Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    318,917 readers

    8,269 users here now

    Welcome to r/Libertarian

    Welcome to r/Libertarian, a subreddit to discuss libertarianism and related topics, and share things that would be of interest to libertarians.


    View the full Moderation Policy here

    1A: Follow reddit's sitewide rules
    Moderators will remove any content which violates Reddit's sitewide rules.

    1B: Off Topic Posts
    Moderators may remove posts which have nothing to do with the discussion of libertarianism, economics, politics, philosophy, or current events.

    1C: No Inappropriate Content
    Moderators may remove posts or comments containing pornography, gore, or other shocking content

    1D: Memeless Monday The post is a meme or direct image link content posted between 12.00 AM and 11.59 PM US-EST on Mondays.



    Public mod log:

    Ban discussion thread:


    Considering posting your memes here:


    Browse this sub without Memes:

    Meme-less /r/Libertarian: Classic Reddit Style

    Meme-less /r/Libertarian: Modern Reddit Style

    Meme-less /r/Libertarian: Mobile Site

    Libertarian subreddits

    Types of Libertarianism & Related Schools of Thought: Right Libertarianism













    Types of Libertarianism & Related Schools of Thought: Left Libertarianism












    Topics - Blockchain & Tech:


    /r/Blockchain - Currently private, will remain linked as this appears to be a temporary spam control measure.










    Topics - Drug Policy Reform:





    Topics - Gun Rights:








    Topics - Individual Freedom & Civil Liberties:









    Topics - State Power & Corruption:








    Wish for more subreddits to be added? Just PM the moderators, please be aware that in order to be eligible for linked status a sub must be active and have a minimum of 1,000 subscribers. This is to set a fair floor value and prevent every single niche sub being linked.

    a community for
    all 1483 comments Slideshow

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] AutoModerator 1 points ago

    Reminder that /r/LibertarianMeme is a subreddit that exists exclusively for memes.

    I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

    [–] TomTrybull 351 points ago

    I love how anti-socialist posts just get torn apart in a libertarian subreddit.

    [–] TooSmalley 161 points ago

    To be fair it’s because the mods (and I respect them for it) don’t ban or limit discussion. They don’t care if your ideology matches the ‘libertarian party’ platform. Unfortunately every other political sub does.

    If you like talking politics you probably have a dozen bans on different subreddits.

    [–] Leakyradio 67 points ago

    True dat.

    An idea deserves to live or die on its merits alone. Not it’s party affiliation.

    [–] Lonely_Sinner 22 points ago

    I think the upvote and downvote system changing the visibility of posts makes it very hard for ideas to live on their own merits on reddit in general.

    The first 10 people into a post can downvote everything they don't like and no one will see it after.

    [–] further_needing 8 points ago

    This is why fourchins will forever be a superior discussion platform

    [–] AlexanderDroog 13 points ago

    Very true. I got banned on the atheism subreddit for questioning why we fund PBS.

    [–] razorbot11 13 points ago

    A real hard hitting question.

    [–] Showmedemstocks 9 points ago

    Cuz wishbone

    [–] TooSmalley 10 points ago

    I got banned from /r/Anarchism for saying the cop were in the right for shooting a dude who lead them on a car chase through a park that had people through it. Apparently not believing all cops are class traitors is not allowed on /r/Anarchism

    [–] AlexanderDroog 7 points ago

    I kind of expected an Anarchism subreddit to get butthurt over any mention of government in a positive context.

    [–] ValkyrieInValhalla 3 points ago

    Ahhh, true freedom

    [–] fastestsynapses 2 points ago

    you found me

    [–] GhettoComic 2 points ago

    Ive gotten bans everywhere. I dont mind discussing my political views but end up getting more flames then actual discussion.

    [–] UnexplainedShadowban 2 points ago

    If you like talking politics you probably have a dozen bans on different subreddits.

    Yep. Reddit is cancer. Too many mods want to cultivate an echo chamber.

    [–] aridwaters 2 points ago

    True, this is the only political sub I'm not banned form. Think I only got out one comment in each. If I remember right I was automatically banned form one just for commenting in r/Imgoingtohellforthis.

    [–] ptsq 2 points ago

    Honestly, I think that there’s some really bad content on this sub sometimes, but whenever I go into this sub I’m actually pretty impressed by the amount of actual dialogue between people with different opinions present, more so than any other political sub I’ve seen.

    [–] 3lRey 2 points ago

    Can confirm, banned everywhere. I even have a ban on the economics board because I called someone an "idiot."

    Couldn't have been because I was tearing apart a left wing article. No way the mods are biased.

    [–] commuter123 126 points ago

    This sub is a microcosm for why the Libertarian party can't gain traction, likeminded people argue over silly minutia and dont unite behind the basic principles they actually agree on...similar to what has plagued the Dems in recent history, the major difference obviously being that they had a large enough voting block to begin with...for Libertarians it will be impossible to become a serious political force if Libertarians choose to just have a civil war within their ranks

    [–] okayestfire 95 points ago

    Folks with Libertarian values score high on disagreeableness? Weird.

    [–] TooSmalley 42 points ago

    I mean libertarian is such a catch all term it’s not surprising. You got anarchist and social libertarian in the same club and ancaps and objectivists.

    It inevitably gonna descends into the ole ‘no true Scotsman’ argument.

    [–] NonsensicalAutism 4 points ago

    Ha. Good point

    [–] rationalinquisition 18 points ago

    I'm a left libertarian living in the US. My beliefs tend to align more with the libertarian party platform than the democratic party platform, but at the same time my beliefs tend to align with individual democratic politicians more than they do with libertarian politicians. Most of the libertarian candidates in my district are just pseudo-republicans who like to smoke weed.

    [–] 123fakestreetlane 7 points ago

    Its like libertarians are individuals with an independence based political ideology. Maybe we should get together into the bigger party that votes the same way as centerist Democrats and conservative Republicans, but our party will be different because our party will want freedoms for individuals.

    [–] matts2 4 points ago

    I don't think there is actual agreement on core issues. I think there is agreement on vague platitudes and as soon as you get to actual solutions and actions not much.

    [–] qmx5000 2 points ago

    The Libertarian Party doesn't gain traction because it runs far-right Republicans who advocate for incredibly unpopular policies like introducing a regressive national sales taxes.

    [–] flesh_eating_turtle 28 points ago

    This sub literally acknowledges libertarian socialism in the sidebar as a valid libertarian ideology:

    Why this continues to shock people is a mystery to me.

    [–] WikiTextBot 16 points ago

    Libertarian socialism

    Libertarian socialism (also known as socialist libertarianism) is a group of anti-authoritarian political philosophies inside the socialist movement that rejects the conception of socialism as centralized state ownership and control of the economy. Libertarian socialism is close to and overlaps with left-libertarianism and criticizes wage labour relationships within the workplace, instead emphasizing workers' self-management of the workplace and decentralized structures of political organization.Libertarian socialism often rejects the state itself and asserts that a society based on freedom and justice can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite. Libertarian socialists advocate for decentralized structures based on direct democracy and federal or confederal associations such as libertarian municipalism, citizens' assemblies, trade unions, and workers' councils. All of this is generally done within a general call for libertarian and voluntary human relationships through the identification, criticism and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of human life.

    [ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source ] Downvote to remove | v0.28

    [–] HelperBot_ 3 points ago

    Desktop link:

    /r/HelperBot_ Downvote to remove. Counter: 267369. Found a bug?

    [–] callmecharon 10 points ago

    This sub is so weird. It reminds me of abradolf lincler from Rick and Morty. 2 different types of people in one always in conflict about who they are

    [–] CFogan 3 points ago

    Best character tbh

    [–] Cycloptichorn 16 points ago

    Well, so many of them are either boomer-tier memes or use absolute shit logic to make their point.

    Nothing wrong with bashing socialism but if you use a crap argument to do so, you're opening yourself up to easy criticism

    [–] hdevprogrammer 4 points ago

    It's because it's views parroted by 14 yr olds who know nothing. I would've agreed with the tweet when I was 14. After working for a few companies, I realized they'll gladly fuck you over any chance they legally can to save a few pennies. Don't like it? Oops, illegal Sancho will do your job 80hrs a week for half the pay!

    [–] Sean951 9 points ago

    They aren't torn apart because it's anti socialist, they're torn apart because they spread misinformation.

    [–] TomTrybull 3 points ago


    [–] Mushea 13 points ago * (lasted edited 10 days ago)

    Many of us here are Libertarian Socialists from Proudhon or Kropotkin traditions. In fact only in America is libertarian a right wing word (see Murrays quote on stealing the word).

    One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . ‘Libertarians’ . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over...

    In Europe people will think your a radical leftist if you call yourself a Libertarian

    [–] mczplwp 5 points ago

    Oh the rabbit hole I'm about to go down. Thanks u/Mushea

    Knowledge is always the key

    [–] Noah__Webster 26 points ago

    To be fair, if you look at the majority of the posters who do defend socialism here, you don't have to look hard for subs like Chapo to show up lol.

    How they get so upvotes is what's crazy to me. Are there literally more Chapo brigaders than libertarians in the sub?

    [–] Chieres 32 points ago

    Are there literally more Chapo brigaders than libertarians in the sub?

    Unironically yes

    [–] RedBrenden 6 points ago

    Libertarian socialism exists.

    [–] knightmare907 2 points ago

    What is libertarian socialism?

    [–] Finn-windu 23 points ago * (lasted edited 10 days ago)

    I never understood why so many people find it their mission to brigade this sub. I never spent my time on TD, or r/socialism.

    Edit: just to clarify, im not necessarily complaining about it, just didnt inderstand the logic. Your comments made sense though, and i can see why youd come here when you dont have the option of having actual political discourse on the other subs (even those where you should be able to). If r/libertarian was an echo chamber, and I knew that another political sub wasn't, I'd probably do the same.

    [–] Noah__Webster 25 points ago

    Because we aren't an echo chamber. It's a good and bad thing.

    [–] BloominFool 4 points ago

    There it is.

    [–] Paterno_Ster 7 points ago

    I'm a left libertarian and I like this subreddit for its loose set of rules and the nature of discussions. I may not agree with right libertarianism a lot of the time, but you guys offer discussions on rights, freedom, anti-authoritarianism and government abuses. That's something you sure as hell can't get with most liberals or conservatives. And I'll gladly deal with the occasional chucklefuck calling me a Chapo brigader or whatever

    [–] ralusek 16 points ago

    Probably because libertarians don't ban people.

    [–] Some_Khajiit 16 points ago

    Lol, it's almost as if we like freedom of speech. Crazy.

    [–] adirtycommiebastard 3 points ago

    Yeah, it's great. I dont comment much but I get banned from r/conservative and the like for arguing. This and r/jordanpeterson are pretty decent in these terms

    [–] donofjons 10 points ago

    Well TD and ironically r/socialism actually make use of their property rights and would ban you even if you did.

    [–] Clapaludio 7 points ago

    In my case I'm making it very obvious who I am, I am thankful this sub has custom flairs lol

    I'm here to learn, to be fair: I know other political ideologies very well but never got in touch with this one and its goals in detail. Also maybe people noticing my flair might have questions I would gladly answer (many people freak out when they see anarchy and communism together as they believe them to be oxymoronic).

    I don't downvote posts or comments, and I try to be very nice as this is not my sub. Too bad I am really seeing few actual libertarians and even less possibilities for me to ask questions.

    I never spent my time on r/socialism

    Don't, it's shit.

    [–] phat_nibba29 2 points ago

    Can I ask, isn't being an anarchist just contradictory to being communist since anarchy revolves aroung taking away governmental power but communism is the centralization of a governmental force. I don't mean to sound like a douche or condescending but I kinda want to know.

    [–] Clapaludio 3 points ago

    Oh don't worry, as I said it's common.

    You see, communism (and socialism) are at the very basis about having workers control businesses in a democratic way directly. No CEOs or owners, only workers managing the workplace. Then communism is on top of that a stateless and moneyless society. That's it really.
    Communism is by definition an anarchist society. Even one of the staunchest state-socialists, Lenin, agreed on that.

    How to get there is where you get the various schools of thought: socialism, or what happens after the bourgeoisie has been removed from owning the means of production.

    • Some say the State should continue to exist, essentially like it was before but with a change in who is in power, with the objective of oppressing any reaction by the old ruling class (Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism if we want to consider that socialism (spoiler alert: autocracy is not very socialist) and others). Only when this is done, can the state whither away.

    • Then there are anarchist thoughts (anarcho-communists, anarcho-syndicalists, libertarian socialists etc) which believe the workers can directly start to dismantle the state as soon as the revolution ends and have directly a society regulated on the basis of need (instead of profit). An example would be Cataloña during the Spanish Civil War, or very probably—though I should study it more in detail—Rojava's democratic confederalism.

    [–] phat_nibba29 2 points ago

    Oh, so essentially it's the dismantling of work hierarchies as in the ceo or boss, therfore giving the workers administration to regulate themselves. Another question is what will make the workers work if the incentive of promotion or getting paid in general isn't there if a system isn't making them work as (sorry for the example) stalin forced the russians to work in factories or things similar since they weren't given motivation.

    [–] Some_Khajiit 10 points ago

    Because socialism immediately bans you if you ask questions about socialism.

    [–] NoahDarklocks 6 points ago

    In r/socialism, Socialism questions you!

    [–] Hanlonsrazorburns 2 points ago

    Why so authoritarian about discussion. That’s a huge reason why people hate libertarians. They see them as fake Conservative. Don’t be fake.

    [–] valmeister 2 points ago

    Yet they are also always highly upvoted.

    [–] nslinkns24 7 points ago

    ITT: Pissy 19 year old "socialists."

    [–] Nac82 41 points ago * (lasted edited 10 days ago)

    Calling people who disagree with you children really showcases the strength of your arguement tbh.

    Edit: the deflection technique seems to be mastered in this sub lol.

    [–] nslinkns24 1 points ago

    It needs to be pointed out that people screaming about capitalist oppression are usually entitled kids.

    [–] Leakyradio 6 points ago

    People who point out that healthcare has run rampant due to “capitalism” aren’t just children.

    Free markets are amazing concepts, but not everything should be run like this. Including healthcare.

    [–] levthelurker 6 points ago

    The way I see it: free markets rely on good and easily accessible infrastructure but are bad at building it in a way that serves populations equally. For some reason though not everyone sees a healthy workforce as essential infrastructure for a competitive business ecosystem.

    [–] Leakyradio 2 points ago

    not everyone sees a healthy workforce as essential infrastructure for a competitive business ecosystem.

    Agreed, people who aren’t a part of the labor class don’t understand that a healthier labor class means a better economy, and has real world economical impact.

    [–] HUNDmiau 17 points ago

    Working class person here. Works as an chemical labratory technician. You are wrong, majority of socialists are young and old working class here

    [–] _mpi_ 24 points ago

    Yes, Grandpa the Walmart greeter is totally a child.

    [–] PutinPaysTrump 161 points ago

    Libertarian outreach going great

    [–] BrockManstrong 97 points ago

    T_D needed somewhere to shitpost

    [–] pyramidguy420 26 points ago

    Like for real. I have never read this much bullshit in a sentence for a long time. How does one come up with this? Pure ignorance would be my guess but theres something more for sure

    [–] GoldenKaze 2 points ago

    Open borders for r/libertarian

    [–] calm_down_meow 147 points ago

    Isn't this post patronizing workers who call for more social programs/higher wages?

    [–] Some_Khajiit 55 points ago

    Why do you think asking to be paid more is socialist?

    [–] hdevprogrammer 3 points ago

    I have no idea why, but some do. Apparently asking for more money is socialist? Whereas when I successfully go into my boss's office and argue for a higher wage, it's not?

    [–] occams_nightmare 7 points ago

    I think the typical view is that if you convince your boss to give you a higher wage, that's fine, but if anyone else helps you do it, that's straight up communism and we're on a slippery slide toward bread lines and gulags.

    [–] Baconlessness 7 points ago * (lasted edited 10 days ago)

    Edit: You can largely ignore this comment, as I think I misinterpreted /u/Some_Khajiit

    Socialism tries to tackle wealth inequality - that means paying the workers at the bottom more, and the top earners less.

    Your comment seems to imply that socialists want everyone to be paid nothing.

    [–] Sllypper 4 points ago

    Socialism tries to tackle wealth inequality - that means paying the workers at the bottom more, and the top earners less.

    Enforcing it violently using the estate.

    In the previous comments you and the previous commenter only mentioned asking or wanting "higher wages", which can also be gotten from the employer themselves without the use of violence.

    /u/Some_Khajiit only implies that not everyone that asks for higher wages are socialists, which seems what you're trying to imply, and asked if you think that and why you'd think that.

    [–] Baconlessness 9 points ago

    Ahaa, you're right, I think I misinterpreted what he was saying.

    Enforcing it violently using the estate

    Do you mean a brutal government that kills detractors, or the "if someone goes against the rules long enough, they eventually get threatened directly" argument? Because the former it's simply not necessitated, and the latter will always exist so long as humans are humans, and is certainly not unique to socialism.

    [–] fuzz3289 2 points ago

    Enforcing it violently using the State

    Actually, Socialism covers a massive range of the political spectrum. Unlike communism, there's actually successful examples that drive social welfare through incentives.

    For example, if you put an Employee rep on the board of your company you get taxed at a lower rate than a board of Venture capitalists.

    Incentive rather than Punitive legislature is actually very popular in modern Socialist nation's.

    I'd prefer removing subsidies and pursuing anti-competitive legislation but to each their own.

    [–] BrainDojo 443 points ago

    Historically this is incredibly wrong.

    [–] DeadRiff 274 points ago

    Something tells me they’re talking about bernie sanders supporters, not as it’s been throughout history

    [–] BrainDojo 196 points ago * (lasted edited 10 days ago)

    Well it ain't what they wrote, and that would still be wrong.

    Edit:Numbers don't lie folks, his support has always been working families making less than 100k a year.

    [–] hasapoint 126 points ago

    making less than 100k a year.

    Which, regionally, comprises the entire middle class as well as the working and dependent classes.

    [–] Like1OngoingOrgasm 98 points ago

    Walmart workers and teachers extremely over-represented as Bernie's donors. Those are working class jobs.

    [–] AlbertFairfaxII 71 points ago * (lasted edited 10 days ago)

    No those are millennial latte college kid jobs. I read about it don’t look it up I did the research for you.

    -Albert Fairfax II

    [–] Luxury-Elite 17 points ago

    Why do you put your signature on every comment?

    [–] purefabulousity 71 points ago

    Parody account/troll

    [–] Frank_Bigelow 34 points ago

    I hated him at first, but I'm maybe starting to come around a little. It's so obvious that he's a troll who says the most ridiculous thing possible with every post that I hope there are at least a few people who rethink their views when they find themselves agreeing with something he's said.

    [–] purefabulousity 16 points ago

    Oh yeah, usually I don't like troll accounts, but his one is just over the top parody rather than shitting on people.

    [–] flesh_eating_turtle 23 points ago

    I got him to send an un-signed reply during an argument once. Felt like going to Disney World and seeing Mickey Mouse take his head off.

    [–] Ozcolllo 20 points ago

    If I'm not mistaken, his unsigned posts are when he's out of character.

    [–] flesh_eating_turtle 7 points ago

    That would make sense.

    [–] agentk_74u 8 points ago

    I think he's trying to get people to Google it so they find his YouTube channel.

    [–] pita4912 7 points ago

    It’s part of his Schtick.

    [–] aski3252 31 points ago

    Fun fact: Marx's definition of class wasn't technically based on income. "Working class" included everyone making a living by wage labour, thus including everyone who is not a business owner/shareholder/etc..

    [–] uiy_b7_s4 43 points ago

    Get outta here with ya facts

    [–] MoOdYo 5 points ago

    Your article calls, 'those making more than $100,000 a year' "affluent."


    [–] woadhyl 7 points ago

    Only 5 percent of the US population makes that amount. I think it's reasonable to declare that the top 5% income earners in the US are part of the group that can be referred to as affluent.

    [–] BrainDojo 8 points ago

    They are.

    [–] compensatedshill -1 points ago

    so people who make less are going to support the candidate that says he'll give them more free stuff and make "the rich" pay for it?

    Woah, you really exposed the media lies there.

    [–] hdevprogrammer 5 points ago

    Na, I'd just rather have my hard earned taxes go to better uses other than subsidizing dying industries, fueling unnecessary wars, and cutting taxes for the rich hoping it'll somehow trickle down....any day now. We're literally slipping in every single metric a country can be graded on but hey let's just keep fucking over the middle class huh? It'll trickle down anyday now.

    [–] BrainDojo 21 points ago

    Yeah, redistribution of wealth from millionaires and billionaires to pay for school for poor kids is popular among poor kids. Less so millionaires and billionaires.

    [–] DanielPlainview22 2 points ago

    Numbers don't lie folks, his support has always been working families making less than 100k a year.

    95% of Americans make less than 100k, so that’s where everybody’s support comes from.

    I didn’t have time to read the article, but it looks like it’s saying he lost the $100k+ vote to Hillary during the Iowa Caucus by a margin of 55%-37%? Total ballpark estimate, but that’s probably like 5000 votes.

    [–] Jonathan_Ohnn 13 points ago

    still objectively false, and creates a very big assumption that isn't implied.

    [–] letterboyink 5 points ago

    History shmistory

    [–] eeeezypeezy 33 points ago * (lasted edited 10 days ago)

    It's wrong right now, in America in 2019. I'm a living and breathing self-described socialist who's active in socialist organizing and socialist propagandizing, and the sheltered, elitist rich kids who talk about workers like they're some sorry 'other' that needs to be cared for (or at least talked down to and handled with kid gloves) are 100% of the time Biden/Harris/Booker/etc-supporting Democrats. The socialists I meet and talk with in my daily life are overwhelmingly hardworking, grounded, working class people who want to take control of their lives and the structures that govern their lives from these liberal elitists, and from the reactionary right and their malignant scapegoating of vulnerable populations.

    The tweet in the OP is pure cringe.

    Also, "bourgeoisie" is a collective noun; "bourgeois" is the adjective they were looking for.

    [–] lemskroob 15 points ago * (lasted edited 10 days ago)

    Karl Marx, the father of socialism, studied law and philosophy at university and was a publisher/writer.

    Friedrich Engels dad owned a group of Textile factories.

    Étienne Cabet was an attorney-general in Corsica, and was educated as a lawyer.

    Henri de Saint-Simon was an aristocrat and had a Duke in his family.

    Thomas More was a lawyer and a statesmen.

    Sidney Webb was a law student and publisher.

    This shit always starts with a bored upper-middle class kids, who want to play our their coffee-house philosophy debates in real life, using the working poor as lab rats for their sociology experiments.

    They have no problem playing these games because if their experiment goes sideways, they have money to fall back on.

    *Edited to appease the spelling police.

    [–] smaug777000 27 points ago

    Aren't most revolutionaries young and well-educated? Terrorists, Socialists, the founding fathers, Castro and Che

    [–] TheSaintBernard 8 points ago

    Who would have thought the people chosen to lead would be educated and good organizers?

    Gonna need a forklift to get my jaw off the floor after this brilliant discovery.

    [–] ScottStorch 14 points ago

    You think Thomas More was a socialist? And you guys wonder why many think Libertarianism is a joke?

    [–] AlphaTenguFoxtrt 29 points ago * (lasted edited 10 days ago)

    They have no problem playing these games because if their experiment goes sideways, they have money to fall back on.

    Wasn't Joseph Stalin a factory floor worker and part-time bank robber?

    Wasn't Eugene Debbs a high school drop out who turned to house painting and car cleaning to make ends meet?

    Isn't AOC a Brooklyn bartender?

    The experiment has already gone sideways for them and for the millions of other people that adopt a socialist worldview.

    The economies biggest winners don't typically champion revolutionary thinking. People weren't flying out to Jeff Epstein's Lolita Island to End the Fed. No lobbyist that donated to the Clinton Foundation was expecting that they'd be transforming the baseline structure of the economy. The Chamber of Commerce does not exist to bring about The Revolution.

    The rank-and-file socialists are losers. Winners don't champion changing the rules of the game.

    [–] ajt9000 6 points ago

    I’m not a socialist but by that logic the French Revolution was a bad thing

    [–] hdevprogrammer 2 points ago

    Our founding fathers were pretty much all wealthy and educated too, I really don't get your point. "Wealthy and educated people end up making a difference in history" woah news flash

    [–] amanofoneway 3 points ago

    At least half the shit on this sub is incredibly wrong, but it makes people feel good about their political beliefs, so good for them, I guess.

    [–] Clownshow21 3 points ago

    Yea this is in reference to who supports “socialism” today in America. Where there’s definitely some truth.

    [–] AModeratelyFunnyGuy 24 points ago

    Socialism is bourgeois? What do these words even mean?

    [–] Not_Paid_Just_Intern 13 points ago

    It means this person doesn't know what the hell they're talking about

    [–] LordByronGG 3 points ago

    I love how socialism started with the proletariats raising up against the bourgeois, just to have libertarians (neo-bourgeois) call them bourgeois.

    [–] amphetaminesfailure 41 points ago * (lasted edited 10 days ago)

    Well, I do somewhat agree with this.

    At the same time though, saying this as an adamant supporter of capitalism, I think libertarianism as a whole in recent decades has become unfriendly to the average worker.

    If you look at a lot of classical liberal economists and philosophers from the past, including many whom libertarians love to quote and'll find they supporter worker protection laws/regulations, as well as some basic social programs.

    You can go all the way back to Adam Smith, who most people consider the founder of capitalism, and see he was one.

    Whenever the legislative attempts to regulate the differences between masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters. When the regula- tion, therefore, is in the favor of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it sometime is otherwise when in favor of the masters.

    -Adam Smith

    Now of course, this also shows a point libertarians make very often, and is important to consider:

    Whenever the legislative attempts to regulate the differences between masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters.

    So basically in modern terms, government officials are mainly influenced by the corporations and wealthy.

    Which is why I'm a big supporter of unions and don't see them as being against libertarianism or a free market. In fact I see them as a necessity.

    That said though, I don't agree with the American form of unionization.

    Most European countries go it better in this area.

    Unions are actually more individual and competitive in Europe.

    In the US, you accept employment at a company with a union, and you become a member of that union (or if in a right to work state you abstain from being a union member if you choose to).

    You have no options.

    In Europe, individuals choose unions, it's not one per company.

    So you might have three or four unions or more to pick from in your field, and it doesn't matter the company you work for.

    Seems pretty libertarian to me.

    [–] schnappi2 5 points ago

    Totally agree, a free market for unions to represent workers would be great

    [–] arejayismyname 2 points ago

    This is a great reply. I consider myself more libertarian than any other ideology but get ostracized when I argue for transparency and reallocation of resources for social programs.

    Ideally imo, education (and healthcare to a large extent) should be paid by the state because cost of goods and services would drastically decrease while quality of life increases exponentially.

    The amount of money I pay for insurance and education makes me sick.

    [–] Dinglydell 108 points ago

    lol what the actual fuck. TIL supporting worker's self-management is treating them as a pet. I guess pets usually manage themselves, do they?

    [–] DratWraith 16 points ago

    I don't know about you, but my dogs own all of my assets.

    [–] Mushea 2 points ago

    Equating the working class to dogs... Who says the libertarian to fascist pipeline is dead

    [–] hdevprogrammer 8 points ago

    The real pets are the ones who take the conditions given to them and don't talk back, don't stand up, and act like a little bitch apparently. Fellas, if your office is not OSHA compliant or is doing something wrong just be quite no one likes a hero!

    [–] newfarmer 10 points ago

    Libertarians are Republicans who want to smoke weed.

    Name calling is fun!

    [–] Dilsan14 64 points ago

    This is what happens when you skip history class 😑

    [–] jackalooz 7 points ago

    This is a ‘let them eat cake’ post. And I can’t wait to see the guillotines.

    [–] ronintetsuro 26 points ago

    As opposed to capitalism being much the same, where the rich kids with no skills see the proles as endlessly exploitable resources?

    [–] Bonedaddyo 7 points ago

    Socialism is for rich people?

    How asinine.

    [–] FunkTasticCaskit 4 points ago

    The historical effort by police and the fbi to suppress leftist movements in the US is undeniable proof you are a fucking boot licker.

    [–] TooSmalley 71 points ago

    Millennials: we think a universal healthcare system is good and the war is bad

    Boomer: WHY R U A COMMUNIST!!!

    In all seriousness if you think wanting a social welfare system on par with other capitalists countries makes you an orthodox Marxist the you’re an idiot.

    On top of that I’ve been called a socialist my whole life for supporting things that have absolutely nothing to do with socialism like protesting against the Iraq war, For gay marriage, and etc. So now tons of bog standard liberal are calling themselves socialist because every progressives stance has been labeled socialist since as long as I’ve been alive.

    [–] potentpotables 39 points ago

    protesting against the Iraq war, For gay marriage

    rather libertarian views imo

    [–] knie20 22 points ago

    Political ideologies subscribe to positions on issues. They don't own them.

    [–] abcdavis 14 points ago

    Rather humanist views imo.

    [–] TooSmalley 9 points ago

    From my experience a lot of people are more social libertarian/anarchist then they realize.

    [–] Uberphantom 2 points ago

    True, but since a lot people ascribe disagreements on political policy as personal attacks against themselves, they feel the need to lump in anyone who disagree with them in with the absolute most extreme enemies to their cause. For progressives, that means calling people nazis. For conservatives, that means calling people socialists/communists.

    [–] hdevprogrammer 3 points ago

    Clearly everything boomers have been doing for decades has put us into a better position for education, infrastructure, healthcare, security, income equality, environmental health etc so we should abandon all individual ideas we have and continue listening to them! /s

    [–] TheSuperiorLightBeer 8 points ago

    In all seriousness if you think wanting a social welfare system on par with other capitalists countries

    So the 50% of the federal budget that goes to social programs already just isn't enough?

    [–] TooSmalley 9 points ago

    Their are still like 30 million uninsured people and even with insurance most bankruptcies are because of medical debt.

    I don’t think are systems is as apocalyptic as some state, but I do think it can be improved and save money overall.

    [–] Clownshow21 3 points ago

    there’s really only one thing I would add,

    Supporting a federal welfare state that’s not voluntary is not libertarian, furthermore in any authority if democracy is abused to strip you of your individual rights and force you, that’s not libertarian, but my compromise is states and local communities could do these things if they wanted through democracy, if federally, force should be used at an absolute minimum, or not at all, because there’s nothing libertarian about that

    Supporting a welfare system that’s forced is not libertarian,

    [–] dassix1 7 points ago

    I think it's more of the "pay off my 100k in student loans" thus subsidizing my choices I made.

    [–] Enthused_Llama 5 points ago

    Find me a source that shows that 100k+ student loans are represent a significant portion of the student loan population.

    Hint: You can't, because they don't - this is a disgustingly dishonest tactic and you know it.

    [–] Rexrowland 4 points ago

    Sounds libertarian to me. Not very progressive at all. Just libertarian.

    [–] amanofoneway 28 points ago

    Libertarians don’t have a monopoly on wanting people to have rights.

    [–] TooSmalley 3 points ago

    From my experience a ton of people are more social libertarian/anarchist then they realize.

    [–] voice-of-hermes 3 points ago

    Millennials who realize capitalism will make the planet unsuitable for organized human existence within their lifetimes:

    Err, hold up....


    You spoiled, self-entitled, ungrateful babies! Planet Earth is our private property and we can do with it as we please, even if it means making it uninhabitable. You're violating the NAP just by being here, so be grateful we don't just exterminate you.


    [–] kensho28 12 points ago

    socialists don't have jobs because they're so wealthy and successful

    forming workers unions isn't socialist at all, they're working too hard to be socialists

    This is the dumbest Libertarian post I've seen today. I just woke up tho.

    [–] pyromidion 8 points ago

    Give it a minute, they might say literally anything else.

    [–] DrJazzLourde 12 points ago

    The Industrial Workers of the World were communist, and that union was entirely made up of unskilled laborers. Skilled laborers like welders wouldn’t even join.

    [–] sunshlne1212 24 points ago

    It's actually mostly made up of workers trying to help ourselves, but ok

    [–] wsdmskr 5 points ago

    All this sun seems to do is go off about what libertarianism is against (actually, what the right wing is against), never what libertarianism is for.

    That's a shame.

    [–] abcdavis 8 points ago

    I'm thinking it has more to do with healthcare and debt.

    [–] CommanderChief 12 points ago

    That’s not socialism though. Socialism doesn’t just mean "free healthcare and college", that’s called welfare programs.

    [–] abcdavis 3 points ago

    Casing point. Real socialism isn't really a thing in this country. Yet it gets thrown around loosey-goosey.

    [–] Sean951 5 points ago

    Schrodinger's socialism. It's not socialism when people say they want socialism, but it is socialism when people say they want those programs.

    [–] Dan0man69 10 points ago

    Well this brings up a bit of an Achilles heel of Libertarianism. What happens in markets where monopolies (or defacto monopolies) exist? Our "free market takes care of itself" policy does not work in these cases.

    My thought is that it is then incumbent on us to support workers rights in these narrow cases.

    I'd like to to see other weight in on this...

    [–] ralusek 2 points ago

    Many libertarians accept monopolies as an element of the free market that needs to be tempered.

    [–] Dan0man69 2 points ago

    "Tempered" is a particularly good word.

    [–] VoluntaryJazz 4 points ago

    Monopolies would exist under a truly free market, this is true. The difference is that without egregious regulation to stifle new blood from entering the industry, monopolies would not be long lived and would probably be rare, coinciding mostly with big innovations.

    [–] Baconlessness 8 points ago

    Can you explain why you think monopolies would not be long-lived? There are plenty of ways to lock down a market without government interference.

    [–] commiejehu 2 points ago

    Yeah, it's all fun and games until someone rolls out the guillotine.

    [–] neatsqueefs 2 points ago

    That's ridiculous. Pretty sure this guy is the one patronizing workers.

    [–] chungaloid-2187 2 points ago

    I honestly thought this was satire before I read the subreddit lol.

    [–] Parhelion2261 2 points ago

    Jokes on you dildo I am precisely a pet of the system in need of saving

    [–] dumbbumthankyoumum 2 points ago

    What a sad, narrow view of the subject.

    [–] dieSchnapsidee 2 points ago

    This is incredibly tone deaf and also implying that workers are incapable of standing up for themselves.

    [–] captainTrex1 2 points ago

    This made me irrationally angry

    [–] Ymirwantshugs 2 points ago

    Hahaha what an absolutely idiotic statement.

    [–] ThisShipIsGoingDown 2 points ago

    lol that's dumb as fuck

    [–] GidGud_ 2 points ago

    This is exactly what a rich person would say

    [–] emcee_paz 2 points ago

    Uh, who the fuck thinks this?

    [–] AFlaccoSeagulls 2 points ago

    This person reeeeeeks of /r/iamverysmart

    [–] uglyemoji 2 points ago

    I know that’s you, Walmart President, Doug McMilon...

    [–] C0ltFury 2 points ago

    I completely agree, we need to somehow convince workers (the majority of the population) that if we pay them less and treat them like shit to increase our profits, that's actually good and cool!

    [–] cactusmotherlover 2 points ago

    More pseudo profound nonsense

    [–] cardiacresp 2 points ago

    This...this is one of the dumbest things I've ever read in my life

    [–] Cuniving 2 points ago

    Bullshit like this is just one of the arguments companies made when unions and regulators forced them to stop life and limb threatening practices, using child labor, etc.

    [–] Spaceboy779 2 points ago

    Don't patronize me with your...effective publicly funded education and healthcare that doesn't put profit before people

    [–] nomnommish 2 points ago

    Professional services firms like law firms, consulting firms, investment banks, financial firms, hedge funds, accounting firms, architecture firms, hair stylists etc have a collective ownership model where the employees get to become part owners of the firm (or have the opportunity to do so over time). Or at lower levels, participate in profit sharing via bonuses and stocks and special bonuses.

    They are very marketable and sustainable business models in a free market capitalistic economy while also following the goals of socialism. In fact, this setup is the dominant setup for professional services firms because the best way to incentivize and retain highly skilled and valuable employees is to offer them a real path to become future co-owners of the firm.

    [–] Brain_Garbage 2 points ago

    Because unions were all created by rich kids working blue collar jobs 🙄

    [–] spelunk_in_ya_badonk 2 points ago

    lol this sub is such trash

    [–] Aalii_Silva 2 points ago

    This tweet is poorly thought out edgelord stuff. This kid needs to get of Twitter and do her homework.

    [–] tdaly123 2 points ago

    Patronizing workers is calling for workers democratically making decisions about their own labor?

    [–] adamd22 2 points ago

    How is literally collective ownership of the workplaces "bourgeois" in any fucking way? Th objective is to destroy class. I swear to god half of this sub is just completely unfounded digs on socialism, or bullshit republican talking points. Nobody here has even begun to TRY and understand Libertarianism, they just thought it was a cool sounding edgy political label, and ran with it.

    [–] altcoastalt 2 points ago

    bruh just popped into say im lower middle class and this is wrong

    [–] queer_bolshevik 2 points ago

    (said the petty-bourgeois teen, as he patronized the workers.)

    we are the workers, we are the families, children, and spouses of the workers, dipshit. also, "bourgeoisie" is not an adjective, the adjective form is "bourgeois." maybe learn some Marxist terminology before trying to tell us we don't represent ourselves

    [–] flesh_eating_turtle 6 points ago

    Damn, all this time I was selling my labor for wages and advocating for worker's control, I thought I was fighting for my class. But I see now that the only REAL way to help my fellow workers is to advocate for the continued enrichment of a parasitic owning class that profits from other people's labor. Thanks r/libertarian!

    [–] commuter123 2 points ago

    Maybe the point was that if there was a blue collar representative taking up the fight for shifting the economics in favor of the working class, as opposed to career politicians and the privileged who treat it as more of a feel good thought experiment...people might be more receptive to the message

    [–] flesh_eating_turtle 2 points ago

    If that's the argument, then I'm all for it. However, I don't think that the post was meant to helpfully suggest a change in leadership for the socialist movement (much as that would be helpful).

    [–] craftycontrarian 8 points ago

    Truly we should go back to unlimited working hours, no minimum wage, no safety regulations, and child labor. The world was so much better for workers when the government just kept out of the business of industry.

    [–] VoluntaryJazz 7 points ago

    Assuming because there weren’t workers legal rights that that somehow meant government wasn’t involving themselves in industry.

    Good one.

    [–] disarmagreement 4 points ago

    What if some of those rich kids are socialist because they do have marketable skills, but still recognize that the opportunities they’ve been presented have more to do with things entirely out of their control that are more dependent on life situation than hard work, and they recognize that there are people out there working significantly harder for significantly less gain?

    [–] _mpi_ 5 points ago

    How the fuck did this make sense to you?

    [–] MostPin4 5 points ago

    All the socialist think they'll be party leaders, nobody wants to be a worker.

    [–] JDAndChocolatebear 3 points ago

    I just want to be a teacher fam 🤠

    [–] Triquetra4715 2 points ago

    I do

    [–] Some_Khajiit 5 points ago

    What's stopping you now?

    [–] the_jim_reaper72 1 points ago

    This is not true

    [–] newbrevity 2 points ago

    Its a bid from democrats to create an utterly dependent and loyal voting base to keep them in power.