Taken from another thread on the topic:

Everything is getting recalled because of Trump deregulations from his first presidency term. His administration’s 2017 directive was two deregulations for every new regulation. source

1. Chicken processors were required to throw out the whole chicken if they had tumors. The Department of Agriculture then approved simply cutting the tumors off. The New Poultry Inspection Services then increased the allowed processors rate of 140 birds per minute to 175. “The carcasses move so fast that nobody can see if there’s something wrong with them, and processing them becomes even more injurious” Professor Steinzer of food safety says.

2. During COVID, OSHA no longer tracks workplace illnesses.

3. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lets polluters police themselves. No longer fines food plants and fertilizer factories for excessive air emissions, or chicken and pig farms for unsafe runoff. EPA also appears to be moving forward with a proposal that would loosen regulations protecting farm workers from pesticide exposure, despite concerns from farmworker advocates about the health consequences of such a move.

4. Food labels allowed to have inaccuracies. FDA has given retailers and manufacturers permission to sell foods that aren’t labeled exactly right. FDA gave manufacturers tacit approval to make substitutions and omissions in food and drink products without updating ingredient labels, to the alarm of allergy awareness advocates. All these moves came in the weeks after a food industry lobby group met with President Trump to urge a stop on any new regulations that might “hinder supply chains or take focus and resources away from the national need for increased production.”

5. Trump also signed a controversial executive order that lays the groundwork to boost domestic production of seafood via large-scale, open-ocean aquaculture. However, scientists have voiced concerns about marine farms, pointing out that they could spread disease, increase pollution, and that if farmed fish were to escape into the ocean (it happens), they would compete with native species for food and resources.

6. Since the 1930s, long-haul truck drivers have not been allowed to drive all night, because long hours and mental fatigue lead to crashes and accidents. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration bypassed rules limiting them to 11 hours of driving within a 14-hour period, and eliminating requirements to take 10 hours off between shifts.

7. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) held a two-week freeze on union elections—a secret vote, like any other, that can confer official recognition on a group of unified workers. This meant it was legally impossible for the suddenly galvanized grocery clerks, warehouse stockers, and other food chain workers—who’d been toiling in unsafe conditions, as employers were slow to provide masks and other PPE—to form unions.

The way I see it, there are three possible roads libertarians can take in order to fight back against the state:

1. Fight the state through the Libertarian Party.

This seems like the most obvious choice. The plus side is that you have an organized political party that can offer funding and messaging. However, there has been a ton of infighting in the LP recently. Plus, Chase Oliver did not do as well as Jorgensen did in 2020.

2. Run libertarians as Republicans or Democrats.

This makes it easier to get libertarians elected to higher office (Ron Paul, for example). However, it is hard to convince a major political party to change its platform. Therefore, if there is any major shifts in policy positions by either party, it will take many years to come to fruition.

3. Abandon politics altogether and focus on self-sustainability, education others, etc.

The benefit of this is that it is easier to reach people where they are. You also do not have to worry about a major political party breathing down your neck. On the other hand, it is hard to have any organization when everyone is focused on this strategy.

Which one, in your opinion, should libertarians pursue the most?

Obviously, I know the internet was once a freer and more deregulated place, but I'm looking for a more substantive answer.

• Why were early tech adopters Libertarian? Why do modern tech bros not lean this way anymore?

• Where did all the online Libertarians go?

And if not, what would you prefer it be? Also, by democracy I am including the “constitutional republic” category here for the sake of simplicity

I think libertarians have the opportunity for a political moment in terms of free trade, and am trying to figure out what we can do to lessen the impact of any tariffs as much as possible.

Donald Trump explained his thinking on tariffs when he went onto the Joe Rogan Experience, and I believe he talks about tariffs in the first 20 minutes. From there, he is mostly concerned about national security, a trade deficit, as well as American competitiveness and employment.

However, if you watched the vice presidential debate, it was somewhat clear that J.D Vance knows that tariffs will be damaging to the American economy but is playing along with a populist platform.

Aside from any J.D Vance persuasion towards Trump, what else can we do? Reach out to legislators with analysis from Reason or Cato? Explain to people, specifically the blue collar workers that he is targeting, that tariffs are no bueno? That every industry experiences American displcaement due to technological trends and cheaper alternatives elsewhere?

I'm really stuck and worried because Trump has been threatening increased tariffs from his first term.

it looks legit but dont know who runs it

Do you think that the Sandy hook shooting really happen? Or is it just fake news in order to take away our guns?

The typical "right" position on abortion is that it's killing a baby and therefore murder, whereas the "left" position is that it's not cause my body my choice.

This got me thinking: Why not both?

Abortion is clearly killing a baby, but killing isn't murder if it's self-defense. Since I own my body I have a right to use reasonable force to remove anyone invading said body. In the case of a fetus which cannot survive outside my body, lethal force is reasonable force.

Thoughts? Any holes that can be punched in this argument from a libertarian perspective?

I am someone who is borderline libertarian. My views started more conservative however, I realized while I May personally hold conservative values, it is wrong to impose those values on others with force. I am thinking my views align with the Mises libertarians but I’m trying to really figure out the difference to better categorize myself. I know the Mises caucus is growing and has taken some control of the party itself. I just want to understand their views vs someone like Chase Oliver.

In a village far far away, someone set up a shop.

The shop is run inefficiently and pretty much price gouge. People have to buy anyway because there isn't many other shops.

There are 3 solutions.

1. Ban all shops
2. Allow MORE shops.
3. Allow shops but more regulation, like profit can't be more than 5%, price control, etc.

As a libertarian or ancap we sort of know the right answer. MORE shops. LESS regulations. Regulations are like one shops can't advertise falsely. In ancapnistan deceptive marketing practice will be called out by independent private certificatories and so on. Anyway, private certificatories are already possible now. BBB is one of them.

Now let's look at our government. It's bloated. The tax is too high. things are not run efficiently. Too much welfare.

There are 3 solutions.

1. Ban all governments. This is what PURE ancapnistan is.
2. Have more governments. Competing governments keep tax lows to attract productive individuals. Prospera is a sample. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/prospectus-on-prospera
3. Rules for governments. Tax is theft, can't be run for profit, must be run for profit, and so on and so on.

Don't you think that #2 has a case here?

I mean look at tax is theft rule for example. With that kind of rules, where the hell can we move? Supply demand. If rules are too difficult to comply with, no demand.

But there's more.

US is far more successful than Europe. Liechesten, Dubai, Arab, Macao are also successful.

Looks like MORE governments, like more numerous the governments, the less territory each governments control. People can shop around. More sensible the governments are.

US government is unique.

Your government has government. So state governments have federal government. County governments have state governments.

People can move and shop around for states they like.

Elon aren't happy with California. So he moves to Texas. Suck that commie Californians.

So instead of just wanting MORE governments, why not MORE LEVEL of governments. So enough government on top to ensure states and counties don't wage war against one another, have mutual defend, and that's it.

What about if you're a purist ancap?

Well, just negotiate with one owner or ruler of a private city, and turn that into ancap. Autonomy right? To me, if governments have to compete like shops it's close enough good enough. But even if you are purist ancaps, it makes sense to see intermediate states anyway. It's easier to convert to "pure" ancapnistan.

I am a bit concern about inconsistency of how we embrace evidence. Leftists claim that all races are equally smart.

But they never show tables. They never show oh test scores of these Africans have the same average with test scores of Chinese or Jews.

Yet when those that believe that it's not true show table the table is deleted for flaws.

So one theory, namely that all races are equal, is stated without evidence.

Another theory, namely that different races have different iq average are censored under the pretext that the studies have flaws. All studies have flaws.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

Wikipedia claims that scientists reject disparity of racial intelligences. But they do not cite anything clear. For example, what counts as one race and another is not clear. Fine. Define it as anything you want. You can group Japanese with Chinese or Igbo with nigerian. Chance is you will still see group differences for intelligences.

Basically I am looking for evidences that all races are indeed equally intelligence. Do they have similar iq scores? Do they have similar sat scores?

I wonder if the idea that all races are equally smart has any scientific basis at all?

Saying that pass oppressions cause iq differences do not cut it. Jews have long centuries of insane oppression and their iq is fine. In fact often the most oppressed group is the one with higher iq. That's because they have to find a way to be successful despite oppression and those who can't die.

The one with lower iq maybe the one with easier life. They are so privileged that even the dumb among them can reproduce. For example, I see majestic welfare queen to be very privileged. I mean they got welfare. Black people are very privileged then because they are on welfare more.

Another way to see privilege is how much of an idiot a person can be and still do just fine. Obviously women are more privileged than men. Pregnant women can simply abort while men can be liable for child support, alimony, and so on if he is not very careful and understand then nuance and bullshit of the world around them.

The idea that all races are equally intelligent is a dangerous idea because it justify racism. If all races are equally smart and some races make more money, it is natural to think that some shady unfairness happen. Holocaust and DEI is justified by this idea that all races are equally smart. And then the one that make more money is somehow backstabbing or cheating.

I honestly think that the best way to eliminate racism is to just make it legal for private parties. Anyone racists will have to select people from less diverse area and end up being less competitive.

Businesses that prefer to hire more expensive white than say blacks that are equally productive will have less valuation. Their CEO wil have incentive to end racism.

However, if government is against racism, government can claim that a non racist company is racist and promote racism to correct non existent racism.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

There are some arguments about the two liberties, positive and negative liberties. I define them as such:

Positive Liberty:

The freedom to do something. Say freedom of speech. Freedom to travel. Freedom to own property. Etc. This is typically the freedoms Libertarians accepts

Negative Liberty:

The freedom from. Stuff like freedom from poverty. Freedom from hunger. Free education. Free healthcare. Etc. Typically it’s what the socialists champion.

My argument is this, you cannot have positive liberty without some negative liberty. If you are born in poverty do you actually have freedom? Arguably no. Your options are significantly limited. You will have less connections, less education, less opportunities, and a worse environment overall leading to worse health. Due to your environment which you did not choose your positive liberty is limited.

This is why a government must exist to ensure some negative liberty to maximize positive liberty. Law enforcement is needed. Safety nets are needed. Infrastructure is needed. National defense is needed.

Once you have the liberty to live in a country protected by a military, a law structure everyone must follow, roads and other infrastructure for commerce to happen and a safety net to prevent you from falling into deep poverty if you make bad decisions…can you start making decisions and exercising your positive liberties.

Socialists will go a step further and say negative liberties must be maximized.

This is an argument I heard from traditional Conservatives and Monarchists. It goes something like this.

Conservatives create laws that restrict social norms and accepted behavior. Or has long standing traditions.

Libertarians and Liberals fight those laws and traditions, liberalize society

Society becomes more accepting and degenerate. Acceptance for something moves to a new equilibrium.

Socialists use this momentum to permanently end the Conservative laws and traditions with new authoritarian policies

Socialists manipulate discourse so that opposition to new authoritarian policies is anti-liberty

Some examples:

Libertarians end racial segregation by government and socialists push for mandatory integration

Libertarians end weed laws, and socialists push anti-discrimination laws by removing weed from drug tests

Libertarians end gay marriage bans, socialists mandate gay marriage acceptance

Libertarians end laws against sex change, socialists pass laws and norms mandating pronoun use

Basically Libertarian policies -> Socialist policies

For those of us who get it, something is obviously Up with the left in terms of their emotional state, yes there were elements of this before but I think there is a clearly difference compared to 15 years ago to now in my opinion. They have become way more aggressive, manipulative and intense to me and lost all ability to accept opposing views. I would argue this is one of the most significant happenings of our time and has changed the whole culture and our way of communicating, etc. because even the well meaning normies get intimidated standing up to such emotionally invested people.

So, like, what the hell? Is it all it because it just became popular and more noticeable in social media era to be emotionally unregulated and biased as possible? Is there a wizard behind the curtain like the CIA or China intentionally trying to brainwash people? Or could we all be overthinking it and they're all just straight up Marxists who 95% have the uncanny ability to just never admit it?

This can be tried in a city or a small country. Works within current democracy system.

It's similar with georgism with some modification to prevent poor people from simply having many children or people coming in just to get UBI. While I like land taxes like georgism, keeping tax system as it is, or lower it will work fine too. Small change at a time.

Basically we want to win election right?

How?

We bribe voters. All voters got UBI. What about welfare or public schools? Well, the cost of that is deducted from his UBI. You can go extreme and make him pay for the difference or make a law that such people must leave the country or city. Or you can be moderate and keep the welfare and public schools but he doesn't get UBI anymore.

Say a man lives on welfare, and many children on public schools, then he doesn't get UBI again.

People in heavy welfare, if he is an eligible voter can choose to just leave to another city, get welfare somewhere else and still got UBI for the next 4-5 years. So economic parasites will leave.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/11508271/40-children-by-20-mothers-the-feckless-father-who-insists-God-says-go-forth-and-multiply.html

Notice, only eligible voters got UBI and they all got equal amount. So people with 40 children and no children get the same UBI.

Most people will think oh, this government infested solution for me, like public school is not efficient. They will take the cash and get their kids out of public school and use UBI to pay for better more cost effective schooling. So a bit like school voucher programs.

But unlike school voucher programs people with more children don't get more money. Unless their children is over 18 and can vote too. That means their children got UBI too.

Same UBI for all eligible voters.

We need UBI only for eligible voters. We want to win elections. Those who can't vote don't matter. Let them figure out how this effect their children.

Similar UBI for similar voters will properly aligned voters' interests as if they're shareholders of corporation. No more debate lower tax or more welfare. Do whatever is more cost effective share the extra pie.

Poor people cannot mass produce children to get more UBI. Only voters got UBI and they must be 18 years old. most democracies already have system that people can't just come and vote. They need to either be citizen or resident first or 18 years first. We just take advantage of the existing system.

You can arrange that people need to live and pay taxes for 5 years to be able to vote so people can't come just to get UBI. They need to be eligible voters too.

On one hand we want small government. We also want resources to be applied cost effectively. This will do it.

Why?

Because every time government is more efficient the eligible voters get more cash and they will then have more incentive to pick for the more cost effective solution.

They will pick majors that do things cost effectively.

Tax can be lowered too to attract productive people that make more money, pay more taxes and increase UBI.

Competition among cities like this will keep tax low.

Basically everyone should be better off, including welfare parasites which can still be better off if they leave, collect UBI, and get welfare somewhere else. But we got votes from swing voters and middle class and more productive tax payers that enjoy lower tax. The extra money comes from more cost effective allocation of resources and more proper alignment of interests between voters.

Currently a man or woman may choose. Should I work harder or have more children that I can't afford.

Under current system if you work hard you don't get welfare also government don't subsidize your children.

With this UBI system you get the same money whether you have more children or not. All that matter is you are eligible to vote and are already 18 years. So if they choose to have 2-3 children they can't afford then all their UBI will just go to welfare for their children and they will be worse off.

Not exactly 0 taxes, but one step at a time.

Democracy simplify civil war.

UBI simplify rent seeking.

For instance, a boss threatens to fire their employee if they don't have sex with them, would their consent be valid?

If not, then what makes it invalid? Is it because of the unequal power dynamic between the parties?

If so, does that mean unequal bargaining power between parties can be a violation of the NAP?

I mean, even if I need to sleep, it's still their property and their music. If I don't believe that where there's necessity there's a right, does that mean you can't force them to stop if they don't want to and that you should swallow the fact you won't sleep?

I see this all the time, like gay marriage, libertarians were the first to support gay marriage, or the legalization of weed, popular policies now

How ever libertarians are often dismissed as crazies, idiots or what not, even though these ideas originated in libertarian circles

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

And that genes have nothing to do with intelligence as that Wikipedia seems to say?

Or Wikipedia is just leftist.

Which one you think is right?

If races are equally smart, why blacks have lower SAT score and IQ?

Whym most Math champions in USAaare Chinese?

Are there measurable evidence showing that blacks are as smart as whites? Like similar sat scores and so on?

note: I do NOT like racism.

I am suggesting purely color blind meritocracy society. I am suggesting that companies hire based on whatever they wish and I believe racism will be gone by itself.

Should she respect my right to chew gum and leave? Or should I respect her right not to want to be bothered by the chewing sound and leave?

I'm working my way through Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom, and he argues for floating exchange rates.

He views floating exchange rates as more of a free market approach to currency exchanges because currency will adjust naturally to labor, wages, productivity, exports, and inports.

Now, I'm trying to wrap my head around as to how this could be applied to China. If China has a surplus of goods and Americans are eager for cheap Chinese exports, than this isn't really a problem if it's natural? The problem is that China is accused of artificially devaluing it's currency so that other countries would be eager to buy its exports.

I can kind of see why Trump would argue for tariffs in response to China devaluing its own currency, but how exactly would the Friedman/free market approach tackle this problem? If it is even a problem.

I am a libertarian. I think that we should not get involved in foreign conflicts. With that said, Rwanda is a tough one for me to justify (from a nonintervention point of view). I understand that the United States tends to get its hands in too many conflicts. I also understand that the U.S. tends to keep troops in a country for far too long. With that said, what would you say to someone who says that the U.S. should have sent troops to stop the Rwandan genocide?*

*This would be under the assumption that the U.S. would put a stop to it and leaves once the violence stops.

Do they support going after criminals like murderers, rapists, thieves, and drug dealers and increasing penalties for people that commit crime?