Because no one should have the rights to someone else’s labor. If it’s a completely voluntary system, that’s a different story
Libertarian thinks he can subsist without utilizing any public infrastructure.
Democrat advocating for slave labor. Nothing new for the past 200 years.
you hate the fire department? you hate representional democracy?
Roads? Slave labor. Taxes? Slave labor. Taxes that fund the police? Somehow not slave labor.
Like you’re not wrong, democrats do advocate slave labor in the form of supporting the prison-industrial complex, but I know you’re not talking about that.
I am. ACAB
But you understand that cops, above all else, exist to protect the institution of property correct?
Do they really though with policies like qualified immunity and civil asset forfeiture?
They protect the institution of private property, not any individual’s personal property.
If libertarians had their way, there wouldn’t be a minimum wage and wage slavery would be even worse.
I don’t think libertarians really see wage slavery as the worst thing.
I think the fundamental difference is that libertarians don’t care about outcomes. Or, at least they don’t think that they do as long as they have food in their stomach and a barrier against the cold.
In their minds, it’s all about them not being compelled to partake in anything they don’t want to. If that means starving, fine (so they say, and I’m very suspicious of this claim), but at least there was no authority over them.
Most sane people strike a balance between valuing good practical outcomes, and more abstract notions like liberty and justice.
Full authoritarians say that only outcomes are important, that abstract notions like freedom are impediments to the greatest good, and you end up with things like the USSR.
So you’re right that there wouldn’t be a minimum wage… But you’re wrong to appeal to the concept of wage slavery because it presupposes a libertarian values satisfactory outcomes. They don’t.
Honestly there is no talking down a libertarian without first convincing them their lives are worth more than some definition of liberty.
They’d bring back company script.
And then get eaten by bears.
don’t even get them started on ‘age of consent’ laws, they always seem to bring those up too
Wut
Because no one should have the rights to someone else’s labor. <
They should just lord over the true value whilst paying peanuts to the workers? Cause that’s where we’re at already.
true value
Glad you brought that up. The US Dollar hasn’t meant anything since coming off the gold standard, and we can’t control it’s value so long as the Federal Reserve controls interest rates, and the government has a monopoly over what currencies we can and can’t use. (No this isn’t advocation for company script, if you can’t spend it anywhere else it’s not currency)
With actual competition between companies, the laborer could actually compete for the best jobs and get the best compensation for their labor.
Capitalism will NEVER allow free competition, nor for the workers to be paid their true value.
So long as government meddles in it, yes you are correct.
🙄 regulations are the only thing that slow the unfettered greed built into the system.
Ya’ll have some weird and completely incorrect fantasies.
So, society as we know it shouldn’t even remotely exist. None of it.
Because (so-called) “libertarians” aren’t.
The term “libertarian” has been hijacked in the anglophone-world (starting in the US, of course) to essentially just mean “fundamentalist capitalist” - they are right-wingers who have been immunized from reality and mindlessly support only “liberty” as it applies to private corporations and their interests. Therefore, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that you can find these (so-called) “libertarians” anywhere you find neo-nazis and the KKK.
In the non-anglophone world, the term libertarian still holds it’s original meaning - a socialist… or, more specifically, an anarchist.
The best description for the modern “libertarian” I’ve heard is that they’re just conservatives who smoke weed
I’d personally prefer to not give them the satisfaction of calling themselves “libertarians”, and to, instaed, call them out on their missapropriation — the philosophy should be defended from those who would tarnish it.
It does seem to now mean “people that don’t want to pay their taxes”.
“Libertarian” became popular in the US when it started being incorporated into various science fiction novels. Probably the most famous is “The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.” I love the book as science fiction, but the society the author creates depends on so many caveats that even the author has the old style ‘free’ system fall apart as soon as an actual government [as opposed to prison regulations] is formed.
“Libertarian” became popular in the US when it started being incorporated into various science fiction novels.
They got their que from right-wing economic grifters like Rothbard and Hayek - people whose beliefs wouldn’t be out of place in Nazi Germany. That’s why olden days US sci-fi writing was a festering hole of fascism - nothing else could have produced people like Heinlein.
I got mine from the Libertarian party, a few decades ago.
They didn’t seem too fascistic back then.
Heinlein was a huge friend to Philip K. Dick, and any number of Jewish science fiction writers. He was one of the first writers to have an African woman as a hero, one of the first to have a transman character. Stop using the word ‘fascist’ for anyone on the Right. It dilutes the term.
and any number of Jewish science fiction writers.
And?
He was one of the first writers to have an African woman
And?
one of the first to have a transman character.
Again… and?
Stop using the word ‘fascist’ for anyone on the Right. It dilutes the term.
All right-wingers walk the same path. If you write fascist drivel, you are a fascist. Heinlein was a fascist. Stop making excuses for him.
How many socialistic writers wrote sci-fi that included Africans and the TG?
Was it back when Stalin outlawed homosexuality and allying with Hitler?
This I believe is the 3rd party the US needs. People should redefine the meaning of being a Libertarian in the US and take it away from the crazy.
It seems like you have an interesting definition of liberty. Liberty (to me) is freedom from authority. Libertarians core value is not having government force individuals to do anything. If people want to opt into a universal healthcare private system they are free to do so (kind of like insurance). A big motivation for this is lack of trust in government to handle the job well. Libertarians see government as inherently prone to corruption and thus want to limit their power as much as possible. The extent to which a given libertarian wants to limit government varies. By appointing government authorities to the system the cost of everything rises as in addition to health care you also have to pay the government workers who oversee the system and it’s not very efficient. Not to mention politicians get to decide how much money goes to these programs etc etc. do you really want politicians involved in your health? With all the inefficiency and corruption in politics why do you trust them to handle your health?
Damn, you’d have to be completely brain dead to still believe anything is more efficient than single payer healthcare. The US has the worst outcomes for the highest cost in terms of life expectancy. Same with roads, utilities, schools etc… the more you privatise the more expensive things get for a lower quality product.
A well regulated, competitive market is good for many things, but for others it’s atrocious. An unregulated market has never produced good outcomes on any scale larger than the board of directors.
If you’re seriously summarizing the libertarian agenda then I can’t believe any one over 14 could hold these ideas unless they were VERY sheltered from reality.
There is no need to be condescending or rude. I’m trying to share my ideas and have a healthy discussion so maybe we can learn from each other.
That’s fair.
It’s very frustrating seeing someone argue for disproven theories (like the government is less efficient than the free market in arenas most countries have socialised) using easily disprovable statements (like single payer healthcare would be more expensive to US citizens than the private system you have now). Especially when those ideologies can only hurt everyone.
I do apologize for the tone since you have been respectful and I have been less so. You don’t deserve the rudeness but your ideas don’t deserve the consideration they get in civilised society either.
If you want a healthy discussion, you need better arguments.
Competition is inherently meaningless in the context of healthcare. What are you going to do, shop around while you’re having a heart attack? Also, with single payer, the government is not involved in your healthcare directly. Compare that with the current system where insurance companies often decide if you’re worth the treatment or, if you’re under or uninsured, you get to carry the debt until you die.
I think part of the problem is the blurred lines between routine healthcare and emergencies. You are right, if you are having a heart attack insurance should step in to help you front the unexpected large cost. But for expected care like dentist visits you can and absolutely should shop around.
I like your point about insurance getting to decide but I think it’s important to note you can still get treated even if insurance doesn’t pay. Or you can sue them if you feel they should pay. You make some good points though.
Thanks.
A couple of things you might not have considered:
Preventative care. If you have insurance that covers checkups, screenings, etc. then you get that benefit. If you don’t have the insurance and can’t afford the out of pocket expense, you skip. The issue is that then people wait until they’re in really bad shape before seeking treatment meaning that outcomes are worse and treatment is much more expensive than if the illness had been caught earlier. Who pays for that? We all do through increased premiums.
This doesn’t happen in a well-run single payer system.
But for expected care like dentist visits you can and absolutely should shop around.
Why? I’m not seeing any benefit to your idea vs single payer dental. It’s not like your mouth isn’t a part of your body or that dental issues don’t effect your overall wellbeing.
Or you can sue them if you feel they should pay.
If someone can’t afford insurance, what makes you think they can afford a lawyer?
Same with roads, utilities, schools etc
Surely you’re not claiming these are free market sectors?
If you listen to online libertarians they seem to believe everything is on the tables. Utilities have already been partially privatised and they’ve successfully impressed the classification of broadband as a utility which would have improved service, accessibility, and price at the cost of corporate profit.
the more you privatise the more expensive things get for a lower quality product.
Err, well, no — a competitive free market will ensure that prices are driven down. What I think you are trying to get at is that healthcare, generally, doesn’t function in a capitalist market, and I would agree. The reason healthcare doesn’t function well under capitalism is because purchases are made under a leonine contract.
Same with roads, utilities, schools etc… the more you privatise the more expensive things get for a lower quality product.
This is the same sort of issue as mentioned above, but for somewhat different reasons — public utilities are intrinsic monopolies, which are inherently anti-competitive.
A well regulated, competitive market is good for many things, but for others it’s atrocious.
It is good under the exact restricitions that you initially described. As soon as you deviate from those restrictions, it breaks down.
How do libertarians generally handle minority rights? Is it as bad as conservatives? A good example are all of these anti-trans and anti choice in abortion bills. What would a libertarian think of these?
Looking on the internet it kind of feels like libertarians are usually suburban people or people so out of the way that the messes in Washington don’t affect them as hard as those in the cities. So I have only met one and he didn’t seem to fond of our black coworkers, if you get what I mean.
Libertarians are just like other political parties. There are different groups that subscribe the the term libertarian each with slightly different beliefs. Whatever extremists people are out there in the Internet do not represent the whole. I really suggest watching some of the 2024 libertarian debates. They are educated smart people who are informed about the complex issues like those you mentioned. This whole thread has been really eye opening for me. I had no idea people had these conceptions about libertarians. I am guessing there are a bunch of far right groups that like to identify as anarchists and throw around the term libertarian while they do. But if you listen to the rhetoric of the political party and the representatives you will see that those ideas are not held by the party as a whole.
To answer your question, libertarians are, in general, pro personal liberties and pro economic liberties. They believe the individual should get to choose. A common line they use is government should not exert force one way or the other. This means they tend to agree with Democrats on issues like race, drugs, LGBTQ etc. The people who actually get a stage in the political party are absolutely against racism, sexism etc. There was a debate recently where the candidates (about 7 primary) were Asked their stance on abortion. Most of them said they were personally pro life BUT they would still veto any bill or cut funding to any program that forced that perspective on others. Any person who goes around saying they think this and they want the government to force and regulate that disagrees fundamentally with the libertarian perspective. I said most, because one of the candidates was unapologetically pro choice. Please don’t think that whatever alt right edge lords are out there actually have any idea what libertarianism is.
I’ll look up some of those debates. Thank you for the explanation.
Libertarians see government as inherently prone to corruption and thus want to limit their power as much as possible.
I prefer voluntary interaction to using force or violence. Personally I believe we’re obligated to help each other and our community and would voluntarily be a collectivist - I’m just not willing to force everyone else to.
We still need to modify liability and IP law to disincentivize megacorps and not use violence to benefit the wealthy.
Government programs IS US HELPING EACHOTHER. Sure corporations have been undermining democracy, but the government is OUR corporation. It’s the only one that we get the choose what it does. The fact we’re obligated to pay taxes is EXACTLY the implementation of your statement “we’re obligated to help eachother”
I don’t understand how you can make statements like this. The threat of violence? The government’s monopoly on violence is rephrased as the will of society to ban violence in public life by restricting violence only to the enforcement of democratically selected laws. There is no other way I can conceive. Should more people have the ability to use violence to enforce their views on others? Should corporations have that right? If no one has that right how can we stop someone who decides THEY have that right?
The whole “government monopoly on violence” is for me the most absurd librarian statement of them all. What’s the alternative? Who should decide what deserves violence? Who should use violence? What do we do if someone breaks this compact? Because the current answers are at least ideally “the people, through democratically enacted, clear and transparent laws”, and “the people, through the police they pay for accountable only to the people” and “apply fair and balanced justice through the judiciary system, run by the people and accountable only to them”. I’m in no way saying that it’s working perfectly as is clear in recent politics, but it’s certainly trending in the right direction in social democracies. We’re closer to that ideal now than we have ever been. As far as I’ve seen libertarian ideology has only come up with absolutely HORRIFYING answers to these questions, or wishy washy nonsense.
but the government is OUR corporation
The issue with this, imo, is that it is a conflict of interest. The government creates the laws — the ultimate restrictions on what a populace can and can’t do. What happens if the government gets perverted to the point where you no longer have a say in changing it?
Should more people have the ability to use violence to enforce their views on others?
It’s about balance. Imbalanced power distribution will lead to abuse. The difference lies in if you want a true democracy, or an oligarchy. In the end, it is always the group that holds the majority power that holds the ultimate say. Would it not be better that this lies in the hands of the people than in the hands of a minority of elected officials?
Dude what the fuck? You do NOT want it to be legal for people to use violence to enforce their views on others. That’s what “might makes right” is and it’s how gangs are run. It’s brutal. Every positive consequence you imagine will be completely dwarfed by the depths of human violence and depravity this would unleash.
The problem lies in the distribution of power. If you have the majority power held within a minority, then that is similar to gang rule, as you have pointed out. Now, if you spread power evenly, and equally, over all people so that there is no imbalance, that puts you on a path to equality. But one must, of course, never forget the saying: “democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what’s for dinner”.
That’s how a lot of stuff works, true. I don’t agree that can work with violence. I also don’t appreciate the conceptual response to very practical questions.
I live in a peaceful society. I wouldn’t want my neighbour to be able to use violence because my tree dropped it’s leaves on his side of the lawn. I wouldn’t want an alternate police force hired and paid by a group of white supremacists (current statistics aside) to enforce laws in a biased manner. Having other corporations able to use violence is an absolute dystopian nightmare and is 100% the cause of every dystopian fantasy world. If the government WASN’T empowered with violence then there is nothing to stop the above 3 scenarios. So I’m not sure what other “equalizing distribution” you’re imagining and I’m not certain a better one exists.
I am open minded, which is why I asked those 3 very specific questions. If your have a better idea I’m all ears. If your idea is just to open up the floodgates and hope for the best because that will equalise access to violence and more equal is more better, then I will keep treating libertarian ideology as a threat to civilization. Mostly ideas that sound nice, but no practicable solutions that don’t destroy society. Like communism.
I don’t agree that can work with violence.
What are you referring to?
I also don’t appreciate the conceptual response to very practical questions.
I apologize if I have offended you — that wasn’t my intent. What exactly do you mean by this?
I wouldn’t want my neighbour to be able to use violence because my tree dropped it’s leaves on his side of the lawn.
This depends. A violent outcome need not be in response to an action, but it can stem from it. Laws carry with them the threat of force.
I wouldn’t want an alternate police force hired and paid by a group of white supremacists (current statistics aside) to enforce laws in a biased manner.
If a country allows for a citizens arrest, everyone holds within themselves the power of enforcing the law. Though you may be referring to the idea of paying for private police and leaving others without. If so, this is more of a question of positive and negative liberties. Having a public police force would be a positive liberty, imo — in that case, it potentially doesn’t align with libertarianism, but that is very debatable.
Having other corporations able to use violence is an absolute dystopian nightmare
Do note that if a corporation is not allowed to use violence, then that means that they cannot take it upon themselves to protect their property. Perhaps you think that that is how it should be?
If the government WASN’T empowered with violence then there is nothing to stop the above 3 scenarios.
I’m not sure I follow this point. I don’t think that I have argued that the government shouldn’t be allowed to use force — it wasn’t my intent if my previous statements were interpreted in that way. The point that I’m trying to make is that the government should be kept in check. You have pointed out that threat of violence is what must be used to uphold the law. The only way for the people to keep the government in check is for the people to keep the government under threat of violence. If the distribution is just right, then no minority group in a democracy can hold the majority of the power.
I am open minded, which is why I asked those 3 very specific questions.
Which 3 questions are you referring to?
more equal is more better
I don’t understand this point. Are you stating that you don’t believe in individual equality?
So just go offer medicine to your community for free. Too bad we don’t have enough of a free market to allow you to do that though, right?
I’m honestly not sure what you think the dunk is here.
The problem with this is that in a free democratic system, government is something you do, not something which is done to you. You can’t just pick and choose which aspects of government you like. Part of the social contract is that if you want clean water and plumbing and shit, then you agree to abide by fair democratic consensus. If you don’t, I suppose you are free to go live in the woods.
The problem with this is that in a free democratic system, government is something you do, not something which is done to you.
It is both.
To me, this reads like it implies that government and govt programs are bad because of the govt employees, but if you were to take those same “corrupt” politicians and put them to work at private companies that they would stop being “corrupt.” Like it is a belief/reaction to one specific bad instance of a large government/program. “The government sucks at program X, so if we get rid of that program, the same general population will gain empathy, morals and efficiency if working for a company to run program X.”
All monopolizations of power should be held under the utmost scrutiny.
It’s a about competition. I’m not saying business owners aren’t corrupt. But if one company, say nestle, turns out to be rotten then you can buy your chocolate chips from another company. But with government I don’t have a say. If I don’t pay taxes I go to jail and if I don’t like how my taxes are spent then too bad. There is no alternative.
It’s a about
competitionmonopoly.FTFY.
How often do we see real competition? Even if a new company comes along with a great idea, it’s more likely to be gobbled up by a bigger company than be left to flourish.
All the time. Competition is going on all the time. Have you ever worked for any company ever?
Ten major companies control all the food in the US, and six companies control all the media.
So not one? So there’s competition?
Yes, a competition to see which company ends up runnign everything.
And that’s the right of the individual who owns and started the company. Part of the problem is people don’t seek alternatives and just buy what is convenient. People value the big brand names. If we want competition then look for alternatives. Look around at the brands you use and figure for yourself if you are buying big brands or supporting competition and smaller brands. Focus on your contribution. We can’t and shouldn’t control others. Worrying about what you support is enough on its own.
But with government I don’t have a say. If I don’t pay taxes I go to jail and if I don’t like how my taxes are spent then too bad. There is no alternative.
It’s called voting, really basic part of our world you seem to have forgotten about.
Voting does not excuse you from whatever obligations a majority has decided are best for you.
You happy with how that’s been going so far? Do you honestly feel represented by trump/biden? We are presented two rotten options and told we get a say in politics. That’s just one more option than dictatorships. If I don’t want us tax dollars gifting missiles to Israel I have no option in either party. That’s not a say in government. I don’t get to tell the president to spend my portion of the taxes. I would rather keep those taxes and voluntarily give to homeless shelters and other charitable groups which do a much better job helping people then the government ever will.
There is often no alternative in private business either. Take Nestle for example. Go look up how many different brands they actually own. You may think you’ve boycotted them, but in fact you’re just buying one of their hundreds of other brands. We’re very late in the capitalist system now, and the power has been heavily consolidated. Many industries are completely dominated by 1-3 companies, and they all collude to eliminate competition.
Name a nestle product that doesn’t have competition.
Name a Nestle product where the major competition isn’t another Nestle product.
Liberty (to me) is freedom from authority.
The term for this is “negative liberty”: the freedom from something; whereas, “positive liberty” is the freedom to do something. Libertarianism, generally, aligns with the idea of negative liberty.
If there is freedom from a governing authority then there is no one to take away my freedom to do what I like. Sounds like two ways of saying the same thing. Maybe I miss your point.
The distinction between positive and negative liberties is, indeed, a rather blurry one, but there is generally a difference in mindset between the two. That being said, libertarianism seeks to minimize the size and influence of the government, but they don’t seek to abolish it — those that seek to abolish it are anarchists (I’m not sure if I am reading your comment correctly, but it seems that you are advocating for anarchism rather than libertarianism when you said “freedom from a governing authority”). It’s important to note that negative liberty is a concept that distinguishes a certain class of liberties — it doesn’t require the presence of a government.
Well said, I probably wasn’t very clear, but I am not an anarchist. There are certain critical functions that the government must control. When I say freedom from authority I refer to specific government agencies that can exert force on individuals. Government roads don’t force users to do anything but rather empower citizens.
Government roads don’t force users to do anything but rather empower citizens.
Another argument for why government roads are ethical is because they fight off monopolization — property ownership is at high risk for monopolization. I’m not sure if the Georgist idea of taxing the land value that a private road would be on is enough.
Right, government should provide oversight to public goods that, by their nature, require monopolies such as roads or utilities. Government also needs to have a judicial branch that mediates conflicts between individuals and entities.
I agree with both statements.
Famous libertarian Friedrich Hayek supported universal basic income. As a libertarian myself, I always ask myself: “Will this make people more free?” If the answer is yes, then I support it because that’s what true libertarianism is. In the case of UBI and universal healthcare, both of those would unequivocally make people more free. People will be more free to choose a profession they like rather than one that merely keeps a roof over their heads. America already has a form of limited universal healthcare. It just happens to be restricted to the military and maybe some other government servants. Those members don’t have to worry about their healthcare and it allows them to focus their attention on more important matters, as their healthcare needs are met. Clearly the government has seen that universal healthcare is beneficial.
The sovereign citizens and the right wingers masquerading as Libertarians have given the ideology a bad name.
If anarchists are often misunderstood I’d imagine libertarians even more so. Both philosophies advocate for the lack of a state, splitting between preference towards the community/collective vs individual, and are often misinterpreted to mean every thing the state does or should provide today can’t exist without it.
[Libertarianism] advocate[s] for the lack of a state
No it doesn’t. Anarchism advocates for the abolition of the state, libertarianism advocates for minarchy — the minimization of the state.
Famous libertarian Friedrich Hayek supported universal basic income
That’s a lie people love to repeat. Hayek was in favor of helping people who needed help, he explicitly was against money for freeloaders.
I recently got out of the military and it’s been a complete shock how bad the private healthcare system is. So much red tape, so many charges, so much money being spent on both ends: to the insurance company, again to the insurance company (copays), and then to the provider when the insurance company won’t cover things.
With Tricare? “Hey doc, I need this med for my migraines.” “Alright, here you go.” No charge.
The American health system is a complete scam keeping people under the boot of their employers and of the for-profit insurance companies.
In the case of UBI and universal healthcare, both of those would unequivocally make people more free.
It is important to note that, specifically, they are examples of positive liberty.
The sovereign citizens and the right wingers masquerading as Libertarians have given the ideology a bad name.
I agree.
Honestly it’s just an ethical stance against forcing one to pay for another, emphasis on force.
so is it unethical for society to take care of orphans?
Fuck them orphans. (Completely irrelevant amd illogical appeals to emotion will be treated as seriously as deserved)
Orphans are real and a serious issue. A large percentage of homeless people today are people who went through the US foster system.
Children whose parents are A) unable B) unwilling or C) dead … all become society’s problem to feed and house and you’ve basically said that its unethical to do so.
Stay on topic
We all pay for it when a child with potential gets sick and dies because their parents couldn’t afford health care. We all pay in one way or another when health care bankrupts a family. We are all going to pay for it anyways, and if someone in a worse financial position than you needs health care and your taxes can provide that, you’re garbage if you feel you’re being forced or you’re mad cause a poor person got medicine with your taxes.
No. I’m a Canadian that actually knows what socialized programs like healthcare do to a country. It’s not great. Socialized medicine is one of the major of the hundred little cuts impoverishing Canadians. Mississippi and Alabama have higher per capita average income and personal wealth than the richest Canadian province, before and after taxes. Despite the huge amount of wealth transfer to the government for reallocation, they inevitably start acting like its their money, wasted in ridiculous ways aside from the original point, a bureaucratic mafia forms intent on nothing but its own continuance, and then you’ve Canadians denied health insurance either formally (I’m not allowed to have it because I’ve not a fixed address in the province I pay income tax, but i can’t just not pay taxes either) or informally by denial of needed care (that’s the common one). I do have American health insurance. I spend 5 months a year in the states, acquiring insurance was as simple as paying for it.
I’m not being impoverished by universal health care, I’m being impoverished by corporation and those “free market” fucks who are anti union, anti workers, and pro fascism.
Sure you are lil buddy.
Insults are a sure sign that your argument was destroyed and you can’t handle it
Just keep telling yourself that
This is the problem with "ism"s. At whatever point you decide that philosophy X is the answer to everything, you start being wrong about a lot of the world, because whatever it is, there’s at least like 30% of situations (and potentially a lot more) that your particular ism actually isn’t the answer to.
Libertarianism or anti-imperialism or ACAB or socialism or pro-the-Democrats or anarchist or whatever it is, it’s never always the answer. Trying to hold a debate about, well is it philosophy X or philosophy Y that’s always right about everything, or any other discussion that feeds into the basic wrong premise, is just compounding the imaginary non-situation-dependent way of looking at it.
Although yes some of them are wrong a lot more of the time than some others.
Before applying any of these so-called “isms” to the collective, the most important step, imo, is to ensure that there is synchronization on the collective’s ideals and principles. In general, understanding all extremes, their benefits and drawbacks, is the best approach forward. One must be rooted in their ideals and draw from diverse pools of experience to round out one’s beliefs.
I consider myself a libertarian and I believe in free healthcare. I think certain industries should not be run for profit. It creates perverse incentives that harm the common man. For example healthcare.
If there’s a profit incentive in bealthcare, there is incentive for drug companies or hospitals to raise their prices. This would mean less people getting treatment or more people in medical debt.
Another industry I think shouldn’t be for profit is education. We want an educated population. It should be encouraged, so it should be free for anyone who wants it.
In my view, libertarianism is a perspective that the government should interfere with the personal liberties of the individual as little as possible.
Every single government action should be heavily scrutinized and challenged. Some actions are justified. For example regulating healthcare I think is justified. You are taking away the liberty of starting a hospital - but the benefits outweigh the costs.
I believe that cooperatives should be encouraged if not explicitly mandated for large companies.
I think to Chomsky’s conception of anarchism. Look at all hierarchies of power and challenge them. Some are justified - the power a father has over his child. Some are not - the power a cash advance place has over their customer base.
I think governments often make mistakes and through heavy handed actions end up screwing the average person. By dramatically limiting government action, you help prevent this.
Remember the government is not your friend.
The question was “Why do you not believe in universal healthcare?” not “Why don’t you like the libertarian movement?” Jeez, guys.
The liberty they believe in is different than the more common use of the word, perhaps.
“liberty to” rather than “liberty from”.
It’s not really about liberty, it’s about freedom from taxes and consequences. They don’t get far enough in the reasoning to understand that they would benefit.
Why the hell do you think that libertarians don’t believe in universal healthcare?
Disclaimer, I am not a libertarian by a long shot.
But - there is a difference between freedom to and freedom from. I think in general libertarians believe in freedom to, not freedom from. So you are free to yell, but not free from noise. You are free to walk in traffic, not free from being run over.
It almost makes sense, I don’t think people should be free from seeing things that offend them, right? Or free from consequences. So no, they don’t think freedom from sickness is a right.
You’re right especially in that it almost makes sense - the only people I’ve seen who are more allergic to nuance than libertarians are Trumpists
there is a difference between freedom to and freedom from
The terms that you are looking for are postive and negative liberty, respectively.
Libertarians are a bunch of myopic cunts.
Don’t expect unbiased learning about politics on Lemmy.
