I share most of the opinions expressed about it already expressed in this thread, so I’ll add one: whenever I’m exposed to libertarian media (podcasts, articles, etc), I’m really struck by just how surface-level the analysis is. It’s like, for anything going on in the world, they simply try to tie it back to “biG gOvErNmENt” and shoehorn everything into that. I get that once you start applying dialectical materialism to your analysis of the world around you, other analyses can seem vulgar. But tbh even your typical liberal worldview seems more thought out than libertarians.

As any example, a libertarian I know was complaining about how California is going eliminate plastic carrier bags at supermarkets. I just asked “ok, then how else are we going solve the problem of plastic bags everywhere?” They just sorta shrugged off the question and said the government has no business banning bags.

I actually was a libertarian briefly a long time ago. It was the fact that it offers no real solutions for the biggest problems we face as a species was why I eventually abandoned it.

It’s a wolf and a flock of sheep all inside a fenced-off meadow, thinking that everyone can do whatever they want and it will all work out to everyone’s favor.

Awesome, let everyone freely enter into any contract they’ll agree to, instead of a government enforcing rules at gunpoint!
Except the contract is written by a multi-billion-dollar conglomerate, and the one “agreeing” to it is a single mom who will lose her income, apartment and access to child care if she “freely” refuses.

An end result of liberalist idealism. (plus what others have said)

I see it as an unstable economic model; it will either devolve to capitalism with monopolies capturing most if not all sectors; or devolve into communism with a single state-like entity controlling everything. At which point; no matter which way it went; it will collapse under its own weight.

The way it swings will depend on the people who are there at the start.

The modern version of libertarianism that we see most of; is based off some really bad assumptions:

• (1) the market is perfect
• (2) barriers to entry are irrelevant
• (3) monopoly is not bad
• (4) humans are rational actors
• (5) if the market can’t address the issue, it is irrelevant

(1) The market is perfect:
This leads to the assumption that all regulation is bad; and that it merely works to reduce personal freedoms and the ability of the market to produce things in the most efficient way possible.

It completely ignores history and the reason regulatory bodies were created. It also ignores that the market is not a thing unto itself; but is composed of people (see 4).

(2) Barriers to entry are irrelevant:
This follows directly from (1); even the simplest business has some barrier to entry. You have to buy somethings that your business needs to run. These are real costs, and will provide a barrier. Obviously, the bigger the barrier then more entrenched players have an advantage (see 3)

(3) Monopoly is not bad:
This is a subtle acknowledgment that (1 & 2) are completely false. Basically it is a cope, that even if monopolies form; clearly this is the market producing the most efficient production framework.

This ignores history; the major monopolies that were broken up. The crazy shit that went on to protect their monopoly status.

(4) Humans are rational actors:
Most economic models assume that consumers will make rational choices; they will make the most economically rational choices. Libertarians (in my experience) love this.

This ignores so much of reality; it also assumes that the values of all are the same as their own.

There is really too much in this point to cover here. So many things that we actually do make no sense if you were a rational actor, such as brand loyalty.

(5) If the market can’t address the issue, it is irrelevant:
There are many things that the market cannot address; but in the libertarian model these things are ignored.

e.g. fire fighting; this is the classic example where a market solution didn’t work.

But equally; policing; education; major infrastructure; functional health systems. There are so many examples; where if left to a purely market solution, simply would not get done.

Housecats.

In Poland most libertarians are at best petty bougie failchildren thinking they would be billionaires when they grow up, those that do grow up without touching grass (or too dense to feel the grass) are usually turning into unhinged austrian cultists with monarchist and nazist inclinations. Deeply unserious people

American “libertarianism” is a correct identification of the issue with oppressive use of force by the state, coupled with a somewhere-between-ambiguous-and-incorrect interpretation of when force is oppressive and when it’s not. It’s my stance that American libertarianism (based on the NAP definition) with a properly calculated ethical interpretation of justifiable “property” simply reduces to anarchocommunism, as many unexamined assumptions about when a “property” claim is justifiable and when it is not simply accept a capitalist market economy, and any inequality that may result, out of sheer laziness. A lot of people find this way of looking at it jarring, usually because they just try to cram it somewhere on the “left/right” scale without really examining each ideological underpinning, or by really examining the range of thinking within the space. And some of that results from fascist groups trying to coopt the label as well. Good litmus test for that is asking a self-identified “libertarian” what they think about immigration, or the justifiability of a given war. The “MAGA LINO” types will justify immigration crackdowns and wars, the dyed-in-the-wool “libertarians” will oppose them, and so on with other oppressive policies that leftists also oppose. Which leaves the main point of contention being how the economic system works and how property distribution works, something which the “NAP” is ambiguous about. Therefore…

In this thread… People arguing about multiple strawman definitions of Libertarianism.

My opinion is that it’s a useless term because nobody agrees on what it means.

Naive idiots at best genocidal Maniacs at worst.

The most virtuous profession to be, in libertarian logic, is scammer. Big money gain for little effort, therefore good.

Working together is not allowed in individualism. Everyone must be a untrustworthy scammer out for the other’s money, as that’s what libertarians think everyone aspires to be.

I’ve known a bunch of them and I think their ideology is fine on the surface, but full of small contraddictions, for example:

• they believe freedom is the utmost important thing, but their freedom is always threatened so they always should do what they do want, even if that limits other people freedom. For example: I should not be forced to pay taxes if I don’t want to because noone should be forced to pay for a “service”, it should always be a choice (but if my country gives me healthcare without paying taxes, I should also use the service). However, things like paying tolls for private highway is also bad, because one should be able to go wherever they want withou paying.
• they don’t believe in “rights” as anything imposed from the top is bad. If a category is persecuted (black people, gays, whatever) they should not be protected, but fight on their own
• according to them, in true capitalism, free market is perfect and the most just, and monopolies will not never happen, now they do only because laws allow them to “manipulate” the market.
• they often spiral down alt-right conspiracies theory with a libertarian flavour, like a deep-state working hard to limit even more your freedom, or everything even remotely “politically correct” (even things like protection against protection against being fired because you are homosexual) is woke propaganda and also aimed to limit your freedom.

That’s my experience with a few tens of people, so I don’t know if that’s representative of the whole community, bu my own little consipracy theory is that libertarianism as I know it was crafted by the US alt-right to subtly manipulate people into fascism, the premises are all there: hatred for the current state, bigotry, extreme victimism, a willingness to strip down thenselves of hard-fought rights and a hustle/grinding mentality to slave yourself down to work and enrich other people

Libertarians are grumpy indoor cats. They’re violently independent and want to be left alone, but their survival is also entirely dependent on the systems surrounding them, which they completely take for granted.

The grumpy indoor cat doesn’t want your attention, they just want their auto-feeder to activate like it always does. Never mind the fact that you’re the one who keeps the auto-feeder filled. They don’t care about that, they just care that the auto-feeder dispenses food.

I do support the basics of Libertarianism, but I can’t support the extreme-versions of it left or right sides.

Left wing (actual OG) Libertarianism is great. Right wing Libertarianism is basically a bunch of antisocial/intellectually lazy people who think the ideal society is one where everybody has a few acres of land with a little shack that they built themselves where they subsist on potatoes, carrots, and chicken eggs and stockpile gold and silver to trade with another libertarian twice a year.

“libertarians generally advocate for minimal government regulation, believing that businesses should operate freely and regulate themselves through voluntary exchange and competition. They argue that over-regulation can stifle innovation and economic growth.”

So in my opinion, they are dumbasses. Yeah let’s get the Nestles and Monsanto’s of the world to regulate themselves. Honestly just unserious people with no critical thinking skills in my opinion.