Are my views libertarian
Posted by dreamkiller213@reddit | Libertarian | View on Reddit | 33 comments
(Note: I saw someone else did this and I wanted to know the same thing because I'm extremely new libertarianism, I do NOT intend to copy the other user I barely even read his post. So if there's anything on here that's on his we just happen to have the same view on it. Mine are mostly going to be about more social issues since I lowkey haven't done much research on economic stuff)
We should have as low taxes as possible
We should stop sending all our money to Israel and actually focus on our country's problems
When it comes to military we shouldn't intervene with any wars or conflict unless it affects us directly.
Marijuana and Psychedelics should be legal for anyone to use. I'm not sure about harder drugs (Meth, Heroin, Fentanyl, etc.).
The government should not interfere with our day to day lives.
As a country we should focus on ourselves before helping, or sending money to any foreign country.
Gay people should get married and have rights even though I don't agree with it, since it does not affect me whatsoever.
Trans people are kind of in a gray area in my opinion, I believe that you can't change your gender and you are what you are born as. But at the end of the day it's your dick do what you want with it. Keep it or not. But I think I shouldn't have to call them a woman or a man if I don't think they are. But like gay people, they should still have that right since it don't affect me at all.
If you are truly a criminal and you did something horrendous (Murder, Rape, etc.) you should just be put in prison and never see the light of day.
Everyone should be free to speak whatever political opinion they hold no matter how wrong or controversial, as long as they don't commit a hate crime, or cause harm.
I fucking love guns and I think anyone who tells us we can't have guns and try to enforce gun laws are gay as fuck. If your a normal person, you should be able to have guns and be strapped at all times, even your grandma.
jcondy88@reddit
Your views definitely align with certain libertarian principles, particularly on minimal government intervention, reduced taxation, and non-intervention foreign policy.
Classic libertarianism emphasizes individual liberty in both personal and economic spheres. The core principle is the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) - the idea that no one should initiate force against others except in self-defense.
Your positions on drugs, military non-intervention, and gay marriage track with libertarian thinking. The libertarian position would be that people own their bodies and should be free to make their own choices so long as they don't harm others.
On transgender issues, libertarianism would support their right to live as they choose. The more nuanced libertarian
tzagoj@reddit
I think there shall be zero taxes, as taxes are theft.
'our country' is a cope, is it really your country? try to book an airplane flight without a birth certificate... Basically a human is born a slave to 'his country', a government. The most ridiculous coping strategy is people defending 'their country' in a war, Ukraine for example. If you had thousand trillion dollars and one million acres of land, you could argue, that it was 'your country'. (Then you forget to pay some tax and some government takes it away from you.)
Define what is a country or we as a country? Some elites drew lines (borders) on a map...
Gay girls, if you are a man, and monogamy given, do affect you, because that takes two girls out of the market. Most 'gays' nowadays are not really gay in the psychiatric illness sense. It is like in a prison where males, to avoid depression, accept the other inmates back end. They were not born gay. Think of the western world as a big prison for young unattractive males, women prefer each others company, or even their dogs.
Everything does affect you. If boss babe woman is so strong and independant with her convenient HR job, and government support, she does not need you unattractive boy. Gays, Trans and the like are mere symptoms of (artificial) market interventions like minimal wages, alimony, food stamps and the like.
Yes.
2clipchris@reddit
People will say drugs don't harm others but they do. Seeing how alcoholism affected my loved one in such a negative way I cannot in good faith say lets legalize everything. Objectively drugs do cause harm to others some drugs more than others. While I do not agree with legalization of all drugs. At minimum I would support decriminalization of all drugs and legalization of marijuana and maybe psychedelics.
What do you consider as a hate crime? Are you talking about the physical act or something along the lines of hate speech. I think the latter does not make you libertarian. The idea of free speech to me is what is supported by the framework of the first amendment which includes hate speech. Now, on a personal level I do not think that type of speech should be supported socially but government entity should not interfere.
dreamkiller213@reddit (OP)
Also I 100% agree with you, that some drugs can cause harm to others, that's why I'm unsure.
dreamkiller213@reddit (OP)
Yeah so I would consider physical acts of violence for being apart of a certain group of people a hate crime. But if it's just someone saying why they don't like a certain group of people (Even though I think it's wrong) they should be allowed to since it's freedom of speech.
archivalcopy@reddit
Let's break down one of your statements:
"Gay people should get married and have rights even though I don't agree with it, since it does not affect me whatsoever"
I don't believe the sentiment of this is Libertarian at all.
Firstly, you are correct in the first part of this statement that in recognising the rights of others Libertarians agree with the right to one's own autonomy in decision making with respect to their own lives but the statement immediately goes downhill from there.
We cannot agree with another's 'right' and at the same time harbour some kind of internal conflict about that right. A decision on whether someone else's 'right' is acceptable or not is not ours to make. We accept their right and agree with their decision to uphold that right.
Libertarianism is a belief in the sovereignty (including legal right) of another's individual choice of how they wish to conduct their own life. It is not simply a default...just because it doesn't affect me I accept that person's right..it is an acceptance - and a compassionate tolerance - of a differing circumstance for which an individual is justified in making their own claim to independence.
I would also suggest that you consider taking a course in the spectrum of sexuality, it is not as simple as you state.
There are people who are born with both genders and people who are identified as another gender than that which they are born with. There are physical components and psychological components which contribute to gender identity and the case is no where near as clear cut as you make it.
I say this as a straight man who has worked in mental health with transgender clients and has undergone training in understanding the differences that comprise gender identity.
I totally get that there are contentions in sport and in the use of shared bathrooms..and that there may be cases where specific guidelines may be helpful (e.g. where there are people presenting as women in sports but may have higher than normal levels of testosterone) but this doesn't mean in any way these concerns are as black and white as you suggest.
BringBackUsenet@reddit
> We cannot agree with another's 'right' and at the same time harbour some kind of internal conflict about that right.
Yes, we can. For example, personally I hate drugs and do what I can to avoid being around drug users, but I still respect their right to make poor choices as long as others are not harmed.
archivalcopy@reddit
Yes, thank you, I stand corrected.
OldStatistician9366@reddit
Do you believe in free speech? Bigotry is evil, but cannot be dealt with through force. The person who posted this is wrong about sexuality, but not unlibertarian.
archivalcopy@reddit
I believe in freedom of speech but don't think this itself extends to someone being able to simply say whatever they like in order to insult another person or group.
One immediate example is the OP saying people who do not support the right to own guns as being "gay as F@$#," I would not support this statement as an example of someone exercising their freedom of speech.
The concept of freedom of speech is often defended and abused by people whose sole purpose is to cause offence.
Direct_Practice_7105@reddit
Yes your views are libertarian
SomeDude249@reddit
Depends on the definition of "normal person".
Otherwise, one of the best paragraphs ive read in a while.
Loominardy@reddit
I’d say that you are basically a Libertarian. There’s one nit picky thing that I thought I’d mention.
When it comes to “gay rights”, we as Libertarians generally speaking don’t believe that specific groups get certain rights that other groups don’t. So on the issue of marriage, everyone has the right to get married. The government has no role in deciding who has and does not have this right. The government has no role in definition what marriage is. Marriage should be as decentralized as possible. I personally, don’t believe that polyamory is legitimate but at the end of the day people have the right to organize themselves and get married in a polyamorous fashion despite any disagreement on the subjective legitimacy of it.
ChallengeAccepted83@reddit
I think everything you said would land you towards libertarianism. I would say (without trying to conduct some purity test) that your lack of support for free speech, as in recognizing "hate crimes" as derived from speech, is very much not libertarian.
dreamkiller213@reddit (OP)
When I say “hate crimes” i mean like actually attacking someone physically for being apart of a certain group. Not just words.
ChallengeAccepted83@reddit
Ah okay, that has nothing to do with someone being "free to speak" then. I misunderstood.
brewbase@reddit
The only exception I see is the idea of hate crime.
If the underlying action isn’t criminal, how can we criminalize it based on the person’s motives for doing it? If it is criminal, how can we similarly punish more severely based solely on motive?
It should at least make you nervous for the state to increase punishment based on judgements about motive given how fundamentally unknowable people’s thoughts are and how easy it is to unfairly apply those judgements.
EmpoweRED21@reddit
Not sure where I fall politically but I pretty much agree with everything you stated other than guns. I think there should be a bit more regulation on guns federally. I only want mentally competent people with guns. It’s too easy for idiots to be strapped. I’m tired of leading the globe in school shootings
ThunderMuffin233@reddit
Although I agree that some people should not own guns, I do not want the government to decide who that is. You can say "mentally incompetent people should not be allowed to own guns", but what's stopping the government from arbitrarily declaring you as "mentally incompetent" if you do something the government doesn't like? Personally, I would rather allow anyone to own guns. If they want to do something stupid with it, they should face the consequences, whether that be imprisonment, or the room-temperature challenge when they FAFO
EmpoweRED21@reddit
Everyone pretty much already has guns and we lead the globe in school shootings by a mile.
Unless we can figure out a way to keep our gun violence down, I don’t see any good way to move forward with allowing everyone to be strapped. I got my CC due to my job industry and personally feel safe but we have too many sickos in this country
BringBackUsenet@reddit
Funny how mass shooting frequently happen in "gun free" zones.
Unfortunately the problems of mental illness really don't have a good answer. China has gun control so instead of shooting they have mass stabbings or people driving their cars into crowds of people. Dealing with an inanimate thing doesn't solve anything.
EmpoweRED21@reddit
I’d rather deal with a suspect with a knife versus armed shooter but that’s just me lol.
Mental health is definitely an issue, but more reason to ensure people with those issues don’t have easy access to guns. Again I’m all for being armed, it’s just more so tightening the ship
ThunderMuffin233@reddit
Firearms serve as an equalizer for those that lack the physical strength, or mobility. An elderly person is most likely to lose in a fist fight or a knife fight. If both are armed with firearms, the elderly person has a much better chance at defending themselves
Regardless of how many restrictions you place, criminals, by definition, will not obey them. Being realistic here, the restrictions will likely lower the crime rate, but will not eliminate it. That still comes at the cost of possibly causing collateral damage by restricting lawful users. It all comes down to how much freedom you are willing to give up for safety. "Those who would trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both" - Benjamin Franklin
dreamkiller213@reddit (OP)
Yeah I agree that’s why i meant by “if you’re a normal person”.
EmpoweRED21@reddit
I’m all for having guns, but with mandatory permits/background checks across the board that need to be renewed every 5 years or so.
PhilRubdiez@reddit
What are you going to do when anti-government sentiment is labeled a mental illness?
EmpoweRED21@reddit
I’d hope that by the time we have reasonable gun laws that we’d also have a competent government body.
I don’t think we can even get the reasonable gun laws without an efficient government anyways so I don’t think we’ll have this issue.
Conscious_Ad3246@reddit
You will never have a reasonable government that is an oxymoron. A government as we see them dont have any reason to be reasonable you could even say it is in their interest to not be reasonable. On top of that no governmnet wants armed citizins since they are a danger to them. That said, i am a an ancap so i would structure it differently anyway basically it depends on if i can use it without violating the NAP. The extreme example: private Nukes i cant use them without harminganyone elses private property (to which their body belongs too - radiation etc.)
But when it comes to laws in our current systems even a more libertarian one you have to remembver that laws are political tools. And if you cant garantee that those will not be used against you, they will be used against you. And you cant garantee that. Look at the 2 Amendment it startet out as basically you can and should own firearms. Even Ships and cannons where privatly owned. And now which stocks or grips you use is regulated with entire types of firearms beeing outlawed. The problem is that laws will always get more strict and widespread over time. It does not matter what perfect laws you start with in a few years there will be more. There is so much more whats wrong with that approach. I think its more of an education and societal problem. Guns are just an easy tool for violence. Over here in europe with have constant knife death and attacks even in schools. ... BTW wasnt there a fun statistic about gun crimes and mass shooting specificly that showed that almost all came from 5 or 6 big cities with extremely high crime rates and without those the usa is on the level of any other western country?
Anyway i might have a good video about it from an libertarian or even anarcho capitalist pov:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gryPoExrJLU&t=20s
EmpoweRED21@reddit
It definitely is an educational issue but also mental health and ease of accessibility too.
If cops and teachers were paid more, made into a higher class job, there’d be more demand for those jobs from more qualified applicants. With that change, maybe then it would be safer for guns to freely be owned without that much supervision.
However the case still is- we lead the globe in school shootings. By a landslide.
I think everyone should be armed. I don’t trust the government to not one day label me as an enemy and attack my family. However, we currently can’t sustain the gun violence. It’s only getting worse.
I also don’t argue that it isn’t a right to bear arms. But it has to be regulated to a higher standard at this point.
BringBackUsenet@reddit
\^ Which is a common method of dealing with political enemies in authoritarian regimes.
BringBackUsenet@reddit
> Marijuana and Psychedelics should be legal for anyone to use. I'm not sure about harder drugs (Meth, Heroin, Fentanyl, etc.).
People should be free to do anything they want to their bodies as long as others don't have to bear the consequences.
> Gay people should get married and have rights even though I don't agree with it, since it does not affect me whatsoever.
"Marriage" as a government institution needs to be abolished completely. Whatever contractual agreements consenting adults make is their own business.
> Trans people
Again we are back to consenting adults. If a person wants to dress and act a certain way or even alter their body, it's their own business, however as free individuals others are not obligated to bear the costs, or even accept them socially.
> Everyone should be free to speak whatever political opinion they hold no matter how wrong or controversial,
Opinions are one thing but there are grey areas that could be argued to be inciting violence. There are also issues when it comes to fraud, libel, slander, etc...
> I fucking love guns ...
Things should not be outlawed, only behaviors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCuLGIjTmGA
West-Amphibian-2343@reddit
Move to North Dakota youll fit right in.
AutoModerator@reddit
New to libertarianism or have questions and want to learn more? Be sure to check out the sub Frequently Asked Questions and the massive /r/libertarian information WIKI from the sidebar, for lots of info and free resources, links, books, videos, and answers to common questions and topics. Want to know if you are a Libertarian? Take the worlds shortest political quiz and find out!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.