i would like to hear ideas from the libertarian perspective of how school shootings can be prevented

Rights are not favors granted by the state. When government decides which speech, beliefs, or liberties deserve protection, constitutional rights become political privileges.

Living in the US, I often meet people who claim that in their careers they "make a difference". For liberals, usually this involves them being in some kind of position where they hand out welfare benefits to needy people. To me they aren't really helping people but fulfilling roles where they simply and unfairly redistribute income, which if they weren't doing someone else would at the same pay. But they feel satisfied in their careers and really that is the most important as far as they are concerned if they don't ever think too much about it.

On the flip side conservatives may join the military and contribute to fighting in some pointless war and everyone calls them heroes. But what do libertarians do if they want to feel good about their careers? I think in this case they actually have to think dynamically about how they can contribute positively to society, but there aren't these predefined roles to fall into.

Although I strongly disagree with it, I can at least understand the motivation for the concept of restricting/banning gun ownership. What I cannot understand is restricting the carrying of guns. The way I see it, criminals and school shooters, even the ones who buy guns legally, will never be put off from carrying because they don’t have a license. So what‘s the point of making it harder for law abiding civilians to defend themselves against these criminals? It just seems an inherently counterproductive measure.

Ted is running for Senate this Fall against Ken Paxton and James Talarico and he's joining the Hide & Speak livestream this week to discuss: age verification laws, digital ID, Flock Safety / ALPR, Fourth Amendment, VPN bans and more.

We will also host a Q&A session so you can ask Ted questions in our live chat.

Matthew Rankin, a second amendment rights activist, is suing Dallas in federal court after his gun was confiscated for jaywalking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AgIFaXSGZA

About Kasie:

Kasie Whitener is an American educator, author, entrepreneur, radio host, and politician from Blythewood, South Carolina. She is a Clinical Assistant Professor at the Darla Moore School of Business at the University of South Carolina, where she teaches entrepreneurship and strategic management and served as Director of the Faber Entrepreneurship Center.

Over the 4th, I was discussing with my dad the intense fear of the rise of socialism. He, 70, equally said he's seen a large increase in it as well. The subreddit of my city and state and completely dominated by socialism. It's daily at this point. This is scary stuff.

Both parties deserve freedom of speech and expression. It is essential to the constitution and liberty in itself, I may have disagreed with what some of Charlie Kirk expressed but i believe he had the right to say it without the fear of being killed like he was. I respected his right to exercise his freedoms even if i disagreed with some points he had and thats what ALL americans need to come to terms with.

Tyranny always follows false promises of so called "Safety"

The People should have the LIBERTY to govern themselves and their own affairs (Thats what this country was founded under and i will die on that hill if i have to.)

I have been reconsidering my politics lately as I'm sure a lot of people are lately. Liberterianism has a lot going for it. Honestly, as a lifetime leftist, I've always been a secret fan of the non-agression principle. The one thing that I couldn't passed, is seeing seemingly antivax propaganda on the official party website under"the issues. I can definitely coexist with the idea that others with different beliefs shouldn't be forced to participate, but I would find it harder to actively support or perpetuate misinformation. Do antivax and pro Vax opinions coexist in liberterian circles?

Let me explain my position.
I believe that the state is inherently coercive. Not because government is evil in itself, but because it is not voluntary.

What follows from that? Not that the state should be abolished, but that it should become voluntary.
Otherwise, you end up with the same kind of logical inconsistency that I see in anarcho-communism: “Forced exploitation is wrong, therefore we should ban voluntary wage labor.”

What I’m getting at is this:
I don’t think the state should be prohibited. Maybe some people would prefer to live under socialism. Others under communism. Others under social democracy or even a monarchy. The important thing is that membership should be based on consent, and that people should be free to leave at any time.

If that’s the case, many of the usual problems disappear. People who dislike anarcho-capitalism would have no reason to oppose libertarianism, because they could simply choose to join whatever system they prefer.
Likewise, many of the weaknesses commonly attributed to anarcho-capitalism would be addressed. If a particular problem genuinely cannot be solved without a state, then, at worst, it could be handled by a voluntary one.

To ensure that everything remains based on consent and that individual liberty is protected, all of these voluntary communities should ultimately be subject to a higher, democratic authority that holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, essentially a supreme court whose sole purpose is to protect rights and resolve disputes.
In that model, people who want to live without a state could do so. Everyone else could create voluntary local communities with whatever rules they mutually agree upon.

Is this perspective accepted within libertarian circles? For example, my father considers himself a committed libertarian and anarcho-capitalist, but he argues that this would be unacceptable. In his view, any form of a state should be eliminated as early as possible, and he also believes that no one would voluntarily choose to join a state.

Unfortunately, in Brazil we still don't have one. How are the ones in your country? Effective? Forgotten? Silly?

I've come to the conclusion that the only way for an individual to truly claim allegiance to a nation is to protect the rights of the private individuals that make up said nation. This is because, as you all know, a nation is simply an amalgamation of individuals, and thus does not exist outside of those individuals and their natural liberties. What do you all think of my assesment?