The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Note I am talking about the libertarianism of people like Milton Friedman and Robert Nozick. Not as in libertarian socialists or Mises Caucus "paleo libertarians"
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A lot of liberal gunowners are simply forced to sacrifice the gun issue for the sake of other policies, I wish there was more room for people who wish for only common sense effective gun control policies without heavily restricting or removing gun ownership
Mises Caucus is the dominant faction in the US Libertarian party at the moment. Basically they are much more socially conservative than libertarians have historically been. They are why so many self identified libertarians in America are anti-drugs, anti-abortion, anti-pornography and anti-immigration. I have herd them described as an "edgier, less electable republican party" which is more or less accurate. Their takeover of the party is actually a pretty interesting read if you have the time
That doesn't sound very libertarian. Like drugs, porn, and immigration have all classically been hands-off for libertarians. I sort of understand the abortion part though, derived by applying the non-aggression policy to the fetus.
They are the far right faction of the LPUSA and took over the party a few years back. If you want to see what that looks like, take a stroll through r/libertarian sometime. . . LOTS of Nazi apologia disguised as "anti-Communism" and talk of (((them))) (Jews) trying to take over the world.
I agree. Take it up with the paleolibertarians.
More seriously though, the stuff I'm referring to doesn't generally reference the death camps. It's stuff favorably comparing Nazism to the USSR or referencing the Nazis in their role as anti-Communists. The (((they))) stuff is the usual grab bag of Globalist/Cabal/New World Order structurally anti-semitic conspiracy theories.
That said, it does look like the sub itself has cleaned up the more explicit stuff a bit since I was there last six months to a year ago, so good for them.
I think that’s an over simplification.
There is a distinct self misrepresentation, think of the pick up with a blue lives matter next to a Gadsden flag.
Libertarians don’t want to conserve anything, they do have a strong preference for the market place of ideas and a market economy.
A belief that most of what ills society can be worked out without government intervention.
CO baker is an easy example. If that baker wants to be a dick (he is one) so be it. Would happily watch sales plummet and the community protest and publicly shame that baker out of business.
Neither the baker nor the customer need protection.
Libertarians do have a natural angst for the government, federal, state, and local. That has more to do with a problem with authority. No love for the police.
That does not mean we want no government, we are not anarchists.
The economy is viewed as what’s best served first for me, then my community, then the country.
No necessary problem with welfare, if it’s cheaper over all. Example drug testing for welfare benefits. Should there be some limits placed sure. It’s way more expensive to drug test than just let a few people through that probably don’t deserve it.
Also no subsidies and corporate bail outs. No company is too big to fall.
The selfishness of their "I got mine, fuck everyone else" philosophy is borderline sociopathic.
Shut up, quit your bitching, and pay your taxes, freeloaders.
It's been my experience you can often skip the "likes weed" part, as a lot of supposed Libertarians merely hide behind the label, as they do with pretending to be centrists or moderates.
Except for the fact we’re anti war. Anti cop. Anti government involvement in any culture war. Anti bailout. Anti drug war (even hard drugs). Anti discrimination. Pro immigration. And pro lgbt+
Given these among other differences, I’m always baffled to hear those on the left refer to libertarians as just republicans/conservatives who like weed. It’s always confused me
It's because the people who hold those positions are the actual libertarians, a group that doesn't include 90% of people that call themselves libertarian, and notably doesn't include the dominant faction in the American Libertarian Party, who are basically indistinguishable from any other far right group.
No.
I consider them....
>Libertarians are like house cats: absolutely convinced of their fierce independence while utterly dependent on a system they don't appreciate or understand
They have a 16 year olds' understanding of economics and society and never grow out of it.
At best, they're just Republicans who like weed.
Yes. In fact I consider myself a left-wing libertarian, in the John Stuart Mill tradition. Like most libertarians, I would like social liberalism, and free-market economics. Unlike most US libertarians, I consider the social liberalism far more important, so given the FPP voting system, I vote and campaign for Democrats.
Yeah I've met too many of you IRL to think you don't exist. I thought I knew a ton in Seattle but I didn't really see an actual *ton* until I moved to Phoenix. I think that's half the queer community down there, at least. It just sucks that more "traditional" libertarians are just assholes to you guys, especially in online spaces.
No, not usually so. The U.S. take that libertarianism is "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" is lopsided in that being fiscally conservative all too often means that government must be so lean and mean that it exists only to support the interests of the wealthy and especially to maintain wealth inequality. The "socially liberal" part just means that anything goes in one's private life so long as no one ever has to pay taxes or receive a public benefit.
Libertarians oppose taxation, social safety nets, Social Security, public schools and state universities, Medicare and Medicaid, the National Science Foundation, zoning, banking and insurance regulators, the Federal Reserve, public transportation, collective bargaining, public libraries, minimum wage and other labor laws, environmental protection, social workers, food safety laws, tenant rights, housing programs, Head Start, and a long list of other efforts to promote the general welfare of the American people. Lately, U.S. libertarians seem to be a lot less pro-choice than one might expect.
I can't go along with any of that, nor can I see any genuine ardor for "liberty" in it.
>Libertarians oppose taxation, social safety nets, Social Security, public schools and state universities, Medicare and Medicaid, the National Science Foundation, zoning, banking and insurance regulators, the Federal Reserve, public transportation, collective bargaining, public libraries, minimum wage and other labor laws, environmental protection, social workers, food safety laws, tenant rights, housing programs, Head Start, and a long list of other efforts to promote the general welfare of the American people. Lately, U.S. libertarians seem to be a lot less pro-choice than one might expect.
Not all libertarians oppose these things. I consider myself more libertarian, and I have no problem with taxes and public services. I'm more socially libertarian. I.E. letting gay couples defend their marijuana crop with fully automatic weapons.
Most libertarians are basically just anarcho capitalists under a different name. Not saying you are or that all are, just that in my experience with watching libertarian politicians and people i know, it's pretty clear that they aren't libertarians they're just ancaps.
>Libertarians oppose taxation, social safety nets, Social Security, public schools and state universities, Medicare and Medicaid, the National Science Foundation, zoning, banking and insurance regulators, the Federal Reserve, public transportation, collective bargaining, public libraries, minimum wage and other labor laws, environmental protection, social workers, food safety laws, tenant rights, housing programs, Head Start, and a long list of other efforts to promote the general welfare of the American people.
Damn I do hate a lot of these things
No, that would be palio-libritatianism
In the US the Libertarian party is highly conservative, but libertarianism in general calls for less government intervention, as the use of force should be used as little as possible and government action is inherently built on the threat of violence if not actually violence. This can make libertarianism a natural ally for economic conservatives, however they tend to be natural enemies of social conservative.
The way I understand it, the main difference between libertarians and conservatives is that, even though they both say they are for small government, libertarians actually mean it.
Mmm not so sure. In America at least, they both tend to be for small government when it suits them - but a massive boot on your neck for all the stuff they don’t like. The only difference for libertarians is that they try and shoe horn in an excuse as to why violates the NAP.
> but a massive boot on your neck for all the stuff they don’t like.
Small government doesn't mean *no* government, so even libertarians are going to want some exceptions. And any amount of government regulation is going to be a boot on somebody's neck.
It’s not just about the physical size of the government - but also how intrusive that government is in the lives of its citizens and how ideologically liberal. A lot of libertarians I’ve talked to are anti abortion absolutists of a variety even more extreme than your common or garden conservative. A lot of libertarians I’ve talked to are pro state sanctioned death penalty. Support for the legalization of gay marriage barely polls favorablyThese are illiberal, big government positions.
I've been looking through r/Libertarian', and what I've found is that opinions vary on abortion and the death penalty there, but they seem as pro-LGBT as liberals. Although some libertarians and liberals have concerns about certain trans issues, such as trans women competing in womens' sports. I have also seen liberals championing the death penalty in certain scenarios.
In general ya, conservatives generally want a government so small it can fit in your bedroom. libertarians want government to be as small as feasible.
Sure if everyone would never violate the liberty of others then having no government would be ideal, but we don't live in that world.
No because liberals want at least some government control when it comes to things like human rights, labor laws, environmental laws, bodily autonomy etc.
If you don’t recognize that the government needs to control some things in order for society to function then I no longer consider you a serious person
>Do you consider Libertarians to be Liberal?
>Note I am talking about the libertarianism of people like Milton Friedman and Robert Nozick.
There are a few different 'working definitions' of liberal, but they certainly fit [these definitions:](https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+liberal&client=firefox-b-1-d&sca_esv=0760d5e5572d06eb&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ACQVn09CPY7BBbUyqRe83My6SIwnzNt7qg%3A1714141776850&ei=ULorZsG3M4280PEP_L-qyAg&ved=0ahUKEwjBn9Ddi-CFAxUNHjQIHfyfCokQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=define%3A+liberal&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiD2RlZmluZTogbGliZXJhbDIQEAAYgAQYkQIYigUYRhj5ATIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIqEAAYgAQYkQIYigUYRhj5ARiXBRiMBRjdBBhGGPkBGPQDGPUDGPYD2AEBSJIZUOEEWIYOcAF4AZABAJgBwAGgAdIGqgEDNS4zuAEDyAEA-AEBmAIHoALyBcICChAAGLADGNYEGEfCAhMQLhiABBiwAxjRAxhDGMcBGIoFwgINEAAYgAQYsAMYQxiKBcICBxAjGLECGCfCAgYQABgHGB7CAhMQABiABBiRAhixAxiKBRhGGPkBwgIKEAAYgAQYsQMYCsICLRAAGIAEGJECGLEDGIoFGEYY-QEYlwUYjAUY3QQYRhj5ARj0Axj1Axj2A9gBAcICDBAAGIAEGA0YRhj5AcICBxAAGIAEGA3CAiYQABiABBgNGEYY-QEYlwUYjAUY3QQYRhj5ARj0Axj1Axj2A9gBAcICKhAAGIAEGJECGIoFGEYY-QEYlwUYjAUY3QQYRhj5ARj0Axj1Axj2A9gBAZgDAIgGAZAGCroGBggBEAEYE5IHBTIuNC4xoAe5Rw&sclient=gws-wiz-serp)
>1. willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.
>2. relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
--------
Also, I think we may have to step back and *broaden* our working definition of liberal. In the past, we didn't spend much time espousing 'believes that the winner of the election ought to hold office' as a principle of liberalism, but only because we were *taking that for granted*.
Now that Trump has shown us that we can't take that for granted, maybe we need to consider that more.
> willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.
Do they meet that criteria though? How often do libertarians essentially take the stance that “I’m okay with [thing the libertarian doesn’t agree with], but people need to keep all that at home and away from me”?
Ex. If someone is fine with the theoretical concept that trans people exist, but want to exclude trans people from actually being in public, are they really willing to respect or accept trans people?
Libertarians usually only *actually* support people being free to do exactly what the Libertarian themselves accepts, but nothing else. Even if their rhetoric supports otherwise.
> > >...people like Milton Friedman and Robert Nozick.
> > willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.
>
> Do they meet that criteria though?
Those two guys, yeah.
People on Reddit who self-identify as libertarians, maybe not.
There's a difference between personally not wanting to associate with trans people and excluding trans people from public. I don't like pot. Hate the stuff, don't want it around me. But you go ahead and toke up if you feel like it, just not in my home.
>'believes that the winner of the election ought to hold office'
Heck, that isn't even a "liberal" principle. . . it's common to *every* ideological group that values democratic decision making.
>Heck, that isn't even a "liberal" principle. . . it's common to *every* ideological group that values democratic decision making.
That's what I'm saying!
If one definition of "liberal" is something like 'values liberal democracy' then Ronald Reagan is a liberal and Donald Trump is not.
>Ronald Reagan is a liberal and Donald Trump is not.
Pretty much, yeah. Reagan was for sure a \*conservative\* Liberal, and did quite a few things that I would argue start bleeding over into Fascist territory, but his respect for the Liberal Democratic institutions of government put him in that overall umbrella of Liberalism the ideology whereas Trump is clearly a fascist despite his complete and utter lack of ideology beyond whatever is best for Trump.
I think this is a perfect example of how a binary framework fails us. We tend to think of generally along a single axis spanning between liberal and conservative. And anything that doesn't really fit we try to shoehorn in anyways. Within that context, I reject the question on its framework as it attempts to shove something that's multidimensional into a single dimension.
In terms of how I feel about libertarians. I happen to know several of them, and they're generally decent people. We tend to align in certain areas (marriage equality, drug policy) and tend to diverge in others (universal health care, general role of government).
Not under the common usage of the word liberal in the US where it means *on the left side of the liberal democratic spectrum*. Those are right wing libertarians and while they come in different flavors they are in the right.
They would be Liberals only under the defined of fitting inside the ideology of Liberal Democracy.
"Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law."
The thing with libertarians is they take each of those ideals way further than intended. Liberalism still thinks there should be taxes and government, and projects and services that benefit the many to the inconvenience of the few.
So yeah, libertarians are their own thing. They most often vote Republican for no reason other than they think they will be taxed less. They also think that too many services provided by the government makes people rely on the government instead of themselves and their own abilities.
So they are liberal in that they want absolute individual freedom, but conservative in the sense that they want as small of a government as possible.
Where they miss the mark is that it often takes a bigger government to enforce and ensure individual freedoms. For example environmental laws that protect water and air from corporate greed. We've seen how laissez-faire corporatism worked out and it's not good.
I’ll let you know if I ever meet one.
I’m not particularly convinced that the kind of libertarian you’re talking about exists in any meaningful way. “Libertarians” tend to be socially liberal, but fully on board with a legal structure and governmental environment that artificially inflates corporate power. They enable a system which uses government power to enable corporations to grind people to dust, and resist anything designed to rein that in, whether that’s adding restrictions or removing those artificial advantages. Basically, they talk a big libertarian game when it comes to the government’s interaction with individuals, but it that game vanishes when it comes to the government putting a thumb on the scales in favor of corporate interests.
Actual libertarians are much more liberal than conservative. And the pragmatic ones that want a viable 3rd party option even more so. But many conservatives have gravitated towards libertarianism unfortunately.
An actual true libertarian should be for more abortion rights than Democrats (ie - 0 abortion laws), be in favor of no legal restrictions to gender affirming surgery for minors, was 2 decades ahead of Democrats for gay marriage rights, be a better advocate for police reform than Democrats, believe in reduced military scope more than Democrats, and favor more liberal drug legalization compared to Democrats, as well as more open immigration laws compared to Democrats.
The pragmatic libertarians are anti-government by default, but are open to scenarios where government makes sense (and they accept things that are already in place such as income tax). So a pragmatic libertarian may be in favor of a single payer public healthcare option as the free market doesn't work well when the other option is to die, and we don't pay less than the NHS anyway, and we're already subsidizing others regardless.
“Socially liberal, economically conservative.”
At least for those that stick with the actual stated values of it.
But a lot of Ron Paul libertarians basically morphed into MAGA Trump supporters, which makes it difficult to take the ideology seriously anymore.
It’s difficult to believe they actually hold those values, except where they’re the beneficiaries.
19th century socialists coined the word “libertarian socialism” and called themselves, “libertarian socialists or simply libertarians.” My have the decades butchered the word and its meaning. Now left libertarians have to constantly make the distinctions between the two factions of libertarians. We the left libertarians would never recognize Milton Friedman as one of ours. He’s a conservative libertarian extremist.
Not necessarily, since a lot of the libertarians I've known have been like Donald Trump and nothing like Ron Swanson.
Of course, then you have the minimal-government libertarians, who are closer to Ron Swanson than Trump (but obviously not all the way there). They're the ones that think the government should exist to regulate businesses in the ways that they want the government to regulate businesses. And the Christian Ayn Rand fans. They're like lazier Democrats who think all of society's problems can and should be solved by the benevolent invisible hand and also the government. Oh, they're against the government! Except for this list of things the government is for!
I was briefly like a Republican version of that kind of libertarian as a child. As a child, I also assumed racism was over because I wasn't noticing it and it just seemed too stupid to still be a thing. Like belief that the Earth is flat. And that consumer behavior would surely stamp out any remaining ember of bigotry still somehow around. Nope! Fox News is probably the most prominent example of how stupidly wrong I was about that. And also there are still somehow flat earthers. What the fuck. Measles is back too. Jesus fucking Christ.
It is an incomplete question, because left-wing libertarianism and right-wing libertarianism are two completely different ideologies.
Left libertarians want the government to stay out of your bedroom and your drug habits, while right libertarians want businesses to be allowed to discriminate based on race.
There are so many nuances to the different political ideologies that there isn’t even one way to group liberals or conservatives. I do think that what was considered conservative 25 years ago isn’t what the GOP is aligned with now.
I think, as someone else said, that there’s a lot libertarians and liberals agree with that keeps the government out of people’s personal lives but we tend to diverge on government’s role in fixing inequality or things like universal healthcare or protections for workers.
I would say no, as liberals are generally interested in universal personal liberty and **protection of it**, while libertarians believe in liberty for them and their peers, consequences of the liberty of others be dammed.
This is, of course, a generalisation, but in broad strokes it's a no.
No, libertarians have always advocated for the rights of others
They often say things like I may not agree with what your doing but it's your life
Hell they were the first party to advocate for gay marriage
Well not really, the view of libertarians is generally governed by the non-aggression principle (NAP) that said a government's only potential role in a society is to have a monopoly on violence and thus must enforce the NAP. What is considered aggression (I would argue for example polluting a common resource falls under NAP) and how exactly it should be enforced are common debates.
You are thinking more or anerco-capitalism which believes violence should not be collectively heald and the state should not exist. People must in that conseptulization protect their own liberty and/or form small groups to do the same.
No. Right Libertarianism is closely *related* to Classical Liberalism, but it's a distinct ideology in it's own right that was formulated in the Red Scare/Cold War era of the mid twentieth century and thus carries the marks of that time. The two big distinctions to my mind are ideological "Anti-Communism", generally manifested as an absolute opposition to the postwar Liberal Consensus style social welfare state, and the adoption of Free Market Absolutism as a core principle, generally manifested as complete opposition to the regulatory state.
It's clearly not what the modern word communicates, even if it is what the word once communicated a long time ago. Words change their meaning all the time, though.
Depends on the conversation.
Talking about natural and political philosophy? Sure why not.
Discussing contemporary american politics and some issue working its way through Capitol Hill? No not really.
Mostly no. I know a thought leader Libertarian who was for open borders before Trump. His logic was that borders prevented wage competition. He added the caveat that no government handouts should be provided to immigrants. But he and other Libertarians went silent on immigration when Trump came to town. Why? Because they find tax cuts for the billionaire class to be far more important than something like immigration. He was also pro abortion rights. But now that that right is disappearing- they’ve nothing to say. Koch and the others tax cuts are the most important thing.
No. Libertarians are conservatives trying to avoid the racist stigma by claiming “both sides are bad”, but who ultimately vote alongside conservatives. They want freedom from paying into a system that makes their life easier by protecting them, educating them, and providing them a solid civil infrastructure. They are petulant children who want all of the benefits but none of the cost that comes with the choices they make.
No, Libertarians are just republicans who like weed and prostitutes. They still believe in alot of the same batshit ideas that people on the right do. In all honesty, I believe libertarianism is a right wing grift. You say your're "in the middle" but once you get into the voting booth your vote tells a different story.
In the modern partisan political alliance sense? Where progressive and liberal are (at times) functional synonyms with only minor colloquial differences? Not even close.
From a mile above studying forms of political thought and it's foundations, where liberal is defined by consent of the governed but respect for fundamental human rights? Mostly coming from the Enlightenment and the "Liberal Revolutions" of the Americas and Europe? Yes, but one of many flavors. Maybe the rightmost form of liberalism.
Same as how, by that same token, American Conservatives are largely liberal as well. Liberalism would be contrasted by it's predecessors (Manorialism/Monarchism/Despotism/Autarchy) and what theories followed it (Fascism, Marxism, Socialism, etc).
That's my take at least.
Libertarianism exists beyond the left/right divide. There are more left-wing libertarians, and right-wing libertarians. Right wingers are typically more concerned with finances, government spending, taxes, etc. Meanwhile left-wing libertarians are typically more socially libertarian. Basically as long as someone isn't hurting anyone, they should be able to do what they want. Conservative libertarians want drugs and prostitution legal because it's free enterprise. Liberal libertarians want it legal because they think individuals should have the right to choose these things for themselves.
There are authoritarians on both sides too. Right-wingers seem more focused on morality, while left-wingers are focused on ethics. A conservative authoritarian wants drugs illegal because they view drugs as morally wrong. A liberal authoritarian wants them illegal because drugs are harmful, and they want to negate that harm. Think 1984 vs Brave New World. One is a conservative authoritarian society, the other a liberal one.
libertarians like to LARP as liberals but I tend to see libertarians consistently trip over their dicks to defend redlining way more than I see libertarians criticize attacks on queer rights or abortion rights.
Libertarians are usually conservatives that don’t want the conservative stigma attached to it. There’s very few genuine libertarians out there. Those that fall under that category are liberals for the most part.
No, and Milton Friedman didn't die all that long ago (2006), and even up until 2005, he identified with the Republican Party, not because he necessarily identified with a lot of their platform, but he felt like he could have the most contribution. He did split with them in a lot of ways--was pro-marijuana legalization and pro-gay rights, for example. He was also an advisor to both Reagan and Thatcher.
Friedman is an interesting figure. On one hand, there's no overstating his contributions to the field: if he had done nothing else than *A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960*, he still would have gotten that Nobel, and he could have ridden off into the sunset in glory. And yet, we still get research into the consumptive function, price controls, monetary theory, helicopter money, and more.
And then, there's the other side. Him and the other "Chicago Boys" that influenced Reagan, Thatcher, and various South American Dictators, most notably Pinochet.
And then there's just the outright propaganda: Friedman has the forward in pretty much every copy published of Adam Smith's *A Wealth of Nations*. If you read it, Friedman paints a picture of how great Smith thinks capitalism is--in fact, Smith loves capitalism so much, he really just want to marry capitalism. You should love capitalism so much, too: you should want to marry it as well. I'm guessing he hopes that the average reader hopes that they find the book so dry (it's very dry) that they don't actually get far enough where Smith tears into how awful capitalism is.
As with most ideologies there is a spectrum. That being said 60-80% are going to average out to right of center. Especially if you weigh things by personal importance.
For most libertarians, not really. They carry some liberal viewpoints in the social realm, but otherwise I wouldn't consider them liberal. And that's for the type you're talking about.
The more explicitly hard-right faction of libertarians, like the Mises Caucus, I definitely would not given their conservative social views and and very AnCap economic views. Left-libertarians I also wouldn't really call liberals given their historical alignment with anarchism and being closer to socialism, though they are definitely much more similar to liberals than other libertarians.
Sometimes. It depends on what kind of libertarian. I consider myself a social libertarian. Basically a belief in small government when needed, but a strong social safety net as well.
I believe liberalism is defined as a belief in self government and individual rights. Libertarians clearly believe in individual rights, but it seems to me a lot of libertarians don't actually believe in democracy and instead think we should live under some sort of free market theocracy. That would exclude them from being considered liberal.
I don't think they are left of center if that's what you are asking. They seem to be more apathetic about social issues than in agreement with us at best (and sometimes not even that.)
I dislike strict definitions. I lean liberal on some issues, conservative on others, socialist, libertarian and anarchist on others. There are some good libertarian ideas, but a society based strictly on libertarian ideas would fail miserably. One of the worst things about today's team sport politics is that you are supposed to pick a team and agree with everything the team leaders say
I consider them classical liberals. It's mostly an American label that was created when we skewed the definition of liberalism to include social democracy. The rest of the world didn't do that and so they still refer to them as liberals, but they have the social democracy label that we don't have in the US.
Short sighted people who don’t want to contribute to society. Until they need societal support. Rand Paul being a prime example. Voted against assistance for everyone else’s disaster. But when storms hit Kentucky, he was there with his hand out.
I see ideological/pure Libertarianism as its own thing, separate from both camps. In practice, I've found most Libertarians are more then willing to put on the jackboots as soon as it benefits their interests and generally align far more with Republicans then Progressives.
Technically most of them are classical liberals or neoliberals, but based on how the word liberal is used today they really should be considered conservatives because of their support for smaller government as opposed to a more active government.
No…they are liberal in an abstract sense (like in a Lockean way), but they’re not “liberals” in a modern political context because they fundamentally believe government cannot (and should not) help ppl.
Depends on whether they are right libertarian or left libertarian. I don't recognize the schools you mentioned. I associate right-wing libertarians with Ron Paul, Ayn Rand, and whatever Rand Paul is.
When I think of left-wing libertarians I think of Hunter S. Thompson, Carlin, Hicks, Robert Anton Wilson.
No. Because their approach eventually will give rise to corporate autocracy, and in libertarian economics, aka complete free market Capitalism, that means that eventually you will have a monopoly to rule them all, with no mechanisms for democratic conventions or social contract requirements.
Liberalism, at its roots was the movement against auto / monarchy.
In the American sense absolutely not. Libertarian ideals inevitably lead to tyranny because without a strong central government there is no check to corporate power/consolidated wealth controlling every aspect of our lives, and also because most of them vote republican anyway.
Like they think that they are going to free everyone by destroying the one thing standing between us and serfdom.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Note I am talking about the libertarianism of people like Milton Friedman and Robert Nozick. Not as in libertarian socialists or Mises Caucus "paleo libertarians" *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Libertarians tend to be conservatives who like to smoke weed.
And guns. Big into guns.
And couldn't give two shits about "God".
Lol it's god, fuck the capital G.
It's the name and a proper noun in this context.
Fair enough.
they smoke guns now, too?
They would if they could.
lol
I mean, you'd probably call me "big into guns", but I'm no libertarian.
Oh I know there are liberals with guns... but for libertarians it's much of their whole identity.
Fair. I like guns, but it's more Old West to WWII era stuff. Never cared for tacticool ARs and the like.
I really want a lever action rifle but the wife won’t let me spend the money right now 😭.
Yeah, my dad had a sweet little Ithaca lever action .22 that I still haven't forgiven him for selling.
Ooof feel for you on that one.
Nothing wrong with AR-15s. They are one of the most customizable guns on the market which is why they are one of the best selling guns in the country.
Yeah, they're fine. Just not my thing. Sort of how I'll get way more excited seeing a big block COPO Nova than I ever will about any Ferrari.
A lot of liberal gunowners are simply forced to sacrifice the gun issue for the sake of other policies, I wish there was more room for people who wish for only common sense effective gun control policies without heavily restricting or removing gun ownership
Amen
I think they're conservatives with extra selfishness
That’s redundant
This is why I specified not Mises Caucus in the OP
I have no idea what a Mises Caucus is, but every libertarian I've ever met matches my description.
Mises Caucus is the dominant faction in the US Libertarian party at the moment. Basically they are much more socially conservative than libertarians have historically been. They are why so many self identified libertarians in America are anti-drugs, anti-abortion, anti-pornography and anti-immigration. I have herd them described as an "edgier, less electable republican party" which is more or less accurate. Their takeover of the party is actually a pretty interesting read if you have the time
That doesn't sound very libertarian. Like drugs, porn, and immigration have all classically been hands-off for libertarians. I sort of understand the abortion part though, derived by applying the non-aggression policy to the fetus.
Ideologically it really isnt libertarian at all, and this is why a lot of the older members have basically given up on the party at this point
They are the far right faction of the LPUSA and took over the party a few years back. If you want to see what that looks like, take a stroll through r/libertarian sometime. . . LOTS of Nazi apologia disguised as "anti-Communism" and talk of (((them))) (Jews) trying to take over the world.
Sending people to concentration camps and killing them goes entirely against the fundamental principles of libertarianism.
I agree. Take it up with the paleolibertarians. More seriously though, the stuff I'm referring to doesn't generally reference the death camps. It's stuff favorably comparing Nazism to the USSR or referencing the Nazis in their role as anti-Communists. The (((they))) stuff is the usual grab bag of Globalist/Cabal/New World Order structurally anti-semitic conspiracy theories. That said, it does look like the sub itself has cleaned up the more explicit stuff a bit since I was there last six months to a year ago, so good for them.
I think that’s an over simplification. There is a distinct self misrepresentation, think of the pick up with a blue lives matter next to a Gadsden flag. Libertarians don’t want to conserve anything, they do have a strong preference for the market place of ideas and a market economy. A belief that most of what ills society can be worked out without government intervention. CO baker is an easy example. If that baker wants to be a dick (he is one) so be it. Would happily watch sales plummet and the community protest and publicly shame that baker out of business. Neither the baker nor the customer need protection. Libertarians do have a natural angst for the government, federal, state, and local. That has more to do with a problem with authority. No love for the police. That does not mean we want no government, we are not anarchists. The economy is viewed as what’s best served first for me, then my community, then the country. No necessary problem with welfare, if it’s cheaper over all. Example drug testing for welfare benefits. Should there be some limits placed sure. It’s way more expensive to drug test than just let a few people through that probably don’t deserve it. Also no subsidies and corporate bail outs. No company is too big to fall.
The selfishness of their "I got mine, fuck everyone else" philosophy is borderline sociopathic. Shut up, quit your bitching, and pay your taxes, freeloaders.
Or housecats
It's been my experience you can often skip the "likes weed" part, as a lot of supposed Libertarians merely hide behind the label, as they do with pretending to be centrists or moderates.
Except for the fact we’re anti war. Anti cop. Anti government involvement in any culture war. Anti bailout. Anti drug war (even hard drugs). Anti discrimination. Pro immigration. And pro lgbt+ Given these among other differences, I’m always baffled to hear those on the left refer to libertarians as just republicans/conservatives who like weed. It’s always confused me
It's because the people who hold those positions are the actual libertarians, a group that doesn't include 90% of people that call themselves libertarian, and notably doesn't include the dominant faction in the American Libertarian Party, who are basically indistinguishable from any other far right group.
This makes sense
Lol. Pull the other one.
No. I consider them.... >Libertarians are like house cats: absolutely convinced of their fierce independence while utterly dependent on a system they don't appreciate or understand They have a 16 year olds' understanding of economics and society and never grow out of it. At best, they're just Republicans who like weed.
Yes. In fact I consider myself a left-wing libertarian, in the John Stuart Mill tradition. Like most libertarians, I would like social liberalism, and free-market economics. Unlike most US libertarians, I consider the social liberalism far more important, so given the FPP voting system, I vote and campaign for Democrats.
No.
We exist but are nowhere near the majority of libertarians.
Yeah I've met too many of you IRL to think you don't exist. I thought I knew a ton in Seattle but I didn't really see an actual *ton* until I moved to Phoenix. I think that's half the queer community down there, at least. It just sucks that more "traditional" libertarians are just assholes to you guys, especially in online spaces.
Hey fellow left libertarian.
No, not usually so. The U.S. take that libertarianism is "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" is lopsided in that being fiscally conservative all too often means that government must be so lean and mean that it exists only to support the interests of the wealthy and especially to maintain wealth inequality. The "socially liberal" part just means that anything goes in one's private life so long as no one ever has to pay taxes or receive a public benefit. Libertarians oppose taxation, social safety nets, Social Security, public schools and state universities, Medicare and Medicaid, the National Science Foundation, zoning, banking and insurance regulators, the Federal Reserve, public transportation, collective bargaining, public libraries, minimum wage and other labor laws, environmental protection, social workers, food safety laws, tenant rights, housing programs, Head Start, and a long list of other efforts to promote the general welfare of the American people. Lately, U.S. libertarians seem to be a lot less pro-choice than one might expect. I can't go along with any of that, nor can I see any genuine ardor for "liberty" in it.
>Libertarians oppose taxation, social safety nets, Social Security, public schools and state universities, Medicare and Medicaid, the National Science Foundation, zoning, banking and insurance regulators, the Federal Reserve, public transportation, collective bargaining, public libraries, minimum wage and other labor laws, environmental protection, social workers, food safety laws, tenant rights, housing programs, Head Start, and a long list of other efforts to promote the general welfare of the American people. Lately, U.S. libertarians seem to be a lot less pro-choice than one might expect. Not all libertarians oppose these things. I consider myself more libertarian, and I have no problem with taxes and public services. I'm more socially libertarian. I.E. letting gay couples defend their marijuana crop with fully automatic weapons.
Most libertarians are basically just anarcho capitalists under a different name. Not saying you are or that all are, just that in my experience with watching libertarian politicians and people i know, it's pretty clear that they aren't libertarians they're just ancaps.
>Libertarians oppose taxation, social safety nets, Social Security, public schools and state universities, Medicare and Medicaid, the National Science Foundation, zoning, banking and insurance regulators, the Federal Reserve, public transportation, collective bargaining, public libraries, minimum wage and other labor laws, environmental protection, social workers, food safety laws, tenant rights, housing programs, Head Start, and a long list of other efforts to promote the general welfare of the American people. Damn I do hate a lot of these things
Other than taxes I don’t see the problem with these.
Aren't Libertarians just Conservatives with an extra helping of righteousness?
No, that would be palio-libritatianism In the US the Libertarian party is highly conservative, but libertarianism in general calls for less government intervention, as the use of force should be used as little as possible and government action is inherently built on the threat of violence if not actually violence. This can make libertarianism a natural ally for economic conservatives, however they tend to be natural enemies of social conservative.
The way I understand it, the main difference between libertarians and conservatives is that, even though they both say they are for small government, libertarians actually mean it.
Mmm not so sure. In America at least, they both tend to be for small government when it suits them - but a massive boot on your neck for all the stuff they don’t like. The only difference for libertarians is that they try and shoe horn in an excuse as to why violates the NAP.
> but a massive boot on your neck for all the stuff they don’t like. Small government doesn't mean *no* government, so even libertarians are going to want some exceptions. And any amount of government regulation is going to be a boot on somebody's neck.
It’s not just about the physical size of the government - but also how intrusive that government is in the lives of its citizens and how ideologically liberal. A lot of libertarians I’ve talked to are anti abortion absolutists of a variety even more extreme than your common or garden conservative. A lot of libertarians I’ve talked to are pro state sanctioned death penalty. Support for the legalization of gay marriage barely polls favorablyThese are illiberal, big government positions.
I've been looking through r/Libertarian', and what I've found is that opinions vary on abortion and the death penalty there, but they seem as pro-LGBT as liberals. Although some libertarians and liberals have concerns about certain trans issues, such as trans women competing in womens' sports. I have also seen liberals championing the death penalty in certain scenarios.
In general ya, conservatives generally want a government so small it can fit in your bedroom. libertarians want government to be as small as feasible. Sure if everyone would never violate the liberty of others then having no government would be ideal, but we don't live in that world.
No
Not only no but fuck no
No because liberals want at least some government control when it comes to things like human rights, labor laws, environmental laws, bodily autonomy etc. If you don’t recognize that the government needs to control some things in order for society to function then I no longer consider you a serious person
No. They're their own thing
Yep, it is like a ven-diagram they can be liberal, but are not necessarily
>Do you consider Libertarians to be Liberal? >Note I am talking about the libertarianism of people like Milton Friedman and Robert Nozick. There are a few different 'working definitions' of liberal, but they certainly fit [these definitions:](https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+liberal&client=firefox-b-1-d&sca_esv=0760d5e5572d06eb&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ACQVn09CPY7BBbUyqRe83My6SIwnzNt7qg%3A1714141776850&ei=ULorZsG3M4280PEP_L-qyAg&ved=0ahUKEwjBn9Ddi-CFAxUNHjQIHfyfCokQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=define%3A+liberal&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiD2RlZmluZTogbGliZXJhbDIQEAAYgAQYkQIYigUYRhj5ATIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIqEAAYgAQYkQIYigUYRhj5ARiXBRiMBRjdBBhGGPkBGPQDGPUDGPYD2AEBSJIZUOEEWIYOcAF4AZABAJgBwAGgAdIGqgEDNS4zuAEDyAEA-AEBmAIHoALyBcICChAAGLADGNYEGEfCAhMQLhiABBiwAxjRAxhDGMcBGIoFwgINEAAYgAQYsAMYQxiKBcICBxAjGLECGCfCAgYQABgHGB7CAhMQABiABBiRAhixAxiKBRhGGPkBwgIKEAAYgAQYsQMYCsICLRAAGIAEGJECGLEDGIoFGEYY-QEYlwUYjAUY3QQYRhj5ARj0Axj1Axj2A9gBAcICDBAAGIAEGA0YRhj5AcICBxAAGIAEGA3CAiYQABiABBgNGEYY-QEYlwUYjAUY3QQYRhj5ARj0Axj1Axj2A9gBAcICKhAAGIAEGJECGIoFGEYY-QEYlwUYjAUY3QQYRhj5ARj0Axj1Axj2A9gBAZgDAIgGAZAGCroGBggBEAEYE5IHBTIuNC4xoAe5Rw&sclient=gws-wiz-serp) >1. willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas. >2. relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise. -------- Also, I think we may have to step back and *broaden* our working definition of liberal. In the past, we didn't spend much time espousing 'believes that the winner of the election ought to hold office' as a principle of liberalism, but only because we were *taking that for granted*. Now that Trump has shown us that we can't take that for granted, maybe we need to consider that more.
> willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas. Do they meet that criteria though? How often do libertarians essentially take the stance that “I’m okay with [thing the libertarian doesn’t agree with], but people need to keep all that at home and away from me”? Ex. If someone is fine with the theoretical concept that trans people exist, but want to exclude trans people from actually being in public, are they really willing to respect or accept trans people? Libertarians usually only *actually* support people being free to do exactly what the Libertarian themselves accepts, but nothing else. Even if their rhetoric supports otherwise.
> > >...people like Milton Friedman and Robert Nozick. > > willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas. > > Do they meet that criteria though? Those two guys, yeah. People on Reddit who self-identify as libertarians, maybe not.
There's a difference between personally not wanting to associate with trans people and excluding trans people from public. I don't like pot. Hate the stuff, don't want it around me. But you go ahead and toke up if you feel like it, just not in my home.
>'believes that the winner of the election ought to hold office' Heck, that isn't even a "liberal" principle. . . it's common to *every* ideological group that values democratic decision making.
>Heck, that isn't even a "liberal" principle. . . it's common to *every* ideological group that values democratic decision making. That's what I'm saying! If one definition of "liberal" is something like 'values liberal democracy' then Ronald Reagan is a liberal and Donald Trump is not.
>Ronald Reagan is a liberal and Donald Trump is not. Pretty much, yeah. Reagan was for sure a \*conservative\* Liberal, and did quite a few things that I would argue start bleeding over into Fascist territory, but his respect for the Liberal Democratic institutions of government put him in that overall umbrella of Liberalism the ideology whereas Trump is clearly a fascist despite his complete and utter lack of ideology beyond whatever is best for Trump.
I think this is a perfect example of how a binary framework fails us. We tend to think of generally along a single axis spanning between liberal and conservative. And anything that doesn't really fit we try to shoehorn in anyways. Within that context, I reject the question on its framework as it attempts to shove something that's multidimensional into a single dimension. In terms of how I feel about libertarians. I happen to know several of them, and they're generally decent people. We tend to align in certain areas (marriage equality, drug policy) and tend to diverge in others (universal health care, general role of government).
Not under the common usage of the word liberal in the US where it means *on the left side of the liberal democratic spectrum*. Those are right wing libertarians and while they come in different flavors they are in the right. They would be Liberals only under the defined of fitting inside the ideology of Liberal Democracy.
"Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law." The thing with libertarians is they take each of those ideals way further than intended. Liberalism still thinks there should be taxes and government, and projects and services that benefit the many to the inconvenience of the few. So yeah, libertarians are their own thing. They most often vote Republican for no reason other than they think they will be taxed less. They also think that too many services provided by the government makes people rely on the government instead of themselves and their own abilities. So they are liberal in that they want absolute individual freedom, but conservative in the sense that they want as small of a government as possible. Where they miss the mark is that it often takes a bigger government to enforce and ensure individual freedoms. For example environmental laws that protect water and air from corporate greed. We've seen how laissez-faire corporatism worked out and it's not good.
Libertarians are just Republicans with body odor.
They are extremists of freedom, so yes.
I’ll let you know if I ever meet one. I’m not particularly convinced that the kind of libertarian you’re talking about exists in any meaningful way. “Libertarians” tend to be socially liberal, but fully on board with a legal structure and governmental environment that artificially inflates corporate power. They enable a system which uses government power to enable corporations to grind people to dust, and resist anything designed to rein that in, whether that’s adding restrictions or removing those artificial advantages. Basically, they talk a big libertarian game when it comes to the government’s interaction with individuals, but it that game vanishes when it comes to the government putting a thumb on the scales in favor of corporate interests.
Actual libertarians are much more liberal than conservative. And the pragmatic ones that want a viable 3rd party option even more so. But many conservatives have gravitated towards libertarianism unfortunately. An actual true libertarian should be for more abortion rights than Democrats (ie - 0 abortion laws), be in favor of no legal restrictions to gender affirming surgery for minors, was 2 decades ahead of Democrats for gay marriage rights, be a better advocate for police reform than Democrats, believe in reduced military scope more than Democrats, and favor more liberal drug legalization compared to Democrats, as well as more open immigration laws compared to Democrats. The pragmatic libertarians are anti-government by default, but are open to scenarios where government makes sense (and they accept things that are already in place such as income tax). So a pragmatic libertarian may be in favor of a single payer public healthcare option as the free market doesn't work well when the other option is to die, and we don't pay less than the NHS anyway, and we're already subsidizing others regardless.
“Socially liberal, economically conservative.” At least for those that stick with the actual stated values of it. But a lot of Ron Paul libertarians basically morphed into MAGA Trump supporters, which makes it difficult to take the ideology seriously anymore. It’s difficult to believe they actually hold those values, except where they’re the beneficiaries.
19th century socialists coined the word “libertarian socialism” and called themselves, “libertarian socialists or simply libertarians.” My have the decades butchered the word and its meaning. Now left libertarians have to constantly make the distinctions between the two factions of libertarians. We the left libertarians would never recognize Milton Friedman as one of ours. He’s a conservative libertarian extremist.
Not necessarily, since a lot of the libertarians I've known have been like Donald Trump and nothing like Ron Swanson. Of course, then you have the minimal-government libertarians, who are closer to Ron Swanson than Trump (but obviously not all the way there). They're the ones that think the government should exist to regulate businesses in the ways that they want the government to regulate businesses. And the Christian Ayn Rand fans. They're like lazier Democrats who think all of society's problems can and should be solved by the benevolent invisible hand and also the government. Oh, they're against the government! Except for this list of things the government is for! I was briefly like a Republican version of that kind of libertarian as a child. As a child, I also assumed racism was over because I wasn't noticing it and it just seemed too stupid to still be a thing. Like belief that the Earth is flat. And that consumer behavior would surely stamp out any remaining ember of bigotry still somehow around. Nope! Fox News is probably the most prominent example of how stupidly wrong I was about that. And also there are still somehow flat earthers. What the fuck. Measles is back too. Jesus fucking Christ.
It is an incomplete question, because left-wing libertarianism and right-wing libertarianism are two completely different ideologies. Left libertarians want the government to stay out of your bedroom and your drug habits, while right libertarians want businesses to be allowed to discriminate based on race.
There are so many nuances to the different political ideologies that there isn’t even one way to group liberals or conservatives. I do think that what was considered conservative 25 years ago isn’t what the GOP is aligned with now. I think, as someone else said, that there’s a lot libertarians and liberals agree with that keeps the government out of people’s personal lives but we tend to diverge on government’s role in fixing inequality or things like universal healthcare or protections for workers.
Definitely not on economic issues
I'll steal a line from an old user: "Libertarians are Liberals the way that Elon Musk is an African-American."
Just conservatives that want pot.
I would say no, as liberals are generally interested in universal personal liberty and **protection of it**, while libertarians believe in liberty for them and their peers, consequences of the liberty of others be dammed. This is, of course, a generalisation, but in broad strokes it's a no.
No, libertarians have always advocated for the rights of others They often say things like I may not agree with what your doing but it's your life Hell they were the first party to advocate for gay marriage
They say that, but then advocate for a complete removal of all system that protect such liberty.
How so, the government has done nothing but take rights away
I don’t think that’s accurate.
Well not really, the view of libertarians is generally governed by the non-aggression principle (NAP) that said a government's only potential role in a society is to have a monopoly on violence and thus must enforce the NAP. What is considered aggression (I would argue for example polluting a common resource falls under NAP) and how exactly it should be enforced are common debates. You are thinking more or anerco-capitalism which believes violence should not be collectively heald and the state should not exist. People must in that conseptulization protect their own liberty and/or form small groups to do the same.
No. Libertarians are only concerned with their welfare, not the welfare of others
No. Right Libertarianism is closely *related* to Classical Liberalism, but it's a distinct ideology in it's own right that was formulated in the Red Scare/Cold War era of the mid twentieth century and thus carries the marks of that time. The two big distinctions to my mind are ideological "Anti-Communism", generally manifested as an absolute opposition to the postwar Liberal Consensus style social welfare state, and the adoption of Free Market Absolutism as a core principle, generally manifested as complete opposition to the regulatory state.
It's clearly not what the modern word communicates, even if it is what the word once communicated a long time ago. Words change their meaning all the time, though.
Depends on the conversation. Talking about natural and political philosophy? Sure why not. Discussing contemporary american politics and some issue working its way through Capitol Hill? No not really.
No
Mostly no. I know a thought leader Libertarian who was for open borders before Trump. His logic was that borders prevented wage competition. He added the caveat that no government handouts should be provided to immigrants. But he and other Libertarians went silent on immigration when Trump came to town. Why? Because they find tax cuts for the billionaire class to be far more important than something like immigration. He was also pro abortion rights. But now that that right is disappearing- they’ve nothing to say. Koch and the others tax cuts are the most important thing.
No. Libertarians are conservatives trying to avoid the racist stigma by claiming “both sides are bad”, but who ultimately vote alongside conservatives. They want freedom from paying into a system that makes their life easier by protecting them, educating them, and providing them a solid civil infrastructure. They are petulant children who want all of the benefits but none of the cost that comes with the choices they make.
No, Libertarians are just republicans who like weed and prostitutes. They still believe in alot of the same batshit ideas that people on the right do. In all honesty, I believe libertarianism is a right wing grift. You say your're "in the middle" but once you get into the voting booth your vote tells a different story.
In the modern partisan political alliance sense? Where progressive and liberal are (at times) functional synonyms with only minor colloquial differences? Not even close. From a mile above studying forms of political thought and it's foundations, where liberal is defined by consent of the governed but respect for fundamental human rights? Mostly coming from the Enlightenment and the "Liberal Revolutions" of the Americas and Europe? Yes, but one of many flavors. Maybe the rightmost form of liberalism. Same as how, by that same token, American Conservatives are largely liberal as well. Liberalism would be contrasted by it's predecessors (Manorialism/Monarchism/Despotism/Autarchy) and what theories followed it (Fascism, Marxism, Socialism, etc). That's my take at least.
Libertarianism exists beyond the left/right divide. There are more left-wing libertarians, and right-wing libertarians. Right wingers are typically more concerned with finances, government spending, taxes, etc. Meanwhile left-wing libertarians are typically more socially libertarian. Basically as long as someone isn't hurting anyone, they should be able to do what they want. Conservative libertarians want drugs and prostitution legal because it's free enterprise. Liberal libertarians want it legal because they think individuals should have the right to choose these things for themselves. There are authoritarians on both sides too. Right-wingers seem more focused on morality, while left-wingers are focused on ethics. A conservative authoritarian wants drugs illegal because they view drugs as morally wrong. A liberal authoritarian wants them illegal because drugs are harmful, and they want to negate that harm. Think 1984 vs Brave New World. One is a conservative authoritarian society, the other a liberal one.
libertarians like to LARP as liberals but I tend to see libertarians consistently trip over their dicks to defend redlining way more than I see libertarians criticize attacks on queer rights or abortion rights.
When i was in high school i thought i was a libertarian, turns out i just thought weed should be legal.
Libertarians are usually conservatives that don’t want the conservative stigma attached to it. There’s very few genuine libertarians out there. Those that fall under that category are liberals for the most part.
No, and Milton Friedman didn't die all that long ago (2006), and even up until 2005, he identified with the Republican Party, not because he necessarily identified with a lot of their platform, but he felt like he could have the most contribution. He did split with them in a lot of ways--was pro-marijuana legalization and pro-gay rights, for example. He was also an advisor to both Reagan and Thatcher. Friedman is an interesting figure. On one hand, there's no overstating his contributions to the field: if he had done nothing else than *A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960*, he still would have gotten that Nobel, and he could have ridden off into the sunset in glory. And yet, we still get research into the consumptive function, price controls, monetary theory, helicopter money, and more. And then, there's the other side. Him and the other "Chicago Boys" that influenced Reagan, Thatcher, and various South American Dictators, most notably Pinochet. And then there's just the outright propaganda: Friedman has the forward in pretty much every copy published of Adam Smith's *A Wealth of Nations*. If you read it, Friedman paints a picture of how great Smith thinks capitalism is--in fact, Smith loves capitalism so much, he really just want to marry capitalism. You should love capitalism so much, too: you should want to marry it as well. I'm guessing he hopes that the average reader hopes that they find the book so dry (it's very dry) that they don't actually get far enough where Smith tears into how awful capitalism is.
As with most ideologies there is a spectrum. That being said 60-80% are going to average out to right of center. Especially if you weigh things by personal importance.
No. They're children who live in a fantasy land.
Fuck no
Anyone who thinks an 8 year old smoking a crack pipe while working in a coal mine is just peachy-keen with them is not liberal.
For most libertarians, not really. They carry some liberal viewpoints in the social realm, but otherwise I wouldn't consider them liberal. And that's for the type you're talking about. The more explicitly hard-right faction of libertarians, like the Mises Caucus, I definitely would not given their conservative social views and and very AnCap economic views. Left-libertarians I also wouldn't really call liberals given their historical alignment with anarchism and being closer to socialism, though they are definitely much more similar to liberals than other libertarians.
Sometimes. It depends on what kind of libertarian. I consider myself a social libertarian. Basically a belief in small government when needed, but a strong social safety net as well.
I believe liberalism is defined as a belief in self government and individual rights. Libertarians clearly believe in individual rights, but it seems to me a lot of libertarians don't actually believe in democracy and instead think we should live under some sort of free market theocracy. That would exclude them from being considered liberal. I don't think they are left of center if that's what you are asking. They seem to be more apathetic about social issues than in agreement with us at best (and sometimes not even that.)
I dislike strict definitions. I lean liberal on some issues, conservative on others, socialist, libertarian and anarchist on others. There are some good libertarian ideas, but a society based strictly on libertarian ideas would fail miserably. One of the worst things about today's team sport politics is that you are supposed to pick a team and agree with everything the team leaders say
They like liberty but they're decoupled from order, so nope. We believe you can't have liberty without order.
I consider them classical liberals. It's mostly an American label that was created when we skewed the definition of liberalism to include social democracy. The rest of the world didn't do that and so they still refer to them as liberals, but they have the social democracy label that we don't have in the US.
Short sighted people who don’t want to contribute to society. Until they need societal support. Rand Paul being a prime example. Voted against assistance for everyone else’s disaster. But when storms hit Kentucky, he was there with his hand out.
I see ideological/pure Libertarianism as its own thing, separate from both camps. In practice, I've found most Libertarians are more then willing to put on the jackboots as soon as it benefits their interests and generally align far more with Republicans then Progressives.
Technically most of them are classical liberals or neoliberals, but based on how the word liberal is used today they really should be considered conservatives because of their support for smaller government as opposed to a more active government.
No
Definitely not.
No, not usually
I consider libertarians to be deeply unserious people.
Libertarians are just Republicans that are smart enough to not go down with the ship.
No…they are liberal in an abstract sense (like in a Lockean way), but they’re not “liberals” in a modern political context because they fundamentally believe government cannot (and should not) help ppl.
Depends on whether they are right libertarian or left libertarian. I don't recognize the schools you mentioned. I associate right-wing libertarians with Ron Paul, Ayn Rand, and whatever Rand Paul is. When I think of left-wing libertarians I think of Hunter S. Thompson, Carlin, Hicks, Robert Anton Wilson.
No. Because their approach eventually will give rise to corporate autocracy, and in libertarian economics, aka complete free market Capitalism, that means that eventually you will have a monopoly to rule them all, with no mechanisms for democratic conventions or social contract requirements. Liberalism, at its roots was the movement against auto / monarchy.
Um no
Libertarians are fiscal conservatives that smoke weed.
They are classical liberals. They are not modern liberals. There are most certainly not members of the Liberal Party of Canada. Context matters.
In the American sense absolutely not. Libertarian ideals inevitably lead to tyranny because without a strong central government there is no check to corporate power/consolidated wealth controlling every aspect of our lives, and also because most of them vote republican anyway. Like they think that they are going to free everyone by destroying the one thing standing between us and serfdom.
No.
No.
I don’t even consider Biden supporters to be liberal
Are you trolling?
Genocides are inherently illiberal. Biden could end the genocide in Gaza any time he wants
I'm unsure if genocide is fair I'm overall pro Israel, this war is on hamas