have laid off workers in advance (before the law kicked in). And that's not to mention the unseen opportunity costs of MW hikes, which have a greater impact on unemployment than whatever happens to those who are currently MW workers.

Even if the MW increases did increase the salary of MW workers, the would-be workers whose marginal productivity is below the MW are still involuntarily unemployed, and MW laws, at best, benefit more skilled workers at the expense of less skilled ones.

and why do wages always increase whenever there is unionization at a business?

Again, I'd have to see the studies and data on this.

In addition, why have wages stagnated while profits and productivity have increased since the 60s?

They haven't.

I am a moral utilitarian

How do you measure utility? How do you compare them interpersonally?

I think everyone who goes to work has to go to work because if not they will literally starve, there is no option not to work if you want to have anything resembling a decent life.

I agree, but taxation and minimum wage laws also threaten peaceful individuals with deadly force. Morally speaking, it is not as evil to passively neglect a person who is drowning or being murdered than, say, actively drowning or murdering a person. From a natural law perspective, the victim only has an enforceable moral claim against you - and compulsion against you is only justified - in the latter case.

Violence is needed to maintain property and land rights, despite there being no reason other than a kind of social contract for you to deserve ownership over an object.

Defense violence, yes. However, justifications for the right to own external property do not need to be based on social contract theories.

If using violence improves the wellbeing of the majority of the population

Improving by how much? Would it be just to greatly harm me if it only marginally benefits the general public? Furthermore, most anti-poverty programs targeting the desperate poor improve the wellbeing of the minority of the population at the expense of the majority. Before you mention positive externalities, the process of confiscatory taxation and wealth transfer necessarily destroys the positive externalities of letting the private sector allocate resources.

and does not greatly harm those who have had violence inflicted on them

In my opinion, threats of deadly force would count as "greatly harm". Hence a libertarian theory of enforceable law ought not criminalize peaceful activities.

and does not violate any of their civil rights, then I don’t really care.

The right not to be aggressed on should count as a civil right.

We have to use some level of violence to maintain the government and property rights anyways

There is a world of difference between aggressive and defensive violence. Self-defense is justified, murder is not; protecting just property claims is justified, robbery is not.

and while you’re a Rothbardian so I imagine you’d disagree, we kind of need the government to exist

You are correct that I disagree on the need for government. If we truly needed the government to exist, it would be a voluntary institution rather than a coercive one. In a voluntaryist/panarchist society, people would still have the right to form "governments", they simply cannot compel unwilling individuals to be subjugated to their jurisdictions.

and if it does it might as well also perform other functions that help the people

The government is a tyrant living by theft, and therefore has no business to engage in any business.

by the will of those people

Both taxation and minimum wage laws are involuntary.

and respecting important rights.

What about the right not to be aggressed upon?

Chinese tariffs are not unjust as China industry is either government owned or subsidized in many cases. If you are libertarian, you should be against government owned corporations or businesses. Therefore, tariffs on said businesses would not be a bad thing.

Libertarians are also against the UN and foreign aid. If a natural disaster occurs in the US and the UN sends humanitarian aid to the people affected, would it be libertarian for the US government to stop them from receiving it?

I have family in Alpena, Michigan. I visit every summer. While there, I always make a pilgrimage to to the church Nock attended while growing up there.

Albert Jay Nock's church in Alpena, Michigan