Hopping on the bandwagon
Posted by bertabelly@reddit | Libertarian | View on Reddit | 54 comments
Are my views as libertarian as I think?
-pro legalization/decriminalization of most rec substances (marijuana, psilocybin, etc) and decriminalization of possession for personal use
-pro firearms without registration
-pro minimal gov't
-pro free market capitalism
-pro social safety nets for those who're unable to support themselves due to cognitive or physical limitations
-citizens before foreign aid
-anti open borders/pro managed immigration (can elaborate if needed)
-someone who holds political office should have their salary be based on the median income of their constituents
-pro term limits for every level of gov't
-Pro tax breaks across the board
ProbablyCamping@reddit
As long as you’re anti GOP, you’ll be on the right path. Republicucks are the greatest threat to democracy and personal freedoms. They’re still trying to ban cannabis and now kratom, both safe natural medicines, all to please their pharmaceutical donors (which is public info to see who donates). Our country will not heal until every last republican is voted out of office.
bertabelly@reddit (OP)
I'm staunchly anti-politician on both sides, I firmly believe that those who get into politics for the right reasons either dip out because of the corruption or they fall right into it
ProbablyCamping@reddit
Yes but one side, stuff is legal in their states, and the other side, they’re waging an all out war against things that are legal in blue states that have been legal for a long time. Libertarian is all about personal freedoms, and one side is a much greater threat to all of that. Forced religion vs forced mask mandates. Take your pick
LibertyorDeath2076@reddit
Are you talking about abortion?
ProbablyCamping@reddit
Cannabis and Kratom in this case. Republicucks are calling Kratom “gas station heroin” lol, just google that term and watch all the different red states and red city news articles about it pop up. Now if that isn’t alarmist and pharma donor talk, I don’t know what is. Dems in NJ are also trying to legalize psilocybin, which a red state would never do, because they want to force you to be a conservacuck Christian.
LibertyorDeath2076@reddit
I can agree with you on that. I'm a kratom enjoyer and the admin pushing the DEA to schedule it has pissed me off. I don't use cannabis, but I think what they're doing with the farm bill products is shitty. It's very clearly lobbyists that are pushing for it.
That said, I live in a blue state, and Democrat lawmakers have introduced, albeit unsuccessfully, legislation to ban kratom and hemp THC. I certainly think these issues have more to do with who politicians are taking money from than any sort of principled stance that they have.
ProbablyCamping@reddit
Are you sure it’s not a red city in a blue state? Fresno, California is a good example of that. Fresno flipped red in 2024 election, and are trying to ban kratom. It’s funny, because California does not give a shit about drugs, so this little red city joining the pharmaceutical fight is ridiculous to see.
LibertyorDeath2076@reddit
Yes, I am certain. The politicians pushing it were a mix of inner-city democrats and rural conservatives, and they were pushing it at the state level.
The only suburb I know of that has managed to ban it within their township is liberal.
ProbablyCamping@reddit
Damn, some are for sure DINOs. Fortunately It’s becoming more mainstream that natural plant medicine is acceptable in blue states. A Blue state even just reversed their kratom ban (Massachusetts maybe?), while red is pushing hard for it with the cookie-cutter articles released in media outlets calling it “gas station heroin”. I grew up in a red state and stay updated on them through local sources, and they’re still just trying to ban everything all the time. The whole vibe is that they’re just waiting for the right time to ban stuff. <1 year into winning, they’re pushing for it hard. You can even look up their donors (public info) and it lists the pharmaceutical companies along with the amount they donate lol.
bertabelly@reddit (OP)
Brother that doesn't matter when politicians are just there to line their pockets, dems and reps would flip completely if their donors demanded it
ProbablyCamping@reddit
Ok, which states are starting psilocybin trials to treat depression, and which states are actively trying to ban all natural medicine to appease their pharmaceutical donors? This whole “both sides” argument is such bullshit when you look at personal freedoms. You can even grow cannabis in many blue states. You can literally grow it in your yard. Red states and cities are trying to ban Kratom, which is a natural plant that has mild pain relieving properties. These cucks are authoritarian and completely anti-liberty. The difference of freedom between the 2 sides is night and day. It cannot be any clearer.
https://newjerseymonitor.com/2025/11/25/nj-bill-legalize-psychedelic-mushrooms/
Ok_Relationship_335@reddit
Could say the reverse about firearms.
ProbablyCamping@reddit
Firearms vs every other personal freedoms lol. You’ll vote to forfeit all other personal freedoms because you’re afraid blue states will somehow change the constitution. I think you’re in the wrong sub dude.
LiquidTide@reddit
I've argued that term limits limit voter choice. We should take responsibility for voting the bums out instead of backdooring it.
denzien@reddit
The bums are pretty persuasive for the general public
LiquidTide@reddit
Agree, but when you dismiss the "general public" you start to tread in dangerous territory. Either you believe in democracy or you're a totalitarian.
Chris_The_Guinea_Pig@reddit
All government is ultimately antilibertarian, all democracy does is let half the people abuse the other half by outvoting them.
LiquidTide@reddit
This is where our Constitution and the Bill of Rights comes into play. Libertarians generally embrace some government as necessary for national defense (including regulated borders) and establishing courts.
Chris_The_Guinea_Pig@reddit
Ok, but then they'd just be wrong that it's necessary
LiquidTide@reddit
This is the correct answer for r/Anarcho_Capitalism , but not this sub. Cheers.
gretchensimpson@reddit
I think your views align pretty well with libertarian principles, especially on minimal government, free market capitalism, gun rights, and decriminalizing drugs.
The social safety nets position is where some libertarians might differ - classical libertarians would argue those functions should be handled by private charities and voluntary associations rather than government programs. But there's a spectrum of libertarian thought that includes more pragmatic approaches.
Your immigration stance is also where you might find disagreement in libertarian circles. Many libertarians favor open borders as consistent with free market principles and human freedom of movement.
The idea about politician salaries tied to median income is interesting! Not strictly a libertarian position, but definitely aligns with the spirit of keeping government
tzagoj@reddit
Cucked. Basically, human is born into serfdom - with a 'citizenship' he did not choose or want. Within one or the other 'borders'. Try to catch an airplane flight without a birth certificate, passport etc. Citizenship, borders etc are socialist (statist) concepts in my view. My definition: Socialism is statism and libertarianism is (the natural phenomenon of) free markets.
Conscious_Ad3246@reddit
Why not go one step further and stand with the cool kids. Become an Ancap and look down on all of the statists with our signature look of superiority. \^\^
Chris_The_Guinea_Pig@reddit
One of us! One of us! One of us!
DigDog19@reddit
Being a statist and supporting free markets is incompatible.
seagulledge@reddit
Ideally, the safety nets would be funded voluntarily via non-profit organizations.
bertabelly@reddit (OP)
Definitely not against that, could use larger tax cuts as an incentive
Omega326@reddit
Taxation is theft so yeah
Trypt2k@reddit
You're like 99% libertarian and only purists would say otherwise. I think I agree with every point there, except maybe term limits, I have no issue with long term politicians if they get elected, under libertarianism it would be far far harder to stay in power, and now with everyone having a direct connection to news it's getting harder anyway.
Short-Exercise-8374@reddit
Do you know how to build a road?
HR_Paul@reddit
Do you support organized crime continuing their operations dealing hard drugs cut with hard drugs and god knows what?
bertabelly@reddit (OP)
No, that's why I said "for personal use"
HR_Paul@reddit
How does that work? The drugs magically appear in the users hands?
bertabelly@reddit (OP)
Drug users and dealers will always exist, it doesn't matter what economic system you live under, what political system.. It's a dynamic that will always exist
Selling the drugs has the potential to kill, while having $30 worth of meth in your pocket likely isn't going to kill anyone but yourself, and I don't think you should be hung out to dry legally because of a substance addiction.... I do however feel like that should be the case if you're selling death
HR_Paul@reddit
Do you apply the same logic to the deadliest drugs - alcohol and tobacco?
hootowl_@reddit
I hate to even call it government, more leadership. It should be done on a local county level, by people who you know and who know you. Not people who live 500 miles away who you have never met.
No taxes, it’s theft plain and simple, you’re not entitled to the product of my hard work, what about community enterprises instead? I’ve not heard people talk about this so hear me out if you would, your community owns an enterprise, a market, a herd of cattle, a lumber mill, whatever it may be. People help run the enterprise on a voluntary basis and the profits are used for projects in that area. Everyone would help weather you are working, making coffee for workers or some other job. I’ll address this now as I know someone is going to say that people would not volunteer and would benefit without helping, imagine how pissed you and your friends and neighbours would be if you found out that the family down the road was not putting in any effort, you wouldn’t talk to them, wouldn’t wave as you passed each other, wouldn’t invite them to events, they come and ask to borrow some sugar and get told to bugger off. As I firmly believe that in this type of society you would absolutely need your friends and neighbours for support ( no more government support) they would feel the pressure to start helping real quick and would either leave the community ( no loss there) or would start helping like everyone else.
Lastly I would be against paying leadership, it leads to people only being there for the money, if you are passionate about something you don’t need to be paid, it’s the people who are passionate about helping, leading and bettering their communities that we want running things, also if you get rid of all the time wasting that happens in government there is no reason the same people couldn’t work or run their own business at the same time, you still find the time for the things you care about outside of business don’t you?
HR_Paul@reddit
The argument in favor of pay is that lawmaking is a job.
The counter argument is that it's bat shit crazy to have an entire industry dedicated to manufacturing laws and regulations. It's not like people eat laws up and we need new ones.
denzien@reddit
Devil's advocate - if you don't pay them, they'll find alternate funding using the power you've given them. Except, every single time instead of 70-80% of the time or whatever.
hootowl_@reddit
Then that person would be removed from their position in leadership by the community, any corruption, out, straight away, no second chance, no hesitation, out
HR_Paul@reddit
Political power should be prohibited.
Leaders don't rape, rob, and threaten and carry out executions of their followers.
HR_Paul@reddit
Great post but that's perfect.
OldStatistician9366@reddit
Libertarian is a big tent, so you definitely fit. But social safety nets are evil. Why does some people not being able to take care of themselves give them a claim to my property? Border socialism is also evil, if people want to hire immigrants and rent/sell houses to them, what right do you have to stop them?
denzien@reddit
It's a big tent with a narrow gate
denzien@reddit
I'm down with what you're saying, but I do want you to consider the perverse incentives that the government funded safety nets and median income as a test for politician pay will spawn.
It's not that I'm against those things in principle, it's just that humans are greedy and will always find a way to twist good ideas into bad outcomes if they benefit.
JagerGS01@reddit
You sound libertarian to me! Minus the social safety nets, of course. Forcefully taking wealth from one group of people and giving it to another is robbery, whether government sanctioned or not. Can you imagine how much you would be willing to share to those in tough spots if the economy wasn't a cluster fuck and taxes were nearly nil? It would also reinforce the idea of community instead of depending on the government to take care of the needy and everyone feeling like they did their part because they paid their taxes.
skeletus@reddit
They seem libertarian. What's stopping you from going full ancap?
bertabelly@reddit (OP)
because sadly some people are stupid enough that a government is a necessary evil in some cases
BringBackUsenet@reddit
It's not a necessary evil just an inevitable one.
RagnarBateman@reddit
So you want to give them the ability to rule over you either by voting or becoming one of the people ruling over you....
Conscious_Ad3246@reddit
I can basically garantee you that the government either does not help or will even make it worse, in every case regardless of topic. But just to ask, what stupid things are you talking about for which you would need specifically a government/ State in the current defenition. - Dont forget ancaps have laws and law enforcement too and probably just a better paid and trained one too.
HR_Paul@reddit
What keeps those people from running the government? ie every time?
BringBackUsenet@reddit
> -pro social safety nets for those who're unable to support themselves due to cognitive or physical limitations
Not libertarian unless the safety net is through voluntary means like charities, etc...
> -anti open borders/pro managed immigration (can elaborate if needed)
This is a grey area and there is still a lot of disagreement. Open borders are a libertarian position but the problem exists that people crossing are often coming in and signing up for handouts so there is an argument to be made for keeping out people who will not be pulling their own weight.
> -someone who holds political office should have their salary be based on the median income of their constituents
Not sure what this would possibly achieve. Politicians generally aren't there for the salary.
> -pro term limits for every level of gov't
Serves no real purpose and often means they just have an incentive to loot more from the system before they have to leave.
> -Pro tax breaks across the board
Taxation is theft.
Heterodynist@reddit
90% to 95% of everything you said is straight up Libertarian (and welcome!! Come on in, the water’s fine!)…There’s just social safety nets…Mostly Libertarians aren’t overwhelmingly for them, but I don’t think we are strictly against them as long as they are voluntary. The key is that social safety net should not be a part of GOVERNMENT. Let’s be realistic and say Government has proven to be the worst tool of social welfare that has ever existed anywhere throughout all of time. Never has Government provided better social welfare to people than almost any other kind of charity or generosity or sharing by real people, and that is because involuntary giving saps the life out of any charitable act there is. Once you steal money from me to feed the poor I suddenly have involuntarily had the poor become the enemy of my family and my own hopes for the future. By taking the choice away from me, I also have no reason to ever give any MORE than is required. Any responsibility I might feel for the poor is removed entirely by having some program I have nothing to do with being administered by who knows who…I can just not care at that point, and nothing about that is good.
Charitable acts should be done face to face and deliberately. Helping those who are needy should be VOLUNTARY, and it should be an individual choice. If it seems like that is a selfish way of looking at it, then just research the cases where people have helped other people personally versus giving to some organization to act as a middle man. Middle man organizations exist almost SOLELY to steal money that’s on its way to needy and hurting people in the world. Even when they start off doing their best to be passing all the bulk of what they get to those in need, they rapidly get corrupted and take more and more for themselves. In addition, too many criminal organizations have every reason to take part in laundering their money that way. If you want to help the poor, pick someone nearby in your own community, who you have some basic connection to already, and sponsor that person until they are actually better off. Don’t give to some anonymous third party and hope some money makes it to the people you want to help.
LiquidTide@reddit
I'm registered liberation and tend to vote libertarian and I agree with you on almost every point. By tax breaks I think you mean limit special interest tax breaks, keep taxes simple, low, and fair. I'm in favor of a flat tax or only taxing consumption.