It’s an obvious joke, but Bernie actually did pretty well in that crowd. A lot of libertarians are ultimately just rural voters who think anything out of Washington is the enemy, and thus anything anti-establishment is on their side.
That’s libertarianism in a nutshell, though. A political ideology founded from liberalism which claims to reject all of liberalism while also being just the same as liberalism embraced by people who actually kind of hate liberalism. It’s a lot of very confused voters registered to that party.
While you are entitled to your opinion I’m pretty sure I would be the authority having been in the party for over a decade. Libertarians in general care about the Non aggression principal. Beyond that we don’t agree on much we are a contentious bunch.
Everything is allowed except aggression, defined as disproportional (non-similar) force, meaning force that would exceed a targets momentary aggressiveness (see meter) defined as the total (cumulative) aggression applied by the target minus the cumulative force received (in response) by the target at that moment.
You’re saying the only thing libertarians have in common is a poorly defined, subjective “principal”…
It’s a belief in personal liberty, but the NAP is a useful analytical tool. Different people have different limits, though. It’s a fairly robust way to approximate negative rights.
I’m glad you want to have a discourse and aren’t being disingenuous, oh wait…
The NAP is a moral rule that states that any person is permitted to do whatever they want with their property except when such action agressess on someone elses property, which is in turn defined as the application of or threat of physical interference or breach of agreement. The principle is also called the non-initiation of force
It’s pretty standard private property ideas. Most are still kind of stuck in the (leftist definition) capitalist version of property where you kind of assume everything is already owned by someone and we toil for property.
I don’t think it’s necessary to go down that path, but I’m sort of neutral on how society chooses to handle it. I prefer the more homestead/robust abandonment types.
You just establish robust self defense. Protecting strictly property isn’t part of it. If someone is actively attacking you, your family, whatever, self-defense pops in. After that, a less fucky justice system that focuses on making the victim whole rather than retribution would be lovely.
It’s an obvious joke, but Bernie actually did pretty well in that crowd. A lot of libertarians are ultimately just rural voters who think anything out of Washington is the enemy, and thus anything anti-establishment is on their side.
That’s some wishful thinking nothing libertarian about it though
Democratic socialists have quite a lot in common with real libertarians.
Just not in regards to what these chuckleheads think is the most, and usually only, important human right.
That’s libertarianism in a nutshell, though. A political ideology founded from liberalism which claims to reject all of liberalism while also being just the same as liberalism embraced by people who actually kind of hate liberalism. It’s a lot of very confused voters registered to that party.
While you are entitled to your opinion I’m pretty sure I would be the authority having been in the party for over a decade. Libertarians in general care about the Non aggression principal. Beyond that we don’t agree on much we are a contentious bunch.
You’re saying the only thing libertarians have in common is a poorly defined, subjective “principal”…
It’s a belief in personal liberty, but the NAP is a useful analytical tool. Different people have different limits, though. It’s a fairly robust way to approximate negative rights.
I’m glad you want to have a discourse and aren’t being disingenuous, oh wait…
The NAP is a moral rule that states that any person is permitted to do whatever they want with their property except when such action agressess on someone elses property, which is in turn defined as the application of or threat of physical interference or breach of agreement. The principle is also called the non-initiation of force
Who defines whose property is whose?
It’s pretty standard private property ideas. Most are still kind of stuck in the (leftist definition) capitalist version of property where you kind of assume everything is already owned by someone and we toil for property.
I don’t think it’s necessary to go down that path, but I’m sort of neutral on how society chooses to handle it. I prefer the more homestead/robust abandonment types.
Ok sure, now how do you operationalize that?
You just establish robust self defense. Protecting strictly property isn’t part of it. If someone is actively attacking you, your family, whatever, self-defense pops in. After that, a less fucky justice system that focuses on making the victim whole rather than retribution would be lovely.
Sounds like every other party.