0 Follow all site wide rules, NO EXCEPTIONS

Posting here to see what opinions others have on this issue.

I think the establishment conservatives are going about things (and the narrative) the wrong way. I rarely side with establishment liberals, but I'm 60/40 with them on this issue.

My personal takes, please feel free to disagree:

• Being somewhere and not engaging in crime should not itself be a crime.

• If caught comitting a crime that harms another person (violent crimes, SA, knowingly laced drugs), yes, deportation should be presented as an option, so should prison time. Same as with a US citizen. Lock up the r*pists, slap the wrists of people who collect rain water or smoke a litle weed.

• If border patrol was efficient, we wouldn't have this problem (not a huge fan of borders, but I am viscerally disgusted by government inefficiency). Law abiding immigrants (as in, they're following a set of rules that applies to the state they live in) should not have to move every time the rules change. The rules need to stay the same in order for people to follow them.

• Culturally, Latino contributions are deeply embedded in ours and vice versa. Name your favorite Canadian restaurant. I'll wait. Tim Hortons does not count.

• We have r*pists, drug dealers and criminals working in three-letter agencies. Perhaps deporting them back to the voids of Theoretical Dumbfukistan would be a better first step.

Are these takes legit, or do they just echo existing utopiaphile sh*tlib talking points?

I don't buy into emotional arguments and cannot stand post-Tumblr leftism, so it's hard to have a discussion with that camp, as they want twice as many three-letter agencies and a bigger government, but I do agree with them where "ICE shouldn't deport people for bad paperwork" is concerned.

Open to objections and better takes, cheers.

I remember Ron Paul had a huge following, but I haven’t seen anyone else quite capture that same momentum. Are there any rising thought leaders in the Libertarian Party worth getting behind for 2028?

Most ancaps know that freedom of speech is necessary for a society like the one we currently live in. But on the theory side of things, some ancap writers believe that freedom of speech doesn’t work in a closed society. So what is your opinion on free speech after society divides itself up?

Don't particularly fancy idpol but out of curiosity are there any other African Americans right wing libertarians and if so what lead you to this position? Started out mostly as center right leaning individual, believing in free speech, the right to firearms, and the right for LGBT people to do their own thing and allow to marry. I've then moved a little more to the left around 2018, before then slowly becoming more libertarian post covid especially in the last 2 years and it's lead me to become the Hoppean-Libertarian I am today. :)

Does anyone know any good YouTubers I can watch to under stand right leaning libertarian philosophy and ideals better? The two I frequent most at the moment is Count Dankula and MentisWave.

The Billionaire Blueprint: How Tech Titans and Reactionary Thinkers Are Engineering America’s Authoritarian Future

Silicon Valley once promised a utopia—an era of boundless progress, decentralized power, and innovation in the hands of the people. But behind the sleek veneer of disruption, a darker reality is taking shape: a coalition of billionaires, political operatives, and neoreactionary thinkers quietly reshaping American governance into something far more ominous.

At the heart of this shift is a network of powerful figures—Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and Curtis Yarvin—who are not just theorizing about post-democratic rule, but actively laying the groundwork for it.

The Neoreactionary Pipeline: From the Fringe to the Mainstream

For years, Curtis Yarvin, a once-obscure software developer turned political philosopher, has been peddling an idea that was dismissed as radical fantasy: democracy is broken, and America should be ruled like a corporation under the iron fist of a sovereign CEO. What was once confined to the deep recesses of reactionary blogs has now found its way into the halls of power.

Peter Thiel, the billionaire venture capitalist and PayPal co-founder, has been one of Yarvin’s earliest and most influential backers, funding reactionary movements and bankrolling candidates willing to push authoritarian governance.

But it is Elon Musk, with his massive media influence and deep pockets, who has propelled these ideas into the mainstream. Musk has repeatedly signaled his admiration for Yarvin’s concepts, sharing references to his writings and floating proposals that eerily echo neoreactionary blueprints—like his call for a "Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE),” an innocuous-sounding initiative that, in practice, mirrors Yarvin’s vision of stripping away democratic processes in favor of corporate-style rule.

Techno-Authoritarianism and the Corporate Coup

What does this mean for ordinary Americans? If history provides any lessons, nothing good.

When authoritarian regimes take hold, the first casualties are always the marginalized. The Yarvin-Thiel-Musk ideology favors centralized, unaccountable power—a system that historically breeds suppression, surveillance, and, in its most extreme forms, mass persecution.

Peter Thiel’s Palantir, a data-mining firm with deep ties to government surveillance programs, provides the perfect infrastructure for such a society. With AI-powered policing, digital tracking, and predictive analytics, control becomes frictionless. In a world where government and tech billionaires merge, power isn’t seized in a bloody coup—it’s optimized through data, efficiency, and a gradual erosion of civil liberties so imperceptible that most people don’t notice until it’s too late.

Even more chilling is the rising public appetite for authoritarianism. A recent survey found that four in ten Americans express openness to authoritarian rule, a stark warning that the ideas once relegated to fringe blogs are now fertile ground for political transformation. The greatest trick the neoreactionaries have pulled is convincing millions that dismantling democracy is the solution to its dysfunction.

The Looming Threat: A Future Without Resistance

To be clear, the United States is not yet a dictatorship. But the conditions that have enabled authoritarians throughout history—a disillusioned populace, an elite class eager to consolidate power, and a legal system being eroded from within—are all present.

Yarvin and his benefactors know that revolutions don’t happen overnight. They happen incrementally: a Supreme Court ruling that guts federal agencies, a tech billionaire consolidating control over a digital public square, an election system that becomes increasingly rigged in favor of the ruling elite.

This is how democracy ends—not with a single moment of collapse, but with a gradual, relentless march toward control, until one day, Americans wake up and realize that the freedoms they once took for granted have been replaced by the smooth, algorithmic efficiency of authoritarian rule.

The time to resist is now. Because if history has taught us anything, it’s that once power is consolidated, it is rarely—if ever—returned to the people. May some god have mercy on this world.

I’ve been a libertarian since 20. I read Poor Economics by Banerjee, and I loved it. I’m looking for some good libertarian podcasts now. Thanks

Libertarianism is an inherently individualistic political philosophy that’s only really been around somewhat recently. I hear a lot of people try to talk about how it’s natural but when you look at society group think and community has almost always been a part of civilization. So what do they mean by its natural

YouTubers, tiktokers, film makers, anything?

Strong borders? Seems really weird that a government should control where you live and more importantly work.

Non-existent borders? Everyone and any good should move where it needs to be. Your job goes to Mexico, so do you.

Some middle ground? Let anyone with a written job offer in?

What's the deal? I've always wanted to know.

My opinion would be minimal government and maximum freedom would be no immigration controls would be most consistent with libertarian ideals. People go where they need to in order to be the most productive and live the best life.

How wrong am I?

The notion that America functions as an empire is, on its face, compelling. With military bases scattered across the globe, it's easy to draw parallels to historical empires. But let's look deeper: traditional empires extract wealth and resources from their dominions, funneling them back to enrich the homeland.

Yet, this isn't the American model. Instead of amassing wealth from its global presence, the U.S. operates almost in reverse. It imposes heavy taxes on its citizens, then redistributes much of this wealth abroad. Billions are sent overseas each year through aid, military support, and various programs, often with little to no accountability or clear benefits back to the American populace.

This outflow of resources isn't just a trickle; it's a flood, contributing to an alarming national debt and moving the country towards fiscal insolvency. While historical empires grew rich off their conquests, America is, in some ways, impoverishing itself by funding global influence at the expense of its own economic stability.

Is this the new face of empire, where power is measured not by wealth accumulated but by influence maintained at home and abroad, even at the cost of domestic prosperity? It's a model that might be sustainable in the short term but will ultimately lead to the dissolution of the US. This is not an empire. Idk what it is. But it will echo throughout history as the downfall of the greatest nation to ever exist.

Net support:

China: +31

Mexico: +11

EU: +7

Canada: +4

Japan: +4

UK: +1

Do you think intellectual property is morally right? Also, is it beneficial for prosperity?