3 ms·

I would say that calling libertarianism an extremist ideology is a gross misunderstanding of it. My guess is everything you think you know about libertarianism,

I would say that calling libertarianism an extremist ideology is a gross misunderstanding of it. My guess is everything you think you know about libertarianism, was what you were told by somebody who hates it. Full-on anarchism, or anarcho-capitalism, ok, that's a hard sell. Libertarianism? It's basically "never initiate aggression" and "live and let live". That's about it. I don't know what's extreme about that.

natechols 6y ago
One big reason why I was never comfortable identifying as a libertarian is that so many people react reflexively to the word, probably based on a few annoying college acquaintances who wouldn't shut up about "takers". In my experience actual libertarians have views as diverse as "liberals" or "conservatives" or members of either major party, but it's becoming impossible to dissociate the label from the stereotype.
crazygringo 6y ago
> It's basically... "live and let live". That's about it. I don't know what's extreme about that. You don't? Live and let live means, in practice, let die. Libertarianism says, if you had bad luck and are poor and you get a disease you can't pay to cure, you die. Libertarianism is the extreme of selfishness. "Live and let live" means "I've got no obligation to anybody else, screw 'em." In modern society, that's incredibly extreme.
- StuntPope 6y ago
  I think you cared to have an open mind about it, you would find that in practice, libertarians will step up and help those in need just as much any anybody else would. The extent to which people will do so is more dependent on their own moral compass and ability to help others than by their political ideology. What libertarians are against is coercion and force. They don't want to be forced to do what somebody else thinks is morally proper, in most cases for yet another person. That way lies tyranny. The concept of selfishness in the libertarian sense is "put your own oxygen mask on first before helping others". Most libertarians are pretty generous givers in terms of both charity, emotional support, helping hands and community. They just dislike having a gun to their heads to be that way.
  - crazygringo 6y ago
    > libertarians will step up and help those in need just as much any anybody else would There's just no plausible evidence that people in general are charitable enough to fund all the necessary hospitals and schools and so on that society requires. It's just not human nature. So to the children who will go uneducated and die of sickness, that insufficient charity isn't going to mean much.
- jwallaceparker 6y ago
  > Live and let live means, in practice, let die. I don't follow your logic. The non-aggression principle is what's at the core of libertarianism. It's to never initiate violence against peaceful people. Helping others voluntarily is certainly in keeping with the philosophy. > Libertarianism says, if you had bad luck and are poor and you get a disease you can't pay to cure, you die. No it doesn't. It says we're going to help that person who is poor or in need, but we're doing it voluntarily.
  - crazygringo 6y ago
    And what if it doesn't get done voluntarily? Experience shows that not only is voluntary assistance deeply insufficient, but that it's also often extremely biased and prejudiced.

natechols 6y ago

One big reason why I was never comfortable identifying as a libertarian is that so many people react reflexively to the word, probably based on a few annoying college acquaintances who wouldn't shut up about "takers". In my experience actual libertarians have views as diverse as "liberals" or "conservatives" or members of either major party, but it's becoming impossible to dissociate the label from the stereotype.

crazygringo 6y ago

> It's basically... "live and let live". That's about it. I don't know what's extreme about that. You don't? Live and let live means, in practice, let die. Libertarianism says, if you had bad luck and are poor and you get a disease you can't pay to cure, you die. Libertarianism is the extreme of selfishness. "Live and let live" means "I've got no obligation to anybody else, screw 'em." In modern society, that's incredibly extreme.

StuntPope 6y ago
I think you cared to have an open mind about it, you would find that in practice, libertarians will step up and help those in need just as much any anybody else would. The extent to which people will do so is more dependent on their own moral compass and ability to help others than by their political ideology. What libertarians are against is coercion and force. They don't want to be forced to do what somebody else thinks is morally proper, in most cases for yet another person. That way lies tyranny. The concept of selfishness in the libertarian sense is "put your own oxygen mask on first before helping others". Most libertarians are pretty generous givers in terms of both charity, emotional support, helping hands and community. They just dislike having a gun to their heads to be that way.
- crazygringo 6y ago
  > libertarians will step up and help those in need just as much any anybody else would There's just no plausible evidence that people in general are charitable enough to fund all the necessary hospitals and schools and so on that society requires. It's just not human nature. So to the children who will go uneducated and die of sickness, that insufficient charity isn't going to mean much.
jwallaceparker 6y ago
> Live and let live means, in practice, let die. I don't follow your logic. The non-aggression principle is what's at the core of libertarianism. It's to never initiate violence against peaceful people. Helping others voluntarily is certainly in keeping with the philosophy. > Libertarianism says, if you had bad luck and are poor and you get a disease you can't pay to cure, you die. No it doesn't. It says we're going to help that person who is poor or in need, but we're doing it voluntarily.
- crazygringo 6y ago
  And what if it doesn't get done voluntarily? Experience shows that not only is voluntary assistance deeply insufficient, but that it's also often extremely biased and prejudiced.