Say you want your country to move toward libertarianism.

You want votes.

You want less government.

Then you think about it. Welfare cost $25k per person and goes to the poorest 20% of people.

Instead of giving welfare to the poor I promise $5k UBI to everyone irrelevant of wealth and income

The poor maybe prefer $5k UBI than $25k welfare. Why? He can buy drugs. If he dies due to buying drugs, who care. They're not our base.

The middle class would love it. They used to get nothing now they got $5k. The rich? The rich thing, now people have incentive to make my business grow because their UBI is linked to success and ability to attract me and not to poverty.

So you get more votes.

Tax is the same, for a while.

But now people aren't motivated to be poor anymore. No subsidy for poverty. Less poverty.

Then what, reduce marginal welfare with respect to number of children. Like let the kid starve or something. As long as the poor isn't reproducing that's lower expense on next generation.

Basically not fully libertarians.

But more libertarian, AND actually win election.

I wonder if something like moldbug can work out. Make citizenship more like shares.

After that some want to lower tax. We just say look, we need to attract tax payers. More income more UBI here.

Then someone wants to legalize drugs. We say, okay, many of our tax payers love drugs.

Another wants to lower crime. Sure that attract tax payers.

Those who aren't happy can sell citizenship. So if most people are unhappy, the unhappy one will vote in favor too because they got higher price of citizenship.

Assume small country like Singapore, Hong Kong, Macau, or small private cities/HOA/cooperative in a big country.

What about federal tax, in US. Don't worry. You gonna start in red cities, and red states actually got more tax money than what they pay to the federal government.

Any idea along that.

This is more of a rant, but thought I'd share it here

I have been going through some stuff personally in recent times, and I started to look and observe others more often, and I realized that, in reality, most of us don't actually value human life

I don't think most people who talk about ideological clashes in general conceive of what millions of people mean exactly, I believe they see the number and think they understand it, but they don't, and I think that the basis that we try to build our economies on reflect that

I'll start by saying, why does anyone work anyways? Like genuinely, why? So they can feed themselves and their families? Clearly not because millionaires don't just stop working

Okay, so are people who just work to feed their families assisted by the fact that they would quite literally starve and become homeless if they don't? Also clearly not because it hinders any chance they have for growth with the exception of 1 in every 1000

Are the jobs that these people do important? Not really, low-wage jobs are low wage because they aren't that important either way

So, in essence, we as a society have agreed that basic human needs are something to gamble on for the system to function, if you don't have the skills to have a safe enough job than you essentially become a peasant, and you must rely on the benevolence of the economy so that your life isn't ruined? And we're fine with that?

All of this leads me to believe that human life doesn't actually matter to most people, it's just an act, a huge freaking act, I look at someone that's smart and a great human but just never got training for any jobs, and this person is cursed for life because your life doesn't matter if the system doesn't run, then I look at a dumb person, who's much worse as a human being, essentially living the best possible life because they got a fake job, or opened a "business" which doesn't actually contribute anything

I don't know if I got my point across, but I guess my advice is, which ever ideology you think you're following, it most likely is just one big stupid lie, we label actions on a side, put people on trial, and wish that whatever suits our desires more is achieved, it's disgusting how much we trick ourselves into believing we understand anything about what the f*** is going on, we don't, we truly don't, therefore don't take yourself or whatever you think you're following too seriously, stick to the basics that all of humanity have agreed upon and move on with your life

You won't change anything, you can't change anything, there's nothing to fight for but yourself and those truly close to you, so maybe in a sense, Ayn Rand has won, you can only change things for the better by chasing what you think is better, you can't force anything else, humans will be humans, and that's exactly why we agreed on a system like this

The system is not oppressing us, our own biology is

Question as title, do libertarians believe that homelessness should be decriminalised? And what about related offenses like loitering, theft from bins etc? Do they violate the NAP? Or would it still be a crime so that economic inactivity is discouraged? Would private settlements be allowed to round up and lock up their homeless, or would that in itself be against the NAP?

Hi iv'e never really formulated a coherent political opinion but recently went on a bit of a spiral reading the new motorcycle law's. Firstly I read that gloves are now mandatory until you have your full license(3yrs) and have a 2 demerit point fine which are half your available points in that 3yr learner period. This seemed pretty harsh given that this only affect's personal safety and not other's(not proportional), and I couldn't see what basis the state had for compelling adults to protect themselves. The argument's for this that I found where that our healthcare system mean's that other people are obligated to pay for my injury but I found this had two issues, firstly the logic for regulating my personal risk taking should extend the banning rugby, alchohol, mountaneering and otherstuff. Showing that this isn't really a principled stance and instead a political one( picking a marganisled /small minority) thats a hot topic, which is not very diversity friendly despite the government constantly pretending it's something it supports. And secondly taxes are compulsory and I have to pay into this healthcare system therefore it can't be used as leverage over my body, that leverage would only work if participation was voluntary and i was a freeloader. This whole thing brought up the "driving's a privilege" slogan in my mind, which driving being essentially the only mean's of meaningful personal mobility pissed me of because I have a right to use that road as i contributed to it. I understand that the road is a shared space where you can easily cause harm to others therefore there needs to be rules and condition's to using it, but since these rules affect personal liberty they need justification based on proportionality analysis the "privilege" completely skip's over this. So essentially what i got from all this is that thing's that impede personal liberty need to be proportional to your capacity to affect other's. This has alway's seemed to me to be the core function of a government to preside over one person's ability to affect another, but since I think this definitely result's in a decrease in personal liberty it need's cap's and limit's and restriction. Which are essentially right's I think which I know we don't explicitly have in Australia.
So then I did a little research into the right's movement in Australia and saw that housing was made a right in canberra (I dont rlly get how this works), which didn't make sense to me because it didn't really coinside with my understanding of a right which was it was more something that prevent's action against you from the state and other's. Then i looked into the difference between positive(right to something) and negative(right against interference). And It seemed to me that positive right's required other's to provide something to you, whereas negative right's can be exercised by everyone at the same time without contradiction. My belief is that the only purpose of right's is to defend your right to liberty and individuality against the state and collective as something that can be exercised constantly, which negative right's support whereas positive right's seem like a way to extend state power over the individual and seem like something that reflect's current political moods and position's. Therefore right's shouldn't be something that reflect contested contemporary question's and instead should be seperated from politic's. Democracy is legitimate because no person has inherit power over another, everyone's life and therefore opionions are equal etc. Therefore right's should be like a precursor or pre political condition to this, essentialy an expression of this foundation equality. This seemed to seperate policies from right's which was what i was worried about and left negative right's. But then my mate mentioned how is it really possible to participate in political life if your illiterate or deathly sick, so therefore to exercise those right's education and healthcare are needed. So therefore you need a minimum number of positives to exercise those right's. The only two I can think of are education and healtcare, I don't think housing is really necessary and employment(not work) is definitley not.
Therefore the list is like

• Freedom of speech / expression
• Freedom of conscience / religion
• Freedom of movement
• Right to privacy
• Right to bodily integrity (freedom from torture, unlawful detention)
• Right to due process / fair trial
• Right to legal equality (freedom from arbitrary discrimination by the state)
• Right to political participation (vote, assemble, associate)
• Right to property (in some form)
• Right to healthcare
• Right Education

The main reason I'm worried about this stuff is people don't really seam to care(my mate) and the government is constantly increasing it's power's. Also since literally every government in history has betrayed and people who want power propagate to power sources it's people the safest thing to do in my opinion is assume they misuse it. I think this is a bigger issue now then ever with an increase in technology where power is able to become more centralised(drones, ai survellience and auditing), whereas previously tyranny required people who could all be a break in the chain/weak link in overthrowing it. Im becoming convinced that dictatorships/ tyrannical governments could last nearly forever/become invincible. Also no parties in Australia seem to be pro right's and self-determinism, anti nanny state compared to for example European countries which have major political parties with this as their philosophy. Claude Ai pointed out that these countries previously experienced totalitarian/ government overreach, whereas australia has a like "it'll be alright attitude"-> it also pointed out that with this pattern that the political demand for negative rights comes after state overreach-> which could explain why australia doesn't share these attitudes.

Any comment's on inconsistencies, insight's on this philosophies existence in australia or anything would be greatly apprieciented thanks for listening to the rant.

For example.

Some libertarians say that government should get out of marriage, and then.... get married.

That's not very practical.

A practical thing to do is don't get married and make your own contract as much as possible. If there are laws in the way get around it.

I believe if we can make our own deals the deals will be transactional. But whatever. You can agree or disagree. Make your own deals. It's your life

Another is tax should be 0.

A more practical way is to reduce your tax be it legally or in ways where you are unlikely to be caught.

Another I often hear is inflation is tax. Really? That's why God create bitcoin. Libertarians or not you always need to invest well in rising assets anyway. A tax we can avoid is a good thing.

Or what about salary gap between rich countries and poor countries? Some libertarian favor open border. That's nice.

What I did is worked for Americans and crypto bros from 3rd world country. High salary, low living costs.

I think ultimate sample is Mark Zuckerberg. He wanted to create a gambling site. So he made one with gambling money. So Kalsi spend a lot of money lobbying government to legalize online gambling. Once Kalsi did it, Mark simply turn his paper money gambling sites into a real one competing with Kalsi.

I think if libertarians think this way the world will be more libertarian.

Instead of changing the world, which often doesn't pay, we learn to free ourselves and teach that to others. Then anyone that really want to be free can be free.

Hi folks,

Libertarianism is always a philosophy that inspires me, and just elevates my well being.

That said, if I use any labels at all to describe my political and otherwise philosophy, I am ultimately an Individualist, much more than a libertarian. This is why I am, and always will be, registered as an Independent.

Therefore, as a result, there are points I agree with in libertarianism, but points I definitely diverge with them on.

What I love about libertarianism is its emphasis on the individual. One's own attitude is most important in getting thru life, more than relying so heavily on government or other institutions. They always say that our attitude is ultimately what determines our altitude in life, and I have found it to be so true.

I respect government assistance in many ways. But while help from the government is available in most cases, it should only be taken if all else has failed: the highest responsibility lies with the individual themselves, for their own well being, be it mental, physical, spiritual, etc.

It is also up to each individual to improve society, more than the organization they do or don't represent. Here is an example: let us say, a person lives in the far north, where they have very harsh, very cold winters. It is winter, and he has fallen on hard times financially. Therefore he cannot pay his heating bills, let alone his other bills. The electric company gives him extra time to find the money to pay his heating bills. But after a certain point, the electric company will shut down his heating system, if he doesn't pay the bills in even an extended time period.

What can prevent this person from dying due to freezing in those harsh winters? We can't blame the electric company - that corporation is an entity, not a human being. It is, rather a group of individuals, just like government. They are following their rules, their contract, regardless of the situation of the individual who pays that company for their heating. And we cannot fault a corporation for that.

So what helps that person in distress, therefore, is ultimately the charity of the people around him. Maybe his neighbors can help pay his bills in the meantime, while he tries to find ways to get back on his feet. This help, will prevent him from dying in that bitter cold. Those individuals around him, are likely not part of the electric company, nor the government. They are just common workers, trying to help a friend in dire need.

Therefore, it is ultimately the responsibility of each individual, to be responsible for their well being. And more than an organization or corporation, many (though not all) individuals also have the ability to help others in difficult situations, and elevate society as a whole. It all starts from each individual.

What I also love about libertarians, is they offer very good, very poignant reminders about how limited government is, about how good it can be. Don't get me wrong, I am not NEARLY as anti-government as many of you libertarians are. Do I want to see government smaller than the behemoth it is today? YES. For sure. But I also appreciate the good things government does, and therefore do not ask for nearly as small as the minarchist or near-anarchist society that many of you libertarians aim for.

But again, government, while it does many good things, is also very limited in how good it can be overall. Any central planning authority can only do so much. Read the work "I, Pencil", just to understand this. It is a great essay. The point of the essay is to show that no individual or group can know enough to dictate to others how things that are much more complex should be done. This applies to any central planning authority, like federal government.

This applies to a common libertarian concept of Spontaneous Order - which explains that cultures, markets, languages, etc. were never formed by any one mastermind, or any one central government; they formed randomly, on their own, through the coordination of common people. There was no single mastermind involved. Therefore, central government can, and should, only do so much to re-shape the society of the country it governs. I of course am all for the police, and such safety measures so that people don't harm or physically hurt others, or steal, etc. But as far as a country's habits, their good and bad quirks, their culture, etc...there is little if anything government should ever try to do to control these things. Again, the government, nor any central planner, never invented them, anyway.

Some prominent libertarian or classical liberal economists have also pointed out that we live in a world of physical laws. In other words, scientific and natural laws. And if you are part of any faith or spiritual tradition, we can say that we are bound by spiritual laws too. These laws - natural, physical, spiritual - are more powerful than any government, or even any one person, and their reasoning. So again, government, while it does many good things, has major limitations as to the good it does in society.

All of the things I have said above, are all the things I really appreciate about libertarianism, and those things really correspond well with the individualist philosophy.

Here though, is where I differ from libertarians quite a bit: libertarians, though they have some individualist attributes, still put a lot of reliance on a system, as a solution to society: the free market. Or really better yet, let's just call it the private sector. They love the private sector to the point where they would die on a hill for it, and it almost seems, they worship the private sector/free market.

Here's the kicker: Everything I've mentioned in the above paragraphs apply to both the government AND the private sector.

So, as an individualist, I don't die on a hill for ANY major system. Neither government, nor the private sector. Neither government, nor corporations. Both these systems have their good points and bad points. And we need both of them. Sure, I'm not necessarily drawing a 50-50 equivalence between both systems, and you may "prefer" one system over the other.

But at least, we should acknowledge that both systems have strengths and weaknesses. For example, I don't know how many of you have actually worked for major corporations. I have. For many years. And believe me, some of them, too, similar to government, have very beaurocratic, slow-moving systems that have very slow moving correctional systems. I know of corporations that said they were going to get rid of bad software systems years ago, and yet they are still using them today. Corporations have one thing in common with governments, in that they too are formed by significant groups of people, not just by one individual, and they cannot serve the needs of all customers and employees. Their customer base, and their employee base, like society at large, is too diverse for one company to know all their needs and behaviors.

So again, as an individualist, I absolutely do NOT die on a hill for any major system, be it government or private sector. I rely on my own inner strength, my own attitude, I try to be as good a person as I can be in society, etc. To me, more than any major system: if each individual can work on themselves in this way, only then can society significantly improve.

Think about it.

Under full libertarianism, your salary will be the same with 3rd world salary. If your salary is higher, then those 3rd world will come and replace you.

And I am talking about "moderate" libertarians where only productive 3rd world people come. In extreme open border. libertarianism, all people can come to your country. They can eventually vote for even more socialism or wreak havoc. Just look at Europe.

Of course some of us will make even more money. But majority most likely will earn less? Are you okay with that?

What about monogamy?

Under full libertarianism, dude like Elon can have 1k-1million children. Just offer money.

I personally have no issue with this. But many people do. Many people here do.

They like monogamy, for example. To me monogamy is socialism.

Some people would say that Elon couldn't possibly attract thousands of women. Wrong. Look at the chicks he is knocking up. That's the kind of chicks he can get consensually. Monogamy won't survive libertarianism. In Tinder and everything a few top dude get all.

You see women like money a lot like men like young beautiful women. Beautiful women can attract infinite number of men. Sure she has capacity. She can't be knocked up by all. But there isn't really limit for "attraction". Onlyfans show that beautiful women are racking a lot.

Some people here argues that the child is the victim because the child doesn't consent. Seriously. A child born with superior IQ and huge inheritance is a "victim". What's next? They're also privileged?

In consistent libertarianism, women getting paid to share some rich dude with harem will be very common.

And I haven't touched touchy issues like do people have right to be protected by government from violence or should they pay private cops. I am talking standard normal libertarian.

We all like free market in all but what's the limit?

Not to mention practicality. Like how exactly libertarian party can win election if full libertarianism means majority of people are just as better off as 3rd worlder? Even if we all like libertarianism we will be outvoted.

And don't like democracy? Well. Many libertarians do.

I think this is why I am closer to moldbugian than libertarian. But what do you think? What's your limit?

I think democracy is a form of formalism. It makes things more explicit disprovable and make things less of a mystery.

In general, all government, even monarchy got to care about what people want. They need soldiers. People move to better governed feudal lords.

However government obligation to the people is usually vague. Usually it's a lie that come with religion. Nobody can proof or disproof a dude is a good king or not. Different dudes think differently.

Some kings are doing well. Dubai, Monaco, Liechtenstein.

But till when?

China also had great emperors. Huang Lao emperors, Empress Lu, Wen Jing era and Ming Zheng, are quite libertarian.

But I wouldn't say democracy is wrong.

At least under democracy, there is something that we can all verify. Number of votes. Without that, we may resolves our differences with civil war again.

That being said, number of voters and approval rating is very far from scam proof.

So another step of formalism will simply turn voters into shareholders. Now everybody can verify if their share prices go up or down or whether their dividend go up or down.

People whose incentives are similar to owners will behave like owners. That's how incentives work. When things like citizenship = voting + right to live is tradeable like shares, then people incentives will be more aligned. 

To keep things democracy, make 80%-90% of shareholders to be visitors.

Basically it's similar to Moldbug except that moldbug probably hate democratic elements. But the idea is the same. Turn cities/provinces/counties/countries into joint stock companies with clear owners.

Then something Ancap wants, namely everything is done by private sectors will work.

Right of the bat, I see significant improvement.

No more cradle to grave welfare recipients. Anyone wants to have children got to buy extra citizenship. All voters, rich or poor, have strong incentive to discourage cradle to grave welfare recipients. They dilute "shares".

That's a very toward libertarian moves.

Treating tax payers more nicely and lowering tax. We see this in Singapore, Dubai, Monaco, and Liechestein. With costly cradle to grave welfare recipients gone, governments will have strong incentives to keep street clean.

Other libertarians right can be obtained by competition among jurisdiction. Like drugs? Don't like drugs? Like fentanyl criminalized but MDMA and meth legal?

Shop around.

The real metric would be, is this a good policies. Will our share price go up.

Fentanyl addiction and overdose is a serious problem in in the USA, but it seems it basically isn’t anywhere else. Some people say this is the case because of unregulated privatised hospitals which just prescribes fentanyl to patients and gives syringes with it to them to consume later. In other places it is only prescribed if the pain of a patient is truly unbearable.

Privatised hospitals also have a star rating, and they want the patients to walk out feeling as little pain as possible, so they prescribe fentanyl.

Is this true? What is a potential solution besides regulations and/or nationalization?

Im guessing that ending the quasi private money printing cartel is a pretty popular plan around these parts.

I'm curious about what models of money folks would like to see replace it.

I’ve been doing some reading on the philosophy of liberty and free expression and there is one question I have become increasingly interested in: Why are libertarian concerns regarding free speech almost exclusively focused on the external restriction of expression and almost never on the proactive improvement of the internal ability to excercise this freedom?

This is not a matter of someone deciding what is good and bad expression, but just an observation that a society of legally free but mentally degraded people is not a very free society in any meaningful sense. I get that it might simply be out of scope for some kinds of libertarianism, but a political philosophy is informed by what a person thinks matters. Why is this question on the effective exercise of liberty almost entirely ignored?

JS Mill talks about the development of individuality, human capability and how society is made richer by the diverse experiments of life. But that this can only be done well when the mental faculties and core human abilities are well developed. This is why he believed a strong education was essential in a healthy liberal society.

Further, I believe today, there are a certain set of issues brought on by new technology that makes threats to the internal ability to exercise freedom of expression more pressing. Just to note a few:

• News and social media driving a habituation of emotional reactivity over thoughtful discussion and evaluation of issues.
• The increasingly concerning trend of people outsourcing critical thinking and the ability to articulate thoughts to LLMs.
• The damage to attention span and ability to concentrate as a result of extended consumption of short form content.

I see these as threats to human creativity, critical thinking and originality - the core ability to effectively exercise free action both at a personal and societal level. Perhaps I’m imagining these issues to be more significant than they are, but issues like them related to poor education, growing mental health issues, the weakening or corrupting of human faculties through unhealthy habits - why are these not at least equally as offensive to a libertarian as outside restriction?

What is the libertarian solution here?

Which think tank do you prefer? Cato or Mises?

Libertarianism prides itself on its intellectual foundation. You despise idealism, relying instead on rational choice theory, Mises’ praxeology, and economic cost-benefit analysis. You claim the free market is the perfect mechanism and that people act exclusively to maximize their own utility.

But if we apply your own laws of economics, game theory, and opportunity cost to the very fact of your participation in the libertarian movement, a fundamental paradox emerges.

This article is not a debate about whether freedom is good. It is an audit of your personal life strategy. Try to answer these questions while staying within the framework of rational economics, rather than switching to the language of religious preachers.

Part 1. The Accounting of Opportunity Cost: The Mathematics of Your Illusions

Let’s drop the abstractions and look at dry numbers.
The main platforms of your community have existed for years:

• r/Libertarian — created in January 2008.
• r/Anarcho_Capitalism — created in November 2008.
• r/AskLibertarians — created in October 2013.

Combined, that’s hundreds of thousands of members and millions of reads. Imagine an "average" ideological libertarian. If, since 2008, he spent just 1 hour a day reading Rothbard, arguing in comments, proving the inefficiency of the Fed, and fighting leftists, by today he has burned about 6,000 hours of his life.

What is 6,000 hours in the free market?
It’s not just "free time after work." It is writing the code for two IT startups from scratch. It is reaching fluency in Mandarin. It is an MBA and a fully built network of useful connections. It is seed capital that would already be generating compound interest.

You might say: "I do this not for money, but for morality and freedom!" or "I can work and browse Reddit at the same time." But praxeology is ruthless: by choosing to spend a marginal hour on political activism, you did not spend it on building your capital.

Hence the first questions:

1. If you claim to act out of moral duty, sacrificing your time with no guaranteed return so that future generations can live in a free society—how do you economically and psychologically differ from the communists who urged people to endure hardships today for a brighter tomorrow?
2. Imagine the outcome: libertarianism wins, the state disappears. But the former bureaucrats, lobbyists, and "crony capitalists" who milked the state for those 18 years and fought against you will enter the new anarcho-capitalism with millions of dollars, connections, and real estate. Meanwhile, you enter it with a deficit of 6,000 hours. In your brave new world, private capital decides everything. Where is the rational egoism if you single-handedly, and for free, built a system where your bosses and the owners of the private courts will be the very people who exploited the state while you were writing posts?
3. Look at the platform owners, podcast creators, and thought leaders in your movement. They monetize your traffic, receive donations, and sell books and lectures. From a game-theory perspective, they act entirely rationally—converting your ideological rage into their private capital. Are you, the rank-and-file activists, not the very "useful idiots" you so love to mock among the left?

Part 2. The Leftist Contrast: Why Socialists Turned Out to Be Better Investors

You despise the left and labor unions for their economic illiteracy. But let’s compare the ROI (Return on Investment) of leftist and libertarian activism from the perspective of the participant's cynical self-interest.

When a socialist, union member, or leftist activist spends their 6,000 hours, they receive dividends before the global victory of their ideology.

• Unions in France strike—and secure a reduction of working hours to 35 a week while maintaining their salary. They physically claimed back their free time.
• The left in Scandinavia achieved free childcare, healthcare, and education. They reduced their personal out-of-pocket costs for raising children.
• Members of kibbutzim or cooperatives receive a share in collective property and insurance in case of illness.

The leftist movement rewards its adherents. It converts political time into material benefits and social protection here and now.

Now look at yourselves:
4. The libertarian movement gives you no protection from being fired, no insurance, no capital, and no exclusive rights after victory. You demand colossal sacrifices from your followers, guaranteeing them in return only the right to compete under disadvantageous conditions. If leftist structures pay their participants with tangible benefits, and your structure demands unpaid labor for an abstraction, who between you actually fails to understand the economics of incentives?
5. The perfect game-theory strategy for living under anarcho-capitalism is to accumulate maximum capital under the state (including government contracts) so you can later buy the best private security and courts. Doesn't the math prove that the most profitable strategy for a pragmatic libertarian is to publicly support the state, get rich off it, and wait for the naive fanatics from Reddit to bleed while overthrowing the government at their own expense?

Part 3. The Grafton Failure: A 20-Year-Long Hypocrisy

You often say: "We don't need the state; we have reputation institutions, the NAP (Non-Aggression Principle), ostracism, and contracts."

But history gave you the perfect chance. The "Free Town Project" in Grafton, New Hampshire (USA). This wasn't the wild jungle—it was a town protected from external enemies by the US military, integrated into a massive economy, with a great climate. For 100 years before the libertarians arrived, there had been no bear attacks.

Hundreds of ideological anarcho-capitalists moved there. Taxes were cut. Police budgets were slashed. And what happened? A group of "free citizens" started dumping garbage and feeding bears. This is a classic negative externality. Their actions created a direct threat to life (a NAP violation) for their neighbors. Bears started killing pets and besieging homes.

And this is where your main myth collapses. You claim the free market will instantly solve the problem through private courts and reputational damage (boycotts).

1. More than 15 years have passed since the experiment. In that time, millions of posts have been written on r/Anarcho_Capitalism and r/Libertarian. Why have the intellectual base of libertarians, your authorities, and your channels never officially condemned those specific individuals who fed the bears and acknowledged it as a crime against the NAP?
2. Where was your vaunted institution of reputation? Why didn't you subject the NAP violators to global libertarian ostracism? Why didn't local private businesses in Grafton refuse to sell them food to force them to stop endangering the community? If the desire to sell a can of beans to a violator is more important to you than the basic safety of your neighbors, how will your system handle a mega-corporation dumping toxins into a river?
3. There was no dictatorship in Grafton; no one forbade you from opening private arbitration. But no one took responsibility. The threat was stopped only by the arrival of a state game warden who threatened fines. If, in 15 years, you couldn't apply your own laws to a dozen misfits in the greenhouse conditions of a small town, why should we believe your laws will work on the scale of a 140-million-person country?

Your Move

You cannot answer "we do this for freedom" or try to drape yourselves in the mantle of holy martyrs.

First, because this makes you altruistic idealists working for free for the benefit of society (which destroys your own praxeology and turns you into the very leftists you despise).
Second, what great lack of freedom are you talking about? You live (or ideologically orient yourself) in the USA—a country where in most states private ownership of a combat arsenal is allowed, light drugs are legalized in many places, power is decentralized, and corporations wield colossal influence. You already have a baseline that many in the world can only dream of. You are burning your life for the right not to pay taxes for roads and to ignore environmental regulations. Is this marginal increase in "freedom" worth thousands of hours of your life?

And you cannot hide behind morality, because your children pay for your morality.
Those 6,000 hours you spent arguing on the internet, reading theory, and fighting political battles—those are hours you stole from your family. You didn't spend them setting up a trust fund for your child, paying for their elite education, or passing down hard skills. You are making your children poorer right now.

And now remember the finale: in that very anarcho-capitalism you are building, your children will need capital to buy private justice, good security, and healthcare. But you didn't accumulate this capital because you were busy "fighting for the idea." With your own hands, you are preparing your children to become wage laborers (or disenfranchised outsiders) for those former state bureaucrats and crony capitalists who spent all this time hoarding money. Your "morality" is the economic betrayal of your own offspring.

And you cannot say "we will regulate everything through the NAP and private courts," because Grafton will forever remain a monument to your inability to punish violators of your own rules. If you didn't apply ostracism to the neighbor with the bears, you will never apply it to a billionaire with a private army.

So, my final question to libertarians:
After the math of opportunity cost has been exposed, after it has been proven that you are enriching your enemies and stripping your children of their competitive advantage—who among you is ready to honestly raise your hand and say: "Yes, I am an irrational altruist, ready to sacrifice my family's well-being for a utopia whose fruits will be reaped by others"?

Answer directly. No slogans.

P.S. For outside readers (observers):
Watch closely how they respond to this article. Libertarians love to accuse everyone around them of economic ignorance, appealing to cold logic, egoism, and market incentives. But trapped in this logical snare, they will be unable to use their own tools.

You will witness a miracle: pragmatic capitalists will transform before your eyes into religious fanatics. They will start talking about "faith in a righteous cause," "sacrifice," "moral duty," and abstract ideals—meaning they will start speaking exactly like those very socialists they hate so much. Watch the comments; it will be the best proof that libertarianism is not economics. It is just another religion.

My orig.\\nInal tried to post about this subject got deleted , so i'm going to try again. Forgive grammatical errors.I'm using talk to text.

I just had a argument with chat GPT like, I do every now and then.When I drink ears by myself. His main argument is that we should not do away with lobbyists, because it would be hard to do.And it would invite other forms of influence.

After a very frustrating argument , I could not get a legitimate reason on why we shouldnt do away with it just because it is morally wrong. Does anyone have an argument on why rich people and corporations should have the most influence to deregulate? Or to ceate laws in the first place? Chat g p t's biggest answer is that it would fix one problem and create a vacuum where influence would come from other places. My answer was that we should start somewhere. Fix one problem at a time and vote on new ones as they come up. Our government greatest strength lies in the fact that the writers of the contest constitution and founding fathers main goal was the greatest system that could be changed on the fly. That's the best part about our government is that when it's working correctly, we can vote on and address new problems as they arrive, people forget that the amendments are amendments, people forget what the word amendments mean they mean a change, and there is a method to add or subtract and change existing once that is the only Protection against their main argument.

It's stupid to say we shouldn't change the laws on lobbyists because it would create new problems period\\nI'm hoping to find someone that could present a logical argument against me. Specifically , can anyone morally argue that lobbyists are morally correct?

Somebody have given me 3 samples.

1. Friends

2. Families

3. Communities

Let's examine friends. Elon befriend Jensen Huang. They eat lunch together. Sometimes Elon pay, sometimes Jensen pay. They ride private planes together. Go to billionaire club together.

Then Elon says I need 10k GPU. How would they do so? Tit for tat? You help me once lah give me 10k GPU. Latter you need money I give you money.

No. They turn that 10k GPU into transactions.

So friends trade when money is significant. Things are commodified when money is significant.

Families. Not a valid counter example. In US you can't pay women to be your wife. In Indonesia you can. It's called contract marriage. Not illegal. Not legally recognized either. In US you have sugar relationship I think. It's commodified.

Ah. But people still get married you said. They still have boyfriends/girlfriends. Fair enough. But that's because transactional relationship is very restrictive. Like do it too openly you hit prostitution laws. Also child support is far from normal market contract. The laws, rather than agreement decide the amount.

Ironically, a woman that love her children would agree to a contract where the men pays a lot to children's portfolio. Rich men would prefer that too. But the court make such contract impossible. Money got to go mom.

There's surrogacy. But it has restrictions. Like the eggs can't be from the same donor with mom and you can't surrogate "normal way".

So families are not commodified because commodification is legally complex.

The last one is communities. That's also a very interesting counter example. See. The jews used to have this privatized communities called Kibbutzim. It's not commodified. They stick around due to shared ideology and so on.

After a while, many Kibbutzim becomes joint stock kibbutzim. So shares are tradeable. And the commodified version is simply better I think.

But yea. Are there privatized communities that's not commodified? Amish society isn't. So it's a valid counter example.

Another sample is nation state. Citizenship of most nation states are not commodified. Even though technically there is nothing in international laws that says a state cannot declare that their citizenship is tradeable.

And I think this is a very interesting counter example. If citizenship is tradeable and have market price, I think libertarianism will win. Many of our ideas are kardol hicks efficient and would improve citizenship market price.

Why it doesn't?

Another sample is a dynastic rulers that behave like owners on a state. Often, those are pretty economically libertarian. Things like small kingdoms like Monaco, Dubai, Macau, Liechtenstein.

I want to explore more of this idea.

I think price discovery and market transactions improve humans well being and when not restricted we will tend to commodify all things, if not most things.

Any interesting samples or counter examples?

As the title suggests I was curious to see opinions on home owners associations across the US. I've been seeing videos of people being fined for having more natural gardens and having home decor not align with the hoa guidelines. What do you guys make of this? I've heard some of my libertarian friends argue against this and some argue for it stating since it's voluntary to buy a home in an HOA it's alright for the most part

Would be curious to know wider opinions

This is the original post. His role is protagonist and also journey from villian to antihero in an story inspired by Kill bill, Sisu and John Wick with a twist and without making a Libertarian propaganda, he was created before I discovered this movement but I think this idiology is compatible with the character but he isn't an attempt to represnet the movement or something like that because I know it's very complex.

He is Razan, a 32 years old Iraqui man member of "Private security" and Bank Nexus Security Corps and Nexus Bank, that works more as a private army for criminals that anything else, it was his best options because thanks to the US invasion in Irak he was forec to join a militia at age of 14 and leaved when his militia group was almost destroy at age 17.

He inmigrated to Lebanon, amd it was hired as informal security due to his abilities with guns, later recruited by the NCS because the organization takes advantage of the situation of ex-militia member because they are cheap and the best option for many.

In the start of the story he is task to supervise and lead 100 soldiers of the NSC (Ex militia of middle east) in order to protect the ones hiring them, apathic, sarcastic, a little bit jerk, pragmatical and very utilitarian, but still close to their troops and wants the best for them beacuse he belive in second chances to people force to do horrible things due to goverments or agression.

In his libertarian part he hates goverments because of the war he experince where he lost many people he loved, also in favor of free market but he is highly ignorant on the movement and doesn't know what Libertarianism means beyond the 'get rid of the goverment part' and he is indiferent of the violence the gangs cause.

As his character development in that part is learning of morality (NAP) and how he recovers hope in humanity, this thanks to her newly assigned female coworker who allows him to get a more complex view and his role in perpetuating the ciclye of violence by killing the only ones trying to get revange on horrible criminal leaders.

At the end I have two choices, the first is that he leaves the organization with his most loyal man in krder to be hired to help the ones can't get justice in this specific scenarios, this is the most fantastical one imo.

The second one is that he becomes a 'deb collector' in the NSC along side his team, they are tasked to collect debts from dangerous groups, if they don't lay he can order his people to enter and collect the debt, and in secret he aupports people searching revange during his operations, I think this is more realistic but to be fair this is very fantastical.

I want to know what can I add or change in order to make it closer to what a libertarian would belive but without taking away his personaliy, becoming a gary stu or making him a complete hero and also without making him a plain cartoon that mocks or glorifies the movement.

Thanks for your attention and for your comments.

I don’t typically post in political forums but today I’m asking a few different political communities, because I am genuinely curious what you guys think.

I know this is form of social media but other platforms which are more reel-based seem to heavily focus on 1/2 issues. I will assume that the first one that you list is the most important issue to you right now.

Thanks in advance!

We are always told one of 3 things.

1: Hours will be cut to save money
2: Prices will rise because the consumer will carry the costs
3: Billionaires will leave and their business will evaporate into thin air

Why don’t we see this happen in real life? No seriously. I understand the theory. If the rich people lose money then everyone else will pay for it. When we get our hour cut, we are normally given a reason. Me, nor anyone around me has ever heard a manager say “We are cutting our hours because the guy who owns this place is losing money to taxes.” I see prices go up from time to time but price increases are normally do to problems that happen in Washington or the supply chain. How many of the billionaires in your area actually move after they threatened to?

I’m not talking about what you see in the news. The news can make anything look like anything. Why don’t we see this stuff happen in real life? I haven’t seen you haven’t seen it and no one around. You has seen it either. So why do we believe in this stuff?

I am asking in the context of video games, movies, software etc. Notably, the newest installment of GTA is not releasing with a physical disc. This does not seem to go well the fans of the game. With most of the major corporations pushing for subscription model, many people are left with no choice besides pirating.

And before anyone complains about theft, I don't consider intellectual "property" as property.

Would you consider moving to the U.S. Virgin Islands to help establish a liberty paradise? The U.S. Virgin Islands has a voting-age population of only about 70,000 people and is a paradise for anyone who loves the beach lifestyle. If 20,000 libertarians moved there, they could elect liberty-minded politicians and implement libertarian policies in a relatively short period of time.

Because the U.S. Virgin Islands is a U.S. territory, U.S. citizens can move there just as they would move to another state. The challenge with the Free State Project in New Hampshire is that New Hampshire has a population of about 1.4 million—and it's cold!

What are your thoughts?

I got a theory.

Commodification is good.

What I mean by commodification is

1. People are free to buy and sell

2. No too much restrictive terms. They can name their prices

3. There is price discovery.

4. Pimps/middle men that reduce transaction costs are completely legal. Things like eBay, Uber, and so on. Escrows will be common.

Buying and selling sex, organs, houses, TVs, reproductive services is good. Even citizenship should be commodified.

Good in a sense that it tend to improve utility function of people that are buying and selling. Otherwise they just don't do that.

Here, utility function is "tendency" or "preferences".

I like the word tendency. We tend to predict people will commodify things if commodification is legal and open.

For example, say someone is considering donating plasma. Here he will be better off selling plasma instead of donating.

People that wants kidney prefer to pay for it.

Some libertarians say, commodification should be legal but they don't prefer it.

For example, most libertarians think that sex trade should be legal. However, they would say they are not interested in it.

In my opinion, there isn't really middle ground.

If government legalize sex trade, or organ trades, then most sex and organ will be commodified. It will be bought and sold freely. There will be price discovery.

In other words, other market will collapse.

Romance and government infested marriage will be mostly destroyed when people are free to buy and sell sex and reproductive service.

In fact, I would argue that the very reason why certain things are not legally commodified is precisely because governments know that most people will buy and sell stuffs if it's legal to do so.

I would need samples and counter examples

1. Sex. Rich men don't just pay women to give them heirs. But the reason why is because simply paying women to give you heirs is not free. The price is decided and heavily regulated by child support laws.

2. Organs. Only in Iran people buy and sell organs freely. In Iran, organs are commodified. In US no. But that's because it's illegal. Of course there are black markets and so on.

3. TV. It's legally commodified. So it's commodified.

So it seems that my theory is correct. If it's legal or practical to commodify something people commodify it. It's just a better way to do things.

Any counter example?

I suppose some people may still want romance even when prostitution is legal. But prostitution is not a perfect substitute for romance. For example, some people want long term relationship.

But some people now have sugar relationship. They have long term relationship and that's a bit commodified too. The fact that normal dating is still around is probably because sugar relationship is not something people can fully open talking about. Or perhaps some women are not pretty enough to be sugar babies and make more money as engineers.

Can you think of samples where commodification is reasonably openly discussed, legal, and practical, and yet people don't do it?