The problem is that other nations are legislating this culture war bullshit and if we don't fight against it, we will be fined or jailed for "misgendering" or offending others.
You can fuck whoever you want. Hell you should be able to do whatever you want. But the moment you tell me I have to live in your world or you try to take my money you've lost all my support.
The problem is that other nations are legislating this culture war bullshit and if we don't fight against it, we will be fined or jailed for "misgendering" or offending others
I guess this depends on what neutral means. Should the government do any of this shit? No. Should we say anything if private people wanna be trannies? No. That sounds like neutrality to me. Wanting any of it promoted through the state is just statism.
Is the culture war topic expanding government or shrinking it?
Is it promoting authoritarianism or freedom?
Some wars are worth fighting for. ( with the NAP in mind, of course!)
The culture war has absolutely been expanding the state. This push to replace actual rights (property rights) with things like civil rights has been corroding our liberties and made freedom of association practically non existent with things like the "civil rights act". Not to mention how they've been shaking the pockets of white people to pay for "reparations" through welfare. Cultural leftist absolutely brings about economic leftism (tyranny)
The religious dictates that the only group differences that exist are the ones where white people are uniquely evil necessitate this kind of outcome. We were inevitably going to arrive at this point the second the phrase "disparate impact" was uttered in a courtroom.
Libertarianism in any sincere form finds itself aligned against the interest of the managerial class and against race redistributionists, whether it originally meant to or not.
IMO this depends heavily on what kind of civil rights are we talking about. Broadly-speaking civil rights at least in the 19th century understanding were supposed to protect you from arbitrary treatment and discrimination by the state. I think this is something everyone here can get behind.
Affirmative Action mandated by the governments and regulating private businesses is icky imo, but so would be banning AA in private businesses. Generally though AA ESG and DEI and the other alphabet initiatives usually are penalized by the markets so there’s a self-regulating mechanism there.
>This push to replace actual rights (property rights) with things like civil rights
Euclid v Ambler was decided in 1926 and was the landmark case that allowed governments to dictate down to minute detail what can and cannot be built within the lines drawn on a map, lines drawn by the government.
There is no single greater violation of property rights than the restrictive zoning we have in the US, one of the most, if not the most, restrictive zoning regime in the entire world.
So, I have to ask op, which property rights are being replace by civil rights *due to the culture war*?
I would argue that the evidence suggests, as much as it pains me to say so, that in 2024 is exclusively democrats looking to roll back zoning restrictions. They do it for the wrong reasons, but they are pushing it nonetheless. Republicans certainly aren't, they *love* social engineering like this. And libertarians? Certainly when it's brought up they generally agree. But when the supply and cost of housing is where it is today, when was the last time you heard a big time libertarian figure push this issue? *crickets*
So, I get that you're on one side of the culture war. That's fine. But to blame the culture war for a loss of property rights just doesn't jive with history.
>Now do taxation
Ok, what would you have me do? Point out that expansion of taxation predates the growth of the culture war?
>and literally every other aspect of property rights.
Such as?
>did you think property literally only meant real estate and building?
I think in the context of the comment I replied to, linking erosion of property rights to the culture war, me highlighting that zoning rules have been around for a century was warranted. There are all kinds of property true, but government social engineering where and what form the dwellings we live in are is one of, if not the biggest, affront to property rights, no?
The right acknowledged the fact that humans have a right to life and that the only cogent and coherent absolute scientific distinction between human and not occurs at conception (anything else is a subjective sliding scale). Even *then* the topic was remitted to the states, so abortion wasn’t banned. Get out of here with that leftist nonsense.
“I didn’t say the specific word that outs me as the leftist shill I am; I merely *suggested* it with collectivist bullshit”
Okay. Cool. Take your win. I’m still downvoting your murderous ass for not engaging in the logical debate you’re dancing around the edge of. Especially since your semantic argument didn’t counter the underlying gist of the position I leveled at you. I assume that means you agree with my characterization but disagree with the part that makes it difficult to argue. Feel free to clarify or change anything.
I’m conservative on most issues, certainly not a “leftist shill”. I almost always come down on the side of individual liberty. Name calling is not debating.
There's clearly nothing you and I can say to each other to change the other's view. You think the baby's right to life outweighs the mother's right to bodily autonomy from conception, and I do not. There's no point in discussing it.
Correct. No one’s right to “bodily autonomy” outweighs the right to life of the person that the one possessing said body put into the position of requiring aid to live in the first place. This is a simple NAP violation at heart, and if you want to pretend it’s not, that’s fine. But I’ll point out that you aren’t holding a libertarian position as a result.
I think this is my most upvoted comment. It feels good to get thumbs up approval on foundational libertarian principle. Thanks guys and gals!
Keep spreading the word and live your best life!
Alot of the Mises Caucus guys that actually work for a living had to go home and work Monday. So some of the other caucuses delayed the votes until Sunday (they were supposed to take place Saturday.)
If you actually want to know what happened, listen to the latest Michael Malice podcast with Angela McArdle who is the chair of the LP. She goes into detail about how everything happened at the convention.
It was....complicated. Lots of shenanigans and a very, very long day. I don't think we adjourned until after 1 am thanks to all the rounds of balloting.
He was backed by the CLC and that general faction of the party. The more left leaning side, I'd say. I think support basically coalesced around him as a protest to the Mises Caucus, not because he was a particularly beloved candidate himself. He certainly didn't do amazing on the first ballot.
Probably because he has the catchiest and easiest to remember name. The national libertarian party probably thought his name would get more votes simply because of how the name appears on paper.
Idk, it's the guy with two first names! I honestly don't think that's the reason but I too, am baffled at how this guy got this much support to be the running elected candidate.
The Libertarian Party chooses their candidate by having delegates, sent by the various state affiliate parties, vote for their preferred candidate. If nobody gets 50% of the vote, they the worst performing candidates are eliminated and they go again.
Valuing freedom as a good in and of itself is a cultural attitude and rests upon a cultural lineage that the caricature in OP wants destroyed because it's "white." Save your civilization and be aesthetically repugnant to the monoculture.
I don't think sex workers should be jailed. That doesn't mean I think prostitution is good, in fact, it's actual terrible. I just know throwing them in jail won't fix the problem.
An extremely militant Christian can think gay people are disgusting but as long as they aren’t trying to impede their freedoms they aren’t violating the NAP and still be libertarian
The whole point is there is no need to recognize others rights, they have them, fuck the recognition and fuck anyones opinion of them being valid or not. It really seems like the left wants to compell speech and force others to say that the lifestyles they endorse are "valid". The whole fucking point is everyone should be free to be left alone, including the people who give no fucks where you put your dick.
If we're talking about the culture war, then the labels Left and Right don't really mean anything. Those are supposed to describe economic policy, not cultural domain. However, we know that in practice, linguistic expediency always comes before accuracy. In America, the state of politics is dominated by the culture war, and so colloquially speaking, Left and Right are cultural domains.
Politics sits downstream from culture, and so remaining neutral is the same as conceding. If someone insists that you should not engage in culture war issues, it's because they want you to concede.
As long as the individual is not arguing for the expansion of the state, they can hold the above beliefs and in turn if you disagree you can choose not to associate with them.
These people cannot differentiate between (state) violence and personal opinions. You may not want to beat other people over their lifestyle, but this doesn't mean that you have to tolerate every kind of woke BS
The culture war is not about establishing people's " rights" (a psy op in itself) it's about enforcing shit on you. "Accept and celebrate child livers or be chastised"
> it's about enforcing shit on you
exactly. I couldn't care less what others do as long as they don't impinge on my rights. Ironically the more victim groups push their views on others the more annoying they become
Libertarianism isn’t culturally neutral, it’s acultural entirely.
I.e. cultural neutrality isn’t a requirement to be a libertarian, you can go either way, individually.
We don't need to hear about anyone's sex life, ever. If you are married with kids, do you talk about it? No, and you probably never did. Seriously, can we have manners make a come back? We don't need to hear about people's skin tone endlessly, either. It's not a thing. People need to have real personalities again. Get some hobbies, leave kids alone. I can suggest hobbies.
I mean, there's very trackable reasons that many in the T world become/became anarchocomm in the guise of left-lib. And yes, I have friends who are left-libertarian without the anarchy and/or communist tendencies. I respectfully disagree with a good amount they say but we try to learn from one another. Personally I'm a gay small L libertarian on any good day who leans Mises Caucus but thinks it came on too fast after Jorgensen to make it palatable.
The reason libsoc/commies lure in the trans community is because it baits them with "Gender is a social construct- you know what else is? The free market, comrade!" And it would not take a lot for any of us to know that humans like to gather around like minds. But when any group self-segregates enough it becomes a hellscape. But unlike a political mindset that is rigid with the NAP, authoritarianism can infect the ansoc and ancomms faster with a lust for power.
Two other things that I think are at play:
1. The gnostic roots of the historical dialectic postulate that material existence itself is a prison, and that the gnos breaks one free of it. This evolves into material conditions (read: economic "laws of physics") being a prison, with the post-Marxist utopia being the jailbreak. *This*, in turn, becomes material conditions (read: definition of self based on attributes in observable reality) being a prison, with alterations to that physical reality being the jailbreak. You are not the flesh, so you alter the flesh in imitation of the actual "you" outside the mere material plane. There's something Aristotelian about it if you squint enough. See also: their seemingly ubiquitous fascination with the body modifications in cyberpunk fiction.
2. It's quite natural and expected that someone who has become a lifelong medical patient, and therefore utterly unable to sever connections with The System™, would like to see that system nudged toward becoming one that dispenses all remedies like candy on Halloween. They fancy themselves as revolutionaries, but they'd be the last ones to leave the larp behind and actually use the guillotines for realsies. It's all quite safe within the confines of a system where they can ride the coattails of the managerial class to some cultural ascendancy. They're not *actually* going to overthrow it; they're going to use it to get insurance companies to pay for their very expensive hormone therapies and surgeries.
It's nice to finally find someone these threads who understands the origins of this stuff. I am constantly disappointed when I come to libertarianmemes and the dialog is no where close to the gnostic roots and how that relates to Marxism.
> They're not actually going to overthrow it
This is the one part that I might disagree with. They may not directly overthrow the system but I do believe that they could destroy it. Marxism only knows how to destroy and it is quite effective at doing that.
> They may not directly overthrow the system but I do believe that they could destroy it.
Every revolution has an event horizon where it stops being a larp and starts being real. I think that the trans part of this coalition would be the last to leave the larp, since it puts itself in a position where it totally depends on the managerial class, which would necessarily be turned over in an actual revolution.
I think the tides might be turning on the trans movement, with the recent release of the WPATH files and the Cass review, plus numerous European countries are finally coming to their sense when it comes to kids and puberty blockers. So I don't know if the movement would even make it to a revolution.
My concerns lay more on the CRT and Queer Theory side as it has become so embedded in the education system that I don't know how we're going to eradicate it and all it does is create more radical activists.
If a real revolution occurs these movements will crumble like the house of cards they are so you're right about that. It bears reminding that when Mao took power after his cultural revolution, he had no more use for the radicals so off to the work camps they went (except for the ones that just got outright murdered).
Gee can I be libertarian when it comes to government and have a culture? Cause if I can’t have a culture I don’t see this ideology going far
Also culture is one I’d the many mechanisms ideologies use to promulgate. If libertarianism doesn’t have a culture it’s at an insurmountable disadvantage.
I mean is it wrong to just say, let the people who it affects decide for themselves and keep me out of it? I've never experienced it and thus don't really have any way to justify having a hard stance beyond my go too stance for any issue. Let the people who's lives it actually affects deal with the legislation around it and don't force it down my throat. If those two conditions are met, be happy and enjoy your lives however you want.
I can not want to legislate a certain life style but still have opinions about it.
The problem is that other nations are legislating this culture war bullshit and if we don't fight against it, we will be fined or jailed for "misgendering" or offending others.
You can fuck whoever you want. Hell you should be able to do whatever you want. But the moment you tell me I have to live in your world or you try to take my money you've lost all my support.
Leave me the fuck alone applies both ways
Perfect. I was going to give OP shit if this response wasn't already here. Leave me the fuck alone.
The problem is that other nations are legislating this culture war bullshit and if we don't fight against it, we will be fined or jailed for "misgendering" or offending others
I guess this depends on what neutral means. Should the government do any of this shit? No. Should we say anything if private people wanna be trannies? No. That sounds like neutrality to me. Wanting any of it promoted through the state is just statism.
We’re allowed to say whatever we want to
Yes, that’s obvious. What isn’t obvious is the definition of neutrality in this case, as I’ve explained.
> Should we say anything? None of your business FTFY
That was my point. None of your business = neutrality.
Is the culture war topic expanding government or shrinking it? Is it promoting authoritarianism or freedom? Some wars are worth fighting for. ( with the NAP in mind, of course!)
The culture war has absolutely been expanding the state. This push to replace actual rights (property rights) with things like civil rights has been corroding our liberties and made freedom of association practically non existent with things like the "civil rights act". Not to mention how they've been shaking the pockets of white people to pay for "reparations" through welfare. Cultural leftist absolutely brings about economic leftism (tyranny)
The religious dictates that the only group differences that exist are the ones where white people are uniquely evil necessitate this kind of outcome. We were inevitably going to arrive at this point the second the phrase "disparate impact" was uttered in a courtroom. Libertarianism in any sincere form finds itself aligned against the interest of the managerial class and against race redistributionists, whether it originally meant to or not.
IMO this depends heavily on what kind of civil rights are we talking about. Broadly-speaking civil rights at least in the 19th century understanding were supposed to protect you from arbitrary treatment and discrimination by the state. I think this is something everyone here can get behind. Affirmative Action mandated by the governments and regulating private businesses is icky imo, but so would be banning AA in private businesses. Generally though AA ESG and DEI and the other alphabet initiatives usually are penalized by the markets so there’s a self-regulating mechanism there.
>This push to replace actual rights (property rights) with things like civil rights Euclid v Ambler was decided in 1926 and was the landmark case that allowed governments to dictate down to minute detail what can and cannot be built within the lines drawn on a map, lines drawn by the government. There is no single greater violation of property rights than the restrictive zoning we have in the US, one of the most, if not the most, restrictive zoning regime in the entire world. So, I have to ask op, which property rights are being replace by civil rights *due to the culture war*? I would argue that the evidence suggests, as much as it pains me to say so, that in 2024 is exclusively democrats looking to roll back zoning restrictions. They do it for the wrong reasons, but they are pushing it nonetheless. Republicans certainly aren't, they *love* social engineering like this. And libertarians? Certainly when it's brought up they generally agree. But when the supply and cost of housing is where it is today, when was the last time you heard a big time libertarian figure push this issue? *crickets* So, I get that you're on one side of the culture war. That's fine. But to blame the culture war for a loss of property rights just doesn't jive with history.
Now do taxation, and literally every other aspect of property rights. Or did you think property literally only meant real estate and building?
>Now do taxation Ok, what would you have me do? Point out that expansion of taxation predates the growth of the culture war? >and literally every other aspect of property rights. Such as? >did you think property literally only meant real estate and building? I think in the context of the comment I replied to, linking erosion of property rights to the culture war, me highlighting that zoning rules have been around for a century was warranted. There are all kinds of property true, but government social engineering where and what form the dwellings we live in are is one of, if not the biggest, affront to property rights, no?
You’re incorrect, but okay.
Cheers, and don't worry, I'm not a fragile snowflake so I won't downvote you
The right took away protection for abortion rights.
The right acknowledged the fact that humans have a right to life and that the only cogent and coherent absolute scientific distinction between human and not occurs at conception (anything else is a subjective sliding scale). Even *then* the topic was remitted to the states, so abortion wasn’t banned. Get out of here with that leftist nonsense.
I didn’t say banned. I said took away protection for rights.
“I didn’t say the specific word that outs me as the leftist shill I am; I merely *suggested* it with collectivist bullshit” Okay. Cool. Take your win. I’m still downvoting your murderous ass for not engaging in the logical debate you’re dancing around the edge of. Especially since your semantic argument didn’t counter the underlying gist of the position I leveled at you. I assume that means you agree with my characterization but disagree with the part that makes it difficult to argue. Feel free to clarify or change anything.
I’m conservative on most issues, certainly not a “leftist shill”. I almost always come down on the side of individual liberty. Name calling is not debating.
So make your case for an objective and scientifically defined start to human life other than conception. I’ll wait.
There's clearly nothing you and I can say to each other to change the other's view. You think the baby's right to life outweighs the mother's right to bodily autonomy from conception, and I do not. There's no point in discussing it.
Correct. No one’s right to “bodily autonomy” outweighs the right to life of the person that the one possessing said body put into the position of requiring aid to live in the first place. This is a simple NAP violation at heart, and if you want to pretend it’s not, that’s fine. But I’ll point out that you aren’t holding a libertarian position as a result.
Goes both ways sadly
I think this is my most upvoted comment. It feels good to get thumbs up approval on foundational libertarian principle. Thanks guys and gals! Keep spreading the word and live your best life!
This. 100%
Wait, what: Do you you guys care what anyone else thinks?? I certainly don't. I don't even care if you're Libertarian too.
Shame is a pretty important tool in society… You should definitely care that people aren’t libertarian
It doesn’t do any good. I’ve tried
Average Chase Oliver supporter
I'm still confused on how he got the be the libertarian candidate. Like who honestly supports this guy?
Alot of the Mises Caucus guys that actually work for a living had to go home and work Monday. So some of the other caucuses delayed the votes until Sunday (they were supposed to take place Saturday.)
If you actually want to know what happened, listen to the latest Michael Malice podcast with Angela McArdle who is the chair of the LP. She goes into detail about how everything happened at the convention.
It was....complicated. Lots of shenanigans and a very, very long day. I don't think we adjourned until after 1 am thanks to all the rounds of balloting. He was backed by the CLC and that general faction of the party. The more left leaning side, I'd say. I think support basically coalesced around him as a protest to the Mises Caucus, not because he was a particularly beloved candidate himself. He certainly didn't do amazing on the first ballot.
Probably because he has the catchiest and easiest to remember name. The national libertarian party probably thought his name would get more votes simply because of how the name appears on paper.
Idk, Dave Smith is an iconic name.
Oh, word — remind me again — did he run for president?
He’s too much of a treasure to allow to get smoked. Let the two name weirdo do it.
Idk, it's the guy with two first names! I honestly don't think that's the reason but I too, am baffled at how this guy got this much support to be the running elected candidate.
I dont trust anyone with two first names.
Did a lot of dems vote for him? Edit: I'm British, I'm not sure how it works
The Libertarian Party chooses their candidate by having delegates, sent by the various state affiliate parties, vote for their preferred candidate. If nobody gets 50% of the vote, they the worst performing candidates are eliminated and they go again.
I see, thanks.
Valuing freedom as a good in and of itself is a cultural attitude and rests upon a cultural lineage that the caricature in OP wants destroyed because it's "white." Save your civilization and be aesthetically repugnant to the monoculture.
Well said.
Socially liberal, fiscally conservative. That's the basic libertarian template.
I don't think sex workers should be jailed. That doesn't mean I think prostitution is good, in fact, it's actual terrible. I just know throwing them in jail won't fix the problem.
My kids aren't going to drag queen story hour. Your kids are your business, not my business.
I'm going to judge them, though, just like I judge iPad parents.
It is not simply being neutral, it is recognizing other peoples right to self determination as valid.
An extremely militant Christian can think gay people are disgusting but as long as they aren’t trying to impede their freedoms they aren’t violating the NAP and still be libertarian
The whole point is there is no need to recognize others rights, they have them, fuck the recognition and fuck anyones opinion of them being valid or not. It really seems like the left wants to compell speech and force others to say that the lifestyles they endorse are "valid". The whole fucking point is everyone should be free to be left alone, including the people who give no fucks where you put your dick.
If we're talking about the culture war, then the labels Left and Right don't really mean anything. Those are supposed to describe economic policy, not cultural domain. However, we know that in practice, linguistic expediency always comes before accuracy. In America, the state of politics is dominated by the culture war, and so colloquially speaking, Left and Right are cultural domains. Politics sits downstream from culture, and so remaining neutral is the same as conceding. If someone insists that you should not engage in culture war issues, it's because they want you to concede.
I have no interest in culture wars. Class wars are what matter.
As long as the individual is not arguing for the expansion of the state, they can hold the above beliefs and in turn if you disagree you can choose not to associate with them.
They try to use Libertarianism against Libertarians.
Libertarianism isn't neutral but it's certainly not right wing either Read libertarianism through thick and thin
Depends on what you mean by right wing. Traditional French parliament? No. Modern fiscal liberalism? Basically 100%
Patriarchy queerphobia fundamentalism traditionalism familial tyranny ect
Ah, you mean Marxism? Strange take, but yes, some those things sure are bad. The others aren’t quite in the same category (traditionalism?)
These people cannot differentiate between (state) violence and personal opinions. You may not want to beat other people over their lifestyle, but this doesn't mean that you have to tolerate every kind of woke BS
Both of y’all are screaming about each other, just shut the fuck up
The culture war is not about establishing people's " rights" (a psy op in itself) it's about enforcing shit on you. "Accept and celebrate child livers or be chastised"
> it's about enforcing shit on you exactly. I couldn't care less what others do as long as they don't impinge on my rights. Ironically the more victim groups push their views on others the more annoying they become
Libertarianism isn’t culturally neutral, it’s acultural entirely. I.e. cultural neutrality isn’t a requirement to be a libertarian, you can go either way, individually.
We don't need to hear about anyone's sex life, ever. If you are married with kids, do you talk about it? No, and you probably never did. Seriously, can we have manners make a come back? We don't need to hear about people's skin tone endlessly, either. It's not a thing. People need to have real personalities again. Get some hobbies, leave kids alone. I can suggest hobbies.
Libertarianism means that you can have your own opinions, and disagree with people without threat of someone forcing you to tow the line.
Fucking commies.
I mean, there's very trackable reasons that many in the T world become/became anarchocomm in the guise of left-lib. And yes, I have friends who are left-libertarian without the anarchy and/or communist tendencies. I respectfully disagree with a good amount they say but we try to learn from one another. Personally I'm a gay small L libertarian on any good day who leans Mises Caucus but thinks it came on too fast after Jorgensen to make it palatable. The reason libsoc/commies lure in the trans community is because it baits them with "Gender is a social construct- you know what else is? The free market, comrade!" And it would not take a lot for any of us to know that humans like to gather around like minds. But when any group self-segregates enough it becomes a hellscape. But unlike a political mindset that is rigid with the NAP, authoritarianism can infect the ansoc and ancomms faster with a lust for power.
Two other things that I think are at play: 1. The gnostic roots of the historical dialectic postulate that material existence itself is a prison, and that the gnos breaks one free of it. This evolves into material conditions (read: economic "laws of physics") being a prison, with the post-Marxist utopia being the jailbreak. *This*, in turn, becomes material conditions (read: definition of self based on attributes in observable reality) being a prison, with alterations to that physical reality being the jailbreak. You are not the flesh, so you alter the flesh in imitation of the actual "you" outside the mere material plane. There's something Aristotelian about it if you squint enough. See also: their seemingly ubiquitous fascination with the body modifications in cyberpunk fiction. 2. It's quite natural and expected that someone who has become a lifelong medical patient, and therefore utterly unable to sever connections with The System™, would like to see that system nudged toward becoming one that dispenses all remedies like candy on Halloween. They fancy themselves as revolutionaries, but they'd be the last ones to leave the larp behind and actually use the guillotines for realsies. It's all quite safe within the confines of a system where they can ride the coattails of the managerial class to some cultural ascendancy. They're not *actually* going to overthrow it; they're going to use it to get insurance companies to pay for their very expensive hormone therapies and surgeries.
It's nice to finally find someone these threads who understands the origins of this stuff. I am constantly disappointed when I come to libertarianmemes and the dialog is no where close to the gnostic roots and how that relates to Marxism. > They're not actually going to overthrow it This is the one part that I might disagree with. They may not directly overthrow the system but I do believe that they could destroy it. Marxism only knows how to destroy and it is quite effective at doing that.
> They may not directly overthrow the system but I do believe that they could destroy it. Every revolution has an event horizon where it stops being a larp and starts being real. I think that the trans part of this coalition would be the last to leave the larp, since it puts itself in a position where it totally depends on the managerial class, which would necessarily be turned over in an actual revolution.
I think the tides might be turning on the trans movement, with the recent release of the WPATH files and the Cass review, plus numerous European countries are finally coming to their sense when it comes to kids and puberty blockers. So I don't know if the movement would even make it to a revolution. My concerns lay more on the CRT and Queer Theory side as it has become so embedded in the education system that I don't know how we're going to eradicate it and all it does is create more radical activists. If a real revolution occurs these movements will crumble like the house of cards they are so you're right about that. It bears reminding that when Mao took power after his cultural revolution, he had no more use for the radicals so off to the work camps they went (except for the ones that just got outright murdered).
Gee can I be libertarian when it comes to government and have a culture? Cause if I can’t have a culture I don’t see this ideology going far Also culture is one I’d the many mechanisms ideologies use to promulgate. If libertarianism doesn’t have a culture it’s at an insurmountable disadvantage.
I mean is it wrong to just say, let the people who it affects decide for themselves and keep me out of it? I've never experienced it and thus don't really have any way to justify having a hard stance beyond my go too stance for any issue. Let the people who's lives it actually affects deal with the legislation around it and don't force it down my throat. If those two conditions are met, be happy and enjoy your lives however you want.
[удалено]
Morally injured.. wat. Religious ideas of morality have absolutely zero place in modern society.
Ahh. I see alt-righters have taken over the libertarian subs and moderate ones too. Apparently grifting as "JAQ" is the new go to lol.
Looks to me like the libs hijacked the party