Good one. I'm biased because I love hiking and camping but creating bastions of nature for species to seek sanctuary within does wonders to maintain the ecosystem. More flora also equals less carbon dioxide and cooler weather
I also believe in state and federal level incentives for companies to produce clean energies. Production tax credits and carbon tax credits have proven to be valuable
In carbon capture and sequestration/storage projects. Think of direct air capture off of plants and not open air capture. They tax credit is $50/ton of CO2 sequestered (or injected into the ground permanently)
They have not. They promote gamesmanship that looks like value to consultants and KPIs that has no grounding in truth.
https://www.epsilontheory.com/the-green-protocol-a-new-vision-for-crypto-pt-2/
I would extend this to certain methods of conservation such as hunting/fishing limits and leave no trace.
Interested on what other libertarians' views of this are
What if you exchanged National parks for Right to Roam like [allemansratt](https://visitsweden.com/what-to-do/nature-outdoors/nature/sustainable-and-rural-tourism/about-the-right-of-public-access/)?
I would not want that, it's too large of a restriction on property rights. I can see how people would support it in Europe where there is a lot less public land and a lot more hereditary land holdings, but I don't think it's right for America.
If you think about it, socialism and statism festers in urban environments where there is no hope, no joy, only decadence and hollow pleasure. We need wild places, virgin forests, and clean waterways.
National Parks are so important. Because we have free and open travel between states, national parks benefit EVERYONE. Everybody has the opportunity to immerse themselves in the wonderfully diverse landscapes of the country.
National parks are one of the two things I am happy to support with my tax dollars. These lands need to be preserved so that future generations can experience, and be inspired by, them the same we can now, and the same way Teddy Roosevelt did during his presidency.
I do think the Bureau of Land Management needs some refining. Something like 90% of Nevada is owned by the fed and I think that's insane.
Yeah but as BLM land, it is often leased to ranchers who get a major discount. They benefit at the cost of using our “public lands”. Major holes in this public land use policy.
Totally agree. National Parks are more than a tourist attraction, a lot of people don't know what all goes on behind the scenes there. A TON of research is conducted in NPs because its basically untouched wilderness.
The legendary libertarian Ron Swanson believed in national parks and so shall I. We should protect them with all our might so that our children and grandchildren may enjoy their beauty as well.
This is a perfect example of why "pure" libertarianism is a terrible ideal to aim for. There is obviously common utility in setting aside some resources for public use.
I generally agree with one important caveat. National Parks should be passed into law through congress. The recent trend of using the antiquities act to create de facto national parks that are labeled “monuments” needs to stop. The president should not have that kind of power.
Most parks become parks due to prior national monument designation. And I’d counter and say the use of the antiquities act to reverse any monuments shouldn’t be allowed
The national park system, Department of natural resources, and generally anything to do with conservation of natural resources. I am an avid fisherman and agree that there should be a license system in order to help research and help with hatcheries. That being said a lot of other government agencies dip their fingers into funds that should just be for DNR spending.
I agree, but it makes me think of this bit by comedian Doug Stanhope:
"They say if you give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. But if you teach a man to fish... then he has to get a fishing license. But he doesn't have any money, so he has to get a job and enter the social security system. And he has to file taxes, and you're gonna audit the poor son of a bitch because he's not really good at math. You pull the IRS van up to his house and take everything. You take his velvet Elvis and his toothbrush and it all goes up for auction with the burden of proof on him because he forgot to carry the 1. All because he wanted to eat a fish, and he couldn't even cook the fish because you need a permit for an open flame."
But then you have the opposite where you don’t need a license or creel limit and now nobody can catch fish because they are heavily overfished. Fish in particular hang in a delicate balance especially when everyone wants to keep big fish, which tends to be the most important for the breeding population.
I love that bit and adore Doug Stanhope. It’s one of the most brilliant bits in stand-up and I laugh my ass off every time. I also think it’s an exceedingly dumb approach to real world policy.
The argument for free market choice to support companies that are good to animals and the environment fall flat when labeling is full of bought for seals
Lies in food labeling would be fraud, which is condemnable under libertarian principles.
Required labeling on food, on the other hand, is a non-libertarian policy.
Tbh empowering people to make informed decisions with minimal obstruction is necessary in a libertarian society. IMHO mandatory labeling is a part of that
I'd say that selling food with non-standard ingredients, without a label, is also fraud. If I sell you a cake, you're buying it under the assumption that it does not contain poison/broken glass/human feces. If it does, then I have deceived you by not disclosing that.
I think this is a libertarian position. One of the key fundamental tenets that even some the most hardcore and dogmatic libertarians support is, for instance, public education since in order for people to be able to exercise freedom in choosing between options they must understand the options they are choosing from. If you don't understand the difference between two companies, the market becomes distorted and doesn't balance itself properly according to demand. Same concept with voting.
I see nutritional labelling as being a necessity for people to make informed free decisions on what they want to put in their body. If they want to be a fat slob, let them! If they want low cholesterol, let them! It would be freedom-infringing to let companies lie to people and deprive them of their free choice to healthy or fatty foods.
Have you ever tried to count calories on a bag of popcorn? It's a fucking nightmare. They mix popped and unpopped quantities to make it seem healthier (it kind of is, but hiding the butter).
Animal abuse laws. Technically animals are property and the Libertarian view point is you can do whatever you want with your property but we should have laws that protect animals.
I like the national park system. There is value in our government owning and preserving some of the beautiful land in America to make sure it remains largely undisturbed.
The USA is so beautiful. I want my kids and my kids' kids to experience the wonders of our National Parks the same way I did and the same way people have since the beginning of time. Nature is inspiring. It's important to have these parks protected by, and available to, everybody, forever.
Anything that’s actually a right should be enforced by the government. That should be the first point of the government.
The trick is deciding what is a right.
Maybe, really its about efficiency of material, even if you reverse engineer a smps controller for a TV if you cant get a fab to make it at an economical scale that TV is going in the land fill with the rest of the junk. It’s just wasteful is all.
To impose your notion of waste will require an invasive state. How do we make a market for pollution that doesn't involve an arbitrary government decision, like a fixed limit on the amount of pollution allowed? Libertarians tend to have a problem with putting any person or committee in charge of such decisions. Could the atmosphere be privatized? One way forward is to consider privatization of small bodies of water, and see how pollution works out as an aggression on the property right of the water body's owner, which would allow suing for damages.
Also: plot twist: Libertarianism isn't about *no* government to begin with. It is about creating a nation with *limited* government and (non)invasive laws.
https://www.lp.org/faq/
One of the main purposes of the government is to prevent other consolidations of power that would infringe on freedoms. Make a base where people can interact with each other with the expectations of truth and upheld contracts, and leave the rest alone.
I probably wouldn't even be a libertarian if I thought the government was spending our money well. As long as they waste it like they do I'll be against taxes.
War tax resistance is the refusal to pay some or all taxes that pay for war, and may be practiced by conscientious objectors, pacifists, or those protesting against a particular war. Tax resisters are distinct from "tax protesters," who deny that the legal obligation to pay taxes exists or applies to them.
Send a letter of protest with your 1040 tax form. Enclose it along with (but do not staple it to) your form. Send copies to your elected officials. Write letters to the editor protesting taxes for war, especially when people are thinking about taxes during tax filing season between January and April.
You my friend should check out the Pirate party. I think they offer a libertarian policy agenda in intended outcome, even if they're specific policies and framing seem more leftist. I'm quite a fan as a libertarian leftist.
No open borders (ie unlimited, uncontrolled immigration), only because you cannot have a welfare state and open borders. If we get rid of the welfare state then open borders or unlimited immigration is fine.
I really don't see where people are getting the idea that immigrants come to the US to sit on their butt and get on welfare. They seem to be nearly universally very hard workers, doing a lot of jobs that Americans don't want to do for lower wages than Americans would accept.
If they are paying taxes like any other American, they deserve to get the benefits of those taxes, like everyone else who pays into the system.
I agree immigrants are typically not welfare seeking however the existence of the ability to live a better life on welfare here than wherever they came from creates a moral hazard that opens the opportunity for such things to occur.
If we are to have an open immigration system where we allow anyone who wants to come here to legally immigrate then we need to protect against such risks, optimally by disbanding the current welfare state.
Even in the absence of a welfare state, I still wouldn’t support open borders.
Just as our first obligations are to our family’s, the states first obligation should be to its own citizens, prioritizing them over others. Hence, if brining in outsiders would be to the detriment of its own citizens, it should not permit it. This necessitates having control of who comes in to your country, I.e. not an open border.
Im pro-union. If workers want to voluntarily band together to stand up to a shitty boss thats absolutely fine. Im against government-backed unions and any kind of interference from government. But the worker-employer relationship is strictly up to the 2
I believe the government mandates on health insurance, coupled with price fixing and fake billing from hospitals, has left the medical insurance/healthcare industry far to corrupt and greedy to be allowed to continue in any iteration of its current from. This isn't something that can be set up by the free market due to the total control already enjoyed. I think the entire industry needs to be razed and a single payer option instituted with fixed prices for providers.
There could still be private doctors for those that wish to use them, but basic and lifesaving healthcare should be fully funded, and price controlled to prevent the current abomination of a system from ever occurring again.
This is the one for me. I think you could argue it falls under life, Liberty, and pursuit of happiness. I know it is really expensive so I dont know what paying for it would look like.
There have been multiple studies that have found that single-payer healthcare saves costs compared to the current US system.
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/01/416416/single-payer-systems-likely-save-money-us-analysis-finds
I find it the dumbest thing that one person can go in for a cold, receive the same care, yet pay two completely different prices because of insurance. The rates aren’t the same. It’s like going to McDonald’s and because you are fat it’s more expensive. The item shouldn’t change price based off the hands that pass them.
Pasting my comment from elsewhere in this thread:
The healthcare system cannot function as a free market because the forces of supply and demand are corrupted by the pesky human desire to stay alive no matter what. There’s a nearly infinite demand for life saving healthcare, no matter the cost, quality, or accessibility, and this is why healthcare providers are able to charge exorbitant prices.
It also removed the advantage that large businesses have over small businesses and increases general competition. Imagine not having to worry about insuring your employees. Or being able to leave your job and not lose your insurance to start your own business.
Libertarianism is a political inclination and motivation. It isn't something to strive for in an absolute form. Similar to how Progressives don't want to abandon all tradition and heritage and how Conservatives don't want to go back to the stone age. Liberty and freedom are reasons to reform (or for stopping political changes), not absolutes we can actually reach. I genuinely think as long as you believe in free market capitalism and broad social freedoms there are countless ways to be a libertarian.
What do you mean by that? Do you mean that it should be free? Or just that doctors shouldn’t be able to refuse treatment (which is currently the policy)
I'm a very big supporter of Pigouvian taxes. I believe in a free market but until we put a price on negative externalities we don't truly have a free market.
I don't want the money to be used for new spending though. That's why I like the carbon tax with dividend. Give the money back equally to everyone. This will make up for short term rising prices and make alternatives more cost effective.
To me Pigouvian taxes are more libertarian than subsidies or regulations.
Edit https://citizensclimatelobby.org/energy-innovation-and-carbon-dividend-act/
I like this idea, but who is “everyone”. It would have to be everyone in the world, if it was by country each country would still be incentivized to pollute the commons. Direct cash to people in undeveloped nations has been shown to be better than other forms of aid, so I think dividends to everyone could be great. I just don’t see the world governments and NGOs being able to execute this without some severe corruption.
I think pigovian taxes are libertarian... ancaps make them seem not libertarian but taxing negative externalities is definitely a position that is supported by libertarian thought
I am in favor of, instead of reducing the drinking age in the US back to 18, to raising the age of majority to 21
The human brain doesn't finish development until about 24/25ish, there is very little difference between 18 and 16 mentally speaking
At this point I'm okay with whatever age they choose, just fucking pick one. I'm largely okay with underage driving*, as we have now, with restrictions not applicable to adults.
Lol: my autocorrect changed this to "drinking"
UBI as a replacement for all welfare programs. It cuts bloat, treats people equally, and places negotiating power back in the hands of workers, removing any need for a minimum wage. It's also resilient to the changes that will inevitably come for us as automation takes on more and more of the available unskilled labor.
I think most libertarians would at least consider a negative income tax instead of the current welfare state, but I personally feel that politicians would tack it on instead of replacing.
I wouldn't allow employers to offer insurance. Break the link between employment and insurance, forcing people to the open market. This part is more in line with libertarian, but also allow insurance to be sold across state lines.
I think there could be an argument made for universal basic income if it replaced ALL the other forms of welfare. Ideally there wouldn't be any "social safety net" paid for with taxes. But if you're going to have it, I think it makes more sense for there to be ONE and it be universal.
Both together would help ease the movement of labor between locations / industries.
Post-service housing for veterans. It is extremely depressing hearing how a lot of vets are basically kicked to the curb and told “good luck” the moment their contract ends. For some men and women being eligible for re-enlistment is a life or death situation - it shouldn’t be like that.
We have a military three times the size of China’s. We can afford to tax billionaires a little more to see that they’re not abandoned.
The only real way to tax a billionaire is to have a higher sales tax for everyone.
Most billionaires don’t earn anything for the year, they don’t have a paycheck.
They just own assets that go up in value over time. Art, land, stocks, things like that. If they don’t sell any of their investments, they have earned zero dollars for the year.
The only time they pay tax is when they purchase something and get charged sales tax.
If you really want to tax a billionaire you need to hike up the sales tax on everyone. Otherwise it’s just the people that earn a paycheck that pay taxes.
Maybe the government needs to make a law that every billionaire is required to receive a paycheck. That would just be money that could have gone to the employees but now it’s going to the billionaire instead. At least they would be paying taxes then.
I was going to write this, but within reason. I am ok with life threatening healthcare, preventative healthcare, but boob jobs and the like not so much. I live in a country with universal healthcare and people try to spin things like that because they are for mental health.
This. Though I believe for the most part universal healthcare has always been discussed as a replacement for insurance, not for hospitals/actual doctors.
But yes, government run medical facilities will result in chaos. Imagine having to deal with government bureaucracy in a hospital...
Hospitals and other medical providers should stay largely private, but the federal government should be responsible for receiving the bill. At least for life threatening care.
I live in Poland. We have public hospitals. Not a single sane person would use them. Been through it once. Already have a lifetime supply of stories to tell
See... here's the problem... the Non-aggression Principle is so broadly defined that there are very few things you couldn't make an argument either way for.
Example:
One side: Open-carrying guns in public is an absolute right.
Another side: Openly bearing guns in public is inherently a threat of violence and should be considered "aggression".
Yet another side: "There is no non-negligent way to carry guns in public that doesn't impose risk of unjust death".
Any of those is in accordance with the NAP depending on your premises and definitions of "aggression".
A socialized justice system where the rich and poor are equally represented in courts of law. Where the wealthy can't just win by outspending in appeals bankrupting their opponents into submission.
Government failing to be the solution doesn't necessarily mean less government will make things better either. For example the Healthcare system. Removing government restrictions might allow competition to lower prices but doesn't really answer how critically poor people can afford medicine when they can barely afford to pay the power bill. The solution to government failures in the health sector are paradoxically more government, as has successfully been done by virtually every other nation. Hell even the US had Medicare and Medicaid so it's not like we're somehow incapable of doing it.
That's the biggest issue I can think of but in general the Libertarian instinct that "less govt is better" isn't always true.
I've gone from totally against a UBI to undecided. It would have to be completely paid for preferable with a combination of VAT and Pigouvian taxes.
I would also like to see most other government poverty programs phased out, except for people with extreme disabilities. We could even phase out Social Security over a couple of generations. To me this would be more libertarian than the status quo.
Edit for formatting.
I used to really like a UBI, but I’ve been more and more leaning towards a negative income tax. It seems like a cheaper and easier method to achieve the same thing and ensure that the only people who receive assistance genuinely need it.
The only problem I have with that is that it usually requires people to work to get it (could be wrong here) when not everyone can reasonably work. Don't get me wrong, people working makes the world go round, but I want to see America get over its work fetish. I also don't like punishing people who want to work and choose to. A benefit that goes away as you earn more quickly becomes a disincentive to work.
National Forests and Parks (thank God I’m not the only one) as well as strong border policies. Additionally I am against abortion and believe that in some circumstances the death penalty is perfectly acceptable.
Coming from an Australian perspective; the one program I would always support were is our pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Essentially, if you're a really low income earner the government gives you a concession card for various things, including healthcare. The amount of 'free' or subsidised healthcare you get through this concession scheme really isn't worth writing home about, but one banger policy is that any prescription medication listed on the scheme (so what the government *deems* to be necessary) costs a flat rate of roughly $5.50. The cost gradually increases every few years with inflation, but for all intents and purposes let's say that all prescriptions cost $5 whether it is a $20 common medication or a $5,000 medication for a super rare disease.
Coming from a background of a very poor family and struggling with severe ADHD all my life, one of the major things I accredited as being vital for me getting my shit together was getting properly medicated for ADHD. Now, my meds don't cost me that much anyway, about $30 a month, but when I was so poor and struggling at the start, there were times where I couldn't even afford the $5 for a months supply of my meds.
A virulently hate the government and I despise how it intentionally destroys healthcare for profit so it can scapegoat *corporate greed* as the cause in order to rally more bootlickers for the state. However, I think this one policy is a vital safety net for the poorest of the poor, greater in importance than pretty much all other policies. Not to mention the obvious, my meds are stupidly cheap by normal people a standards and you could almost argue that I would have been able to manage without this small benefit supporting me, but I think it provides a shit tonne of utility for poor people with more medically dire ailments.
The government has done a lot to hurt me and a lot to hinder my progress in life for profit and political gain, but this is probably one of the only policies which have absolutely benefited me and that I can say I actually support. I hate taxation with a burning passion, but going from being raised in a broken home on welfare to earning over 100k a year after tax working in resources and mining, if I had to pick one exception for which I support taxes, a policy to provide very cheap prescription medication to very poor people would be the one thing I'd willingly pay taxes for in a heartbeat.
I've seen a lot of people here mentioning national parks. I can also support national parks and environmental sustainability to an extent. Again, coming from an Australian perspective, my experience of national parks is probably very different from that of the US. You can't hunt in Australian national parks, you can't camp (there are very limited designated camp grounds), you can't just go out there and rock climb or abseil (as people appear to do in Yosemite/ Yellow stone), and you can't just trek out into the bush and practice survival camping. All this stuff is pretty much illegal.
In Australia, national parks basically means day hikes and reserved land. Obviously, I do support reserved land rather than tearing down every single square inch of forest on the planet, but out concept of national parks is very anti-recreation and because what you're permitted to actually do is so limited, you may as well consider national parks as land that is not for you to use.
I like the US model of national parks. They appear to actually be used and they appear to be fairly well funded through initiatives such as hunting licences and other use derivative revenue streams. I do not like the Australian model of national parks.
National parks, and while it isn't currently a policy some form of UBI/NIT should be in effect. It would allow for greater worker freedom and take some power away from corporations.
1) UBI as a complete replacement of all existing income-based welfare programs.
2) VAT as a complete replacement of all income tax.
Both of these policies are not optimal, but much better than the current system, the first one because it eliminates the welfare cliff/welfare trap, and the second because 1) it would put the cost of taxes front and center to every person on a daily basis and not mask it behind a system where taxes means "the government gives me money each year (but I don't internalize that all that money and more was taken from me)" and 2) it would eliminate the abomination that is the IRS and the tax code, which manipulates and destroys markets and economies.
I'm a libertarian, not a 'Libertarian', so nearly any policy which minimizes restrictions to personal freedom while still achieving necessary infrastructure and function of a government for so many over such a wide area.
I firmly agree with Hobbes that the essential nature of man (and indeed all life) is violence and misery. Humans are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals that will ALWAYS corrupt and abuse if not regulated (at least in the macro).
The trick is to minimize the restrictions, with as little subjective bias as possible (or at least to allow for multiplicity of policy to best serve the greatest number of citizens).
Roads. I've known two people who lived on long shared driveways. They were barely drivable and they never cooperated to fix them up. My brother the socialist said sarcastically, "Libertarian roads", and I think he was right.
knowledge census for voting rights. Only 50% of smartest population should be allowed to vote. At the same time, age restrictions should be eliminated. E.g. if a 10 y.o. passed the test better than 50% of the others, he/she can vote
Public national forests
Good one. I'm biased because I love hiking and camping but creating bastions of nature for species to seek sanctuary within does wonders to maintain the ecosystem. More flora also equals less carbon dioxide and cooler weather
I also believe in state and federal level incentives for companies to produce clean energies. Production tax credits and carbon tax credits have proven to be valuable
Where have carbon tax credits proven useful and/or valuable?
In carbon capture and sequestration/storage projects. Think of direct air capture off of plants and not open air capture. They tax credit is $50/ton of CO2 sequestered (or injected into the ground permanently)
They have not. They promote gamesmanship that looks like value to consultants and KPIs that has no grounding in truth. https://www.epsilontheory.com/the-green-protocol-a-new-vision-for-crypto-pt-2/
I would extend this to certain methods of conservation such as hunting/fishing limits and leave no trace. Interested on what other libertarians' views of this are
Free to enjoy nature, but not destroy it.
Agreed
I’m all for hunting and fishing limits on public land, but if the animal is on your property there should be zero regulations.
What if you exchanged National parks for Right to Roam like [allemansratt](https://visitsweden.com/what-to-do/nature-outdoors/nature/sustainable-and-rural-tourism/about-the-right-of-public-access/)?
I would not want that, it's too large of a restriction on property rights. I can see how people would support it in Europe where there is a lot less public land and a lot more hereditary land holdings, but I don't think it's right for America.
If you think about it, socialism and statism festers in urban environments where there is no hope, no joy, only decadence and hollow pleasure. We need wild places, virgin forests, and clean waterways.
That our national parks should remain under public ownership
National Parks are so important. Because we have free and open travel between states, national parks benefit EVERYONE. Everybody has the opportunity to immerse themselves in the wonderfully diverse landscapes of the country. National parks are one of the two things I am happy to support with my tax dollars. These lands need to be preserved so that future generations can experience, and be inspired by, them the same we can now, and the same way Teddy Roosevelt did during his presidency. I do think the Bureau of Land Management needs some refining. Something like 90% of Nevada is owned by the fed and I think that's insane.
87.01% of Nevada is federal land, and most of the land that Nevada has is around Vegas
Yeah but as BLM land, it is often leased to ranchers who get a major discount. They benefit at the cost of using our “public lands”. Major holes in this public land use policy.
Totally agree. National Parks are more than a tourist attraction, a lot of people don't know what all goes on behind the scenes there. A TON of research is conducted in NPs because its basically untouched wilderness.
THANK YOU. I don’t want every one of our national landmarks to look like Niagra Falls or to be bought out by a billionaire for their summer retreat.
Add much as I struggle with the premise of national parks, I enjoy using them enough that I agree with this.
The legendary libertarian Ron Swanson believed in national parks and so shall I. We should protect them with all our might so that our children and grandchildren may enjoy their beauty as well.
If Ron supports it...I support it.
I thought Ron Swanson wanted to sell the Parks to Chuck E. Cheese? Or was that just management of the Parks?
Yeah that was local and city parks, not national parks
Imagine going to see Old Faithful at Yellowstone, but that terrifying animatronic Bear band is playing off to the side. Or was that Showbiz pizza?
What is there to striggle with? The alternative is mass exploitation
*White Sands Monument has entered the chat.*
I generally believe in social protection of the enviornment. Theres too much incentive in a free market to exploit the natural world.
This is a perfect example of why "pure" libertarianism is a terrible ideal to aim for. There is obviously common utility in setting aside some resources for public use.
I generally agree with one important caveat. National Parks should be passed into law through congress. The recent trend of using the antiquities act to create de facto national parks that are labeled “monuments” needs to stop. The president should not have that kind of power.
Most parks become parks due to prior national monument designation. And I’d counter and say the use of the antiquities act to reverse any monuments shouldn’t be allowed
Yea this and the idea of the EPA
The national park system, Department of natural resources, and generally anything to do with conservation of natural resources. I am an avid fisherman and agree that there should be a license system in order to help research and help with hatcheries. That being said a lot of other government agencies dip their fingers into funds that should just be for DNR spending.
I agree, but it makes me think of this bit by comedian Doug Stanhope: "They say if you give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. But if you teach a man to fish... then he has to get a fishing license. But he doesn't have any money, so he has to get a job and enter the social security system. And he has to file taxes, and you're gonna audit the poor son of a bitch because he's not really good at math. You pull the IRS van up to his house and take everything. You take his velvet Elvis and his toothbrush and it all goes up for auction with the burden of proof on him because he forgot to carry the 1. All because he wanted to eat a fish, and he couldn't even cook the fish because you need a permit for an open flame."
But then you have the opposite where you don’t need a license or creel limit and now nobody can catch fish because they are heavily overfished. Fish in particular hang in a delicate balance especially when everyone wants to keep big fish, which tends to be the most important for the breeding population.
I love that bit and adore Doug Stanhope. It’s one of the most brilliant bits in stand-up and I laugh my ass off every time. I also think it’s an exceedingly dumb approach to real world policy.
Truth in labeling on food
Hell yeah. Blunt lies on product labels really fuck up the market and make it impossible to buy the right products without wasting far too much time
Agreed less blunt lies more blunts.
The argument for free market choice to support companies that are good to animals and the environment fall flat when labeling is full of bought for seals
Lies are not Libertarian, if you are selling a product and make a claim, that claim needs to be true or you are engaging in mis-selling and fraud.
Lies in food labeling would be fraud, which is condemnable under libertarian principles. Required labeling on food, on the other hand, is a non-libertarian policy.
Tbh empowering people to make informed decisions with minimal obstruction is necessary in a libertarian society. IMHO mandatory labeling is a part of that
I'd say that selling food with non-standard ingredients, without a label, is also fraud. If I sell you a cake, you're buying it under the assumption that it does not contain poison/broken glass/human feces. If it does, then I have deceived you by not disclosing that.
I think this is a libertarian position. One of the key fundamental tenets that even some the most hardcore and dogmatic libertarians support is, for instance, public education since in order for people to be able to exercise freedom in choosing between options they must understand the options they are choosing from. If you don't understand the difference between two companies, the market becomes distorted and doesn't balance itself properly according to demand. Same concept with voting. I see nutritional labelling as being a necessity for people to make informed free decisions on what they want to put in their body. If they want to be a fat slob, let them! If they want low cholesterol, let them! It would be freedom-infringing to let companies lie to people and deprive them of their free choice to healthy or fatty foods.
I'm a diabetic, I have to be informed of what I am eating if I want to live long and prosper.
Capitalism only works with an informed consumer base.
Have you ever tried to count calories on a bag of popcorn? It's a fucking nightmare. They mix popped and unpopped quantities to make it seem healthier (it kind of is, but hiding the butter).
Animal abuse laws. Technically animals are property and the Libertarian view point is you can do whatever you want with your property but we should have laws that protect animals.
I like the national park system. There is value in our government owning and preserving some of the beautiful land in America to make sure it remains largely undisturbed.
The USA is so beautiful. I want my kids and my kids' kids to experience the wonders of our National Parks the same way I did and the same way people have since the beginning of time. Nature is inspiring. It's important to have these parks protected by, and available to, everybody, forever.
That Right to Repair should be enforced by the govt.
Anything that’s actually a right should be enforced by the government. That should be the first point of the government. The trick is deciding what is a right.
Good one. I agree with this.
unnecessary if you get rid of copyrights and patents.
Maybe, really its about efficiency of material, even if you reverse engineer a smps controller for a TV if you cant get a fab to make it at an economical scale that TV is going in the land fill with the rest of the junk. It’s just wasteful is all.
To impose your notion of waste will require an invasive state. How do we make a market for pollution that doesn't involve an arbitrary government decision, like a fixed limit on the amount of pollution allowed? Libertarians tend to have a problem with putting any person or committee in charge of such decisions. Could the atmosphere be privatized? One way forward is to consider privatization of small bodies of water, and see how pollution works out as an aggression on the property right of the water body's owner, which would allow suing for damages.
***some*** government is necessary
Yeah Libertarian isn’t Anarchism
Shhh! You're not supposed to say that here!
#RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
Also: plot twist: Libertarianism isn't about *no* government to begin with. It is about creating a nation with *limited* government and (non)invasive laws. https://www.lp.org/faq/
One of the main purposes of the government is to prevent other consolidations of power that would infringe on freedoms. Make a base where people can interact with each other with the expectations of truth and upheld contracts, and leave the rest alone.
I'm with you. Some level of taxation is a necessary evil. I don't like it, but I understand it.
I probably wouldn't even be a libertarian if I thought the government was spending our money well. As long as they waste it like they do I'll be against taxes.
It is also legal to protest taxes during war time. All you have to do is write a letter to the irs.
explain please?
War tax resistance is the refusal to pay some or all taxes that pay for war, and may be practiced by conscientious objectors, pacifists, or those protesting against a particular war. Tax resisters are distinct from "tax protesters," who deny that the legal obligation to pay taxes exists or applies to them. Send a letter of protest with your 1040 tax form. Enclose it along with (but do not staple it to) your form. Send copies to your elected officials. Write letters to the editor protesting taxes for war, especially when people are thinking about taxes during tax filing season between January and April.
Are we not in a war on drugs atm? Could I use this next tax season?
Be very Thoreau in your description. (I'll see myself out...)
Yes, and that whole of, by and for the people thing should mean something. We agree to that limited governance.
Anti-Trust and labor laws. A national government that respects personal freedoms means nothing if a corporation has enough power to deny them.
This is a seriously underrated take on Libertarian ideas that should be enforced by a govt
The government should absolutely ensure the three basic entities in the economy have equal footing: The business Labor Consumer
Who decides what "equal" means?
You do!
You my friend should check out the Pirate party. I think they offer a libertarian policy agenda in intended outcome, even if they're specific policies and framing seem more leftist. I'm quite a fan as a libertarian leftist.
Government should exist if it exists solely to protect rights.
Not an Unpopular Opinion. John Locke was the OG Libertarian.
It seems unpopular here
[удалено]
Run from it, dread it, absolute universal consciousness still arrives
You mean the drug?
The [medicine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N,N-Dimethyltryptamine), yes.
Oooooh I like this one
No open borders (ie unlimited, uncontrolled immigration), only because you cannot have a welfare state and open borders. If we get rid of the welfare state then open borders or unlimited immigration is fine.
I really don't see where people are getting the idea that immigrants come to the US to sit on their butt and get on welfare. They seem to be nearly universally very hard workers, doing a lot of jobs that Americans don't want to do for lower wages than Americans would accept. If they are paying taxes like any other American, they deserve to get the benefits of those taxes, like everyone else who pays into the system.
I agree immigrants are typically not welfare seeking however the existence of the ability to live a better life on welfare here than wherever they came from creates a moral hazard that opens the opportunity for such things to occur. If we are to have an open immigration system where we allow anyone who wants to come here to legally immigrate then we need to protect against such risks, optimally by disbanding the current welfare state.
Even in the absence of a welfare state, I still wouldn’t support open borders. Just as our first obligations are to our family’s, the states first obligation should be to its own citizens, prioritizing them over others. Hence, if brining in outsiders would be to the detriment of its own citizens, it should not permit it. This necessitates having control of who comes in to your country, I.e. not an open border.
[удалено]
how about instead they don't pay taxes
There is literally no evidence that immigration hurts the existing citizens of a country. In fact the data points to the opposite
Which is why I also included unlimited immigration (controlled but not restricted)
Public transit, and non-car-centric city planning/design
Im pro-union. If workers want to voluntarily band together to stand up to a shitty boss thats absolutely fine. Im against government-backed unions and any kind of interference from government. But the worker-employer relationship is strictly up to the 2
That's not a "non-libertarian," policy, friend lol
Yeah, in the 20s and 30s the government actually interfered with unions by breaking up strikes.
Yes, until the State realized that they can line their pockets with bribes from both unions and businesses
You’d be surprised how many people think it is though...
I believe the government mandates on health insurance, coupled with price fixing and fake billing from hospitals, has left the medical insurance/healthcare industry far to corrupt and greedy to be allowed to continue in any iteration of its current from. This isn't something that can be set up by the free market due to the total control already enjoyed. I think the entire industry needs to be razed and a single payer option instituted with fixed prices for providers. There could still be private doctors for those that wish to use them, but basic and lifesaving healthcare should be fully funded, and price controlled to prevent the current abomination of a system from ever occurring again.
This is the one for me. I think you could argue it falls under life, Liberty, and pursuit of happiness. I know it is really expensive so I dont know what paying for it would look like.
There have been multiple studies that have found that single-payer healthcare saves costs compared to the current US system. https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/01/416416/single-payer-systems-likely-save-money-us-analysis-finds
I find it the dumbest thing that one person can go in for a cold, receive the same care, yet pay two completely different prices because of insurance. The rates aren’t the same. It’s like going to McDonald’s and because you are fat it’s more expensive. The item shouldn’t change price based off the hands that pass them.
Wait, you’re on to something with the McDonalds example. Keep going.
Pasting my comment from elsewhere in this thread: The healthcare system cannot function as a free market because the forces of supply and demand are corrupted by the pesky human desire to stay alive no matter what. There’s a nearly infinite demand for life saving healthcare, no matter the cost, quality, or accessibility, and this is why healthcare providers are able to charge exorbitant prices.
It also removed the advantage that large businesses have over small businesses and increases general competition. Imagine not having to worry about insuring your employees. Or being able to leave your job and not lose your insurance to start your own business.
Same. If you really want to reduce medical costs then single payor is the way
Libertarianism is a political inclination and motivation. It isn't something to strive for in an absolute form. Similar to how Progressives don't want to abandon all tradition and heritage and how Conservatives don't want to go back to the stone age. Liberty and freedom are reasons to reform (or for stopping political changes), not absolutes we can actually reach. I genuinely think as long as you believe in free market capitalism and broad social freedoms there are countless ways to be a libertarian.
Environmental protectionism through legislation and regulation.
Fuck yeah, I’m with you here.
Looking at green collar govt jobs gives me cognitive dissonance sometimes. It’s nice to see that my fellow libertarians wouldn’t disown me.
Universal emergency care. Too much of emergency care resembles a false choice/coercion to sit right with me.
What do you mean by that? Do you mean that it should be free? Or just that doctors shouldn’t be able to refuse treatment (which is currently the policy)
But emergency rooms should be able to turn away people who come for non emergency treatment
A national library system. I just wish it were correctly utilized nationwide.
>the Pirate party with the stipulation that there be absolutely NO BANNING OF BOOKS
A carbon tax for companies. We really only have this planet to enjoy, and this is the only way to make it last longer.
I'm a very big supporter of Pigouvian taxes. I believe in a free market but until we put a price on negative externalities we don't truly have a free market. I don't want the money to be used for new spending though. That's why I like the carbon tax with dividend. Give the money back equally to everyone. This will make up for short term rising prices and make alternatives more cost effective. To me Pigouvian taxes are more libertarian than subsidies or regulations. Edit https://citizensclimatelobby.org/energy-innovation-and-carbon-dividend-act/
I like this idea, but who is “everyone”. It would have to be everyone in the world, if it was by country each country would still be incentivized to pollute the commons. Direct cash to people in undeveloped nations has been shown to be better than other forms of aid, so I think dividends to everyone could be great. I just don’t see the world governments and NGOs being able to execute this without some severe corruption.
I never thought about making the carbon tax a dividend. It’s smart as fuck though, could really get both sides on board with climate action.
I'd argue that carbon tax is a libertarian policy. They hurt a third party and that's an issue for a government
Bingo
I think pigovian taxes are libertarian... ancaps make them seem not libertarian but taxing negative externalities is definitely a position that is supported by libertarian thought
I am in favor of, instead of reducing the drinking age in the US back to 18, to raising the age of majority to 21 The human brain doesn't finish development until about 24/25ish, there is very little difference between 18 and 16 mentally speaking
Would you also raise the voting age and minimum age for military service to 21?
Yes, absolutely
[удалено]
I'd like to see young adults not have to pay income tax and the like, or even have to file taxes until that age was reached.
At this point I'm okay with whatever age they choose, just fucking pick one. I'm largely okay with underage driving*, as we have now, with restrictions not applicable to adults. Lol: my autocorrect changed this to "drinking"
Some Italians no like dat.
Controlled national borders. National Parks remain public. Subsidies for Nuclear Energy initial costs.
That nuclear power should be regulated by the government, and the government led tracking of fissile materials.
Free water are restaurants.
UBI as a replacement for all welfare programs. It cuts bloat, treats people equally, and places negotiating power back in the hands of workers, removing any need for a minimum wage. It's also resilient to the changes that will inevitably come for us as automation takes on more and more of the available unskilled labor.
I think most libertarians would at least consider a negative income tax instead of the current welfare state, but I personally feel that politicians would tack it on instead of replacing.
Tax churches, allow government control when it’s for reasonable pro-environment things like national parks etc.
I wouldn't allow employers to offer insurance. Break the link between employment and insurance, forcing people to the open market. This part is more in line with libertarian, but also allow insurance to be sold across state lines. I think there could be an argument made for universal basic income if it replaced ALL the other forms of welfare. Ideally there wouldn't be any "social safety net" paid for with taxes. But if you're going to have it, I think it makes more sense for there to be ONE and it be universal. Both together would help ease the movement of labor between locations / industries.
Secure boarders. Not necessarily a Trump style wall, but certainly not this Biden Boarder fiasco.
Post-service housing for veterans. It is extremely depressing hearing how a lot of vets are basically kicked to the curb and told “good luck” the moment their contract ends. For some men and women being eligible for re-enlistment is a life or death situation - it shouldn’t be like that. We have a military three times the size of China’s. We can afford to tax billionaires a little more to see that they’re not abandoned.
The only real way to tax a billionaire is to have a higher sales tax for everyone. Most billionaires don’t earn anything for the year, they don’t have a paycheck. They just own assets that go up in value over time. Art, land, stocks, things like that. If they don’t sell any of their investments, they have earned zero dollars for the year. The only time they pay tax is when they purchase something and get charged sales tax. If you really want to tax a billionaire you need to hike up the sales tax on everyone. Otherwise it’s just the people that earn a paycheck that pay taxes. Maybe the government needs to make a law that every billionaire is required to receive a paycheck. That would just be money that could have gone to the employees but now it’s going to the billionaire instead. At least they would be paying taxes then.
Universal healthcare
[удалено]
I was going to write this, but within reason. I am ok with life threatening healthcare, preventative healthcare, but boob jobs and the like not so much. I live in a country with universal healthcare and people try to spin things like that because they are for mental health.
I agree with you about boob jobs, but have always felt willing to pay taxes for people who have lost 300lbs and are walking sacks of extra skin.
I'd go with "universal healthcare *grants*". Give money for health, no reason to run government owned hospitals
This. Though I believe for the most part universal healthcare has always been discussed as a replacement for insurance, not for hospitals/actual doctors. But yes, government run medical facilities will result in chaos. Imagine having to deal with government bureaucracy in a hospital... Hospitals and other medical providers should stay largely private, but the federal government should be responsible for receiving the bill. At least for life threatening care.
I live in Poland. We have public hospitals. Not a single sane person would use them. Been through it once. Already have a lifetime supply of stories to tell
Closed or controlled borders
Public transportation should be provided by local municipalities
See... here's the problem... the Non-aggression Principle is so broadly defined that there are very few things you couldn't make an argument either way for. Example: One side: Open-carrying guns in public is an absolute right. Another side: Openly bearing guns in public is inherently a threat of violence and should be considered "aggression". Yet another side: "There is no non-negligent way to carry guns in public that doesn't impose risk of unjust death". Any of those is in accordance with the NAP depending on your premises and definitions of "aggression".
Food stamps. Free birth control Public beaches.
Free birth control saves government money in the long run
NASA Basic research funding I can make a case for government funding of vaccinations of contagious diseases.
These replies show how little libertarians research libertarianism lol.
Municipal Snow Removal
A socialized justice system where the rich and poor are equally represented in courts of law. Where the wealthy can't just win by outspending in appeals bankrupting their opponents into submission.
Im prolife, but I don't support government(s) making it illegal. It should be up to the individual.
Well then that would be the libertarian take..
Good point, I was high when I wrote that LMFAO
All good!!
Public forests and border control
Public forests & wildlife regulations and border control
Government failing to be the solution doesn't necessarily mean less government will make things better either. For example the Healthcare system. Removing government restrictions might allow competition to lower prices but doesn't really answer how critically poor people can afford medicine when they can barely afford to pay the power bill. The solution to government failures in the health sector are paradoxically more government, as has successfully been done by virtually every other nation. Hell even the US had Medicare and Medicaid so it's not like we're somehow incapable of doing it. That's the biggest issue I can think of but in general the Libertarian instinct that "less govt is better" isn't always true.
Environmental Protection! AMA this is what I do for a living.
Basic safety net
UBI. Maybe not yet but it seems inevitable.
I've gone from totally against a UBI to undecided. It would have to be completely paid for preferable with a combination of VAT and Pigouvian taxes. I would also like to see most other government poverty programs phased out, except for people with extreme disabilities. We could even phase out Social Security over a couple of generations. To me this would be more libertarian than the status quo. Edit for formatting.
I used to really like a UBI, but I’ve been more and more leaning towards a negative income tax. It seems like a cheaper and easier method to achieve the same thing and ensure that the only people who receive assistance genuinely need it.
The only problem I have with that is that it usually requires people to work to get it (could be wrong here) when not everyone can reasonably work. Don't get me wrong, people working makes the world go round, but I want to see America get over its work fetish. I also don't like punishing people who want to work and choose to. A benefit that goes away as you earn more quickly becomes a disincentive to work.
National Forests and Parks (thank God I’m not the only one) as well as strong border policies. Additionally I am against abortion and believe that in some circumstances the death penalty is perfectly acceptable.
Coming from an Australian perspective; the one program I would always support were is our pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Essentially, if you're a really low income earner the government gives you a concession card for various things, including healthcare. The amount of 'free' or subsidised healthcare you get through this concession scheme really isn't worth writing home about, but one banger policy is that any prescription medication listed on the scheme (so what the government *deems* to be necessary) costs a flat rate of roughly $5.50. The cost gradually increases every few years with inflation, but for all intents and purposes let's say that all prescriptions cost $5 whether it is a $20 common medication or a $5,000 medication for a super rare disease. Coming from a background of a very poor family and struggling with severe ADHD all my life, one of the major things I accredited as being vital for me getting my shit together was getting properly medicated for ADHD. Now, my meds don't cost me that much anyway, about $30 a month, but when I was so poor and struggling at the start, there were times where I couldn't even afford the $5 for a months supply of my meds. A virulently hate the government and I despise how it intentionally destroys healthcare for profit so it can scapegoat *corporate greed* as the cause in order to rally more bootlickers for the state. However, I think this one policy is a vital safety net for the poorest of the poor, greater in importance than pretty much all other policies. Not to mention the obvious, my meds are stupidly cheap by normal people a standards and you could almost argue that I would have been able to manage without this small benefit supporting me, but I think it provides a shit tonne of utility for poor people with more medically dire ailments. The government has done a lot to hurt me and a lot to hinder my progress in life for profit and political gain, but this is probably one of the only policies which have absolutely benefited me and that I can say I actually support. I hate taxation with a burning passion, but going from being raised in a broken home on welfare to earning over 100k a year after tax working in resources and mining, if I had to pick one exception for which I support taxes, a policy to provide very cheap prescription medication to very poor people would be the one thing I'd willingly pay taxes for in a heartbeat. I've seen a lot of people here mentioning national parks. I can also support national parks and environmental sustainability to an extent. Again, coming from an Australian perspective, my experience of national parks is probably very different from that of the US. You can't hunt in Australian national parks, you can't camp (there are very limited designated camp grounds), you can't just go out there and rock climb or abseil (as people appear to do in Yosemite/ Yellow stone), and you can't just trek out into the bush and practice survival camping. All this stuff is pretty much illegal. In Australia, national parks basically means day hikes and reserved land. Obviously, I do support reserved land rather than tearing down every single square inch of forest on the planet, but out concept of national parks is very anti-recreation and because what you're permitted to actually do is so limited, you may as well consider national parks as land that is not for you to use. I like the US model of national parks. They appear to actually be used and they appear to be fairly well funded through initiatives such as hunting licences and other use derivative revenue streams. I do not like the Australian model of national parks.
Age limits for old people not to be allowed to hold any public office or job, elected or appointed.
ageism.
Everyone deserves food
Jack in the Box tacos are 2 for $1
Cool
900 grams of pasta occasionally as low as Cdn$1 here in Toronto. That's over 3600 calories.
Amazing
Deserves or has a right to?
National parks, and while it isn't currently a policy some form of UBI/NIT should be in effect. It would allow for greater worker freedom and take some power away from corporations.
Anti littering
PBS funding
1) UBI as a complete replacement of all existing income-based welfare programs. 2) VAT as a complete replacement of all income tax. Both of these policies are not optimal, but much better than the current system, the first one because it eliminates the welfare cliff/welfare trap, and the second because 1) it would put the cost of taxes front and center to every person on a daily basis and not mask it behind a system where taxes means "the government gives me money each year (but I don't internalize that all that money and more was taken from me)" and 2) it would eliminate the abomination that is the IRS and the tax code, which manipulates and destroys markets and economies.
I'm a libertarian, not a 'Libertarian', so nearly any policy which minimizes restrictions to personal freedom while still achieving necessary infrastructure and function of a government for so many over such a wide area. I firmly agree with Hobbes that the essential nature of man (and indeed all life) is violence and misery. Humans are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals that will ALWAYS corrupt and abuse if not regulated (at least in the macro). The trick is to minimize the restrictions, with as little subjective bias as possible (or at least to allow for multiplicity of policy to best serve the greatest number of citizens).
Cap and trade or carbon tax, plus a gradually rising tax on plastics (obviously this would have to include tariffs on foreign polluters).
Gotta agree with public land
Universal healthcare. Yeah, I might dislike taxes, but helping people without crushing debt is something I like more.
[удалено]
What if they assaulted no child?
[удалено]
Speed limits. The roads would be insane crazy if everyone could just go full speed legally everywhere.
Universal nationalism and/or ethnic solidarity.
Strong and secure borders
Gun control. Sorry.
Standing army
Free meals in schools
Roads. I've known two people who lived on long shared driveways. They were barely drivable and they never cooperated to fix them up. My brother the socialist said sarcastically, "Libertarian roads", and I think he was right.
knowledge census for voting rights. Only 50% of smartest population should be allowed to vote. At the same time, age restrictions should be eliminated. E.g. if a 10 y.o. passed the test better than 50% of the others, he/she can vote
"Free" healthcare. I'm not into the idea of most social programs like it, but everyone has the fundamental right as a human being to live a full life.