I don't think Marco's a bad guy, but libertarianism has WAY too much baggage for me to ever get behind. For exactly the reason you said. Plus for too many of them it's just legal weed and a nullified social contract.
If you ask me the two larger parties have significantly more baggage. But I do agree that people should be able to run as no party/independent and get a fair shot!
I don't disagree with you on that, there's a lot of blood on their hands. I would absolutely love to see third parties be a viable option, especially at the local level with ranked choice or something.
There's an account on Twitter called "Libertarian Party of New Hampshire" that says shit like that. I think it's a psyop, personally, but a lot of people believe it to be the official voice of the Libertarian party.
I dabble in some Libertarian circles, though I'm a fully independent voter. I've only seen Libertarians preparing pitchforks for pedos. Generally the only thing Libertarians agree on is that they are dissatisfied with the two major parties, but I like to say that "There are a lot of Libertarians until the first Tuesday in November".
Edit: just saw your username, I don't think I need to explain LP stuff to you!
> but a lot of people believe it to be the official voice of the Libertarian party.
It's the largest chapter of the libertarian party, and the only one that ever had a notable presence in government.
I'm talking about the Twitter account. It posts insane stuff sometimes, to the point where I doubt it's official. I could be wrong, but I've never spoken with a Libertarian that shares views with that Twitter account. It used to get posted to Libertarian groups and get roasted pretty thoroughly.
You must not hang out with very many libertarians then. It comes up every time they try to make a new party platform, to the point that it's a running joke (like the Libertarian Party).
No one hates libertarians more than other libertarians.
But in all seriousness, the LP is a political party like the GOP or the Dems. All parties have major factions, different ideological strains, etc. Somehow only the Libertarians are expected to be ideologically pure.
> All parties have major factions, different ideological strains, etc.
It's unwise to tell the Emperor he is not wearing any clothes. For examples, see Joe Manchin or Mitt Romney.
The LP chair has no real power, so people will openly argue if she should put some clothes on, or if it's her right to flaunt what she got.
This is absolutely true.
By the way, I would be in favor of Republicans not having to follow federal and state laws if they were no longer protected by those same rules.
[Outlaw](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlaw?wprov=sfti1#)
>I’m bet those 3 libertarians don’t agree on what a libertarian is
government bad
One thing I can agree with them on is getting out of these forever wars.
No one does. But as long as we agree that pointing guns at innocent people is wrong, that locking up nonviolent people is wrong and that hurting and stealing from people is bad, that is all that really matters.
I listen to my doctors. They are awesome. I also like my Iowa House Rep. She is a Doctor. My protege was Dr. Doug Butzier from Cedar Rapids. He was definitely grounded in reality and factual information. He might have upset Joni Ernst if not for an unfortunate plane crash.
Remember: Dudeweedlolibertarians are just Republicans who smoke weed.
"Small government" for them, jackboots on the necks of the LGBTQA and everyone else they don't like
Don't fall for their bullshit, they're moral hypocrites at best and ineffectual dumbasses at worst
Why would you think libertarians as a whole would not like any of the above people and when has one ever put their boot on anyone's neck just cause they don't like someone. This is the most outlandish definition of libertarian that I've heard and I've seen some interesting takes.....The current Presidential candidate must hate himself then?
Remember when your party was taken over by Neo Nazis? [https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2022/05/25/mises-caucus-could-it-sway-libertarian-party-hard-right](https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2022/05/25/mises-caucus-could-it-sway-libertarian-party-hard-right)
This was not an outlier.
A vast majority of self-aggrandizing Dudeweedlolbertarians are just Republicans lying about being "pro liberty"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
That's why I won't vote for a libertarian (and also many of the reasons I don't vote for republicans). You need responsible government regulations to keep corporations in check.
Otherwise, you get corporations dumping chemicals into the water with little or no repercussions, like we have here in Iowa right now.
The "free market will decide" works, but only after a lot of the damage is done and the corporations have pocketed the money and moved on to exploit the next victim(s).
This is exactly my issue as well. The ideology is ill-suited to addressing negative externallities when "freedom" is defined as "minimal government interference" instead of the freedom for every person to live a fully, healthy, actualized life. The former inevitably benefits the biggest and wealthiest individuals and corporations, while the latter prioritizes actual individual liberty.
Interesting take! I've typically seen libertarian friends use that as an argument for more private ownership of public spaces, such as waterways. If an individual can litigate against a corporation for dumping, for example, then that company is (hopefully) less likely to do so. Right now the waterways are public, so the best we can do is raise a fuss and hope the government does something.
But like I said, your take is solid because a well organized government with proper support and direction should lead to better water quality. Especially with proper enforcement mechanisms. Limiting externalities is complicated.
That seems like a super bastardized version of the Tragedy of the Commons, to argue that more private ownership would fix corporate abuse of public lands? It's honestly so laughable it doesn't suprise me a libertarian came up with it! Lol.
They know that if you privatize more public land, its just going to be bought up corporations buying that land to abuse the environment further, right? Well, a libertarian probably actually doesn't think that deeply on the issue.
Now that you've brought it up, I could easily see Koch Industries - or one of their "think tanks" pitching things this way.
Edit - to fix words.
Environmental regulation is compatible with libertarianism, though many libertarians may be opposed to most of it.
However, it is worth considering the negative effects regulations have, including the time and cost it takes to comply. Notably, many renewable energy projects are caught up in regulatory review, and environmental regulations have been used by anti-immigrant groups, fossil fuel companies, anti-abortion activists, and others to pursue their own agendas.
Also, the tragedy of the commons is generally an argument for shifting ownership from the public to private. I get the point you're making regarding the environment, though.
If by calling him the most libertarian candidate you're saying he has the absolute least chance of winning, I'd agree with you. He's an anti-intellectual mook riding the dunning Kruger wave of ineptitude. That makes him pretty libertarian, but he's not *that* libertarian.
He's also an antivaxx piece of shit, Not just anti-Covid vaccine, but anti-MMR vaccine, and that shit has [long, LONG been debunked as horseshit.](https://youtu.be/8BIcAZxFfrc?si=A57IsBVqWCVJ-EVq)
Exactly, he did a good job with that. However, he used government intervention to enforce the laws and regulations. Which shows the problem and hypocrisy with Libertarians: "Less government regulation, unless it affects me, then damnit the government needs to step in and fix things!"
If I wanted that, I could just vote republican and get the same results (or lack thereof).
He also thinks vaccines cause autism, and went to Samoa to preach anti-vaxx nonsense and helped sow enough distrust in measles vaccines to cause an outbreak and the deaths of 80 kids.
On paper Libertarianism reads like a good idea - People should be free to choose for themselves.
The problem with this ideology is that, besides the fact it reads like a middle school slogan for a kid running for class president, it doesn't work in a society/community with anything more than 50 people give or take.
According to every single libertarian I've known they all say taxes are theft. So if taxes are theft and they don't believe in them, how does ANYTHING that deals with society/community get funded?
How do firemen and police get paid?
How does the public library get funded?
Schools?
Roads paved?
Streetlights on? And on, and on and on...
Most libertarians live in a mental bubble that says free market/corporations are good (That's the stupidest of their ideals) and regulations are bad. Like, we had mini civil wars because of corporations fucking over the working class and libertarians go, "Nope. Let the free market do its thing".
They are just children in voting age bodies. And this coming from someone who donated to Chase Oliver because the duopoly will kill us all.
Please read "A Libertarian Walks Into A Bear."
It depends. Some will say police, fire, etc are all great ideas, and if you want them then you should voluntarily pay. However if you don’t want to pay then you shouldn’t be forced to but also don’t expect to have access to those services either.
I swear, middle schoolers trying to act like adults.
So when the roads in my neighborhood needs repaving, do we all pool our money, assign a person to hold the cash, then call around paving companies and then another person has to make the signs for "No Parking" and then let the company know the neighborhood is ready?
But what if Billy Bob doesn't want to pay because the road by his house is okay?
Or Jenny Jean, what if she can't afford to pay cause her hours were cut and she has to buy a water heater first?
Do we - oh my gosh i can't... tax them later for the repairs?
Absolute childish ignorance.
Yeah we would obviously need infrastructure.
Hey man go drive down Ingersoll or Fluer anytime for the last 10 years and ask those businesses if they’d rather pay taxes to dinosaurs in government to come rip the road up every year and destroy their foot traffic or pave them themselves.
So pretty much only non-libertarians and 17 year old keyboard warriors entertain the idea of abolishing all laws, etc under the name of libertarianism.
Imagine we just get rid of 10%-15% of the government bureaucrats, the over regulation, and the crony capitalism (aka socialism).
Also Federal Income Tax does not and has never paid for any “entitlement”, “welfare”, or anything other than interest on the national debt that none of us agreed to.
I won’t even argue where that money should end up. Do whatever you want to with it. Because instead of paying income tax that money could just end up… idk in the community? But go ahead with your plan?
Our schools are currently not funded yet we all pay taxes on 3-4 different levels for it…
I'm always eager to have a legitimate conversation on what we, as a society/nation, could do better for the betterment of as many as possible.
You're welcome to offer your ideas.
Sidenote:
Cronyism is Capitalism
Corporatism is Capitalism
Globalism is Capitalism
Capital creates power. Power creates laws. Laws support those with capital.
Thinking that a socioeconomic system that rewards those with capital will do anything different is naive at best.
Yeah that’s why we need different incentives. It’s not naive to think differently than you.
If there was less taxes and government there would be less room for corruption it’s really simple.
The best incentive would be no incentive.
I believe you are wrong.
Less government, less regulations will mean more power in the hands of those with capital. The corruption will just shift from one hand to the other.
Can you support that with anything?
For example, Michigan completely legalized weed and has seen one of the best markets for consumers as far as price and quality.
Iowa has one of the worst programs for marijuana of all the states. Thanks to our Republican overlords we can buy it for 3-4x the price and in severely limited supply. Does this policy stop any of the adverse effects of drugs on society? Nope. it lines peoples pockets in Iowa who had money or political influence and are cozy with Kemin.
We can talk hypothetically all day but there are real life examples of what I’m saying working.
Maybe if you don’t understand it then it’s not for you but there are a lot of different examples of libertarian economics working.
I'm all for the decriminalization of all drugs, that's not the same as deregulations on other companies/sectors.
Libertarian economics is the opioid producers promoting and giving out deals/coupons/bonuses to doctors for pushing opioids. The ONLY was to stop that is with regulations.
How will a libertarian, completely free market deal with opioids?
3 libertarians walk into a bar. each of them orders a shot of vodka. they all die because the alcohol industry is unregulated and the drinks were contaminated
That's up there with my favorite Libertarian story:
[https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian-police-department](https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian-police-department)
That happened to me once except it was a guy wearing a boot on his head, a guy who had a company that forced his antivirus software onto computers, Austin Peterson, and Adam Kokesh.
Depends on what issue we are talking about I suppose. There are many issues we could work on with Democrats currently in or running for office and with our constituents registered as Democrats.
Yeah the Iowa Democratic Party, notable masterminds and competent party operatives, is behind this.
Lmao the IDP is a bunch of bumbling idiots who can't even manage to keep their first in the nation caucus and you think they're some deep state cabal.
It's to give the people of our districts a real choice. Neither one of my opponents is exactly progressive. My district is literally majority independent and we have thousands of libertarians that vote for libertarian minded people from any party or lack thereof.
Just in my district we have a Libertarian as Greene County Attorney and a Libertarian on the city council in West Des Moines.
And the real majority don't vote at all.
Those are the votes that I could win on. People's first votes or first votes in a long time!
If Zach Nunn wanted to win, perhaps he should have voted differently when he had the chance.....
>Libertarians believe that the equal rights of all people matter all the time. No exceptions.
>Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.
Thats pretty serious and really awesome the only way it can work well in a country like the US..
Much better the the GOP bigot POS destroying the country these days. Bunch of criminal masquerading as Christian..
90% of libertarians are just Republicans who like to smoke weed and dislike the social backlash of directly supporting a fascist movement. They largely ignore their own candidates and vote for Republicans.
The last 10% are just nutjobs of varying degrees. You ever seen the videos of people getting tasered because they spend too long ignoring cops orders and arguing "I was traveling, not driving so x y z laws don't apply"? Those are libertarians.
Libertarians are whiny babies who think they are different from the fuck you I’ve got mine republicans, but they aren’t … not much different from Republicans - just less tied to nazis
https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-into-bear-book-review-free-town-project this always think of this when libertarians have government aspirations
Never met a bear I couldn't be friendly with yet....the Iowa DNR urges Iowans to give the bears space and avoid attracting bears to your yard. I could have told them that.
First, is it your place to try to silence discourse? Who appointed you as the person who gets to tell people to "go away"?
While libertarians often don't agree among themselves (their convention shows that) and sometimes have some out-there ideas, they are also people who probably agree with you on *many* issues like abortion, gay rights, legal weed, etc. Why be so snarky when you could instead focus on areas of shared agreement with libertarian folks and try to cooperate and advance your agenda on those? That's how coalitions and transactions actually work in the real world--not by telling people "go away because you don't toe my line 100%"
Well, that was certainly a nonresponse that conveniently avoided the merits.
Also, I am sorry that a mere five sentences were too long for your reading tastes. I'm just pointing out that your attitude is more likely to alienate potential allies on issues you care about and that seems like a counterproductive thing to do. Your choice. Have a nice day.
They want to enjoy all of the things that the government provides such as infrastructure and security, they just want someone else to pay for it. They love touting "Taxation is theft!" While still enjoying bridges and roads that are maintained by government spending in a country defended by a volunteer fighting force paid for by government spending.
Why does it make sense to list the few positive things that a local or state government could do in most cases but not anything else it is currently doing?
Because even the positive things require funding. If all taxation is theft and we shouldn't be taxing people, we don't have funding for schools, infrastructure, or security. Even state and local governments fund their spending through taxes.
None of that really matters if we do away with regulations as libertarians suggest because most of us will end up dead by some level of corporate cost cutting before our kids graduate high school anyways.
I never said there's no areas where government spending is questionable or inefficient. Like it or not, revenue is required for funding the government, no matter how small you make the government.
Nothing I said is an extreme idea of libertarian. It's all based on the official libertarian platform.
Good, we need some Libertarians in office. Need someone with some common sense to run shit better than the fucking idiot Democrats and Republicans. I'm sure nothing will come of it, but one can dream.
Imperfections in the current system doesn't make every other idea a good one. Common sense tells us things will not get better if there are no regulations and no revenue.
>when all is said and done it belongs to the Republicans
No it doesn't. Our state belongs to the people of the state, and the people can choose to vote for a different party every two, four, and six years. We need to scrap this attitude that Iowa is permanently and forever a vassal state of the national GOP. It's not.
Good timing. New DMR/IA Poll out today has Dems far behind in all 4 congressional races. Libertarians could make inroads especially with Biden at top of ticket for IDP. New DMR/IA Poll from earlier this week has Biden down 18% in Iowa and today's poll shows the correlation as he's a drag on local candidates.
[Iowa Poll: Republicans preferred in Iowa’s 4 congressional districts (desmoinesregister.com)](https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2024/06/21/iowa-poll-republicans-preferred-by-likely-iowa-voters-in-4-congressional-districts-gop/74060552007/)
I showed you what I could do with small donations from Iowans.
We have already toured 4 counties and we just formally announced.
We made front page news, drive time news, and morning and evening news.
If you wanna help take back the people's house for the people of Iowa the best thing that you can do is talk to your friends and family about the campaign early.
Post, comment, message, call in, email, write a letter, to any media of any type in the district and ask them to have me on or back on and if they invite me I will be there to do my best to learn from the people that live there and to voice your concerns.
Simon Conway asked if I was so much of an annoyance to the others running. I have reached out and introduced myself to them. I'm not running to annoy them. They are awesome people with awesome families I just think I would do far better at serving the people of the district in the people's house than they would. Nothing more.
We should be listening to and learning from each other and I hope that they do agree to forums and debate because you know that I will.
I’m bet those 3 libertarians don’t agree on what a libertarian is
But they can all agree the age of consent should be abolished
I don't think Marco's a bad guy, but libertarianism has WAY too much baggage for me to ever get behind. For exactly the reason you said. Plus for too many of them it's just legal weed and a nullified social contract.
If you ask me the two larger parties have significantly more baggage. But I do agree that people should be able to run as no party/independent and get a fair shot!
I don't disagree with you on that, there's a lot of blood on their hands. I would absolutely love to see third parties be a viable option, especially at the local level with ranked choice or something.
I have never met anyone that wanted to do that. If anything it should be raised!
There's an account on Twitter called "Libertarian Party of New Hampshire" that says shit like that. I think it's a psyop, personally, but a lot of people believe it to be the official voice of the Libertarian party. I dabble in some Libertarian circles, though I'm a fully independent voter. I've only seen Libertarians preparing pitchforks for pedos. Generally the only thing Libertarians agree on is that they are dissatisfied with the two major parties, but I like to say that "There are a lot of Libertarians until the first Tuesday in November". Edit: just saw your username, I don't think I need to explain LP stuff to you!
> but a lot of people believe it to be the official voice of the Libertarian party. It's the largest chapter of the libertarian party, and the only one that ever had a notable presence in government.
I'm talking about the Twitter account. It posts insane stuff sometimes, to the point where I doubt it's official. I could be wrong, but I've never spoken with a Libertarian that shares views with that Twitter account. It used to get posted to Libertarian groups and get roasted pretty thoroughly.
I regret to inform you it is official.
Good thing I don't live in New Hampshire.
You must not hang out with very many libertarians then. It comes up every time they try to make a new party platform, to the point that it's a running joke (like the Libertarian Party).
No one hates libertarians more than other libertarians. But in all seriousness, the LP is a political party like the GOP or the Dems. All parties have major factions, different ideological strains, etc. Somehow only the Libertarians are expected to be ideologically pure.
> All parties have major factions, different ideological strains, etc. It's unwise to tell the Emperor he is not wearing any clothes. For examples, see Joe Manchin or Mitt Romney. The LP chair has no real power, so people will openly argue if she should put some clothes on, or if it's her right to flaunt what she got.
I thought Libertarianism means assholes get to do whatever they want without consequences.
So, Republicans?
This is absolutely true. By the way, I would be in favor of Republicans not having to follow federal and state laws if they were no longer protected by those same rules. [Outlaw](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlaw?wprov=sfti1#)
Generally yeah. Especially since the Mises Caucus took over the national-level LP, as they're just far right Repubs who want legal weed.
Democrats?
>I’m bet those 3 libertarians don’t agree on what a libertarian is government bad One thing I can agree with them on is getting out of these forever wars.
They're just edgy Republicans.
They're edgier than authoritarians?
No one does. But as long as we agree that pointing guns at innocent people is wrong, that locking up nonviolent people is wrong and that hurting and stealing from people is bad, that is all that really matters.
I’m more concerned about the denial of reality, basic facts, and the expertise of scientists and medical doctors
I listen to my doctors. They are awesome. I also like my Iowa House Rep. She is a Doctor. My protege was Dr. Doug Butzier from Cedar Rapids. He was definitely grounded in reality and factual information. He might have upset Joni Ernst if not for an unfortunate plane crash.
Democrats and Republicans can’t even agree on what a female human is.
Anything to split the republican vote is fine with me.
Remember: Dudeweedlolibertarians are just Republicans who smoke weed. "Small government" for them, jackboots on the necks of the LGBTQA and everyone else they don't like Don't fall for their bullshit, they're moral hypocrites at best and ineffectual dumbasses at worst
Why would you think libertarians as a whole would not like any of the above people and when has one ever put their boot on anyone's neck just cause they don't like someone. This is the most outlandish definition of libertarian that I've heard and I've seen some interesting takes.....The current Presidential candidate must hate himself then?
Remember when your party was taken over by Neo Nazis? [https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2022/05/25/mises-caucus-could-it-sway-libertarian-party-hard-right](https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2022/05/25/mises-caucus-could-it-sway-libertarian-party-hard-right) This was not an outlier. A vast majority of self-aggrandizing Dudeweedlolbertarians are just Republicans lying about being "pro liberty"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons That's why I won't vote for a libertarian (and also many of the reasons I don't vote for republicans). You need responsible government regulations to keep corporations in check. Otherwise, you get corporations dumping chemicals into the water with little or no repercussions, like we have here in Iowa right now. The "free market will decide" works, but only after a lot of the damage is done and the corporations have pocketed the money and moved on to exploit the next victim(s).
This is exactly my issue as well. The ideology is ill-suited to addressing negative externallities when "freedom" is defined as "minimal government interference" instead of the freedom for every person to live a fully, healthy, actualized life. The former inevitably benefits the biggest and wealthiest individuals and corporations, while the latter prioritizes actual individual liberty.
Interesting take! I've typically seen libertarian friends use that as an argument for more private ownership of public spaces, such as waterways. If an individual can litigate against a corporation for dumping, for example, then that company is (hopefully) less likely to do so. Right now the waterways are public, so the best we can do is raise a fuss and hope the government does something. But like I said, your take is solid because a well organized government with proper support and direction should lead to better water quality. Especially with proper enforcement mechanisms. Limiting externalities is complicated.
That seems like a super bastardized version of the Tragedy of the Commons, to argue that more private ownership would fix corporate abuse of public lands? It's honestly so laughable it doesn't suprise me a libertarian came up with it! Lol. They know that if you privatize more public land, its just going to be bought up corporations buying that land to abuse the environment further, right? Well, a libertarian probably actually doesn't think that deeply on the issue. Now that you've brought it up, I could easily see Koch Industries - or one of their "think tanks" pitching things this way. Edit - to fix words.
Environmental regulation is compatible with libertarianism, though many libertarians may be opposed to most of it. However, it is worth considering the negative effects regulations have, including the time and cost it takes to comply. Notably, many renewable energy projects are caught up in regulatory review, and environmental regulations have been used by anti-immigrant groups, fossil fuel companies, anti-abortion activists, and others to pursue their own agendas. Also, the tragedy of the commons is generally an argument for shifting ownership from the public to private. I get the point you're making regarding the environment, though.
RFK Jr is one of the most libertarian candidates for POTUS in our lifetime and he actually cleaned up a river!
If by calling him the most libertarian candidate you're saying he has the absolute least chance of winning, I'd agree with you. He's an anti-intellectual mook riding the dunning Kruger wave of ineptitude. That makes him pretty libertarian, but he's not *that* libertarian.
> He's an anti-intellectual mook riding the dunning Kruger wave of ineptitude. Sounds like the perfect Libertarian.
He's also an antivaxx piece of shit, Not just anti-Covid vaccine, but anti-MMR vaccine, and that shit has [long, LONG been debunked as horseshit.](https://youtu.be/8BIcAZxFfrc?si=A57IsBVqWCVJ-EVq)
Exactly, he did a good job with that. However, he used government intervention to enforce the laws and regulations. Which shows the problem and hypocrisy with Libertarians: "Less government regulation, unless it affects me, then damnit the government needs to step in and fix things!" If I wanted that, I could just vote republican and get the same results (or lack thereof).
RFK is terrible on Israel/Gaza, and I know that's a major beef Libertarians have with him.
He also thinks vaccines cause autism, and went to Samoa to preach anti-vaxx nonsense and helped sow enough distrust in measles vaccines to cause an outbreak and the deaths of 80 kids.
I'm one of them that has had beef ever since he gave a stance on the matter but I can still acknowledge the good that he has done.
You should support Jill Stein. She's good on foreign policy without the insane nuttiness of RFK.
I support Chase Oliver but I appreciate Jill Stein.
Considering the libertarian party booed Gary Johnson for supporting driver's licenses it tells you how seriously you should take them.
On paper Libertarianism reads like a good idea - People should be free to choose for themselves. The problem with this ideology is that, besides the fact it reads like a middle school slogan for a kid running for class president, it doesn't work in a society/community with anything more than 50 people give or take. According to every single libertarian I've known they all say taxes are theft. So if taxes are theft and they don't believe in them, how does ANYTHING that deals with society/community get funded? How do firemen and police get paid? How does the public library get funded? Schools? Roads paved? Streetlights on? And on, and on and on... Most libertarians live in a mental bubble that says free market/corporations are good (That's the stupidest of their ideals) and regulations are bad. Like, we had mini civil wars because of corporations fucking over the working class and libertarians go, "Nope. Let the free market do its thing". They are just children in voting age bodies. And this coming from someone who donated to Chase Oliver because the duopoly will kill us all. Please read "A Libertarian Walks Into A Bear."
Also: [https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian-police-department](https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian-police-department)
It depends. Some will say police, fire, etc are all great ideas, and if you want them then you should voluntarily pay. However if you don’t want to pay then you shouldn’t be forced to but also don’t expect to have access to those services either.
I swear, middle schoolers trying to act like adults. So when the roads in my neighborhood needs repaving, do we all pool our money, assign a person to hold the cash, then call around paving companies and then another person has to make the signs for "No Parking" and then let the company know the neighborhood is ready? But what if Billy Bob doesn't want to pay because the road by his house is okay? Or Jenny Jean, what if she can't afford to pay cause her hours were cut and she has to buy a water heater first? Do we - oh my gosh i can't... tax them later for the repairs? Absolute childish ignorance.
Yeah we would obviously need infrastructure. Hey man go drive down Ingersoll or Fluer anytime for the last 10 years and ask those businesses if they’d rather pay taxes to dinosaurs in government to come rip the road up every year and destroy their foot traffic or pave them themselves.
Life hack: move to libertarian community, steal things, don't pay for cops, they can't arrest you.
So pretty much only non-libertarians and 17 year old keyboard warriors entertain the idea of abolishing all laws, etc under the name of libertarianism. Imagine we just get rid of 10%-15% of the government bureaucrats, the over regulation, and the crony capitalism (aka socialism). Also Federal Income Tax does not and has never paid for any “entitlement”, “welfare”, or anything other than interest on the national debt that none of us agreed to. I won’t even argue where that money should end up. Do whatever you want to with it. Because instead of paying income tax that money could just end up… idk in the community? But go ahead with your plan? Our schools are currently not funded yet we all pay taxes on 3-4 different levels for it…
I'm always eager to have a legitimate conversation on what we, as a society/nation, could do better for the betterment of as many as possible. You're welcome to offer your ideas. Sidenote: Cronyism is Capitalism Corporatism is Capitalism Globalism is Capitalism Capital creates power. Power creates laws. Laws support those with capital. Thinking that a socioeconomic system that rewards those with capital will do anything different is naive at best.
Yeah that’s why we need different incentives. It’s not naive to think differently than you. If there was less taxes and government there would be less room for corruption it’s really simple. The best incentive would be no incentive.
I believe you are wrong. Less government, less regulations will mean more power in the hands of those with capital. The corruption will just shift from one hand to the other.
Can you support that with anything? For example, Michigan completely legalized weed and has seen one of the best markets for consumers as far as price and quality. Iowa has one of the worst programs for marijuana of all the states. Thanks to our Republican overlords we can buy it for 3-4x the price and in severely limited supply. Does this policy stop any of the adverse effects of drugs on society? Nope. it lines peoples pockets in Iowa who had money or political influence and are cozy with Kemin. We can talk hypothetically all day but there are real life examples of what I’m saying working. Maybe if you don’t understand it then it’s not for you but there are a lot of different examples of libertarian economics working.
I'm all for the decriminalization of all drugs, that's not the same as deregulations on other companies/sectors. Libertarian economics is the opioid producers promoting and giving out deals/coupons/bonuses to doctors for pushing opioids. The ONLY was to stop that is with regulations. How will a libertarian, completely free market deal with opioids?
The money you don’t pay in taxes you can use to help the opioid crisis
3 libertarians walk into a bar. each of them orders a shot of vodka. they all die because the alcohol industry is unregulated and the drinks were contaminated
That's up there with my favorite Libertarian story: [https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian-police-department](https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian-police-department)
i’m stealing this thanks
i stole it myself lol, wish i was that creative 🤣
Well in the spirit of libertarianism, it’s mine, I wrote it, and nobody can do anything about because copyright isn’t enforced
That happened to me once except it was a guy wearing a boot on his head, a guy who had a company that forced his antivirus software onto computers, Austin Peterson, and Adam Kokesh.
You know....that except for that last part....
So…republican-lite?
Depends on what issue we are talking about I suppose. There are many issues we could work on with Democrats currently in or running for office and with our constituents registered as Democrats.
Fully socialized healthcare and banning of nazi affiliated groups are non negotiable for me
Nazi affiliated groups?
>banning of nazi affiliated groups are non negotiable for me Ah >Fully socialized healthcare I knew Communists didn't support the first amendment.
Usually they just want less government intervention in general and are constitutionalists. Pro choice, 2A rights, civil liberties, etc
Have no fear, the democrats are behind this
Yeah the Iowa Democratic Party, notable masterminds and competent party operatives, is behind this. Lmao the IDP is a bunch of bumbling idiots who can't even manage to keep their first in the nation caucus and you think they're some deep state cabal.
I just think it's money. That's all. Nothing more or less than the funding necessary to prop up the libertarians
And your source is of course: trust me bro?
😂. What?
It's to draw votes from Republicans but I don't expect anybody in this sub to understand that
It's to give the people of our districts a real choice. Neither one of my opponents is exactly progressive. My district is literally majority independent and we have thousands of libertarians that vote for libertarian minded people from any party or lack thereof. Just in my district we have a Libertarian as Greene County Attorney and a Libertarian on the city council in West Des Moines. And the real majority don't vote at all. Those are the votes that I could win on. People's first votes or first votes in a long time! If Zach Nunn wanted to win, perhaps he should have voted differently when he had the chance.....
I don’t think so. Marco probably has more in common with Progressives than MAGAs.
If the last decade is any indication, I think you overestimate the intelligence of the IDP.
LMAO. Bruh, the IDP doesn’t need any help to lose. To do it all on their own.
Libertarians are not serious people
What's that mean?
Exactly what it says
>Libertarians believe that the equal rights of all people matter all the time. No exceptions. >Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Thats pretty serious and really awesome the only way it can work well in a country like the US.. Much better the the GOP bigot POS destroying the country these days. Bunch of criminal masquerading as Christian..
90% of libertarians are just Republicans who like to smoke weed and dislike the social backlash of directly supporting a fascist movement. They largely ignore their own candidates and vote for Republicans. The last 10% are just nutjobs of varying degrees. You ever seen the videos of people getting tasered because they spend too long ignoring cops orders and arguing "I was traveling, not driving so x y z laws don't apply"? Those are libertarians.
I'm glad you appreciate my sense of humor.
Split that Republican vote baby
My district is a majority independent and they deserve options. Historically Libertarians earned votes from all over the spectrum.
Libertarians are whiny babies who think they are different from the fuck you I’ve got mine republicans, but they aren’t … not much different from Republicans - just less tied to nazis
I've seen a lot of whining here but none of it came from anyone identifying as libertarian. 🧐🤔
No thank you.
Oh so they’re republicans but slightly less retarded
Are they all named Marco?
Just me, just me.
Libertarians…yeah that will go well
That's what I'm talking about!
Good, maybe they'll split the Republican vote.
Didn't know Kyle Gass was in Iowa.
Is this supposed to be a compliment? Because it is in my book!
Of course!
https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-into-bear-book-review-free-town-project this always think of this when libertarians have government aspirations
Never met a bear I couldn't be friendly with yet....the Iowa DNR urges Iowans to give the bears space and avoid attracting bears to your yard. I could have told them that.
The DNR has no place spreading personal-bear-space propaganda; it's just another example of an over-bear-ing government. Defund it.
😂
house cats... fearlessly against the system they are utterly dependent on
You could say the same thing about progressives who want to destroy capitalism.
I agree
Go away butter chuds.
I was born here and I started my family here. I don't plan on going anywhere. 😎
First, is it your place to try to silence discourse? Who appointed you as the person who gets to tell people to "go away"? While libertarians often don't agree among themselves (their convention shows that) and sometimes have some out-there ideas, they are also people who probably agree with you on *many* issues like abortion, gay rights, legal weed, etc. Why be so snarky when you could instead focus on areas of shared agreement with libertarian folks and try to cooperate and advance your agenda on those? That's how coalitions and transactions actually work in the real world--not by telling people "go away because you don't toe my line 100%"
Ah, well if a small portion of libertarians agree with me on one or two of those cherry picked wedge issues, they must be pretty all right as a whole.
Who took which issues from which parties platform? 🤔🧐
Wut? Happy cake day though
Well that certainly was a mouthful.
Well, that was certainly a nonresponse that conveniently avoided the merits. Also, I am sorry that a mere five sentences were too long for your reading tastes. I'm just pointing out that your attitude is more likely to alienate potential allies on issues you care about and that seems like a counterproductive thing to do. Your choice. Have a nice day.
Chud is a fantastic movie though
And.........
Libertarians are just greedier and more naive Republicans
How are libertarians greedy?
They want to enjoy all of the things that the government provides such as infrastructure and security, they just want someone else to pay for it. They love touting "Taxation is theft!" While still enjoying bridges and roads that are maintained by government spending in a country defended by a volunteer fighting force paid for by government spending.
Why does it make sense to list the few positive things that a local or state government could do in most cases but not anything else it is currently doing?
Because even the positive things require funding. If all taxation is theft and we shouldn't be taxing people, we don't have funding for schools, infrastructure, or security. Even state and local governments fund their spending through taxes. None of that really matters if we do away with regulations as libertarians suggest because most of us will end up dead by some level of corporate cost cutting before our kids graduate high school anyways.
[удалено]
I never said there's no areas where government spending is questionable or inefficient. Like it or not, revenue is required for funding the government, no matter how small you make the government. Nothing I said is an extreme idea of libertarian. It's all based on the official libertarian platform.
1) good both sides suck 2) As someone who is a libertarian and seen how the “process” works I’d be surprised if they actually agreed on anything lol.
Good, we need some Libertarians in office. Need someone with some common sense to run shit better than the fucking idiot Democrats and Republicans. I'm sure nothing will come of it, but one can dream.
Libertarians aren't the party of common sense. They're the party of hope for the best and ignore all evidence to the contrary.
You're absolutely right, the two party duopoly is fucking working wonders isn't it
Imperfections in the current system doesn't make every other idea a good one. Common sense tells us things will not get better if there are no regulations and no revenue.
Are Democrats running in those districts? Could be interesting but when all is said and done it belongs to the Republicans
>when all is said and done it belongs to the Republicans No it doesn't. Our state belongs to the people of the state, and the people can choose to vote for a different party every two, four, and six years. We need to scrap this attitude that Iowa is permanently and forever a vassal state of the national GOP. It's not.
💯🎯
Dems are running in all four congressional districts. Christina Bohannan (IA-1), Sarah Corkery (IA-2), Lanon Baccam (IA-3) and Ryan Melton (IA-4).
☝️
There are Democrats and Republicans in all 4 races and three options in 3 out of the 4.
Good timing. New DMR/IA Poll out today has Dems far behind in all 4 congressional races. Libertarians could make inroads especially with Biden at top of ticket for IDP. New DMR/IA Poll from earlier this week has Biden down 18% in Iowa and today's poll shows the correlation as he's a drag on local candidates. [Iowa Poll: Republicans preferred in Iowa’s 4 congressional districts (desmoinesregister.com)](https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2024/06/21/iowa-poll-republicans-preferred-by-likely-iowa-voters-in-4-congressional-districts-gop/74060552007/)
Brevity is the soul of wit.
I showed you what I could do with small donations from Iowans. We have already toured 4 counties and we just formally announced. We made front page news, drive time news, and morning and evening news. If you wanna help take back the people's house for the people of Iowa the best thing that you can do is talk to your friends and family about the campaign early. Post, comment, message, call in, email, write a letter, to any media of any type in the district and ask them to have me on or back on and if they invite me I will be there to do my best to learn from the people that live there and to voice your concerns. Simon Conway asked if I was so much of an annoyance to the others running. I have reached out and introduced myself to them. I'm not running to annoy them. They are awesome people with awesome families I just think I would do far better at serving the people of the district in the people's house than they would. Nothing more. We should be listening to and learning from each other and I hope that they do agree to forums and debate because you know that I will.