If ChatGPT info is correct, Maxima although IS the biggest supermarket network in Latvia, it's far from monopoly: https://i.imgur.com/VU9sXf4.png

Yet, I've heard myth that they used "predatory pricing to take it's market share", kinda implying "monopolizing".

What's point of view of Latvians (if it's not too naiive to find enough here)?

Thanks!

For reference; before I get slaughtered I voted Kamala, and I would vote for a tree stump before I would vote for Trump. However, I must ask do you guys not find it insane the reality that a lot of our peers are living in. Granted I’m not on social media a whole lot, so I guess I might’ve missed the whole propaganda war fueled by both parties. However when I would talk to Trump supporters it was clear that the majority of them wanted him to win (obviously) but knew the world would keep spinning if he had not. However, the delusion I’m noticing from my colleagues on the left is quite alarming. The whole rights being taken away, the project 2025 nonsense, the mass hysteria. I mean guys… we survived 4 years under Trump in 2016, and I would bet my life we’ll survive this one. My question is, is this hysteria legit? Like is there a section of our party that has been so brainwashed in regards to Trump that they genuinely believe this is the end of democracy. If so what are the actual reasons. To me, it seems so extreme it’s almost comical.

I don't think any of them are Libertarian and I don't see how that would further the platform. Every since the massive Trump win there's been this big push by Libertarians I've spoken with to pardon anyone who was prosecuted by a left leaning court. While some of it may have been overreach I don't agree with just throwing pardons left and right because you could be helping a real criminal who got what they deserved.

What she did is basically 1st amendment.

She is not changing votes. It's not election section. No real harm is done and it's not possible. She means no harm.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/republican-election-denier-tina-peters-sentenced-to-9-years-in-prison-for-voting-data-scheme

Will Trump pardon her?

Question in the title. Do you think of society as a thing that can be judged as a whole, or is it only the individuals?

Saya I have 2 choices.

1. Make $1 million that might work
2. Make $2 million dollar with plans that can't work?

What should I do?

Most businessmen would say pick 1

Why?

You get $1 million first. It's easier to make $2 million once you have $1 million.

I know. When btc went up I made my first millions. I made more in a month doing nothing than what I have made working hard for 40 years.

After that I make and lost millions of dollars and don't even feel a thing.

Your situation is similar.

1. Trump that can win and better than Kamala. Not even Kamala thinkhshe is better for libertarianism
2. Oliver that's also not pure libertarian but obviously can't win.

A natural strategy is of course to lower taxes first so you have more freedom. Freeing Ross and getting Ron and Elon on team seems like a good step.

Vote Trump now and who knows someone like Milei show up 4 years from now.

But many libertarians insist that irrelevant of Oliver can't win they should vote Oliver.

I don't get it.

Why vote Oliver? Even if he is more libertariane which I don't know. He doesn't even do podcast with many libertarians.

Why not take the small win that works so we can win bigger latter?

Republicans support states right. That means libertarians and Republicans can live peacefully. Each go to their own state. Not a coincidence that new Hampshire libertarian Party that is the place of free state project support Trump.

But why vote Oliver?

It will be like a businessmanthatv choose plan that can't work just because the plan is more ideal.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/former-colorado-county-clerk-sentenced-9-years-voting-machine-breach-2024-10-03/

She's not doing it during election day. Not for the purpose of election. Just so 3rd party can check election data.

California Proposition 36 Increase penalties for theft and drug trafficking.

1. Theft: California is extremely lax when it comes to retail theft under $950. Prop 36 would increase the penalties for theft, burglary, and car jacking. This seems like a good thing, in that it preserves property rights.
2. Drug selling: Penalties for selling certain drugs are increased, namely fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, and meth. It could also expose drug sellers to murder charges if their client dies from their drugs. From a libertarian perspective, this seems to be interfering with the free market, and a bit extreme to charge for murder. However, it could benefit society, and help with the drug crisis.
3. Drug use: Penalties for some drug use would be increased to what they call a “treatment-mandated felony," which would require treatment to be completed, or else a prison sentence. This also sounds anti-libertarian, since private use of drugs does not violate the NAP.

The problem, of course, is that this proposition is a basket of criminal code changes, some of which are in line with libertarian principles, and some which are not. Please share your own thoughts on what a libertarian might do.

Even in video games. So far, ik only Marcus Jensen from Ghost Recon Wildlands and ofc Ron Swanson from Parks and Recreation.

US used to be a very libertarian country with open border before turning communist. How? Government income is from tariffs. Also, only landowners can vote. Land owners of course want land value to go up.

So this small violations of libertarian principles can benefit libertarian on other area.

Tariffs and other regressive taxes are actually good. That means people have to pay tax to live among you. That filter out many parasites.

For example if you have progressive tax and welfare, open border sucks.

But if you have head taxes like Dubai you can import 70 percent of population as immigrants and profit from them.

The great injustice in democracy is those who contribute nothing to the state and economy somehow control the state by voting.

That is why we have redistribution of wealth from the productive, diligent, and smart to cradle to grave welfare parasites.

Those parasites can vote and simply vote for more and more communism and dei racism. They know nothing about economy or common sense. They contribute nothing. But they can rule YOU.

Under capitalism those who contribute control and benefits. Corporation shareholders are usually founder and early investors.

With regressive taxes like tariffs and head taxes everyone contribute equally and hence can vote equally. Equal tax for equal votes.

Many other libertarian measures become easier.

Open border, elimination of welfare and healthcare and public schools can a then be achieved when parasites that can't afford regressive taxes leave, don't come, or starve to death.

The one thing Trump is not libertarian can actually benefit libertarianism.

Really struggling with this one. On one hand, I am against state coercion and my guy instinct is to vote yes, but on the other hand, convicts consent to the punishment laid out when they decide to break the law, so that kind of undermines the state coercion aspect. I’m also concerned about the financial impact. What if a large amount of convicts refuse to work and we have to pay for people to do the jobs the convicts aren’t interested in doing?

Anyway, I would appreciate everyone’s thoughts on this, both for and against. I looked up LPCA’s stance on it to help me make a decision, but they have it as pending review (probably having the same issues deciding), so I figured I’d ask the libertarian community at large. Like I said, I’m leaning toward yes, but can definitely be persuaded to go no.

Link to info on prop 6 in comments since it won’t let me link in post.

The argument goes that voting for lesser evil is still voting for evil. So they recommend voting Oliver or not voting.

The argument is very weird. Imagine if you can choose school voucher or no school voucher. The right thing to do will be no public schools. But school vouchers may be lesser evil. No public school is too unpopular it can't win. So of course you pick lesser evil. You vote for school choice. Not voting means les school choice. Not a good strategy either.

Now you got choices. Oliver, Trump or Kamala.Oliverv can't win. Not voting benefit commies. It seems that even if Trump is just a lesser evil he's the best choice. As a businessman I make such decisions all the time. Not all of my choices lead to me being a billionaire. I choose choices that give me $1 million first. Lesser evil.

But that aside, there is something I found it weird.

Why is Trump lesser evil but milei and Oliver is not?

None of the 3 is perfectly libertarian.

Oliver support fed paying for gender surgery.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/s/YzNijEIVXz

Unlike Trump Oliver don't plan to win. So he can go all the way and be purist without thinking whether voters agree with him or not.

He can say that government doesn't handle health care at all. Eliminate income taxes and all welfare.

He doesn't have to win. His idea can be disagreeable and very impractical and he can say it. Why bother moderating at all?

Milei? I love this guy. I know many of you too.

But again her is not pure. There are still income taxes. There are still the state.

He got to win.

He himself said we are not going to eliminate welfare right away. people need to get used to self reliant first.

And then Trump. I know he is quite far from libertarianism.

But here is the catch. He got to win. He got to beat Kamala. Otherwise you have 4 years of communism.

Of course he can't go all the way eliminating welfare and so on. He will lose.

So why so many libertarians say voting for lesser evil is voting for evil. That's the best we can get for now. Lesser evil.

Can Oliver beat Kamala? No right. The system is designed for moderated to win. Libertarians are NOT moderate. We can't win on our own. So we join force with conservatives. Trump makes some good deals for us.

Not perfect. No One is. Not even milei.

So why Trump is lesser evil and Oliver isn't?

The most non libertarian thing Trump propose is tariff.

I once asked a person here. Show me a country with open border that's rich and powerful.

I thought none are. Liechtenstein are not open border. Singapore not. Dubai not.

It seems impossible for a country to be rich if it keeps accepting economic parasites.

Then that person say America before income taxes.

I was surprised.

Then yea it's true. America was an open border. It's first anti immigration laws are Chineser exclusion act.

So how does America got rich?

Tariffs.

The great injustice in modern democracy is redistribution of wealth. That happened because cradle to grave welfareparasitesf don't pay taxes but can vote.

With tariffs, poor people pay taxes too. I prefer head taxes, land taxes and sin taxes. But at least now the poor pay too. Not just the economically productive.

And Trump tariffs will do that. Immigrants can come in but they got to pay higher costs of living due to tariffs. Income tax will be gone.

Wif everyone can vote equally, it's only fair everyone pays the same taxes. Regressive tax is good. Keep riff raffs away.

It may even be better than my idea of turning voters into shareholders.

High cost of living and less welfare will eliminate poverty. Poor people will simply starve to death and as a libertarian I kind of like it.

Fuck welfare

Hey, I'm still pretty new to this ideology and trying to understand it better, so I'd appreciate some help filling in the gaps.

The core idea is that being a tax haven is beneficial because it attracts global capital, which can drive growth and bring in new business opportunities. This is what I believed for a long time too but on the flip side, I realized most tax havens aren’t actually wealthy countries. The only example I can think of that’s both a tax haven and isn't a complete shit-hole is Luxembourg.

Maybe I'm missing something here. Any insights?

Oliver: Not sure about the guy. But he supported federally paid trans surgery

https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/1gibfbw/chase_oliver_explicitly_endorses_federally_funded/

I am not even sure the so called libertarian party is libertarian. It seems that like the world "liberal" it's getting highjacked by progressives and libtards.

Trump:

Anti DEI

Lower tax

Didn't really lower government spending but I personally don't care if welfare recipient suffers. Can't afford them don't breed them. Now he got Elon and Ron Paul on his side. Milei also supported him.

https://www.google.com/search?q=milei+support+Trump&rlz=1C1GCEA_enID1125ID1125&oq=milei+support+Trump&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTINCAEQABgKGBYYHhjHAzIKCAIQABiABBiiBDIKCAMQABiABBiiBNIBCDMxMzVqMGo0qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Free Ross Ulbricht. Hopefully Ian Freeman too.

Actually reach out to libertarians.

Kamala

Pro DEI. DEI is racist in practice. Asians have to score 450 points higher than blacks to get into universities.

https://4racism.org/disparate-impact.html

https://medium.com/@llnimetz/the-asian-tax-in-college-admissions-3ad3563d7e05

Want to raise tax

Don't even pretend to be pro libertarian. Kamala herself don't even bother communicating with libertarians.

So, plus minus.........

I would say, Oliver should be out of picture because he can't win. But even if he can win, government funded trans surgery? What sort of libertarian is that?

Trump, not only can win, but seems to be even more libertarian than Oliver in key area.

Inflation? I don't care. Buy bitcoin. Dollar and all other fiats are just another alt coin. No libertarianism can save your assets if you don't pick the one that will appreciate.

Trump is pro border. Just like Herman Hoppe, an ancap. David Friedman is also pro private cities, which of course, can have border just like any private properties. Not too unlibertarian.

There are disagreements between libertarians and conservatives. But conservatives support states' right. That means libertarians can go to their own state where drugs are legal.

Support for drug legalization among conservatives are also high.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/willyakowicz/2024/09/22/how-the-republican-party-learned-to-love-cannabis-legalization/

Trump endorse weed legalization in Florida.

Both republican and democrat are against transactional sex. I am not sure Oliver's position on this.

I personally believe everything should be explicitly transactional.

Got weird thought on your head?

Commit a crime and get free surgery.... Even libertarians candidate approve.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/1gibfbw/chase_oliver_explicitly_endorses_federally_funded/

What do you think?

It's as if Trump out libertarian even libertarian party on this election.

It's government property, but it seems to be decently managed for everyone to enjoy.

The only two potential criticisms I could think of is that parks may be mismanaged and that the land could be better allocated. Mismanage would be in terms of wildfires, wildlife, human waste, etc. They are vulnerable to government shutdowns.

If people here think that parks could be done better without the government, how would private actors improve national parks?

Ok to start off theres these qoutes.

"True libertarians cannot emphasize enough […] that the restoration of private property rights and laissez-faire economics implies a sharp and drastic increase in social "discrimination" and will swiftly eliminate most if not all of the multi-cultural-egalitarian life style experiments so close to the heart of left libertarians."

"In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one’s own tenant-property…"

So here he talks against free speech, can someone help me see thats hes not actaully saying free speech is bad or have i got the wrong idea of what this libertarian thing is. Also exactly what covenant means here.

Furthermore, on the covenant point. He kinda uses it here

https://mises.org/mises-daily/my-battle-thought-police

To show hes been taken out of context when, this proceeds him saying

"In my book Democracy, The God That Failed I not only defend the right to discrimination as implied in the right to private property, but I also emphasize the necessity of discrimination in maintaining a free society and explain its importance as a civilizing factor. In particular, the book also contains a few sentences about the importance, under clearly stated circumstances, of discriminating against communists, democrats, and habitual advocates of alternative, non-family centered lifestyles, including homosexuals."

So even under the circumstances of covenants how do those that acatully remain relevant? It seems more like you open the flood gates, the circumstances be damned, its to enforce the social order, meaning that could be mulitple covenant like hundreds of church communites and thus the undesirables born into that are then subject to that coercion and repression, and whatever therapies deemed necessary. Which is what people were against right?

Im posting this because i must be misunderstanding something. This just sounds like traditionalism with extra steps and without the clear repression of a state not to the individual but to the community.

Also somethings on repealing the civil right act of 1964, why is that an ideal. What im really asking here is why discrimination against someone because of unchosen characteristics is morally ok under hoppe or a paleolibetarian framework.

Many libertarians and ancap think both parties are baaaaaaaaaadddddddddddd......... Equally..

Libertarians shouldn't vote. Or should vote Oliver.

But what about Kamala and Trump himself.

Do you think they are worse for libertarians?

I honestly think Kamala is insane. Pro DEI. Pro higher taxes. Pro censorship. Pro income taxes.

But I may be wrong. T What about what Kamala (and Trump) think?

If Kamala think she is better or equal for libertarians she would come to libertarian Party communicating her ideas. She wants vote right?

It seems that she knows fully well she has nothing to offer for libertarians.

Trumpwat least promise to free Ulbricht.

It seems that, rightfully or wrongfully, Trump believe that he is best for libertarians. That's what he approaches libertarians promising a libertarian in government position (not totally oxymoron for non purist like me).

Kamala herself know she is anti libertarian.

How can libertarian support higher income taxes, DEI, and censorship anyway?

I may be wrong. What do you think?

Like I told people how Kamala DOJ sue companies for not being racist against white and asians.

Someone told me that women are often harassed in scientific fields.

I have 2 issues with that.

1. Most likely not happening
2. Even if it's happening, why the hell the market not take care of it?

To me, it's very clear that DEI is just racism that businesses should decide who they want to hire. That many tests, including IQ tests, are not biased and even if it's biased, it should be up to businesses to do so.

https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2007/May/07_crt_375.html

I think commies theory of patriarchy and structural racism is just bullshit to justify very real racism against more competent people.

Also how many of you think that there are more racism in crypto market, far away from government influence, than say in university?

Like anyone ever even complain that he lost money in binance because of structural racism? doesn't even make sense right.

The farther away we are from government the less racist environment is.

So yea, I am just curious.

Any libertarians that's pro DEI and why?

Also it's kind of relevant because Kamala is very pro DEI and Trump is very anti and wants to roll it out. Many Trump's supporters, like Elon, Ron Paul, and Milei also are not into DEI. Milei "afuera" DEI department in his country.

For those who don't know the real story.

Many portray that DEI is good for the company and hence companies do so voluntarily. Another would argue that DEI is good to fight "racism"

In practice,

They get sued if they don't implement racism

https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/city-jacksonville-agrees-pay-49-million-settle-class-race-discrimination-lawsuit

What happened is a disparate impact doctrine.

Say a company doesn't intent to discriminate. But they want to hire more competent people. So they test, say IQ tests.

Now it's well known that Blacks tend to have lower IQ than whites. So they will end up hiring fewer blacks.

The state consider that de factor discrimination.

https://4racism.org/disparate-impact.html

In some social media that's not leftist or censored like GAP. There are stories of white people that are discriminated against due to DEI.

Stories that schools with money from government requiring 450 higher SAT scores from Asians than from Blacks are also common.

"Wholistic" evaluation is just a pretext for being racists.

Vote for lesser evil is still vote for evil.

Yes.

But not voting or voting for someone that can't win or worse, vote for bigger evil is even worse.

Another I can't understand is both parties are equally bad. Trump is as bad as Kamala.

Not even Kamala believes that. Otherwise she would have come to libertarians selling her idea. She knows libertarians are so far away from her.

Trump come to libertarians, promise to free Ross Ulbricht, promise libertarian in government, cooperatewand is supported by ron Paul, Milei, and Elon, owner of the most free social media in the world.

Kamala doj sue businesses for not hiring enough blacks and women

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/disparate-impact/579466/

Trump lower taxes and don't like DEI.

How come they are equally evil.

Oliver can't win.

Vote for Oliver and Ross will be in jail for live.

Vote Trump and you free Ulbricht

Why they are the same?

I don't get it.

I'm doing it on my local level with municipal elections but the problem is higher levels of government get in the way. What's some advice for supporting personal liberties and freedom.

We are at war. We control some oil fields.

Should we deplete the oil or save it?

If we don't deplete the oil we lost and the enemies may seize the oil field we save.

In fact Russia won against Napoleon by burning away resources. Scorched earth policies.

We are at war with commies. Democracy is a form of civil warfare. People around us will have power over us anyway might as well allow them to vote. If you don't like their vote then you should not have let people with different values than you to live near you in the first place. Yap. I am a realistic pro border libertarians.

Tax is robbery and those commies don't care that they are bankrupting the state.

Nor should we.

Trump obviously lowered taxes. But many libertarians complain he didn't reduce government spending by much. Should we care?

Ideally I suppose lowering tax and reducing government is good.

But lowering tax even without reducing government is pretty good already and maybe even better.

Starve the state.

Scorch the state.

Every dollar you don't pay in taxes is a dollar in your hand. That is powah.

If because of it the state has huge deficit it's even better.

The money may not go to you anyway if the state have it. It may go to breed and accommodate more communist voters.

Be a smart libertarians.

Trump lowered tax.

Deficit or not is not necessarily a good or bad things.

What do you think?

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