Libertarian Discussion Thread

[Ohioan Territory]

I think I am a libertarian, but I have a few questions before I confirm that I am;

1. Can capitalism and libertarianism coexist? This sounds silly to me, but I've heard people argue that they cannot, and I don't understand the whole debate over this.

2. What is the libertarian stance on hard drugs? Heroin or cocaine, for example. And, hallucinogens, like ecstasy or LSD? I can understand legalizing marijuana, but not these drugs.

3. What is the libertarian stance on refusing to service someone simply based on their appearance or sexual orientation? Like, a Christian bakery refusing to make a gay wedding cake.

[Zurkerx]

I think I am a libertarian, but I have a few questions before I confirm that I am;

1. Can capitalism and libertarianism coexist? This sounds silly to me, but I've heard people argue that they cannot, and I don't understand the whole debate over this.

2. What is the libertarian stance on hard drugs? Heroin or cocaine, for example. And, hallucinogens, like ecstasy or LSD? I can understand legalizing marijuana, but not these drugs.

3. What is the libertarian stance on refusing to service someone simply based on their appearance or sexual orientation? Like, a Christian bakery refusing to make a gay wedding cake.

Let me see if I can answer here. Just a reminder, there are various opinions on this so I'll keep it broad.

1. Yes they can. However, there are Libertarian Socialists so really, any economic positions can be compatible with this. The reason some say Capitalism isn't compatible with Libertarianism is because they view Capitalism as oppressive. This view point is endorsed usually by left side of the spectrum.

2. This varies but the majority of Libertarians support decriminalizing drugs at least. There are some that support full legalization but this all depends too on whether that they should be sold to only those 18 or older.

3. This varies as well but, Libertarians tend to believe a business has the right to reject someone if their religion goes against what they sell. They are a private entity and are not bond to sell to those they don't want. However, while the business is a private entity, some believe they serve the public and therefore don't have the right to deny anyone regardless of race, gender, etc.

Again, this is how I would explain it. I'm probably missing a few thingsso if anyone wants to chime in, go right ahead.

[West Verrica]

post removed.

[New Jerzylvania]

Brexit ~ (apologies to DEVO ...Whip it)

Shock Exit!
Give EU the slip
Take the Union Jack
England not coming back

Globalism come along (You must Brexit)
No sense of right and wrong (You must Brexit)
Economy's going wrong (You must Brexiit)

Now Brexit
Take the bait
Break it up
Don't eat cake
Go backwards
The crowned head
We disconnect it
It's not too late
To exit
Brexit good!

When a good time turns around (You must Brexit)
You will never live it down (Unless you Brexit)
No one gets away (Until they Brexit)

I say Brexit
Brexit good!
I say Brexit
Brexit stood!

Shock Exit
Give the past the slip
Take the Union Jack
England not coming back

Immigration comes along (You must Brexit)
Before foreigners stay too long (You must Brexit)
When something's going wrong (You must Brexit)

Now Brexit
Take the bait
Break it up
Don't eat cake
Go backwards
The crowned head
We disconnect it
It's not too late
To exit
Take the bait
Break it up
Don't eat cake
Go backwards
The crowned head
We disconnect it
It's not too late
To Brexit
Exit good!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDWlNv5XFFM

[Conscentia]

[...] Again, this is how I would explain it. I'm probably missing a few thingsso if anyone wants to chime in, go right ahead.

I'd only add that libertarianism fundamentally is a political philosophy that holds liberty as its principal objective. The disagreements between different libertarian groups boil down to a disagreement over what policies better bring about and defend political liberty.

[The Liberated Territories]

Which state Gary Johnson do best in?

I liked the comment about turning the middle yellow and freaking everyone out.

[USS Monitor]

I think I am a libertarian, but I have a few questions before I confirm that I am;

1. Can capitalism and libertarianism coexist? This sounds silly to me, but I've heard people argue that they cannot, and I don't understand the whole debate over this.

Yes, they can. I think most libertarians are capitalist. Corporate welfare is anti-libertarian, but capitalism overall isn't.

2. What is the libertarian stance on hard drugs? Heroin or cocaine, for example. And, hallucinogens, like ecstasy or LSD? I can understand legalizing marijuana, but not these drugs.

Different people have different opinions. Some libertarians want to legalize hard drugs too. Others want to loosen drugs laws, but not legalize everything. The less you want to legalize, the less libertarian you are; but you can be a moderate libertarian and oppose legalization of hard drugs.

3. What is the libertarian stance on refusing to service someone simply based on their appearance or sexual orientation? Like, a Christian bakery refusing to make a gay wedding cake.

Not everyone agrees on this either. Left-libertarians usually support anti-discrimination laws; right-libertarians usually don't -- but there are exceptions. Gary Johnson is right of center, but still supports anti-discrimination laws.

This is more complicated than the drug thing because you've got people on both sides that think their way is more libertarian and the other side is depriving people of their freedom. With the drug thing, I think there's a general consensus that more legalization is more libertarian, and there's just a disagreement about how much you can limit people's freedom in the name of safety.

[USS Monitor]

Which state Gary Johnson do best in?

I liked the comment about turning the middle yellow and freaking everyone out.

That answer is much better than the 2nd one.

Johnson has a better shot at winning disgruntled Western states than Massachusetts. Weld being our ex-governor just isn't going to be that big of a boost when it has been so long since he left office. Massachusetts has a lot of college students, immigrants, etc. that haven't been in the state long enough to remember him from when he was governor. In a 3-party system where the LP was actually a viable party, Massachusetts would still be a reliable blue state.

[Fanosolia]

3. What is the libertarian stance on refusing to service someone simply based on their appearance or sexual orientation? Like, a Christian bakery refusing to make a gay wedding cake.

Not everyone agrees on this either. Left-libertarians usually support anti-discrimination laws; right-libertarians usually don't -- but there are exceptions. Gary Johnson is right of center, but still supports anti-discrimination laws.

This is more complicated than the drug thing because you've got people on both sides that think their way is more libertarian and the other side is depriving people of their freedom. With the drug thing, I think there's a general consensus that more legalization is more libertarian, and there's just a disagreement about how much you can limit people's freedom in the name of safety.

Really? I find with left-libertarianism it's 50/50 on whether they support the law or not. Partly because of the disagreement with whose rights to uphold and partly because, according to the alliance of the libertarian left, and C4SS, such laws are might not be as effective in dealing with the problem as direct individual action (sort of like how Petersen argued he would be outside protesting the business if it conducted it self in such away).

True, as libertarians we oppose all legal restrictions on freedom of association, including laws against discrimination by private businesses. But we should enthusiastically support direct action to combat injustice in the social realm. And historically, state non-discrimination laws have served only to codify, grudgingly and after the fact, gains won on the ground through direct action like bus boycotts, lunch counter sit-ins and the Stonewall riots. We should support the use of direct action, social pressure, boycotts and social solidarity to combat structural forms of oppression like racism and rape culture, and challenging internalized norms that perpetuate such systems of coercion. https://c4ss.org/content/28216

I would argue that the laws (including the ones already in place), hopefully, wouldn't stop that either because even with laws I support 1. it's only as effective as it is enforced and used, 2. people find loopholes all the time if they're determined enough, and 3. law and policy is not only instrument for social change just part of the tool belt.

[Ohioan Territory]

I really appreciate all of the answers, thank you all so much.

[The Liberated Territories]

The political compass recognized their "lie" and fixed it:

There is no stronger single indicator of authoritarianism and state power than a willingness to execute. A number of Libertarian Party supporters have correctly pointed out to us that, contrary to our assertions, Gary Johnson no longer supports the death penalty. (According to On The Issues and other sources, in 1996 Johnson said that he even favoured capital punishment in certain circumstances for children as young as 13 and 14. The following year he introduced a bill to actually expand the death penalty.) However he no longer supports it because of the risk of innocent people being executed.

Although they say:

This is nevertheless a far less socially libertarian position than that held by Jill Stein, an unequivocal life-long opponent of the principle of state executions, regardless of innocence or guilt. While Johnson now sees the death penalty as 'flawed', Stein describes it as 'barbaric'. In certain other social issues they hold similar perspectives. Economically they differ enormously. Johnson holds deep admiration for Ayn Rand (The Virtue of Selfishness) whose social Darwinism is anathema to the Green Party leader. Stein, like Sanders, identifies the incompatibility of the prevailing economic orthodoxy with the ecological imperative.

For some reason I believe they are determined to try to paint the Libertarian candidate in a negative light regardless, and since they are the painters of their own compass, they can justify anything - even as stupid as this.

[Washington Resistance Army]

The political compass recognized their "lie" and fixed it:

There is no stronger single indicator of authoritarianism and state power than a willingness to execute. A number of Libertarian Party supporters have correctly pointed out to us that, contrary to our assertions, Gary Johnson no longer supports the death penalty. (According to On The Issues and other sources, in 1996 Johnson said that he even favoured capital punishment in certain circumstances for children as young as 13 and 14. The following year he introduced a bill to actually expand the death penalty.) However he no longer supports it because of the risk of innocent people being executed.

Although they say:

This is nevertheless a far less socially libertarian position than that held by Jill Stein, an unequivocal life-long opponent of the principle of state executions, regardless of innocence or guilt. While Johnson now sees the death penalty as 'flawed', Stein describes it as 'barbaric'. In certain other social issues they hold similar perspectives. Economically they differ enormously. Johnson holds deep admiration for Ayn Rand (The Virtue of Selfishness) whose social Darwinism is anathema to the Green Party leader. Stein, like Sanders, identifies the incompatibility of the prevailing economic orthodoxy with the ecological imperative.

For some reason I believe they are determined to try to paint the Libertarian candidate in a negative light regardless, and since they are the painters of their own compass, they can justify anything - even as stupid as this.

Political Compass is pretty heavily biased afaik, I wouldn't pay much attention to it.

[Washington Resistance Army]

So Drew Carey is going to host a fundraiser for Johnson, pretty good news imo.

[Zurkerx]

So Drew Carey is going to host a fundraiser for Johnson, pretty good news imo.

I did not know who that was. However, by what I am reading, he seems to have connections and can be a big help in a small way.

[USS Monitor]

Not everyone agrees on this either. Left-libertarians usually support anti-discrimination laws; right-libertarians usually don't -- but there are exceptions. Gary Johnson is right of center, but still supports anti-discrimination laws.

This is more complicated than the drug thing because you've got people on both sides that think their way is more libertarian and the other side is depriving people of their freedom. With the drug thing, I think there's a general consensus that more legalization is more libertarian, and there's just a disagreement about how much you can limit people's freedom in the name of safety.

Really? I find with left-libertarianism it's 50/50 on whether they support the law or not. Partly because of the disagreement with whose rights to uphold and partly because, according to the alliance of the libertarian left, and C4SS, such laws are might not be as effective in dealing with the problem as direct individual action (sort of like how Petersen argued he would be outside protesting the business if it conducted it self in such away).

True, as libertarians we oppose all legal restrictions on freedom of association, including laws against discrimination by private businesses. But we should enthusiastically support direct action to combat injustice in the social realm. And historically, state non-discrimination laws have served only to codify, grudgingly and after the fact, gains won on the ground through direct action like bus boycotts, lunch counter sit-ins and the Stonewall riots. We should support the use of direct action, social pressure, boycotts and social solidarity to combat structural forms of oppression like racism and rape culture, and challenging internalized norms that perpetuate such systems of coercion. https://c4ss.org/content/28216

I would argue that the laws (including the ones already in place), hopefully, wouldn't stop that either because even with laws I support 1. it's only as effective as it is enforced and used, 2. people find loopholes all the time if they're determined enough, and 3. law and policy is not only instrument for social change just part of the tool belt.

C4SS is pretty lunatic fringe.

Supporting antidiscrimination laws in no way means being opposed to direct action like protests or boycotts. It's not like you have choose only one or the other.

[The Liberated Territories]

C4SS are largely anarchist, so it is inconsistent to support any state laws if they desire a voluntary society.

[Idzequitch]

So, I finally had a chance to watch the Libertarian Town Hall on CNN, and dang. Other than the drug question, I thought they did well. They didn't come across as really awkward, which was a worry, and they were able to clarify their positions on numerous subjects. Johnson and Weld complement each other well.

Dang it feels good to be excited about a Presidential candidate. There's a first time for everything.

[Corrian]

So, I think I saw that Johnson came out in support of Brexit, which I understand but has mixed opinions from me considering Brexit has other bad implications, sparking a lot of xenophobia and for that matter, crashing the economy (To be fair, I'll accept the idea it balances out and becomes better in the long term). My main thing is that people seem to have voted Brexit on the idea that everyone who isn't British or non-white should suddenly be kicked out, which is definitely not a good thing to be sparked more in any country as far as I'm concerned. That includes the racism rise in America due to Trump.

[Washington Resistance Army]

So, I finally had a chance to watch the Libertarian Town Hall on CNN, and dang. Other than the drug question, I thought they did well. They didn't come across as really awkward, which was a worry, and they were able to clarify their positions on numerous subjects. Johnson and Weld complement each other well.

Dang it feels good to be excited about a Presidential candidate. There's a first time for everything.

I was (and partially still am) miffed at a few of the answers but they did do well, though I felt Gary was a bit awkward and passed questions on for Bill to answer a bit too much.

So, I think I saw that Johnson came out in support of Brexit, which I understand but has mixed opinions from me considering Brexit has other bad implications, sparking a lot of xenophobia and for that matter, crashing the economy (To be fair, I'll accept the idea it balances out and becomes better in the long term). My main thing is that people seem to have voted Brexit on the idea that everyone who isn't British or non-white should suddenly be kicked out, which is definitely not a good thing to be sparked more in any country as far as I'm concerned. That includes the racism rise in America due to Trump.

I saw plenty of other Libertarians come out in favor of it but not Johnson, any chance you gots a link?

[The Liberated Territories]

So, I think I saw that Johnson came out in support of Brexit, which I understand but has mixed opinions from me considering Brexit has other bad implications, sparking a lot of xenophobia and for that matter, crashing the economy (To be fair, I'll accept the idea it balances out and becomes better in the long term). My main thing is that people seem to have voted Brexit on the idea that everyone who isn't British or non-white should suddenly be kicked out, which is definitely not a good thing to be sparked more in any country as far as I'm concerned. That includes the racism rise in America due to Trump.

Brexit is mostly supported by libertarians because the European Union is the definition of a central planning institution - just one that attempts to centrally plan free markets. Markets do not need planning, they arise spontaneously - trying to centrally plan free markets will create more mistakes than it attempts to solve, such as punitive tariffs on non-members, ignoring the fluctuations of the labor market of member countries by attempting to enforce open borders instead of allowing individual nations to tailor their own border policy (basically what happened when Sweden left the Schengen area due to immigration issues and therefore put a bottleneck on all immigrants in Denmark, who then did the same), establishing a huge regulatory network that imposes the desires of one country upon all (e.g. the UK banana regulations or fishing regulations). Furthermore, as advocated by Kohr in The Breakdown of Nations, libertarians believe that smaller states such as Lichtenstein, Switzerland, and Iceland are generally both more economically free and peaceful than larger states, and that a supranational entity will not ensure that the four F's - free trade, freedom of movement, free speech, and free markets - than ideally a peaceful existence between many smaller entities.

[Liberaxia]

So, I think I saw that Johnson came out in support of Brexit, which I understand but has mixed opinions from me considering Brexit has other bad implications, sparking a lot of xenophobia and for that matter, crashing the economy (To be fair, I'll accept the idea it balances out and becomes better in the long term). My main thing is that people seem to have voted Brexit on the idea that everyone who isn't British or non-white should suddenly be kicked out, which is definitely not a good thing to be sparked more in any country as far as I'm concerned. That includes the racism rise in America due to Trump.

Brexit is mostly supported by libertarians because the European Union is the definition of a central planning institution - just one that attempts to centrally plan free markets. Markets do not need planning, they arise spontaneously - trying to centrally plan free markets will create more mistakes than it attempts to solve, such as punitive tariffs on non-members, ignoring the fluctuations of the labor market of member countries by attempting to enforce open borders instead of allowing individual nations to tailor their own border policy (basically what happened when Sweden left the Schengen area due to immigration issues and therefore put a bottleneck on all immigrants in Denmark, who then did the same), establishing a huge regulatory network that imposes the desires of one country upon all (e.g. the UK banana regulations or fishing regulations). Furthermore, as advocated by Kohr in The Breakdown of Nations, libertarians believe that smaller states such as Lichtenstein, Switzerland, and Iceland are generally both more economically free and peaceful than larger states, and that a supranational entity will not ensure that the four F's - free trade, freedom of movement, free speech, and free markets - than ideally a peaceful existence between many smaller entities.

What logic is this?

[Corrian]

I saw plenty of other Libertarians come out in favor of it but not Johnson, any chance you gots a link?

Linky

[USS Monitor]

So, I finally had a chance to watch the Libertarian Town Hall on CNN, and dang. Other than the drug question, I thought they did well. They didn't come across as really awkward, which was a worry, and they were able to clarify their positions on numerous subjects. Johnson and Weld complement each other well.

Dang it feels good to be excited about a Presidential candidate. There's a first time for everything.

I actually thought Johnson was kind of awkward. Not offensive or anything, but he's not the most articulate politician I've ever seen.

[Natapoc]

I'm a libertarian communist. So absolutely a libertarian... But your OP seems slanted to the US libertarian party which is not actually very libertarian.


http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/libcom.html

Does that count?

[Corrian]

Well, to be fair, this did become a thread centered on Gary Johnson, a US Libertarian Party candidate.