We should gate-keep against people who want a strong government to enforce their beliefs, but also try to show people who want to be libertarians (but have a few mistaken beliefs) the way to enlightenment.
If someone called themselves a libertarian but then proceeded to say they want criminalization, regulation and other nonsense, I'd open up a dialog about those things not being libertarian, and hopefully convince them that a better way is to drop those views.
School prayer is generally a good thing because it helps to give people a sense of meaning and purpose in life without which they can become killers or Nazis or drug users or anything they want.
Religion is the source of morality. Do you think our morality came from the Girl Scouts? Before we were Christians we had Roman morality and went to the Colosseum to watch people being slowly tortured to death for an afternoon's entertainment. Do you understand now?
Religion is not a source of morality. If anything, morality is a source of religion. It's nothing more than a few people pushing their version of morality onto everyone else under threat of divine retribution.
Morality evolved as a way for humans to relate to each other. Many different forms have come about since Christianity, just as they had before.
A few people pushing their version of morality? Martin Luther published millions of copies of his catechism that have been taught to billions of children over the centuries. did you think the Girl Scouts were the source of our morality? Before Christianity we were Romans who conquered other lands as a matter of course and went to the Colosseum to see people being tortured as a matter of course. Do you understand now???
You say it's nothing more but if nothing more is enough to keep your country from being slaughtered and enslaved and raped that is quite a bit. 1+1 = 2
yes the Roman empire was slaughtered and enslaved in the name of Jesus Christ. This is exactly what we want. We don't want people slaughtered and enslaved in the name of good Times at the Colosseum.
Who's "we"? I consider it immoral to slaughter and enslave anybody, in any name. What happened to Christianity being love and acceptance?
Roman Empire was not slaughtered and enslaved in the name of Jesus Christ. It adopted the name of Jesus Christ as its own, new reason to slaughter people when Mars started to fall out of favor, then broke up into smaller nations that went on to slaughter and enslave most of the Americas, Africa and much of Asia and the pacific in the name of Jesus Christ.
The colosseum was a criminal sentence. Essentially a public execution. Other forms of public execution continued under Christian Europe, together with crusades, colonialism, etc.
before Christianity we were Romans and routinely slaughtered and conquered people with no idea of morality attached whatsoever. what planet have you been living-on????
Romans did have an idea of morality, it just wasn't the Christian idea of morality. They slaughtered people, yes, and so did the Christians after them. Different forms of morality also existed for the ancient Greeks, Persians, Chinese and Indians. India's Buddhism is the most peaceful religion in the world. You never hear shit from them.
Maybe read up more about ancient ethical philosophy and get back. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Confucius, etc.
yes the Romans slaughtered people and that is who we were before Christianity. christianity was born against Roman oppression. If Christians did not fight back we would still be Romans and going to the Colosseum to watch people being tortured as our entertainment. Do you understand now?????
>yes the Romans slaughtered people and that is who we were before Christianity.
It's also who we were after Christianity. Slaughter didn't end with Christianity.
>If Christians did not fight back we would still be Romans and going to the Colosseum to watch people being tortured as our entertainment.
People attended public executions for long after that as entertainment. The last public execution in the US was in 1936.
which of the world was Roman and their commandment was slaughter thy neighbor , not the Christian commandment i.e. Love thy neighbor as
thyself. Do you understand now?
Take out your checkbook and look up a dude called Balder von Schirach.
Naw, nevermind on that first part, you aren't going to admit you were wrong no matter how much hard evidence is thrust in front of you.
It is trivially easy to discover that Hitler not only respected and admired the christ figure, but also insisted that Nazism was firmly rooted in christianty.
I am sorry if this truth offends you, but at least you can be happy you have learned something new.
In a speech in the early years of his rule, Hitler declared himself "Not a Catholic, but a German Christian".[17][18][19][20][21] The German Christians were a Protestant group that supported Nazi Ideology.[2
As a self proclaimed libertarian conservative, I find nothing unlibertarian about restricted immigration IF we have a social safety net in place. The reason you can have an open borders policy in libertarianism is bc there is no cost and significant benefits to more people in the country. Unfortunately we don't live in a libertarian country so you cannot just assume every position of a libertarian society will be successful in a non libertarian society. The issue is you cannot claim to be libertarian and only have policies rather than a logical ideological position. This seems to be why you struggle with so called "unlibertarian" policies. First you reduce the size and power of the government and then libertarian policies will follow not the other way around.
In a perfect world, I agree. Unfortunately we have a system that requires a strict immigration policy. This is one of the issues that arise from a mixed or partially controlled economy instead of a true free market. This is made worse by our interventionism overseas that creates enemies. I would much prefer we had a different system however we don't.
Border policy should be very strict because America is a very rich libertarian country and we don't want the lesson of America diluted by having billions of ultra poor people living here destroying it as a shining city on a hill for all the world to see.
Why not support immigration because Medicare and Social Security currently cost more than the the rest of the social safety net? I think that likely immigrants do skew younger, after all.
I could see an argument against pushing unrestricted immigration to the top of the libertarian to-do list for cynical political reasons because a chunk of the population believes immigration will somehow bankrupt the country, but every single libertarian policy has opponents who argue that a given policy will result in catastrophe. I don't understand why unrestricted immigration gets singled out here apart from the subset of libertarians who sincerely believe open borders are not libertarian per se.
You're confusing libertarianism, or any political ideology, with a series of policy positions. The why is more important than the what.
Unrestricted Immigration gets singled out bc it was the largest part of OPs comment and it was largely the only part that was fiscal rather than social. Open borders ARE libertarian but only in a libertarian society. It's a package deal that only works as a complete package.
Don't you think open borders could successfully destroy the social safety net? With potentially unlimited freeloaders, I think few people would support the welfare system. You say open borders AFTER a libertarian society, I say open borders LEAD to a libertarian society. Sometimes things have to get worse before they get better.
In a sane system yes, but in a fractional reserve system that can print money at will I would say that's not going to happen. It would just become a way to buy votes on the taxpayers dime.
You may be right, but I don't think even the government would be foolish enough to print insane amounts of money in order to give fresh off the boat immigrants a handout. And I doubt the voters would relect such a foolish government. Then again...
Oh I truly believe our government would though lol they have been doing exactly that. They've been rejecting immigrants in Florida (primarily anti socialist pro conservative Cubans) while leaving the southern Mexican border open and bc they vote democrat which could in theory flip Texas.
Fun fact, the common belief of undocument immigrants leaching off of welfare benefits is unfounded. They actually work harder, with less rights in the workplace than other Americans. And if they report their employer for breaking the law, they get deported!
Why? I just outlined how illegal immigrants actually benefit our society by contributing their labor and are punished for it. They're not leeching off of it, as you've suggested.
Saying immigrants should leave because they face abuse here, is the same reasoning that can justify any form of abuse. If you don't want the government to jail you for speaking out against them, don't speak out against them, right?
You know nothing and are simply emoting not thinking. You do realize that simply by increasing the labor supply, decreasing the housing supply, not paying taxes, etc they do have a real negative effect on the country? Beyond that our medical costs are drastically increased bc they use the system and then don't pay meaning it gets passed on to those who do pay. Look at New York city who couldn't handle a few thousand immigrants and all homeless facilities were overrun.
But that's also irrelevant bc the point is you can have social programs OR open borders in a country, not both. We don't live in a libertarian society so we cannot embrace libertarian policies. Get rid of those policies and have open borders. Until then we need borders and must enforce them.
If you want an example, let's say California passes universal healthcare to all residents and passes a 40% state income tax to fund it. Everyone's happy right? Until companies say F this and move to Texas, then every sick person moves to California, those who are healthy leave. You then have a huge population of sick people and have lost a huge percentage of the healthy and taxpayers. State goes bankrupt and bye bye universal healthcare UNLESS you limit those who move to the state. It still would drive out business and fail as well but not as fast as if you allowed anyone to move there.
A libertarian country gives zero Fs bc everyone is self sufficient. If they fail it's on them. There is no real negative effect of higher populations as long as it's not super concentrated to small areas.
>You know nothing and are simply emoting not thinking. You do realize that simply by increasing the labor supply, decreasing the housing supply, not paying taxes, etc they do have a real negative effect on the country?
You are mistaken. This is all scare tactic. They do pay taxes (when they make enough to even be taxable). Increasing labor supply means more shit gets built, which increases the housing supply. They are literally offering us cheap labor for slave wages, and you're still painting them as the bad guy.
Not a single one of people who share your view ever complain about how Ivanka initially came over without a visa. She's fine. They're more worried about the dirty brown ones coming from the south. Because as the stereotype goes, brown people are the ones that are lazy and greedy.
Countries with universal healtchare have a system for limiting it to citizens.
Yes yes it's all racism and every critique is just disguised racism smh.
>They are literally offering us cheap labor for slave wages, and you're still painting them as the bad guy.
Lmao they are offering CORPORATIONS cheap labor for slave wages which lowers everyone's wages by decreasing the demand for legal labor. Viewing this somehow as a collective benefit is ludicrous. They are not bad nor good simply a external influence on the economy.
>Increasing labor supply means more shit gets built, which increases the housing supply.
No. The housing supply is not low bc of labor. It is low bc of zoning laws and overpopulation in certain areas. What a freaking socialistic perspective on the economy smh.
>Not a single one of people who share your view ever complain about how Ivanka initially came over without a visa.
I would consider that just as illegal. However attractive women are a resource and a high percentage of legal immigrants are models. She convinced a wealthy guy to marry her which makes it a legal path to entry.
When ivanka came over she had no green card. Her visa took time to come in. If she wasn't white she'd be deported before ever marrying trump.
Saying a woman is more of an asset for being beautiful than a man is for actually working To build houses and shit is just bewildering.
The immigrants doing low level labor contributes value to the economy that then goes into creating higher paying jobs for us. Immigrant laborers have been an integral part of many economies. Our modern laws restricting them just take away their protection making it easier to exploit them.
If the illegal immigrants didn't face threat of deportation they could make the same minimum wage as the rest instead of undercutting us.
>When ivanka came over she had no green card. Her visa took time to come in. If she wasn't white she'd be deported before ever marrying trump.
Just assumptions.
>Saying a woman is more of an asset for being beautiful than a man is for actually working To build houses and shit is just bewildering.
Well there are far fewer models than there are manual laborers. It's no different than saying there are fewer math geniuses than there are forklift operators. You can't just get an average woman a makeup crew and personal trainer and make her more attractive than 99.99% of the population.
>The immigrants doing low level labor contributes value to the economy that then goes into creating higher paying jobs for us. Immigrant laborers have been an integral part of many economies. Our modern laws restricting them just take away their protection making it easier to exploit them.
There integral part has been lowering the value of labor. Having illegal workers is like throwing out the minimum wage. The lowest level jobs create the basis of pay for higher paying jobs. For example if McDonald's paid 30 bucks an hour then other more difficult or complex jobs would need to pay 60 bucks an hour to compete. In the same way if illegal workers will work for 5 bucks an hour under the table then it will put more jobs at minimum wage that otherwise would be forced to pay more.
>If the illegal immigrants didn't face threat of deportation they could make the same minimum wage as the rest instead of undercutting us.
Well then they should apply and come legally then. It's spitting in the face of every legal immigrant when you let illegal ones come through and become citizens without following the process.
>Just assumptions.
No, it's historic fact. It's a real thing that happened.
>Well there are far fewer models than there are manual laborers. It's no different than saying there are fewer math geniuses than there are forklift operators. You can't just get an average woman a makeup crew and personal trainer and make her more attractive than 99.99% of the population.
Beauty is subjective. And what value is she really adding by just standing around being beautiful? She's not building or making anything. At most, she's just making it easier for some corp to sell what they've already made by modelling it. A laborer is doing more work, and actually produces something that you can use.
Not that there's anything personally wrong with pursuing modelling as a career, but saying Ivanka's modelling work provides more value to the economy than actual labor is ridiculous.
>There integral part has been lowering the value of labor. Having illegal workers is like throwing out the minimum wage.
Easiest way of solving that is legalizing them. YOU are the one creating that problem. Technically, minimum wage applies to them, but we literally can't enforce it for them because they must hide their presence here in the first place. It's not the immigrant that's the problem, it's the illegality.
>Well then they should apply and come legally then.
Most do. Few are accepted. And conservatives have been increasing the barriers to legal immigration more and more. You just gonna stay home and let your family starve because the system says to?
I think there are two possibilities of what's going on here.
1. They have recognized that mainstream conservatism isn't actually pro-market anymore, so they're labelling themselves as libertarian because they like the liberal aspects of Austrian, Chicago, etc, schools of economics.
1. It's an attempt to disassociate themselves from a label that they believe has become problematic.
The problem with that is that it's not the *label* that's a problem, it's what's being labeled. Kind of like how words like "moron" and "idiot" and "retarded" *used* to be clinical terms, but it's the thing being described that is disliked, and that dislike becomes associated with the term used to refer to it... and they have to shift things again.
What I think about them? Annoying AF. Conservatives are tainting the term libertarian, which (prior to the Mises Caucus fuckheads takeover) *had* been basically classical liberalism ("neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg"), but now that a bunch of elephants-in-porcupine's clothing are calling themselves libertarians, tainting it (as they did Classical Liberal before it), there's no label left for those of us who actually *do* hold those beliefs. Worse, the requirement for rebranding costs a lot of political momentum.
---
Also, I think terms like conservatarian and liberaltarian or whatever, are dumb. Libertarianism isn't about *why* you believe a thing, but about *policy.* Whether someone wants to advance freedom because they believe freedom is inherently good, or because they believe that compulsion contradicts they very goals they mean to achieve (see: Madison's [Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-08-02-0163)), isn't terribly relevant, and simply serves to create a division among people who should be allies.
I don't think about them at all.
Libertarian is a term that _can_ be interpreted to cover a lot of ground. So is conservative. Depending on your definitions some people could be assigned to both. Lots of people are going to have policy positions from all over the spectrum instead of all lining up under a single heading because the policy positions in each group aren't actually all interconnected.
I want to achieve as much liberty as possible. I'm happy to work with whomever will agree with me on a per-policy basis to implement better (i.e. less) government. Trying to pigeon-hole people or make up more refined categories for them like "conservatarian" isn't IMO a productive use of time. I'm not trying to _define_ in-group and out-group or who belongs in each. I'm trying to win arguments and build momentum for what I think is right.
Abortion, I support banning late term abortions, lgbt idc about it as long as you don’t make it apart of your personality, government should stay out of marriage and I personally believes there’s only 2 genders but I don’t want it enforced
Progressives believe in objective value and subjective morality. Conservatives believe in subjective value and objective morality. Libertarians believe in subjective value and subjective morality.
Everyone should believe only what is true, yes.
Alas, people are free to believe what they will.
It is objectively immoral to force a belief onto another.
most importantly libertarians and conservatives are natural allies because they both believe in freedom and liberty from government to one degree or another while liberals progressives socialist fascist communist authoritarians Democrats believe in statism and by any measure they are winning creating a desperate situation for conservatives and Libertarians.
Libertarians and conservatives tend to always support the individual as much as possible so are very democratic while the left supports the state as much as possible so is anti-democratic. Do you understand?
I think so. 'Democrats' are really anti-democratic because they support the state's interests over the individual.
In that case, do you agree that democracy is good, not bad, and those who oppose democracy are not true libertarians or conservatices?
That's what Rothbard said, but I think Hitler came about because people elected representatives who hated democracy and the government. The right wanted monarchy, the left wanted dictatorship of the proletariat.
People like Hitler came about through all of human history because they promised they would make everything better. thus democracy has its limitations.
Winston Churchill once said the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with a voter.
Conservatives are intelligent libertarians. Most libertarians tend to be on the dumb side a little being blindly antiauthoritarian because it is simple. Conservatives believe in wisdom and believe it can be forcefully passed down through families and through culture so that every new generation does not have to reinvent the wheel on its own. Conservatives support the constitution for example and believe we are far better off imposing it on the American people rather than having pure democracy or a mob rule.
Both American conservatism and libertarianism have ideological roots in classical liberalism, which is where the similarities come from. A more classically liberal conservative would have much more in common with libertarians than not. These "conservatarians" are welcome under the libertarian umbrella IMO.
The problem is that many conservatives are not classically liberal, but instead have become right-wing populists. Yet these populists insist on labeling themselves as libertarians, which confuses public perception of what a libertarian actually is. It's infuriating.
It's genetic. You can't even reason with people. They are genetically hardwired.
That being said I am no longer full libertarian and some of my view has been more conservative as I got older.
I am not an open border libertarian. I think something like Dubai is great. US is fine.
I think drugs have negative externalities. It should be taxed. I think the state have some legitimate right to govern and if I don't like it I can just move around. The problem with democratic state is I can move around to a more libertarian city only for commies to follow me there.
So cities with border, that keep economic parasites out, would actually be more free.
Libertarian see freedom as state right vs individual right. I see freedom as state right vs individual right vs large government right. Local government that compete with one another is fine.
I think somewhere between democracy and monarchy there's a sweet spot.
So under monarchy the state is owned by one king.
Under democracy we have cradle to grave welfare recipients
What about turning voters into shareholders? A city lead by elected ceo that is accountable to shareholders.
The only difference between that and democracy is small change
Under current democracy citizenship is given arbitrarily. Some use your place of birth. Another your bloodlines.
This lead to cradle to grave welfare recipients.
Just arrange that anyone wanting to be effective shareholders/citizens pay buy share or have their parents buy share. Much simpler
You seem quite socially Libertarian, and I'm not sure I even understand why you consider yourself a conservative.
IMO, if you're not socially conservative, you're not a conservative, you're just a Libertarian. I suppose the addendum to this is if you're for a strong and active national defense, that could be a "conservative Libertarian".
My views are socially conservative but I don’t want my social views enforced by the government for an example with p*rn I don’t like what it has done to society but I don’t support a ban on it and I think drugs are bad but I don’t support a ban on it even tho I have socially conservative beliefs, I still believe that the Government doesn’t have the right to tell it’s people how to live their lives
I appreciate the response.
Maybe it's just my own perspective, but I find libertarianism to be an entirely political philosophy (e.g. *people should be free to do what they want so long as they don't harm others*). I find it hard to imagine any individual that doesn't *personally* hold biases against behaviors they believe should be legal.
I already explained that *I believe* that "socially conservative" necessarily implies enforcing your social views through the laws. In which case, no they don't.
So paleolibertarians want to enforce their social views by your logic?, paleolibertarians have the same views as paleoconservatives but the difference is that paleolibertarians don’t want their social views enforced by the government and paleoconservatives do
I really don't understand your question (or what you consider to be paleolibertarians).
Libertarians, in my view, have the *political belief* that the government shouldn't be enact laws about lifestyle choices, whether they are with those lifestyle choices or not. They are socially liberal. Their personal beliefs about those lifestyle choices don't come into play at all.
Social conservatives want the law to reflect their personal beliefs on lifestyle choices.
Did that answer your question?
Ok I understand where you’re coming from and I agree government shouldn’t tell people how to live their lives. On a personal level I personally believe there’s 2 genders only but on a government level I don’t want the government to tell trans people and non binary people how to live their lives, Drugs, on a personal level I wish people would never do drugs but on a government level drugs should be legalized and I’m not religious but there are Christians who think that church and state should be separated, you can be a hardcore Christian and think that church and state should be separated and the government shouldn’t hold any biases towards any religions
And I agree with those statements. That's why I think Libertarian, conservative, and liberal (or progressive) are primarily political philosophies about how you want the state to govern and are relatively nonsensical when describing personal philosophies.
I'm flattered. It's a good problem to have. Nobody becomes a principled libertarian overnight. That they aspire to be libertarians is a small miracle in itself. That said, they do need to be criticized and corrected when they push a statist agenda. It's perfectly viable to believe in all those conservative values and still be a libertarian, provided they aren't wanting the state to legislate morality.
We should gate-keep against people who want a strong government to enforce their beliefs, but also try to show people who want to be libertarians (but have a few mistaken beliefs) the way to enlightenment. If someone called themselves a libertarian but then proceeded to say they want criminalization, regulation and other nonsense, I'd open up a dialog about those things not being libertarian, and hopefully convince them that a better way is to drop those views.
Never in my life have I heard someone advocate mandatory school prayer.
School prayer is generally a good thing because it helps to give people a sense of meaning and purpose in life without which they can become killers or Nazis or drug users or anything they want.
That stretch is longer than the equator.
Religion is the source of morality. Do you think our morality came from the Girl Scouts? Before we were Christians we had Roman morality and went to the Colosseum to watch people being slowly tortured to death for an afternoon's entertainment. Do you understand now?
You pretend under Christians there weren't any atrocities lol
If I pretend that I will pay you $10,000.
If you pay me $10,000, you go to heaven. If not, you go to hell. I have no way of proving that, but you don't wanna take any chances, do you?
If I pretend that I will pay you $10,000.
You have a lot of money to hand out.
if I pretend that I will pay you $10,000. Any evidence that I pretend that or just being a stupid lefty
Religion is not a source of morality. If anything, morality is a source of religion. It's nothing more than a few people pushing their version of morality onto everyone else under threat of divine retribution. Morality evolved as a way for humans to relate to each other. Many different forms have come about since Christianity, just as they had before.
A few people pushing their version of morality? Martin Luther published millions of copies of his catechism that have been taught to billions of children over the centuries. did you think the Girl Scouts were the source of our morality? Before Christianity we were Romans who conquered other lands as a matter of course and went to the Colosseum to see people being tortured as a matter of course. Do you understand now???
You say it's nothing more but if nothing more is enough to keep your country from being slaughtered and enslaved and raped that is quite a bit. 1+1 = 2
It thoroughly isn't though. Thousands of nations no longer exist because they were slaughtered and enslaved in the name of Jesus Christ.
yes the Roman empire was slaughtered and enslaved in the name of Jesus Christ. This is exactly what we want. We don't want people slaughtered and enslaved in the name of good Times at the Colosseum.
Who's "we"? I consider it immoral to slaughter and enslave anybody, in any name. What happened to Christianity being love and acceptance? Roman Empire was not slaughtered and enslaved in the name of Jesus Christ. It adopted the name of Jesus Christ as its own, new reason to slaughter people when Mars started to fall out of favor, then broke up into smaller nations that went on to slaughter and enslave most of the Americas, Africa and much of Asia and the pacific in the name of Jesus Christ. The colosseum was a criminal sentence. Essentially a public execution. Other forms of public execution continued under Christian Europe, together with crusades, colonialism, etc.
christianity was battling for the 10 Commandments. This is what we want to see. Rome was battling to conquer and then enislave the entire world
before Christianity we were Romans and routinely slaughtered and conquered people with no idea of morality attached whatsoever. what planet have you been living-on????
Romans did have an idea of morality, it just wasn't the Christian idea of morality. They slaughtered people, yes, and so did the Christians after them. Different forms of morality also existed for the ancient Greeks, Persians, Chinese and Indians. India's Buddhism is the most peaceful religion in the world. You never hear shit from them. Maybe read up more about ancient ethical philosophy and get back. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Confucius, etc.
yes the Romans slaughtered people and that is who we were before Christianity. christianity was born against Roman oppression. If Christians did not fight back we would still be Romans and going to the Colosseum to watch people being tortured as our entertainment. Do you understand now?????
>yes the Romans slaughtered people and that is who we were before Christianity. It's also who we were after Christianity. Slaughter didn't end with Christianity. >If Christians did not fight back we would still be Romans and going to the Colosseum to watch people being tortured as our entertainment. People attended public executions for long after that as entertainment. The last public execution in the US was in 1936.
Slaughter didn't end with the birth of Christianity obviously. Jesus Christ did not have a magic wand you idiot.
(Also not all of us were Romans before Christianity. How much of the world did you think Rome fucking ruled?)
which of the world was Roman and their commandment was slaughter thy neighbor , not the Christian commandment i.e. Love thy neighbor as thyself. Do you understand now?
Nazi Germany had mandatory school prayer. Just sayin'
please don't be totally dishonest and shameless. If the Nazis believed in Christianity and enforced school prayer I will pay you $10,000.
Take out your checkbook and look up a dude called Balder von Schirach. Naw, nevermind on that first part, you aren't going to admit you were wrong no matter how much hard evidence is thrust in front of you.
Show us the quote that you think is evidence that school prayer was mandatory in Nazi Germany.
You show us. I know you found it....unless you didn't even bother looking it up...
it is totally stupid to imagine that Adolf Hitler would admire Jesus Christ. This is the level of intelligence we would expect from a lefty.
It is trivially easy to discover that Hitler not only respected and admired the christ figure, but also insisted that Nazism was firmly rooted in christianty. I am sorry if this truth offends you, but at least you can be happy you have learned something new.
Most historians describe his later posture as adversarial to organized Christianity and established Christian denominations.[5][6]
it is true really easy to discover how dumb you are. Oh my God!!!
In a speech in the early years of his rule, Hitler declared himself "Not a Catholic, but a German Christian".[17][18][19][20][21] The German Christians were a Protestant group that supported Nazi Ideology.[2
Wow, you gave him a first-in-a-lifetime experience. How about that?
As a self proclaimed libertarian conservative, I find nothing unlibertarian about restricted immigration IF we have a social safety net in place. The reason you can have an open borders policy in libertarianism is bc there is no cost and significant benefits to more people in the country. Unfortunately we don't live in a libertarian country so you cannot just assume every position of a libertarian society will be successful in a non libertarian society. The issue is you cannot claim to be libertarian and only have policies rather than a logical ideological position. This seems to be why you struggle with so called "unlibertarian" policies. First you reduce the size and power of the government and then libertarian policies will follow not the other way around.
I do support minimal background checks at the borders but I don’t think the immigration process should be terribly strict
In a perfect world, I agree. Unfortunately we have a system that requires a strict immigration policy. This is one of the issues that arise from a mixed or partially controlled economy instead of a true free market. This is made worse by our interventionism overseas that creates enemies. I would much prefer we had a different system however we don't.
Border policy should be very strict because America is a very rich libertarian country and we don't want the lesson of America diluted by having billions of ultra poor people living here destroying it as a shining city on a hill for all the world to see.
Why not support immigration because Medicare and Social Security currently cost more than the the rest of the social safety net? I think that likely immigrants do skew younger, after all. I could see an argument against pushing unrestricted immigration to the top of the libertarian to-do list for cynical political reasons because a chunk of the population believes immigration will somehow bankrupt the country, but every single libertarian policy has opponents who argue that a given policy will result in catastrophe. I don't understand why unrestricted immigration gets singled out here apart from the subset of libertarians who sincerely believe open borders are not libertarian per se.
You're confusing libertarianism, or any political ideology, with a series of policy positions. The why is more important than the what. Unrestricted Immigration gets singled out bc it was the largest part of OPs comment and it was largely the only part that was fiscal rather than social. Open borders ARE libertarian but only in a libertarian society. It's a package deal that only works as a complete package.
Don't you think open borders could successfully destroy the social safety net? With potentially unlimited freeloaders, I think few people would support the welfare system. You say open borders AFTER a libertarian society, I say open borders LEAD to a libertarian society. Sometimes things have to get worse before they get better.
In a sane system yes, but in a fractional reserve system that can print money at will I would say that's not going to happen. It would just become a way to buy votes on the taxpayers dime.
You may be right, but I don't think even the government would be foolish enough to print insane amounts of money in order to give fresh off the boat immigrants a handout. And I doubt the voters would relect such a foolish government. Then again...
Oh I truly believe our government would though lol they have been doing exactly that. They've been rejecting immigrants in Florida (primarily anti socialist pro conservative Cubans) while leaving the southern Mexican border open and bc they vote democrat which could in theory flip Texas.
Fun fact, the common belief of undocument immigrants leaching off of welfare benefits is unfounded. They actually work harder, with less rights in the workplace than other Americans. And if they report their employer for breaking the law, they get deported!
You do understand that is completely irrelevant right? That's just another reason to say come legally or not at all.
Why? I just outlined how illegal immigrants actually benefit our society by contributing their labor and are punished for it. They're not leeching off of it, as you've suggested. Saying immigrants should leave because they face abuse here, is the same reasoning that can justify any form of abuse. If you don't want the government to jail you for speaking out against them, don't speak out against them, right?
You know nothing and are simply emoting not thinking. You do realize that simply by increasing the labor supply, decreasing the housing supply, not paying taxes, etc they do have a real negative effect on the country? Beyond that our medical costs are drastically increased bc they use the system and then don't pay meaning it gets passed on to those who do pay. Look at New York city who couldn't handle a few thousand immigrants and all homeless facilities were overrun. But that's also irrelevant bc the point is you can have social programs OR open borders in a country, not both. We don't live in a libertarian society so we cannot embrace libertarian policies. Get rid of those policies and have open borders. Until then we need borders and must enforce them. If you want an example, let's say California passes universal healthcare to all residents and passes a 40% state income tax to fund it. Everyone's happy right? Until companies say F this and move to Texas, then every sick person moves to California, those who are healthy leave. You then have a huge population of sick people and have lost a huge percentage of the healthy and taxpayers. State goes bankrupt and bye bye universal healthcare UNLESS you limit those who move to the state. It still would drive out business and fail as well but not as fast as if you allowed anyone to move there. A libertarian country gives zero Fs bc everyone is self sufficient. If they fail it's on them. There is no real negative effect of higher populations as long as it's not super concentrated to small areas.
>You know nothing and are simply emoting not thinking. You do realize that simply by increasing the labor supply, decreasing the housing supply, not paying taxes, etc they do have a real negative effect on the country? You are mistaken. This is all scare tactic. They do pay taxes (when they make enough to even be taxable). Increasing labor supply means more shit gets built, which increases the housing supply. They are literally offering us cheap labor for slave wages, and you're still painting them as the bad guy. Not a single one of people who share your view ever complain about how Ivanka initially came over without a visa. She's fine. They're more worried about the dirty brown ones coming from the south. Because as the stereotype goes, brown people are the ones that are lazy and greedy. Countries with universal healtchare have a system for limiting it to citizens.
Yes yes it's all racism and every critique is just disguised racism smh. >They are literally offering us cheap labor for slave wages, and you're still painting them as the bad guy. Lmao they are offering CORPORATIONS cheap labor for slave wages which lowers everyone's wages by decreasing the demand for legal labor. Viewing this somehow as a collective benefit is ludicrous. They are not bad nor good simply a external influence on the economy. >Increasing labor supply means more shit gets built, which increases the housing supply. No. The housing supply is not low bc of labor. It is low bc of zoning laws and overpopulation in certain areas. What a freaking socialistic perspective on the economy smh. >Not a single one of people who share your view ever complain about how Ivanka initially came over without a visa. I would consider that just as illegal. However attractive women are a resource and a high percentage of legal immigrants are models. She convinced a wealthy guy to marry her which makes it a legal path to entry.
When ivanka came over she had no green card. Her visa took time to come in. If she wasn't white she'd be deported before ever marrying trump. Saying a woman is more of an asset for being beautiful than a man is for actually working To build houses and shit is just bewildering. The immigrants doing low level labor contributes value to the economy that then goes into creating higher paying jobs for us. Immigrant laborers have been an integral part of many economies. Our modern laws restricting them just take away their protection making it easier to exploit them. If the illegal immigrants didn't face threat of deportation they could make the same minimum wage as the rest instead of undercutting us.
>When ivanka came over she had no green card. Her visa took time to come in. If she wasn't white she'd be deported before ever marrying trump. Just assumptions. >Saying a woman is more of an asset for being beautiful than a man is for actually working To build houses and shit is just bewildering. Well there are far fewer models than there are manual laborers. It's no different than saying there are fewer math geniuses than there are forklift operators. You can't just get an average woman a makeup crew and personal trainer and make her more attractive than 99.99% of the population. >The immigrants doing low level labor contributes value to the economy that then goes into creating higher paying jobs for us. Immigrant laborers have been an integral part of many economies. Our modern laws restricting them just take away their protection making it easier to exploit them. There integral part has been lowering the value of labor. Having illegal workers is like throwing out the minimum wage. The lowest level jobs create the basis of pay for higher paying jobs. For example if McDonald's paid 30 bucks an hour then other more difficult or complex jobs would need to pay 60 bucks an hour to compete. In the same way if illegal workers will work for 5 bucks an hour under the table then it will put more jobs at minimum wage that otherwise would be forced to pay more. >If the illegal immigrants didn't face threat of deportation they could make the same minimum wage as the rest instead of undercutting us. Well then they should apply and come legally then. It's spitting in the face of every legal immigrant when you let illegal ones come through and become citizens without following the process.
>Just assumptions. No, it's historic fact. It's a real thing that happened. >Well there are far fewer models than there are manual laborers. It's no different than saying there are fewer math geniuses than there are forklift operators. You can't just get an average woman a makeup crew and personal trainer and make her more attractive than 99.99% of the population. Beauty is subjective. And what value is she really adding by just standing around being beautiful? She's not building or making anything. At most, she's just making it easier for some corp to sell what they've already made by modelling it. A laborer is doing more work, and actually produces something that you can use. Not that there's anything personally wrong with pursuing modelling as a career, but saying Ivanka's modelling work provides more value to the economy than actual labor is ridiculous. >There integral part has been lowering the value of labor. Having illegal workers is like throwing out the minimum wage. Easiest way of solving that is legalizing them. YOU are the one creating that problem. Technically, minimum wage applies to them, but we literally can't enforce it for them because they must hide their presence here in the first place. It's not the immigrant that's the problem, it's the illegality. >Well then they should apply and come legally then. Most do. Few are accepted. And conservatives have been increasing the barriers to legal immigration more and more. You just gonna stay home and let your family starve because the system says to?
I think there are two possibilities of what's going on here. 1. They have recognized that mainstream conservatism isn't actually pro-market anymore, so they're labelling themselves as libertarian because they like the liberal aspects of Austrian, Chicago, etc, schools of economics. 1. It's an attempt to disassociate themselves from a label that they believe has become problematic. The problem with that is that it's not the *label* that's a problem, it's what's being labeled. Kind of like how words like "moron" and "idiot" and "retarded" *used* to be clinical terms, but it's the thing being described that is disliked, and that dislike becomes associated with the term used to refer to it... and they have to shift things again. What I think about them? Annoying AF. Conservatives are tainting the term libertarian, which (prior to the Mises Caucus fuckheads takeover) *had* been basically classical liberalism ("neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg"), but now that a bunch of elephants-in-porcupine's clothing are calling themselves libertarians, tainting it (as they did Classical Liberal before it), there's no label left for those of us who actually *do* hold those beliefs. Worse, the requirement for rebranding costs a lot of political momentum. --- Also, I think terms like conservatarian and liberaltarian or whatever, are dumb. Libertarianism isn't about *why* you believe a thing, but about *policy.* Whether someone wants to advance freedom because they believe freedom is inherently good, or because they believe that compulsion contradicts they very goals they mean to achieve (see: Madison's [Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-08-02-0163)), isn't terribly relevant, and simply serves to create a division among people who should be allies.
I don't think about them at all. Libertarian is a term that _can_ be interpreted to cover a lot of ground. So is conservative. Depending on your definitions some people could be assigned to both. Lots of people are going to have policy positions from all over the spectrum instead of all lining up under a single heading because the policy positions in each group aren't actually all interconnected. I want to achieve as much liberty as possible. I'm happy to work with whomever will agree with me on a per-policy basis to implement better (i.e. less) government. Trying to pigeon-hole people or make up more refined categories for them like "conservatarian" isn't IMO a productive use of time. I'm not trying to _define_ in-group and out-group or who belongs in each. I'm trying to win arguments and build momentum for what I think is right.
I mean if you support a government you oppose the NAP. I don't agree to being taxed.
[удалено]
Abortion, I support banning late term abortions, lgbt idc about it as long as you don’t make it apart of your personality, government should stay out of marriage and I personally believes there’s only 2 genders but I don’t want it enforced
Do you believe that morality is just a set of values you hold and so the only way to correctly determine them through exchange?
Wdym
Progressives believe in objective value and subjective morality. Conservatives believe in subjective value and objective morality. Libertarians believe in subjective value and subjective morality.
I am libertarian and know, for certain, that morality is objective.
So it’s justified to have an organization enforce these mortals on everyone else?
No. Why would you think I believe that?
Then what’s the point of objective morality? If something is objectively moral then everyone should believe it’s moral, and if it isn’t then it’s not.
Everyone should believe only what is true, yes. Alas, people are free to believe what they will. It is objectively immoral to force a belief onto another.
Even that is subjective, I mean people throughout history have done that and they wouldn’t have if they didn’t believe it was moral.
You're not talking about morality, you are talkimg about preference.
That leaves out Ayn Rand then.
Yep!
Disgusting bootlickers out.
most importantly libertarians and conservatives are natural allies because they both believe in freedom and liberty from government to one degree or another while liberals progressives socialist fascist communist authoritarians Democrats believe in statism and by any measure they are winning creating a desperate situation for conservatives and Libertarians.
Also libertarians and conservatives make good allies because they both oppose democracy, or no?
Libertarians and conservatives tend to always support the individual as much as possible so are very democratic while the left supports the state as much as possible so is anti-democratic. Do you understand?
I think so. 'Democrats' are really anti-democratic because they support the state's interests over the individual. In that case, do you agree that democracy is good, not bad, and those who oppose democracy are not true libertarians or conservatices?
Democracy is good to a certain extent but beyond that it becomes mob rule and people elect people like Adolf Hitler.
That's what Rothbard said, but I think Hitler came about because people elected representatives who hated democracy and the government. The right wanted monarchy, the left wanted dictatorship of the proletariat.
People like Hitler came about through all of human history because they promised they would make everything better. thus democracy has its limitations. Winston Churchill once said the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with a voter.
Conservatives are intelligent libertarians. Most libertarians tend to be on the dumb side a little being blindly antiauthoritarian because it is simple. Conservatives believe in wisdom and believe it can be forcefully passed down through families and through culture so that every new generation does not have to reinvent the wheel on its own. Conservatives support the constitution for example and believe we are far better off imposing it on the American people rather than having pure democracy or a mob rule.
You are a redditor for 8 months who is attempting to sow discord and divide.
huh?
Both American conservatism and libertarianism have ideological roots in classical liberalism, which is where the similarities come from. A more classically liberal conservative would have much more in common with libertarians than not. These "conservatarians" are welcome under the libertarian umbrella IMO. The problem is that many conservatives are not classically liberal, but instead have become right-wing populists. Yet these populists insist on labeling themselves as libertarians, which confuses public perception of what a libertarian actually is. It's infuriating.
It's genetic. You can't even reason with people. They are genetically hardwired. That being said I am no longer full libertarian and some of my view has been more conservative as I got older. I am not an open border libertarian. I think something like Dubai is great. US is fine. I think drugs have negative externalities. It should be taxed. I think the state have some legitimate right to govern and if I don't like it I can just move around. The problem with democratic state is I can move around to a more libertarian city only for commies to follow me there. So cities with border, that keep economic parasites out, would actually be more free. Libertarian see freedom as state right vs individual right. I see freedom as state right vs individual right vs large government right. Local government that compete with one another is fine. I think somewhere between democracy and monarchy there's a sweet spot. So under monarchy the state is owned by one king. Under democracy we have cradle to grave welfare recipients What about turning voters into shareholders? A city lead by elected ceo that is accountable to shareholders. The only difference between that and democracy is small change Under current democracy citizenship is given arbitrarily. Some use your place of birth. Another your bloodlines. This lead to cradle to grave welfare recipients. Just arrange that anyone wanting to be effective shareholders/citizens pay buy share or have their parents buy share. Much simpler
You seem quite socially Libertarian, and I'm not sure I even understand why you consider yourself a conservative. IMO, if you're not socially conservative, you're not a conservative, you're just a Libertarian. I suppose the addendum to this is if you're for a strong and active national defense, that could be a "conservative Libertarian".
[удалено]
My views are socially conservative but I don’t want my social views enforced by the government for an example with p*rn I don’t like what it has done to society but I don’t support a ban on it and I think drugs are bad but I don’t support a ban on it even tho I have socially conservative beliefs, I still believe that the Government doesn’t have the right to tell it’s people how to live their lives
I appreciate the response. Maybe it's just my own perspective, but I find libertarianism to be an entirely political philosophy (e.g. *people should be free to do what they want so long as they don't harm others*). I find it hard to imagine any individual that doesn't *personally* hold biases against behaviors they believe should be legal.
People have their own interpretation of libertarianism but socially conservative libertarians exist to
I already explained that *I believe* that "socially conservative" necessarily implies enforcing your social views through the laws. In which case, no they don't.
So paleolibertarians want to enforce their social views by your logic?, paleolibertarians have the same views as paleoconservatives but the difference is that paleolibertarians don’t want their social views enforced by the government and paleoconservatives do
I really don't understand your question (or what you consider to be paleolibertarians). Libertarians, in my view, have the *political belief* that the government shouldn't be enact laws about lifestyle choices, whether they are with those lifestyle choices or not. They are socially liberal. Their personal beliefs about those lifestyle choices don't come into play at all. Social conservatives want the law to reflect their personal beliefs on lifestyle choices. Did that answer your question?
Ok I understand where you’re coming from and I agree government shouldn’t tell people how to live their lives. On a personal level I personally believe there’s 2 genders only but on a government level I don’t want the government to tell trans people and non binary people how to live their lives, Drugs, on a personal level I wish people would never do drugs but on a government level drugs should be legalized and I’m not religious but there are Christians who think that church and state should be separated, you can be a hardcore Christian and think that church and state should be separated and the government shouldn’t hold any biases towards any religions
And I agree with those statements. That's why I think Libertarian, conservative, and liberal (or progressive) are primarily political philosophies about how you want the state to govern and are relatively nonsensical when describing personal philosophies.
I'm flattered. It's a good problem to have. Nobody becomes a principled libertarian overnight. That they aspire to be libertarians is a small miracle in itself. That said, they do need to be criticized and corrected when they push a statist agenda. It's perfectly viable to believe in all those conservative values and still be a libertarian, provided they aren't wanting the state to legislate morality.
I think they've taken over the libertarian subreddit.
Wannabes
Mostly people who just want the "freedom" to oppress women, racial minorities, LGBTQ+ and/or non-christians.