• manucode
    link
    -15
    edit-2
    22 days ago

    They’re clearly Bernie Bros, all of them

      • It’s an obvious joke, but Bernie actually did pretty well in that crowd. A lot of libertarians are ultimately just rural voters who think anything out of Washington is the enemy, and thus anything anti-establishment is on their side.

          • admiralteal
            link
            fedilink
            1322 days ago

            That’s libertarianism in a nutshell, though. A political ideology founded from liberalism which claims to reject all of liberalism while also being just the same as liberalism embraced by people who actually kind of hate liberalism. It’s a lot of very confused voters registered to that party.

            • @Forester@yiffit.net
              link
              fedilink
              -6
              edit-2
              22 days ago

              While you are entitled to your opinion I’m pretty sure I would be the authority having been in the party for over a decade. Libertarians in general care about the Non aggression principal. Beyond that we don’t agree on much we are a contentious bunch.

              • admiralteal
                link
                fedilink
                622 days ago

                Look, there’s definitely some people who lean “libertarian” on paper who have valuable and interesting insights. Chuck Mahron/Strong Towns, for example. They’re A+ in political ideas and messaging and you can definitely see NAP center stage if you read between the lines of what they are saying. Except I’ve never heard him use the word “libertarian”. I suspect because he knows it is a poisoned brand and just generally doesn’t like labels, though that’s just supposition.

                But apply some Bayesian theory here and don’t engage in any No True Scotsmanship. If someone tells you they are a “libertarian”, that information on its own should give you HIGH confidence the person is somewhere between “Republican who has a gay daughter he doesn’t want to see lynched” and “total crank sovereign citizen type”. There’s 1,000 false positives for every true one.

                If I were you, holding the sincere beliefs I have no reason to question you having, I would not want to be identified by that word.

                • @PsychedSy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  120 days ago

                  Online in particular is a crap shoot. It’s a small enough demographic that it’s easy to be overrun.

                  In 15 years my local LP has gone from weird old racist fucks to younger people that are pretty fantastic. The 2020 state convention had me pleasantly surprised. We were heavily involved in supporting the pro-choice vote we had (and won) and, while the dinosaurs aren’t dead, they were completely ostracized.

              • @protist@mander.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                322 days ago

                Everything is allowed except aggression, defined as disproportional (non-similar) force, meaning force that would exceed a targets momentary aggressiveness (see meter) defined as the total (cumulative) aggression applied by the target minus the cumulative force received (in response) by the target at that moment.

                You’re saying the only thing libertarians have in common is a poorly defined, subjective “principal”…

                • @PsychedSy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  120 days ago

                  It’s a belief in personal liberty, but the NAP is a useful analytical tool. Different people have different limits, though. It’s a fairly robust way to approximate negative rights.

                • @Forester@yiffit.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -4
                  edit-2
                  22 days ago

                  I’m glad you want to have a discourse and aren’t being disingenuous, oh wait…

                  The NAP is a moral rule that states that any person is permitted to do whatever they want with their property except when such action agressess on someone elses property, which is in turn defined as the application of or threat of physical interference or breach of agreement. The principle is also called the non-initiation of force

          • @DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            8
            edit-2
            22 days ago

            Democratic socialists have quite a lot in common with real libertarians.

            Just not in regards to what these chuckleheads think is the most, and usually only, important human right.