RFK Jr Rejected by Libertarians After They Loudly Booed, Heckled Trump
Kennedy eliminated after receiving support from just 2.07% of delegates. Trump had already failed to be nominated.
You're viewing a single thread.
There is no such thing as a right wing libertarian
No S
I'm serious
Broad Strokes like this are never 100% accurate but to clarify why you're being downvoted:
In the USA pretty much all Libertarians are considered right wing. It's not a progressive ideology, just one that prefers lower taxation. In contrast, Liberals are often the middle left of the US spectrum before Social Democrats and the farthest left would be fringe groups of Communist Radicals including anti-police and anti-property activists. On the other end, from center to furthest right would be: Moderates, Centrists, Libertarians including a smaller group of Tea-Party anti-tax activists, Rightwing Anarchists (small but vocal), Evangelical Theocrats, and Segregationists (so conservative that they want to return to early 1800s).
You may notice this doesn't leave a place for many ideologies such as meritocrats or anarcho-communists. Just a side effect of our two party system is that the side you align with doesn't usually align with you as an individual. Sucks to suck, especially for those log cabin republicans.
I know why I'm being downvoted, and why the liberals think they're right, despite all evidence to the contrary and what words mean, thanks.
Words mean what people who use them think they mean, and Americans using the word Libertarian mean right-wing anti-government and pro-business folks. This may not have been the word's original meaning, but language changes.
That's just, like, your opinion man!
You’re correct. It’s a spectrum, not a line. Social and economic policy are two independent axes in defining political ideology.
Ugh
Go ahead and draw a line that encompasses these ideologies:
Libertarians support high social liberty and low economic support
Democrats Liberals support high social liberty and high economic support
Republicans Conservatives support low social liberty and low economic support
Edited to clarify ideology vs. party. My original labels caused a lot of confusion.
Republicans support … low economic support
Except for when it comes to GOP public office holders and corporations. In both those cases Republicans support high economic support.
Low economic support means lower taxes and minimal social programs, along with minimal subsidies and regulations on business.
Except Republicans fucking love subsidies if it's for their donors.
Corn? Oil? Fracking? Tanks for police? Make it rain!
The poors? Fuck them, let their kids starve. Ohh, and let's take away their ability to prevent or terminate pregnancies too, so more kids can starve.
If there’s money to be had, sure, they want a piece. Conservatives would rather a lower tax and no subsidies and let the free market shake things out. They align with Libertarians on economic policy. Minimal taxes and maximum free market with no purse for social programs or subsidies.
Only if you buy their dating profile pic. What they do in reality is the opposite. Red states take a LOT more subsidies than blue.
Again, it’s not that they won’t accept them. Conservatives prefer limiting government in free enterprise. There would be no money for subsidies if the taxes were as low as they’d like them to be. There would also be no money for social services like welfare, SNAP, Medicaid, Medicare, emergency housing, etc.
🤢
I’m assuming that means you’re not capable of defining those ideologies on a line.
It's kind of silly to think that all political ideologies can be defined on one line isn't it?
Yes. It’s why political scientists don’t use one.
Which is a different thing than a spectrum, right? Putting your little data points on a line, assigning number values to seizing the means and chattel slavery?
I’m sorry. If conceptualizing political ideologies bores you, then why did you reply to my comment about exactly that?
Because I was challenging your assumption that it is something you can or should do to derive a meaningful understanding of political beliefs and how they interact with each other, or for that matter, concepts of ethics and morality.
Beliefs and ideology are very different. I was talking about the defining characteristics of established ideologies. Adding personal beliefs only further increases the need for a more robust graph than a line.
I don’t make assumptions about an individual’s beliefs based on their political alignment. I know too many single-issue voters to make that mistake.
My assertion about progressives supporting censorship of speech applies to the ideology, not each and every individual that supports the ideology. Many don’t recognize that as authoritarian, because of its good intentions.
Its a spectrum that exists on the left running from libertarian to authoritarian. Not from capitalist to socialist. Democrats, Democratic socialist, social Democrats are not the same thing or part of a spectrum of Democrats. They are distinct and different ideologies that share a term but disagree on many other things. There are no left wing Republicans despite authoritarians existing on both the left and the right.
Libertarianism is a left wing ideology born of the 19th century. The concept of a right-wing libertarian was not widely accepted before the red scare of the 1950s and '60s. Nearly a century later. Because it is quite literally impossible to be a capitalist and favor that kind of freedom. When your concept of freedom is the freedom of capital. If capital is free we are all slaves to it. And therefore not free.
Deeper than that be very basic concept of capitalism is authoritarian in nature. It's concept of private property as opposed to personal property requires a strong authority to enforce it and protect it. Being absolutely incompatible with actual libertarianism. Or the concept of public property as as envisioned by Actual libertarianism.
Further it is a gross misrepresentation to saying that Libertarians or even anarchists are anti-government, or anti-economic redistribution. Strictly speaking that's just capitalists. All Libertarians or anarchists want is small, more granular, and accountable government. Said government to collecting funds via taxing for robust public housing is not anti libertarian or even anti-anarchist. It's just anti-capitalist.
And just to finish off. Wikipedia isn't necessarily authorative. And political Compass despite being wildly more accurate than the political Spectrum as often portrayed in Western Nations is still a misrepresentation.
Just one of many examples of how a linear scale cannot place all ideologies are current Libertarians. For example, I’m friends with a libertarian couple that are fiscally conservative, and socially liberal. Where would you place them? What about someone who supports social economic systems as well as Christian Nationalism? You can’t force data to fit into an assigned scale. A scale must be selected to accommodate the available data. There’s a reason professors have been using the political compass or Nolan Chart in higher education for the last twenty years.
That organizational need only applies to ideologies, however. The current state of political parties in the US, for example, is somewhat linear.
Confused.
Socially liberal fiscally conservative is the most meaningless label/platitude in American politics for sure. Even some Republicans will classified themselves that way. As well as Larp-atarians and democrats. Truly meaningless. Of the three groups Democrats probably come closest to actually being that. While still falling well far of it. Literally everyone is conservative with their resources, but wants everyone to believe they aren't anti social.
Homeless as an example. Everyone treats it like some complex unsolvable problem. When everybody knows the solution. Give them actual housing. The kind that allows them to have stability and security in their life. Not just access to a shower, and overnight use of a random cott in a roach/rat infested building that they're forcefully turned out of every morning. With no regular access to actual meals. If we just "gave actual housing" to them. That would take care of 60 to 80% of homeless. The few that would remain don't have homeless as a primary problem.
A libertarian might debate whether we should do this at the town/city, county, state or national level. They wouldn't argue that we shouldn't, or already are doing too much to address it. As many larp-atarians do. Larp-atarians can't even agree on a basic concept of freedom beyond capital/capitalism.
Many, but not all support legalization of marijuana. Many but not all even support equal rights. Whether it's about racial, gender, or sexual lines. The term that best describes Larp-atarians, is selfish. Their views on freedoms etc don't really extend much beyond themselves. And worse. Many will vote Republican if there isn't a Larp-atarian on the ballot. Which considering how anti free speech etc they've been for decades. Makes them an extremely anti libertarian group to vote for whether you consider yourself right or left.
And what about the Christian Nationalist who supports increased social programs from my example? Or are you going to redefine their beliefs with arrogant condemnation to fit your analysis as well?
Fascist. Because they only support that with the expectation of being given deference or increasing their power at the cost of everyone who rejects or refuses them. Not to compare them literally to Hitler or the nazis. But Hitler offered social support to his chosen people as well. That doesn't make him a good person. Or even right.
Take the proselytization out. Give it unconditionally like the Samaritan did. It's one of the biggest parables in Christian teaching. So It's oddly suspicious they all ignore it. Either they're not really Christian. Or they could use to read their book.
There's no arrogance or redefinition of beliefs involved anywhere here. It's all facts and history. You are welcome to believe anything you want. Because belief specifically does not require truth facts or knowledge. Often it's the opposite.
Also note when I use the term fascist to describe them I made a point of specifically not comparing them directly to Hitler or the nazis. Just because someone's a fascist does not necessarily mean they are a monster. Fascism however always leads to monsters.
And just to finish since I sense that you're getting emotional and defensive here. I see you around quite a bit and generally upvote your posts. Because you seem generally pretty on the ball and have a reasonable understanding. I simply disagree with you on this point. And have pointed out factually, philosophically, and historically why. I just hope at some point you take the time to read and consider. You are more than welcome to disagree after that. Just consider that because something is written, no matter where it is written. Does not inherently make it true.
Emotion has no place in determining the logistics of mapping political ideology. Your argument is subjective, and mine is scientific. You’re using your opinions to redefine other’s opinions to fit your narrative.
There is a reason scholars in political science do not use the system you are clinging to by manipulating data into conformity.
How is the origin and basis of libertarianism subjective. And again how are Western political Scholars authoritative. Capitalism literally existed back when libertarianism was created. They specifically chose to create an ideology outside it.
Calling unfettered capitalism libertarianism in no way reflects libertarianism as it was created. Claiming that the freedom of capital is equivalent to actual freedom is an absurdity. If you have access to a freedom that others do not. Due to anything like capital or resources that's not a freedom. That's a privilege and should not be protected.
Likewise, the non aggression principle. Capitalists or any other group claiming to abide it's definition of private property can't also unhypocritically claim to abide the non-aggression principle. Private property demands aggression and violence to enforce it.
If a homeless starving man walked into or broke into a wealthy person's second, third house, or yacht. Knowing that this season or time of year they would not be there. And took a tchotchke in order to be able to afford to feed themselves. What would the response be? Would it be understanding and assistance? Or would they be chased down by armed men and most likely locked up and deprived of freedom for a considerable amount of time? Better yet would a wealthy person face remotely the same response stealing from poorer people?
Remember post ex parte appeals to Authority can always be overridden by just pointing to the origins of the ideology and the fact that for a century there were no accepted right wing Libertarians.
In its day the remotely closest thing to what we would consider a modern libertarian were those like Friedrich Hayek. Who was then considered an outsider and Fringe group to what was recognized libertarianism. Not to mention if I'm not mistaken came along well after the establishment of the ideology. Simply seeking to repurpose it. If he was considered Fringe and outside the mainstream. How then can his viewpoints be considered what was always intended for libertarianism? Not revisionism but main stream. Clearly it wasn't. But maybe you have some writing and evidence from the ideologies origins. Writings that aren't Hayek's or his acolytes Rothbard or Friedman.
Rothbard considered the modern founder of rightwing libertarianism. Again almost a century after the ideologies founding. Openly just rebranded classic liberalism. Which again, wasn't libertarianism. But a separate incompatible ideology. Though claiming to have similar goals via different policy. The claims have never been proven however.
So if were gonna debate let's debate. What actual support for your claims do you have?
I never suggested that the origin or basis of libertarianism was subjective. I simply said that the ideology is currently defined as supporting high civil liberty and supporting low economic social systems, and because of these qualities, is difficult to map on the same axis as liberal and conservative. It’s really quite simple, and doesn’t justify a wall of text to counter.
You have yet to explain how the aforementioned fascist fits on your line. Do they go on the left for supporting high economic social systems or on the right for support of highly restrictive social legislation? Whichever you choose determines if your line is preferential to economic or social system definition, which in itself is biased. Some individuals vote more heavily on social issues, and others economic. Just food for thought.
Progressives are more in support of authoritarianism than they realize. Censoring speech is authoritarian by definition. It’s the primary reason I don’t identify as one.
Edit: Consider putting the power, and setting the precedent, of subjectively altering the first amendment in the hands of this conservative SCOTUS. Is that really a great idea? Fascism arrives as your friend.
Second edit: It turns out that I’ve been misinformed about progressives supporting hate speech censorship. Sorry about the confusion. Have a good night.
Since when do progressives censor speech?
Edit:
Consider putting the power, and setting the precedent, of altering the first amendment in the hands of this conservative SCOTUS. Is that really a great idea? Fascism arrives as your friend.
Again, when have progressives done this? How are progressives responsible for how a conservative SCOTUS rules on First Amendment rights? Specifically, what legislation has been drafted by progressives that censor hate speech? I have yet to see anyone aside from social media, who have their own set of codes of conduct, be censored by the government over hate speech.
A perfect example would be how Republicans say the craziest racist shit and aren't censored for it. If anything, it gets plastered all over the news. So your logic is highly flawed, champ.
Literally everyone censors speech, and is fine with it. Everyone, with exceptions so scant that may as well not exist at all.
Laws that prohibit workplace harassment. Defamation. Laws that punish incitements to violence. Laws that punish fraud and confidence scams. Laws against insider trading. Even things like RICO. These are ALL, in varying forms, limits on speech that are basically uncontentious to most normal, well-balanced people. These are limits on speech so ubiquitous and accepted that people have actually somehow convinced themselves that somehow "free" speech is clearly categorically different than these other things even when it plainly isn't.
The only people sincerely for (edit: total) free speech are honest-to-god anarchists. True "free speech absolutists" basically do not exist, and when someone claims to be one it really just means they want to be able to get away with using racial slurs in public.
I completely agree, I was just thrown off by OP's statement that progressives censor hate speech since I am not aware of any legislation specifically passed that makes it illegal for the common person to make hate speech.
I don't think he's being sincere.
I was. I’m learning now that I’ve been misinformed. I’m very happy to be wrong about this.
Not at all. I don’t need laws to be a respectful person. Do you need religion to be a good person?
I’m educated enough in political science to know that one of the most common ways to create a dictatorship is to leverage fear of the right to enact socially controlling legislation with the support of the left, then slowly begin to leverage that same legislation against the leader’s enemies. It’s prevalent throughout human history, and a proven system for inevitable authoritarian control.
Incidentally, the other most common way to create a dictatorship is by leveraging the military and police forces against the people, as Trump plans to do in Project 2025. Just food for thought.
In modern history, it's typically the right wing dictators that got voted in through "legal" means, and it's the right wing dictators that achieve power by slowly controlling what can and cannot be said by the media. The leftist dictatorships, if you want to call the soviet-style ones as such, do so through violence and the military. You have it exactly backwards which sins here come from which wing. It doesn't pass a common sense test, so I think you may need to go back to school.
And let's not get bogged down in utter bullshit. We're talking about "progressive" censorship here, which almost certainly means hate speech laws. There have been exactly zero dictatorships that flowed out of political movements of intentional inclusivity. Neither the Nazis nor Soviets were concerned with "hate speech". They both were all about it.
I didn’t say the dictators were left wing. You’re right, they’ve been almost exclusively right wing leaders. I said they begin by getting support from the left to enact social legislation against the right, then begin to leverage that newly created power against the enemies of the government, including media. It’s the most common first step onto the slippery slope.
You said it yourself. Media censorship leads to authoritarian control.
But literally all modern states have media censorship. Literally all of them. For example, prohibitions on libel or fraud. That's censorship. Confidentiality of national secrets is a form of censorship. Hell, even copyright laws can be interpreted as a form of censorship.
Libel/slander is a civil suit, not a crime. Fraud is falsification yielding a gain. Private institutions can and should determine their own code of conduct.
The problem comes into play the day that SCOTUS puts an asterisk on the first amendment to determine an intangible. As soon as the government has the precedent to enact censorship legislation, the tool will be available to whatever corrupt leader decides to wield it.
You aren't answering me. You're deflecting.
Are we legalizing fraud or not?
I’m not deflecting. I don’t understand your question. Fraud involves a contract or gain. That’s not protected by free speech.
I think the problem stems from your lack of understanding of how the Constitution protects freedom of speech. I’m simply saying once we grant the government permission to silence our enemies, they can use that power to silence us.
When it's hate speach
I have yet to see any legislation passed by progressives that censor hate speech.
It’s been my understanding that hate speech censorship has been a progressive ideal for many years now. I’m learning tonight that it’s not actually the case. It was the primary reason I drifted from the ideology.
I am very aware of how free speech is already regulated in regards to inciting violence or a riot, as well as its hierarchical place regarding a content or conduct policy. What concerns me, is regulating speech in regards to an intangible.
I’m a very empathetic person, and it’s painful for me to say, but I don’t believe it’s safe to empower our government to legislate speech in regards to feelings. Unlike inciting violence, the impact is subjective. If we define it as verbal or written attacks on a protected class, then who is to define what classes are protected? How often do we amend it as new classes are created? How do we define a verbal attack? That is a slippery slope of precedent that can be used against all of us, as well as journalists, under the wrong administration.
With that being said, I’m very surprised to learn that all of the calls for hate speech censorship from the far-left have faded away. I’m very happy to hear it, and I’m sorry for causing such a commotion with my misunderstanding.
It’s been my understanding that hate speech censorship has been a progressive ideal for many years now.
Progressives prefer direct means to combat hate speech, instead of relying on legislation. And if you see one punch a nazi, no you didn't. That nazi fell.
In all seriousness, I absolutely believe private platforms owe their users a content policy that protects them from attacks. I just don’t think it should be legislated. If Elon want to turn X into a cesspool, it’s no different than your local bar becoming a racist dive. You just find a new place to go with your friends on a Saturday night.
Second edit: It turns out that I’ve been misinformed about progressives supporting hate speech censorship. Sorry about the confusion. Have a good night.
No, you were LIED to by malicious actors trying to turn you against people who are, at least broadly speaking, more aligned with your goals than against. There is a reason communists historically kill social democrats before going after fascists, because they're afraid of diluting power between similar parties. They want sole power so badly they are willing to risk fascists getting it if they think it gives them a better chance.
Then here you come with "sorry I've been misinformed" like it was an innocent mistake. Either you know you're acting in bad faith or you're uncritically regurgitating what others have told you in bad faith. The people telling you that stuff are not your friends, they are just manipulators who want to stir shit between two groups fighting the same enemy.
So you weren't misinformed, you just fucked up, try taking some personal responsibility and go back to figure out where you went wrong and who you should be trusting.
Ok, then I fucked up. I wasn’t protecting my pride. I was legitimately misinformed, and haven’t had this conversation until now. Call it whatever you’d like. Your opinion of me is of no consequence.
Most of my friends are liberals, some are republicans, others libertarians. I haven’t been close with my progressive friends since I used to tour with Phish in the ‘90s. Lol
Sometime around ten years ago, I distinctly recall reading articles and seeing videos of progressive politicians calling for censorship. In hindsight, that was leading up to the mass disinformation campaigns of the 2016 election, so it makes sense how I could’ve made the mistake of consuming media at face value. I remember centrists began referring to progressives as “the regressive left” due to the initiative. None of those calls came from Bernie, so I still voted for him in the primary, but it certainly turned me off to the ideology.
As I said, I’m happy to have learned otherwise. I’ve been supporting progressive ideals since the ‘90s. That hasn’t changed, only my comfort identifying as one.