Homeless folks often camp on sidewalks and parks.

They do this because there is often nowhere else to go, or they do not feel like a shelter is a good option for them. Even if they did want to go to a shelter, shelters might be at capacity.

The problem is the fallout from public camping: crime, and public health issues like needles and feces. Crime primarily consists of property destruction, assault, and theft.

Here's my thinking:

If we say that the homeless should not be allowed to camp, that would be interfering with the homeless' rights.

If we say that the homeless should be allowed to camp, that would be interfering with everybody else.

What's the solution here?

I’m friends with lots of Marxists (idk why). Every time I post about the hyper-inflation that is happening before our eyes, they insist that it’s all a product of corporate greed. I’m tired of the same talking points that they insist are all corporate propaganda. What am I supposed to do?

-Do pro Palestinians have the right to protest?

-if no, why are some libertarians supporting the campuses?

According to Friedman, the Federal Government had one real overarching responsible, protecting people's property rights (with their own bodies being included in said property). Therefore, the legitimate functions of the Federal Government would be Military, and Federal Courts, and perhaps FBI (to deal with genuine rights violation that were unaccounted for by State authorities, such as a rogue terror organization).

Post 9/11, in an interview on Uncommon Knowledge Friedman argued that the Federal Government under President George Bush should have authority to spend as much money as they needed to track down the terrorists responsible for the attack and kill them. Friedman supported giving the CIA tens of billions to gather intelligence and thwart potential terrorist attacks in the future. Many of speculated the Friedman was in support of CIA enhanced interrogation, including riping people's ballsacks off with pliers, if the overall goal was to gather information that could be used to prevent terror attacks (NAP violations). GITMO would be right up Milton Friedman's ally, as it kept dangerous terrorists from violating the property rights of Americans.

However, it seems like Libertarians today reject this doctrine, and emphasis isolationism and non-intervention. What is the logic on why Friedman was so hawkish post-9/11 whilst Libertarians today reject such measures?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C0b52JDHxA

I'm given to understand that libertarian views on property rights are of varying degrees of absolutism. I'm also given to understand this would make water law particularly annoying for libertarians to agree on.

As I understand it, riparian law standards basically turn into a net of flexible easements that aren't necessarily easy to predict, and don't seem to map to usual homesteading analogies.

On the other hand, doctrine of prior appropriations seems to turn into a permitting scheme, so there seems to be a public choice argument there.

What do libertarians have to say about this? If I'm wrong about the premises, what did I get wrong?

My Great Aunt was a nurse in a hospital. This was in the 1970s and 1980s. She ran a floor that was known as the "sounds of hell". It was where they kept the suicidal quadriplegics. Back before case precedents were set by people like Elizabeth Bouvia and Larry McFee, that guaranteed patients right to refuse treatment, even when it will kill them, my Great Aunt used to be tasked with forcedfeeding Quadriplegics who tried to commit suicide by refusing food or water. There have been thousands of quadriplegics who have tried to commit suicide by refusing food or water, we only know about the famous cases that made it to the Supreme Court.

My Great Aunt was traumatized when the Supreme Court set precedent that anyone could refuse food or water, as tons of patients began signing DNR's and intentionally starving themselves to death. My Great Aunt said her greatest and really only pleasure in life, after her husband died, was forcedfeeding Quadriplegics.

Does a Libertarian society now acount for people like my Great Aunt? Keep in mind this was not a publicly funded hospital. The Catholic Church donated millions to ensure that Quadriplegics were given feeding tubes if they tried to starve. Does this not also violate the property rights of the Catholic Church for not getting their money's worth when they donated?

Please explain this to me.

I have heard several different arguments on how severely crimes should be punished:

1. the punishment should be proportional to the crime.
2. The punishment should be severe enough to deter that criminal from committing future crimes
3. The punishment should be extremely severe to deter other people from committing the same crime.
4. Criminals should all be executed. Those who violate other’s rights have forfeited their own rights.
5. The punishment should be entirely chosen by the party who was victimized.

What is the libertarian views on criminal punishment? How do they choose the severity of the punishment? And what is their justification for this view?

From the looks of things terrorism have seemed to be the problem. The highlights are the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995 and the 9/11 attack. What’s makes it pretty bizarre is that there are many claimed that 9/11 is an inside job and the building collapsed didn’t happened from the planes.

Many liberals denied that Terroism is the problem is the trouble to the world and that environmentalism is the problem whereas from Conservatives it’s the other way around.

I watched a lot of old movies and I realized that men and women from back in the day were all very classy and sophisticated in comparison to people today. For example, Sean Connery, John F. Kennedy, Jacqueline Kennedy, Marilyn Monroe, Audrey Hepburn all talked, dressed, and acted with class, elegance, and sophistication. It's very rare to see a person like that (at least in America). Back in the day, everyone had class and sophistication—poor, middle class, well off, and wealthy. But now, it seems like only rich people are classy and sophisticated.

For example, look at the way people talked, acted, and dressed. Look at Sidney Poitier, Sean Connery, James Dean, and Audrey Hepburn. Look at how they talked and dressed, and look at how people (specifically on the left) talk and dress; they are all low class and unsophisticated. 

When I say "class," I mean the way you present yourself with elegance and sophistication. I also noticed that men and women who are conservative tend to be more classy and sophisticated, and leftists all seem to be trashy, ghetto, and racist, for example. Candice Owens is a conservative black woman, and she is very classy, elegant, and sophisticated.

Now my cousin is four years older than Candice, and my cousin is a far-leftist tankie. My cousin is also a black woman; she's the complete opposite of Candice; she's ghetto, trashy, unsophisticated, fat, and overall a ghetto low class hoodrat (I'm black, so yes, I can say all of that). Maybe it has to do with their political ideologies. Candice is Conservative, so she carried herself with grace and elegance, and my cousin is a far leftist, so of course she will be a ghetto animal, but what do you think? 

Libertarians will often say “life isn’t fair” as a shield to any complaints about inequality. As in, yeah it might be sad that some people have a lot more money than others, but what can you do? That’s just life. It’s unfair.

And yet, so many complaints against taxation seem to boil down to fairness. Why is it fair for a rich person to have to pay so much? Why is it fair for someone who works hard to support some lazy moocher? Why is it fair that the government gets to charge me tax on property that I already own?

Why isn’t “I don’t know. That sucks. Taxes suck and are unfair. Life isn’t fair though” an appropriate response? Why can’t taxes just be part of the unfair scheme that is life?

It presents to me as if libertarians AND libertarianism are much more disproportionately interested in law and legal philosophy than other political philosophies. Classical liberals seem to be "over represented" in law, and non-legal libertarians do also seem to put a large emphasis on courts.

But my impression is that conservatives are by and large less focused on that than cultural stability, and that conservatism is interested in law much more as its role as a check on government power and effect on policy than its role in day to day dispute resolution.

And my impression of liberals and progressives is by and large a greater disinterest in courts except to the extent that they're seen as the arm of a system creating some kind of systemic disparity. To the extent that they care about law or their ideas involve it, it's in a very nonessential manner, one optional way of implementing broad policy and not a special tool for every day concerns.

I'm wondering if I'm overlooking either something about these groups or if there's other groups whose members or whose arguments are more focused on the specifics of legal rules and institutions in a way distinct from broader issues of policy or political philosophy.

If it were to be allowed at all, how would an Intellectual property system work in a Libertarian state? Yes it sounds basic but IP laws are a bit more hazed in Libertairanism as it could be both argued as the real property of someone and as just governmental privileges that should not be recognized. So a Libertarian IP system would be an interesting thing to see.

Do you think Steven Crowder is racist? Or at least racist against black people?

I was watching some Milton Friedman interviews, one was post-9/11 with the Uncommon Knowledge guy. Friedman argued that it is within a Libertarian framework for the Federal Government to fund a military venture against the perpetrators of 9/11, and that the U.S should hunt them down and kill them. He said it is one of the few legitimate tasks of the Federal Government to protect the nation and secure the protection of private property, and enact retribution against those who cause harm in that regard.

I believe Friedman would be totally fine with Biden's strikes against the Houthis, as they're infringing on the property rights of the owners of said ships, and of course on the individuals driving them. I noticed most Libertarians on this sub tend to be more anarchist and don't believe in a Federal Government at all, how would people here handle a situation like that? Where a foreign hostile force is infringing on your citizenry or their property?

I am a Queer man and big advocate for the LGBTQ+ community. In my opinion, nothing is worse for the LGBTQ+ community than prostitution because it provides bisexual incels a way to fully sacrifice their Queer identities without cost. My Uncle was a cop, and he said gay bar attendances went up after brothels and escort rings were busted... why? Because a lot of the would-be clients were forced to go to gay bars to find hook-ups instead of using the prostitution service. This increased the size of the LGBTQ+ community in the area and led to a greater support for LGBTQ+ rights and local representation.

You cannot be pro-LGBTQ+ and pro-prostitution.

I'm talking things like no murder, no stealing, no genoide, no slavery, mandatory seatbelt laws, etc? It wouldn't be overarching or influence the economy in anyway. This to me seems like a common sense compromise.

No offense I love to. But my dad I making me regretting it. He said if Biden wins it thinks it will be the end of the world. And also the part where Barack Obama and Biden started wars while Trump actually maintain peace.

Every time I read an article about the economic success of a certain country, it tends to talk about diversifying the economy, like you must not rely too much on one sector. I wonder if it's really necessary.

Qatar for example. Its entire economy relies on oil. If the world shuts down again due to a deadly virus or whatever reason, would it survive?

Or is it better to make people wealthy as quickly as possible so that if such a time comes, they might have some advantages? Will this be the case?

What do you think?

I’m pretty sure I fall somewhere in between centrist and libertarian. But I wanted to ask libs to get it straight from y’all. My stances are:

Left leaning examples -Freedom to marry anyone of age. -Freedom of abortion but a regulation that will deter overuse due to irresponsibility or drug use. -gov programs to assist single parents but are built to deter misuse and promote short term use not life long assistance.

Right leaning examples -2a Heller advocate but would want strengthening of current gun control (not red flag or a list. More like a branch of local pd who specialize on firearm theft, convicts possible possession etc.) -pro capitalism -against meaningless taxes. Example: in VA a 2015 car that you pay off requires you to pay property tax 2 times a year. The money goes to the dmv, roads, traffic light etc. lived there for 2 years all the roads are trash.

The stance I think would exempt me from libertarian? -I believe that their are parts of the federal gov/ military that are needed to perpetuate americas strength or perceived strength through the current means with out the citizens 2 cents as long as it’s to benefit America. Within reason. I.E. world policing, Working with Allies etc.

What's your opinion on the Pro-Palestinian Protestors At Columbia University?

https://www.theunpopulist.net/

The founder Shikha Dalmia’s a libertarian & its stated goal’s to oppose “the rise of authoritarian leaders & politicians,” but very little of the content strikes me as distinctly libertarian. What are your thoughts?

reparations to descendants of slaves, descendants of people who lost a war against your ancestors, etc.

I've seen so many legitimate questions and doubts asked here being downvoted into oblivion apparently because they sometimes are a bit confrontational or even simply "basic". Last one I saw was someone asking why are drug prohibitions wrong, which to me is a completely understandable question to have. Many others of the sort being downvoted hard. My personal opinion is that doesn't help bring in people who have genuine legit questions and help them understand libertarianism better and maybe even convince them, which is what I imagine is this sub's idea.

It'd be nice, I think, if people here were more accepting of the fact that most other people just don't understand libertarianism yet and come here to try to understand. They might not express themselves in the best of ways, but that doesn't mean it's helpful to downvote their posts.

Downvoting is useful against obvious trolls, but for the rest, methinks it'd be better to at worst dont vote at all and move on. I personally upvote anything that contains a legitimate question and isn't outright very rude or trolling.

I fear this post might also be downvoted, but I feel like it's necessary for someone to say this.

It is obvious that a minority of states hold primaries in the Libertarian primaries. Out of those, none give out delegates. What if they did give out delegates? Who would be winning this election cycle? Would Charles Ballay still be the frount runner? What would the convention be like?

I found this article and from a right wing conservative’s point of view human intelligence is declining as years go by due to progression.

https://wentworthreport.com/2017/04/07/what-if-the-average-human-iq-were-200-points/