Stephanie Slade: What Kind of Libertarian Are You?
Figuring out the limits of big-tent libertarianism is no easy matter, but it's central to the movement's success.

Is libertarianism a specifically political philosophy whose only legitimate concern is the role of the state and its use of force vis a vis the people it rules?
Or does libertarianism, properly understood, also entail a variety of cultural commitments that range far beyond arguments over the size, scope, and spending of government?
To put it slightly differently: Can you really be a libertarian in the streets but an authoritarian or progressive in the sheets?
That's the starting point of "Two Libertarianisms," a trenchant essay by Stephanie Slade that appears in the April 2022 issue of Reason (subscribe!). She's a senior editor at Reason and a student of the libertarian movement's often fractious relationships with conservatives and religion.
For today's Reason Interview, I talk with her about "thick" vs. "thin" libertarians, her background in political polling and growing up in the great state of Florida, and her ideas about the compatibility between Roman Catholicism and libertarianism.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Is libertarianism a specifically political philosophy whose only legitimate concern is the role of the state --?"
The state is only 1 kind of institution in society.
Libertarianism covers all social entities including persons and valid political organization.
For Slade to think that it is only about the state perhaps says more about what she knows of libertarianism !
Libertarianism recognizes all nexus of power, including that of corporations. Some here would claim that corporations are completely private and devoid of any discussion on their ethics or their practices. They completely ignore the fact that Italian Fascism describes using corporations to push the limiting of rights and government force. And in the US we see it often through threats of regulations (Operation Chokepoint) and now the development of ESGs to push the "right kind of behavior." Oddly it is the same structure that was used in pre WW2 Germany as well as in China during the cultural revolution.
Many of the left leaning libertarians ignore these threats on simplistic sophomore claims of "but private company!!!" ignoring the incestuous nature of these businesses with government. Some won't even acknowledge government spending to corporations is an abuse of rights by getting compliance outside of defined constitutional powers of the government.
With a truly limited government confined to enumerated powers any threat of regulations would be empty threats at best, thus eliminating the "incestuous nature" because there would be no benefit to cozying up to government. Can't have a sugar daddy without the sugar
I agree. Every libertarian should fight for the reduction of powers in government. But for the last 2 years we have seen many who have fought for increased government powers as well as government being the true and only deliverers of The Science.
For new or infrequent readers here... JesseBahnFuhrer here, and MANY others, CLAIM to respect property rights, BUT, when Section 230 comes up, they ALL just utterly HATE private property! Government Almighty must micro-manage the property (web sites) of FacePoooo and others, to PROTECT the Poor Baby Feelings of conservatives who might get their posts taken down... From OTHER people's property! Where they post FOR FREE, which is NOT good enough for them!
Some of these hypocrites (MammaryBahnFuhrer, AKA Mother's Lament) even claim to be Expert Christian Theologians! Here is "Christian" respect for property rights in Their Eyes:
Lusts-after-your-web-sites Marxist “Christian Theological Expert” MammaryBahnFuhrer thinks that one of the Ten Commandments read as follows:
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s. Unless thy neighbor art a corporatist in Thine Righteous Eyes, in which case, Thou shalt steal ALL of their stuff & shit, howsoever Thy Power-Hungry Right-Wing Wrong-Nut Marxist Heart may desire.
Go troll elsewhere, ᛋᛋqrlsy.
So... You are NOT a hypocrite, then? You merely espouse "do as I say, and not as I do"?
By the way, accusing FacePooo of "censorshit" is seriously off base! New news here!
If we’re going to re-write S230, we’d be well advised to ask “what are we supposedly fixing”? I used to think that FacePooo must be TERRIBLE about shutting down conservatives! As much as these “victims” yammer all day about it! Turns out that FacePoooo doesn’t shut them down until they are WAAAAY into the red zone… ‘Cause all of the outrage-posters attract like-minded folks to FacePoooo, and generate revenue for FacePooo!
The below opened my eyes about all that…
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/02/facebook-hate-speech-misinformation-superusers/621617/ Facebook Has a Superuser-Supremacy Problem …. Most public activity on the platform comes from a tiny, hyperactive group of abusive users. Facebook relies on them to decide what everyone sees.
Go troll elsewhere, ᛋᛋqrlsy.
MammaryBahnFuhrer the necrophiliac Marxist got her arse whupped, so She (despite being a Perfect One) hasn't much of anything left to say! Obviously!
The best thing about your comments is your handle, it summarizes well your content and shallow thinking.
Right, the root of our problems with Big Tech do not come from the fact that they are private entities. To the contrary, they increasingly act like Government subsidiaries.
I lived and worked within Big Tech for 20 years. In 2005, while internal mailing lists were the worst cesspools of liberal clap-trap, no one ever, ever, ever talked about putting the thumb on the scales of our platforms. They would talk about how stupid the deplorables were, day in and day out, but never would anybody say "Holy shit, this shouldn't be allowed."
This changed with Net Neutrality. All of a sudden platforms were thinking about how the government intersects with speech. It was no longer "Stay the fuck away". It was, "if the government is going to regulate our space anyways, how do we make sure it is for the best?" And then when Trump won, everyone jumped off the cliff. I was watching the town halls at google and other places, where it was clear that people were waking up to the fact that the "stupid deplorables" had figured out how to use platforms just as effectively as Obama.
In the end, none of this would have come about if the government hadn't been getting more and more deeply enmeshed in our every day decisions.
While the correct answer is to reduce the scope and size of government, we are nevertheless at a point in our economy where many BIG companies are now run by party operatives. Reforming section 230 isn't going to change shit there. The problem is that our government has created a situation where these stakes are so high.
The same sort of people who were on the internal mailing lists make up most of the administrative support for government at any level. And their opinion about mere proles is just as vile.
Many of the left leaning libertarians ignore these threats on simplistic sophomore claims of "but private company!!!" ignoring the incestuous nature of these businesses with government. Some won't even acknowledge government spending to corporations is an abuse of rights by getting compliance outside of defined constitutional powers of the government.
It's because they're left-libertarians, and it's the left these companies are fashing for. If it was the right, you can bet that "muh private cumpny!" shit would dry up fast.
John Hayward had a good Twitter thread this morning on the type of Libertarians we find on the left, those like Jeff and Mike.
https://twitter.com/Doc_0/status/1496489282055413760
Below is from the thread w comments:
The "Great Reset" is supposed to make democracy stronger by making it smaller. High walls of authoritarian power will be constructed around the shrinking meadow of liberty. The walls will be policed by wise, compassionate autocrats and their business partners.
But you see, only by trusting a morally and intellectually superior elite to manage the population and most of our national wealth carefully can we achieve true, meaningful "freedom." You will be liberated from the burdens of need, consequence, and responsibility.
Jeff has actually argued for the above. That elites should rule over the "mob" which he defines as those going against the elites. That freedom is only available for those who earn it.
"I won 48% of the vote so everyone must do as I command" is NOT AT ALL the same thing as "just government deriving its powers from the consent of the governed," but too many of us have been tricked into accepting it. Nor would winning 90% of the vote be an acceptable substitute.
One of the key lines. The removal of any limits on rights as we are currently seeing in Canada over the last week and even in the US.
Using votes as a proxy for the consent of the governed to justify Benevolent Authoritarianism is like the villain in "No Country for Old Men" telling his victims they authorized their own executions by participating in his coin toss.
The above made me laugh, and then sad.
One reason Benevolent Authoritarianism is a myth is the other, even more pernicious political fantasy: Honest Big Government. We're supposed to forget about the corruption of power and place total faith in the autocrats who will build the fences around Safe, Small Democracy.
How often have we heard the comments from Mike about how well intentioned the authoritarianism is. How in Australia they said how great the Covid camps were, almost like summer camp!
The thread goes on, but it was a good read.
I think the COVID panicdemic did a pretty reasonable job of sorting out who the real authoritarians/libertarians are. It's quite easy for me to know who would have hidden Anne Frank, and who would have turned her in. Useful, COVID has been in that regard.
Sadly the case.
^
Don't forget the masses who want to be ruled (with lots of overlap with those who eagerly inform on "deviants").
I suspect the sorting started during the lead-in to trump's presidency. He may not have been the best president, but it was telling to observe the reaction to his behavior, and the apparent need to find the most ridiculous, outrageous interpretation of anything that he did or said. There is no defending the lying that is still held up as truth, 'injecting bleach,' et cetera. These are, little surprise, largely the same people who are vehemently attacking anyone who questions the party line on covid, be it origin, lethality, vaccination efficacy, mask efficacy. People who are strongly against civil liberties also seem to have a strong bias against the bad orangeman.
Honestly, the most traumatic death I experienced during COVID was the death of my respect for Penn Jilette. Dude was foundational to my libertarianism, but COVID and Trump broke him. It's heartbreaking to see.
There are two fundamental, non-negotiable principles of libertarianism:
(1) Israel is the only developed country that is allowed to enforce a national border.
(2) Access to abortion care should be legal for any reason through all 9 months of pregnancy.
Ms. Slade isn't a libertarian because she fails #2.
#ImmigrationAboveAll
#AbortionAboveAll
Only 9 months? Fucking facist!
Where are the libertarians who claim that the Israeli government should be granted unique power to enforce a national border?
I've known a lot of libertarians over the past few decades, and never run across this.
Oh dear.
OBL is an unfortunately somewhat too on the nose parody account. Non-4th wall breaking, though, so you'll never get them to step out of character.
It's really quite the entertaining show sometimes!
Greet8ngs, JParker.
Let him in on the joke, folks. Don't bewilder the newbies too much. 🙂
Just mainly uninformed is what you are.
Those are not principles historically, and they can hardly be principles if delivered as autocratic dicta by a person with zero credentials 🙂
1) Is just stupid it means that there was a view on Israel pre-1948. Do you not know that is the year of its founding???? Laughable
2) this actually contradicts most libertarians' views, you don't ignore the single woman who wants that bady. You do, but most libertarians and most humans DO NOT
So we can say 'goodbye' to our lazy spokesman for nobody
There are a massive number of different ways to define libertarians--all of them legitimate--and that's because once we agree on personal freedom, there isn't a reason for free individuals to agree on much else. Still, here's the beginning of the list--in no particular order.
1) A real libertarian is someone who thinks people should be free to make choices for themselves.
2) A real libertarian is someone who thinks the non-aggression principle is generally a good idea.
3) A real libertarian is someone who doesn't believe politicians are the solution to our problems.
4) A real libertarian is someone is who care more about capitalism than the Republicans and more about individuals rights than the Democrats.
5) A real libertarian is someone who both wants more personal freedom and thinks it's important to respect the rights of other individuals.
6) A real libertarian is someone who think the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect our rights.
7) Someone who believes that you can't have both real freedom and any government at all is also a real libertarian.
The list goes on and on.
Six and seven appear to be contradictory, on the surface, and yet I think people who define themselves as libertarians in either way are absolutely both real libertarians. If we're looking for some unifying definition for a real libertarian to unify us, though, we might do better finding it by defining what a libertarian isn't (rather than what it is).
For instance, 1) An anarcho-capitalist who thinks that anyone who supports the existence of a government for any reason isn't a real libertarian at all, might still agree that 2) If someone believes the government has some legitimate purpose other than to protect our rights, that person is NOT a real libertarian. That meshes with the libertarians who define themselves as people who think the government's only legitimate purpose is to protect our rights just fine.
Unity at last!
I bet we can all agree on a whole bunch of the following:
3) Anyone who thinks people should NOT be free to make choices for themselves is NOT a real libertarian.
4) Anyone who thinks the non-aggression principle is inherently bad is NOT a real libertarian.
5) Anyone who believe politicians are the ultimate solution to our problems is NOT a real libertarian.
6) Anyone who is further to the left than the extreme left on capitalism and further to the right than the extreme right on individual rights is NOT a real libertarian.
7) Anyone who both does NOT want more personal freedom and does NOT think it's important to respect the rights of individuals is NOT a real libertarian.
Instead of trying to hammer our disparate selves into the same shape, maybe we should try focusing on the commonalities of our enemies for a while?
tl;dr #6 is the gold..
pure
5) A real libertarian is someone who both wants more personal freedom and thinks it's important to respect the rights of other individuals.
This is the one that my more 'liberal' friends have trouble comprehending, when I start talking about individualism. They think that people who want individualism are selfish and only want rights for themselves. They don't understand that a true individualist must by necessity respect the rights of all others at least as much as they respect their own.
Crimes aren't crimes because the government says so--no matter what Tony and the progressives say. Crimes are crimes because they violate someone's rights. People who care about individual rights are against crime, whether the criminal is an individual or the government. The legitimate purpose of government is to protect our rights from criminals. When the government violates our rights, they're the criminals.
This is especially poignant since many people on the right, and lately especially on the left, seem to think that it is fine to commit crimes (such as burning down buildings, or punching someone in the face) as long as the cause is noble, or the victim had it coming.
Your rights end where my nose begins. Brief and probably quaint, but cuts right to the heart of the matter.
1) A real libertarian is someone who thinks people should be free to make choices for themselves.
Except in a pandemic!
2) A real libertarian is someone who thinks the non-aggression principle is generally a good idea.
Except in a pandemic?
3) Anyone who thinks people should NOT be free to make choices for themselves is NOT a real libertarian.
Except in a pandemic!
4) Anyone who thinks the non-aggression principle is inherently bad is NOT a real libertarian.
don't make me repeat it
Where do you find libertarians who make an exception for a pandemic? I think the exception is in your Diane's mind.
Welcome to the comments. You'll find them quite quickly if you spend any time here.
Did you finally read a book on logic to see how you were promoting authoritarians, and you muted not because I was wrong but because I showed you an uncomfortable truth?
Who cares. It's not like you're a good conversation anyway. Rambling on about how you're right and how anyone who disagrees with you is dishonest, mentally ill, evil, or stupid just isn't a great way to convince anyone on the fence. They just see an arrogant asshole.
Several takeaways here:
1. You promote authoritarianism here, not us. And you hate Ken because he regularly calls bullshit on you.
2. You’ve shown no one any ‘truths’, outside of your admission of severe alcoholism.
3. I don’t think anyone here, including Ken, has any real expectation that you will change, or even learn a lesson. The consensus is you’re an angry drunk, a liar, and are a leftist that has an irrational need for us to believe you are libertarian, which you are not. Basically, you are obsessed with our approval and become drunkenly enraged when we withhold it.
Sure doc, whatever you say.
Ideas!
I see no mention of consequences. Not that they aren't addressed in a round about way but I think consequences need to be explicitly added to #1. Otherwise, the whole post reads, or could, as "#1 libertinism".
Certainly tropy but kinda fond of and kinda hard to argue with, “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”
Quoted because repetition...
There are a massive number of different ways to define libertarians--all of them legitimate--and that's because once we agree on personal freedom, there isn't a reason for free individuals to agree on much else.
In his latest column, NR's Kevin Williamson (yeah, yeah) has a discursion into the origin of the term libertarian, and some of the uselessness of our language's political labels, making a similar point:
I think this cleaves the population better than Ms. Slade's dichotomy. In my experience there's a certain sort which demands a Proper Libertarian Answer on all things, and another which revels in the messy and creative ways that a free people seek to solve complex issues while minimally impinging on his neighbors' ability to do the same.
"6) A real libertarian is someone who think the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect our rights."
I suggest a modification to this:
6) A real libertarian is someone who think the only legitimate purpose of government, if any, is to protect our rights.
Not all libertarians consider government necessary or even desirable.
#6 as originally written is basically minarchists. #7 as written would be ancaps/anarchists.
I neglected to mention that with the reworded #6, #7 isn't needed.
Good list.
A libertarian is also someone who believes the government should obey the Constitutional limits on its powers (even if they think the Constitution grants the government more power than they would like).
How can we agree on self-contradictory fallacious statements 3) Free to make choices does not turn everything into a choice. Murder is not a choice. THis is why you don’t actually list what is subject to choice. 4) is an example of why 3) is wrong. Are we only to have the choice of jungle violence or total pacifism ?? 5) NObody I have ever known holds this view. 6)Pretty scary for a thinking person to see you define something abstract by two other shifting abstracts !!
7) This is bullshit supreme : personal freedom serves other ends or it is just randomness. Remember Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance
Don't hurt people and don't take their stuff. But some people think it less hurtful to help people against their wishes than to leave them alone.
O/T - Vladimir Poutine has kinda/sorta lifted Canada's emergency.
He's lifted it in word and in spirit but not in practice.
They said they were still pursuing charges on around 400 protestors.
"We're still going to do unconstitutional Emergency Act shit, but we're going to stop calling it that".
How pissed off are the backbenchers in his coalition that they went on the record two days ago to authorize emergency powers that Trudeau says he no longer needs?
What I have never seen any discussion of is why he needed emergency powers to tow trucks parked illegally. The only conclusion is that the emergency was crushing people financially without needing to bother with laws and courts.
The tow truck drivers refused to do it. The Emergency Act allowed Trudeau to threaten the tow truck drivers with arrest and fines if they didn't tow the trucks.
https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/a-little-more-tyranny-eh
The Canadian Army had no tow trucks? The government couldn't buy a few? They couldn't find a few lackey tow truck owners?
Smells fishy.
See below. The Canadian Army doesn't have any tow trucks and the government couldn't buy a few if, tomorrow, they're all headed for the Eastern Bloc.
Amazing that Trudeau set it up as a no confidence vote. Kinda sorta. The Liberals would have been voting themselves out of a job. Or maybe he was just giving them cover.
Please don't give Cannuck gravy fries a bad name by doing that.
Sorry, I'm not buying it.
Let's say I divied up libertarians by two different arbitrary categories - let's call them "strong" libertarians and "weak" libertarians. "Strong" libertarians believe that liberty can only thrive in a cultural environment that gave rise to the conditions of liberty. They believe that libertarians have to hold true the Judeo-Christian tradition, that a libertarian society needs a strong military force to protect liberty from those who'd conquer a liberty-loving people, that foreign policy should be geared to ensuring that liberty is widely spread (even if by force of arms), and that those who'd infringe on others' liberties need to be dealt with by means of a vigorous police response. "Weak" libertarians, in contrast, don't think those things are vital to a libertarian society and can sort themselves out on their own.
If I were pushing this, most libertarians would (rightly) call me a charlatan trying to push conservatism under the guise of libertarianism. The same applies to the whole "thick/thin" libertarian dichotomy. Just in the opposite direction. Just about every time I hear someone refer to themselves as a "thick" libertarian, I know I'm going to have a high probability of hearing them try to slip in progressive, egalitarian social values into the mix. I respect the right of anyone to have those values. But, I know if they're somehow trying to tie those values to libertarianism, liberty is going to wind up being the value that gets the short shrift.
We've seen it in practice. Who are the "thick libertarians" other than yesterday's "liberaltarians" or "bleeding heart libertarians"? Hell, even a few years ago, I remember at least one ostensible libertarian declaring that cosmopolitanism was the essence of libertarianism.
One of the great advantages of liberty is that it allows individuals and even communities, with widely divergent values to live alongside one another without being a threat to one another's values. Insisting that libertarianism needs to buy into any values beyond liberty, lest it be only a "thin" or "brutalist" (or even "weak") libertarianism only serves to undermine that liberty itself.
Trusting the government to spread liberty with an army is just trusting the government to take more of your money and your children for whatever pretense they can think of next. Realizing that doesn't make you "weak", it means you're not gullible.
I agree. And that’s one of the reasons I consider myself more libertarian than conservative. My point is that someone trying to suggest that such a stand was necessary for “strong” (notice the quotes) libertarianism would likely be, as I said, someone trying to push conservatism in the name of libertarianism. Just as someone insisting that progressive social views are necessary for “thick” libertarianism is likely pushing progressivism in the name of libertarianism.
I think this largely has it right.
Reading through the linked article, I saw this statement:
" While members of the two camps will agree that prostitution should be decriminalized, say, they may disagree about its moral valence, with one side viewing sex work as liberating (and thus worth normalizing or even applauding) and the other side viewing it as degrading (and thus worth lamenting or even working to end through noncoercive means)."
This to me is bullshit. Libertarianism says nothing about whether or not sex work should be lamented or applauded or encouraged or discouraged.
The mistake here is arguing that there is some sort of liberty from "acceptance", and even encouragement. This is nonsense on stilts. Would the world be more "free" if men felt free to pay for sex when the mood arose? This is essentially equating preference with freedom. And it gets even worse when we ENCOURAGE behaviors.
No choice is free of tradeoffs. A person who is "encouraged" to hire a diverse candidate (as an example) is going to choose to NOT hire a white male. You might think that is good, or bad, I don't care. At the end of the day, however, you have to recognize that the benefit to diverse candidates comes at the expense of non-diverse candidates. That isn't freedom, and the attempt to force that square peg into a round hole called "comprehensive libertarianism" is just 100% wrong.
Encouraging any behavior or discouraging any behavior cannot be solved through libertarianism, because libertarianism's philosophical base of maximizing liberty cannot answer for non-coerced behavior. It is like demanding your server at Olive Garden to tell you what is wrong with your car. That is not the job of libertarianism, and it is improper to expect it to do so.
I can't stress this enough. If I choose to date a Trans Gender, that might increase options for the TG person, but it also decreases the opportunities for non-TG people. If I choose to consensually donated human kidneys, there is also an opportunity cost. I may have helped a donor with his bills, but I have fewer dollars to pay for beef ranchers. Every time you try to render these preference-decisions to a moral imperative anchored in libertarianism, you dilute the purpose of libertarianism.
Libertarianism means some people will make bad decisions. Some people will make selfish decisions. Some people will make well-intentioned, but still objectively bad decisions. These are all economic choices with trade offs. And as far as libertarianism is concerned, so long as there is no coercion that is ok.
You make some great points.
I'd also note that approving of one's right to do what one approves of is hardly a sign of libertarianism. A person who approves of sex work supporting the legality of sex work is no more necessarily libertarian than Ted Nugent or Wayne LaPierre approving of gun rights or a gay man approving of LGBTQ rights. Their stance on the issues they approve of tells us nothing of their stance on other matters of liberty. It's where someone stands on the liberty of others to do things they don't approve of that is the acid test of libertarianism. It's the churchgoer who considers sex work offensive to God, but still believes it shouldn't be interfered with by the government who is strictly taking the libertarian position.
But, "thick" libertarianism tries to dismiss that as, somehow lesser, "thin" or "brutalist", libertarianism. Unless it's specifically supportive of a certain set of (usually progressive, egalitarian) social values, it's something to be tolerated.
What about people who approve of everything?
Asking for a friend? 😉
Who are the "thick libertarians" other than yesterday's "liberaltarians" or "bleeding heart libertarians"? Hell, even a few years ago, I remember at least one ostensible libertarian declaring that cosmopolitanism was the essence of libertarianism.
Welcome to Reason Magazine, outreach organ to left-liberals since forever.
Outreach, no they've moved beyond that into subversive agent of the marxist left.
I don't think libertarians can ever support a 'vigorous police response'.
Police are a Progressive, Socialist construct and were created in the US specifically to undermine the rights enumerated in the Constitution by granting the government a monopoly on use of force.
Liberty minded law enforcement looks like a sheriff who's deputies look like you and me, are elected and who swear to defend our rights, not uphold the local city ordinances.
Oh, FFS! I'm not advocating that. At all! I'm presenting a hypothetical of an intellectually dishonest attempt to foist conservatism onto libertarianism. This is a parallel to what I believe "thick" libertarianism is, in practice (again, only on the other side).
Most libertarians might call you a charlatan, but I wouldn't dismiss it. If we want to influence people, we should take into account the psychologic factors that give people a propensity to adopt the attitudes they do. So it behooves us to study the characteristics of either the individual or their society conducive to the attitudes they develop.
I think we have a pretty good empiric case that certain religions are better or worse for libertarian attitudes.
This is a shorter version of a longer post that go eaten that allows me to conclude thickness is a good thing for libertarians or devotees of any "-ism" to develop.
A cursory study of World Religions and their history will show that, one, "Judeo-Christianity" is a cobbled-together Frankensteinian Monster, and two, societies run on religion are decidedly not libertarian e.g. Mayan, Toltec, and Aztec societies, Europe from The Dark Ages to The Enlightenment, the caste system in Hindu India, any society you care to name in the Islamic world, etc.
And I don't care if Libertarianism is "thick" or "thin," just don't put pineapple or anchovies on it. 😉
This is a monstrously childish reversal of what history shows about religion. THe great student was Toynbee, the historian who devoted much of his life to this very question, without your dilletantism
Sooner or later, man has always had to decide whether he worships his own power or the power of God. Arnold J. Toynbee
Judeo-Christianity is simply Cicero's Natural Law, it was never anything else , morally
CICERO
We do not destroy religion by destroying superstition.
There will not be one law at Rome and another at Athens, one now and another later; but all nations at all times will be bound by this one eternal and unchangeable law
Just as the soul fills the body, so God fills the world. Just as the soul bears the body, so God endures the world. Just as the soul sees but is not seen, so God sees but is not seen. Just as the soul feeds the body, so God gives food to the world.
The comment about Aztecs is sooooo stupid
"Nine million Aztec people converted to Catholicism within seven years of the apparitions of Our Lady of Guadalupe. "
It was religion that DESTROYED human sacrifice.
What about chemjeff libertarianism, where you hand all power and decision making to the state?
Reason Commentariat discover they are not libertarian. News at eleven.
If the truckers make it to Washington DC, and the Democrats come after privately owned TRUTH.social for tolerating speech, we'll find out a lot about who's a real libertarian.
So you finally admit you’re not a libertarian?
Don't be so hard on yourself. Tell us again how we need open borders because you moved into an all white neighborhood.
But you are not arguing anything. Why does the fact that you DON'T live in an all -white neighborhodd argue for open borders.
People like you were so happy when Carter let Cuban murderers, rapists, drug dealers into Florida.
Lol wut?
Are the truckers coming for Joe Biden?
A convoy of truckers opposed to COVID-19 mandates set off on a planned cross-country drive from Southern California to the Washington DC area Wednesday as the Pentagon approved a request to deploy approximately 700 unarmed National Guard troops ahead of the group’s expected arrival.
https://nypost.com/2022/02/23/trucker-convoy-heads-for-dc-as-pentagon-oks-request-to-deploy-national-guard/
The Pentagon is ready just in case people start protesting in Washington DC.
Don't worry, Joe. The Pentagon won't let people protest against the president--especially not in the nation's capital.
It reads almost like the beginning of Convoy the movie. It's the Carter administration all over again with the pandemic playing the part of the Interstate Commerce Commission and the cops joining the Teamsters union played by . . . the cops in the Teamsters union.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDUXvR79wS4
Someone should remake that movie with a different ending for 2024--something like the end of The Gauntlet. I don't suppose anyone in Hollywood would dare to green-light it. Tarantino is too much of an insider now.
Very interesting conversation. Libertarianism needs to broaden its appeal through cultural and social means. Its problem is the unwillingness to engage the personal - without politicizing it like the left.
I wrote this recently:
"
The "don't tread on me" slogan promotes - in addition to the laudable principle of individual liberty - an unwillingness to show any sort of face to the fellow human being and just points to the fence designating "my" property - fence instead of face. The property will often harbor a family and an intense intimate life within it - but the libertarian does not make that life present socially in a significant way. Libertarian guards the private from escaping into the social sphere whereas the leftist famously makes the private into political.
Libertarianism must solve its cultural problem.
One way to engage authoritarians is to enter and inhabit what many of them desire - civilization. While liberty gives you the right to bear arms for your own protection, civilization is being safe without bearing arms. Civilization is the foundational safe space. America has a strong impulse for liberty but its civilization is young and rather immature. That is why it appears to so many that the only way to civilization is through a state authority.
Libertarians ought to show publicly and socially how an internally cultivated authority is a civilizing influence."
Ref: http://venedi.blogspot.com/2021/09/libertarianism-and-its-problems.html
"civilization is being safe without bearing arms."
No. Such utopia has not ever existed in human history and is unlikely.
Civilization is where people can freely associate knowing their rights are protected. This includes the right to protect yourself and your property with lethal force.
True libertarians don't bother to argue over the definition of libertarianism.
There is one marker, and one marker only of a real libertarian: He sits in the comments and screams that everyone else ISN'T a libertarian.
Yeah, if sarcasmic is *the* libertarian, I'm fine with Conservatism.
Sarcasmic is the dumb kid in class trying to pretend to be smart. The depth of his understanding of libertarian values is random quotes he doesn't understand. He thinks victimhood is a primary cog of liberty.
Trudeau just revoked his own emergency powers.
Two points:
1) He revoked his own emergency powers because he feared public opinion.
2) Doing it after forcing his own party members to go on the record to support them will cost him politically.
I mean, seriously, two days ago, Trudeau forced his own supporters in the Liberal Party and the NDP, to go on the record to grant him emergency powers--that Trudeau himself says aren't necessary anymore?
If I were a Liberal backbencher or a member of the NDP, I would be seriously pissed off right now. That vote will be used against them in the next election. The least Trudeau could have done was say he was keeping them for the full 30 days. He just made them all look like asses for supporting him.
Breaking, Trudolf Shitler rescinded the Emergencies act. Trying to get more detail.
And Breaking, it looks like Russia's starting to kick the shit out of Ukraine. Putin announced a "special military operation". Which evidently involves bombing Kiev's airport.
Glad to hear that Castreau decided to rescind being a tyrant. For the time being.
He invoked the emergency measures act.
I thought he'd rescinded it? He changed his mind?
But really, the step he took to invoke that...it's not something you get to walk back from. He, no shit, needs to leave office. Walking, shackled, or in a pine box: it's up to him
Loser, luser, who cares? This is like arguing about which corner of mom's basement is better.
Southwest, no question.
Though I'm not really a libertarian, I think that of the problems we have today, excessive liberty isn't among them. We have too little liberty, not too much. So libertarians are there, thankfully, to criticize big-government abuses. If libertarian criticism actually runs the risk of putting us into anarchy, then there would be time enough to worry about libertarian influence; until then, I'm willing to let the statolators get hassled by their libertarian critics.
As for lifestyle libertarianism, or libertinism, that is both wrong in itself and, as we've seen, actually encourages smaller government (bake that cake for the sake of sexual freedom!)
encourages *bigger* government - like Gary Johnson and his Nazi cakes.
It begins.
Russia going NATO on Ukraine.
Yeah, Vlad ain't fucking around, if this tweet from Marco Rubio is anything close to reality: https://mobile.twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1496689463761817600
Therein: Russian airborne forces are attempting to take control of the airport in #Kyiv to they can fly in forces to occupy the capitol city
An amphibious assault on the key port city of #Mariupol is now underway
Ground forces now moving in from Belarus,Crimea & from #Russia
Airborne invasion of Kiev is just a wee bit different than the consolidate Donbass/maybe push to the Dnieper that was predicted by 'the smart guys'
We've still got a couple of months before the Taliban will be able to take back Kabul, right?
I think Zelensky threatening to pursue nukes may have been a strategic mistake.
Ukraine giving their nukes back to Russia in 1994 was the mistake.
Hey, at least they lasted longer than Qaddafi
What the hell did he even mean by that? That they were going to start a crash program to develop them?
A.) Basically nobody would support that.
B.) It's not exactly a 1 week program.
I agree with Unicorn below though. I think in Ukraine's place I'd have held onto those as tight as I could.
I hear a bunch of Russians are passing over Ukraine's social construct.
https://mobile.twitter.com/LucasFoxNews/status/1496692645200113664?
OK, so here's where I'm going to putting my bets tonight.
When Trudeau looked at the intelligence and it looked like Vladimir Putin was going to be standing off about separatists in Donbas and Donetsk for a couple of months, he figured Emergency Powers would work to put down the insurrection.
Upon learning that Vlad was wasting no time with the separatists and that NATO would likely get involved, Trudeau was faced with the untenable, as in begging to be publicly beheaded, position of committing forces to liberate the Ukraine and 'liberate' Ottawa at the same time.
So, what, 10 days before some or all of NATO is in the Ukraine?
The funniest thing about it all is the 500 lb. gorilla that's not in the room. Trump would be lambasting Trudeau regardless of the mandate and the mandate would've only given Trump more ammo. The emergency powers would've never been on the table both from the risk of looking like Trump and the risk of looking worse than Trump. WRT Russia, really kinda hard to say that Trump is a Russian asset when the only thing that's changed between Crimea and now is Trump losing all political power and Biden failing to fill any/all vacuums.
Russia moving on Ukraine was inevitable. Let's get ready for more war. Yee Haw! - Liz Cheney
Russia moving on Ukraine was inevitable.
I don't disagree. However, it would seem from Vlad's 2016 perspective, the question was '4 yrs. or 8?' From a US political perspective, it's very hard to say he waited 4 yrs. until after his asset was out of the WH in order to invade.
It was inevitable after 2014.
Ukraine made itself a threat and did nothing to try to change that perception.
I don't expect there to be any NATO troops in Ukraine anytime soon.
Trudeau is like Putin in that he is primarily concerned with the opinion of his own people, and I think that was turning against Trudeau in a really big way.
In this survey, 16% of Canadians said that the way Trudeau has treated the truckers has made them want to vote for him.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a17333eb0786935ac112523/t/620bd666f39bd01136aea37a/1644942951940/Trudeau+troubles+release+14+02+22.pdf
In the same survey, 64% of Canadians responded no to the question, "Do you think Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has used every opportunity to calm things down and find a solution?
Trudeau lost/was losing the Canadian people. American style arrogance is a bad look for a Canadian Prime Minister. If the public had rallied behind him, he wouldn't have renounced his emergency powers.
IDK. As others, including yourself, have pointed out, there's no real explanation for the invokation of the EPA or its prompt reversal on the time scale it was done unless you assume his position was A) to embarrass himself and the members of parliament who voted for it, B) abject stupidity, C) a derivative or combination of the above. Unless your answer is A, I don't think you can rule out the UN going into Ukraine.
Again, IDK, but it seems like a matter of time, and not a very long one, before UN aid workers can't get access to somewhere that separatists, Vlad, or both don't want them to have access to.
"IDK. As others, including yourself, have pointed out, there's no real explanation for the invokation of the EPA or its prompt reversal on the time scale it was done unless you assume his position was A) to embarrass himself and the members of parliament who voted for it, B) abject stupidity, C) a derivative or combination of the above."
This isn't the first time Trudeau has needlessly shot himself in the foot. He seems to be highly susceptible to overestimating his own popularity. And some of it really was bad timing on his part. If he'd done this a two months earlier, he might have had solid support, but the public mood on pandemic restrictions may changed faster than he realized. Regardless, it's a bit like Biden with Nord Stream 2. He realized he made a mistake, and he's smart enough to reverse course once he realizes it was mistake. That being said, he was foolish to make the mistake in the first place, and the damage has already been done.
Freedom of movement, right?
They're just migrants willing to do the jobs locals won't.
The party needs to be realistic. Libertarians are a minority. Libertarian purity is death to winning elections. Need to be realistic and make incremental gains as they become available. School choice is ripe for the taking. With the fiasco of Fauci and the CDC central government control on health should be also.
I'm probably not a *real* libertarian because:
1. I view the suffix "ism" as an anathema to liberty in every context.
2. I do not target "The State" or "The Government" except as specific examples of entities which exist for the sole purpose of the illegitimate use of force against the masses for the benefit of the elite.
3. I think the word "have" means something in the real world.
Let's try this:
Your real or imagined intellectual, moral, economic, or popular superiority does not entitle you to tell me how to live.
But yours does allow YOU to tell me ???
How telling that you dare not deny that in fact there is a superiority in intellect, in morals, in Economics 🙂
A Rhetoric or Logic teacher --- even a debate moderator -- would laugh at your silly self-contradictory statment
DO you accept that all men are created equal (of course you don't) and that we have from our Creator unalienable rights (of course you don't )
So...you don't even let your government, Founding , or history to matter.
When Trump got nominated, half the people I knew who called themselves libertarians suddenly because #ProTrumpers. I didn't understand it. They wanted protectionism, against free trade, they wanted closed borders, and a big wall, they wanted a strong presidency. I won't argue the merits of those here, as though I disagree with them they are still valid policy viewpoints. But they just aren't libertarian. They are conservative. And only recently conservative, as they got imported from liberalism when the working class union members finally got fed up with the Democrats.
What they these people did have in common with libertarians is that they were contrarians. Automatically opposed to anything perceived as mainstream or moderate. And also anti-elitist. Put those two together and you have a certain flavor of populism. I can't help but notice that a Bernie Bros because Trumpistas.
Libertarian thought has always been in favor of free trade and immigration. Always. This is not a new stance. Pointed fingers at Milton Friedman forget that he was talking about the welfare state and later recanted his statement about immigrants. Rothbard has always been pro-trade and pro-immigration and anti-tariffs. Ditto for Patterson and Mises and Hayek. Ditto for Read and Nozick. Small and restrained government does not mean restrictions on trade and taxes on imports. It does not mean an expansion of armed immigration officers. It does not mean going around and asking people for their papers showing the status to be present.
Disagree with me all you want, that's fine. But please stop pretending you're libertarian. You are destroying that word in exactly the same way progressives destroyed the word "liberal" by making it mean its own opposite.
TL;DL yet, but I assume it's about the widespread observation that libertarians tend to be individualists and vice versa. I'm very interested in the psychology of different tendencies, but I doubt I'll hear much new to me.
'Authoritarian or progressive,' they are, as policy, practice, and speech demonstrate, one and the same. And there is zero connection between libertarianism and progressivism minus the lies that progressives use as their stated goals and supported groups or ideals. Prime examples would be support for mandated vaccination, mandated wearing of masks in all settings, and the recent use of the Emergency Powers Act in Canada. A better compare and contrast might be conservative or liberal.
What kind of libertine am I?
Why, only the most depraved kind of course!
If you claim to be a libertarian, not a Libertarian, i.e., member of the LP, then you must be someone who will "live & let live", i.e., someone who respects individual autonomy, their freedom to follow their conscience, as long as they reciprocate. If they don't, and they threaten violence, engage in fraud, then self-defense is NOT aggression, it is a logical response, an extension of your rights. The initiation of force is not morally equivalent to resistance to force. It is the opposite.
I'm an authoritarian in the sheets.
Can you really be a libertarian in the streets but an authoritarian or progressive in the sheets?
If you were both, would that make you the passenger car in a fuck train? Asking for the engineer and the caboose too. 🙂
ACA PEG ACA
Acrylamide-PEG-Acrylamide (ACA-PEG-ACA) is a linear bifunctional PEG reagent. It is usually whiteviscous liquid or solid particles, easily soluble in DCM, DMF, DMSO and most other organic solvents, soluble in water.
https://peg.bocsci.com/catcs/749/aca-peg-aca/
Poor Nick has completely lost what little creed he had. This rag has just gone off the cliff. The comment section is full of pompous jackasses who love to hear themselves talk of what little they actually know of the world. The fact that u pussies block comments that show how full of shit u all r is but a human embarrassment.
The Phucko Knows
I am not Libertarian or Republican or Conservative because I am not confused by the difference between ends and means. I am an American. I accept that all men are created equal and that their Creator endowed them with unalienable rights
But when it comes to increasing the minimum wage, I agree that I want better lives for those workers , that is the end, but the means is not raising minimum wage, that is means
Nick's question to Stephanie about the connection of Catholics and the Right was central. So imagine a Lib who converts to Catholicism, or a Catholic that becomes politically aware and active. What is the difference? I would say it is the old business of not serving two masters. I won't argue for Freedom of Religion but assume it.
There is no question of someone being either a true Libertarian or Catholic without being principled in the sense that you have first principles: moral, intellectual, and cultural
Nick brings up segregation but ignores facts
"Catholicism has generally been less segregated than other denominations. In his journal article "Racial Segregation in American Churches and Its Implications for School Vouchers", Robert K. Vischer says the Catholic Church did not have an obvious racial split, as did other denominations."
"Sublimis Deus (English: The sublime God; erroneously cited as Sublimus Dei) is a Papal bull promulgated by Pope Paul III on June 2, 1537, which forbids the enslavement of the indigenous peoples of the Americas (called "Indians of the West and the South") and all other indigenous people who could be discovered later or previously known"
NIck seems to think Libertarians are different people than Catholics,but there's Stephanie right there talking to him!!!
Nick, ex-Catholic, seems to not see that if you can show something is not against reason it is defensible. Nick is not what I would call a principled non-believer.
Stephanie is excellent on Cathoilcism. That whole Logos thing is the greatest commonality of Catholicism and Western and
Nick's attack on things by reason (and not sheep livers or astrology)
is pure Jewish / Catholic
I wish Nick well, but he should have a principle onthis
Go to her comment on Lyman Stone and contrast it with Nick's Hegelian view of history-as-the god-that is behind human efforts.
Religion is a human choice.Awakenings,falling away,moral ups and downs -- any Libertarian should be wary of making 'religion' non-rational.
Lyman Stone says many conversions during Covid were due to Christian willingness to take care of those sick with Covid.
Nick needs to get more 'Reason-able" In 2014 Stephanie became a member of Reason, she has the creds!!
I am beginning to think that if a Lib became more rational he would tend to become religious, because there must be some deep commitment to values that we discover already existent and not just created by us
If they don't really bury her at this point, It'll ruin it, but she was an amazing character, and the show won't be as good without her.
And then licks his fingers clean.
Living in a Democratic urban collective is also a good way to off your kid.
Great movie.