i wanted to know

https://preview.redd.it/ir2rmix3tfad1.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=97c3f5e0e4386afd269ede0e26e4f1e399732a98

(nsfw for mentions about rape and sexual abuse)

So I've decided to make this post because I've encountered a theme that I disagree on with a lot of libertarians I encounter, and I wanted to know the actual take on this from other libertarians and libertarian-leaning people, and how it differs across the economic spectrum. So please let me know your opinion on this.

In my country (Czechia), there's currently a big theme on rape and sexual abuse, the injustice that happens on a societal, police, but also law and justice level, because it's very common that someone gets an 8-year or longer sentence for holding or dealing marijuana, while someone else gets just 3 years for repeatedly raping their step-daughter, and sometimes they don't go to jail at all (even though they might have even confessed and there's simply no doubt they've done it).

The libertarians in my surroundings have a clear stance on how to address this - decriminalize weed or even other drugs, which I completely agree with, and systematic changes in the process of reporting and investigation, but they disagree on any attempts to increase the length of the sentence for such a crime.

Personally, I am a reformist libertarian-centrist. I am very anti-authoritarian and I am for decriminalization and legalization of a lot of things, but what I believe is that if we keep the function of the state to provide justice, which in my opinion should have the goal of protecting us as much as possible from crime, this should be as strict as required for it to work maximally effectively.

Justice, in my opinion, should therefore serve one primary role: prevention of crime happening. Therefore, it needs to be both punitive (to demotivate people from committing crime) and rehabilitative at once (to prevent the criminal from doing the said crime again) but also needs to provide a feeling of security for people, especially the victims, by isolating the person from society before they rehabilitate. In my opinion, for some severe crimes, where we just don’t want such a person to live among us, it should be required to rehabilitate as much as possible before being freed back to society again. And even if that requires involuntary sterilization, which I know may sound quite extremist. I also believe that in those cases, people should be required to pay for their stay in prison and be forced to work if they don’t have the means. Which, I know, totally sounds like the working camps of Nazis or Bolsheviks, but I'm just convinced this is only fair to other people and to the victims. Of course, there needs to be almost absolute certainty required for sentencing such severe crimes, so there would still be tons of guilty people running around free (especially in cases of rape), only because there wasn’t enough evidence to sentence them, and I'm okay to pay this price for the security of not being falsely accused and sentenced. But if someone is already found guilty, the message should be clear: "We don’t want people like this living among us, so either change or stay locked up."

So what are your takes on this theme? Are you against stricter sentences and what are your thoughts on criminal justice in general? Please let me know.

P.S. I know there are quite a few counter-arguments against strict sentences, but I'll let this be discussed in the comments because I don’t want to be that type of political Redditor who writes whole books in the posts :DDD

https://8values.github.io/results.html?e=56.4&d=70.0&g=78.5&s=81.6

r/AuthoritarianJerk

Do you have any suggestions for a name for the subreddit? Or for structure of subreddit?

Ochlocracy is authoritarian too.

Just wondering what left and right libertarians considered good presidents

The right-wing circles online I hang out in are becoming increasingly more unhinged. Many of them stopped pretending to be in favor of free speech, religious freedom, and in some cases even gun rights (they want gun ownership for white males only). They've also began calling me a "lefty in denial" because I don't think minorities should be systemically targetted by an oppressive ultra totalitarian regime. And finally, they've began turning on themselves for not being white, as in, non-whites who pretty much preach exactly what they do are getting ostracized. For example, they used to praise Nick Fuentes for "naming the Jews", but now they're starting to turn on him for being Mexican. So I give up on right-unity, lib-unity is the only way forward.

copied from a twitter thread i made so formatting might be a little off

i would first like to differentiate between the two types of conservative libertarians.

Type 1 is just personally conservative, basically is just "live and let live" to gay people even tho he doesnt agree with them. imo.

type 2 is much more egregious. Or the paleoconservative libertarian/paleolibertarian. Think of stuff like LPNH's social views at the extreme and just regular paleoconservative views at the more moderate level. This one is what I have a problem with.

Now a recent "mantra" in libertarian circles is "I want gay married couples to protect their marijuana plants with guns." And, to put it simply, paleolibertarians don't agree with gay marriage (or gays themselves lmao) and, at some times, marijuana

A broader term, and the term that literally got me (and I'm sure some others) into libertarianism is "Live and let live" or "we should be able to do what we want unless it harms other people" (proto-NAP).
And paleolibertarians just don't agree with this.

I like to describe paleolibertarianism as paleoconservatism with guns. Paleolibertarians just hate gay people, weed, interracial families, and overall just go against "live and let live" or "we should be able to do what we want unless it harms other people".

Now it's for this reason that I don't believe paleolibertarians are true libertarians, because they put social issues ahead of freedom and civil liberties.

The same goes for the two types of progressive libertarians: for lack of a better word, "social justice" libertarians are just as bad as paleolibertarians, for the same reasons I listed above.

I'm currently a market anarchist/left Rothbardian type, but I'm interested in mutualism, what are the actual disagreements between these 2 ideologys? And what is the mutualist position on landlords?

Am giving a place here to post suggestions for change and to address grievances with the sub and to discuss what could be done to make that better for everyone.

Do you think classes should make a compromise, third position? Do you think it is possible to convince the ruling class, utopianism?

For these who don't know we have 7 main socio-economic classes in capitalism:

Proletariat - worker's who live from their labour, they sell their labour for bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie to survive. There are agri-cultural, industrial, service and managerial proletariat. Some workers (especially in imperial core) can gain from neoimperialism and avoid worst effects of modern economy by that, they are called labour aristocracy.

Petty bourgeoisie - people who are at same time workers and owners in some sense, most popular subclass of them are owners and operators of small businesses who work for themselves and have at most a few workers, they generally aspire to become bourgeoisie, and they don't want to become a proletarians. There are petty bourgeoisie who are much more like proletariat than bourgeoisie, that's coop member workers. Peasants were petty bourgeoisie too.

Bourgeoisie / Capitalists - they are owners of means of production, who employ proletariat directly or indirectly to work for them. They either own means of production directly or by stocks. There are three main subtypes of bourgeoisie: National, imperial and comprador bourgeoisie. National bourgeoisie are owners and shareholders of corporations in their own country, imperial bourgeoisie are owners and shareholders of transnational corporations based in imperial core, and compeador bourgeoisie are ... Libunity forbids me from saying more here...

Landlords - I don't have to explain anything here, I suppose.

Bureaucrats - Agents of the state apparatus.

---Under classes - They currenctly don't have productive and legal role in formal economy.---

Lumpen-proletariat - is a diverse group is roughly divided into those are are able to work (and constitute a part of the Reserve Army of Labour) and those who are unable to work. Examples: Petty Criminals, Homeless, Disabled, Gamblers. I generally group them into these who are and are not exploited by lumpen-bourgeoisie.

Lumpen-bourgeoisie - gerally exploit the lumpen-proletariat in organized criminal activities. Examples: Pimps, Gang Leaders, Cartel Bosses.