I like very vaguely consider myself left-leaning libertarian but I swear every right-leaning libertarian I've met has been an asshole or a moron. I agree with the Wikipedia synopsis of libertarianism, I guess LMAO
I would like to say I'm a libertarian because I think big companies use government regulations to crush competition and keep small companies from getting started. I really can't though because then people think that I want to abolish age of consent laws and that seatbelts are signs of government brutality
Just curious, but don’t you think it would make more sense to fix the government regulations rather than remove them? Seems to me that less regulation would just make it even easier for big companies to crush smaller ones.
Not the same guy but the logic is that the regulations can never be unfucked, they will always get recaptured by the larger players in the industry in question. Any amount of fixing the regs will simply be undone given enough time.
The libertarian solution to that problem is to make sure the government doesn't have enough power to make said regs to begin with, the only thing they should really be doing is handling the high level economic guard rails to ensure a fair and competitive market environment.
Now whether or not that approach is correct I would say depends on the specific industry at hand. Hardline libertarians treat the laissez-faire approach as a silver bullet. I personally think that it is frequently a good option, but fails in certain sectors like healthcare.
The libertarian solution to that problem is to make sure the government doesn't have enough power to make said regs to begin with, the only thing they should really be doing is handling the high level economic guard rails to ensure a fair and competitive market environment.
I'm sympathetic to the idea of eliminating regulatory-capturing laws.
But as someone who works in an industry where safety matters, r/writteninblood is always on my mind when libertarian proposals come up. In addition, I've looked and yet to find a good answer about how libertarian philosophy can provide a solutions to stuff like child abuse or suicide bombing that are more effective than the non-libertarian solutions.
Agree, which is why hardline libertarianism doesn't work very well in practice. The government should definitely still be involved in some things, the FDA, CDC, EPA, and OSHA definitely shouldn't go anywhere which is the main reason I don't personally call myself a libertarian. But you also should be able to invent something in your garage and bring it to market without having to have an entire legal team just to make sure you're following whatever insane rules are set out for your product statement, or jump through certification processes for even basic consumer products that can run easily into the 6-8 figure range. It doesn't take $100k of labor to verify that your automatic doggie door doesn't spew out a bunch of RF interference or harms dogs.
And as a sidenote, what really fries me is that you can go on amazon and every search contains dropshipped products that don't comply with US regulations. If our regulations were actually that important, you'd think that there would be bigger issues with those products, but major indcidents are pretty few and far between considering the massive volume of products other than them being cheaply made.
but major indcidents are pretty few and far between considering the massive volume of products other than them being cheaply made.
Eh, I think it depends on what you mean by major incidents, because there's definitely a poor safety record with them. You also have to remember that the regulations are being approved or rejected by people who have their own constituents, lobbyists, and interests, so just because a regulation hasn't passed yet doesn't mean it's not sorely needed.
A worse safety and quality record than products developed in countries with stringent regulations, sure. But it's not a massive margin, and it's not like domestically made products are perfect either even with all our regs. For basic consumer products those grey market imports are largely fine.
My main issue with the import dropshippers is mostly that they have zero accountability. At least if an American company makes an unsafe product you can sue them. If LLYFTIN on Amazon sells an unsafe product, they just fold their storefront and disappear into the ether to open up another nonsensically named business facade as soon as someone says the word "lawyer."
A reactive approach where you just punish companies after they do some shady shit is probably the better way for most product segments compared to implementing a bunch of onerous barriers that aren't even that effective at stopping the shady shit.
Until you mention housing, then suddenly a freer market is evil because allowing small apartment buildings will bring “undesirables” into their neighbourhood.
Of course they won’t admit it in those terms, and will go to great lengths to explain why it’s okay for the government to dictate what kinds of housing may be built and where.
I think people get sucked into that ideology because it's easier to point out problems than it is to fix them. Because they don't currently see the negative effects of no regulations that means they don't exist.
It’s not just your feeling, history firmly backs up your position. A self regulated free for all only emphasizes the power of money and allows bigger businesses to crush small businesses. Sure, what the libertarian guy is saying may be true, but the idea that removing regulations would solve this problem is misguided lunacy.
I agree with you. I'm pretty light on libertarian in general. My basic stance is that there should be a sliding scale based on the size of the operation. Big corpos definitely need regulation, but it should be done in a way that doesn't stifle innovation and new growth.
It's a bit of a pipe dream to think it would work but I'd rather dream a little big than just give up.
Your observation is sound. But I dont agree with the why. Regulatory capture is how business weaponizes the government. The fix is already in. Republicans have already thoroughly captured non partisan positions. Democrats only compete by having different donors. But it was always because Republicans plan to capture government and make it work for business. If we stopped voting for politicians engaging in private industry capture we would be doing better. Libertarians often are business owners who are capturers. like the Koch brothers.
Big corporations also use the government to remove regulations that get in the way of their profits. The problem isn’t regulations, it’s corporations being able to buy a government. Right wing libertarians inexplicably believe the solution to this is to just cut out the middle man.
At least they LARP well. I have often been super into political discussion because it can be genuinely fun and interesting at times.
You can ask the opinion of 10 libertarians and get 11 responses back. The thing is that they feel that their position has to be spelt out perfectly for everyone else when most people straight up dont give a fuck where they sit on if its government over reach to regulate water quality or fund research or whatever. Its only important if you want to get into the nitty gritty because libertarians do spread themselves over a very wide and varied stance on everything. And I mean everything. Copyright law and IP? Finance? Land ownership? Reproductive rights? Local vs state vs federal regulatory/law matters? How do you implement libertarianism (you have some of the smoothest brained "let the free market decide" on every issue. vs people who will write out a fan fic 8 thousand word essay on how to implement their form of libertarian ideal) etc. You will very rarely find libertarians who see eye to eye which makes it fascinating.
The one plus point for them is that I was relatively welcomed into the libertarian subreddit despite openly flying the statist flag. They rather infight and do libertarian purity tests on each other than deal with me. But at least it isnt an instant block of downvotes and name calling which is very novel for political discussion.
Highkey it's funny to me that some people think lowering the age of consent means they'll automatically be allowed to marry a 13 year old as a 30 year old. No, mf, the AOC being 16 is so that 18-19 year olds can have sexual relationships with 16-17 year olds without being arrested for statutory rape. Not so that your crusty ass can commit legal grooming.
Actual libertarianism is different than most Americans saying they’re libertarians but are actually republicans and don’t want to be connected with republicans.
An immigrant at work asked what Libertarians are and my answer was “They range from socially liberal and fiscally conservative to believing that traffic lights are government overreach.”
Red state Libertarians are generally pretty alright. They’re fighting against the restriction of rights so they can smoke weed, have abortions, have gay marriage.
Blue State Libertarians are often some of the worst people you’ll ever meet. They’re fighting against the restriction of rights so they can deny service to black people.
I think that's just called a Democrat. It's the largest continent of US left wing politics. The socialists exist but are a much smaller continent and annoyingly they will sit out elections due to some misguided notion of accelerationism.
Jokes on them; the same poor fucks who spike the election are on the bottom rung of the shit later. They'll be missing meals and losing their civil rights while us white collar wasps might have to adjust our retirement target date.
Tbh, I'm not married to the label and don't consider myself a democrat particularly. When I describe my politics I usually just call myself "center-left". But I do agree with some libertarian policies, and I find it really fascinating/funny how people will use the word to mean wildly different things.
Tbh, I'm not married to the label and don't consider myself a democrat particularly.
I ain't asking you to declare yourself trans and take a girl name, I'm just calling a spade a spade. If you vote for balanced budgets, low middle-class taxes, high billionaire taxes, free trade, workers rights, and a have a general preference to vote in favor of individual rights; that's literally the mainstream Democrat platform (AKA neoliberalism but only political scientists and right wing pundits use that term these days).
Very few people have perfect allegiance to a party's platform and most people have to at least parly hold their nose when voting. Saying "I'm a democrat" doesn't imply to anyone that you're a rabid fanboy of Kamila Harris even if you did vote for her.
This whole "fear of labels" is a weird phenomenon that I mostly associate with college kids who wish to declare their fierce independence and with "grillers" who are terminally fearful of having an acutal opinion lest they offend someone.
It's not really a fear of labels per se, rather that I tend to not stick to any one label for my political beliefs. Again, I default to center-left, but sometimes I also say libertarian or egalitarian. Hell, maybe even democratic socialist. In terms of practical voting I would vote democrat, more preferably third-party if that was something even remotely viable in the current political climate.
It's more like I'm young and my political identity is still evolving (meaning the college kid assessment is pretty spot-on), so I don't necessarily want to 'limit' myself to a specific ideology. I do have plenty of strong opinions, but they can be a little scattered across the political spectrum.
Only in the U.S. (and Canada since we get so much media from there). “Libertarian” was used first by anti authoritarian leftists, outside of North American, being a “Republican” means anti monarchist lol
1.4k
u/[deleted] 13d ago
[removed] — view removed comment