From 1-10 how libertarian do you think you are?

[-]

Trypt2k@reddit

Is 1 still libertarian, or is 1 authoritarian?

The answer will be very different depending on the scale you use.

If 1-10 is a purely libertarian scale, then even a 1 is better than the status quo, and I'm probably something like a 5.

If 1-10 is an authoritarian-libertarian scale, then I'm closer to 9.

[-]

Suspicious-Dark-3142@reddit (OP)

1 is like the least libertarian, so 1 is authoritarian I guess idk

[-]

Simplyx69@reddit

A 6.

I’m Libertarian when it comes to domestic policies, but nationalist on foreign policy.

[-]

RustyRoot8@reddit

Yeah - me too. Still think we need borders cause there are alot of bad people out there

[-]

Quiescentmind3@reddit

Controlled but open borders can be a thing. I agree with documentation at borders, but free passage unless you are wanted for crimes.

[-]

NefariousnessOk8212@reddit

Support the NAP, don’t believe in victimless “crimes”, taxation and regulation should be reduced as much as possible, but still think some minor state intervention in the economy is needed and believe in strong law and order to punish those who break the NAP

[-]

Hard-4-Jesus@reddit

Elaborate on "intervention" in the economy. I'm curious. And pls don't bullshit me.

[-]

NefariousnessOk8212@reddit

Regulations around consumer safety: So, like preventing companies from selling products that are extremely dangerous. An example could be the FDA. I know a lot of Libertarians support abolishing it, while I think its power should be reduced, it shouldn't be eliminated. Currently, drugs have to pass 3 stages of testing before they can be put on shelves: stage 1 checks if it is safe, stage 2 checks if it works in a lab, and stage 3 checks if it works in the real world. I still believe they need to pass stage 1 before being able to be sold to the public, and if they haven't passed the other stages, they should still be able to be sold, but warnings about this fact should be displayed prominently in packaging.
Protecting consumers against fake advertising, self-explanatory
Protecting against negative externalities, so you can't dump a bunch of toxic chemicals in the river w/o the consent of everyone that has property downstream

[-]

Quiescentmind3@reddit

1) So it MUST be government that proves something safe to consume? Would you not trust a third party, like UL, in place of the FDA?

2) Define "fake". It exists, therefore it is real. If you are too stupid (not an insulting word from me, just matter of fact) or naive to understand something that can hurt you, then I have bad news about the real world for you.

3) Completely agree. I'm a minarchist that believes hurting the Earth violates the NAP on everyone.

[-]

Hard-4-Jesus@reddit

Just abolish it, it's an inherent conflict of interest, and they can be lobbied even in stage 1. Moreover, a drug, or treatment is between a patient and their doctor.
People must learn to do their due diligence, stop babying them. It's easier than ever to expose bullshit on the internet because of social media.
This is why private property is important. Prove in a court of law if someone has violated your property, or caused you harm.

The government, even with all this regulation today, hasn't proven to be able to prevent people from being harmed, it's all an illusion, just like those stupid seatbelt laws, and like the TSA at airports. People have the great power to vote with their wallets, if they believe a company has bad habits, then lets boycott them into oblivion, because companies are not government, they can't send armed men to your home to make you comply.

[-]

NefariousnessOk8212@reddit

How is it a conflict of interest? If you are talking abt the revolving door I support enacting measures to make it less prominent. And yes, they can be lobbied, but I would much prefer even some lobbied safety standards than no safety standards at all. And I was just giving an example.
I agree that people SHOULD do their due diligence, but most are not going to, and even if false advertising is exposed, by then, many people have already been tricked into buying the product
Again, I agree, but I would much rather not have chemical waste on my property in the first place than have it, go to court, and then get compensated.

That's my problem with die-hard libertarians. Yes, people can (and should) vote with their wallets; however, by the time the boycott begins, many people have already fallen victim to whatever they are doing

[-]

Hard-4-Jesus@reddit

Of course there are gonna be "victims", or "collateral damage", but that's just how reality works, you can't stop it. As Thomas Sowell said, "there are no solutions, only compromises". I might be mistaken, but it seems like you basically seek "perfect", but there is no such thing. Moreover, you know damn well what we have today is nowhere near perfect, but somehow you're trying to hold libertarian ideas to a stricter scrutiny than what we have today, and that's not very fair. Libertarians don't have all the answers, and naturally there are things that need to to be tried out first in order to examine the objective results. The only thing that actually works in the real world is incentives and consequences. Humans are not dumb, they have been around for a long time, they can force themselves to adapt if the incentives are there, AND if the consequences are there, too. It's called tough love.

[-]

unfortunateavacado24@reddit

Same, depending on what you mean by state intervention in the economy. Would that just be minor regulations, like OHSA and environmental regulations? I don't support any level of trust busting, it's unnecessary once you get rid of subsidies and overregulation, and can easily be abused.

[-]

Quiescentmind3@reddit

Solid 8.

I consider myself a Minarchist, but I also believe hurting the Earth violates the NAP on literally everyone else.

Plus my existential beliefs revolve a bit around Earth as a source of life/rebirth. I feel a deep-rooted connection to trees that suggest maybe I was once Fae-leaning in a prior existence. Will likely spend my eventual retirement in some sort of Arbor Day-esq foundation.

[-]

Rapierian@reddit

Lets arm the raccoons.

[-]

BigBubbaMac@reddit

I think I'm a 10. The problem is every other libertarian would probably rate me a 1.

[-]

Tacoshortage@reddit

The central tenet of libertarianism is gatekeeping libertarianism.

[-]

xr650r_@reddit

Well theres clearly a problem here because im the only real libertarian

[-]

Solid_Reveal_2350@reddit

No one hates libertarians more than libertarians

[-]

GangstaVillian420@reddit

Sounds like an 11 to me lol

[-]

OpinionStunning6236@reddit

A 10 compared to people I know. Like 8.5 compared to most libertarians

[-]

metakynesized@reddit

9, I don't see an alternative to the state when protecting physical property rights, for everything else, we can get rid of the state right away.

[-]

Marsupial_Last@reddit

Say 1 is a Democrat or Republican and 10 is anarchy, I’m like a 6.

[-]

ConfusedScr3aming@reddit

In a room with non Libertarians. 15. With Libertarians, like, a 7.

[-]

NoNoobJustNerD@reddit

I would say between 7 or 8. I can't stand with abortion as something legal. I'm cool with the rest of the thing.

[-]

Creepy_Refrigerator3@reddit

7/10

i like borders with fees. Pay to stay Strong military cant be naive therefore some tarrifs/protectionism I like cities > states> fed to have strong power rather than federal. Some guns laws especially from cities and state

[-]

BentOutOfShape69@reddit

How very Republican of you.

[-]

Creepy_Refrigerator3@reddit

1 is communists so 7 is conservative leaning libertarian is about right. i still believe in everything private including private military contractors, legalize cocaine etc but dont want to force upon states neither force them to legalize nor make something illegal . They could choose to do anything.

[-]

Ok-Branch2031@reddit

thats just republican

[-]

IJustTellTheTruthBro@reddit

“I don’t care what my rating is, just leave me alone and don’t interfere with mine or anyone else’s free will”

[-]

Tater_Sauce1@reddit

Probably about a 5 or 6. Im cool with taxes if it was a vote or choice as to what to spend money on, and chopped into maybe 1/3 of what we pay. Honestly thats my only counter to traditional libertarianism. I want to forget the gov exists.

[-]

richweezey@reddit

7

[-]

COMOJoeSchmo@reddit

11 (I did not consent, nor did we have a prior contractual agreement to your system that arbitrarily predetermines my choices to be between 1 and 10. Thus I have no moral obligation to limit myself to those "choices").

[-]

reverendcanceled@reddit

"These Go To Eleven."

[-]

antrod117@reddit

Okay this guy is definitely an 11 🤣

[-]

Poway_Morongo@reddit

Cries in Locke’s theory of consent

[-]

skeletus@reddit

Dismantle the state.

[-]

Anen-o-me@reddit

12

[-]

Wendy613@reddit

Maybe 5? While I identify as libertarian and am extremely libertarian on some issues, I am somewhat moderate on other issues

[-]

PaperPigGolf@reddit

I have kids now and will comply when threatened....

[-]

Rstar2247@reddit

Rather than get behind a candidate that they agree with on 90% of things most libertarians would rather self destruct and argue over that last 10%.

[-]

Eelmonkey@reddit

Fish. I’m not on your weird arbitrary scale.

[-]

Zikeal@reddit

69 (you dont need the decimal point boys)

[-]

Learned_Barbarian@reddit

Depends on who's definition of a libertarian you're using.

If libertarian means something between a classical liberal and ac minarchist - like 8 or 9.

If we're online and using libertarian as a euphemism for anarchist, then like a 2.

[-]

xfactorx99@reddit

9

[-]

SaladApprehensive115@reddit

I’m the only real libertarian is the correct answer

[-]

Leading_Air_3498@reddit

11

[-]

chalupebatmen@reddit

Id most people would consider me an 8 or 9

[-]

robinson217@reddit

7-8. I belive in maximum personal freedoms. But I'm ok with raising some taxes to pay for infrastructure and defense. Just things that private individuals can't do and corporations can't do efficiently. But our defense spending is too high. I can't imagine what we'd achieve if we stopped social spending and put that money along with the defense bloat into infrastructure. Health insurance should be so entirely privatized that the patient and the customer are the same person. Not your company or the government. Building codes and zoning laws should only pertain to obvious public health and safety issues. No thatched roof fireworks factories. No landfills next to schools. But everything else should be free market. I'm 100% convinced that if you ended all building permits, we would have no housing shortage. Just establish some basic construction standards, and that's it.

[-]

Track_Black_Nate@reddit

Probably around a 7. Points - Free market - Pro choice - Pro 2A - End war on drugs - less laws in general - no restrictions on marriage - remove property taxes to something else

[-]

xrp10000@reddit

I doubt the current state would give a darn who married whom if it wasn’t for the current tax codes. Single people of the same sex could marry their friends just to get the married filing jointly tax break, then get divorced when they found someone of the opposite sex they wanted to marry.

[-]

Track_Black_Nate@reddit

They should be worried about big things.

[-]

-Milton-Friedman-@reddit

I think I am very Libertarian. Maybe it's a bit contradictory because I'm a police officer here in my country (Argentina). But I believe that everything should be absolutely private, except Security and Justice. In fact, I believe that anywhere in the world Security and Justice would work much better in a Minarchist context.

[-]

vithrell@reddit

Every time I ecounter Argentinian I try to ask for their experience, how is it to live there actually, and testimony from actual policeman would be really valuable, so: are cops there rather legalist or more lax if you dont actually hurt anybody? I am planning to move there someday and like to fly fpv drones without proper licence and smoke a joint or take a shroom from time to time - both victimless crimes where I live, how would your colleagues approach criminal like me if I would be caught red handed? Would libertarian leadership change anything even if laws on the books kept it illegal?

Cheers and good luck for your every libertarian in next elections.

[-]

-Milton-Friedman-@reddit

They are very lax here, there are clearly exceptions. But let's say that the laws themselves are quite permissive. Even with criminals (unfortunately) our problems in that regard are totally opposite to those of America, assuming you're from there.

Here soft drugs and flying drones are very normalized, you may logically have problems in National Parks and Government Areas. But after that, you won't have any problems.

In the event that the Police stop you for smoking or being somewhat drugged (IT IS NOT COMMON FOR THEM TO STOP YOU EXCLUSIVELY FOR THAT), the most likely thing is that they will ask you to return to your house, they will take the drugs from you, or they will break them and step on them in front of you. The same with drones, they may warn you that it is not allowed in certain areas and nothing more.

I think that a Libertarian Government is definitely going to allow many things, the problem is that we have many more important problems before, to the point that talking about those things is an insult to the majority of the population and Milei tries to be cautious with his words. When he said he was in favor of the free market in organs or the sale of children, his image fell quite temporarily.

[-]

bethechaoticgood21@reddit

The political compass test puts me about the center of the Libertarian quadrant. The LNC and MC have left a bad taste in my mouth with all of the diet Republican BS. I've all but left the party just so I don't have to answer for their antics.

[-]

Hench999@reddit

If I am going to act like a "true libertarian," I am like an 11, and everyone else is like a 3.2 at best.

All jokes aside, I guess it depends on what a 10 libertarian is. If it is between big regulated government at 1 and anarchy at 10, then I'm likely a 7.5. However, I don't consider anarchists as libertarians. They are anarchists, which is fine , I don't fault that, but it isn't libertarianism.

[-]

Solid_Reveal_2350@reddit

Idk, still bent on either Anarcho capitalism, or Social Liberalism?

[-]

xrp10000@reddit

I doubt the current state would give a darn who married whom if it wasn’t for the current tax codes. Single people of the same sex could marry their friends just to get the married filing jointly tax break, then get divorced when they found someone of the opposite sex they wanted to marry.

[-]

Luckyking223@reddit

AnCap/10

[-]

Dinglebutterball@reddit

11

[-]

GME_alt_Center@reddit

Probably no better than a 5, because I don't believe health insurance companies should exist.

[-]

OoklaTheMok1994@reddit

I get off the libertarian train with the open borders crap.

Humans are not good to be given free trade status. Humans vote. And those that come from hell-hole countries tend to vote for the socialism they left.

Get rid of the entire welfare system then we can start the early stages of a conversation about being more liberal with our immigration system.

[-]

LostGloves99@reddit

6.9

[-]

minedsquirrel70@reddit

6, I agree with most aspects of near absolute freedom, except for things like the more extreme drugs that change your fundamental thinking (specifically during withdrawals). And the economics are just a pipe dream.

[-]

Entropy_Pyre@reddit

Probably a 6 or 7, can’t find a political faction I can get behind fully, but I keep circling back here because I find Rand and Massie to be very consistent, which is rare in politics these days.

I lean more towards a version of libertarian that still allows for collective action and strong unionization. I support law enforcement that prioritizes de-escalation rather than violent crackdown. Other problems in society I think could be solved with voluntary collective action and social promotion of philanthropy rather than forced taxation where you can’t choose what your taxes end up funding. I’m opposed to political lobbying and bribery and prefer an approach to political office where it is a public service, not an entitlement to wealth.

[-]

ShenValleyUnitedFan@reddit

Libertarian? 8. Anarchist? 2.

[-]

wgcole01@reddit

9

[-]

memcwho@reddit

Locally, like a 9.

Versus you colonials, probably like a 5.5 or 6

Such is life in ol' blighty

[-]

fatman9293@reddit

Depends on the level Globally 10 Federally 9 State 7 County 6 City 5 Extended family 2 Close Family 0 (my wife and I are the dictators)

[-]

RevAnakin@reddit

9.5. I know my environmental protection beliefs fit within MY definition of the non-agression principle, but most modern LPer's disagree.

[-]

Electronic_Ad9570@reddit

Depends on who you ask, but being a slow burn ancap (I dig the ideas but we gotta slowly walk stuff back so there's not a shock to the population that leads to civil unrest) makes the ancaps call you a statist, and leaves conservatives partially agreeing with you.

Like, yeah, I wanna cut spending majorly and would see the US go libertarian to Hoppean to full ancap, but I wouldn't switch us from where we are now to full ancap.

[-]

nnamdrep@reddit

I’ve achieved Ron Swanson level. I think we should get rid of stop signs.

[-]

ReddtitsACesspool@reddit

9.2

[-]

Get_Wrecked01@reddit

That depends on how you define the scale.

[-]

B1G_Fan@reddit

With 1 being in favor of the government banning only the things I don’t like and being hands off with the things I do like…

…and 10 being full anarchocapitalist…

I’d argue I’m maybe somewhere between a 5 and a 9, depending on the definition of what a 7 is. I’d still argue that law enforcement is necessary to enforce the NAP and a judicial system needs to be in place to enforce breach of contract disputes. Perhaps most of the law enforcement and judicial systems can be delegated to the state level, but I’d still argue that it needs to be there.

[-]